December 14, 2020
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIX No. 66
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER (Reid):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by Members
MR.
SPEAKER:
Today, we will hear Members' statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of
Terra Nova, Bonavista, Placentia - St. Mary's, Conception Bay South and Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR.
PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We can all agree that 2020 has been an extremely
difficult year. When times are tough the community spirit in Newfoundland and
Labrador, especially in my District of Terra Nova, shines through. This year has
seen so many barriers and changes to the normal with a creative twist, which has
now become the new normal. The last nine months have made me really proud to
live in my District of Terra Nova.
The Lions Club in Southwest Arm realized the need for
help in the community. They drove through the community, picked up donations,
stationed trucks throughout the district and at the school for drop-offs and
established a local food bank.
Glovertown hosted an outdoor classroom reverse
recycling blitz for its students. The Clarenville Lions Club hosted a drive-by
event with Santa, instead of a parade.
The Power to Hope hosted their annual fundraising
dinner for the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy and raised over $50,000. They did this
virtually. Many other areas opted for virtual tree lightings and online messages
from Santa, just to name a few.
The local residents have stepped up, the community
spirit has been unending and rural areas are alive and well.
Please join me once again in acknowledging the
community spirit in my beautiful District of Terra Nova.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
MR.
PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Saltwater Community Association Inc. is a newly formed
group of dedicated volunteers in Bonavista. They embrace social excellence
through partnerships and they're raising funds, awareness and addressing some of
the most pressing issues facing youth, families and seniors, including food
insecurity, poverty, affordable housing and advocacy.
“Food insecurity was already an urgent problem before
the COVID-19 crisis, with one in eight Canadians struggling to put food on the
table.” Here in Newfoundland and Labrador we are extremely grateful for federal
government funding programs that were delivered by the Canadian Red Cross,
Community Food Centres Canada, Food First NL, SeniorsNL and United Way NL.
This group applied for funding from these agencies and,
with the support of the Town of Elliston, received $161,900. Partnering with No
Frills in Clarenville they were able to purchase 2,447 food hampers and
coordinated efforts to deliver the food hampers to those in need in every
community from Bonavista to Clarenville. This small, but mighty, not for profit
has a simple philosophy: perpetual generosity, positivity and openness to
limitless possibilities.
I ask the Members of the 49th House of Assembly to
congratulate these champions and their efforts in making measurable differences
in the lives of others.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.
MS.
GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr.
Speaker, the phrases “best-before date” and “durable life” have significant
value to the many food banks across our province. The Placentia Area Food Bank
serves families from Branch to Ship Harbour. This volunteer group operates out
of the Freshwater Community Centre within the District of Placentia - St. Mary's
and they truly understand the importance of such phrases.
While Food First NL is monitoring the impact of
COVID-19 on community food banks, the Placentia volunteer group, led by
Chairperson Danny O'Reilly, have seen an increase in the demand this Christmas
season. This increase has kept the group of volunteers busy.
On November 29, I attended a fundraiser in Argentia at
the Argentia Pavilion for the Placentia Area Food Bank. It was heart warming to
see the community come out to support this cause.
Volunteers are the heart of any community, and today,
as the MHA for the District of Placentia - St. Mary's, I wish to recognize the
following volunteer board members of the Placentia Area Food Bank: Danny
O'Reilly, Glenda Barnett, Roxanne Mulrooney, Julianna Kerrivan, Sharon Upshall,
Lee Everts and Pricilla Mooney.
Thank you for what you do to help families in the
district.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on December 4, the Economic Developers
Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, EDANL, announced the winners of the
2020 Economic Development Awards of Excellence during their AGM and virtual
event. I am pleased to announce CBS Community Garden has won the Community
Project of the year for populations over 3,000.
This award recognizes a project that has had a major
economic development impact in a community or region. It rewards such things as
strategic planning, sector development, tourism and community involvement.
The CBS Community Garden committee members are: Amanda
Janes, Emma Power, Julia Bloomquist, Kimberley Hobbs, Kristy Ford, Mark Strong,
Mary Holloway, Peter Fudge, Sarah Burton, Sarah Eddy, Sarah Pritchett, Stephen
Pretty, Trina Porter and Lesley Burgess.
Our community has always been an agricultural one and
it's wonderful to see the great work of families and friends learning and
supporting each other through sustainability and food security.
Congratulations to the CBS Community Garden for their
hard work and dedication in inspiring community initiatives and I wish them
continued success.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Today, I take my place in this House to honour a very
deserving lady in my district, Jackie Thompson. Through her important work at
the Status of Women in Central, Jackie has helped feed hungry families, clothed
them and obtain furniture for countless numbers of homeless.
Jackie has proudly given blood over 125 times. She
proudly wears the QE II Diamond Jubilee; has been a team member for Disaster
Relief Canadian Red Cross; is the former vice-president of Branch 12, Royal
Canada Legion; and is a huge part of our community.
Jackie enjoys her time with the Exploits community town
band and keeps busy as an executive member of the Exploits Chapter of Ducks
Unlimited.
She has a heart of gold that is big enough for all
those that need a piece of it. Jackie is always there to lend a helping hand.
Please join me in honouring her today for her exemplary
work in the community of Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans and surrounding areas.
Thank you, Jackie.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
MR.
LOVELESS:
Mr.
Speaker, today in this hon. House, I would like to bring awareness to a special
permit program available to registered food banks, which allows them to accept
and distribute donations of moose and caribou meat.
We are delighted to partner on this initiative with the
Community Food Sharing Association, which represents 54 registered food banks
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
Hunters can donate meat directly to participating food
banks or through Sharing The Harvest NL, an organization which assists hunters,
fishers and farmers in donating locally-sourced food.
All donated moose and caribou must be processed at a
government-licensed processing facility. Participating food banks are
responsible for managing the collection and distribution of the meat donated by
hunters.
Mr. Speaker, permits can be obtained from the
Department of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture up to one week after the close
of the big game hunting season, which falls on January 7, 2021. Registered food
banks wishing to apply for a permit should contact our Wildlife Division.
I would be remiss if I didn't thank Eg Walters of the
Community Food Sharing Association, Barry Fordham of Sharing The Harvest NL and
Debbie Wiseman of Social Justice Co-operative NL for their support and advocacy
of this program.
Hunters donating meat to participating food banks
support provincial government's efforts to sustainably and responsibly manage
big game and improve food security.
Congratulations to the province's hunters and food
banks on their exciting new partnership, which is aimed at getting more local,
nutritious food on dinner plates throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Exploits.
MR.
FORSEY:
I
want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
Mr. Speaker, we, in the Official Opposition, are very
pleased that the department finally made the necessary changes to allowed
registered food banks to accept and distribute donations of moose and caribou
meat. I thank all those individuals who worked so very hard to make this program
a reality and I thank all the hunters who have generously responded with their
donations.
Mr. Speaker, our province has some of the highest food
insecurity rates in the country and thousands of pounds of nourishing moose and
caribou meat being donated will go a long way in helping people across our
province.
This is a wonderful partnership; one that I hope
continues to benefit the people of the province in years to come. As the
deadline for this year's big game hunting season approaches, I want to wish
those involved a very safe and successful hunt.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MR.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to thank the hon.
minister for an advance copy of his statement. The Third Party would like to
congratulate Eg Walters, Barry Fordham and Debbie Wiseman for their work in
advocating for this wonderful initiative, as well as the many hunters of this
province for their generosity in donating to this program.
We would also encourage the government to provide more
for this program, namely, to improve and expand the refrigeration capacity at
local food banks to ensure that all of the donated meat makes it onto the dinner
tables of this province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and
Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today in this hon. House, I'm very happy to recognize
Dawson Mercer and Alex Newhook on being named to Team Canada for the 2021
International Ice Hockey Federation World Junior Championship, which this year
is set to begin on Christmas Day in Edmonton, Alberta.
In October, Dawson Mercer, of Bay Roberts, was drafted
18th overall in the first round of the entry draft. He is currently a member of
the Chicoutimi Saguenéens in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and is
considered one of the top junior-aged players in the world. I have no doubt
Dawson is very excited to return to this team for a second year in his quest for
back-to-back gold medals.
In 2019, St. John's native Alex Newhook, who is a
constituent of mine, was chosen 16th overall by the Colorado Avalanche. Alex is
currently in his sophomore year at Boston College, playing for the Boston
College Eagles, where last year he received the NCAA's Tim Taylor Award as the
top freshman in the United States. Good luck to Alex as he joins this
prestigious group of talented young hockey players.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time two players from
Newfoundland and Labrador played for Team Canada at the same time at this
tournament since John Slaney – a hero of mine – of St. John's and Chad Penney of
Labrador City, in 1992. I would also like to note that there is a third
Newfoundlander and Labradorian on Team Canada: Mr. Brian Cheeseman. Mr.
Cheeseman will be travelling to Alberta as the team's therapist.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating
Dawson and Alex on their selection to Team Canada and wish them much success in
Edmonton. I'm sure we will hear many, many hockey fans, along with their
families and friends, throughout the province cheering them on as they proudly
take to the ice representing Newfoundland and Labrador and the entire country.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR.
TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like to thank the minister for an advance copy of
his statement. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I would like to
congratulate Dawson Mercer and Alex Newhook on being named to Team Canada for
the upcoming 2021 IIHF World Junior Championships.
Watching the World Juniors has been a Christmas
tradition for many in this province. I know that all hockey fans are especially
excited to watch two athletes from this province compete in this year's
tournament. Alex and Dawson have bright futures in hockey. They have
demonstrated their abilities on the ice and I hope that the World Juniors is a
positive experience for both.
We should also recognize the volunteers, parents and
coaches that help with so much of our hockey talent here in Newfoundland and
Labrador. I wish Dawson, Alex and all of Team Canada the best in Edmonton and on
the road to gold in 2021. My family and I will be sure to tune in and cheer them
on.
Go Canada Go!
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A huge shout-out to Alex Newhook and Dawson Mercer from
all of us here in the Third Party caucus. It's great to see such homegrown
talent on Team Canada's World Junior team going into the 2021 World Juniors in
Alberta.
We, as a province, continue to foster such talent when
it comes to sports. This is clearly showing of all the hard work and
determination we are known for in this province. A huge shout-out goes to all
the people that have supported these young men from their first day on skates to
today.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Environment, Climate Change
and Municipalities.
MR.
BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to share information with my hon.
colleagues and the residents of Mud Lake regarding the issues of potential
flooding in this community. We appreciate their concerns, and indeed the
concerns of residents in all communities where flood risk is an issue.
Significant work has been done to better prepare for such events.
Flood risk mapping was recently completed for the
Churchill River with the Exploits and Humber rivers soon to follow. We have
launched a new interactive flood risk mapping application to view projections
for flood risk and we have developed the country's first real-time flood risk
forecasting model on the Churchill River to provide residents with information
and advance warning of potential floods. These resources are providing residents
and community governments with the best available tools they need to plan for
the future.
Mr. Speaker, we have been working closely with Mud
Lake, meeting with the community this past fall and sharing this information and
data. We have programs such as the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements to
help residents during a flood event, which many residents of Mud Lake availed of
in 2017. The Community Relocation Policy, which is community-initiated and
community-driven, is another program that communities may consider in difficult
situations.
Mr. Speaker, I'm open to addressing flood concerns with
any community in this province. We will continue to work with communities like
Mud Lake to ensure they have the appropriate tools and supports they need to
help them in making decisions that are in the best interests of their residents.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MS.
EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement. I'm glad to see that the minister and his department are starting to
be proactive on this file. As flooding is a worrisome concern in the area, our
residents need to have peace of mind about their community, their homes and
their personal safety. It is particularly important that people are aware of the
options and the programs which are available to them.
I encourage the minister to ensure that supports are in
place so our local residents and communities don't fall through the cracks and
miss out on programs available to them. I also ask the minister to take the same
community-first perspective regarding the failure of wetland capping and to work
with residents in the communities who will be impacted.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR.
BROWN:
Mr.
Speaker, I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. The people
of Mud Lake deserve better. This report was completed this past summer and no
actions were taken. The river is now frozen and those who live in the historic
Labrador community will now live in fear for one more spring.
The minister's statement suggests that the community
should relocate. This is inappropriate for government to destroy a community's
future with a government-led project and then tell them to move. We, in
Labrador, will not forget government complacency and what is done to
Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Despite statements to the contrary, we now learn in
unsealed police documents that multiple Cabinet ministers interfered in a police
investigation into this Liberal government.
Why has the Premier not removed the Minister of Tourism
and the Minister of Energy for their improper behaviour?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the Member opposite is fully aware, the highest law
authority in the land, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, did an investigation
here. I was happy with the results of the investigation as they were provided
and were released – the public statement by the investigating officer. There's
nothing further to add here.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr.
Speaker, I think we can all recognize that the investigation of which the
Premier speaks, by the Mounties, was into yet a third minister no longer present
in the Cabinet. My question was about two who still are.
I ask the Minister of Tourism: How did he first learn
about the criminal investigation and when?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question.
I first learned about the investigation when it was
made public that there was going to be an investigation into the activities of
that. The chief reached out to me on the 5th of March to ask me the process in
which case things come forward. I didn't know there was going to be an
investigation from that point on, until it came out publicly.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We'll all have to remain in a state of suspended
mystery as to why the chief of police would reach out to the Minister of
Tourism.
I'd ask: Does the minister believe it is proper for him
to call the chief of police to inquire into an ongoing criminal investigation
involving a colleague?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Member would know that I wouldn't have called
the chief of police into an investigation. I didn't know there was one. I called
the chief of police on a personal matter that was dealing directly with how he
was dealing with other things that were happening within the police force at the
time that I had heard through the grapevine or through the processes that would
be through my contacts within the police force. All I was doing was checking to
see how a gentleman that I've known for over 20 years and worked with in
community for over 20 years was dealing with it.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Can
the minister confirm that the subject matter of the investigation into a
colleague was discussed?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Arts and Recreation.
MR.
DAVIS:
I
just answered that, Mr. Speaker. That never came up at all. I asked him how he
was dealing with everything else that was going on within the police force at
the time because I have known him for a very long time.
To answer the question previous to that: Why he would
call me is because of that long-term relationship that I had that he asked a
question about how the process would have unfolded. I just suggested to him that
he should reach out to the deputy minister of Justice, as well as the minister
of Justice at the time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr.
Speaker, given that police analysis of information in this matter is ongoing,
could the Premier enlighten the public of the province by giving them his
considered position as to whether it is correct and proper for the chief of
police to inquire about the status of an active investigation into a Cabinet
minister?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question.
As I said in this House on Thursday, Mr. Speaker,
there's a process here. The RNC received a complaint or initiated an
investigation. They went forward with that to the RCMP; the RCMP actually
determined that there was enough evidence here to warrant an investigation. They
went one step further and – to the information the Member opposite is talking
about – actually got that warrant.
The investigation subsequently happened. Mr. Speaker,
there was a determination that there would be no charges in this case and that's
the end of the case.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr.
Speaker, it possibly is the end of one case but not the end of other cases.
We're talking about something different now. We understand there are additional
complaints being assessed by the RCMP involving a current Cabinet minister.
Can the Premier update this House on which minister is
involved and will they be removed from Cabinet, pending the outcome?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I can tell this House that I'm not aware of any
investigation that the RCMP has undertaken or is undertaking into anybody on
this side of the House.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we understand the funds in the offshore
recovery fund have been set aside for Hibernia and that the announcement was
planned to occur last week.
Could the minister please explain why a delay has
occurred? Will Hibernia receive the support they need to bring people back to
work?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, there is money in the fund. Especially since
we've incurred, I think, $41.5 million, so there is money left. We have had
offers from multiple other operators and our goal is to work with each and every
one of them to provide – including for Exxon and for Hibernia.
What I can say, though, there's been no finality to
this. These are very complicated arrangements and we want to ensure best value.
While I would suggest that we hope to see an announcement very soon, there has
not been one scheduled as of yet. I would suggest very soon is the hope.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Terra Nova continues to sit idle in Bull Arm while
her workers are sat at home waiting to start refitting and upgrading the vessel.
Why is the minister delaying giving funds to Suncor and
Terra Nova? When will the monies be awarded to get people back to work? That's
what it's about, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the question from the Member opposite and
certainly I understand the crux of the question. I would take issue with the
word why are we delaying, because we're certainly not delaying anything.
What I would say is that we have to work with the
operators. In some cases there are multiple operators and owners involved and it
can make for complex negotiations. We would love to have this out sooner rather
than later, but what we do realize is that if we don't put the time and effort
into it and work with all the operators, we may find ourselves in a difficult
situation trying to explain how the money is expended.
We want to see the money go out the door, we want to
see the Terra Nova back out there, but some of these things, I would suggest,
are outside of government's control.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MS.
EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The people of Labrador and all across the province
often face financial hardship due to the cost of travelling to access medical
services.
I ask the minister: Will he commit to changing the
Medical Transportation Assistance Program to allow for 100 per cent
reimbursement of travel costs for people who have to travel for medical reasons
outside their area?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the
question.
For the information of the House, the Medical
Transportation Assistance Program has been under review now for some time. There
is some input that actually goes back to last year.
Unfortunately, the staff that were involved in that
review were distracted by COVID-19. As we move into the next more operational
phase around vaccination, the staff have been redirected. In light of
correspondence that I've received this weekend, we really got some granular
material that we can work with to try and enhance the program better for
Labradorians, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MS.
EVANS:
Every patient, no matter where they live, deserves timely and affordable health
care, Mr. Speaker.
Provinces are in charge of prioritization of the
COVID-19 vaccine. Now we've been told that the first 4,000 doses have to be
administered in St. John's and the first group will be front-line health care
workers in COVID care. We fully support that. We understand their need for
protection; we fully support that.
Minister, what's the priority list for vaccines in our
province beyond that? When will the vaccine be available to individuals outside
of St. John's, including Indigenous groups and rural Newfoundland and Labrador
populations?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Again, Mr. Speaker, a very timely question.
The Health ministers nationally have signed off on what
are called the NACI guidelines, that's the National Advisory Committee on
Immunizations. There are, I think if memory serves me correctly, five groups,
broadly speaking. The first group to receive vaccine would be those who are
frail, those who are front-line workers and Indigenous and isolated communities.
Currently, Pfizer and Public Health Agency of Canada
have limited us to no onward distribution of the Pfizer vaccine. Once that
restriction is lifted by them, we will have ultra-low freezers available in all
of the major hubs for our vaccine distribution.
To be honest, Mr. Speaker, it will be quicker and
easier for the rural and remote communities once a broader array come online,
particularly the Moderna vaccine, which travels very well and is stable for 30
days out of the freezer.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR.
DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm hearing daily from many workers that time is
running out with regard to the Come By Chance oil refinery. Workers are worried
that the refinery could become a tank farm and they could lose their jobs
forever. Workers need answers.
When will the Liberal government finally do the right
thing and ensure jobs for the workers in my district?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I empathize with the Member wanting to have this
industry operating again and having people back to work, but I believe he knows
full well that it's not just a government move here. Government doesn't own the
asset; government cannot dictate to the owner what to do.
To say that the Liberal government or the PC government
– or that any government – needs to do something here is one thing, but we know
that it's not the true story here. What we are dealing with is an operator here
who is going through a tough time and there are multiple entities out there that
are looking into it.
I also heard the tank farm implication. That is not
something that this government will endorse or support in any way and we have
communicated that. We continue to work with all the parties to try to figure out
a solution to this, but again realizing that there's only so much that
government can do here. We'll continue to do what we can.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That response is of little comfort to those workers.
Government certainly has the role in creating the environment for employment.
Mr. Speaker, Canopy Growth partnered with Academy
Canada to develop a greenhouse training program for work at the facility in the
White Hills. Despite the minister suggesting the province has not lost out due
to the Canopy deal falling through, roughly 60 of these students are now
impacted by it.
What is this government going to do to help these
students or will they see more out-migration and more tax dollars leave the
province?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Before I answer the question, I have to go back to the
preamble for the Member, because I think he's suggesting that government should
come in and expropriate, or do something along those lines. We all know what
happens when government expropriates entities. You end up paying hundreds of
millions of dollars back. I don't think that's what anybody would want here, so
I would remind the Member of that.
As it relates to Canopy, what I can say is that they
were hoping to partner with R & D projects in this province, which we had hoped
to see get off the ground and there would have been multiple funds committed.
Right now, government has not committed any of the funds because this deal is
now null and void.
As I pointed out last week, and was happy to point out
on social media, not a single cent of taxpayer dollars were funded, everything
has been remitted and, hopefully, we continue on with the cannabis industry
elsewhere and otherwise.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly don't need the minister putting words in my
mouth. I know there are jobs that are lost because of this, so that is of no
comfort to the people who are losing these jobs.
Mr. Speaker, six weeks ago I asked about assisting
people living with diabetes by covering advanced glucose-monitoring devices. The
minister said he would gladly have staff look at the evidence to support these
live-saving devices.
I ask the minister: What evidence has the staff
provided?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
As we committed, we have money in the budget to provide
a universal, means-tested program for insulin pumps for Type 1 diabetes. The
criteria for selection are purely clinical. The program is operationalized
through Eastern Health and the diabetes program there. The question about what
kind of technology, how it's bought or whether it's even delivered on a service
contract, will be one that they will look at and they will then make
recommendations to the department to live within their budget.
From my point of view, I'm still waiting to hear back
from them; I would be happy to inform the House when I have further.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I guess the philosophy of investing in wellness,
not illness only applies to some and not all.
The work to connect the Team Gushue Highway and the
Robert E. Howlett drive has still not happened. The missing link is interfering
with business and residents of my district have raised concern with excessive
traffic congestion and high speeds that this has created on Park Avenue and
Smallwood Drive.
Minister, it has been years now, when will the
government complete this work? What will be done to ensure the immediate safety
for the motoring public and residents of this neighbourhood?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.
MR.
BRAGG:
Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Member opposite for the question.
Road safety is of utmost importance in this province. I
drove in yesterday, and, as everybody would know, we had our first snowfall
event for the province. It took me three hours from Clarenville in, Mr. Speaker.
I was happy to see people paying attention to the conditions and driving to the
conditions.
I would hope anywhere where there's an issue where
people drive at high speeds, we look to enforcement from our officials in the
Constabulary, in this case, and the RCMP when we get further out, so people will
pay attention to the conditions of the road, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR.
PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, he doesn't know the difference between a runway and a highway, and
he doesn't known what the Team Gushue Highway is either.
Mr. Speaker, a number of companies and surrounding
communities have lobbied this government to stop inspections of westbound
traffic at the Goobies weight scales. Government is well aware of the concerns
and the possible consequences. Something has to be done.
Will this minister finally take action to correct the
failure of the previous minister?
MS.
STOODLEY:
Sorry, can you ask the question again? I'm very sorry.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member of Terra Nova.
MR.
PARROTT:
A number of companies and surrounding communities have lobbied Transportation
and Infrastructure to stop inspections of westbound traffic at the Goobies
weight scales. Government is well aware of the consequences and the possible
outcomes. Something has to be done.
Will the minister finally take action to correct the
failure of the previous minister?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.
MR.
BRAGG:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I can assure the Member opposite, since my time in this
department, I have not seen any correspondence that would relate to anything
that you would suggest.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Mr. Speaker, if it's like all the other legislation, it takes three or four
years to get done, so you can have it in all you like.
In recent years, our province has led the Atlantic
region in ATV and snowmobile fatalities, and sadly these numbers continue to
increase. In September, the minister told this House that related legislation
was nearly drafted and she hoped to present it in this fall.
Minister, another sitting has passed, where is the
important piece of legislation that you promised to deliver?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Road safety on our highways, as well as ATV safety, is
incredibly important. We have done a comprehensive review of the legislation, so
this is the final stages. It will be brought forward in the winter session of
the House.
I would encourage everyone to wear a helmet. Do not
drive under the influence. I've learned a lot more about safety lately, meeting
with the STAND for Hannah Foundation. This past week, I met with SafetyNL to
discuss how we can collaboratively work together to improve road safety.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
MR.
PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On September 15, I asked about the reported substandard
care at Golden Heights Manor, the long-term care facility at Bonavista, due to
staffing shortage issues. The minister reported that there were issues
particular to Golden Heights, a working group had already been established and
he would be glad to update the House when the review was concluded. Almost 15
weeks later with no change.
Can the minister provide some direction from this
committee to provide hope for the residents of Golden Heights and their family
members?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Speaker.
Discussions with Eastern Health show that Golden
Heights is being staffed to acuity and occupancy. What that means, in
translation, is that they look at the number of individuals resident there and
the care needs specified in their individual-care plans, and they staff to that
level. That was the first communication I had following the reference the Member
opposite made. That has happened and I am not aware that there are any ongoing
problems.
I can certainly take this offline with the Member
opposite, if he has some specifics he'd like me to look into further.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
MS.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, the translation of that answer really does
nothing concrete to help these vulnerable seniors who are still left without
proper care.
Mr. Speaker, each and every day, I hear from
individuals in the District of Harbour Main who are without work. They're
worried about how they're going to pay their bills and provide for their
families. Many residents in the communities are suffering. They want to go back
to work; they need to go back to work.
Minister, your words of empathy are noted but they're
of cold comfort for those people. When will you finally release a real, concrete
strategy and plan for jobs in this province?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm certainly happy to answer this question because
there is a lot of good going on, and sometimes it's hard to get that good out
there through the negativity that's created. For instance, just a couple of
weeks ago there was the announcement of 331 jobs with $41.5 million, and as soon
as that was done there was nothing but criticism of that decision by the Members
opposite.
I didn't hear anything from the Members opposite when
we look at the success stories that government has invested in over the years.
One of them, I would point out, was Verafin, which was just sold for over $2.7
billion. Government, a few years back, invested in that and we continue to make
investments. Just last week, we made investments in Rutter. This week you're
going to see more announcements.
The reality is we're doubling down, especially on the
tech sector. We continue to invest in mining and we continue to invest in oil
and gas. I just hope some of the Members on the other side would get on board.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR.
WAKEHAM:
Mr.
Speaker, I'd remind the minister, we're all about jobs and creation of jobs. We
certainly are wanting to know that – the people that are currently finding
themselves out of jobs are certainly worried about it.
Mr. Speaker, I recently had a senior call my office
because he had to go get a medical eye examination to keep his driver's licence.
Fair enough. He went to see a salaried physician. The salaried physician, under
NLMA rules, is allowed to charge him $60. He paid his $60 for his medical only
to find out later he got a bill for $90 from the regional health authority who
also have to charge for that same procedure.
I simply ask the minister: Would you eliminate the
double-dipping that's going on for medical examinations for our seniors and
others?
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the question.
Mr. Speaker, I was made aware of this issue, I think,
20 minutes before coming into the House. I'd be happy to go back and look into
it; it certainly seems to be unusual. I'd be happy to take this up with the
Member opposite offline afterwards.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR.
WAKEHAM:
I
thank the minister for his answer. I look forward to that.
Mr. Speaker, some Walmart employees in my district have
been excluded from receiving the essential worker top-up because they withdrew
vacation pay or received a bonus related to the previous years. These
non-regular payments have put them over the threshold that was established by
government through no fault of their own.
I'd like to ask the minister for an update on the
status of that appeal and are they likely hear something before Christmas?
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's a very important question.
I will inform the House about 25,000 people, essential
workers, have received payment under this program. What the Member is referring
to is he's asked for an extension of this program, expansion of this program
which is under review.
We're very pleased to have been able to offer this
program; we think it was a very important one. I thank the team at Immigration,
Skills and Labour who have worked very hard to make sure these payments are made
to these 25,000 workers. We are considering whether or not we can expand the
program to encompass even more people and we're continuing to work on that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
are hurting right now. Many worry about buying gifts for their children, having
enough food for the holidays or paying their electrical bills through the
winter. Pension unlocking will not help these folks. A $15-an-hour minimum wage,
rate mitigation or even offering low- or no-interest loans or grants from our
COVID contingency fund will help lots of people in the province right now.
Mr. Speaker, since we are here under the guise of
helping people through COVID hardships, I ask the Premier: Why are we not doing
more to help the people who need it most right now?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that question.
Of course we're all here to sort through these
uncertain times and the challenges that they present to families, especially in
low- and middle-income families as they struggle through the holiday season.
We're using all the tools in the government's toolbox to get people through
these uncertain times.
There's no magic bullet, there's no easy solution or
else it would've all been tabled and we would've all discussed it and gone out
hand in hand. The truth is that these are issues that we need to explore all
tools available to us so that we're ensuring that we're looking after the most
vulnerable in society and the low- and middle-income classes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'll point out to the Premier that the three tools
in the toolbox that I have just suggested have not been even – the toolbox, Sir,
has not been opened.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government's communication of
what this pension legislation will do has been vague and misleading. Many people
think they can access any pension funds they may have before Christmas. This is
simply wrong.
I ask the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL
if she has reached out to the gentleman cited in this weekend's CBC article who
believes he will be able to unlock his government money purchase plan funds and
others like him who've been misled by this Liberal government's poor
communications of the pension unlocking amendments?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think as we all learned, unlocking pensions is
extremely complicated. What we're talking about is unlocking retirement savings
as a result of pensions – that come out of the pension plan. I know we're going
to discuss that later this afternoon.
I don't want to give financial advice to any specific
individual. I'd recommend that anyone considering unlocking pensions or anyone
with questions with their pensions, discuss it with a financial advisor or
contact their pension plan administrator.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last week in this House the Minister of Health said
that the discrimination in the health care transportation system favoured people
from Labrador.
I ask the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs:
Does she stand behind her Cabinet colleague's statement?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Member for raising a very, very important
topic. As an individual born and raised and still living on the Coast of
Labrador – actually isolated until December 10, 2001 – I certainly understand,
Mr. Speaker, the challenges of people that live in the area and the cost of
travelling out for medical services.
That's why, Mr. Speaker, myself and a team of Labrador
MHAs, we proposed a number of policy changes to review. As my colleague said
earlier today, that review is moving along. COVID sidelined it for a little bit,
but very soon I believe that we will be able to announce some enhancements for
the people living in Labrador. Rest assured I certainly understand it. I deal
with it every day with my constituency.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR.
BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last year, the department of Labrador Affairs
commissioned a report on improving the MTAP program for Labradorians.
I ask the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs:
Will the department's report show that, contrary to the beliefs of the Minister
of Health, MTAP doesn't go far enough? Will the recommendations in this report
be implemented immediately?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I just said in my last question, the current Medical
Transportation Assistance Program is under review; it was sidelined a little due
to COVID. There are things, Mr. Speaker, that we can do to make the travel out a
little easier for the residents. It's a Medical Transportation Assistance
Program. We recognize that it doesn't cover all of the costs to folks and we
recognize the hardship.
Mr. Speaker, if we weren't carrying this noose around
our neck of the 30 per cent net debt of Muskrat Falls, we'd be able to do a lot
better. We are doing the best job we can. Health is certainly a priority and
supporting those people in health for this government. We'll be happy to
announce something on a review.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
While the time we regularly allot for Question Period has expired, it's my
understanding that there is agreement amongst Members that each independent
Member has an opportunity to ask one question.
Do we have consent of the House to do that?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Leave.
The hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
Mr.
Speaker, as we know, the fishing industry faces many challenges, some of which
are government regulations. In 2002, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
brought in regulations restricting the minimum size of herring to be harvested,
which is 24.7 centimetres, for the West Coast. The biomass for herring on the
West Coast is very strong. This has been acknowledged by DFO scientists.
We all know that during the winter herring school
together; however, because of antiquated regulations if boats land herring which
are 20 per cent less than the 24.7 centimetres, it is deemed illegal. They may
face charges, the catch is confiscated and they are left with no choice but to
let the fish go. If the Barry Group loses their markets because they can't
supply their buyers, this will have a detrimental effect on the economy of the
area and result in many people losing their livelihood.
I ask the minister: Would you please reach out to the
Barry Group and work with your federal counterparts and the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans to help these antiquated regulations to be changed for the
betterment of the industry and for the people of Humber - Bay of Islands?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.
MR.
LOVELESS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to thank the Member for a very important
question, no doubt.
Just to remind the Member and everybody that around any
fish stocks, any decision that will be made, will always be guided by good
science. Constant contact with the federal government is always around not just
the herring stocks but around all stocks.
I, indeed, will be in contact with Bill Barry, as he
sent me an email this morning around this. It's a very important issue. I'll
have that discussion, as I've had other discussions with him around the
aquaculture industry. I would be happy to keep the Member apprized of what those
discussions are as we progress.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
MR.
TRIMPER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank this House of Assembly for the opportunity.
Further on the serious situation facing residents of
Mud Lake and vicinity, I'm informing this House that the department has been
contacted by residents seeking assistance to move out of harm's way. Government
stated it was unable to assist unless the entire community wanted to move.
Mr. Speaker, when the flood occurred in 2017, residents
of Mud Lake had to be airlifted out by helicopter.
Will this government provide financial assistance for
those who wish to relocate to a safer location, as was done for Badger in
Newfoundland? A very simple yes-or-no question.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Municipalities.
MR.
BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for his question.
First of all, the health and safety of residents
throughout our province is a priority of our government. We understand there are
a number of areas in our province where flood risk is an issue, along with
coastal erosion. As I indicated to the Member and had my staff write him, there
are programs in place that can assist communities. It is to be a
community-driven initiative.
I look forward to hearing or meeting with the Member
opposite. I did send an invitation to him on Thursday via my news release. I'm
still waiting to hear from him, Mr. Speaker. I gladly would sit down and discuss
any issues regarding the problems in Mud Lake or any community within our
province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We recently learned that Canopy Growth would not be
living up to its obligations as it relates to the production facility in
Newfoundland and Labrador. While we understand they have returned the tax
remittances collected thus far to the government, this does nothing to address
the sweet deal they received regarding prime choice of retail locations
throughout the province, as well as guaranteed shelf space in all
non-Canopy-owned retail shops.
I ask the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for
the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation: Does the pulling out of Canopy
from production in Newfoundland and Labrador render their deal with the
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation null and void? If so, will
government, through the NLC, be issuing an expression of interest to allow
others, preferably local companies, the opportunity to operate these prime
retail outlets?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the question.
I thank the Member for the question.
Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation has issued
a notice of termination to Canopy Growth concerning the production agreement and
the NLC is reviewing all rights and obligations under that particular production
agreement. There will be a new process put in place, and that is still under
review, Mr. Speaker, as this is only recently occurring. Canopy has been given
notice under their production agreement and there will be a new process to
determine how they move forward from here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
In accordance with Section 6 of the
Transparency and Accountability Act, I
am pleased to submit for tabling the 2020-'23 Activity Plan and the 2019-2020
Annual Performance Report of the Office of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner.
Further tabling of documents?
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR.
WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, I give
notice to move the following private Member's resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House urges the
government to change the Medical Transportation Assistance Program to allow 100
per cent reimbursement of travel for people who have to travel for medical
reasons outside their region in order to ensure every patient, no matter where
they live, receives timely and affordable care.
This is to be seconded by the Member for Torngat
Mountains.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In accordance with House operations, the private
Member's resolution put forward by the Member for Stephenville -Port au Port
would be the one debate here this Wednesday.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service
NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Mr.
Speaker, I give notice I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To
Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, Bill 54.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will move the
following resolution:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House:
That notwithstanding Standing Order 84 in particular,
if it is the pleasure of this House, Bill 54 may be read a second time, referred
to a Committee of the Whole and read a third time on the same sitting day;
And that notice shall be deemed to have been given and
moved under Standing Order 11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today,
Monday, December 14, 2020.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Petitions.
Petitions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR.
PARROTT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the history of this petition is as
follows: The Department of Transportation and Infrastructure are refusing to
plow a gravel road approximately 200 feet in length in my district. The refusal
to plow this road in winter will deny a student with a disability access to
education this year.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as
follows: To urge government to reconsider their decision to not plow Garden Road
and allow this student to access her education.
Mr. Speaker, it's quite shameful that we're even having
this conversation. I want to be clear as to where this road is and how it
operates. The road is inside a local service district in an infill. It was
plowed by Transportation and Infrastructure years ago. Nobody understands why
but it fell off the list and they stopped plowing it. There's never been anyone
paid to plow the road. One of the residents took it upon himself to do so, only
when he could. He had a full-time job so it wasn't always done.
The Department of Education this year supplied a bus
that could accommodate this five-year-old little girl with brittle bone disease
access to education. It's a wheelchair accessible bus. They deemed the bus stop
to be on this road and if it snows this little girl cannot go to school. Not
only can she not go to school but there is no Internet access.
So we're clear, there's a bus being paid for, there's
an assistant being paid for so this little girl can access school, the bus stop
is on the road and the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure is not
plowing it. That says it all right there.
It's a double standard. I understand that I'm going to
hear all about Class 4, five and six roads and all the stuff, but, I can tell
you, I'm highly doubtful that they even went down and looked at the road. I've
been down there; I looked at the road. There's more than enough room for a plow
to turn around. It is 48 feet, more than enough room for a plow to turn around.
That was the excuse they gave the Child and Youth
Advocate: that a plow couldn't turn around. The excuses that they gave us over
the last 12 months, Mr. Speaker, was about policy, a policy that the department
has refused to provide. I'll say again: The department has quoted a policy that
they will not provide to myself, the mother or the Office for the Child and
Youth Advocate. It's ridiculous.
I hear this government talk all the time about safety
and no child left behind. Well, I can tell you, three men carrying a
five-year-old child with brittle bone disease in a wheelchair 200 feet up a road
so that she can access education, has nothing to do with safety and it has
nothing to do with making sure no child gets left behind.
Mr. Speaker, I implore the minister – who likes to use
the word “choose” and is the only one in this situation who has the ability to
choose – to have this road plowed. I'm not asking for it to be added to
inventory, I'm asking for this road to be maintained in the winter so this
little girl can get an education.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure with a response.
MR.
BRAGG:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the
petition.
I would like to remind the Member opposite, and
everyone who clapped on the other side, the decision to stop plowing or grading
or maintaining Class 4 roads was a decision made by the administration before
this government. Let me be clear on that, Mr. Speaker, it was done as a
cost-savings measure that Class 4 roads would be taken out. It was done prior to
anybody on this side coming into power.
There are numerous Class 4 roads in this province, with
numerous reasons why people think they should be plowed. It was a decision that
was made. To plow one means you would plow all, Mr. Speaker. At this time we're
not in a position to take on any Class 4 roads. When people decide to live in an
area with very limited services they should also decide what they expect the
outcome to be.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
MS.
CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS individual residents, municipal leaders,
including the Conception Bay North Joint Council, have spoken to the deplorable
road conditions in the District of Harbour Main; and
WHEREAS the district is made up of many smaller
communities and towns like Holyrood, Upper Gullies, Seal Cove, Cupids, Colliers,
South River, North River, Roaches Line and Makinsons, who have roads in
desperate need of repair and paving; and
WHEREAS these roads see high volume traffic flows every
day and drivers can expect potholes, severe rutting, limited shoulders and many
washed out areas along the way;
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly and
immediately call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to take the necessary steps to repair and repave these
important roadways to ensure the safety of the driving public who use them on a
regular basis.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that I've
presented this petition; this has been raised by me on many occasions. I have to
say that with respect to the areas I'm referencing in the petition: Holyrood,
Upper Gullies and Seal Cove, in particular – although the others are very
substandard as well but these are areas in a deplorable state of disrepair –
they need to be upgraded; at a minimum they need to be paved. These are serious
safety concerns which we have to address. We're not dealing with just repairs of
washouts, these roads are very much presenting safety concerns.
Mr. Speaker, we hear from the people in the district
who are very frustrated. They are getting to the point of anger; they are really
at a loss of what they can do. We need to have some indication from the
minister. When can I tell the constituents involved in these communities that
this work will be done?
Mr. Speaker, I wish to also thank the Minister of
Transportation and Infrastructure for honouring the commitment that was made in
the last sitting of the House of Assembly with respect to brush cutting. I wish
to thank him on behalf of the many communities in the District of Harbour Main
that have received that necessary brush cutting.
They did recognize the need to address the safety
issues with lines of sight and with moose collisions and the problems that
caused, but this, Mr. Speaker, is even worse. It's even a more serious concern
when we're looking at the roads in these particular communities.
I'm hoping, Mr. Speaker, that the minister will
recognize this is a critical issue that needs to be addressed. We're hoping that
we will see some action on behalf of the government in this regard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.
MR.
BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the petition.
I'm sure the Member opposite, as she realized brush
cutting is important, so is the condition of a road. We have over 10,000
kilometres of paved and unpaved roads in this province, Mr. Speaker. We have, I
think, a $70-million budget to maintain these and getting to them all in a
timely time proves to be difficult.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, getting into Christmastime,
I would like to thank the many hundreds – or many thousands – of people that we
have out on our roads today that are plowing our roads. They're keeping our
roads safe; they're maintaining our roads to a standard that we can get over at
the posted speed limits.
Mr. Speaker, to all these people I'd like to wish them
a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. I would advise the Member opposite
that your roads will be taken into consideration, much like the rest. We have
engageNL in which we will be posting, if it's not posted today, our five-year
Roads Plan for negotiations and for conversations.
I look forward to any conversation that I may have with
you in the coming days, weeks or months, concerning the condition of the roads
in your district and, for that matter, for everyone else, on the roads and
conditions in their districts.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
MR.
TRIMPER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like to enter in the following petition to this
House of Assembly:
In 2020 government announced that Route 520, the
highway between Happy Valley-Goose Bay and the communities of North West River
and Sheshatshiu was now a priority under the Five-Year Provincial Roads Plan.
Although a tender call was issued during late summer to complete upgrades and
pave some sections, the submitted bids far exceeded the allocated budget.
On the 19th of September 2020, in the House of
Assembly, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure stated: Government
will expand the scope of the contract to find better value for next year's
construction season, i.e., in 2021.
Therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon the House of
Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to issue the tender
for expanded work on Route 520 as soon as possible, so that the expanded
contract can be awarded and work started immediately at the beginning of the
2021 construction season.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This highway, this project and
the long-needed attention to it has been a topic in this House of Assembly.
I must say I've been involved and working very well
with the staff in the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure. Everyone
recognizes the importance of getting on with needed repairs. It's not just
paving, Mr. Speaker. Actually, the roadbed needs to come up in some places quite
significantly as a result of flooding approaches to some of the bridges on that
routing.
I'm looking forward to seeing this tender called. I
worked closely with the minister at the time and I'm well aware the intention
was strong; it's just unfortunate that the bids came in so high. With the
expanded scope of work, it is certainly hoped – and I'm certainly hoping to see
– the tender is called immediately with this expanded scope so that we can get
on with that important work.
I thank you very much.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure with a response to the
petition.
MR.
BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member for the petition.
Mr. Speaker, he couldn't have outlined it any better if
I wrote it myself. That is the plan, was the plan, will stay the plan, Mr.
Speaker, for Route 520.
I thank the Member opposite for the petition.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR.
WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, it must be Transportation day.
I'd like to add to that, but first I want to also echo
the minister's comments and thank the employees that keep our roads clear to
keep us safe in the winter months.
The maintenance and upkeep of the roadway through the
community of Cold Brook is the responsibility of the Department of
Transportation and Infrastructure. Sections of the roadway have been in
deplorable condition for the last five years and need repairs and resurfacing.
Children are required to ride school buses twice daily over roadways where
sections of the paved road are missing. There have been a number of close calls
where vehicles have to swerve in order to avoid driving over a section of
roadway where the pavement is totally missing. The residents of Cold Brook
deserve better.
We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to
urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to consider repairing,
upgrading and maintaining the paved road through the community of Cold Brook in
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I'm here to offer the minister a
great deal, because this past summer a number of cut-outs were made in the
pavement on Route 460 and the road going to Port au Port. They were made in
anticipation of roads being paved in the area, but because of issues with the
contractor, the work never got done. As a result, these cut-outs had to be
repaved. Now they have to come back next year and actually do the paving of the
road and the cut-outs again.
While the crews are back there next year doing this
work, let's make the deal to get the one kilometre of road in Cold Brook done
and over with.
I appreciate and thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure with a response to the
petition.
MR.
BRAGG:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the
petition.
I think this is four for four. The process of doing the
cut-outs is pretty well a standard process. Today, if you see any road
construction, they will do the ditching; they do the culverts. While they're
waiting to do the initial paving, they will pave over where the culverts are,
because many times it's just a layer of asphalt that goes over the existing
asphalt, so they like to do it.
I'm glad to know that the work is ongoing. It's
unfortunate the contractor in this area did not get the work done, but I'm glad
that the Member opposite pointed out that the culverts were done because that
would be a nightmare for the people that work on our roads today that would have
to plow and be pavement and gravel in that area.
The MHA for that area, I'm sure he's glad to know, in
the spring, it's anticipated the contractor would get the work done.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess we'll keep the ball rolling on roadwork.
The petition I offer: WHEREAS Route 60 through Topsail
is a heavily populated area with physically active residents; and
WHEREAS residents and young children who walk daily to
school are finding it very unsafe and a deplorable state of erosion along the
shoulders of Route 60 through Topsail;
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as
follows: We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to find a more permanent solution and
install curb and gutter to the areas affected by erosion.
Mr. Speaker, I've presented this petition, I've lost
count how many times. Last year, I presented it and in this House the minister
of Transportation at the time committed to having it looked at this past year.
I've had a lot of going back and forth with the current minister who was going
to come up and look at it as well.
The municipality and the province seem to be back and
forth on who is responsible for this, or whether it's something subsurface that
needs to be done. The fact of the matter is some of these areas are really
unsafe. There are some areas around the storm drains that are completely gone;
you'd lose a small dog down there, no doubt about it. Now with the first
snowfall, these are going to be hidden hazards for people walking.
So here we are, if we don't get these sections done
soon, you're going to go through the full winter like this. I guarantee you in
the spring it's going to be much worse again. Some of these areas around storm
drains actually have metal plates laid over them. So plows going along are just
going to take that away, that's gone, and you still have a gaping hole in these
areas.
I do implore the minister to have a look at these again
sooner than later, or at least get together with the municipality and determine
who is responsible for what, because this is a safety issue, in terms of people
walking or cars driving. You just have to go up and look at some of these storm
drains, look at some of these potholes, they are real hazards and someone's
going to be seriously injured by hitting these in a car or going down through
the hole.
I hope that the minister will have a look at these and
come to some solution to fix them.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure with a response.
MR.
BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess the theme today is definitely going to be the
condition of our roads. I assure the Member opposite, who just presented the
petition, that we will reach out to the town council in that area and have a
discussion and discuss that road. As you're well aware, this time during the
winter season, there's going to be very little, if any, work will be done except
for emergency maintenance work, but we will go and investigate that area and
just see what we can do during the spring, Mr. Speaker.
That, like all the rest of the roads in our province,
will get the same attention, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Digital Government
and Service NL, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The
Pensions Benefit Act, 1997, Bill 54, be now read a first time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the said bill now be read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Digital Government and
Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The Pensions Benefit Act,
1997,” carried. (Bill 54)
CLERK (Barnes):
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 54.)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
bill has now been read a first time.
When shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR.
CROCKER:
Now, with leave.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, Bill 54 read a first time, ordered read a
second time presently, by leave.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Mr.
Speaker, with leave of the House, I move the following resolution:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House:
That notwithstanding Standing Order 84, in particular,
if it is the pleasure of this House, Bill 54 may be read a second time, referred
to Committee of the Whole and read a third time on the same sitting day;
And that notice shall be deemed to have been given and
moved under Standing Order 11(1) that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.,
today, Monday, December 14, 2020.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
Was there a seconder for that motion?
MR.
CROCKER:
Sorry, seconded by the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Does the minister have leave to move this motion now?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Leave.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Order 1, Bill 54.
MR.
SPEAKER:
We
need to vote on that resolution that the minister just moved.
Is the House ready for the question?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Order 1, second reading of
Bill 54.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public
Safety, that Bill 54, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now
read a second time.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we will have convened the House to
discuss changes to the Pension Benefits Act, specifically unlocking of
retirement benefits. There are approximately 180 pension plans registered with
the province under this act and the legislation covers more than 65,000 –
MR.
SPEAKER:
Before the minister proceeds to speak, it's been moved and seconded that this
bill now be read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The
Pension Benefits Act, 1997.” (Bill 54)
MR.
SPEAKER:
Okay, proceed.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Mr. Speaker, we have approximately 180 pension plans registered in the province
under the Pension Benefits Act and the legislation covers more than 65,000 plan
members. When we talk about retirement benefits, we're also referring to LIRAs,
LIFs and LRIFs. These are locked-in retirement accounts registered with the
province, of which there are 894, and these are listed on our website. These
fall under the Pension Benefits Act if they are registered in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
I just want to touch on the process for a minute. This
process within the department has been ongoing for over a year in terms of
reviewing this legislation. It's something they have done periodically years
prior to that. We did do consultations from July to September 30 and then we did
bring the House back, as Members know, so that we could debate this important
motion.
I would like to start off today by outlining what is
not subject to the Pension Benefits Act, so not subject to what we are
discussing today. Individuals who are actively contributing members to a pension
plan in the province are not subject to the amendment we are discussing here
today for those particular pensions. If you are in receipt of pension income
from a pension plan – so if you're actively monthly getting pension income from
a pension plan – these amendments do not apply to you, you're considered an
active member. No jurisdiction in Canada allows unlocking if you're an active
pension plan member, if you're paying in or if you are actively receiving
pension incomes. That's not something that's offered anywhere in Canada.
If you are a member of the Public Service Pension Plan
or the Teachers' Pension Plan these changes do not apply to you. Those pension
plans have their own specific pieces of legislation. If you are a member of a
federally regulated pension plan, these changes do not apply to you. Those plans
are subject to federal legislation. Essentially, each province has a pension act
which governs pensions, both registered in that province and locked-in
retirement accounts registered in those provinces.
I've spoken with people in the past few weeks who have
wanted to learn more about the proposed changes we are going to make. In
discussing with them, we realized their pensions were registered in Ontario, for
example, and their locked-in accounts were registered in Ontario. If anyone is
listening or watching right now, I would encourage you – if you're not sure you
can go on our website. You can look at a list of all the LIRAs, LIFs and LRIFs
that are registered under Newfoundland and Labrador. If yours isn't there, then
yours would be registered with another province and the plan administrator or
your financial institution could give you more information about that.
These amendments are about allowing former employees
who have previously transferred their pension benefit out of a pension plan and
into a locked-in retirement savings arrangement, which is subject to the Pension
Benefits Act. As I mentioned, there are 894 of these listed on our website.
Presently, these three types of approved retirement
savings arrangements – this is really the heart of what we're discussing today –
a locked-in retirement account, a LIRA; a life income fund, a LIF; or a
locked-in retirement income fund, LRIF. These retirement savings arrangements
are designed specifically to hold locked-in funds when a pension benefit leaves
a registered pension plan covered under the act.
Today, the act provides two exceptions to the locked-in
requirement. An individual can unlock the entire benefit and receive a lump sum
if either a doctor certifies the individual has a considerably shortened life
expectancy, or if the pension is determined to be a small balance, which is
roughly under $6,000. Aside from these two circumstances, current legislation
does not allow any other circumstance for unlocking benefits until retirement,
and early retirement is 55.
Mr. Speaker, the current pandemic has highlighted that
residents facing financial hardship are looking to leverage some of these funds
to help them get by. We have discussed these situations in the House of Assembly
during this sitting numerous times and even today during Question Period.
Undoubtedly, there are many individuals and families throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador who have financially been impacted as a result of COVID-19. My
department has received numerous calls from individuals who have been adversely
impacted and they are searching for solutions, such as accessing these
retirement savings arrangements. I've spoken with many of these over the past
few weeks.
It's important to remember there is no perfect solution
here. Taking money out of a retired savings account for current financial
hardship is a complex issue; we have to look at both sides of the equation. We
all have constituents impacted by imminent financial need, but then I think
always see value in maximizing residents' retirement savings; if part of the
money is spent now, it won't be there for retirement income later. It's like a
spectrum of how much you take out now, there's less available later. With all
this in mind we examined what happens in other jurisdictions and how unlocking
abilities impact residents and pension plans in those jurisdictions as well.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of pension unlocking has been
brought to the attention of previous administrations. Residents have asked for
increased flexibility. As I mentioned, there's no perfect solution. Even across
Canada there is a range of approaches allowing residents to unlock portions of
their locked-in accounts. Some of the other items that are considered here: A
locking-in provision is designed to protect an individual's spouse or cohabiting
partner as it automatically provides them with a survivor benefit should they
outlive the original pension beneficiary.
Aside from the individuals themselves, we were looking
at the impact of unlocking benefits and the impact that has on survivors,
employers and unions; also, the impact it has on women, as women live longer and
they'll be impacted by a reduced family retirement income. We launched
consultations from July until September 30, 2020. We received more than 140
submissions. This feedback was considered in our decision-making process.
Today we're introducing amendments to allow for the
unlocking of pension benefits from a locked-in retirement savings arrangement
when the fund holder is experiencing financial hardship. The amendments define
financial hardship in five ways: The first is in the inability to make the first
month's rent or to make a security deposit when trying to rent accommodations;
secondly, the threat of eviction due to the inability to make a rent payment;
the threat of foreclosure due to the inability to make a monthly mortgage
payment; the inability to pay for medical costs; or the inability to pay for
costs related to equipment or treatment related to a disability. In all of these
cases, documentation would need to be provided to show the actual amount that is
required to be unlocked from the retirement savings arrangement. The financial
institutions will be enabling this and would be managing that process.
For example, if a homeowner is in arrears of $10,000 on
mortgage payments and they're in danger of foreclosure, the homeowner would need
to submit documentation to the financial institution showing the amount needed.
Individuals will not be asked to send any information to our department. The
entire process will be administered by the financial institution, as it is in
other provinces.
We've also included low income as a criteria for
unlocking retirement savings. It is based on a formula to determine eligibility.
This is consistent with the approaches of other provinces. We have a sliding
scale. The formula is outlined in the legislation which we can get to in
Committee but, essentially, the closer you make to the cap, the less you can
unlock. Then, the lower your income, the more you can unlock up to a certain
amount.
Mr. Speaker, I'm missing two pages but that's okay.
Unlocking pension benefits is crucially important for residents of the province.
It's a very complex issue. We do encourage all residents, if you're considering
this, to speak with a credit counselling agency or get financial advice.
Just a few other things I'll add, Mr. Speaker. In the
legislation that we're proposing, spouses will have to sign off that their
partner is unlocking this benefit as – when you take money out of retirement
savings that impacts both partners, so your partner will also have to sign off.
What we're proposing, as well, in terms of medical and disability, those will be
available to the dependents of the fund holders. If they need medical costs for
a child or disability costs for a child, if it's their dependant, then that will
be eligible as well.
Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a very complex issue.
There's no perfect solution here. As an MHA, I've worked with many of my
constituents thorough these discussions, as well as residents across the
province. I know many of them are eagerly awaiting the option to use this to
help imminent financial hardship. I look forward to the debate and the
discussion in the Committee.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's an honour here to be able to come in and discuss
this Pension Benefits Act. We've asked some questions in my 18 months here now
and we've been asking questions along the way. Those questions are coming from
concerned citizens.
The people that make statements to say, well, I don't
think we should unlock them; they're not in that situation. The people that are
making those statements are the people that are getting paid. They're not
sitting home waiting for their money. They're getting paid. I'm sure those
people probably need financial solutions themselves. Now these people are
without a job, they've been laid off for some unknown reason. The pandemic is
after bringing this to the forefront.
Speaking on that, I hear these statements all the time
and if I have one person calling me, then that's the person I'm going in inquire
about. That's my job as a MHA. Those people asked and we're asking those
questions. We're not asking them for ourselves – or maybe we will at some point
in time – but we're asking these questions based on constituents and people all
over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador asking these questions so they
can get out of financial hardship. It's not to just go get some extracurricular
stuff in their life; these are life-altering situations.
What is the point if you're going to save for tomorrow
if someone can't survive today? It doesn't make any sense. Those people are
asking. I guess it's something that they finally – this is their last straw.
They want to be able to withdraw their money that they rightfully earned.
For somebody to tell them they don't think they should
do it, or somebody else is making statements they don't think they should do it
– maybe they shouldn't but they're not in that situation, they are getting paid.
These people are in a financial crunch and they need their money. If this is
what we have to do to help them, then they can make that decision and get
financial help and do it.
That's where this stands. I don't see how we can be any
more straightforward – I can't, anyway – that if somebody is asking you for
help, then we should be able to help them out. Everybody has arguments for – and
I get beat down wherever I go – on the pension issue and they shouldn't be
allowed, but they're not in that situation, they're getting paid. So just to
touch on that.
I'll just go down through some of the amendments that
we did. First of all – I should have probably done that first starting off – I'd
like to thank the staff for giving us the information when we did our briefing.
They did a great job on it and answered questions; we were probably on it 45
minutes to an hour. I think they did a great job on it, so I thank them for
that.
To get back to the act, it allows a person who
previously transferred his or her pension benefit into an approved retirement
savings arrangement to withdraw an amount not exceeding a prescribed amount from
the arrangement where the person or the pension beneficiary is experiencing
financial hardship; and allows a person who had previously transferred his or
her pension benefit into an approved retirement savings arrangement to withdraw
the full amount in the retirement savings arrangement where the pension has
resided outside of Canada for at least two years. There are a couple of changes
there.
The background on this is the Pension Benefits Act and
regulations are under the purview of the Department of Digital Government and
Service NL and provided regulations regarding the pension benefits and funds.
Locked-in refers to restrictions on when and how the pension benefit can be
accessed annually. Speaking with a financial advisor in my circle, he said if
somebody is in hardship – and he sells life insurance, he's in to all kinds of
stuff. When somebody asked him if they can get into their pension, then he said
they take a form, they fill it out, they put their information on it and he
sends it to the company that deals with it. It's nothing out of his pocket to do
that. He sold it. If that person wants to take whatever that company is going to
give them, the insurance company, then that's up to them, that's not up to him.
He didn't see any reason – and we're the only province.
He deals with people in Alberta that get paid out of Alberta. They can get in to
access their funds and people in Newfoundland can't. He said it was way behind.
If Alberta, Ontario, BC or whoever has it, if they have it done, then why can't
we do it? It gives the person an option and that's what we're doing. I don't
know how we can simplify it any more than that. I've heard other MHAs, speaking
to them, that they've thought the same over the years.
My only concern with any of this – and not just this
legislation, all legislation – why does it take so long? We've been sitting
here; we've criticized governments from 2000 to 2010. If we're in here to do a
job, then why don't we do it? Why don't we speed up legislation? Why can't we
get to the bottom of the problem quicker, instead of taking forever to do it?
Three and four years in regulations, four and five years – that's way too long.
You wouldn't do that in your own life. If you had trouble today and you made a
call to somebody, you'd want to get it done and you'd want to move on, but we
take forever to do it as a government.
If you sit down, you hear people criticizing you. Then
why don't we change it, as 40 people in here, 40 MHAs? Why don't we speed up the
process? It just seems so long. We sit here and we grin at each other, we look
across and we insult each other. We're talking about a roads change today
because in the government of 2012 – that's an individual. I know he can't change
it for one but it's a different circumstance for everything and it should be
looked at. To wait this long is unreal. It just doesn't make sense.
Every legislation is the same way. I asked the question
in the House today – same thing – why do we take so long to gets answers on
stuff that seems just so easy to do? Not easy. I'm not going to say it's easy to
do, but it shouldn't take four years to do it. It's crazy. Get down to the
points, get down to what we're supposed to be doing. We continue to push it off.
We have to review; we have a Committee. How much money do we have to spend on
all this stuff? Sit down and get the people that are supposed to do it and make
the regulations.
We sit here, we look at each other and probably nod and
say, yes, it makes a lot of sense, but why don't we do it? Why don't we be
different than any other government? If you're the government over there, why
don't we be different? Put your name out there and go do the job we're supposed
to do and make the regulations and move on.
I'll just go down through some of the other stuff here
– the five reasons and the minister already touched on that. The reasons for
withdrawing would be: low income, medical expenses and disability-related
expenses. Stuff happens along the way that people end up being disabled and they
need to be able to get – when they started this they didn't need it, but they
need it now. When they're dealing with a disability, now is the time. It's no
good in 10 years' time when they got nothing left – no good. It's important that
we get to it.
Also, mortgage payments was another one that if a
person or a principal beneficiary, principal residence is at risk of
foreclosure, the amount could be unlocked to rectify the default. That's another
example, and rent payment. Obviously, somebody needs money upfront, or whatever
the case may be, that's something that we could look at.
The proposed amendments also require that individuals
must confirm in writing that they understand the impact of making the
withdrawal, principal beneficiaries must consent to unlocking and financial
institutions must submit semi-annual reports; officials note that they will
monitor unlocking through these reports to access impacts on it. At least we're
going to keep an eye on it every six months and be able to report back and get
the information.
It's just not going to go ahead carte blanche and be
able to write a cheque. It's based on the information that they give, but it
gives the person the opportunity to do that. I think that would be something
that they'd look forward to.
We certainly look forward to being able to get into
Committee and be able to ask some questions. I'll leave it at that for now.
We'll move on and we'll discuss in Committee.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have in front of me two reports that
suggest that government is not particularly good with managing pension funds.
Starting when we developed the public sector Pooled Pension Fund in 1981, we
were told that we needed to put $500 million into that fund to make the fund
whole. Only recently, we've managed to realize that we've had to go to a joint
sponsorship in our public sector pension fund and that has resulted in decreased
benefits. That's just one example of poorly administered pension funds.
The next one that I'm looking at was another plan that
examined how money that was supposed to go into pension funds was
misappropriated and put into general revenue instead, leaving the Pooled Pension
Fund at another unfunded liability. So in that context, I would suggest that
hastily moving pension legislation amendments through, without fully recognizing
or researching or finding the appropriate evidence, is simply foolhardy.
Mr. Speaker, I have a number of concerns about this.
Let's start with: When did the original request to unlock pension funds come in?
Certainly, we've all been brought here today under the auspice of we are
unlocking pensions to kind of offset COVID hardships. That, I do not believe, is
the case. My understanding is that there has been a lobby on the part of private
sector interests to unlock pensions for quite some time now and it is only a
matter of taking advantage of an unfortunate situation that this is being pushed
forward just a little bit more.
In that context, perhaps we can look at some of the
problems associated with the legislation as it has been proposed. It is talking
now about pensions being considered to help alleviate financial hardship. As we
learned from some of my questions earlier in the House today that unlocking
pensions, first of all, is not going to immediately address the financial
hardships that many of us have heard from our constituents. More particularly,
some of the very angry emails that I've been receiving say you've taken
Christmas from my children or my 70-year-old father who is receiving his pension
wants to unlock the rest of it. That tells me that there is enormous amount of
misinformation around this unlocking of pensions. So, again, rushing this
through will benefit no one.
What I suggest we ought to do is, if we are going to
unlock pensions, we do it properly and correctly and ensure that all of the
unintended consequences that will come with unlocking pensions are effectively
avoided or at least mitigated appropriately. I'll go into some of those quite
shortly.
What instead is far more important and what we ought to
be considering here today is not unlocking of pensions, which essentially forces
individuals to trade-off their well-being in the future to instead be able to
deal with some hardships that, through no fault of their own, they find
themselves in. I say through no fault of their own because I guarantee you not
one person in Newfoundland and Labrador has said, yes, I wanted to be laid off
because of COVID or I'm happy that they shut down the Argentia site or I'm glad
that I am not going to be able to find a job next year.
I think we do need to consider this in the context, and
in that particular context we could be doing so much more to help the people who
do need that help today. We could be here having a discussion about how we would
like to best implement a guaranteed basic income that would've helped more than
enough people in Newfoundland and Labrador see themselves through a lovely
Christmas. We could also take some of that $200 million in the COVID contingency
fund, to which we all agreed was necessary in the budget process, and offer
these individuals interest-free loans or even grants to address the issue they
are facing as a result of COVID right now. Not expect these individuals to
trade-off their health and their safety and their financial future when they
retire through circumstances that they face that are, through no fault of their
own, occurring right now. The reason we are here is misguided.
Let's talk about alieving financial hardship. We are
not opening these to alleviate financial hardship, certainly not in the
immediate term. Let's talk about some of the concerns here. As I made my way
through this legislation there were several problems associated with it, none of
which I got much of a response from. Let's suggest – when we first started
talking about this, or when we went through the legislation, recognizing the
importance of pensions to all of us. I can imagine if you wanted to talk to some
of the Members who are waiting for their pension to be vested before an election
is called, you can pretty much get a very good sense of the value of such a
thing.
If our pensions are so important and ought to be
protected, and we want to allow for us to be protected from financial hardship,
we should be building a mechanism for replacing those funds for the individuals
who are going to withdraw these funds. Yet, no where in the legislation do I see
any mechanism to encourage or, in fact, insist that individuals replace those
pension funds. If this is simply to address a temporary financial hardship, then
maybe what we also want to do is ensure the individuals who are sacrificing
their own personal pensions, because government is not putting forward another
option for them to address the financial hardships that are coming out of COVID,
then at the very least we can encourage and facilitate a mechanism for them to
replace those funds so their financial futures are held sacrosanct.
Mr. Speaker, I've asked a number of times who is going
to be eligible to avail of this unlocking of the pensions? When I say who,
perhaps I was looking more for: Can you give me a sense of the number of
individuals who will be able to access this? What I got instead was the Pension
Benefits Act regulates over 180
pension plans. There are active plan members and there are 375 locked-in
retirement accounts and 225 locked-in retirement income funds.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we don't know the number of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with these funds, nor do we know the dollar
value of funds held by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, nor do we have any
sense of who would actually fall under the criteria we have laid out in defining
hardship.
Mr. Speaker, the best I know for who would be addressed
in this is an indication I got from an email and an article saying that twice as
many people or double the number of people this year than last year have
requested information about this. I don't know if these people are at all
eligible, I don't know if these people were interested in availing of it and I
don't know if these individuals even have these pension plans. They just want to
know if they can unlock a pension.
My understanding from the news articles and the email I
have received was the number has doubled. No one has been able to tell me what
doubled means. Does it mean they went from one request last year to two requests
this year? Did it go from 3,000 requests last year to 6,000 requests this year?
Surely, I think if there were 6,000 requests, someone might have been a little
more inundated and been able to provide me with a little bit more information.
But right now, it seems that we are simply looking at decision-based evidence
making and not the reverse.
We have no idea who is going to be able to avail of
this, nor do we know if the people who are intending to avail of this are going
to be able to avail of this. There are much better things that we could have
done to help the people who are hurting right now than to have us addressing
unlocking pension legislation for an undetermined number of individuals for an
indeterminate amount of money. We are misguided in sitting here today and saying
this is going to alleviate financial hardships brought to us by COVID, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, if I could go on for – oh, another 10
minutes. I note that when we talk about income in our definition – in section
44.1(3)(a) I will note that it says if “the person's expected total income for
the one year period following the date on which the person seeks to make the
withdrawal is not more than 66.66% of the YMPE for the year in which the person
seeks to make the withdrawal ….”
What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is essentially creating
a clause that says if you don't think that you're going to make as much money
next year as you did last year, and that much money is going to be below
two-thirds of the year's maximum pensionable earnings, then you can maybe access
these funds. I am unsure of how we are going to get proof that someone's future
earnings are going to be at two-thirds of what the year's maximum pensionable
earnings are. That doesn't even make sense to me.
If we were going to try to prove financial hardship,
wouldn't you base it on this year's earnings compared to last year's earnings?
Wouldn't you have some expectation of an ability to prove that you are not
making the income that will allow you to unlock your pension?
At this point in this wording, an individual could
easily have been making $200,000 a year at any type of project, and then choose
to go into further education; perhaps they would like to do a graduate degree in
something. So they, according to this legislation as it's written right now,
could leave their job knowing full well that they were earning nothing next year
because they were going to school full-time and be able to unlock their pension
to do that with no more evidence beyond: I'm going to make less money. How is
that conceivable? How is someone able to do that? That is not financial
hardship. That, in fact, is far from financial hardship.
This writing of this amendment does not address the
needs of the individuals whom we are trying to leave the hardship from. Mr.
Speaker, off the hop we haven't conceived of this legislation and written the
legislation in a manner in which it will do the things we want it to do. That
tells me that it is not an appropriate piece of legislation.
Here's another concern I have with this and I'm sure
we'll go into Committee and be able to discuss this at great length. I have
found that one of the things that we have not included is: Has there been a
maximum amount of pension that an individual can take over the course of several
years? We have a maximum amount for a particular year, but over the course of
multiple years will an individual be able to completely deplete their pension
funds? There's no mechanism to say yes or no.
Mr. Speaker, there's another unfortunate effect that
may happen as a result of this. I'm sure it's an unintended consequence but I'm
sure those who have turned their mind to thinking about this issue in a much
more comprehensive way, an impactful way, have thought about the possibility
that an individual who is currently in a group pension plan – much like our
pension plan, much like the public sector Pooled Pension Fund, much like
Provident10. If these individuals for some reason have to leave their job – and
here's something that's very important, because if we see public sector layoffs
as a result of the upcoming budget or as a result of the economic recovery task
force's suggestions that we cut our public service, what will then happen is
many of those individuals will be able to take their pension fund, roll it into
a locked-in pension fund and then slowly deplete their pension away.
What will we do then when these individuals have no
pensions? Has anyone given any thought to the negative impact on the Pooled
Pension Fund? Right now, we are paying $300 million per year – and, actually,
it's a little bit more than that – in an attempt to make the Pooled Pension Fund
whole. We owe an enormous amount in unfunded liabilities as a result of that
poor planning and poor pension management that I had mentioned at the beginning
of this discussion. We are still trying to offset those things.
By unlocking these pensions without having the
forethought of what could be the implications of individuals being laid off – or
individuals choosing to say I'm not going to work anymore, lay me off, or I'm
going to quit my job – and being able to take their money out of a group pension
plan, thereby jeopardizing the health of that group pension plan, and then move
it into a locked-in income fund where then they could use, the future earnings
have dropped to be able to unlock that, that hasn't been addressed anywhere
here. I see that is a gross oversight on the part of this legislation, to not be
able to address what, I hope, is an unintended consequence of the legislation
that we are currently discussing.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot – I cannot – in good faith pass a
piece of legislation that has such gapping holes in it, that could potentially
jeopardize individuals' retirement incomes, but also the health of the public
sector pension plan because, as you may note, one of the bullets in our briefing
noted that there are over 46,000 active plan members. That group plan – well, is
it fair if we jeopardize the 46,000 active plan members by allowing some
individuals to withdraw from these plans?
Again, we need to have a comprehensive discussion about
the implications of this legislation before we go racing forward saying: We're
going to fix all your COVID hardships by unlocking this pension plan. Sir, we
will not. That is not what will happen as a result of this. We do not know who
is going to be able to unlock their plan, we don't know how many, we don't know
how much and we don't know when. There are far better ways to address the
immediate needs of the individuals of Newfoundland and Labrador who are
experiencing financial hardship as a result of COVID-19 than asking them to
jeopardize their financial future in their retirement and unlocking this
legislation. There are much better mechanisms that our government can put in
place in the tool box that is as yet unopened.
We could do this to help people out of this, to ensure
that they are able to pay their mortgages, they are able to get access to the
health care that they need, they are able to take care of them because they have
a disability and they are able to manage their mortgage payments because they've
gotten some relief from their mortgage. There are so many better ways to do what
this House is attempting to do right now than to jeopardize financial futures of
individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting this legislation.
I will be asking quite an extensive number of questions during Committee to
ensure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know exactly what is
happening with this pension legislation and the fact that the New Democratic
caucus has tried to provide numerous alternatives to help them alleviate their
financial hardship that go well beyond unlocking pensions.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.
MR.
PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a pleasure to speak on Bill 54. I would note that
our caucus is in favour of the unlocking of these pensions. Respectful of
Standing Order 48, I just want to share one thing before I get into the
unlocking, and it has relevance in Standing Order 48.
I attended many Santa Claus parades in the District of
Bonavista recently. Like the unlocking of pensions, the Santa Claus parade lifts
people's spirits and gives them some hope. One parade I witnessed in Trinity Bay
North, there were two young children watching the parade. It was Mason and Piper
and they were jumping up and down with excitement as the parade was inching
closer, but not only did they have excitement, and with the constant reminders
of their dad to move back from the road – the excitement I could see in the
faces in the fire trucks, in the vehicles that had the floats and the extensive
amount of work that went in. This happens all the time because we are thinking
about the people in our community.
The unlocking of these pensions is nothing different.
We are thinking of the people in our community who may be encountering hardship
to unlock them.
I reached out to several constituents in my district
when I knew that I may have the opportunity to speak on that. I reached out to
Roger Ball and his wife Sally. They concur that in these unprecedented times
there are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who may be able to avail of this
pension. If they are able to avail of the pension, they ought to have the choice
to do so.
Josh Clarke, another very astute political mind in the
District of Bonavista and hails from Bonavista, would state and say the same
thing.
But I want to tell you, in a few minutes, about a
gentleman in Little Catalina who's name is Jim Dalton. Jim is 68 years old and
he has a LIF; he has money locked-in. He wouldn't mind me giving the full
disclosure of his matters for the benefit of this House as we ponder the
unlocking of funds. I will get to that shortly, but that's probably one that you
would be anxious, and I would love to hear what your opinion is after hearing
Jim Dalton's situation and his wife Gertie.
Finally, just to reference a 89-year-old friend of
mine; 89-years-young friend of mine, Nancy Vaughan, doesn't have her mind made
up yet on the unlocking of pensions, but I'm hoping after today's debate she
will see the merits in unlocking the pension.
Before I delve into some issues, and not being
redundant, like Standing Order 48 states, and not to repeat what has been said,
one thing I do want to commend is the Member for Ferryland who has talked about
this issue on numerous occasions. I tip my hat to the Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
PARDY:
Not
only has he championed this legislation coming forth from the House of Assembly
floor, but he's done it in caucus numerous times. I applaud his initiative and
his passion for doing so.
Two things, two pertinent observations to make:
Government represents the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and we create
legislation that improves the livelihood of the residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador. That's our mantra. That's our goal.
Several of the people I've asked in the last 18 months
what legislation have we brought forth that would change or positively impact
their livelihoods or their lives? Sadly, there's not a lot this House has passed
that would improve the livelihoods of the residents of whom I spoke with. This
is one.
There are, I would say to you, 100 or more residents
who would be interested in looking into the unlocking of pensions in the
District of Bonavista. Jim Dalton is one that will not be able to unlock his,
but I'll share his story in a short time.
A second thing for our consideration would be the
moment that government makes a decision that we know better than the residents
of the District of Bonavista or other residents of Newfoundland and Labrador;
that is misguided.
The previous Member spoke about misguided. I would say
to you, if you think you know better than the Jim Daltons, the Josh Clarkes and
the Roger Balls; that is misguided. It is their money and I would say when we
pass this legislation today, we're putting the ball right back in their court
because we believe they have the intellect and the ability to be able to decide
what's best for them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
PARDY:
If
it's not, I have faith that they will not pull it out. That I would look into.
We're looking at a pension act here, 1997. It's 23
years, I'm assuming, since the last amendment – 23 years. We know that the big
five pensions are not included. That was stated earlier. If you're a member of
the NLTA, the Nurses' Union, NAPE, CUPE, it doesn't apply. Allied workers, it's
not for you. You will have an active pension.
The people that transferred into these three
classifications of pensions – the minister had stated there were 894 of them, I
think, she may have mentioned – just let me name a couple out to you and see
where your mind goes when you hear the names of some of these funds: Investors
Group Securities, Mackenzie Retirement Savings, Primerica Concert RSP, BMO
Mutual Funds, BMO Nesbitt Burns Group, the Trust Company of Bank of Montreal.
There are 894 of these that are governed by very, very large corporations.
The Roger Balls of the world would say that these
corporations would love for you to keep your money in there as long as possible.
Conceivably, he may be right. The longer you have the money in there, the more
they administrate it, the more it contributes to their bottom line which is,
often, companies worth billions of dollars. At the same time, we have residents
in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador or in the District of Bonavista who
wish to access their money.
I'll avoid duplication as best I can. We said that
we're forging ahead into uncharted territory. I've been in this House for 18
months. There's no forging in uncharted territory when it comes to legislation.
I would say to you that we are often the 10th province to enact legislation that
might be meaningful for our people because we want it tried, balanced and tested
in other jurisdictions before it comes to Newfoundland and Labrador.
This particular legislation that's on the books here is
not something that this government has created out of the blue; they have
patterned and adapted the legislation from three other jurisdictions who have
had it for a decade or more. It's been proven from those other jurisdictions
that there is no downside to unlocking these pensions. Whether you be in
Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia, it's tried and tested. Check that off. We're not
forging ahead with something that's misguided or we're really on a wish and a
prayer going forward. It has proven the test of time. It is not misguided.
Three others I spoke with – and I'll wrap up. I spoke
to a 35-year senior advisor at a bank. She would like to pass on to you 39 other
MHAs: Don't miss the opportunity to unlock the pensions. She is dealing, in her
clientele, with people who can access the money they've got locked in these
types of funds. She has full faith in those people who would like to unlock the
funds because she believes in them having the ability to be able to make what
decision is right for them – so 35 years.
Before I get to the Jim Dalton situation, I want to
share with you an email that was sent to the Minister of Digital Government and
Service NL. I'm sure she's had many. This one comes from the West Coast, in my
colleague's District of Stephenville - Port au Port. I read, quote: I notice
that the amount of withdrawal may be 25 per cent, but in researching other
jurisdictions I've seen mostly 50. Most people like me don't have six figures
locked in. Most have worked for a temporary amount of time and don't have a lot
to withdraw from.
Again, key point: It's our money. We left our families
to provide services to the government. Not one cent belongs to anyone else but
us. For people to be against it: Don't take it out if you don't want to, simple.
This is our own money. People are already at their wit's end with ever-changing,
more stringent rules of government. I speak out online to many people who are in
agreement with me. What's it to government for us to take out our money?
I firmly believe and I know that our caucus is in
favour of it. Let me share with you the Jim Dalton story. Jim Dalton and his
wife, Gertie, are watching now from Little Catalina, probably sitting down with
their cup of tea and watching. He's given me the ability to give you full
disclosure of his situation. For the naysayers of this legislation he would say
this legislation does not go far enough. Here is his situation: He has $53,000
in a life income fund, a LIF. He is at 68 years of age. His father passed away
at 73 years of age. My understanding, from talking to Jim, is a massive heart
attack, unfortunately.
Jim is 68. The most he can draw out from his LIF
because of regulations and lack of legislation is $2,000 a year. Jim can draw
out $2,000 a year. When he reaches that age of 73 that I referenced, where
unfortunately his dad passed away, Jim will have between $46,000 and $48,000
left in a LIF, only being able to draw out $2,000 a year. Jim will draw out his
last instalment when he is 93 years of age. I would say to you if that's not an
injustice for anybody to know that these companies that I read out – government,
through lack of legislation, is preventing Jim from drawing his money out, then
I think that is unjust.
Let me say this: It may not be in this legislation but
I would like to see that when we go forward, people like Jim Dalton will be able
to access his money while he's alive and well. The last point I make, if Jim
passes away – I probably shouldn't go there because now probably his tea is
shaking. But if he did make it past 73 and just say that Jim was living by
himself, alone, government will tax the remaining amount that he's got in that
LIF and take 48.6 per cent of the money from Jim.
Automatically, you can draw it out when you're ready to
die; you can pull it out then because that's what our legislation states. If you
pull it out and you estate it to somebody other than your spouse, 48.6 per cent
goes to us, the creators of the legislation. One would say Jim can conceivably
draw that money out and enhance his lifestyle, that he'll live to be 126 years
old, but we're not going to allow him to access that money.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to be able
to speak in favour of unlocking pensions.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MR.
J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The adage goes that a drowning person will clutch at
any straw. I've heard the statements: It's their money; that people know better,
that government doesn't know better.
Certainly I'll agree with that; however, if we believe
that why have any restrictions at all? Why put anything around the legislation
other than if you want to withdraw from your LIRA, LIF or whatever, it's your
choice, period? Why put anything around it, hardship, otherwise? It's your
money, take it out, withdraw from it as you would from any bank account. If
that's what we believe, why have any restrictions at all?
The fact is we do have restrictions around pensions,
around investment for a very good reason. It's about making sure that people
have something to look after themselves down the road. So we do have
restrictions. Why draw the line where we draw it? Why not just leave it open to
people? We know why.
Look, I can tell you it's easy for me to speak to this
legislation in my position, financially secure, but I can tell you there were
times in my career when given the option to unlock my pension, I would've in a
heartbeat. That close. I know what it was to face that down. I have vivid
memories of it.
I can tell you that, as a teacher and then later with
the NLTA, pensions occupied my entire career. The question of fixing the pension
plan.
Now, as a young teacher, and I would say this goes for
many people, I don't if I knew if a pension was fit to eat when I was young.
I've known people who wanted to opt out of it, who've opted out of their medical
coverage because I guess they figured we're not getting sick. Only to find out,
yeah, long-term disability; all of a sudden, the consequences come home to
roost.
So here it's very much about: There are reasons why we
have regulations around locked-in funds. I can tell you when this came up, I did
an awful lot of digging. I asked people who I worked on pensions with who have
no interest in making money out of a pension plan, but they're knowledgeable of
pensions. To a fault, everyone, including people in credit counselling, said
this is a bad idea. These are people who deal with credit counselling.
I guess here's the thing, it's interesting, one person
who deals with public pensions noted that as soon as the announcement came out
about this, there were calls from several financial advisors: So when is it
possible for the people in the plan to transfer into a LIRA so we can transfer
into a locked-in (inaudible)? They're already thinking two steps ahead, because
you're right, you can't unlock, whether it's the teachers' plan or the public,
but I do know that there are people who are quite happy to transfer out because
they believe they can make a lot more money at it.
The other part of this is I do see this as another
example of downloading onto individuals. One of the biggest struggles in the
last couple of decades has been the pressure to move from defined benefit plans
to defined contribution plans, because people are able to make the best
decisions about their pension plans. It's nothing to do with that. Moving from
defined benefit to defined contribution plans is all about putting the risk on
the individual. That's why governments, companies, corporations are so eager to
divest themselves of them. I see this as another such example.
Here's the simple thing: If this legislation is about
easing the hardship – and this is something I would support – why don't we
exempt the amount of money that is withdrawn? Part of this legislation, the
amount of money that is unlocked, why not exempt from provincial income tax? So
that the person has that ability, then, to put the money that they unlocked,
more of it, onto to deal with this situation, because as I understand it, once
it's unlocked, they pay taxes on it. Let's have government put its money where
its mouth is.
Of course, banks, too, would be very happy with this. I
can tell you that in my own experience in helping clients who come to St.
Vincent de Paul, when the banks were looking for money, where we would send
people was not to the bank to negotiate a better loan, we would send them to
credit counselling, in this case, only to offer them protection from the
creditors.
The issue I fear, too, with this is that we're kicking
the problem down the road. We are. I don't know about anyone else in this House,
but I can tell you that the number of people who I've encountered who are
retired and living on fixed incomes and are already finding it a struggle to
make ends meet, to pay for rent, food, heat and light, keep a car, you name it.
While I totally understand, yes, it is people's money,
they've put it away for that retirement, I still think we need to find other
ways here that will also give people the respite they need without having them
to dip into their funds as the last resort.
Does a government know better than an individual? Not
necessarily, but I would argue that with any pension plan, the rules that we
have around it, whether it's a defined-benefit plan, a jointly owned pension
plan, you name it, there's a reason why the rules are there. Sometimes it's not
about protecting the investment of people – although that would be it too – it's
also to protect the individual.
As one advisor told me, this is a cute way, in some
ways, for government to also receive taxes on a benefit it would not otherwise
have access to. Interesting observation. How do we protect spouses who may be
coerced into signing or unlocking? What are the ramifications for divorced
couples and dependant children?
While I understand where this is coming from, and it's
not my intention to increase hardship on individuals; God knows I've been there,
but I do believe that we need to find other measures to help. If it's a
short-term problem – many cases it is – how do we help that individual now so we
protect them and we protect their future? That's what this comes down to.
It's interesting, when my daughter had her first child
and she came to us wondering if we would babysit, share the responsibilities, I
made one condition: We'll babysit as long as you buy back your pension, your
maternity leave for pensionable service. Her response to me was: Well, Dad,
that's pretty expensive. I said: Not as expensive as daycare.
That was the deal, because at that age, I can tell you
that retirement, if we're even thinking about it at all, is 20, 30, 40 years
down the road. It's something I think we need to make sure that retirement is
looked after and that a person who may be disabled, is looked after. That's
where my caution comes from and why I have trouble supporting it as it's written
right now.
With that, Mr. Speaker, thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's great to have an opportunity to speak here today
in this hon. House.
Mr. Speaker, interesting debate thus far. I will be
supporting the legislation. I'll be doing so because I certainly know of
individuals, and I'm sure we've all heard from people, that have been hit hard
by the pandemic, that have been hit hard by what's happening in the oil and gas
industry, whether that be here in Newfoundland and Labrador or whether it be
those who are working perhaps in Alberta and so on. I don't want to see any
constituent of mine lose their home if there's a way that we can assist them so
that's not going to happen. That would be my main reason for supporting this
bill.
Now, with that said, Mr. Speaker, do I have concerns
about certain parts of this? I absolutely do, I do have concerns. I think one of
the issues, Mr. Speaker, is this wasn't communicated very well to the public. I
understand it's a complex issue, I absolutely get that, but I think we could
have been, perhaps, a bit clearer right from the get-go, just to simply make the
point to put people's minds at ease so they understood, to simply say, as the
minister said when she started off, if you are a part of a pension plan, you are
actively working and paying into a plan, this does not apply to you. If you are
actively collecting from a plan, this does not apply to you and to understand
that this doesn't apply to federal government and provincial government
employees and so on, in order to remove that concern that may be there.
I've heard from people who are concerned as well that
somehow a bunch of people are going to take the money out of a pension fund and
then others are going to be left with unfunded liabilities and they're
concerned: What happens when I retire? That's not the case. That's not what's
going to happen. I understand that, but I think a lot of people in the general
public don't understand that. So I'm comfortable with that piece.
I listened to my colleagues with the Third Party. I
understand what the leader is talking about. She's talking about other things we
could be doing. While I do get her point, I would point out that if we're going
to talk about government providing grants to everybody who's experiencing any
kind of financial hardship, b'y that could be an awful long list. Where's the
money coming from, from the provincial government? We're up to our neck in hock
now as a province as it is. Every dollar that this government spends is actually
borrowed money, as we all know, that we are getting from lenders. We were left
to believe – the government told us that at one point it was even questionable
whether we were even going to get any money. That's the situation we're in as a
province.
To suggest that there's money here in the province to
provide grants or even loans without interest, because if we provided a loan
without interest, guess what? We're paying the interest. The money we're
loaning, we're paying the interest. When I say we, I'm talking about the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador. I understand where she's going, to some degree. If
we were flushed with cash perhaps it's a discussion we could have, but we're not
flushed with cash.
As far as a guaranteed income and so on, that is a
discussion that needs to happen in the province. No doubt. I think we have a
committee, if I'm not mistaken, put in place to look at those issues around
guaranteed income and what that would look like. I'm not against that
discussion, but let's face it, that's not going to happen. If I'm a person now
who's at risk of losing my home, I don't think I would want to be pinning my
hopes on whatever work is going to come out of this committee on guaranteed
income because the way things move in government, it could be two years from now
before we see any fruits of that labour. If we see any change at all.
While I understand her concerns – I share some of her
concerns – I don't think that the options that she put out there are necessarily
doable and realistic options, given where we are as a province.
It brings back to the point of this piece of
legislation. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I support it from the perspective of
someone who is at risk of losing their home. I would support it from the
perspective of if someone had some serious medical issues and medical bills and
so on, albeit we do have MCP here in the province and so on. Thank God we're not
like our neighbours to the south. We do have those coverages here, but if there
was something that fit into that category – it was health related and so on – I
could buy into that as well.
Where I am challenged though, Mr. Speaker, I am
challenged with this whole idea of if you're making less than $39,000 a year – I
think was the figure that was put out there – and the idea that you can keep
drawing year over year over year, I guess, until the plan is depleted. I know
that the Leader of the Third Party indicated there's nothing to actually tell us
if that's the case. I'm assuming, which I shouldn't be, that will be a question,
perhaps, for Committee of the Whole. It basically says annually you can make a
withdrawal. The way it's written, I would assume you could keep withdrawing year
over year over year until it's all gone.
I do agree, it's people's own money; they can make
their own choices. Who is government to tell them what to do? It's really none
of the government's business, so to speak, some people might say. I think we
must remember that it does come back, potentially, on the taxpayer in the end,
because if somebody has a decent retirement plan and a pension and so on, when
we talk about social programs, we're talking about government drug cards; we're
talking about grants available through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing,
whether it be home repair or different grants like that.
There are a number of government programs that are tied
to income and there are a lot of people who, right now, because they have their
own pension funds on top of their OAS, CPP and so on, they wouldn't qualify for
those programs. They pay their own way, so to speak, but if you take a whole
bunch of people and you allow them to deplete their pension funds, theoretically
they become a cost to the taxpayer down the road that they would not have been,
had they have had the income coming in.
There is an actual real cost to the public, so to
speak. How much that would be would obviously be based on how many people
availed of this and if they withdraw all their money or a portion of their
money. There is a whole bunch of factors, of course. That's the part that kind
of bothers me a bit.
I'm also bothered by the fact that there seems to be no
commitment in this legislation, for example, to say that if you're availing of
this for hardship cases – I'm not seeing anything there that ties that to any
kind of credit counselling services. In theory, if you owed a bunch of money,
say, to the bank because of your house or whatever, but you have a whole bunch
of bills, whether they be mortgage or credit card bills or whatever the case
might be, then conceivably you take the money out to pay off this, to save your
home. Six months after the fact, or a year after, you're back to square one and
now you're doing it again and again.
There's no doubt, I'm sure all Members have – I know my
office has referred an awful lot of people down to Credit Counselling Services
of Newfoundland and Labrador, Al Antle and them. We have a pathway down there
I'm sure. They offer a fantastic service; they've helped an awful lot of people.
There are a lot of people who don't realize what can be done in terms of
consolidation of bills and loans and working with the creditors to actually
eliminate – they know the legislation, they know how to negotiate and eliminate
a lot of interest that they would be paying.
Personally, I would like to see if there was something
in here to say that part of the whole application process to start unlocking
money to do this stuff was that there would be a requirement to meet with a
credit counsellor to ensure that this is not going to be an annual event, that
this is indeed a one-time event. There's nothing there in the legislation, I
don't think. Perhaps it could be in the regulations as a possibility, but that's
not there. I do have a bit of a concern about that, Mr. Speaker.
I guess I'll go back to where I started. Even though I
do have those concerns and misgivings, I'm hoping some of it might get answered
and addressed in Committee of the Whole. But, as I said, I'm going to support
it, putting out those cautionary notes. I'm going to support it based on the
fact that I certainly would not want – if there's an opportunity for a
constituent of mine, or anybody for that matter, that's about to lose their
home, then if there's a way that we can prevent that from happening, I would
support that. I think it's a good thing to do.
The other thing which has been mentioned by my
colleague from Bonavista, I believe, is that we're not reinventing the wheel.
This is being done in other provinces across the country. This is not like the
Minister of Digital NL and a few of her colleagues got together and just started
throwing ideas at the wall and said let's create this legislation and do this
and do that. I mean this is being done in other provinces; it's tried, it's
tested and it's true. I do get some comfort in that.
I don't think there's going to be a whole load of
people that are going to want – because let's face it; they are talking about
their own retirements and their family. I would hope and think that there's not
going to be a whole bunch of people, just because we put this in place, who are
going to say: I think I'm going to just find some way to take out all this money
now and blow it on travel or whatever.
Now, is that to say that there won't be anyone who
would do that? We all know there are people that make bad decisions. You'll
never stop that no matter what you do. There's no guarantee, there's no 100 per
cent, but I would think that most reasonable people would only utilize this if
they absolutely needed it. I think at the end of the day we have to have a
little faith in people in general, that they're going to do the right thing. As
has been said, it is indeed their money which can't be lost on us as well.
With that said, I'll conclude my thoughts. I'll
probably have a couple of questions when we get to Committee of the Whole,
unless, of course, they already are asked by other Members. I'm not going to
repeat the questions but, like I said, a couple of concerns I do have around the
whole idea of the credit counselling piece.
One other point when we talk about this threshold of
less than $39,000. From what I can gather, that's tied to an individual – if the
minister is listening. So somebody can say: Yeah, I'm below this threshold of
$39,000 and so I'm considered, under the auspices of this legislation, low
income. But your spouse could be making $200,000, so are you really?
There should be some requirement, perhaps, to look at
household income as well because, again, somebody could just choose to take the
money out when they really don't need to take the money out and they're not
financially destitute, they're not low income. Just because their particular
income is at this level, the spouse's income could be a lot higher and they
wouldn't even need it. There are going to be scenarios like that where there
could be unintended consequences of how this money gets used. That was just
another one that had come to mind.
I think when we look at this and you look at some of
the little pitfalls that can happen and concerns, I have to look at the overall
bigger picture of who is this helping. When I think about that I keep thinking
about some of the people – and the conversations I've had with people in my
district and other parts of the province – who lost their job in the oil and
gas, either here in the province or away in Alberta and these places, who are
hurting big time and are on the verge of losing it all. I support it from that
perspective to help those people, recognizing that there are some issues here
that have been pointed out by the Third Party. I pointed out a couple as well
that I do have concerns about.
Hopefully they can be addressed through regulations.
Whether they are or they aren't, like all legislation in this House of Assembly,
you don't necessarily agree with every single piece of it, but you certainly put
your concerns out there in Hansard for
the record. By the same token, you may still support the overall intent of the
bill because the good outweighs the few minor concerns you might have. That will
be the case here and I will be supporting the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Lake Melville.
MR.
TRIMPER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, I need to thank the good constituents of
the District of Lake Melville for the opportunity to even be here and speak to
such an important bill. Speaking strictly in second reading to the intent and
rationale of the bill is where I want to go for my next few minutes.
I'm reflecting back now on the last five years since I
was first elected. I'm thinking of the number of individuals who have approached
me, my office and talked about this legislation and whether or not it would be
possible to join so many other jurisdictions in our country which allow this
unlocking. In that regard, it's very good to see this.
I'll be very transparent; it's interesting that in the
last few days I've often wondered are there more people out there who would like
access to these LIRA and LIF accounts? Or is it that I'm only hearing from those
who are curious and so many others who would like that access have just not
bothered because it's locked in?
It's been interesting in the last few days. I
certainly, through the weekend, started several conversations with people who
had concerns about what's been going on in the House of Assembly, what brought
us to today and some very interesting conversations with people back and forth.
There's no question that there are many people who would like to have immediate
access. It's important that we all be here today to see what we can do to
provide that.
In particular, I did want to draw reference to Mr.
Terry Hewlin. He's an individual we've heard a little bit about through the
press. I've been keeping him posted through the last few days, including sitting
here on the floor, and reassuring him that we're here to do what needs to be
done to get this important legislation passed.
The other thing I did, Mr. Speaker, is I reached out to
the financial industry. I actually had a meeting with a representative last
week, when I became aware of the bill and what was happening, and was provided
some interesting information that I'd like to share here to this House of
Assembly. Through the industry that I've been able to speak to, it's fascinating
that they've actually been lobbying government for these changes for several
years. They shared with me some of their asks and that's what I'd like to read
into the record, so that we can just see what has been asked for, going back,
I'd say, at least three years, perhaps longer.
I'm just going to go through a couple of the items.
These are not necessarily in any particular order but let me just read them into
the record. These are some of the things that industry has been asking of
government. Could they allow a 50 per cent unlocking option? Having a one-time
unlocking option allows annuitants to transfer a portion of their locked-in
accounts to an RSP or a RIF. This option is available federally and, as I said,
in other provinces.
Number two: Could we remove the requirement to convert
a LIF to a life annuity at age 80? Having this requirement would mean that the
annuitant has to lock up their money in an annuity product. All other provinces
and the federal government no longer have a requirement to convert this to a
life annuity.
Number three: This item is small-balance amounts. Some
locked-in plans are too small to provide the annuitant with adequate retirement
income. Unlocking and then consolidating locked-in plans with existing RSPs and
RIFs makes it easier for the annuitant to manage their money, while also cutting
down on transaction costs over time.
Number four and this is one we've talked about here a
lot, including the minister in her opening remarks: That of financial hardship
exception. Up until this time, under current Newfoundland and Labrador
legislation, locked-in funds essentially have remained inaccessible during times
of financial hardship, and these have certainly occurred prior to this pandemic.
Having an exception during times of financial hardship enables annuitants to
access money when they need it most.
Number five: Would it be possible to remove the minimum
age to convert a LIRA to a LIF? Federally and in select provinces, such as
Manitoba, New Brunswick and Quebec, you can convert a LIF from a LIRA at any
age, similar to how RIFs can be converted from RSPs at any age. Provincially and
federally, most provinces still maintain a minimum age for LRIFs at either 50 or
55 while moving the age minimum to LIF conversion.
Finally, the other ask that industry has been looking
at for some time is: Could there be an unlocking feature for non-residents? It
seems that this is coming based on the minister's remarks. The federal
government – and there are certain provinces – have started to adopt a
non-resident exception. This exception enables individuals who become a
non-resident in Canada after two years to unlock their funds to transfer to an
RSP or a RIF or for withdrawal.
It's interesting, a reflection of the industry's lobby
efforts and what they've been seeking out. I appreciate that there was a
consultation. Certainly, some of the input that I received from representatives
indicated some frustration that they felt they hadn't been adequately consulted,
nevertheless, were pleased to see that the government was moving on making these
changes.
Perhaps the other area that I'd like to talk about, Mr.
Speaker, lies in one of the aspects of what these accounts are intended to do
and who are the beneficiaries. I'm thinking about, for example, the office
responsible for the Status of Women and issues around pandemic, mental health
and stress and so on. I wanted to read into the record just some of the
background that's out there. It wasn't difficult to find this information
because it's very much very dominant on the minds of many.
I'm just going to introduce some of this text. A lot of
it comes from the #MeToo movement. The economic crisis caused by the COVID-19
pandemic has created untenable situations for survivors of sexual assault and
domestic violence, making it more likely for them to return to abusers so they
can stay afloat. A new report – and this is a report out by the #MeToo movement
– reveals how intersections of the coronavirus and racism are only magnifying
the economic strain on survivors of sexual and intimate partner violence.
Why I'm bringing this into the record for my colleagues
in the House of Assembly is that consent will be required for someone to
essentially unlock their LIRA or their LIF. So the question is: Is the consent
being provided on a voluntary basis or is it under some type of coercion? This
report that I'm citing found that female survivors who lack financial resources
during the pandemic are more likely to return to their abusive partner.
A woman who reported a high likelihood of returning to
her abuser had access to an average of only $3,700. A survivor who reported no
likelihood of returning to her abuser had roughly $8,300. There seems to be some
level of threshold, at least based on this report, on this data, that partners
who don't have many financial resources feel trapped and perhaps obligated to
continue to co-operate in a very difficult situation.
Almost twice as many survivors of colour experienced
financial hardship during COVID-19 compared to white survivors. According to the
report, survivors of colour had sole access to a little over $1,500; in
contrast, white women survivors had a little over $9,000 at their disposal.
Women of colour are more likely then to return to the abusers due to lack of
financial resources.
That's just a little indication of some of the concern
that's out there. I look forward to getting into Committee, Mr. Speaker, because
I'm wondering if there's some way that we can strengthen some direction from
this Legislature that could protect those people who may be at risk.
I finally wanted to introduce a little bit of a thought
just on this idea of financial hardship. This definition, I found it on the
Internet and it was sort of in the context of the industry itself. It says that
financial hardship is when you encounter difficulty in paying the repayments on
your loans and debts when they are due. It's generally attributed to two kinds
of situations: Either you could afford the loan when you obtained it, but
there's been a change of circumstance, or you could not afford to repay the loan
when it was originally obtained. Many other circumstances that the minister has
alluded to, such as medical, that could also, of course, cause this hardship
definition to be a reality for many people.
I would refer to, as my colleague from Mount Pearl -
Southlands just indicated about, some of the counselling services that are out
there, extremely important, and there's also a great deal of information on the
COVID-19 website just dealing with overcoming financial hardship.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity
and I look forward to Committee.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll only spend a minute here just to put it on the
record that I will be supporting this bill here today. This has been an issue
that has been brought to my attention a number of years ago for a lot of people.
I know the minister is going to be asked in Committee
later about the City of Corner Brook employees because for a lot of them the
most they can get out is 6 per cent of their pension funds. I know one person
who came to me, he had retired, he had to go out and get a loan to do the
shingles on his roof because he wasn't getting enough out of this fund, which
has plenty of money. The people that I spoke to, I don't think any of them were
asking: Let's take it all, let's go spend it all now. Most of the people I spoke
to wanted an increase.
When you go through the unlocking facilitate for the
people who are going to unlock it for low income, for medical expenses; we hear
in this House on numerous occasions that a lot of people here have medical
expenses and finds it tough. Here's an example for people who have this
locked-in fund.
We look at disabilities-related expenses, and I know
that was brought up to the minister many times also about people with
disabilities and the hardship and some do have this LIRA fund. It's frustrating
when you have a disability and you can't get at the funds that you know are
there to help you have a better quality of life. It's very frustrating. I look
forward to that, to help out a lot of people with disabilities.
Mortgage payments, we heard in this House on numerous
occasions in the last session how many people were going to lose their houses
because of mortgage payments, and some of them do have the locked-in fund.
There are a lot of regulations that need to go into
this, but when you look at the basic of the people that the government is trying
to help – and I know a lot of them – you have to try to support it. I'll just
say to the minister, no matter what's brought here in this House, there are
always going to be ways that people say: Well, how about me? Me, too, and
others. Once you bring in something, we could always make changes to it; we
could always add to it; we could always take away from it, but we need something
to start with. I just wanted to commend the minister for bringing it in and
starting the discussion here in this House.
I agree with some of the Members earlier who mentioned
that the education of what we're planning on doing wasn't put out there as well.
Partly that's government, but us, as Members, also, we didn't explain what we
were asking for also. This is, collectively, 40 of us here in this House that
need to educate the people in our areas and our districts. This is no knock on
government employees or the minister; this is a knock on ourselves, too. We need
to explain what we're trying to do.
Another reason for unlocking this is the ability to pay
for a first month's rent to start, and for a security deposit. How can anybody –
even though we're concerned about the bigger issue if you start unlocking other
pensions – say that you need rent and you have $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 locked
in that you can't touch until you're 55, and then you only get a certain
percentage and you have no place to live? It's frustrating for people. I know a
lot of people that I've been dealing with that are so frustrated.
I heard a few of my colleagues mention people outside
of Canada the last three or four years have this money here – can't get at it.
Their money; can't touch it. They may never come back here again; have a life
somewhere else outside, but can't get at it. They would love to because they
won't be back and this fund is sitting there and helping them start somewhere
else in Canada, in the world.
I noticed also – and to say this to the government –
that there were several provinces and the federal government that came through
with this legislation. It was noted in the briefing that we had from the
minister and her staff that there was no negative feedback from it, so we have
to learn. We hear in this House on many occasions that we need to do a scan
across Canada to see how things are going. The scan the minister and the staff
passed onto us is that the provinces that have some kind of unlocking of their
pensions, that there was no negative impact. We have to look at that also.
I won't belabour. I know I'm going to be asking the
minister in Committee about the City of Corner Brook employees. As I mentioned,
they're in CUPE. I know some of them who are retired now, receiving Old Age
Security. They have a lot of funds locked in. They only get a certain
percentage. That's going to be brought up. I know a few other people that
contacted us outside the province also. That has been discussed here, and after
two years that will be good news to a lot of those people.
I won't belabour what the other Members have said. I'm
assuming this will be passed unanimously in this House. I'll say to the minister
again that someone had to bring this forward and congratulations, you're
bringing it forward. We may be making amendments to it down the road, five or 10
years down the road, but right now we're going through a pandemic in the world
and Newfoundland and Labrador is part of that pandemic. There are people hurting
and this here will help a lot of people.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
If
the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL speaks now, she'll close the
debate.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Great, thank you all for your feedback and questions. I have a lot answers, but
I think we should go to Committee while Alexander is sleeping and we'll discuss
it at length. I look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Is
the House ready for the question?
The motion is that Bill 54 be now read a second time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 54)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a second time.
When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the
Whole House?
MR.
CROCKER:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Pensions
Benefits Act, 1997,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole presently, by leave. (Bill 54)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Digital Government
and Service NL, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole and
consider Bill 54.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Pardy):
Honourable Members, it's a pleasure to be sitting back in the Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
last session that we had here, I want to give you a grade on your involvement. A
plus is the grade. No room, for improvement; hopefully, we can match the same
expectation.
We are here to consider Bill 54, which is An Act To
Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.
A bill, “An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act,
1997.
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
I recognize the hon. Member for Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Consultations were held through engageNL. Can you give
some details about the volume and the nature of the submissions?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I believe we had 140 responses in our consultation, I'm
just triple checking. We had a range of feedback from residents. Obviously, the
feedback from residents was all in favour of unlocking, but if it didn't impact
them, they probably wouldn't have filled out the survey. Yes, more than 140
submissions.
We did receive a range of feedback from financial
institutions and unions. All the unions were against these changes. There was a
mix for the financial administrators who gave us feedback; some were for, some
were against.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Officials stated that these amendments align with other jurisdictions as much as
possible.
Are there any best practices from other jurisdictions
that are not being implemented here?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When we look across Canada each province does things –
well some of the province do things the same. The federal government has an
option for these types of accounts that are registered under the federal
government. What we're proposing today aligns almost exactly with BC and
Alberta, if not exactly.
If you look at, for example, the low income that we're
proposing, the low income category, that aligns exactly with British Columbia,
Alberta, Ontario, Nova Scotia and the federal government. But if you look at,
for example, PEI, they have no legislation around unlocking from retirement
savings accounts, which means that anyone can unlock from those retirement
savings accounts in PEI. New Brunswick allows unlocking of a one-time amount, up
to 25 per cent.
We're aligning with the majority of Canadian provinces.
I'm not aware of a best practice that we're not recommending here.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Officials stated there were no indication of negative
consequences from unlocking the pensions in other provinces. For example,
Ontario has permitted theirs since 1999 and the federal government has done this
since 2008.
Why has it taken so long to do it here?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My understanding, I guess, is this has come up a few
times over the past five to seven years. I can't say exactly why one
administration or another wouldn't have brought it forward. I know that our
department has been looking at this for about a year now. That culminated with
the consultations and then, obviously, the House coming back earlier.
We're bringing it forward now. I look forward to
additional questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
How
will these changes impact pension plans and plan administrators?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it's important to clarify that what we're
talking about here really is not related to pension plans. It's once funds have
been transferred out of a pension plan into a locked-in retirement account, and
we're talking about the rules around those locked-in retirement accounts. This
will have no impact on pension plans themselves. This should have no effect on
pension plan administrators either.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
Do
you have any indication whether financial institutions will be fully prepared to
handle the potential requests once this legislation takes effect?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As was mentioned in the legislation, we're proposing a
March 1 date for implementation. My department reached out to financial
institutions and they have indicated that they can meet that timeline, so that
will work.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
We
were told that individuals will have to apply to their financial or savings
institutions to access these funds and those institutions will be making the
decisions.
Can you provide some more detail on how that will work?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you.
For a resident of the province, if they think that this
applies to them, they can reach out to their financial institution. The
regulations, which will be launched shortly, will outline, based on what other
jurisdictions have in terms of what paperwork is required and that would be, I
guess, standard across – we'll align with other provinces as well, so it should
be what financial administrators are already using for proof.
I'm not anticipating any challenges or issues with
that, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
When is the planned date for this to come into effect?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
March 1, 2021.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
One
last question there, Mr. Chair, thank you.
What is your plan to communicate these changes to the
public and other stakeholders?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Obviously, there would be a press release if this
passes today. All the financial institutions that we know of that administer
these locked-in accounts, we'll send them a letter. Our superintendent of
pensions will lead that communications effort within the financial institution
industry. We'll mention it in social media, et cetera.
We don't have a widespread communications plan, but I
imagine that those impacted are following this and will be made aware.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
O'DRISCOLL:
When can we expect to see these regulations to go with these amendments?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
I
believe the regulations should be ready before the end of January.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
In
consideration of these funds being unavailable until March 1, would the
government consider setting up an interim fund that the individuals may be able
to access to get them to that point?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
That's an excellent idea. That would be outside of my area of responsibility. I
think we could certainly discuss that with the Minister of Finance. It's a good
suggestion, thank you, but not something that I can implement as part of this
bill.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
What I would be considering and what I would be proposing would not be a grant
of sorts. It would merely be a no-interest loan until that point. I would just
like to make that clear.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Just to add to that, what we've heard from impacted residents is that the fact
that we're discussing this, many financial institutions are holding on
foreclosing houses, et cetera. This should give impacted residents hope.
My hope is that if someone, for example, their mortgage
was foreclosing and they did have money that they could unlock, pending the
outcome of today's debate, potentially, a financial institution would hold off
on making that change knowing that this would be available to them after March
1.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome back.
Now, an A-plus grade is a hard grade. When you set a
high bar, the standard ought to be maintained.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to start a little bit easy here. Do
we know the number of people who will be able to access their locked-in plans
under this legislation?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We do not know how many account holders there are. That
is not something that financial institutions have to report to us in our
province or other jurisdictions. We did ask other provinces if they know and
many of them don't. We asked other provinces how many residents take money out
for financial hardship, based on the criteria. We did get numbers back from Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick.
Just for context – I believe this was last year – Nova
Scotia had 837 unlocking requests and New Brunswick had 960 unlocking requests.
Nova Scotia's criteria most closely align with what we are expecting, so just to
give Members some context in terms of the potential volume, based on other
jurisdictions.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let's look into that in a little bit more detail now.
Of the share of individuals who were able to access a locked-in pension plan in
Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, what proportion does that 800 and/or 900
represent?
CHAIR:
The
Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
I
can't speak because they don't know, as we don't know, the number of people who
have a locked-in account. That's not something that financial institutions
report to governments, the number of people that have those accounts. It's not a
number I'm aware of.
CHAIR:
The
hon. Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That goes to my point. I wonder why this House is being
called back, for two days now, when we don't know the number of individuals who
are even going to be able to access this.
To parse this out a little bit more, I'm trying to
determine – we don't know the number of individuals who will be able to access
this, we don't know the share of individuals in other jurisdictions –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS.
COFFIN:
Pardon me? I'm sure you were asking me questions?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
The
hon. Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi has the floor.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I'm just trying to get a sense of will this
legislation be effective in addressing the people who need the money now? It
seems as if no is the answer.
Mr. Chair, can I get a sense of the number of requests
that were received this year as compared to the number of requests received last
year for unlocking of pensions?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My department estimates that in an average year we
would get 50 requests, but this year we've received about 100 requests for
unlocking from the general population. I've received, since becoming minister,
approximately 30 correspondence from different people and I've probably spoken
to about 20 of those.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Of those individuals, how many would actually be
eligible to unlock their pension under the legislation as proposed today?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That's not something that I'm aware of. It's extremely
complex, obviously, as we know.
Up until we had the proposed amendment, which was last
week, there was nothing for, let's say, us to say this would apply to you or not
because we didn't have proposed legislation yet. Now that we have the proposed
legislation, if an individual believes that they could be impacted, I recommend
they go to our website, there is a definitive list. They can get the number from
their statement, they can cross-reference it with the number that's on our
website and they can tell whether or not it impacts them.
I've given that advice to numerous individuals since
last week. Some of them came back to me and some of them didn't, so I can't say
for sure whether or not they found their number on the list on our website or
not. If not, that means their accounts are registered in another province and
they should contact their financial institution. The unlocking legislation in
those provinces would apply to their situation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have heard that there have been no reported
unintended consequences from other jurisdictions. I'm wondering if that is
anecdotal or if there has actually been some reports written from other
jurisdictions detailing the implications and ramifications of their
pension-unlocking legislation.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Specifically for the purpose of this legislation that
we're putting forward, my department did reach out to the administrators in each
province. We did not get an answer back from some provinces, but in all of the
provinces – I believe more than half got back to us.
In those provinces the response back was that they did
not have any unintended negative consequences to their legislation. They weren't
formal reports but they were kind of the pension supervisors, pension
superintendents or equivalents in each province, getting back to us.
Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It sounds an awful lot like we are decision-based
evidence making. I'm a little bit concerned about the anecdotal nature of some
of the numbers we are using to justify the decisions we are making here today.
Mr. Chair, I note that the department had received 117
responses and 30 emails. I have a page and a half of summary discussions here. I
don't see a very fulsome discussion of any potential negative consequences. They
talk a little bit about unintended consequences, but no summary of some of the
possible problems associated with unlocking of pensions and/or how they've been
mitigated.
Were any negative things brought up in the submissions?
If yes, what were they?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Is
that referring to all consultation submissions?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
I
have a summary of feedback from consultations here.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Sure, there are negative consequences of unlocking pensions. Mr. Chair, as I've
mentioned, this is not a perfect solution.
There is a range of negative consequences. Primarily,
that there'll be less income available for someone at retirement. That was
certainly raised in many of the consultations. As well, if someone takes out,
for example, $10,000 this year, there's a much greater amount that won't be
available when they retire.
Financially literacy of residents – I don't have a
definitive list in front of me but I believe that was reviewed in the technical
briefing. There is a range of downsides of doing this, absolutely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One of the unintended consequences of unlocking these
pension funds is individuals will be left without a pension in their retirement.
Has a mechanism for replacing the money in these locked-in funds or at least
encouraging individuals to replace this money – has anything been considered in
the legislation?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Based on these types of retirement accounts, they're
not designed to take money out and put money back in. There are other means of
individuals taking money out of these and putting them into something else, like
a tax-free savings account, putting them away for retirement or investing them.
That would be providing someone with very detailed financial advice based on our
own current fiscal situation.
I'd recommend that anyone considering withdrawing money
from a locked-in retirement account, they do get financial advice and/or credit
counselling to come up with what is the best outcome for them right now and
their retirement, and how can they best manage that situation, which is
different for everyone. There is not one size fits all for everyone.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I note that when individuals will pull money out of
these locked-in income funds, they are going to be taxed at a rate that is going
to be quite large in fact. One of the things that we could do, given that the
reason we are doing this is to mitigate a number of the hardships that
individuals are facing as a result of COVID, has there been any consideration to
making this withdrawal of locked-in pension funds tax exempt?
CHAIR:
The
Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This also goes back to the element that someone should
speak with a financial advisor. The amount of tax someone would pay on the
amount that they withdraw depends on their income for that period of time. It
might be worth someone's while to wait after a certain date to apply to withdraw
the funds from their locked-in account because that might change the amount of
tax they would have to pay.
I also think it's worth mentioning that if someone
needs $10,000, let's say, and they have a statement from a foreclosure that
they'll need $10,000, what we're proposing in the legislation is that they'll
receive the $10,000. Then, the additional tax will be withheld on top of that –
as, say, for an RRSP that's currently done – so that they actually get the
amount they need for unlocking. We have discussed it but we are not proposing
any changes to the way provincial income tax is collected.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One of the things that we have spoken about here is the
potential – and according to some of the summaries here – for individuals to
move funds out of a group pension plan or other form of pension plan into a
locked-in fund in anticipation of being able to unlock that at some point in the
future.
Mr. Chair, I ask: Has there been any consideration
given to offsetting legislation that will ensure individuals do not move funds
out of a group pension plan and into a locked-in income plan, in an attempt to
do an end run around this legislation?
CHAIR:
The
Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
All pension plans are different and many pension plans,
if not all, currently have the option of withdrawing money and moving it into
one of these locked-in accounts. That's already an option and we're not
proposing any changes to any actual pension plans. The criteria that exists for
a pension plan stays the same.
Again, this does not apply to someone who's an active
member of the pension. While they're currently working and paying into a
pension, this is not an option available to them. This is only after they've
stopped working and they're not an active member of the pension anymore.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, here is an interesting question for you. I'm
wondering if the minister can answer the question that was partly begun to be
proposed by the Member for Bonavista. He has an individual in his district that
could very well benefit from accessing these locked-in income funds.
I do understand that I think he was 70 years old. I may
be wrong. Would that individual be able to access his LIRA or LIF?
CHAIR:
I'm
sure the Member for Bonavista would appreciate that question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The
Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Mr.
Chair, there is no age limit to what we are proposing today. It's just that
someone cannot be actively receiving regular income from a pension. They can be
receiving income from a life income fund, or a LIF or a LIRA, but not the active
pension.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
For
the benefit of the Member for Bonavista, a little more clarity. When you say the
individual could not be accessing a pension, does that include an OAS or CPP? Or
are you just referring to some sort of group pension plan or a drawdown of an
RRSP?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll clarify. Overall, the changes we're proposing
today do not apply if someone is paying into a pension plan or receiving active
income from a pension plan. In terms of the age, we're not proposing any age
limitation. If someone is not currently an active member of a pension plan and
they have funds in a life income fund, or a LIF or a LIRA, they can take them
out, according to these criteria that we're proposing today, with no age
restriction.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
I
just have a few small questions that people asked me – and I mentioned it to the
minister earlier – about the City of Corner Brook employees. A lot them are
under CUPE. I know CUPE is out against this but it's not a Government Members
pension plan, they have their own pension plan. Can they withdraw from the LIRA
if they retired?
CHAIR:
The
Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The City of Corner Brook pension plan is subject to the
Pension Benefits Act, so we can't be certain. We would anticipate that anyone
who withdrew money from that pension plan into a locked-in retirement account is
highly likely to be one of the ones that applies to this, unless an individual
did something out of the ordinary, but it most likely is one of the accounts
that applies. I would them encourage to double-check that with our website.
If someone is currently receiving income from a life
income fund, pending the criteria that we're proposing, they would be able to
unlock additional funds.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR.
JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just have one more question: Who determines the need?
For example, if someone who's going in says I need this unlocked – I need it
because of my mortgage, first's month payment, medical – who makes that
determination? Is it the institution or is it some government official?
CHAIR:
The
Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
The
financial institution would make all of those decisions. If someone had concerns
we'd certainly encourage them to reach out to the superintendent of pensions,
but the provincial government is not involved at all. The individual goes
straight to the financial institution.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl -Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Keeping in line with the question my colleague just
asked from Humber - Bay of Islands, I can understand obviously if someone is at
risk of losing their home that it would be verified by the bank, by the
financial institution. That would make sense to me. But if I'm simply saying I
can't pay my rent, that has nothing to do with the bank, that's the landlord and
tenant. Who's going to verify that they're telling the truth, that I can't pay
my rent or whatever the case might be?
CHAIR:
The
Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's not the financial institution of the mortgage;
it's the financial institution of the locked-in retirement account. For example,
if I couldn't afford to pay rent, I get a letter from my landlord saying that
I'm behind this much in rent and I send that to the administrator of my LIF,
LIRA or LRIF and then they unlock the funds.
Let's say my mortgage is with bank A and my locked-in
retirement account is with bank B. I get a letter from bank A for my mortgage
and I send that to bank B of my locked-in retirement account.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, I appreciate the clarification.
Am I to understand, just for clarity now, let's say I
did that, let's say I owed my landlord two or three months rent and I get a
letter saying I'm behind on my rent and so on. I can do that and then I would
have to wait a full year before I could go back to the well with that same
reasoning. Is that correct?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
In
what we're proposing, individuals can leverage each criteria once per year, so
yes.
MR.
LANE:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess that kind of ties into the whole notion of the
credit counselling piece and so on, because if you're into a situation now where
you can just go year over year over year and you keep going back to the well,
obviously, there are larger issues at play, perhaps, and simply that's not a
one-time falling on hard times because of COVID or anything else. That could be
a pattern, so to speak. Maybe it's because you're not making enough money to
live, perhaps it's because of poor choices or perhaps it's because of lots of
interest that you can't afford to pay and so on. The point is that nobody is
getting to the root of the issue.
I would ask the minister: What consideration, if any,
has been given to requiring some sort of financial advice or credit counselling
for particularly someone in that circumstance? Has there been any thought to
making that a mandatory process, as a condition tied to this, particularly for
someone who is going as a repeat person? I can understand a one-time thing,
maybe you wouldn't do it. But if someone is going repeatedly, is there any
thought of having something maybe in the regulations to say: first time around,
fine; second time around, credit counselling is required?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think that's an excellent suggestion. In (5)(a) on
page 5, we do have a criteria that “the person confirms in writing that he or
she has been advised of and understands the impacts of making the withdrawal as
set out in a directive of the superintendent ….” So they do have to confirm in
writing that they understand the impact.
We have been speaking with NL Credit Counselling, which
is a non-profit organization, and they would be happy to discuss situations with
anyone in the province facing this. We considered, I guess, making it mandatory
to get advice, but the other jurisdictions don't do that and we were hesitant to
do that as well.
One of the things we are doing is we're requiring every
institution to give us reporting every six months to say how many people have
withdrawn. I'd recommend, at some point in the future, that's potentially an
amendment we could make if we find that this is being abused, for example.
We are recommending that people get financial advice
and someone has to confirm in writing that they have been advised of and
understand the impact of what they're doing. We are not making it mandatory to
get financial advice.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the minister for that answer. I would point
out, Mr. Chair, that somebody just simply saying: I understand the ramifications
– I understand what she's saying, but keeping it in the real-world scenario, if
you will, if somebody is desperate or whatever, and I think the Member for St.
John's Centre, when he was speaking during second reading, talked about grasping
at straws and so on.
If someone is in that situation, they're probably just
going to say: Yes, I understand what I'm doing. But understanding what you're
doing or acknowledging what you're doing and really comprehending how it's going
to impact you – because you're thinking about the here and the now; you're
desperate. You're not thinking about what happens six months from now. You're
thinking about the now.
I would add that comment and, I guess, again encourage
the minister to, perhaps, look at this a little further with her officials,
particularly as they are developing the regulations. Again, not necessarily
first time around, but if somebody is repeatedly going back to the well for the
same reasons every year and depleting all of their retirement funds, perhaps
it's something that should be revisited.
Mr. Chair, I would also ask the minister when we're
looking at the low-income threshold and so on that's here, the way I'm reading
it, this does not account, for example, for a spouse's income. It's just at the
individual. So somebody is making below that threshold, they can withdraw their
funds even though, perhaps – I'm not saying this would be the scenario, but it's
possible that – the spouse or the partner may have a huge income. So really
there's no need for the money, it's just a choice to just take it out.
I'm just wondering was there any discussion or thought
around household income versus the individual income?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are not looking at household income. That's not
something that is done in other provinces either. It's just the individual's
income. We are requiring that the spouse sign off on unlocking, especially if
they're the principle beneficiary.
I did want to correct earlier, I said Newfoundland
Credit Counselling, it's, in fact, Credit Counselling Services of Newfoundland
and Labrador. They are available and they're a non-profit to help anyone who's
interested in unlocking their pension. They can certainly have a discussion with
them.
It is not household income, it is just the individual's
income. The spouse or live-in partner has to sign off on it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Yeah, I'm just wondering, Minister, this is not really pertaining to the issues
in this piece of legislation, but we are talking about unlocking of pensions, so
it could have been included, I suppose.
I want to go back to what the Member for Bonavista was
bringing up with his buddy there. I've had constituents of mine in the exact
same boat, where, basically, they're saying that the amount of money that you
can withdraw is only miniscule, maybe a couple of thousand dollars a year. One
person comes to mind, he's brought it up to me on numerous occasions, a retiree.
He said: Paul, I'll be 102 or something before I get my money. In the meantime,
I'm healthy, at an age now where I could sort of enjoy that money or whatever
the case might be. It's my money and I'll never get to see it. At some point in
time, I'm going to pass away, half the money is going to go to the government
and so on, and it's my money.
I'm just wondering was there any discussion while you
were at this – I know it's a different issue, but it's still part of the same
legislation, I would suspect, the same pensions act. Was there any thought to,
at the very least, increasing the amount of money that one could take out so
that someone's not going to be 100 years old waiting to get the money; at least
cap it off and say your money is out by 80 or something like that? By the time
you're a certain age, you're probably not going to be doing a whole lot of
travelling and you're not going to want that money anyway. Putting an age of 75
or 80, or whatever it is, to say you can tap out that pension money up until
then, you don't have to live to be 100 to get it.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I guess in our review, we focused on financial
hardship. We didn't look at kind of early retirement or retirement, I guess, how
someone can take out their money in retirement, specifically. The changes we're
proposing here have no age cap. If someone was in financial hardship, according
to what we're proposing, they can still unlock according to the amount that they
need, based on low income. We didn't do a review of our early retirement and
retirement options.
I understand, though, our early retirement options, I
guess, give residents some of the most options of any jurisdiction in the
country.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
I
thank the minister for her answer.
I will just say, for the record, again to echo what my
colleague from Bonavista said and I'm sure other Members have heard the same
thing, that this is an issue for people. I'm not talking about taking all your
pension money out at 55 and doing a trip around the world or anything, but the
situation we have now is that a lot of people are only getting very minuscule
amounts and they'd be 100 by the time they'd get their money.
I would like for you, at least, to take that under
advisement, Minister, and maybe a new amendment to this legislation at some
point in time may be in order.
MS.
STOODLEY:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
LANE:
I
wasn't asking a question, but if she's going to comment anyway, that's fine.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Just to provide some additional information. We didn't get any recommendations
in the consultations that we make changes to those criteria. That wasn't raised
in the consultations. We didn't specifically ask about it, but it wasn't raised.
I would also remind, we do have a shortened life
expectancy clause so I would imagine if, potentially, someone was getting older
in years and they were told you have x-number of years to live, then that would
allow them to unlock all of their retirement savings.
Obviously, that doesn't address the specific issue that
the Member raised.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do appreciate that additional information and I
appreciate that answer as well. I wasn't really talking about someone who has
been told they have a year or two to live or whatever. I guess the issue is
somebody retires, they're feeling healthy and well and they could enjoy that
money they've put aside, but a lot of the money, they will never live long
enough to see it, I guess was the point, and enjoy it.
Mr. Chair, I'm just looking for some clarity, just so
I'm 100 per cent sure because some of the commentary that my colleague from St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi made there just left a question in my mind, so I just
want clarification.
If I'm working with the public service, as an example,
with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and let's say, I don't know,
fictitious scenario: Moya Greene's report comes out and you decide that you're
going to start cutting jobs. She recommends you should start cutting jobs and
laying off people and so on. Just theoretically that happened. Let's say that
happened and now you have people there who were working for the government,
maybe working for five years, six years, eight years, whatever and they got laid
off. I know there's bumping and all that, but I'm just saying, someone gets laid
off with the government.
Now, that they have been laid off, they're no longer
paying into the government pension plan and they're not collecting the
government pension plan. Can they take their money and put it into a LIF,
thereby depleting funds in the government pension plan? Or are you saying, under
the Public Service Pension Plan, even though they're laid off, they can't take
that money out; that's there until they turn 55 or whatever the age is and then
they can draw from the Public Service Pension Plan itself? When their time
comes, they can't take the money out and put it in a LIF?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, I guess I'm hesitant to go into any individual
circumstance of this act and this pension plan and doing this, because I'm not
familiar with pension plans and all the different options. The public sector
pension plan does have its own act.
What I can say is, if any pension plan allows members
to take – when they're no longer a member, if they can take money out and put it
into a locked-in retirement account, one of the ones listed on our website, then
this would apply to them.
I can't speak to whether the public sector – someone in
that situation, who's no longer working, if that pension plan allows them to
withdraw into one of these accounts. I don't have that information. But any
pension plan that allows individuals to withdraw when they're no longer employed
and put it into a locked-in retirement account, a LIF, a LIRA or an LRIF, or of
which the number is listed on the website, then it would apply to them.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Mr.
Chair, perhaps one of the minister's officials or an official with Finance may
be listening and, before we're done here, could just provide an answer to that.
I would be curious and I would appreciate it.
The reason why I'm raising it, quite frankly, is that
the minister, when she was making her comments or answering a question earlier,
said: There were a number of people consulted; there were a number of
submissions. I don't want to put words in her mouth, but I think she basically
said the unions were against it. That was the gist of what she said: The unions
were against it.
I'm trying to figure out why the unions are against it.
Are they against it just because of their social leanings as an organization, or
are they against it because they are concerned that if there were a bunch of
layoffs – again, as an example – and then people said: Okay, I'm not working for
the provincial government anymore; now I can take my pension money, put it into
a LIF and then I'm going to take it out of the public sector plan, put it in a
LIF so that I can withdraw that money.
That would be money coming out of the public sector
plan and then the union would probably argue: Here we go again. The plan was
raided in the past and we had to put this Provident10 in place, blah, blah,
blah, and now a bunch of people are going to take money through the back door,
so to speak. They're going to take that money out, put it in a LIF so they can
remove that money.
I'm just wondering is that the case, because when the
minister spoke earlier she said: This does not apply to public sector plans; it
doesn't apply to the federal plans and so on. My initial thought was: Okay, this
doesn't apply, so it's nothing to worry about. Now, I'm just wondering, it might
not apply to those plans, but if someone got laid off, it would apply because
they take it out then. I'm just wondering is that the case or not.
I'm not saying there's going – maybe there would be
nobody laid off. Maybe nobody would do it. I have no idea. I'm just trying to
figure out in my mind why the unions are against it. That's all.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Pension Benefits Act, under our department, governs
180 pension plans registered, but the public sector pension plan has its own act
that's governed, I believe, in the Department of Finance. At this point I can't
comment on another department's pension act. It's not under the legislation of
our department.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Final question and I'm done, I promise. Perhaps the Minister of Finance could
comment.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Just from the HRS perspective, it would depend if the
person was actually vested in their pension. If you actually leave the public
service or a job within government before you're vested, your money is actually
automatically refunded to you and then it moves into a LIRA. If it's somebody
who's not vested, it automatically moves into a LIRA because the government
doesn't hold it any longer. First of all, it would depend on if you were vested.
If someone is vested they could take the cumulative
value. No different than today, a government employee who is vested could take
the cumulative value of a pension.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for the District of Terra Nova.
MR.
PARROTT:
Just a quick question, Mr. Chair.
If a LIRA is brought in, I assume that it's considered
income. Has anyone considered – and I know it's not our duty to consider but I
think from an information standpoint it needs to be considered – people that are
having financial distress right now are there for different reasons and under
different circumstances, but for most of them it means there is some form of EI
or CERB. If they withdraw from a LIRA and they get income – there's a high
probability that if they take $10,000 out of a LIRA they're going to lose
$10,000 out of CERB or EI and it's net zero.
CHAIR:
The
Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Yes, if a resident or an individual takes money out as
per these criteria that would impact a program. If they're on, for example,
income support, that would be income. As an MHA, I help residents. If they might
get an inheritance, that impacts their income support.
For example, withdrawing money from one of these plans,
as per the current criteria, as per the new criteria or if they had money in an
RRSP or something, that would be the same. It would impact any program such as
that.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Lake Melville.
MR.
TRIMPER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a comment on clause 1 and then a couple of more
later on clause 2, so just a heads-up. The clause 1 comment, Minister – and I
compliment you, by the way, on how good a job you're doing over there on a very
complicated topic. It was indicated in the briefing that some one to two months
could be required to process an application by a financial institution.
I did some digging on that and found out that what's
call ATON – the automated transfer online notification system, which allows all
of these registered, recognized financial institutions to essentially talk to
each other and transfer money very quickly – actually functions very
efficiently. To suggest that there would be some – after we get this to a point
where people can apply from the 1st of March, the thought that it could be yet
another month or so of processing sounds rather disastrous for those who are
anxiously waiting.
I wondered if we could have some kind of direction
issued – I think it would be in regulations – that would encourage a financial
institution that's been approached and approved, and once all of the information
has been submitted, that they expedite the process. Perhaps a suggestion of
three days would even be plenty, perhaps a week on the outside.
I'll leave it there. That's my only comment on clause
1.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the Minister of Digital Government
and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The department's staff have indicated that the
reference to a few months was in the amount of time it would take to set up and
launch it. That's why we have the March 1 deadline. It would be up to the
financial institution.
Certainly we would not expect it would be a few months.
We've heard from one particular financial institution who said they could do it
in two or three days. I think that's probably unrealistic for most, but a few
months is not accurate. I would say it would be much less than that. We'll get
into that in the regulations, but I would say it's not going to be a few months.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Lake Melville.
MR.
TRIMPER:
Just to clarify, I'm referring solely to the amount of time. One of the
officials indicated that after the application was approved it could be up to a
month or so. What I understand from ATON is that once that's approved it's
really almost instantaneous. It's a matter of just going through the system, the
institution can hit a button or two and away you go, the money can be activated.
Institutions love to hang onto money for as long as
possible, so I think any direction we can provide to them to give up that cash,
once it's approved, would be appropriate.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Seeing no other questions – before we return to the motion, that was a very
commendable debate, but equally as commendable was the support shown by the
Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture. Phenomenal.
Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 and 3.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?
The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Lake Melville.
MR.
TRIMPER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I refer all those who are watching closely to – I'm
going to direct people to the bill, page 44. It's under sections 44.1(5) and
44.1(6).
The text refers to the use of the words, “and the
savings institution ….” It's been pointed out to me that, in fact, a more
appropriate word is “financial” because – and I'll just read the definition to
the records: “Saving and investing often are used interchangeably, but there is
a difference.” Saving is setting aside money you don't spend for emergencies or
for future purchase. Investing is buying assets such as stocks, bonds, mutual
funds and real estate.
The people that I spoke with said: No, it would be much
better to have a term that encompasses both. They suggested using the word
“financial.” On page 4 replacing “savings” with “financial,” as well as on the
top of page 5 under that subsection (6).
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What we're proposing aligns with what other
jurisdictions have in terms of their language. I know, for example, LIFs are
specifically with insurance companies. What we are proposing aligns with other
provinces in Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for Lake Melville.
MR.
TRIMPER:
Again, I'm just suggesting that the use of the term “savings” is not
appropriate, versus “financial.” Perhaps she can speak with her officials and
they may be able to correct me. It was very easy for me to go on Google and see
the definition is clearly there, so I'd ask the staff to take a look at that.
The other comment, while I have the microphone, is –
and it was related to my remarks in second reading. It deals with the consent of
the beneficiary on the LIRA or the LIF. I guess the best place I can see it –
and/or perhaps it might appear in regulations, but I think it's very important,
given the obvious information we're hearing from spousal abuse, and challenges
between relationships that not only should – it's been suggested; I'm exploring
the idea perhaps of having an appropriate witness. Not just a signed document
that I, the beneficiary, agree to my spouse in opening up this plan. That there
perhaps be some mechanism whereby those individuals could be present before the
institution or some notary, just to get around this issue of coercion.
I had this come at me from a couple of directions and
it's unfortunate to have to speak about it, but these are the kinds of things, I
think, we need to pay close attention to when we go to set this opportunity up.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think that's a good suggestion. When we get into the
regulations, that's certainly something that I'll keep an eye out for in terms
of the specific documentation and the requirement that a spouse sign off on it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to finish off just by thanking the minister
for answering all the questions that were asked. She did a good job. I certainly
appreciate it. I will be supporting the legislation.
If there is anything at all to the rumours that are out
there, right or wrong, this maybe our last bill and our last sitting of the
House of Assembly, potentially, before we hit the hustings. I don't know if
that's true or not. If it is, I wish you all the best and I certainly hope to
see, well, some of you back after the election.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, despite the flippant comments of many
suggesting that this is a futile exercise, I would like to suggest that we are
capable of developing robust legislation, unique to Newfoundland and Labrador
that would be designed to best suit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
This is why we are having such a rigorous discussion about what is in front of
us.
In that context, Mr. Chair, I do have a number of
questions on section 2. Let's start with section 2, 44.1, subsection 3(a). I
note that we are talking about future income, so expected total income following
the date in which a person seeks to make the withdrawal.
I'm quite curious to know: How does one prove that one
is going to have less income in the future?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In terms of your expected income for the following
year, the financial institution would review that in terms of things like EI or
income support or current funding that you get. In addition, the individual
would have to demonstrate, would have to show proof, and that would be outlined
in the documentation. What we're proposing aligns with other jurisdictions in
Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm aware that this aligns with other jurisdictions in
Canada, but I'm still not sure how can one prove that one is not going to make
income next year. If one does make income, in spite of what they expect, do they
have then return the funds?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In terms of the documentation that would be provided by
individuals, that would be provided to the financial institutions and they would
make the determination as to whether or not someone applies or not.
My understanding, as far as I'm aware, no, people do
not return the money if for some reason they find themselves not in the
financial hardship position at some point in the future within that year.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not quite sure how we prove that we won't have
income into the future, other than not having income into the future – no, I
won't take the job you're offering me.
The other question I have then would be: Does any other
savings, vehicles, assets or income in the household, are any of those things
used in the determination of financial hardship? For example, I know when
someone applies for income support they have to list all of the assets that they
have. There's no reference to any such thing in this legislation.
Can we talk a little bit about why we haven't included
other income in the household, nor any other assets that exist?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In our proposed approach, we are not looking at total
financial household assets. It is specifically what is referenced here in terms
of proving you're behind on your mortgage, proving you're behind on your rent. I
can't imagine someone who is months behind on their mortgage, if they had other
options available to them, that they would risk foreclosing their house. So
that's not something that's in our proposed legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I note under subsection (4) – again, 44.1(4) subsection
(i), it says that you can withdraw up to about 50 per cent of your year's
maximum pensionable earnings. I'm uncertain but I do think that the Canada
Revenue Agency determines that a person can unlock up to 40 per cent of your
year's maximum pensionable earnings from a LIRA.
I was wondering, is there an incongruence in the
legislation that we have provided or is being presented to us here today,
compared to that being presented by or enforced by Canada Revenue Agency?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
YMPE is a factor used in a variety of financial
calculations relating to pensions. I look at the jurisdictional table: Some
jurisdictions are looking at 40 per cent; some are looking at 50 per cent. We
are proposing 50 per cent. One doesn't have to be the same as the other.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Given that we have a series of one, two, three, four,
five, six criteria under which we can unlock this, who are the people that
decide if a person falls under these hardship criteria? Will that be
administered by the provincial government or will that be administered by the
financial institution?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This only applies if someone is interested, obviously,
in looking at applying to unlock a portion of a locked-in retirement savings
account. The individual, the resident, would get the required documentation.
They would submit it to their financial institution, and the financial
institution would facilitate the unlocking.
At no point is the provincial government involved, only
in the reporting. Every six months we are asking the financial institutions to
provide a report of the number of people who've withdrawn money from their
accounts, and any other reporting things that we ask for in the regulations.
They'll be telling how many they have unlocked.
We'll certainly ask for other feedback, but individuals
and residents do not provide that information to the provincial government.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to know what exactly are the financial
institutions required to submit in their semi-annual reports.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I believe, currently, it is outlined in the legislation
the number and total amount of withdrawals that were made for each section. That
is subsection (6) on page 6.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, one of the key rebuttals or concerns
associated with unlocking of pensions is the potential negative ramifications to
women, especially women in single-income households where the partner is the
person who is unlocking their pensions, or women who are subject to domestic
violence in their relationships.
I ask the minister: What mechanisms are in place to
ensure that individuals experiencing domestic violence are not coerced or not
otherwise maligned with this particular legislation?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Domestic violence and coercion of women is horrific.
Overcoming that or getting around that is not something that we're handling in
this legislation. Individuals – their spouse does have to sign off indicating
that they're okay with that.
We haven't seen any other jurisdictions take
extraordinary measures and we're not proposing any additional criteria in the
legislation at this time.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I am very curious to know what mechanisms
will the Members of this House have to have input in or scrutiny of the
regulations related to this legislation.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My understanding, as per the normal process for
regulations, they go through the decision-making process and then are approved
by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Mr.
Chair, I would like to officially request that Members of this House of Assembly
get a chance to review formally the legislation prior to it being sent to the
Lieutenant-Governor for approval.
CHAIR:
Is
there was a question that the hon. Member asked?
MS.
COFFIN:
May
I see it? How about that?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would defer to the normal processes of the House and
the normal processes of regulation approval.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To build on a question asked by the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands: Do we have any mechanisms to assure that ongoing financial
hardship beyond, say, one year – because one would hope that one's financial
hardship only happens for one year – and the unlocking of pensions would help
alleviate that? Are there any mechanisms to ensure that individuals don't
deplete their entire pension fund over the course of several years because of
these undue financial hardships?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are not proposing a cap in terms of a lifetime
ability to unlock. Individuals would be limited by the times that they could fit
in these categories over a series of years. We would recommend that they get
financial counselling. We are not prohibiting people from making bad financial
decisions, which is an option available to all of us.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Arguably, we created locked-in financial retirement
funds; we locked them in to help individuals save for retirement. So we are, in
fact, undoing a mechanism that was designed to help protect individuals right
now. This is why I asked these questions with the amount of rigour that we are
asking.
Mr. Chair, I am curious to know: Given that a spouse's
consent and signature are required in order to access this, why aren't we
considering the spouse's income?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Asking a spouse to sign off, we're doing that because
in terms of a family, a spouse would be impacted by an individual reducing their
retirement savings. This aligns with other jurisdictions as a way to ensure that
those impacted by the decisions are at least aware and sign off on an
individual's decision to unlock their retirement savings. Specifically, the
principal beneficiary so that they're aware, so that the decision is not made
without their knowledge.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, one of the reasons why we're going through this
legislation in such detail is to point out some of the incongruities like this
very one, where a spouse's consent and signature is required to access this, yet
the spouse's income is not considered.
I do have one other question, Mr. Chair. One of the
things with respect to any of these locked-in retirement funds, one of the
benefits of them is that they are protected from creditors. When this money is
unlocked it is no longer protected from creditors.
Is there any mechanism being considered within the
legislation or in the regulations that would help ensure that the folks who are
suffering this terrible financial hardship – which we are trying to fix – are
protected from their creditors that are not the people who are looking to pay
their mortgage? This is for individuals who perhaps might have a car loan, or
might have bad debts or might have credit card money that they need to pay that
doesn't necessarily fall into each of these categories.
It's very important to protect these individuals from
those creditors. Do we have that mechanism?
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Digital Government and Service NL.
MS.
STOODLEY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Currently, income in a locked-in account is subject to
court orders; for example, if you had to pay child support and you had money in
a locked-in retirement account that would be taken out of those accounts. We are
not proposing anything different than withdrawing money from any other type of
retirement account. That's not something that we're proposing at this time.
CHAIR:
Seeing no other questions, the motion on the floor is shall clauses 2 and 3
carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 and 3 carried.
CLERK:
Be
it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative
Session convened, as follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those opposed?
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An
Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All
those opposed?
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Motion carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the
bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The
Chair recognizes the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, on a very adequate job this afternoon in your role.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
CROCKER:
Mr.
Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 54.
CHAIR:
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Motion carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and
ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR.
SPEAKER (Reid):
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Bonavista.
MR.
PARDY:
Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed me to report Bill 54 without amendment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered
the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 54 without
amendment.
When shall the report be received?
MR.
CROCKER:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
When shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR.
CROCKER:
Now.
On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered
read a third time presently, by leave.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Order 1, third reading of
Bill 54.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Digital Government and Service NL,
that Bill 54, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read a
third time.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
is moved and seconded that the bill now be read a third time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
AN
HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Division
MR.
SPEAKER:
Is
the Opposition House Leader ready?
Is the Third Party House Leader ready? Yes.
The independents are ready? Yes.
Okay.
All those in favour?
CLERK:
Mr. Crocker, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Haggie, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Davis, Ms.
Coady, Mr. Loveless, Ms. Stoodley, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Warr, Mr.
Bennett, Ms. Haley, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Brazil, Mr. Forsey,
Mr. Dwyer, Mr. Wakeham, Mr. Lester, Mr. Petten, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Parrott,
Mr. Pardy, Mr. Paul Dinn, Ms. Conway Ottenheimer, Mr. Tibbs, Mr. O'Driscoll, Mr.
Lane, Mr. Trimper.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against?
CLERK:
Ms.
Coffin, Mr. James Dinn, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Speaker, the ayes: 31; the nays: three.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
motion is carried.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CLERK:
A
bill, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 54)
MR.
SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass
and that its title be as on the Order Paper.
On motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Pension
Benefits Act, 1997,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on
the Order Paper. (Bill 54)
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Before we adjourn the House, I'll just quickly take the
opportunity to wish everybody a very Merry Christmas and a happy and safe new
year.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Burin -
Grand Bank, that this House do now adjourn to the call of the Chair.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
has been moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn to the call of the
Chair.
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All
those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Merry Christmas.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Merry Christmas.
On motion, the House adjourned to the call of the
Chair.