PDF Version

December 13, 2016

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 58

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Today

I'm pleased to welcome to the public gallery Mr. Mark Peddle and his father Mr.

Paul Peddle. Mark is representing Special Olympics Mount Pearl and will be the

subject of a Member's statement.

Also in

the public gallery we have Mitchell Brophy. Mr. Brophy is from the Holyrood

Volunteer Fire Department and is also the subject of a Member's statement.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MADAM SPEAKER:

Today we have Members'

statements from the District of Ferryland, the District of Mount Pearl North,

the District of Harbour Main, the District of Labrador West and the District of

St. John's East Quidi Vidi.

recognize the hon. Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you,

Madam

Speaker, I rise today in the hon. House to recognize the Southern Shore Folk

Arts Council on the vital role they play in the Southern Shore Shamrock Festival

and Arts Centre. This group has been an integral part of both cultural and

tourism development in the region for decades.

This

year was the 31st Annual Southern Shore Folk Art Festival. It is because of the

commitment and enthusiasm of the many staff and volunteers that continues to

make this event such a huge success.

The Arts

Centre was a commercial landmark in Ferryland, but with its transition of many

years of hard work of its restoration it is now an exceptional venue for

cultural events, public art displays, dinner theatre, concerts and other social

gatherings for the residents of the region, as well as tourists to enjoy our

culture and enjoy the hospitality of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam

Speaker, I ask all Members of the House to join with me in congratulating the

Southern Shore Folk Arts Council on their many years of success.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

I recognize the hon. Member

for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize Mount Pearl athlete Mark Peddle. Mark

helped co-host the Special Olympics Canada National Awards on November 17 at the

Glenn Gould Studio in Toronto. Mark joined TSN Sportscaster Vic Rauter to

recognize the athletes, coaches and volunteers throughout the year.

Mark has

been a member of Special Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador for the last decade

or so. Mark has excelled with Special Olympics and has been presented with a

whole host of opportunities. Recently, he attended his fifth Special Olympics

Canada Games, which took place in Corner Brook.

This

isn't Mark's first time hosting for a Special Olympics event. Mark attended an

Athlete Leadership Course, where he started his training as a public speaker and

advocate for Special Olympics. He has had lots of practice. He has accepted the

Special Olympics Canada's Team of the Year award this past November at the

Awards Gala.

Mark

said at the time: I am very honoured to have this opportunity to represent

Special Olympics Athletes from across Canada. I look forward to giving the

awards ceremony a Newfoundland flair. And he certainly did. Mark is an

inspiration to all.

I ask

all Members of this hon. House to congratulate Mark for doing such a tremendous

job on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY:

Madam Speaker, two weeks ago,

I had the pleasure of attending the annual Holyrood Volunteer Fire Department

ball and awards night. The evening was a festive one as the department, members

of all council and community came together to celebrate these volunteers.

One such

individual is Mitchell Brophy. Mitchell first joined the Holyrood Fire

Department in 2013. In 2015, Mitchell attended the Marine Institute's

Stephenville campus where he completed a series of firefighting courses

including NFPA 1006, High Angle Rescue Level Two, Confined Space Level Two and

Vehicle Extrication Level Two.

Once

completed, then he returned home to Holyrood and continued on with the Holyrood

Volunteer Fire Department. On December 3 of this year, at 20 years of age,

Mitchell was awarded the Holyrood Volunteer Fire Department Firefighter of the

Year, which was presented to him by his father Doug who had received the same

award 25 years earlier.

Mr.

Speaker, the volunteer fire departments are without a doubt the backbone of our

communities. I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Holyrood

Volunteer Fire Department on another successful year and wishing Mr. Mitchell

Brophy a prosperous career in the field of firefighting.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. LETTO:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to congratulate members of my district who recently

participated in the Newfoundland and Labrador Amateur Bodybuilding Championships

held in St. John's on November 26. This event is the only Canadian Bodybuilding

Federation sanctioned event in the province.

I want

to congratulate Denis Peters who placed second in Heavy Weight; Greg Louvelle

who placed second in Grand Masters Bodybuilding; Sarah Hounsell who placed

fourth in Bikini Short; Jo Anna Kent who placed second in Bikini Medium; Angela

Maddox who placed fifth in Bikini Medium; Robin Porter who placed seventh; and

Krya Louvelle who placed eighth in Bikini Medium.

As a

result of their standings, Greg, Denis and Jo Anna are automatic qualifiers for

the national event hosted by the Canadian Bodybuilding Federation in Laval,

Quebec in May 2017.

Madam

Speaker, it takes a lot of dedication, discipline and training to compete in

this sport, and all participants are to be congratulated for their hard work.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating those people for their

accomplishments, and wish them success at the national competition.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Today I

celebrate a festival that attracts visitors from around the province, the

country, and even the United States to my District of St. John's East Quidi

Vidi.

The

Mummers' Festival began in 2009 as a joint project of the Heritage Foundation of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and Memorial's Folklore Department. The next year

festival organization moved to community volunteers and in 2011 the Mummers

Festival incorporated as a non-profit.

The

eighth Mummers Festival is taking right place now. The highlight for many is the

parade. On Saturday past, thousands of people gathered for the march through the

downtown route, and it was a glorious day for that event!

The

Rooms, as the repository for our cultural history, is always part of the Mummers

Festival. Mummer Mayhem on Sunday saw families get together to make their own

mummers, and tomorrow night, the final event of the festival is King of All

Birds, a public forum about wren traditions.

Madam

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the Mummers

Festival. In the traditional greeting, here's to a pocketful of money, And a

cellar full of cheer. And we wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New

Year.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Madam Speaker, I rise today

to speak to the significant piece of legislation which will be given second

reading in the House this afternoon,

An Act Respecting The Seniors' Advocate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Once established, Madam

Speaker, the Office of the Seniors' Advocate will be a voice for seniors, their

families and caregivers. As well, the Seniors Advocate's mandate to identify and

address systemic issues impacting seniors will assist policy-makers and

front-line service providers. The Advocate will work with other entities,

including the Office of the Citizens' Representative and Seniors' Resource

Centre of Newfoundland and Labrador, but will not duplicate or imped their

mandates. Rather, it will focus on systemic issues affecting seniors and make

recommendations accordingly.

Newfoundland and Labrador, almost 20 per cent of our population is aged 65 or

older. Within 10 years, that number is expected to increase to 27 per cent.

These are statistics we simply cannot ignore, Madam Speaker.

We have

heard from many individuals and seniors' organizations that the establishment of

a Seniors' Advocate Office is a necessity in our province. Today, Madam Speaker,

we are demonstrating our commitment to the seniors of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have heard their concerns, and we have taken action.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. This side of the House is

always pleased when we see that initiatives are presented in the best interest

of the province. Our seniors are the men and women who have given the most to

our society and they deserve the utmost respect and consideration from our

government. However, Madam Speaker, I do have some concerns with the Act

Respecting the Seniors' Advocate which we will be debating this afternoon.

This

legislation does not help individual seniors with their various challenges. It

does not give the ability for the Advocate to look into issued when requested by

a senior. Instead, the legislation outlines that inquiries from seniors are

simply to be passed along to the citizens' advocate. This does not live up to

the promise which the Liberal government has made.

While I

think the Advocate is a great idea, the Advocate needs to be empowered to

address the challenges and issues which seniors bring to their attention.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance of her statement. Our caucus has been calling for a

seniors' advocate since 2011 and are happy to see government finally move on

this. Government's last budget cut or reduced many services that seniors rely

on. If government had done a thorough analysis of the systemic impact of their

decisions on seniors' lives, they never would have made some of their

short-sighted decisions.

Madam

Speaker, the Seniors' Advocate will surely have their work cut out for them.

Thank

you very much.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries, Forestry and Agrifoods.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize the Forestry Services Branch of my department on the

continued certification of its Environmental Management System to the ISO

14001:2004 standard.

This

certification positions Newfoundland and Labrador on the leading edge of

environmentally-responsible forest management.

Madam

Speaker, ISO is the world's largest developer and publisher of international

standards. The branch achieved certification in 2015 and we were pleased to hear

recently that we have once again achieved this prestigious distinction with

registration continuing through 2017. To maintain this certification, the branch

successfully demonstrated continuous improvement in its Environmental Management

System.

The ISO

certification is a commitment outlined in the Provincial Sustainable Forest

Management Strategy. That document, along with our commitment in

The Way Forward to increase timber

allocations and harvest levels by 2020 will help shape the forestry industry in

our province.

Madam

Speaker, the ISO certification is voluntary and it establishes a solid

foundation for organizations that wish to have their forest management

activities certified against a sustainable forestry management system. Forest

industry stakeholders support certification on Crown forest land as it ensures

we have a resource that will benefit many generations of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Once

again, I applaud the efforts of our Forestry Services Branch to retain this ISO

certification.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Before the Speaker recognizes

the Member for Cape St. Francis, I ask Members for their co-operation to keep

the noise level down in the Chamber.

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

I want to thank the minister

for an advance copy of his statement. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I

would like to congratulate the staff of Forestry Services on their continued ISO

certification. This certification was first awarded to the Forestry Services

Branch in December 2015. The ISO certification is awarded based on environmental

management suitable for nature activities, products and services.

As the

(inaudible) recognizes the hard work and dedication of many professionals in our

civil service, I join with the government in congratulating these people.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

I too

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. This is great news,

and I congratulate the department on the wonderful work they are doing.

Government touts economic diversification and the forestry industry is ready for

development, yet we hear from this government exactly what we heard from

previous governments on the forest industry, very little.

I agree

with the minister, we have a forest resource which will benefit future

generations of people in the province. My question is, how far into the future,

Madam Speaker?

Thank

you.

MADAM SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of Natural Resources was unable to answer what was a

fairly straightforward question.

So I'll

ask the Premier today: If he can inform this House of Assembly if the CF(L)Co is

undergoing a corporate restructuring?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

response to the question yesterday, I said I'd be certainly happy to get details

of any information that is required from CF(L)Co. Members opposite will

remember, that in June of this year Nalcor made the decision and split apart

both the generation and transmission divisions within Nalcor.

I have

asked questions about whether CF(L)Co is undergoing any complete reconstruction

or any complete restructuring and the answer to that is no. There are some

changes being made as we progress towards accepting these transmission assets.

There will be additional work probably and additional opportunities for people

within CF(L)Co, but there will be no job losses. It's simply a maintaining of

responsibilities within the CF(L)Co and realignment.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The

minister wasn't aware yesterday, so I'm going to ask some more questions on this

today as we move forward. Now you did mention there wasn't a complete

restructuring.

What

restructuring is actually taking place in the structure itself of CF(L)Co?

Explain to us what restructuring is taking place.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

There

are some subtle organizational changes and there are some very expanded roles.

So what will happen as we move forward, as we progress towards the transmission

assets coming over, there will be some subtle changes within the organization.

They are not substantive.

There

are no job losses. These will occur during 2017 as we move towards the movement

of transmission assets. These are not substantive. I'm quite perplexed as to why

the concerns around this issue. Perhaps they can inform me of why there are

concerns.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Newfoundland and Labrador and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians hold a 65.8 per

cent share

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

and are significant shareholders in CF(L)Co. It's important to the people of

the province that they understand what's happening when they have such an

important stake.

I will

ask the minister: Who is leading this restructuring, these structural changes

that are happening in CF(L)Co? Is it her own department? Is it Nalcor? Is it

driven by government?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

To be

quite clear, Nalcor is responsible for the transmission assets. They have a

division that is headed up by an accomplished engineer who is heading it up.

That was announced back in June of last year.

As these

transmission assets move, there will be some additional responsibilities,

additional opportunities for people within the organization, but there will be

no job losses that I am aware of.

Thank

you very much, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

We've

been told that employees at CF(L)Co have been advised of this restructuring.

It's going to take place in the very near future, maybe as early as January.

What was

the purpose of advising employees of that?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Madam Speaker, I thank the

hon. Member for his question. Internal communication is very important for every

organization, including that of Nalcor. These transmissions assets will be

starting to be moved over, obviously, in the very near future, in 2017-2018.

There

will be some expanded roles within CF(L)Co. There will be some additional

responsibilities because of the change in transmission. This is not an unusual

circumstance considering the magnitude of the transmission project.

Madam

Speaker, there will be no jobs losses that I'm aware of.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I ask

the minister if she can give us some more information, provide more information

to this House, in what she's referring to in a change in transmission?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

I'm not quite sure of why

he's asking the question, a change in transmission. There was a change in June

of last year from Nalcor where it has now a division for transmission and a

division for generation. This occurred back in June of last year.

We are

getting ready now for the transmission assets, Madam Speaker. This is part of

the timelines of all the things that have been occurring, getting prepared for

Muskrat Falls.

understand there are no job losses expected. There will be some expanded duties

and responsibilities based on these transmission assets.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I can

tell you my concern is not about job losses; it's about controlling of a

significant asset owned by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Does

this structure have anything to do, Minister, with ongoing talks that are

happening with Hydro-Qubec on hydroelectric sales and development in Labrador?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Madam Speaker, this is not

something I directed Nalcor to do. This is not something I directed within

CF(L)Co. This is something that the skills that are within the organization have

determined is the most important thing for these transmission assets to expand

the responsibilities and duties of those management and executives that are

responsible for these transmissions.

It has

nothing, that I'm aware of, to do with Hydro-Qubec. We are not having ongoing

discussions on something that has not been disclosed, Madam Speaker.

I guess

I'm a bit astounded that the Member opposite has been asking these questions

without context. This is because the transmission assets are within the

organization; we're expanding responsibilities for the executive and management,

Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The

context is quite simple, Madam Speaker. We're hearing discussion about it.

Yesterday the minister didn't know if there was any restructuring taking place.

Now she's informed herself and she seems to be very well informed today, but she

shouldn't be surprised we're asking questions when we've heard about it and she

didn't know anything about it. That's the context, Madam Speaker; it's a

significant asset.

Well,

I'll ask the Premier or the minister to inform this House of Assembly if there's

currently any board openings or vacancies on the CF(L)Co board.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Madam Speaker, the question

asked yesterday, which I said I would take under advisement, was about the

management within CF(L)Co. I've come to this House today to advise that there

will be subtle changes within job responsibilities, but there's no massive

change in structure.

The

change in structure took place in June of last year when the two divisions, one

transmission and one generation, took place. Now as we prepare for the

transmission assets, Madam Speaker, there are going to be some subtle duty

changes within management and within executive.

Those

are part of a normal structured process that are not directed by the Department

of Natural Resources

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. COADY:

They are directed by Nalcor.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Well, we

did ask the question yesterday and the minister did say that she would look into

it and take it under advisement. She also said when she was asked if CF(L)Co is

undergoing a corporate restructuring, part of her answer was not that I'm aware

of. And what I said is today she seems to have informed herself and found out,

and I'm glad she did.

So I'll

ask the question again that I just asked a moment ago and never got an answer

to, and ask her to inform this House of Assembly if CF(L)Co has any board

openings or vacancies.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

As the

Member opposite knows, the Independent Appointments Commission has been looking

at the board of Nalcor. We are now looking at all the boards under Nalcor's

responsibility. We will be filing positions as they become available.

There

will be a full governance review of those positions as well. It's very

important, as we move forward, to have the best people in the best positions to

make sure that the responsibilities and the assets within Nalcor are well

managed.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

appreciate the information from the minister.

I will

ask the minister, just to be clear: Are you saying the Independent Appointments

Commission are participating in the replacement of vacancies at CF(L)Co?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

To be

very clear, what I said is there is a governance review underway at Nalcor. The

Independent Appointments Commission has put in place a very robust board of

Nalcor that will now take on the responsibility of looking at what are the

requirements under Nalcor, what are the requirements of, for example,

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, what are the requirements of CF(L)Co, what are

the requirements under that? We will move forward once we have that review

undertaken.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I'm not

certain, I think she did say that the Independent Appointments Commission is

involved in replacing vacancies in the CF(L)Co board, but the minister can speak

to that further if she likes.

I have

another question for government, Madam Speaker. People continue to be outraged

and expressed their views and concerns about the Liberal cuts to snow clearing.

Now other provinces have policies where plows are on the road with the start of

a weather event. I asked yesterday and the minister answered.

I'll ask

the Premier: Will you support the reinstatement of 24-hour snow clearing on the

province's busiest roads?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works .

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Again,

I'll just repeat what I've said before. We have 24-hour snow clearing when

weather warrants it. Certainly, last night the conditions warranted it and our

plows were on the roads, and we will continue to do that, Madam Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Media

are reporting that one of the requirements that must be met before snow plow

operators can be called out is an accumulation of 10 centimetres of snow.

I'll ask

the Premier: Can you confirm that 10 centimetres must be on the ground before

the snow clearing strategy that the Liberals have now begun to have as policy,

before that policy kicks in?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

No, Madam Speaker. There are

some target areas that we look at, and certainly conditions of the road are

important for us. As I mentioned before, we have 24-hour snow clearing in areas

that previously had it. The only difference that we have is the fact that

24-hour snow clearing if it's warranted, we will have our plows on the roads.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I ask

the minister: Can ambulances and emergency responders travel safely on roads

with 10 centimetres of snow on them?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Again, I

answered that question, I think, probably two weeks in a row with regard to the

protocol when there's an emergency. There's absolutely no difference in our

protocol for emergencies than the previous administration had.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

official in the minister's department stated that would be the trigger. Ten

centimetres of snow, 50 kilometres an hour of wind and freezing rain would be

the triggers to call out snow clearing to the roads. The minister is denying

that but we've read differently, and his own officials have also stated the

same.

I ask

the minister: Has your government consulted with emergency responders to

communicate with your reductions in 24-hour snow clearing and give them the

opportunity to voice their concerns?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Madam Speaker, we haven't

consulted because of the fact that we haven't reduced 24-hour snow clearing. We

have very clearly stated that we have there are a number of targets that when

we reach a point, then we will have our plows on the road when it's warranted

and we have 24-hour snow clearing. There's absolutely nothing different.

Last

night, there were conditions that warranted us having our plows out. Our plows

were on the road. We'll continue to do that, Madam Speaker, as we go through the

winter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

When

asked if any regional staff and operators had expressed concerns with

cost-cutting measures, the Minister of TW arrogantly replied, and I quote: If

the Member opposite is so interested in that he can ATIPP it and get it .

I ask

the Premier: Will you instruct your minister to proactively release this

information?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would

be more than glad to do that. As a matter of fact, we welcome suggestions from

all of our workforce.

We have

dedicated men and women in our department that are on the highways. Certainly,

if there are any suggestions that they have, we welcome that at any time. I

would certainly be more than willing, if we have any information on that, to

release it to the Member opposite.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Minister, to be clear: When you referred to plows being available for 24-hour

call-out, does that apply to all provincial roads or just the 4 per cent?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Madam Speaker, I thought I

made it clear. Maybe somebody else on this side may want to make it a little

clearer than what I've been doing because, obviously, the message is not getting

across.

I have

made it very, very clear that whatever was in place by the previous

administration that we do have access to 24-hour snow clearing when the

conditions warrant it. We will continue to do that, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

So, Madam Speaker, I want to

ask that same question again because yesterday it was 4 per cent of the roads

that the 24-hour snow clearing was no longer available on. So I'll ask it again.

To be clear, when you refer to the plows being available for 24-hour callout,

does that apply to all provincial roads or just the 4 per cent? Just answer the

question, Minister.

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

If the

Members opposite had been so concerned, they would have had 289 covered last

year on 24-hour snow clearing. They didn't. They identified 13 routes for 24-7.

They identified nine for 24-5. So, Madam Speaker, what we've been saying very,

very clear, they've asked the question about 24-hour snow clearing and we are

providing 24-hour snow clearing when the conditions warrant in areas that

they've identified previously, and we'll continue to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Yesterday the Member for Bay of Islands advocated for 24-hour snow clearing. You

are the government; what are you going to do about it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I say to

the Member, I advocated for having plows on the road, when necessary. I heard

the Leader of the Opposition talk about road conditions. I just want everybody

in this province to know the minister of Transportation who took highways, all

depots, go to your depots at 9 o'clock at night no matter what the conditions,

was that minister he was the minister who was a part of that decision.

I'll ask

the Member: Can you tell me if the people in the Bay of Islands lives,

conditions and their safety is worth it, not having 24 hours, when necessary, or

should it just be for 4 per cent of the people of the province? Ask your leader;

he's the one who would not let tractors on the road after 9 o'clock at night and

he was the minister of Transportation that caused that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The

spokesperson with TW indicated to the media that snow clearing crews are

frequently checking forecasts. Who is actually monitoring the roads?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I think

yesterday I also made it very clear that we do have professional people that are

monitoring the conditions of the road. We have supervisors that are monitoring

conditions of the road. I also made a comment not that we're depending upon

these people if there are other people that are using the highways the same as

they have access on reporting accidents or reporting conditions, that mechanism

is in place as well, Madam Speaker. If, in fact, that request comes in, we will

actually deploy resources depending upon the conditions. If it warrants it, we

will have our resources out.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Madam Speaker, can the

minister advise this House if the Seniors' Advocate will be afforded the same

legislative authority as the Child and Youth Advocate?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Madam Speaker, as I said this

morning in the media release, we will not duplicate services. The Citizens' Rep

does that job. So the Office of the Seniors' Advocate will not be duplicating

services in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Can the minister explain why

section 17 of the legislation to appoint a Seniors' Advocate states that if

seniors come to the Advocate with concerns, they should be referred to the

Citizens' Representative?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Madam Speaker, this is a

great day for seniors in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Today this government will

put forth a promise that we had to seniors in this province. The Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune has been in government since 2007 and since that

period of time, seniors have been asking; they've been asking for a voice. And

in this vulnerable times, Madam Speaker, in these times of fiscal restraint

seniors need a voice, and the Office of the Seniors' Advocate will do just that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Madam Speaker, we agree

seniors need a voice, and that's why the legislation is so concerning, because

this position will have no

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

authority. So if a senior

is in government care who is being abused or suffering, calls to the Seniors'

Advocate will only result in a referral to the Citizens' Representative.

Is that

what you're saying, Minister?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Again, Madam Speaker, this is

a good day for seniors in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are

going to give seniors

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Order,

please!

If the

Speaker has to speak anymore, I will name Members and you will not be permitted

to speak for the remainder of the afternoon. You guys decide how this will go.

The hon.

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

This speaker is about to give

seniors a voice. We're about to do something the previous administration did not

do, Madam Speaker.

The

Office of the Seniors' Advocate, seniors all across Newfoundland and Labrador

have been calling for this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Madam Speaker, it's

disconcerting to see the colleagues didn't listen to the Minister Responsible

for the Status of Women yesterday.

My next

question: Will the Seniors' Advocate be legislated to report to the House of

Assembly the concerns he or she has with government decisions affecting seniors,

or is this merely a liaison between departments and Cabinet?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Madam Speaker, it's evident

the Member did not do her research on the Office of the Seniors' Advocate. The

Office of the Seniors' Advocate will report to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

We certainly have done our

research, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

We want the people of the

province to know how this position is window dressing, but we hope to see that

it will be much more. We'll talk about that in the debate later today.

If the

Advocate is the voice of seniors, why does the minister's Seniors' Advocate

legislation not include aspects of the

Adult Protection Act from 2014?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Madam Speaker, I'll stand in

this House of Assembly again and say this is a good day for seniors in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Seniors in this province will

have an additional voice today.

Madam

Speaker, we have a Citizens' Representative. We have organizations like the

Seniors Resource Centre. We have the 50+ Federation. We have the Provincial

Advisory Council to the minister. We have the pensioners group and it goes on

and on.

Right

throughout this province, as we spoke to seniors and as we spoke to these groups

who represented the seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador, they wanted and they

asked for an Office of the Seniors' Advocate.

consulted with all these groups last week and all these groups are happy that we

are doing this today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

When government learns of

incidents where seniors are suffering abuse or mistreatment while in

government's care, will the minister make it mandatory to have these incidents

reported to the Seniors' Advocate?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development, time for a quick answer.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Madam Speaker, we work for

seniors in this province, we advocate for seniors and we represent each and

every one of us here in this House of Assembly, as MHAs, represent our

constituents. That's all of our roles.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Proposed

enhancement to the Canada Pension Plan omitted inclusion in the new program of

dropout provisions for parents, especially women who do the majority of child

raising and persons with disabilities. This means that no enhancement is planned

for work time lost due to parenting or disability issues.

I ask

the Minister of Finance: Will she commit to insisting that this serious omission

be fixed when at the federal, provincial and territorial Finance Ministers'

meeting scheduled for December 20?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank

you to the Member opposite for the question. One of the privileges for me, as a

representative in this House, is to serve in the capacity of not only the

Minister of Finance, but also the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

It is a unique privilege that at the federal table with my colleagues,

particularly on Finance, that I believe I'm the only one that has that

responsibility.

To the

Member opposite, I would assure her that all conversations from my perspective

at those tables are led through the lens of both those portfolios, Madam

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Madam Speaker, government's

budget is affecting seniors and other people.

John

can't afford a dentist. He tried pulling his own aching tooth out with pliers.

Roger lost his dentures and can't afford a new set even though his doctor said

he needs them to eat properly. Paul got new dentures, understanding the reduced

Adult Dental Program would cover the cost. Now he learns he has to pay $300

extra to get them, a full month's groceries. He has to choose between dentures

or food. He can't have both. These folks and many others need more than two

front teeth for Christmas.

I ask

the minister: People are hurting and can't afford dental care, what is he going

to do?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

The

issue of the Dental Program, the changes that were made align it with five other

jurisdictions in Canada. It's better than three others in addition.

With

regard to individual cases, particularly the Member opposite references a

gentleman, I think it was, who got dentures organized through the program. If

work was in progress prior to the change, those dentures will be honoured.

If there

are any outstanding issues, I would be delighted if the details would be

provided to my department. We can see where we can go with individual cases,

Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Madam Speaker, this is a

systemic issue, it's not about individual cases.

Catherine has severe osteoporosis. She fell and broke her hip. After surgery she

had intensive home care for a few weeks then was dropped like a hot potato. She

gets absolutely no home care now.

Fred is

an 85-year-old veteran with severe arthritis. He slipped and fell at home. He

too had post-hospital stay acute home care support. After a few weeks he too was

dropped like a hot potato. His arthritis is so severe he can't even sign his

name, let alone cut his vegetables.

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I ask

the Member to get to the question.

MS. ROGERS:

I ask the minister: Can he

not see this wrong-headed policy of streamlining? His push is going to cost more

by forcing people into long-term care facilities when they only need a few hours

of home care to stay in their homes?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

The

prime determinant of home support has, and will continue to be, the clinical

needs of the individual under assessment. This is a team-based affair. It's done

with clinical experts within frameworks that are set out by evidence-based and

evidence-informed practice.

If there

are occasions where there are enhancements to home care, it is often difficult

sometimes to explain where those enhancements are no longer needed. Anyone who

feels they are not getting the clinical hours that they need has recourse to

appeal and to discuss, and ask for new assessment at any time, Madam Speaker.

And I would suggest in the first instance that would be the way to go for these

people.

Thank

you.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Madam Speaker, again this is

a systemic issue and it's many, many, many individuals who are facing this

problem.

People

with persistent health issues have had their bus passes taken away even though

their doctors write letters advocating for them. The bus pass allows people to

get to mental health support groups they need in order to stay healthy or to get

to the Gathering Place for food and services. Many are waiting months for

decisions on their appeals.

I ask

the minister: How does taking away bus passes, isolating people from health

services they need to stay well save government money?

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

I best

be careful about my language. I don't want to run into trouble.

We have

a list of folk who are not easily identifiable, for whom issues have been

identified. I would challenge the Member opposite, if she is aware of

constituents of hers who are in difficulties and are having trouble with the

system, it is her responsibility as an MHA and their representative to bring

them to me so we can deal with them. To bring them in this fashion here is

disingenuous.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Time for Question Period has

expired.

MR. P. DAVIS:

A point of order, Madam

Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Opposition

on a point of order.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you.

Standing

Order 49, Madam Speaker, I'm going to speak to this afternoon. During Question

Period there were many outbursts from Members opposite on government side of the

House. One in particular loud and directly at a Member in the Opposition from

the Minister of Education, but most disconcerting this afternoon was a comment

by the Member for Labrador West towards my colleague, the Member for Fortune Bay

Cape La Hune, while she was on her feet speaking this afternoon.

Under

section 49 it refers that, No Member shall speak disrespectfully but

specifically says, use offensive words against any Member of this House.

I submit

to you, Madam Speaker, that the words heckled from the Member opposite were very

disconcerting. They were very offensive towards my colleague from Fortune Bay

Cape La Hune, and I ask the Speaker to direct the Member to rise, withdraw the

comment and apologize to the House.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I'm

happy to stand here and respond to this point of order. Unfortunately, I never

heard any such utterance as mentioned by the Member opposite. Certainly, this

House does get boisterous on both sides of the House during Question Period, but

I can honestly say I never heard anything so I would suggest that an opportunity

to review the tape

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. A. PARSONS:

I would say if I could make

my point, or respond to the point of order without being heckled I would

appreciate it.

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS:

Again, I never heard any such

utterance. It's hard to respond to it when the words itself were not mentioned

earlier. It was just the allegation of offensive language but there's no

offensive language that we could hear and I would suggest the Speaker has to

take it under advisement at best.

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I will

not have a debate back and forth. The Speaker did not hear the comment. If the

Member for Labrador West wants to stand and withdraw he can, or the Speaker will

review the tapes and report back tomorrow.

The hon.

the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I didn't

want to specifically have to get into the words spoken. I will be quite willing

to share the words spoken from the Member opposite but as you've said if he

wants to rise and withdraw the comments that will be more than satisfactory to

Members of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports

by Standing and Select Committees

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

As the

Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, it's an honour for me to table the first

report of the Standing Committee of the Public Accounts for the 48th General

Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I'd like

to thank the Committee Members: the Member for Fogo Island Cape Freels, vice

chair, the Member for Bonavista, the Member for Harbour Grace, the Member for

Conception Bay South, the Member for St. John's Centre and the Member for St.

George's Humber.

I also

would like to thank the staff of the House of Assembly in the Clerk's office,

the Auditor General and his officials and Speaker for his help and support.

It's an

honour for us to table this, our first report, in the 48th General Assembly.

MADAM SPEAKER:

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MADAM SPEAKER:

In accordance with

section

19(5)(

a) of the House of Assembly,

Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act , I hereby table the minutes

of the House of Assembly Management Commission meeting held on November 23,

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I give

notice, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m.

on Thursday, December 15; and further, pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give

notice that this House not adjourn at 10 p.m. on Thursday, December 15.

Thank

you.

MADAM SPEAKER:

Answers to Questions for

which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

government plans to remove the provincial point-of-sale tax rebate on books,

which will raise the tax on books from 5 per cent to 15 per cent; and

WHEREAS

an increase in the tax on books will reduce book sales to the detriment of local

bookstores, publishers and authors, and the amount collected by government must

be weighed against the loss in economic activity caused by higher book prices;

and

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest literacy rates in Canada and the

other provinces do not tax books because they recognize the need to encourage

reading and literacy; and

WHEREAS

this province has many nationally and internationally known storytellers, but we

will be the only people in Canada who will have to pay our provincial government

a tax to read the books of our own writers;

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

of Assembly to urge government not to impose a provincial sales tax on books.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Madam

Speaker, I'm very pleased to bring this petition to the House of Assembly.

People were absolutely shocked when the budget came out this year and had in it

this terrible, draconian measure of putting a tax on books. It's something that

has been unheard of in this province and in this country, really. We are one of

the few places, even on an international level, that is doing this.

Here in

Canada, we are the only province who will be doing this. Nova Scotia and PEI

recently looked at doing it, but the public protest was so great that they just

dropped the idea. In Nova Scotia in 2015, there was a petition and a social

media campaign by publishers and book sellers and students and librarians, but

of course this government doesn't pay attention to what the public says. So they

are going ahead with this tax on books which will start on January 1.

We have,

as the petition says, the highest illiteracy rate. We should be so concerned

about keeping our young people and our adults reading. Madam Speaker, this is

going to stop that. Our illiteracy rate is going to go up.

Thank

you very much.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

government has once again cut the libraries budget, threatening the closure of

54 libraries; and

WHEREAS

libraries are often the backbone of their communities, especially for those with

little access to government services where they offer learning opportunities and

computer access; and

WHEREAS

libraries and librarians are critical in efforts to improve the province's

literacy levels which are among the lowest in Canada; and

WHEREAS

already strapped municipalities are not in a position to take over the operation

and cost of libraries;

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

of Assembly to urge government to keep these libraries open and work on a

long-term plan to strengthen the library system.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Madam

Speaker, these particular stacks of petitions are from the good people in King's

Point. Like many people who were told last spring their public library would

soon close, the people of the picturesque community of King's Point in Green

Bay, a popular tourist destination, were devastated.

Library

services in King's Point date back all the way to the 1940s when local resident

Norman Strong started the library with a couple of boxed of books that came from

St. John's via coastal boat. In the mid-1940s, Nellie Tilley took over

distributing books from her sun porch. The library was later set up in Yates

store before the Tilley Memorial Library was opened on main street, its current

location, in 1974.

From

that day to this, the library in King's Point has been a beehive of activity.

How could Norman Strong or Nellie Tilley have foreseen that in 2016, the library

they gave life to would be providing computer access and training, Wi-Fi access,

preschool programs, special programs for youth of all ages, reading programs and

contests, public health presentations, movie nights, family literacy program,

and Every Child Ready to Read workshops or that it become home for the Women's

Institute in the community. What Norman Strong and Nellie Tilley did realize,

Madam Speaker, is that a strong public library is a cornerstone of a vibrant

community.

The

people of King's Point deserve the support of their government to support this

important service in the future. They need to be reassured once again, Madam

Speaker, that their library will continue to exist. That government will not cut

this very important service that belongs to all the people of King's Point and

the communities in that area. To take away this would be taking away from

children, young families, seniors and youth.

Thank

you very much, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

in July 2016 the Dorset Fisheries plant in Norman's Cove-Long Cove burned to the

ground in a massive industrial fire; and

WHEREAS

the plant employed about 240 people from the immediate area and many of whom are

now out of work;

WHEREUPON the undersigned residents, your petitioners, humbly pray and all upon

the House of Assembly to urge the government to take immediate action to provide

the residents of Norman's Cove-Long cove area with the necessary supports to

help them rebuild their local economy.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Yesterday, Madam Speaker, I got up and presented the same petition. The Minister

of Fisheries kind of heckled me saying oh, yeah, right 240. Well, yesterday's

petition had over 100 names on it and if you want to look at the petition that I

have today, it has over 200 names on it. So there are a lot of people in that

area that are very concerned about what's happening to their local economy. They

are very concerned about what's happening to their jobs. All they want is

answers and it seems like they can't get any answers from this government

whatsoever.

Madam

Speaker, when you have this many people signing a petition and none of them are

from St. John's area, all of them are from Chapel Arm, Long Cove, Thornlea,

Bellevue and all this area where they're very concerned about what is happening

to their fish plant.

What

they've been told is all that's going to be put back there is probably an ice

facility to ice up and an unloading facility. These are jobs that people are

really concerned about. These are residents most of the people that worked in

this plant are in their late 50s, early 60s and they're very concerned. It's

pretty hard to try to find some kind of employment in any area of the province.

They were assured when the plant burned down they were assured by government

representatives that they'd be there for them, that they'd make sure that their

plant was rebuilt. They'd make sure that those jobs would be safe in the future.

All they're asking is where is government now and what are they doing for these

people.

Thank

you very much.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

there has been a reduction in the hours of operation for X-ray services at the

Placentia Health Centre; service has been reduced from 24 hours a day, seven

days a week to 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday to Friday; and

WHEREAS

this reduces the availability of an important diagnostic tool for physicians at

the Health Centre having a direct impact on patient care. The reduction in

service impacts the ability of physicians and nursing staff to perform their

jobs and can potentially delay diagnosis and treatment;

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

of Assembly to urge government to reverse this decision and restore the

provision of X-ray services to a 24 hours a day, seven days a week service.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Madam

Speaker, over 1,800 residents of Newfoundland and Labrador has signed this

petition to express concern about the reduction of the full-time function of the

emergency room at the Placentia Health Centre. That Health Centre serves the

entire region, not only Placentia and the Dunville area, but the Cape Shore, Fox

Harbour, Ship Harbour, even St. Mary's Bay North and Long Harbour.

You

can't simply predict that someone requiring an X-ray will only show up between 8

a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday to Friday. If the resource is available at the site,

medical professionals should have appropriate access to use of the equipment.

The

current set-up with the service not being available on weekends or after 4 p.m.

on weekdays puts a restriction on the diagnostic ability of the professionals

working at the site. On weekends or after hours, people now either get referred

to Carbonear Hospital or are asked to come back when the technician is

available. This has the potential to delay treatment and diagnosis. Multiple

trips to the Health Centre also create a burden on the system overall.

Following the initial announcement of this change, the Town of Placentia asked

Eastern Health if the on call lab technician could operate the X-ray machine if

called in for blood work. Eastern Health did agree to this; however, not all of

the lab technicians are cross-trained for the use of the X-ray machine. Now it

all depends on who's called in for the lab. So far this has worked out to be

about half of the time.

The

Placentia area is a growing region, but cuts to services like this will impact

the ability of that community to attract new growth and development. Plus, more

importantly than that, there's a health and safety concern that we've been asked

to bring to the House of Assembly on behalf of the people of that region.

So I'm

happy to do so today on their behalf, but wish we didn't have to.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

To the

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

assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the government has cut vital funding to the Boys and Girls Clubs in this

province, negatively impacting important programs and services;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray upon the House of

Assembly to urge government to reinstate previous funding in order to allow this

organization to carry on its positive work in the community.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Madam

Speaker, Boys and Girls Clubs, along with a number of other youth organizations,

have been dramatically cut in the last set of cuts that were set out seven

months ago, but only notified to these organizations a few weeks ago. And

keeping in mind that these organizations provide services to 41,000 young people

in this province and they have over 1,600 volunteers. They have a combined

budget of $54 million and we're nickel and diming them by making cuts that are

very important to their core funding. And this is what this is all about. This

is about key things like core funding.

And the

Premier stood and talked about the new groups that they had funded through the

Grants to Youth Organizations. I have to clarify that because that

administration didn't fund any new core groups. What they did was take money

from Boys and Girls clubs, from Scouts, from Big Brothers Big Sisters, from

other organizations, small organizations in rural Newfoundland and Labrador to

put into other organizations. And that's not a good investment for the people of

this province; it's definitely not a good investment for the young people of

this province.

What

they should have done is saw the hindsight and found a way to improve the amount

of money that is put into Grants to Youth Organizations so that more young

people could avail of the services that are important for them to stay developed

as young people in our province.

Again, a

testament should be noted to the private sector that have to step up here

because they're in awe of exactly the cuts here and how dramatic the impacts are

going to have.

I have

to give a call out to DF Barnes, one of the companies that jumped up

automatically because of connections with some of the particular organizations

that were cut and put a major bit of funding in for the James Hornell Boys &

Girls Club in Buchans because they know they're going to be restricted on how

they can make up that money in a small community. They did the same for the

provincial Big Brothers Big Sisters because they realized the impact that a

major 50 per cent cut on their core funding would be.

So the

corporate world understands how government is not doing its part during this

year, particularly around Christmastime. The corporate world doesn't want to be

a scrooge, it wants to show the real meaning of Christmas and they want to show

the real meaning of investing in our young people here, and they've done that.

So shame

on the government for cutting these young people, shame on the government for

not seeing the benefits of investing the taxpayers' money in the right areas,

and shame on them for not understanding our citizens need a better choice in

this province.

So,

Madam Speaker, I'll have an opportunity to do this, as we get through the House,

over the next number of weeks.

Thank

you, Madam Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Madam Speaker, I call Order

2, third reading of Bill 58.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Madam Speaker, I move,

seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 58,

An Act

To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City

Of St. John's Act, be now read a third time.

MADAM SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's

Act. (Bill 58)

MADAM SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the

Order Paper.

motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount

Pearl Act And The City Of St. John's Act, read a third time, ordered passed and

its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 58)

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Madam Speaker, I call Order

3, third reading of Bill 59.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Madam Speaker, I move,

seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 59,

An Act

To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, be now read a third

time.

MADAM SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 59)

MADAM SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the

Order Paper.

motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation

Act, read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

(Bill 59)

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Madam Speaker, Order 4, third

reading of Bill 62.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Madam Speaker, I move,

seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 62,

An Act

To Amend The City Of St. John's Act And The City Of St. John's Municipal

Taxation Act, be now read third time.

MADAM SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye,

MADAM SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill, Act To Amend The City

Of St. John's Act And The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act. (Bill 62)

MADAM SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do

pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill,

An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act And The

City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, read a third time, ordered passed

and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 62)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy House Leader.

MS. COADY: Madam Speaker, Order 7, second reading of Bill 64,

An Act Respecting the

Seniors' Advocate.

MADAM SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Children, Seniors and

Social Development, that Bill 64,

An Act Respecting the Seniors' Advocate, be

now read a second time.

MADAM SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 64,

An Act Respecting the Seniors'

Advocate, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act Respecting the Seniors'

Advocate. (Bill 64)

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH : Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today to speak to Bill 64, an

act to establish an Office of the Seniors' Advocate. In Newfoundland and

Labrador, almost 20 per cent of our population is aged 65 or older. Within 10

years that will increase to just short of one-third of our population. These are

statistics we simply cannot ignore.

It is crucial to have an even stronger focus on seniors than what exists

today. The challenges and opportunities resulting from our aging population must

be considered when we develop policies, programs and services. We have heard

from seniors, seniors' organizations and major stakeholders. They feel the

establishment of a Seniors' Advocate office is a necessity in our province.

In Budget 2016 , we committed

$500,000 yearly for the Office of the Seniors' Advocate, once established. We

made a promise in our five-point plan to establish this office and have been

working diligently to develop well-thought-out and comprehensive legislation. We

are proud to stand today as we move forward to fulfill that commitment.

Last spring, we debated how to best address advocacy for seniors. We

recognized and were advised that we did not want to duplicate services or

confuse the public. We knew we had a Citizens' Representative who accepted

complaints from individual adults of all ages, including seniors. We also knew

that we had a strong, well-respected community organization that is the Seniors

Resource Centre that is already providing a valuable information and referral

service. We decided to

strengthen that service and provided the Seniors Resource Centre with an

additional $200,000 to expand their service.

We also

knew we had a gap. While seniors could have individual complaints address by the

Citizens' Representative and be able to call the Seniors Resource Centre to get

information, there was no mechanism to address systemic issues. When I refer to

systemic issues, I refer to problems in an overall system rather than specific

individual or isolated factors.

These

are problems that invite a policy or program response, an area we need to learn

from and change; therefore, systemic issues can cover a broad range of areas

such as availability of appropriate housing, access to medications, accessible

transportation or access to affordable food and the list goes on.

Madam

Speaker, we made a decision to solve that gap by drafting legislation to

establish the Office of the Seniors' Advocate. The office will identify, review

and analyze systemic issues, which will be the core mandate of the office; work

collaboratively with seniors' organizations, service delivery groups and others

to identify and address systemic issues; and make recommendations to government

respecting changes to improve services to and for seniors.

This is

a good opportunity to clearly outline the powers and duties of the Advocate,

Madam Speaker. The powers and duties of the Advocate are consistent with other

offices with similar responsibilities. The Advocate will receive and review

matters related to seniors; initiate and participate in reviews related to

seniors; conduct research, including interviews and surveys; consult with

seniors, service providers and the public; request information, other than

personal information, such as that acquired through the

Personal Health Information Act or the

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act ; make

recommendations to government, government agencies and service providers and

community groups about legislation, policies, programs and services impacting

seniors; and inform the public about the Office of the Seniors' Advocate and

promote awareness of systemic challenges faced by seniors.

The

Independent Appointments Commission will actively recruit for the Seniors'

Advocate position. This is a consistent, merit-based process for appointments to

statutory offices and agencies, boards and commissions. This is one of the most

open and accessible appointment processes in Canada. The commission seeks

individuals who are qualified, with a passion for this province and a strong

desire to serve. In conjunction with this process, regulations will be developed

in consultation with key stakeholders over the next several months. It is

anticipated that the Office of the Seniors' Advocate will be up and running by

spring 2017.

Madam

Speaker, seniors in our province have consistently and strongly expressed the

need for an Office of the Seniors' Advocate. The Seniors' Advocate will be a

strong, independent voice for a significant portion of our population and their

families as we look to address the individual and system-wide issues which

impact older adults in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When we

spoke to individuals and seniors' groups, we heard loud and clear that the

current structures in place to handle information services and address

individual issues impacting seniors are not working. The Seniors' Advocate will

work with other entities, including the Office of the Citizens' Representative

and Seniors Resource Centre, but it will not duplicate or impede their mandates.

We are

also working closely with the Seniors Resource Centre to make sure the public is

well aware of their information and referral system, which is easily accessed

through a convenient toll-free 1-800 number. The office will benefit seniors and

also provide us with valuable feedback when we are making program changes.

Mr.

Speaker, Opposition will be eager to criticize government for introducing a new

office during a time of fiscal restraint; however, this office is essential.

This office is not a luxury. Everyone in our province understands the harsh

fiscal realities we, as a government, have had to address over this past year,

but we also understand the challenges we face with a rapidly aging population.

Our

government has a plan to ensure we are prepared for this demographic change

through smarter spending and sustainable investments. A number of these

investments are already positively impacting the lives of seniors in our

province. For example, over $63.7 million for the Newfoundland and Labrador

Income Supplement to help eligible low-income seniors, individuals, families and

persons with disabilities and an annual investment of more than $57 million for

the Seniors' Benefit.

committed to providing the best possible services and programs for seniors while

respecting their independence. We made a public commitment in our platform

document and again in our Five Point Plan

and have reaffirmed our commitment on many occasions.

In fact,

our Premier led an exercise in 2014 which provided an opportunity to hear

first-hand from seniors all over Newfoundland and Labrador. The Let's Connect

initiative allowed seniors a mechanism to have their voices heard and our

Premier heard the message about the need for a Seniors' Advocate loud and clear.

Mr.

Speaker, we know there's a policy gap where we do not have an avenue to address

systemic issues that impact seniors. The establishment of the Office of the

Seniors' Advocate will address that. This government is fulfilling its

commitment. We are addressing a demonstrated need. In times of fiscal restraint,

the most vulnerable need a strong voice.

From a

jurisdictional perspective, Mr. Speaker, Alberta and British Columbia currently

have a seniors' advocate. New Brunswick has an ombudsman with expanded powers to

include long-term care services. Not all models are the same. Our province has

modelled the legislation on that of British Columbia, with one major difference:

the BC Seniors Advocate reports directly to the minister responsible for

seniors, and our direction from Cabinet is that the Advocate report to the House

of Assembly.

It is

important that the office we create is designed to serve our province and our

seniors, Mr. Speaker. As our Premier stated this morning, we want to ensure that

those who are unable to advocate for themselves will have their needs met

through an advocacy office. The independence of this office will be enshrined in

legislation and will help ensure the rights and interests of our seniors are

given a strong, clear voice.

The

Seniors' Advocate has to work with our existing organizations and resources to

address issues in Newfoundland and Labrador. The model we implement will be

designed to make that happen. As I stated earlier, the Seniors' Advocate will be

a strong, independent voice for Newfoundland and Labrador's seniors, along with

their families. It follows through on our government's election commitment to

establish this important office.

Again, I

cannot express it enough. In these times of economic challenges, vulnerable

people need to have a voice for their sake and ours. I look forward to debating

this legislation in the House of Assembly.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

The Speaker recognizes

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

MS. PERRY:

Thank you so much, Mr.

Speaker.

It's

certainly an honour and a privilege to rise in this House once again today to

speak to this very important piece of legislation.

We are

pleased here as Members of the Opposition that a Seniors' Advocate is being put

in place for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We certainly are not

opposed to establishing a Seniors' Advocate; however, if we're going to have an

advocate, it's our position, Mr. Speaker, then let's do it right.

There

are some weaknesses in this bill that I'm sure Members on this side of the

House, both the Official Opposition and the Third Party, will be highlighting in

an effort to strengthen the bill.

This

bill, of courses, will establish the Office of the Seniors' Advocate and appoint

a person to act as an advocate for the interests of seniors. This was an

election promise made by the Liberal government and it was included in the

minister's mandate letter. Department officials have advised us, will be

expected to operate in a fiscally responsible capacity that does not duplicate

the services or mandates of existing entities. We've heard a lot about them here

today, Mr. Speaker, such as the 50Plus Club, the Seniors Advisory Council, all

of these mechanisms and organizations, the Seniors Resource Council that are in

place and doing an absolute fabulous job.

But the

issue becomes, are they being listened to? When we see the budget that was

brought down in 2016, in the spring of this year, we clearly saw that they were

not being listened to. It is our true hope the Advocate will actually be

listened to by Members opposite and we are hoping we will see reversal of all

the damaging decisions that were made to seniors and the hardships they will

have to endure this winter as a result of

Budget 2016. I am absolutely sure a Seniors' Advocate that was truly

listened to by the people and actually had authority would never have allowed

Cabinet to bring down such a budget with such devastating impact on seniors.

Let's hope this position will be in place before the next budget and will ensure

that seniors are protected.

In a

time of fiscal constraint, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal budget is increasing the

size of the bureaucracy. One of the questions that comes to my mind is with the

existing groups that are out there they're doing an absolutely fantastic job.

No doubt, additional support for them in the future is something that hopefully

we will see the Advocate look for on their behalf, Mr. Speaker, so that they can

actually deliver real services to people where it matters.

On the

surface, to us, this position does look like a Liberal appointment that will be

advising government, but we are yet to see where the teeth is in being able to

hold government accountable. That's really our only major concern with this

bill. There is no mechanism here for the Advocate to actually hold government

accountable, Mr. Speaker.

At full

operations, this office is projected to cost taxpayers $500,000, Mr. Speaker.

Five hundred thousand dollars could go a long way towards providing seniors with

heat and light, with affordable housing, with groceries, with diabetic test

strips, with funding for home care, with hours of home care. Five hundred

thousand dollars could go a long way, so we truly hope that the addition of

another bureaucratic position will actually have some impact on the well-being

of seniors. We will hold government accountable and frequently question

government as to whether or not they are listening to what the Advocate is

bringing forward, Mr. Speaker.

The

Advocate definition as it relates to the current Child and Youth Advocate is far

different from the definition of the proposed Seniors' Advocate. If you'll allow

me, Mr. Speaker, I will read into the record what the differences are: The

Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is established (

a) to ensure that the

rights and interests of children and youth are protected and advanced and their

views are heard and considered; (

b) to ensure that children and youth have

access to services and that their complaints relating to the provision of those

services receive appropriate attention; (

c) to provide information and advice to

the government, agencies of the government and to communities about the

availability, effectiveness, responsiveness and relevance of services to

children and youth; (c.1) to review and investigate matters affecting the rights

and interests of children and youth; and (

d) generally, to act as an advocate of

the rights and interests of children and youth.

That is

a stark contrast to the definition of the role of the Seniors' Advocate which is

established to: (

a) identify, review and analyze systemic issues related to

seniors . Mr. Speaker, I for one truly believe that our existing organizations

have done a fabulous job in identifying what the issues are affecting seniors.

Getting the results in terms of what changes they need, we'll hopefully see that

as a result of the Advocate's office but there are no teeth here to enforce

that.

The

definition goes on to say in addition to identifying, reviewing and analyzing

systemic issues, they will (

b) work collaboratively with seniors'

organizations, service providers and others to identify and address systemic

issues related to seniors; (

c) and make recommendations to government and

government agencies respecting changes to improve seniors' services.

Mr.

Speaker, what I'd really like to focus on here is they will be making

recommendations to government and government agencies, as do the existing

entities that are there to support seniors. Will they be listened to, is the key

issue

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

that we need to be

concerned about as taxpayers in this province who are now responsible for

another layer of bureaucracy.

It says,

they will work collaboratively with seniors' organizations, service providers

. To that end, government is telling us there will be no duplication and we

will have to wait and see. Certainly, we hope we won't be hearing from the

existing groups a year from now that they are still frustrated and they have

just one more layer to go through before they can get their voices heard.

We truly

do hope that this position will be a strong voice for the senior. We all agree I

think every person in Newfoundland and Labrador, that seniors need a strong

voice. We truly hope this is what we will see come forward.

I will

list now shortly the powers and duties of the Seniors' Advocate. As I referred

to in Question Period earlier today, one of our concerns is that there's a lot

of window dressing there as opposed to actual and real powers and duties that

will hold government accountable.

I'll

refer again once more to the Child and Youth Advocate who was given a mandate to

investigate matters of individuals who are in the care of government. With

thousands and thousands of our seniors in the care of government, the Seniors'

Advocate, we truly believe, ought to have been created using the Child and Youth

Advocate model and actually have some teeth in their ability to advocate to

government. Apart from issuing reports, though, the independent office has no

ability with the legislation as it's currently written to hold government

accountable for its actions.

The

Seniors' Advocate has no mandate other than to review and recommend a role

that would essentially be performed by the minister responsible for seniors, Mr.

Speaker. It's nice she will be having more advisors, but certainly it's

important for government

to listen to, not just the Advocate but all the

existing seniors groups that are in place today and bringing their concerns

forward to government for attention.

Given the aging population and future demographics, the

powers and duties of this position will not provide the proper advocacy needed

by seniors. As time goes on, the Advocate will be able to advocate for that

themselves, we would trust, Mr. Speaker.

I will list now some of the powers and duties of the

Advocate. This comes from

section 16 of the legislation.

In carrying out the powers

and duties of his or her office the advocate may (

a) receive and review matters

related to seniors; (

b) initiate and participate in reviews related to seniors;

(

c) conduct research related to seniors, including interviews and surveys; (

d) consult with seniors, service providers and the public;(

e) request information,

other than (

i) personal health information within the meaning of the Personal

Health Information Act , and (ii) personal information within the meaning of

the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015 ; (

f) make

recommendations to government, government agencies, service providers and

community groups respecting legislation, policies, programs and services

impacting seniors; and (

g) inform the public about the Office of the Seniors'

Advocate and promote awareness of systemic issues related to seniors.

(2) A service provider, department or

government agency who receives a request for information under this Act shall,

if he, she or it has custody or control of the information, provide the

information.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is

lacking in all of this, we see the word systemic issues over and over and over

again. We see broad strokes of a definition of systemic issues, but we have no

clear articulation by government of what some of these systemic issues are.

Hopefully, we will learn more about that as the debate in the bill goes on.

In 2014, Mr. Speaker, the

Adult Protection Act was proclaimed.

This act protects vulnerable citizens in Newfoundland and Labrador from abuse or

neglect, namely seniors. The Adult

Protection Act was the former administration's commitment to putting

resources and supports in place to protect those who represent the most

vulnerable sectors of our population.

The Seniors' Advocate has been given no

role or authority to see that the Adult

Protection Act is actually enforced. The role of the Seniors' Advocate is to

review systemic issues within government. Again, as I've said, other than broad

strokes, they have really not defined what they mean by this, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I will reiterate, our concern is

that

this legislation has no real teeth. The Seniors' Advocate has no real authority

to enforce any of the concerns that are brought forward to them by seniors.

Liberal I guess through the IAC appointee will be appointed to the Seniors'

Advocate position. Will this person have the power, I guess is the question,

because they will have no real independence like the Child and Youth Advocate.

MR. A. PARSONS:

A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

A point

of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

We are debating an

independent office of this House of Assembly, so for the Member opposite to

suggest that the position will be filled by a Liberal appointee is offensive to

the office itself.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will

this position, will the Seniors' Advocate, really have the power to influence

Cabinet decisions, and will they really have the power to reverse Cabinet

decisions that negatively impact seniors, such as the numerous decisions that

negatively impacted seniors in Budget 2016 ?

Again, Mr. Speaker, I would say based on the emails of concern we received all

across this province and continue to receive today as seniors are going through

a very hard winter and unsure of how they're going to make it through, given all

of the tax hikes and cuts they endured in

Budget 2016 .

The

impact on seniors, if only there was an advocate that could have advised

government to not impose those heavy burdens on our seniors this winter, it

would have been great. I truly hope one of the first things we'll see as a

result of this Advocate is some reversals to the negative budget decisions that

were made for seniors this year.

So with

that, I will conclude my comments and finish with this closing comment, that the

Office of the Seniors' Advocate is not legislated with the ability or power to

be a truly independent voice for seniors. So we hope that as one of the first

courses of business the Advocate does, is to recommend, unless we're able to

achieve it here in the House over the next two days, recommend that this

legislation be strengthened to give the Advocate the actual authority they need

to make the decisions that are in the best interest of the seniors of

Newfoundland and Labrador who are the very first priority of each and every one

of us, and we all care about what's best for them.

Thank

you so much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Lewisporte Twillingate.

MR. D. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

happy to rise and speak of this important piece of legislation as parliamentary

secretary to Children, Seniors and Social Development. I'm thrilled to support

Bill 64, the establishment of the Office of the Seniors' Advocate. I think it's

a landmark piece of legislation, one that recognizes how vital it is that we

grant Newfoundland and Labrador seniors an independent voice to speak on their

own behalf in the provincial Legislature.

We all

know the financial reality that Newfoundland and Labrador is facing. We all know

the previous government left our finances in a sorry state.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. D. BENNETT:

The people might argue that

with Newfoundland and Labrador finances in hard shape, we can't afford to

establish this office now and we should wait until times are better. They may

argue that this is one of those nice legislations. To anyone making that

argument, I would respond: We can't afford not to establish this office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. D. BENNETT:

With a rapidly aging

population, we are facing the reality that one-quarter of our population will be

over the age of 65 in a few years. That's one in four Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. These people will live longer and will require more health care

services. It's something we need to prepare ourselves for.

The

establishment of a Seniors' Advocate will help us do just that. Let's not forget

that the whole point of establishing this office is to improve the way we

deliver services and care to our province's seniors.

The

Advocate will hear first-hand from Newfoundland and Labrador seniors what works

and what doesn't work. And similar to the Child and Youth Advocate, the Seniors'

Advocate will make recommendations to be prepared through legislation.

These

recommendations will help us get better and smarter in the way we deliver our

services. It will make us more efficient and more effective. In the long run,

they will help us to keep costs down by proposing fixes in areas of the system

where waste might be occurring. Where it isn't working, we will make ways to fix

that.

Again,

with such a large scale of our population reaching the age of 65 and above, this

is something we need now. It's not window dressing; it's not a luxury, as our

Member across tries to refer to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. D. BENNETT:

It is a must-have and anyone

who makes the argument that we can't afford it now isn't thinking of the short-

or long-term benefits. It's a $500,000 investment now that will pay extensive

dividends in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. D. BENNETT:

The changes and refinements

that we make to our delivery and care of services will benefit all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for the long term. The Seniors' Advocate will

allow us to pinpoint and target specific areas of the system that require

adjustment.

that's the economic argument. There's also a social argument to be made as well.

Our government has clearly demonstrated, even though we are faced with

staggering deficits, the most vulnerable in our society should not have to

shoulder the burden of eliminating that deficit. We demonstrate it in a number

of ways, such as creating the new Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement

and enhancements to our existing Seniors' Benefit.

We know

that seniors, as a demographic group, are a vulnerable segment of our

population. Sometimes they lack family supports or financial security. Sometimes

they are plagued with health issues that go unaddressed. Sometimes they are

exploited or neglected. The senior population of Newfoundland is vulnerable to

all of these social issues. What the Seniors' Advocate will do is help us, as a

government, to identify the factors that lead to these social issues and help us

to come up with measures to alleviate them.

The

Advocate will complement the work of the Citizens' Representative in helping us

to address the social issues on both an individual level, as in the case of the

Citizens' Representative, and on the systemic level as in the case of the

Seniors' Advocate. In effect, we will be able to double our efforts in taking

care of the social issues of our seniors, and that's something I'm very proud to

support.

parliamentary secretary for the Department of Children, Seniors and Social

Development, I can see first-hand the excellent work in delivering these

services.

Mr.

Speaker, our front-line staff are some of the most caring and dedicated public

servants you will find anywhere. But with that being said, there's always room

for improvement. We can always do things better and smarter. We can always be

looking for ways to deliver services more efficiently and more effectively. We

can always be trying to improve the level and quality of care that we give to

our aging population. The Seniors' Advocate will help us to accomplish this.

We will

be able to refine and retool the services we deliver to a growing segment of our

population, and that's what it's all about. We want to chart a path forward that

helps to ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador seniors remain healthy, active

and engaged citizens for as long as possible. We want them living in their own

homes for as long as possible and we want them to be active in an age-friendly

community.

Above

all, we want to be able to provide them with the care in a way that respects

their dignity and recognizes their life-long contributions to our society. The

Seniors' Advocate will help us to accomplish just that.

I've

been very pleased with the level of priority this government has placed on

seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador. Even though

Budget 2016 was a difficult

budget, we were still able to bring a range of measures to make the lives of our

seniors much better. This included two income supplements that I just mentioned,

which totalled close to $75 million. We also invested $45.9 million to support

over 44,000 seniors through the 65 Plus prescription drug plan.

It included $300,000 for the Seniors Resource Centre to enhance the information

and referral services. It includes funding to support the continued development

of age-friendly communities throughout our province. And, of course,

Budget 2016 includes funding for the

creation of a Seniors' Advocate office; a very important piece of legislation.

closing, Mr. Speaker, I'm thrilled that I'm standing here today, just a year

after taking office, and debating this very important bill; much like the great

piece of legislation that we debated yesterday, to support our volunteer

firefighters. I am certain this will be one moment that I will be very proud of,

the moment when we decided, as a government, to give Newfoundland and Labrador

seniors the voice they deserve in the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. D. BENNETT:

I very much look forward to

this continued debate on the legislation. I look forward to the appointment of

the Seniors' Advocate next spring. I feel this is something that has been long

overdue in Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm very proud to serve in a government

that is bringing in much-needed legislation like this.

Thank

you and I respectfully ask all hon. Members to support Bill 64,

An Act

Respecting the Seniors' Advocate.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to stand and speak to Bill 64,

An Act Respecting the Seniors' Advocate.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a bill that there is no doubt is long overdue. I

think it's something that every Member in this House of Assembly will support. I

certainly will support it. I plan on doing that because it is, I think, a step

in the right direction.

We hear

all the time, all of us, on all sides of the House, the ongoing issues and

struggles of seniors throughout our province. Whether it be issues with health

care, and we know there are issues there for sure. We know there are issues with

home care. As an example, I can think of calls that I've received from

individuals that had concerns as a result of the budget and the increased home

care fees that they have to pay, a higher percentage. Also, issues around

reduced hours of home care for seniors.

There

are also issues that exist around paid family caregivers as another example. We

know there were issues in terms of increases to the cost of medical supplies for

seniors who are living at home as well. There are programs to cover certain

medical supplies, and we know that the seniors' portion or the patients'

portion, I guess; it didn't have to be a senior, but in most cases seniors.

Their contribution has increased. So we know there are concerns there. We know

there are concerns as it relates to affordable seniors housing. I certainly have

that in my district and I know we have issues throughout the province as it

relates to affordable seniors housing.

There's

no doubt there's a long list and we can keep adding to that list. We can talk

about the diabetes test strips and the impacts that decision is having. We can

talk about the non-prescription, over-the-counter drugs that were cut and the

impacts that is having on seniors. We can go on and on. It's not my intent to go

on and on about these things, but I guess it's to point out the fact that there

are issues affecting seniors in this province, very significantly. And as I

said, we hear from people all the time.

That's

why having a Seniors' Advocate is a good thing. I think it's good to have

someone who their sole job, their sole position, if you will and I understand

there'll be an office and there'll be some support staff. That person's sole

mandate, if you will, will be to explore issues that affect seniors, explore

policies that affect seniors, and I'm assuming make recommendations to

government on things they can do to improve those policies. Whether those

policies, as I said, be issues around health care, whether they be issues around

housing, issues around home care, issues around prescription drugs and a whole

host of other issues seniors living in isolation, senior abuse, seniors who

are struggling at home, seniors who are having issues that are living in

personal care homes and ensuring that personal care homes are up to standard and

so on.

Having

someone who would be focused on all of those seniors' issues, specifically and

solely, is a good thing, and to be able to put a senior's lens on all of the

government programs that impact seniors. That's a positive thing and everybody

here, I'm sure, supports that.

I know

when we get into Committee of the Whole, there are going to be a number of

questions that Members will have on this side of the House, I'm sure, on some of

the specific issues, but looking at it from an overall perspective which

generally when we're debating second reading of a bill, we're debating the bill

more so in principle as opposed to clause by clause although we can do clause

by clause if we want to, but generally that's left for Committee of the Whole.

I guess

the biggest overall issue that I see and I think other Members have seen it's

already been pointed out is the fact that this individual in this office

doesn't have the ability to investigate specific concerns and those concerns

will be referred to the Office of the Citizens' Representative.

understand where government is coming from in terms of duplication and so on. I

would suggest the Office of the Citizens' Representative is a very busy office,

no doubt about it, and has numerous issues and concerns to deal with. I think it

wouldn't be a bad thing to have someone like the Seniors' Advocate to

specifically be able to address specific issues causes and concerns that a

senior would have.

different than the Child and Youth Advocate because, as we know with the Child

and Youth Advocate, you could have an issue that, in theory, you could be doing

the same thing there. You could say if we have an issue with a child or a child

in care and you went to the Child and Youth Advocate and they said: No, b'y,

we're only here to deal with policies, so to speak. I'm not going to deal with

any specific issues. We have a child here who potentially is in a dangerous

situation or whatever, but I'm not going to deal with that. I'll refer you on to

the Office of the Citizens' Representative.

That's

not what happens. What happens is that the Child and Youth Advocate will

specifically look into that case and look into that concern, if they feel a

child is in danger and the situation is not a good one and so on. I think that's

the right thing to do and that's what we're doing there.

So it

does beg the question, I guess, and maybe it's a matter of philosophy, but it

does beg that question: What makes the Seniors' Advocate in that regard any

different than the Child and Youth Advocate? Why is it that the Child and Youth

Advocate can address specific issues and concerns and safety issues related to a

child, but the Seniors' Advocate, who is still dealing with a vulnerable person,

perhaps someone who doesn't have any family to advocate for them because we

know when it comes to our own families, we advocate for our parents, our

grandparents, but there are a lot of people who don't necessarily have any

family, which is sad but it's true. They're out there for sure.

We all

deal with a number of those people who don't have, for whatever reason maybe

they never had any children of their own, perhaps, could be an issue, maybe

their family member is living on the Mainland. They moved away on the Mainland

and mom or dad is living on their own with really nobody to advocate for them.

So it makes you wonder.

I guess

it's just a question, I suppose, why the Seniors' Advocate would not be able to

address especially if it was a serious concern, why the Seniors' Advocate

wouldn't be able to take that on and address that concern for that individual as

opposed to referring them to the Citizens' Rep. I would suggest, in a lot of

cases, there are a lot of seniors who are out there who are having issues. They

really don't know who to turn to and they're very hesitant and everything to

call up a stranger or whatever.

For some

of those people, when they finally make that decision and work up the courage or

whatever the case might be to make that call and explain their situation, and

then after going through their whole situation only to be told, I'm sorry,

there's nothing we can do to help you and we're going to refer you to someone

else, call another number, I wonder would that deter certain seniors. Would they

throw their hands up in the air and say, you know what, I made I took that step

to try to get that issue addressed I took that step, I made that call, I put

my whole story out there to a stranger and at the end of the day they said sorry

we can't help you, call somebody else.

I wonder

would that deter that person from taking it a step further and therefore not

having their issue addressed at all. I'm not saying it will happen or won't

happen but these are questions and these are concerns that I would have and I'm

sure others would have as well.

As I

look at the legislation, I look at

section 16 in particular, the powers and

duties of the Advocate. If I look at 16(1)(

a) basically it says that the

Advocate will receive and review matters related to seniors. So one question

would come to mind and again, I guess we'll get at it in Committee is well,

received from who. They're receiving matters from who. We've been told that

there're not going to receive matters from a senior who calls the office. So who

would they receive the matters related to seniors receive and review these

matters from who?

Does the

minister give the Seniors' Advocate, like I want you to review this matter and

then, a little while later, I'd like for you to review that matter? Is it the

Seniors Resource Centre who calls up the Seniors' Advocate and says I want you

to review this matter? Whose matter are they reviewing and making

recommendations on?

Who sets

that agenda as to what the issues are? How does the seniors' rep even know what

the issues are? Because if they're not talking to actual seniors themselves and

they're not taking individual complaints, which would lead to them knowing what

the systemic issues are, how do they get that information? I'm just wondering.

I know

for a fact, and I'm sure all Members would agree on all sides, we've all gotten

calls from a senior, or anyone in public for that matter but I'll just use a

senior on a specific issue and you had no idea what the policy was; I had no

idea, you had no idea, what the policy was or what the issue was until you

actually dug into that specific case.

When you

dug into that specific case and you started asking questions, emailing the

department and all that kind of stuff, then you'd find out well, we can't do

this because of such and such a policy. And you probably didn't even know that

policy existed. Then, of course, you find out why is that the policy, why

doesn't this happen, why does it happen this way, that way, and sometimes you

get an answer and sometimes you don't.

But it

comes down to policy issues and you wouldn't know it, as an MHA, unless you

actually took that call from the senior to begin with, until you took that call

yourself and understood that specific concern. It is then, after investigating

that, that you learn okay, this is not just an individual issue for this one

person. Maybe it's legislation, maybe something in the act that would need to be

changed, maybe it's something in the regulations or maybe it's just a policy of

the department or of the health authority or whatever the case might be. A lot

of times you don't even realize what the policy implications are unless you

actually receive that complaint to begin with from a constituent.

I would

suggest that the same thing would apply to the Seniors' Advocate. If the

Seniors' Advocate is not getting calls from citizens about problems they're

having in certain areas, then how do they know what the problems are and hence

how they do know what programs are not working for seniors?

That

would be a question I would have when it says receive and review matters related

to seniors who are they receiving them from? I would wonder could an MHA, for

example, call the Seniors' Advocate? Could that happen? So a senior calls their

MHA and could the MHA then call the Seniors' Advocate and say this is the

problem with this senior's policy or program or something in the act or

whatever, I would like for you to investigate it?

So if an

MHA called them, would they investigate it? Or if the Seniors Resource Centre

called them and said this is a problem for a lot of seniors that are coming to

our place, I'd like for you to investigate it. Would they take a complaint from

the Seniors Resource Centre? Or is it only if the department itself, if the

Department of Seniors said we would like you to review this policy, that policy,

whatever?

I'm not

saying that it's going to happen that way; I don't know. I'm just asking. I'm

throwing it out there. I'm sure the minister I see her taking notes and I'm

sure she's going to address some of these things. I'm sure when we get to

Committee of the Whole and whatever, she'll answer the questions. I'm throwing

it out there because these are questions I would have.

The same

thing, initiate and participate in reviews related to seniors; that's 16(b).

What reviews? What's the review based on? Who initiates the review? What is the

catalyst that starts this review? Based on what, reports from who and so on.

It's not clear. There are a lot of things here I think that we could use some

clarification. I'm sure we're going to get some clarification.

Like I

said, personally, I think that if the Child and Youth Advocate can look at

specific issues, I just find it a little odd why the Seniors' Advocate would be

different. You would think that they'd both be the same, but I'm sure there's a

reason. They're saying duplication but duplication exists between the Child and

Youth Advocate and the Citizens' Rep. We don't care about duplication when it

comes to that, so I'm wondering why we care on the other end why it's an issue.

That's

really my biggest concern I think everyone's biggest concern. There are some

specific other things I'm sure, but that's the biggest overall concern. Beyond

that, hopefully a lot of these things will be addressed in Committee. Even if

they're not, and they're not to everybody's satisfaction, if it doesn't go far

enough as maybe everyone would like to see and there would be debate on that

I'm sure. But whether it does or doesn't, I suppose, it's still a step in the

right direction.

I agree;

I believe that it's a good thing to do. I believe that a lot of seniors have

been asking for this, the pensioners group and so on. I think they would welcome

it. I'll support it on that basis, but I just hope the office will have some

teeth to investigate things, that investigations can be triggered not just by

the department asking them to review their policies, but they could take it upon

themselves whether it be from complaints they received from the Seniors

Resource Centre, any other seniors' groups, complaints from MHAs, for example,

on policy-related items, not necessarily specifics but on policy-related items.

So if an

MHA were to call and say this is an issue affecting a lot of seniors, I've been

getting calls on it I have a problem with this policy that exists at Eastern

Health or this policy that exists at one or the other departments or whatever,

AESL or something like that then I would hope that could lead to some sort of

a policy investigation, if you will, or a policy review by the Seniors'

Advocate. And then that review would be done, the report would be public and

then everyone would know it would be done by an independent body and everyone

would know that this is a legitimate concern for seniors that needs be

addressed. I think that's really what the legislation is all about and I hope

that will happen.

With

that said, I'm going to take my seat. I'll just conclude once again by saying

that from an overall perspective of actually having a Seniors' Advocate, I think

it's a good thing. I'll support it one way or the other, but I'm hoping that

some of the answers we get back will sort of allay some of the I don't know if

I'll say concerns, but will give us more confidence in the ability of the office

as outlined in this particular act.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Grace Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly is a pleasure to stand here today, of course, and represent the people

of Harbour Grace Port de Grave to speak to Bill 64. As the minister outlined,

this is certainly a good day for seniors here in our Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Stats

Canada estimated that Newfoundland and Labrador will have the highest proportion

of seniors in the country by 2026. Let me repeat that again, Mr. Speaker. Stats

Canada estimated that our province will indeed have the highest proportion of

seniors in the country by 2026. That's something to think about.

course, as we know, that's why this enhanced focus on seniors is about that's

what it's all about to chart a path forward that helps to ensure seniors

remain healthy, active, engaged citizens living in their own homes, and active

in their own age-friendly communities for as long as possible. I can attest to

this, how important this is, Mr. Speaker.

In my

District of Harbour Grace Port de Grave, I have a number of strong, vibrant

seniors 50-plus clubs; Bishop's Cove, for example. The Town of Upper Island Cove

also has a very active membership; also the Town of Bay Roberts, Shearstown,

Butlerville, Spaniard's Bay, the Goodwill seniors. It is something where they

can get out and socialize among one another and maintain their habits, of

course. It says something about their quality of life.

I will

say, too, Mr. Speaker, the minister has been very dedicated and helping with

regard to securing funding. That they go to these very, very important

organizations. We also want to ensure that when the time comes they are cared

for, seniors are cared for in a manner which respects their dignity and their

lifelong contributions to society, because as we know, Mr. Speaker, seniors

built Newfoundland and Labrador. They built our great province, they built our

country. They deserve to live their golden years in peace and in quality of

life, and without worry about where the next meal is going to come from.

We've

often heard the story; seniors have to often choose between medications or food

or heat and light. Well, the Seniors' Advocate will certainly give these seniors

a voice to speak out. This will be a position that will report independently to

the House of Assembly, as the minister outlined, on seniors issues. As we move

forward, we will continue to listen to our senior citizens and their families

and hear what their priorities are and how we can help to overcome challenges

that we face together.

I also

will reiterate what the minister outlined, that other jurisdictions have

certainly come online with this and have established seniors' advocate offices,

such as in British Columbia, Alberta. We know that Saskatchewan, their Official

Opposition is calling on government, currently, to establish a seniors' advocate

office.

Just as

our Liberal leader did in 2014, then Liberal Leader Dwight Ball announced that a

Liberal government would indeed commit to pass legislation to create the Office

of the Seniors' Advocate. Mr. Speaker, that day has finally arrived. It is a

good day in Newfoundland and Labrador for our seniors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. P. PARSONS:

As we know, many seniors I

think about my grandmother, for example, she's very fortunate. My mother comes

from a family of 13, so people are more than happy and eager to help my

grandmother, for example, but not every senior has this luxury or is as

fortunate.

Those

seniors who are living alone I think about now we are in the winter months.

Not every senior has someone who can get out and actually shovel their walkway.

So God forbid if something were to happen and a senior living alone, or even a

couple, they're not able to clear their property or whatnot, should there be an

emergency they'd be in big trouble.

I would

also like to commend the Office of the Seniors Resource Centre, how they have

enacted this program. They have volunteers from the community called the

Snowbusters Program. It's actually something I would like to initiate in the

District of Harbour Grace Port de Grave where volunteers come in; there is a

database of seniors who do not have people to care for them, where they can come

in and do things like clear snow. But this certainly is a no brainer.

I look

forward to the co-operation of Members on all sides of the House because of

course support for the Office of the Seniors' Advocate is support for seniors in

Newfoundland and Labrador. As we know, there are seniors who are wealthy but not

every senior is wealthy. Not every senior can draw a great pension or at the

same time also still have a salary, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I

look forward to the co-operation of Members on all sides of the House. I won't

take much time to speak to this bill. It is a lovely bill. It is a good bill for

seniors in our province, Bill 64. I look forward to the co-operation.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you for recognizing me this afternoon to speak to this bill,

An Act Respecting

the Seniors' Advocate, Bill 64. We started debate in second reading on it this

afternoon, and for those people who are tuned in because they have an interest

in this bill, I know there are many, second reading is usually the time where

the bill is debated in a high level. As the debate continues, the next stage is

in Committee, then generally more detailed discussion and debate occurs with it.

I've

been sitting listening to Members of the House debate this bill here this

afternoon. I look forward to more information because there is much here in the

bill that Members on this side of the House, in our discussions, want to know

more about and more about the office, how it will operate, the intentions of the

office and so on.

I've

looked at a couple of other pieces of legislation, because under this act the

Seniors' Advocate will be an Officer of the House of Assembly, and under the

particular act also references not eligible to be nominated for an election, to

be elected or sit as a Me