March

20, 2012 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLVII No. 10

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today I would like to welcome to our galleries the members of the Special

Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador who recently competed in the Winter

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: These members just recently competed in the Winter Games in

Alberta. Congratulations on a great showing and welcome to our House today.

Also today we are joined by the Mayor of St. Lawrence, Mr. Wade Rowsell;

Deputy Mayor, Paul Pike; and Councillor, Pat Brake. Again, welcome to our House

of Assembly this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements from the following

districts: the Member for the District of Kilbride; the Member for the District

of Torngat Mountains; the Member for the District of Bonavista South; the Member

for the District of Humber West; the Member for the District of Grand

Falls-Windsor Green Bay South and the Member for the District of Cartwright

L'Anse au Clair.

The hon. the Member for District of Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to recognize an

outstanding young man in my district, Daniel Noftall. Daniel was hired four

years ago as an instructor with the Waterford Valley Summer Sports Program and

has worked every summer since, most recently as supervisor.

From the start, Daniel displayed great leadership qualities and quickly

became the go-to guy when something had to be done. His organizational skills

and ability to communicate his superior knowledge of the game of softball gave a

great boost to the whole Waterford Valley Association. Kids and parents really

like Daniel, and the Association president, Paul Healy, says he is the best

supervisor that he has seen in ten years as president.

Daniel played fast pitch softball from the ages of eight to eighteen, and is

recognized as a talented player who has represented the Province in numerous

Eastern Canadian and national championships.

Daniel graduated from Bishops College in 2010 with an 87 per cent average.

Currently, Daniel is attending Memorial University, majoring in athletic

psychology. His marks are at the top of his class.

I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing this fine young man.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the efforts of the Ground Search

and Rescue team in Makkovik, Nunatsiavut.

Those efforts were evident, Mr. Speaker, during the search for Burton

Winters. I feel proud to be a member of this group of men and women who went

beyond the call of duty in their efforts to bring young Burton home to his

family.

I saw incidents during the search where members put their own lives in

jeopardy. I witnessed members cutting footholds in ice cliffs to descend to

inaccessible areas. I saw members falling through the ice in the cold Labrador

Sea trying to reach areas where Burton could have been and not even going home

to change.

I witnessed members suffering from frostbite in minus thirty-five degree

temperatures, but did not turn back.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the commitment of the

Ground Search and Rescue team in Postville. Their contribution to the search was

greatly appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members in this hon. House to join me in thanking the

Ground Search and Rescue team of Makkovik for the valuable service they provide

to the community, and especially during the search for young Burton.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista South.

MR. LITTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Honourable colleagues, I rise in this House today to congratulate Mr. Charles

Fry and Mrs. Pearl Fry on reaching quite a significant wedding anniversary. On

December 15, 2011, Mr. and Mrs. Fry celebrated their sixty-fifth wedding

anniversary.

I would also like to acknowledge what an outstanding community member Mr.

Charles Fry is.

At the age of seventeen, Mr. Fry served in the 166 Newfoundland Field

Regiment Royal Artillery during the Second World War.

In 1956, Mr. Fry became the founding president of the Royal Canadian Legion,

Bonavista South, Branch 37. Over the years he earned numerous ribbons and medals

that include Past District Commander, Past President, Past Chaplin, Treasurer,

Service Officer, 50 Year Medal, the Diamond Jubilee Medal, the Meritorious Life

Member Medal, the Italian Star, the Defense Medal, the Newfoundland Volunteer

Medal, and the 1939-45 Medal, the Commemorative Medal, and the Golden Jubilee

Medal. Charlie is very proud of his service in the Royal Canadian Legion and is

currently an honorary member.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this House to join me in paying

tribute to such an honorary member of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,

Mr. Charles Fry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber West.

MR. GRANTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to congratulate an exhibit of great community collaboration and

effort in the City of Corner Brook.

Curlers were able to take to the sheets of a state-of-the-art curling

facility during the fall of 2011 after a two-year hiatus.

On Saturday, January 21, 2012, the community was invited to attend the

opening ceremonies of this fabulous facility. The day started with a fun spiel

with local curlers of all ages participating, and ended with official ceremonies

and celebration.

I extend congratulations to two individuals who believed in this project and

spent tireless hours to see the project through. George Spracklin and Carl

Loughlin gave and continue to give many hours to this sport and this project.

George and Carl believe that this facility was important as a community

builder, and it was through their time, effort and dedication that the area now

has a wonderful sporting addition. Since opening in the fall of 2011, there has

been steady curling activity at the rink each and every day of the week.

To George and Carl and the entire Corner Brook Curling Club, I would ask all

hon. members to congratulate and wish many years of curling and community

success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor Green Bay

South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Lifesaving Society of Newfoundland and Labrador has created

the Tina Moores Memorial Cup for Lifeguard of the Year.

This award has been established in memory of Tina Moores, who lost her life

trying to save the life of a young child in 2009.

Tina was a member of the Lifesaving Society and had completed all of their

programs.

Tina's family have received many awards of bravery since her death in 2009,

including the Medal of Bravery from the Governor General and the Carnegie

Heroism Medal which is presented throughout North America to those who risk

their lives while trying to or saving the lives of others.

I ask my hon. colleagues to join with me in remembering Tina and

congratulating The Lifesaving Society on their new award for lifesaving

excellence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to congratulate the St. Mary's All Grade girl's

basketball team on recently winning the Single A High School Provincial

Basketball Championships, as well as being named the most sportsmanlike team.

Mr. Speaker, the provincials were held in McKay's this past weekend where six

top high school teams from the Single A School Division participated to

determine the champions. I am proud to say that the St. Mary's Wolves were

repeat champions taking on the host team and as one of the girls on the Mary's

Harbour team said: It's a great day to be a Wolf.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the team from E.A. Butler All Grade

School on winning the silver medal and to recognize their outstanding job as the

host school.

I would also like to recognize Irene Simms on being awarded the Most

Sportsmanlike Player. The other players from her team, I congratulate them. They

were Stephanie Sooley, Tamara Pye, Alexandra Pye, Sarah Lee Campbell, Leslie

Rumbolt, Cassandra Rumbolt, Hilary Roberts, Jenna Rumbolt, and their coach Todd

Farrell.

I ask members of the House to join me in congratulating the St. Mary's All

Grade girl's team from Mary's Harbour, as well as all the high school girls who

took

part in this provincial event, and to commend their coaches and volunteers

who continue to make high school sports a great event in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to rise in this hon. House today

to highlight the recent success of Team Newfoundland and Labrador at the 2012

Special Olympics Canada Winter Games held in St. Albert, Alberta.

The team of twenty-seven athletes and fourteen volunteers won a total of

twenty medals at the games. This is a wonderful accomplishment and a testament

to the efforts of everyone involved.

Participation in these games and other activities would not be possible

without the dedication and combined efforts of the athletes, families, coaches,

volunteers, staff, and board members of Special Olympics Newfoundland and

Labrador. I commend all who have played a

part in the team's success.

The Premier was honoured to attend the ceremony to commission the

Newfoundland and Labrador team just before they headed to Alberta to compete in

the games. She was struck by the energy, passion, and enthusiasm of the athletes

and their supporters. In the face of such eager dedication and commitment, we

cannot help but be inspired to strive for excellence in our own lives.

Mr. Speaker, Special Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador serves 500 people

with intellectual disabilities in this Province and provides them with the

opportunity to engage in activities like the games.

Our government is proud to support their work, which achieves one of the key

objectives of our recreation and sport strategy, Active, Healthy Newfoundland

and Labrador to increase opportunities for participation, particularly by

those in underrepresented groups.

On behalf of our government and the people of our Province, I congratulate

Team Newfoundland and Labrador on their achievements, and commend them for being

outstanding ambassadors for our Province. I wish them continued success. I also

extend very best wishes to Special Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador as they

prepare to host the Special Olympics Canada Winter Games in Corner Brook in

2016!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy. I see all the medals that all of

the Olympians got up there. As a former player, I wish I had that many medals

around my neck, I can guarantee you that. Great job!

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great pleasure to rise on such an occasion and

the team from Newfoundland and Labrador did such a great job athletically for

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I had the privilege of attending

several Special Olympics and the events. What inspires me more is the enthusiasm

by the athletes, their spirit of co-operation, and their sportsmanship for each

athlete. It is something that we all can learn from all throughout Newfoundland

and Labrador, how they co-operate, win or lose, win or draw, no matter what, how

they are always there for each other.

To all the parents and all the support groups and to the government who also

helped out, I say congratulations because all working together we can make a

much better place for the Special Olympics in Newfoundland and Labrador.

To all the athletes, thank you for being such great ambassadors for

Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank you for promoting Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much for, once again, showing all of us what it is like to have

true sportsmanship, to show what it is like to play hard but you have to cheer

for your fellow competitor. Thank you very much. I think all hon. members here

are very appreciative of all the work that you have done for Newfoundland and

Labrador and continue. You think you had a good time up in Alberta, wait until

you get in Corner Brook in 2016 when we will have a much better game than

anywhere else in Canada because of you up there.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: I, too, would like to thank the minister for the advance copy

of his statement. Congratulations to the athletes and their supporters who

participated in this year's Special Olympics Winter Games. I was so proud and

honoured to be at the send-off.

The games are extremely important for hundreds of people with intellectual

disabilities in our Province. It is a great opportunity to improve and prove

your athletic performance and to boost self-esteem and independence. Bravo to

you all!

We must make sure that we are putting enough resources into the everyday

lives of people with intellectual disabilities in this Province. We need to

ensure that everyone has access to decent accommodation, recreation, education,

and employment so that everyone can reach their potential and contribute to

society.

Bravo, once again!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to remember and pay tribute to

Dr. Nigel Rusted, who passed away on Sunday, March 18, 2012. Born in 1907 in

Salvage, Dr. Rusted's long and distinguished career as a medical professional,

pioneering surgeon, and son of Newfoundland and Labrador will long be remembered

by his many patients, the medical community, and all of the people of our

Province.

Dr. Rusted graduated from the inaugural class of Memorial University College

in 1927 where he received his diploma in arts and sciences. He then went on to

complete his medical degree at Dalhousie Medical School in Halifax and in 1933

he joined the Newfoundland Medical Association.

During the early years of his career, Dr. Rusted travelled by hospital ship

and ferry to isolated coastal communities in our Province, and he was the first

health officer to travel along the Coast of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, among his many other firsts, Dr. Rusted is known for being the

first to perform several operations in Newfoundland and Labrador, including the

partial surgical removal of the stomach, cleft lip and cleft palate repair. He

went on to become renowned for his cleft lip and cleft palate surgeries,

performing 560 reconstructive surgeries during his career.

Dr. Rusted has been recognized for his contributions to our Province many

times and was awarded the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2007 and the

Order of Canada in 2011.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Nigel Rusted, like many of the physicians who have and

continue to work in our Province, dedicated himself to the act of bettering the

lives of the people around him. Even after his retirement in 1987, Dr. Rusted's

presence continued to be felt in the medical community as he acted as a mentor

to medical students, and in 2002 he established the Dr. Nigel Rusted Trust to

promote the study of the humanities in health.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to remember Dr. Rusted for the

work he has done, the people he has helped, and for representing the best

aspects and characteristics of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: I thank the minister for the advance copy of the Ministerial

Statement.

Certainly, Dr. Rusted is an icon in our Province. When you think back he

was a pioneer as he travelled doing his medical practice the things that we

take for granted today were not available. All the technology that is commonly

used today, none of that he had available to him. He was a highly respected

surgeon and he did travel usually by hospital ship or ferries through isolated

coastal communities, and indeed throughout Labrador.

I think what he will be most remembered for is his reconstructive surgery,

especially in cleft lip and the cleft palate repair. For years he was the only

surgeon who actually performed this surgery on the Island, so for that he

deserves much credit. He also performed 9,000 surgeries during his career, and I

think what struck me the most with all of this, prior to Medicare, he did over

1,500 of those for free, for people who could not afford to have them. To say

that this person was always on call, I think, was an understatement; 9,000

surgeries and 1,500 for free is certainly, as I said, an understatement.

He was also a donor to Memorial University and even attended, I think, the

2011 capital campaign. He was the oldest member of the Memorial Alumni and he

served on the first Board of Regents and on the Building Committee. As was

mentioned, he was awarded and recognized with the Order of Newfoundland and

Labrador in 2007, and I am sure all those who are members there, he actually

raises the bar for that whole group, and of course the Order of Canada in 2011.

Even though this Province will miss Dr. Rusted and all the contributions that

he made, I think his memory and what he has done for the people of this Province

will live on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

I am honoured to stand with the minister and with the Leader of the Official

Opposition to mark the passing of a constituent and a respected Newfoundlander

and Labradorian, Dr. Nigel Rusted. Newfoundland and Labrador has definitely lost

one of its wisest and most experienced citizens; I know none of us doubt that.

Dr. Rusted served his country, whether it was the country of Newfoundland or

that of Canada, with distinction and it is right that he receive both the Order

of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Canada. His career serves as a model for

everyone in the medical profession today and I encourage all new people entering

the medical profession to study him his energy, his enthusiasm, and above all

else, the dedication that he had to the health and well-being of the people of

this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Environmental groups have filed a court challenge against the federal

government and Nalcor for not addressing key issues on Muskrat Falls during the

environmental assessment process, things like other options. The court challenge

could drag on for months.

I ask the Premier: Are you able to secure financing for the project while a

court challenge is ongoing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We live in a system whereby people are certainly entitled to take their

grievances to court. They are certainly entitled to have the issues heard. I am

not aware of any injunction application being filed, so until such time, we will

continue. An interesting comment was made yesterday or attributed yesterday to

the Minister of Environment, I think it was in Halifax, where he said that the

ongoing court proceedings will not affect the federal loan guarantee, so we will

proceed to receive the Decision Gate 3 numbers, to look at all of the options,

and to make a decision on sanction when all of the information is in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Just to clarify, lawyers for the court challenge expect the

case to be heard during the summer and this is around the time frame that we

mentioned this project could be brought to sanction.

I ask the Premier: Can you or will you sanction the project that is currently

before the courts?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have indicated, everyone has the right to present their challenges in

court. That does not mean that they have a good case; that does not mean that

there is substance to what is being said. Often times, the courts are used for

political purposes and other purposes. What we will continue to do, Mr. Speaker,

is examine all of the information. We are working with the federal government.

We will continue to look at the information provided by Nalcor. We will hear

what the PUB has to say. We will continue to do our work and, Mr. Speaker, we

will make the decision on sanction when all that information is in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, contaminated medical waste was found on the Prince Phillip Drive

right next to an elementary school. In addition, the medical waste actually had

patient names identified. This is a major public safety issue. Eastern Health

has confirmed that the medical waste was from one of their facilities. We

understand that the Privacy Commissioner is looking into the issue.

I ask the minister: How did this happen, have patients been made aware of

this breach, and what assurances can you provide that this serious safety issue

will not happen again?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is clearly an unacceptable incident that has taken place.

It is an isolated incident and an unfortunate incident. I think there were three

questions asked; one, in terms of whether or not patients whose names might have

been identified have been notified. We are or Eastern Health is in the process

of doing that; not all patients were contacted up to the point where we came

here, but we were certainly trying to contact all patients.

I can certainly assure the patients, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in

general, that this is an isolated incident; we are taking steps to rectify this,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In actual fact, it is unfortunately not an isolated incident. Over the last

couple of years we have seen reports of employees accessing patient files; we

have seen inappropriate disposing of medical equipment; we have seen a medical

video that ended up on YouTube; we have heard the CEO talking about a patient in

the media.

I ask the minister: These are all serious breaches of privacy. Why do they

continue to occur at Eastern Health?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we were referring to the disposal of biomedical waste, and that

was an isolated incident as I indicated here. We have taken several steps

already this morning to ensure that this, in fact, does not happen again.

Eastern Health takes this and views this as a very, very serious incident,

Mr. Speaker. We are in the process of reviewing through security cameras what

exactly had happened and how those three bags of waste were inadvertently put

into the wrong bin. We are doing that, Mr. Speaker.

We are conducting staff interviews to see if we can further determine why

this particular incident happened. We are reviewing the waste disposal processes

that Eastern Health uses, Mr. Speaker, and we are also reviewing the compactor

removal procedure that is in use at Eastern Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Thursday we raised the issue of patient monitors in the House, and the

minister was at the time unaware of the issue. Over 100 critical care nurses

signed a petition saying they feared for the safety of their patients. Eastern

Health has confirmed that over 250 occurrences have been reported in the last

six months.

I ask the minister: Has patient safety been affected or comprised in any of

the incidents related to these patient monitors?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we understand the incident that we

are talking about here when we are talking about these patient monitoring

systems. What we have here is a system that has a monitor connected to the

patient that is connected to a huge and I am not a technical expert, but if

you would view it as a huge camera or a huge screen that is located in the

hospital.

What happens is that the monitoring system continues to function at all

times. It drops off, however, on our ambulatory patients who move around the

hospital, and occasionally the linkage between that monitor and the Wi-Fi is not

in sync. That is what happens there.

The patient himself or herself is not in any danger whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: We do have some obvious concerns and those monitors were at a

cost of $7.3 million and Eastern Health skipped the clinical evaluation phase,

which is normally a component of the purchase for this medical equipment. Nurses

who use the equipment every day did not get the opportunity to identify

equipment issues until the purchase was complete.

I ask the minister: Why was such a critical step skipped in such a

significant purchase affecting patients all around the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are 2,600 such monitors used in some of the largest

hospitals right throughout Canada. Sick Children's in Toronto is an example of

one of those hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of training for nurses, our nurses here received

double, if not triple, the amount of training that other nurses have received in

terms of the operation of these particular patient monitors. The clinical chief

of cardiology at Eastern Health is satisfied that this monitoring system is a

very good system, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, despite the Outrage Newfoundland and

Labrador Campaign and the Safe and Caring Schools Policy, kids are still being

subjected to serious bullying tactics. Bullying is still prevalent in our

schools. I understand government will review the Safe and Caring Schools Policy

this spring; however, we need action now.

I ask the minister: What is government planning to do to protect these

children under their care?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any time that we hear of incidents around bullying, Mr. Speaker, it should

not only be for the school community, it should be for us as an entire society.

This type of activity is totally unacceptable, and until we get to a point where

as a society we come together and take our responsibility and address those

particular issues, Mr. Speaker, those things will continue.

Our Safe and Caring Schools is exactly about that. Mr. Speaker, you will

recall, and people will recall that just recently we put in My Gay-Straight

Alliance as a resource that supports these types of initiatives. We, as a

government, take this very serious, and we will continue in our efforts to

protect our children from bullying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, this latest bullying incident in Conception

Bay South indicates kids are being bullied in all areas of the school, from

bathroom cubicles to hallways themselves. This past year, the Department of

Education allocated $230,000 to support Safe and Caring Schools Programs

designed to prevent violence and bullying. Despite such investment, bullying

remains as prevalent an issue.

I ask the minister: What, specifically, are funds being allocated for to

prevent bullying?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have invested in individuals who work at

both the school board level and at the school level to address these particular

issues, and we have, as I said, introduced resources that will support teachers

in their efforts to combat bullying.

Mr. Speaker, will we ever eradicate it completely? I doubt very much. The

only way will be that we, as a department, and we, as a people, accept more of

the responsibility, talk to our children, teachers will use these resources to

talk to their students, and this is the way we change attitudes in society, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the government has issued an RFP for freight

vessel service to the Coast of Labrador. The people of Northern Labrador, Mr.

Speaker, made it quite clear that they want a roll-on, roll-off vessel for

long-term service.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Works: Will the minister

confirm today that the RFP specifies a roll-on, roll-off vessel for the

provision of freight service to the Coast of Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed issued an RFP for a roll-on,

roll-off freight vessel to travel with the ports from Lewisporte and Happy

Valley-Goose Bay for the people on the North Coast. Again, an RFP, Mr. Speaker,

that we believe will deliver what we need and what the people of the coast need

in order to have a successful freight program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, the RFP allows for the provision of a

fifteen-year-old-plus vessel for up to three years to provide freight service to

the Coast of Labrador. Last year's service, Mr. Speaker, was a complete

disaster.

The question is to the Minister of Transportation and Works, Mr. Speaker: If

we have to wait another three years before we get a long-term solution, can you

outline what the short-term freight and passenger service of the North Coast of

Labrador and Black Tickle will look like, given that last year's service was a

disaster?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A point of clarification: the RFP is for freight, not for passenger. As well,

we are hoping, Mr. Speaker, that by putting out the RFP as we have, we will get

a boat that is less than fifteen years of age, perhaps even a new boat that is

specifically built for that particular service. It is important, Mr. Speaker,

that we get it right. As I have indicated in the past, last year with a tender

process we ended up with the Dutch Runner that was hardly adequate for

that particular service.

This year, with the RFP, we certainly hope that we will be in a position to

choose the best possible service provider that we can get.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, a report obtained by the Freedom of Information

Act on the Placentia lift bridge exposes the structure to be rotted, rusting,

missing bolts, and showing cracked beams. This is an alarming exposure of unsafe

conditions. The minister and the government were well aware of this report for

months.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Works: Why did the

government sit on this report for four months before taking any action, given

the deterioration and the safety implications for the travelling public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Without any doubt, Mr. Speaker, this government certainly

does not take a backseat to safety. Safety is what this is all about. As people

are aware, last year we put out a tender to replace the aging bridge in

Placentia. That was not a successful tender because it was well over budget and

one bidder, so we went back to the drawing board.

In going back to the drawing board, Mr. Speaker, we had to look and make sure

that the bridge that we had, the old bridge, did not have any shelf life left in

it. So we did a comprehensive evaluation. In the process of that evaluation,

there was a request by the consultant to do a load-bearing test. That is what we

did. At the end of it, we got the results back and of course acted accordingly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: You should have let know the council and the people who were

using the bridge that they were using an unsafe bridge while you were sitting on

the report, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, this report raises the alarm for all other bridges in this

Province and whether they are safe to be travelled over. People have a right to

know if they are travelling over unsafe infrastructure and government has the

responsibility to inform them.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Works: How many other

unsafe bridges are there in the Province and will the minister do the right

thing and release all reports on any unsafe bridges across our Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it is disheartening to have thrown across the

House here the fact that bridges are unsafe, when actually we have done due

diligence with all of the bridges here in Newfoundland and Labrador, making sure

that they get annual inspections, making sure that the travelling public can

travel the highways safely. With regard to the lift bridge in Placentia, again,

it is in poor shape and poor condition, Mr. Speaker. We all know that. That is

the reason why we are replacing it. To stand there and say that we are taking

chances with the lives of people is unconscionable and not acceptable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Nordic Economic Development Corporation has

been denied an extension to the timber harvesting assistance program by the

Minister of Natural Resources. I understand there is money in the program that

could benefit many of these harvesters.

I ask the minister: Why is he not extending this deadline beyond March 31,

2012?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Forestry and Agrifoods

Agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are investing significantly in our forest industry as the

member is aware or should be aware. We have invested significantly in Holson

Forest Products in the Roddickton area, Burton's Cove Logging, and Sexton

Lumber. We are in constant discussion with Cottles Island Lumber. We are in

discussions, Mr. Speaker, with Kruger. We take this, we recognize the

significance of the forest industry; what we do is we look at the investments,

we look at the requests made, and decisions are made based on what exists at the

time. This letter was sent out, Mr. Speaker, based on a decision made at the

time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, an employee of the Maritime Search and Rescue Sub-Centre and an

individual who was rescued from Cape Harrison last June are in Ottawa today

lobbying to keep the Search and Rescue Sub-Centre open beyond April 2012 in the

Province.

I ask the government today: Have you sent anyone to Ottawa as part of this

delegation on behalf of the people of the Province, and what have you been doing

to ensure that the sub-centre stays open in St. John's beyond the end of the

month?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer to the hon. member's question is that we have continued, and

always will continue, in regard to lobbying the federal government to have the

right assets placed in Newfoundland and Labrador to enable us to carry out

whatever searches we have to carry out, be it ground search and rescue, Maritime

or whatever it may be. We will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker, and I have been

in conversation by letter to the federal minister and continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding from discussions with people inside

Eastern Health that the wireless patient monitoring machines being used at the

Health Sciences Centre were removed from two places in Quebec and are not used

elsewhere in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Would she

please confirm this information?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know what the ministry in

Quebec is doing in terms of the operation of their hospitals, and I do not

purport to know that. What I do know, however, is that there are 2,600 of these

patient monitoring systems throughout Canada in some of the largest hospitals in

Canada, Mr. Speaker. One hospital, as I said earlier, is the Toronto sick

children's hospital, and there is a second one as well in Ontario that is a huge

hospital, Mr. Speaker.

We have had years of using these monitoring systems in other parts of the

country, Mr. Speaker, with great success. The same has been true here, Mr.

Speaker. There are some anomalies. There have been some problems along the issue

of Wi-Fi, Mr. Speaker, but we are working those issues through.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest to the minister that she find out why Quebec had to get rid of the

ones they were using there. Mr. Speaker, for the five months that the wireless

patient monitoring devices have been installed at the Health Sciences Centre,

they have not been working and have been eating up precious nursing hours while

nurses monitor the monitors. Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health said that bugs are

being worked out as the minister has just said before they continue installing

more wireless devices.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister please give us a timeline on when the

equipment will be fully functioning? Five months is a long time to work out the

bugs.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the issue is not the equipment. I need to

reiterate this; the issue has to do with the linkage between the equipment and

the Wi-Fi, so that when the patients who are mobile actually enter an area of

the hospital where it does not pick up for those few seconds that becomes the

issue. The monitoring system that they are wearing, Mr. Speaker, is still

working; it is still working, and it is working very, very efficiently, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest to the minister that there is more to it than she has just

explained here, and even if that were the only bug, that bug has to be gotten

rid of, Mr. Speaker. The situation that has been described to us is beyond what

she is saying.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to our attention that there have been hundreds of

occurrences officially reported having to do with the malfunctioning of these

monitors.

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: What is the official

procedure with dealing with such a large number of occurrence reports on a piece

of equipment that is reportedly malfunctioning, no matter what the reason?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there have been no adverse events reported at all with the use

of this equipment. There has been no patient harm reported whatsoever. We are

working through with the nurses and those who are using these monitors at

Eastern Health. They are working through the problems with the nurses. Meeting

after meeting has been scheduled, and will continue to be scheduled until the

bugs are worked out. Patient security, patient safety is still paramount, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the Cameron Report noted in 2009 that Eastern

Health was in the process of implementing an electronic occurrence reporting

system. The report recommended that all regional health authorities have the

same system and work together to prevent repetition of adverse events. Mr.

Speaker, government committed at that time to expand the Clinical Safety

Reporting System to all regional health authorities who would work together in

its implementation, with an estimated completion date of March, 2012.

Mr. Speaker: Can the minister give an update on the plan to expand electronic

occurrence reporting to all health authorities to prevent adverse events?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, certainly, what we learned from Cameron is exceptionally

important to us as a government and as a people here in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and we will never underestimate that. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say

that today we have either implemented completely or substantially implemented

fifty-five of the sixty recommendations. In this sitting of the House, Mr.

Speaker, I plan to bring forward more recommendations; at least three more

recommendations having to do with, in particular, adverse events.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker, will be one of the recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, last May the Minister of Health and Community Services amended

the Third Party's private members' motion on diabetes to say that the House will

urge the government to give consideration in the next budgetary process to

covering the cost of glucose testing strips for all diabetics.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Has her government taken this action to

include coverage of glucose testing strips for all diabetics who need them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, through the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program,

we cover glucose test strips as the member opposite certainly knows 16,000

beneficiaries, in fact, at a cost of $5.7 million annually. Mr. Speaker, we are

committed to ensuring as with all patients who suffer from chronic diseases in

Newfoundland and Labrador, we are committed to ensuring them the best health

care that we possibly can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my questions on the air

ambulance service that government took away from St. Anthony, the Minister of

Health said the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are very, very well-served

by this service. Mr. Speaker, I asked her to let the people who pay for it, the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to be the judge.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will she table the associated cost of St.

Anthony air ambulance service before and after the relocation of this service

from St. Anthony to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, including the cost of chartered

flights flown out of St. Anthony for the years since the relocation of the air

ambulance?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure what the question he is asking or why he is asking that

particular question. What needs to be asked is how many incidents have really

been at the heart of the issue that he is trying to raise over there, Mr.

Speaker. The answer to that is zero.

Mr. Speaker, our concern here is about providing the best service that we can

to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians through our air ambulance program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we have three King Airs right now that we

operate within Newfoundland and Labrador; two in St. John's, one in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, and another that we have in St. John's as a spare. We have at

our disposal six helicopters, Mr. Speaker, five of the Bell 206, one of the Bell

407 that we are currently retrofitting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: We also have, Mr. Speaker, (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, government announced last week that funding for

employment assistance service providers across the Province has been extended

for up to six months.

Was this temporary extension granted to allow government enough time to

decide this funding should be cut permanently?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Advanced Education and

Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, with the new Department of Advanced Education and Skills we want

to ensure that all of the programs and services that we have set up certainly

meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as we try to make sure that

people have every opportunity to participate in the emerging labour market.

Mr. Speaker, we will look at how we spend the funding that is provided under

the Labour Market Development Agreement to ensure and maximize that the people

here in Newfoundland and Labrador have every opportunity to be able to avail of

skills development to prepare themselves for the labour market.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, parents in Newfoundland and Labrador are paying

thousands of dollars out of their own pockets to cover private special education

services that the education system is failing to provide.

I ask the Minister of Education: Why is this government privatizing special

education services in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, am I hearing the member opposite say that our

teachers and our education system is not providing for special education

students? Mr. Speaker, I find the question appalling. We have, in this Province,

some of the best-qualified teachers that we have across this entire country.

Mr. Speaker, to suggest that our system is not providing a quality service to

our special education students it is unthinkable that someone would even pose

that question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, many students in this Province are unable to

complete high school in three years and must return to school for a fourth year

in order to graduate. The graduation rate for these students is 20 per cent

lower than the graduation rate for other students.

Mr. Speaker, why does this government have no plan to help these Level IV

students graduate and enter the workforce successfully?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the hon. member our

graduation rates. The grad rate in 2002, Mr. Speaker, was 85.1 per cent and in

2010-2011, 91.7 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: The number of students, Mr. Speaker, that have gone from the

general program to the academic and honours program has increased. The fourth

year of schooling, Mr. Speaker, is there for those people who simply do not

qualify and do not complete their education in three years. It is a wonderful

program, Mr. Speaker. It just takes some people that much longer to complete the

program support, Mr. Speaker, for the students of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, in nine years this government has done nothing to

address the challenges of Level IV students.

I ask this minister: When is his department going to finally act to help

vulnerable students, or does he plan to sit on his hands like his predecessor

did?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the blood boils. Yes, the blood boils, Mr.

Speaker, when you cannot get the responses that you want to get by posing the

questions.

Mr. Speaker, this Province has provided more and this government has provided

more for the students of this Province, I would contend, than any other

government past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, our Level IV students will be supported just as

well as all of the other students within our system, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, the time allocated for Question Period has

expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I give notice under Standing Order 11, I

shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 22, 2012;

and further, I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House

not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Thursday, March 22, 2012.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 13)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice and ask leave to introduce for

debate the following private member's resolution:

The Member for St. John's East to move:

WHEREAS small businesses are the backbone of this Province's economy; and

WHEREAS almost 2,000 small businesses operate

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Sorry.

WHEREAS about 2,000 small businesses operate in the Province today, employing

over 40 per cent of all paid workers; and

WHEREAS small business revenues and profits stay in the communities where

they are generated; and

WHEREAS the present level of taxation can be a barrier to anyone starting a

small business today; and

WHEREAS small businesses in this Province need as much support as possible;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge government to

immediately help stimulate the economy in a manner that helps every part of the

Province by reducing the Province's small business tax rate by 25 per cent,

dropping it from 4 per cent to 3 per cent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am seeking leave to announce a private member's motion for tomorrow, March

22, pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3) which requires that the announcement of

the private member's motion be made on the Monday prior, but not able to do that

yesterday because of the holiday, I ask leave to do it today.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am also announcing that the motion to be discussed tomorrow will be the one

that was just read into the record by the Member for St. John's East.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions - I am sorry.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I may, by leave, I have some documents I would like to table under Tabling

of Documents.

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of Documents.

Does the minister have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By all means, Tabling of Documents.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand today to table the 2010-2011 Annual Report for

Professional Engineers and Geoscientists Newfoundland and Labrador, the 2010

Annual Activity Report of the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Board, and the

Second Annual Report of the Architects Licensing Board of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: (Inaudible) humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there is no cellphone service

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT:

WHEREAS there is no cellphone service in the towns of St.

Paul's, Cow Head, Sally's Cove or Trout River, all of which are enclave

communities for Gros Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS there is either very poor or no cellphone service in most of Gros

Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually,

expect to use cellphones when they visit the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is an important safety feature for numerous

travellers, hikers and others in the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is necessary to modern business development;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to partner

with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage throughout Gros Morne

National Park and the enclave communities within the park.

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

MR. KIRBY: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition on behalf of

the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the fifth time that I have

tabled this petition in the House of Assembly. This is a petition regarding

needed changes to the Department of Education's school bus transportation

policies. It reads as follows:

WHEREAS school district restructuring has resulted in longer bus travel times

and more hazardous winter travel for rural students of all ages; and

WHEREAS due to recent school closures, children living within 1.6 kilometres

of school face increased barriers of congested streets and busy intersections in

the walk to schools, and parents without cars are having more difficulty getting

children to different schools on foot; and

WHEREAS only those child care centres outside the 1.6 kilometre zone and

directly on bus routes are included in kindergarten noontime routes, causing

hardship for working parents; and

WHEREAS the 1.6 kilometre policy has been in place since 1975, and student

transportation policies have not been reviewed through consultation since 1996;

and

WHEREAS parents are expressing the need for flexible policies for student

transportation and school restructuring to meet the current needs of school

children;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to

conduct a review of school bus transportation policies and school restructuring

to ensure safe and quality education for all school children in the Province.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

I just wanted to say that it is important that we get around to reviewing

this now. We always talk about our new have status in Canada we are a have

Province now. Well I would argue, Mr. Speaker, as would these petitioners, that

we have to have a review of these school bus transportation policies, because we

have to have policies that are modern and work for today's working parents.

This petition has been circulated across the Province. It is being signed by

citizens from towns, communities, and cities all across the Island and in

Labrador; today, the petition I am presenting has individuals from St. John's,

from Gander, and from Glenwood.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the government will see fit to heed this

request from the petitioners.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of people who are petitioning

the House with regard to the Animal Protection Act. It says:

WHEREAS the current Animal Protection Act was enacted in 1978 and is woefully

inadequate;

WHEREAS it has been almost two years since the Animal Protection Act was

passed in the House of Assembly but has not yet been proclaimed;

WHEREAS the inadequacy of the current animal protection laws is of great,

grave, and immediate concern to the SPCA; and

WHEREAS the new Animal Protection Act would ensure much more severe

punishment and ultimately reduce instances of these crimes;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to

immediately proclaim the new Animal Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, this act, which the government introduced in the last session of

the House under Bill 30, passed unanimously in the House of Assembly by all

members. It is nearly a year now and the act still has not been proclaimed. This

is where the concern is coming from, from people out there in the Province. I do

not need to recap the events of the news in the last number of weeks to know

that there have been repeated offenders of crime and cruelty against animals who

are getting just a slap on the wrist when they are walking into the court rooms

these days.

What people really want to see is stiffer penalties and fines that were

contained within Bill 30 when it was passed in the House of Assembly. They want

that to come into force and to become law so that when people are walking into

the courts and being charged with cruelty to animals like we are seeing on the

news every evening, then they are walking away with stiffer sentences, stiffer

penalties. Hopefully it will be more of a deterrent to people who are cruel to

animals, whether they be the pet owners or whether they be others in society.

They are really encouraging the government and pleading with the government

to enforce the act that has been passed in the House of Assembly. Have it

proclaimed, make it law so that we can start giving out heavier fines and

penalties to those people who are committing acts of cruelty towards animals in

this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this petition. The petitioners are

from the Towns of Bellburns, Portland Creek, St. Pauls and Sally's Cove. They

petition this hon. House and say:

WHEREAS with declining enrolment distance education by Internet is now an

accepted way to deliver educational services to students

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: living in small communities; and

WHEREAS students have little to no say in where they or their families

reside; and

WHEREAS many families do not have the ability to relocate so that their

children can access educational opportunities in larger centres; and

WHEREAS many small businesses rely on the Internet to conduct business; and

WHEREAS high-speed Internet permits a business to be more competitive than

does slower dial-up service; and

WHEREAS no high-speed Internet service exists in the communities of

Bellburns, Portland Creek, St. Pauls or Sally's Cove; and

WHEREAS there are no plans to offer high-speed Internet to residents of these

communities;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to partner

with the private sector and to offer high-speed Internet service to these

communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: We are to Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act

To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act, Bill 12, and I further move that the

said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act, Bill 12, and that the said bill be now

read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to

introduce Bill 12, and that the said bill will be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act", carried. (Bill 12)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 12 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 3,

second reading of Bill 3.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works, that Bill 3,

An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of

Attorney Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 3,

An Act To Amend The

Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of

Attorney Act". (Bill 3)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce Bill 3,

An Act To Amend The

Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act. Bill 3 proposes to amend the Enduring Powers of

Attorney Act to facilitate access to a federal Registered Disability Savings

Plan, or an RDSP, by adults who may lack legal capacity.

Mr. Speaker, before I introduce those amendments, it is necessary to give

some background and set the context as to why we are bringing in these

amendments. I need to speak briefly about what the Registered Disability Savings

Plan is and talk as well about the whole concept of legal capacity.

Mr. Speaker, the Registered Disability Savings Plan we will refer to it in

this presentation as RDSP is a federal initiative. It was introduced in 2008

as a savings plan intended to help parents and others save for the long-term

financial security of a person with a disability. Anyone who qualifies under the

federal Income Tax Act for a federal Disability Tax Credit is qualified to apply

for an RDSP.

Mr. Speaker, the plan operates with a specific beneficiary, who, of course,

is the person with the disability, the beneficiary of the plan. It also can have

one or more plan holders, and the holder is the person who opens up the plan or

can contribute or authorize contributions to the plan on behalf of the

beneficiary.

Now, if the beneficiary, Mr. Speaker, is a person who has legal capacity,

then the beneficiary and the holder could be one and the same person. Because a

disabled person may have legal capacity, they may have a physical disability,

may have the wherewithal necessary to enter into legal agreements, and in such a

case can open the plan himself or herself and contribute to the plan himself or

herself. Consequently, the beneficiary could also be the holder. The federal

guidelines for this plan, Mr. Speaker, require that the plan may be established

at a financial institution.

Mr. Speaker, this plan, the RDSP program, involves two mechanisms. The first

is a savings mechanism where the individuals with a disability, their parents, a

family, or any person can contribute to that RDSP established for the person

with the disability. The maximum contributions are up to $200,000. So the first

mechanism is a savings plan.

The second mechanism, Mr. Speaker, is a federal government contribution to

the RDSP through grants and bonds. They can provide matching dollars, $1 for

every dollar that is contributed by the individuals. That can be increased to $3

for $1 for matching funds, depending upon the income of the individual and

additional funds that are available to low-income beneficiaries. The maximum

contribution that the federal government would make for the grants and bonds

would be $90,000. So, it is a savings plan with a matching federal contribution.

Mr. Speaker, the program is designed to support long-term savings. It is not

tax deductible, but the investment growths and the government contributions are

only taxed on withdrawal from the plan, similar in some ways to a Registered

Education Savings Plan in that it provides tax shelter for investment growth and

also provides shelter for federal contributions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the long-term savings aspect is also reflected in the fact

that when any funds are taken out of this plan, you have to pay back the federal

contributions made in the past ten years. That is a protection in there to make

sure this program exists for the long-term savings of the individual. When the

person reaches sixty, funds can be withdrawn without penalty, but the federal

contributions stop at age forty-nine. This is one of the ways, Mr. Speaker, that

the RDSP is designed to provide a means to support a person with a disability

over the long term. If you start digging into the fund and taking out funds in

the short term, then you are going to be penalized by the fact that you have to

pay back what the feds have contributed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the advantages of this program, the RDSP program are

obvious. It permits the parents of a child or an adult with a disability to save

and invest funds over their lifetime, and also to have those funds enhanced by

federal contributions so that when the parents are no longer around, the child

will have access to funds for financial support. It also permits this individual

with a disability, themselves to establish such a plan to access federal

contributions and enjoy the tax-sheltered investment growth.

Mr. Speaker, what leads to this bill is the fact that the requirements as to

who can open an RDSP differ significantly between a plan being opened by a minor

with a disability, and one opened by an adult with a disability. For a minor, a

parent may open the RDSP, but for an adult with a disability, that is a

different ballgame. The guidelines particularly state that if a beneficiary has

reached the age of majority which in our jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, is

nineteen years of age the beneficiary has reached the age of majority and he

is legally able to enter into a contract, then that beneficiary can establish

and be holder of a plan. A parent can only do so if the parent has already

established the RDSP in the first place when the person was a minor; but if a

beneficiary has reached the age of majority, he is able to enter into a contract

himself or herself and be the established holder of the plan.

If the beneficiary has reached the age of majority but may not be legally

able to enter into a contract, due to a mental impairment of some kind, then he

cannot open the RDSP because he does not have the legal capacity to enter into a

contract. The plan then can only be opened by an individual, by a public

department or an agency that is legally authorized to act for that beneficiary.

Simply being a parent is not enough. If the person is over the age of nineteen

and does not have legal capacity to enter into an agreement, that plan can only

be opened by someone who is legally authorized to act for the beneficiary in

this circumstance.

Mr. Speaker, it is this legally authorized requirement which leads to the

amendments being presented today. The RDSP, as we mentioned, is a federal

program, but the laws governing who may be appointed to be legally authorized

are a provincial responsibility. This is why, Mr. Speaker, in the 2010 federal

budget all provinces were encouraged to look at their respective legislative

regimes with a view to streamlining the process to ensure more Canadians with a

disability could access this federal RDSP initiative. It was found, Mr. Speaker,

that a lot of people with disabilities in the Province were not taking advantage

of this opportunity.

In this Province, Mr. Speaker, we have learned that our existing legislation

poses a problem for adults with an intellectual disability and for their

families. In particular, the parents of adults with intellectual disabilities

were having difficulties accessing the federal RDSP program. This was brought to

the attention of the Minister of Justice by the Minister of Finance who had

discussions with his federal counterpart, and by the Disability Policy Office.

The difficulties occur, Mr. Speaker, where there are questions about the

mental capacity of the adult individual involved, and whether that individual

has the capacity to enter into necessary RDSP arrangements. Mr. Speaker, at this

point we need to discuss what is meant by mental capacity of an individual. This

concept has a number of meanings in different contexts.

In the case of the RDSP, because it involves investments, it involves taxes,

it involves banking arrangements as well as monetary obligations between

individuals, the capacity we are talking about here is a capacity to enter into

a contract. When we talk about legal capacity, it is a capacity to enter into a

contract. Capacity has been defined as the ability to understand the nature, the

essential terms and the effects of the agreement. You do not have legal capacity

to enter into a contract unless you are able to understand the nature of the

contract, the essential terms and the effect it will have. Mr. Speaker, it is a

fundamental requirement of common law that an individual have capacity to enter

into a contract at the time the contract is made. In other words, at the time

the contract is made the individual must be able to understand the nature,

essential terms and effects of that agreement.

In our jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, there are no varying degrees of legal

capacity, it is black or white, you either have legal capacity or you do not.

There are no degrees or stages of incapacity in a contract. It is understood in

this Province that legal capacity does not exist in minors, for example, but it

is assumed to exist in all those who have reached the age of nineteen, unless

there are reasonable grounds to conclude that it does not.

Mr. Speaker, the consequence of a contract where an individual does not have

the capacity can be severe to both parties because there is tremendous risk to

the individual involved if they sign a contract that takes advantage of them, or

they did not have the capacity to enter into it in the first place. An

individual with legal capacity would never have entered such a contract in the

first place. It is a tremendous risk to individuals who do not have capacity in

this situation, but there is protection for these people generally.

The law generally provides for an individual or their representative to get

out of the contract whether it is disadvantageous to the person or not, but the

requirements are very stringent. If the requirements cannot be met, then the

contract stands. If they can be met, the courts would rule the contract to be

void. If that happens, that mechanism is beneficial to the individual who

entered into the contract.

What about the other party on the other side of the contract? Quite often,

that person is left holding the bag, so to speak. It creates risk for the other

party to the contract. The legitimate contract suddenly becomes void and the

party is left, as I mentioned, holding the bag.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, it is not uncommon for a party that has concerns

about the capacity of the other party to enter into an agreement to refuse to

enter into that contract. If one party sees that the other party does not have

the capacity to enter into the contract, they can legitimately refuse to enter

into that contract because of the results that might occur. From their

perspective, the contract may not be reliable and at the end of the day, as I

said earlier, they might be left in a compromising position. The result then is

the individual in whom the capacity is in question, the individual who may not

have the capacity to enter into the agreement, can find it hard to find another

party who will contract with him or her.

That is what is happening, Mr. Speaker, with RDSPs. Banks, financial

institutions, are reluctant to enter into a contract with an individual who they

feel may not have the capacity to do so, because at the end of the day, the

result will not be favourable to the bank if the contract is declared void.

Now, Mr. Speaker, our laws do provide a solution for individuals who do not

have capacity generally to care for themselves or to look after their affairs.

We do have a way. We do have a mechanism to cope for those people who cannot

look after their own affairs. That is under the Mentally Disabled Persons'

Estates Act. Under the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act, the

representative of the individual who is mentally incompetent can apply to the

court to be appointed the legal guardian of that individual; this includes a

power, Mr. Speaker, to act on behalf of the individual.

It is a court application, not a complicated process, but a process that

quite often involves legal personnel, lawyers. The appointment when a person

is appointed, the court appoints the person as the guardian, the power of that

guardian, Mr. Speaker, is comprehensive and absolute. It entirely removes the

legal authority from the individual to deal with their affairs and instead rests

all the authority solely in the guardian.

Mr. Speaker, that presents a problem because it removes all legal authority,

all the ability of the individual who could otherwise deal with a lot of his

affairs; now he has no rights whatsoever to deal with his affairs, all

encompassed by the guardianship. It is a one-size-fits-all solution and there

are some very complex individual situations, Mr. Speaker, that the guardianship

under the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act is not appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, in the context of this federal program, this RDSP program right

now in this Province, the legally authorized representative can only be such a

guardian appointed under the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act. That is the

only mechanism that is available.

Where there are concerns that an adult does not have the capacity to enter

into the contracts necessary for this RDSP, their only option for them or their

families is to have a guardian appointed under the Mentally Disabled Persons'

Estates Act. That is all that is open to them at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, therein lies a good part of the problem, and families are

reluctant to follow that particular avenue for a number of reasons. First, it

can be expensive. You have to pay lawyers to get it done; costs of applying to

the courts for legal guardianship is one reason, but probably the most

significant reason why families are not interested in pursuing this initiative

is because of that comprehensive and absolute nature of the legal guardianship,

which means that the individual no longer has any legal capacity to deal with

his affairs and the result will deprive what might otherwise be independent and

functioning adults who are generally capable of managing most of their affairs.

They are deprived of having such authority simply because of accessing the RDSP

program.

Mr. Speaker, one of the first meetings I had, on being appointed the Minister

of Justice, was to meet with the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for

Community Living. That was two years ago, and they brought this issue of legal

capacity to our attention at that point in time.

There are a lot of people out there, Mr. Speaker, who are very capable of

managing their own affairs, who are functioning adults, who are working, who

have jobs, probably have families, drive their own cars, and make money. In

order to access and have the opportunity to access the RDSP program, the only

way you do it is through a guardianship, the guardianship takes away all of

their rights and authorities. So, families are reluctant to go that route. The

coalition for community living emphasises the fact that these people should have

legal capacity of some sort.

The UN Convention says all people, regardless of disability, should have a

right to legal capacity. In our jurisdiction, you either have legal capacity or

you do not. That is the conundrum we are in. That is the only mechanism

available right now to families of adults with disabilities who do not have

legal capacity to access this RDSP program.

Mr. Speaker, our approach to this problem is not to amend the Mentally

Disabled Persons' Estates Act, we still need that act. We still need that act

for those people who are mentally incompetent of looking after their affairs and

where a legal guardian is necessary, and a finding of mental disability which is

not reversible is needed to guarantee a guardianship.

As a practising lawyer, and I am sure the other lawyers in this House have

proceeded with numerous applications in the courts for legal guardianships, and

in all cases, the mental incompetence of the disabled individual has to be

certified by a physician. The certification is not only to say the person does

not have the mental capacity to look after his or her own affairs but that

condition is not reversible.

We are not going to amend the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act. Rather,

Mr. Speaker, we are hoping to turn to the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act and

make RDSP-specific amendments to that act, make amendments to that piece of

legislation that are specific to an RDSP.

Mr. Speaker, the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act, under that act anyone can

appoint a power of attorney to handle their financial affairs. A lot of times,

when people come in to do wills they will also do a power of attorney so that in

the event that you get to the stage where you no longer have the legal capacity

to carry on your affairs, your power of attorney can step into your shoes and do

these things for you. Again, with enduring powers of attorney, when that

happens, the power of attorney has all the rights of that individual as well.

We have to make then some amendments through the Enduring Powers of Attorney

Act so as to deal with the RDSP issue. The act currently states that in order

for you to give a power of attorney, then you have to have legal capacity at the

time the power of attorney is granted to sign. We have had, I am sure, a lot of

these situations where someone has come and said that my mother wants to sell

her home or my mother has some certain activities she wants to pursue. She does

not have the legal capacity to do it, she is in a home, and I want the power of

attorney to do it for her. The fact of the matter is the mother has already gone

beyond the stage where she has the capacity to enter into that power of attorney

so the power of attorney cannot be proclaimed at that time. That is one of the

requirements of the act: You have to have capacity when the power of attorney is

first signed. It does not expressly limit the powers of attorney to any certain

transactions; instead, it covers the entire estate of the individual.

These two concepts, Mr. Speaker, they both have to be adjusted if we are

going to capture the situation of concern with respect to the RDSP. The purpose

of the proposed amendments would have to be adjusted so that a person may use

that act to gain access to the RDSP programs. Out of the above, these comments,

Mr. Speaker, Bill 3 now proposes to amend the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act to

provide a means for adults with an intellectual disability to establish RDSPs.

The amendment, Mr. Speaker, will restrict the amendment through the RDSP context

only, and will not in any other way vary the application of the Enduring Powers

of Attorney Act. Everything else in the act remains the same, but a specific

provision to deal strictly with RDSPs.

The bill proposes, Mr. Speaker, to create a restricted form of representation

solely for the purpose of dealing with the RDSP. The proposed approach, Mr.

Speaker, is that the individual will execute a document called a designation

agreement. In that document, it will appoint representatives with authority to

act, but only in relation to the RDSP, otherwise the individual with a

disability keeps authority for the rest of his life. All the other activities in

his life, all the other functions of his life, he keeps complete authority over,

but for the purpose of the RDSP, there is a particular provision in this act

where other people can be legally authorized to act for him.

Now that process, Mr. Speaker, will deal with the concerns that have been

expressed by families of adults with disabilities, to access the RDSP. You will

avoid the requirement to go to court for a guardianship because all that is

needed is that designation agreement, and as I mentioned before, it will be

restricted only with respect to the RDSP. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, as far

as the law is concerned, these amendments propose to change the law of capacity

in this Province, and that is the significance of this bill to change the law

of capacity in this Province by relieving the requirement for a strict capacity

for the execution of the RDSP agreement. Instead, what this amendment does, it

creates a different threshold that we believe relates more closely to the issue

of whether or not the individual involved understands and can communicate their

intentions for the purpose of the RDSP.

Mr. Speaker, the criteria set out in the act, which I will just refer to

briefly, the threshold "In deciding whether an adult who may lack legal capacity

to enter into an RDSP has the capacity to enter into a designation agreement,

all relevant factors shall be considered, including (

a) whether the adult

communicates, orally or otherwise, a desire to enter into the RDSP and the

designation agreement;" whether he demonstrates preferences and can express

feelings of approval I am using he, I ask the House to bear with my political

incorrectness here: "(

b) whether the adult demonstrates preferences and can

express feelings of approval or disapproval; (

c) whether the adult is aware that

entering into a designation agreement or changing or revoking it means that the

designates may make, or stop making, decisions or choices that affect the adult

as they relate to the RDSP; and (

d) whether the adult has a relationship with

the persons who are intended to be designates that is characterized by trust."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the criteria if this person shows some indication

that he has a trustful relationship with the people that he has designated, that

he has a general understanding of what he is doing or she is doing and this

criteria was patterned after the Representation Agreement Act in British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, there was concern expressed by a lot of us when we started

putting together this bill. We are going from a place where we have strict legal

capacity, you have to have it or you do not, to setting up a different threshold

for legal capacity. That is breaking new ground as far as legal capacity is

concerned. I recall the discussion with the coalition for community living. They

suggested that there is a continuum. If you think about a continuum, where on

one end of the continuum you have people who have perfect capacity most people

have perfect capacity to understand and manage their own affairs to the other

end of the continuum where people have no capacity whatsoever; for example,

people who extend advanced dementia.

In between both ends of that continuum, Mr. Speaker, there is a wide range of

levels of mental competence. As we come down the continuum, there are people who

have all kinds of competence in certain areas but may not have competence in

others. Our laws at the moment state you either have it or you do not. That is

the group we are talking about, Mr. Speaker. As you move up the scale of the

continuum, you are obviously going to move into areas where it is clearly

recognizable that the person does not have the capacity to enter into an

agreement and in that case a guardianship is going to be needed.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, a person may be completely functioning in all

areas of his life, a working individual with a family and drives his own car,

but may not have the mental capacity to understand investments, monetary

obligations, tax purposes, and so on. It is only for that particular reason that

he needs the designated individual. If we stick with the laws we have, that

person will not have access to this program because of the way legal capacity is

defined.

That concern is still there. Banks will have to make that decision. When the

designation agreement is done in the bank, the bank can still make the decision.

As we mentioned earlier, this contract may not be viable at the end of the day.

We might be left holding the bag here because we are not sure this person knows

what he or she is doing. In that case, the bank can walk away from it. In that

case, maybe the parents can apply to have a public trustee be the designated or

authorized individual. So because of that uncertainty that exists, the grey area

that exists of whether or not a person has the capacity or does not, at that

stage, in order to offset that, Mr. Speaker, we have built in a number of

safeguards and oversights to help that situation.

Not only did we want the individual to access the program, but we are also

very concerned about ensuring that the best interest of that individual is

protected. We have included in the proposed amendments a number of safeguards to

ensure that this system cannot be subject to abuse or malfeasance. As a matter

of fact, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation has more safeguards built in to

protect the disabled person than any other piece of legislation we have,

including the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act, because once a

guardianship, legal guardianship is given under that act, then that person has

complete power to do what he wants or she wants as far as the rights of the

other individual is concerned. In this case, we have built in oversights and

safeguards to do that. Some of these, Mr. Speaker, are in the operation and

designation of the agreement itself. For example, we are requiring that there be

two representatives, not one two representatives whose decision must be

unanimous, or in the alternative, if you cannot name two people, then the public

trustee will serve as the representative. People can apply to the court to have

the public trustee be established.

We have also separated the management of the RDSP and the ability to receive

funds on behalf of the individual. We have separated these two functions. Being

a representative does not automatically mean that you will be able to get funds

from the RDSP. That has to be part of the designation agreement. Even if these

individuals can receive the funds as per the agreement, the amendments will

prescribe, to this act, the uses to which these funds can be put and for what

purposes in the best interest of the RDSP's beneficiary.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we have installed a public trustee who will

have important oversight role of all the designation agreements. For example,

all the designation agreements will only remain valid when notice of them is

given to the public trustee. The representatives will be required to file annual

reports of the financial activities in the RDSP with the public trustee. Where

the representatives are able to and do receive funds out of the RDSP, they will

have additional reporting requirements to the public trustee as to how these

funds were spent. In all cases, Mr. Speaker, the public trustee will have the

authority to request any additional information that he or she requires.

In addition to all that, Mr. Speaker, the public trustee, or any concerned

member of the public for that matter, who are concerned that there is some abuse

going on here, or there is something untoward happening with regard to this

individual, he has the ability or she has the ability to access the courts and

bring to the courts' attention any concern with regard to the establishment or

the management of the RDSP. The courts will have broad authority to make such

orders as are necessary to deal with these issues and these circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, in light of all this, this government is pleased to introduce

these amendments through the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act and they are very

specific to the federal RDSP program. Mr. Speaker, they do six things; they have

six results: they will "allow adults who may not otherwise have legal capacity

to do so to designate persons as their legally authorized representatives, and

those persons may act as the holders of the adult's RDSP; secondly, it will

"provide that a designation agreement is valid notwithstanding the current or

subsequent legal incapacity of the designator"; three, it will "require persons

who have been named as designates to act in the best interests of the designator

in the administration and operation of an RDSP, and further provide that those

persons are trustees of the designator; four, it will "provide that a

designation agreement is effective when filed with the public trustee, and

require designates to report annually to the designator and the public trustee

respecting the operations and accounts of the RDSP"; fifthly, it establishes a

"process by which a person, including the public trustee, may apply to the

court for a determination on matters concerning the administration and operation

of the RDSP"; and finally, Mr. Speaker, it provides "that the court may make an

order, as appropriate, respecting the administration and operation of the RDSP."

Mr. Speaker, these amendments through the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act are

positive and they are constructive, and it will remove barriers for Canadians,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with a disability wishing to access that

federal program. In addition, Mr. Speaker, these amendments can help provide

financial security and independence for people with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to discuss Bill 3. I look forward

to the comments from the other speakers in the House. I ask for the support of

all hon. members in passing this bill and look forward to the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to stand today and discuss this piece of

legislation, which is much needed, and I can understand the reasoning for it.

What I would say today is that when you first, as a practising lawyer, read any

kind of new legislation that deals with capacity and creating new capacity, you

are a bit worried about it. That is something that is entrenched in us as

practicing lawyers, the ability to have capacity does that person have

capacity or none.

Saying that, I can say up front that I understand the concept and the

background for this amendment that is being discussed here today, and the

purpose of my speaking to this is just to ask questions of the minister which I

am sure he will answer. I have questions that really I would like answered and

to make sure that we have the best piece of law going forward and certainly to

raise some issues that may be there, and hopefully these concerns that I have

may be allayed by answers of the minister down the road as we move forward.

Again, nobody wants to get in the way of allowing disabled persons to take

advantage of federal monies. This is a great initiative. When we have disabled

people, we are basically trying to provide for a safe way of retirement for

these individuals, when they hit age sixty we know that there is a pot of money

there and the same as we are investing money for I am investing in an RRSP for

my child so that I know there is money there and there is money coming from the

federal government, we want the same thing here. I think that is a great thing.

Certainly, as a practising lawyer I understand the difficulty we have had

when it comes to capacity issues. Again, it really is black or white. They come

in and you have to wonder, does this person have the capacity or not. What I did

in my day-to-day dealings, a lot of times I did not exercise that power, I asked

those people, if there was a concern, can you go see a medical doctor or can you

go make sure that there is a proper assessment done by people, depending on what

background they have. Again, I wanted to avoid having to make that judgement

call because it is really hard to judge. You get people who come in, they might

be, in certain cases, older and they might just be forgetful, but you have

wonder whether they have early on-set dementia or Alzheimer's. So, there is

always a big concern.

When we talk about the powers of attorney itself, powers of attorney, it is

amazing how many people do not understand the importance of powers of attorney.

Certainly, all of the lawyers in here understand it. Again, the fact is this

world is different now. In a post-9/11 world, in a world filled with fraud, it

is not like the old days where I could go down to the bank and take care of

mom's and dad's banking or their estate. Now, we need to have documentation

showing that. If something happens to me tomorrow, if I were to have a mental

episode tomorrow, or a seizure or a stroke, my wife or my family cannot just

take care of me. They should have something on paper saying that they could.

They should have a power of attorney. So the act itself has done that, but

again, I understand where the minister is coming from there where there is a

very wide gap in between no capacity and being fully capable, we will say.

Some of the concerns I have, again, when we talk about the capacity I am

going to go through the act here. The first thing I have is maybe the first line

of defence or the first line of this happening, from what I understand, is that

people are interesting in this program, they go to a bank with the people who

they expect are going to handle this and the bank sets it up. The first question

I have is that I have some concerns over the individual at the bank, whoever it

might be, it might be a client service officer, it might be the manager, there

are all different lines of people at these financial institutions, but they are

the people who are making that judgement call. I have some concerns over that;

again, not that they are being untoward or anything along those lines, but I

prefer to have somebody with the proper background to make that judgement call.

Now, when I did a Justice Department briefing on this, I understand that the

number of people who are going to be out there able to take advantage of this

federal program is fairly minimal; there is not a lot. I think the number

actually used was somewhere in the range of 500 was the number given to me. What

I would suggest is maybe there is a way where we can introduce a subsection

saying that just to verify this, capacity could be judged by using proper

assessment tools or a medical practitioner of some sort. Just to protect this

here and put in one further step for protection.

I understand exactly what the minister is saying here in that there are a lot

of safeguards here. The possibility of malfeasance occurring here, it is going

to be hard to get around this again just due to the nature of the funding.

Again, when I go into the bank as the disabled person, we have to wonder about

the level of capacity. I mean we have high functioning versus low functioning.

When we use the wording in

section 15,

section 15 says in deciding whether a

person who lacks capacity to enter may sign this designation agreement, may

communicate orally or otherwise. Sometimes I worry about that. Again, I do not

know if a person in a financial institution is the person to make that call.

Just to be safe and sound, maybe we need to add a further subsection in there

just to put in who the actual judge or arbiter of that decision will be.

Again, we talk about whether the adult is aware that entering into the

designation agreement basically means that these individuals can make their

decisions. Now, a lot of times you get a lot of people who are considered fully

capable or have full capacity. When they go into a bank, they sign what is in

front of them. It happens all the time in a law office. The people just sign

what is in front of them. They say they understand, but they are just basically

doing what they think they should do. There is some concern over that, but I

agree that we need to continue on this path, I believe, because whenever we have

an opportunity to take advantage of federal funding for people's retirement, we

have to see what we can do.

I guess a side note there is that I really do think that, beyond this act, we

need to do more as we look at the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act to

address those issues, and I believe the minister would be on board with that. I

think this is a step in the right direction; however, I think we need to get a

bit farther with this.

I have seen plenty of situations again, I am unaware as to whether I should

continue talking. I am just trying to be polite, Mr. Speaker. I have had

situations where individuals come in with a family member. The family member has

a mental incapacity, sometimes very high and sometimes just borderline where you

are not sure, and you do not risk it. You have to go through a guardianship

process, which is lengthy, which is time consuming, and which is expensive

whenever you are dealing with lawyers and court costs, like out in my area.

Again, out in my area, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, if you want to do

it you have to go to Supreme Court. Sometimes, not very often, you have to

travel to Corner Brook to Supreme Court to do it. It can be a lot of money. I

have seen cases where the cost of the process was higher than the value of the

estate or assets that the people were trying to deal with and you are better off

not bothering with it at all. This is another reason why this is a good first

step. I am going to ask some more questions that I am hoping will be answered,

just to make sure my concerns are laid down the road. Being new at this, I am

hoping my questions will get answered so I can feel sure the law here, this

first law, besides Internal Supply, I have had an opportunity to review and

debate will be the best piece of legislation possible.

I will continue on here. The first thing in this case, it is rare actually.

It is different than anything I have seen. We have to have two people

designated. Now, I understand the reasoning behind that in that if you have two

people it is an extra layer of safety where we have two people who have to

consent to everything being done; just three concerns with that. Number one,

many people do not have two trustworthy individuals who they want to put on.

Many people only have one person they trust or they are safe with. One person,

one family member or very close friend, they are comfortable with. Having to get

two might be a bit of a hindrance to them. It is a small concern, I know, but

just putting it out there.

The second problem, and I have seen this happen, is where you have two

individuals who down the road, for whatever reasons, perhaps unconnected to

this, get into a dispute and then they say: We are not going to agree with this.

I do not like how you are going forward, and I do not like how you are going

forward. We are not going to agree. You are forced to go back to a court process

in order to have one person put in. We all know that when it comes to wills and

regular powers of attorney, you only need one person who has been deemed safe.

For right or wrong, better or worse, most of the documentation that we have done

so far has been with one person. To have two, I can see why, but we need to make

sure that is the best way to go forward.

I understand the backdrop or safeguard to that is if you do not have two

people, or if the two people cannot agree we have the public trustee now. I am

always hesitant about that. I think sometimes that person could have one very

trustworthy person. The way the system is set up, it is very, very hard to abuse

the system the way the funds are administered and locked in. I think one person

could do the job. If a person only has one family member, that family member

cannot do it so now we have to go to the public trustee, which can also be a bit

of a process, especially when you are dealing with estates. The public trustee's

office can be very, very burdened by a lot of paperwork, administrations,

estates, probates. It is good to have that as a protection but hopefully we will

not have to fill the public trustee's office with these types of applications. I

do not think it is too big an issue but it is there.

One question I would put forward is that normally speaking the public

trustee, whenever they administer an estate, they receive a cut from the value

of that estate. They get some percentage of that estate, whether it be a

probate, whether it be administration, guardianship. They usually get some kind

of cut because they have to pay towards the costs. My understanding of this is

that the way these funds are with them being locked in, we cannot take the funds

out of the RDSP to pay the fees that might be administered by the public

trustee. They cannot come out. If they come out people are going to get taxed on

them because that is the nature of this program.

I know the proposed amendment says, well, in that case you bill basically the

disabled person's assets, but in many of these cases there are no assets. The

disabled person has no assets. In many cases it is the family members or, in

this case, the holders who are contributing. Now not only are they contributing

but now they have to pay their own money towards these fees. I am wondering, is

the public trustee going to be provided with a mandate to handle these gratis or

pro bono? What do we do in these cases where people have to take their own

hard-earned money that they may be investing for the benefit of the disabled

person in question? Who is going to pay the costs on this? Maybe that is

something that needs to be discussed, and I know that might be a difficult one

because it relates to the federal side of this, the funding side of this. In a

lot of cases many of these people and it does not matter if it is a

guardianship, it does not matter if it is an estate or matters being handled,

the people involved, the amount of funds they have there may be nil or minimal.

They have to spend those monies to have a public trustee handle it when they

have one person who they trust that could do it and could probably eliminate

that problem. That is just a suggestion.

On another aside to that, I had the opportunity to do a briefing with the

Justice Department staff, and they were excellent, they sat down with me, they

took the time to talk to me, but one of the questions I had is whether the Law

Society of Newfoundland and Labrador was consulted in this process. My

understanding is they have not been so far. The reason I suggest that is they

probably have a committee that might provide some guidance on possible practical

applications of this new amendment, to make sure that we have not only a law

that has good safeguards, but a law that is practical in its use, practical in

its application, because we all know there is absolutely no point in putting a

law in that cannot be used effectively, or if there are burdens there. Maybe

that is something we should avail of, is avail of the Law Society's expertise

before we hit committee stage, and if there is any possible amendments it would

be nice to take advantage of their expertise.

I come back to the

section here,

section 15.(2)(d). That is the part where we

talk about whether the adult has a relationship with the persons who are

intended to be designates. Again, I am not sure of the criteria that need to be

established or met there. Sometimes it is very obvious. Even in the case of an

adult disabled, we might have parents who are administering this for them. It is

hard to dispute that, but in certain cases, maybe in rare cases, the person

establishing this test, which appears to be the bank manager or the bank

official, they have to make a judgement call: Do I trust these people?

Ninety-nine times out of a hundred this might not be an issue, but we might have

one time where we do have somebody trying to pull a fast one. I am interested to

know how that

section is going to be applied; what is the criteria; just to make

sure that it is properly utilized.

Again, I certainly agree with the minister when we talk about capacity, and

this is groundbreaking when we go from a black and white capacity versus none

capacity. I agree that we need to move forward. There is a wide spectrum of

high-functioning disabled people who are able to lead full, rich lives but in

terms of using this terminology are deemed disabled and therefore have no

capacity. I do not agree with that. In moving forward, my only concern is - this

is something that I think down the road, this is a test that is going to be

applied in other pieces of legislation. So we need to make sure we have the best

piece of legislation possible, the best one put forward and to cover off all

possible events, occurrences, situations.

We look at what has been done in the past; I know we have another safeguard

or backdrop to this, which is if you cannot use it you go to the Mentally

Disabled Persons Estates Act. Hopefully, now that this piece of legislation is

being looked at, we will have that discussion in the very near future too. I

guess we will have to wait and see how it works, how it is applied.

When we talk about powers of attorney, these are mandatory for just about

anything. If you want to sell a house, and you live out of the Province, you

have to get somebody to sign a power of attorney to handle that for you while

you are out of the Province. You just cannot have your spouse sign, you need to

sign it, and it has to be a specific power of attorney. It cannot be

unrestricted.

Going back to, I guess the crux or the overlying aspect of what I am trying

to get across here, I just want to make sure the passage of these amendments do

not have any unintended, long-reaching effects that we are not aware of now.

What I will go to, Mr. Speaker, is my biggest concern really is the arbiter or

judge of capacity. We need to make sure there is a safeguard put there. Just

going through the legislation itself, which I have studied and I have compared

it to the existing act, basically all we are doing is adding on six sections at

the end. The first part of the act stays the same, a few small changes, more

procedural or housekeeping in nature. These are very RDSP specific changes that

we are proposing.

What I would say, again, we have to make sure that

section 15.

(2) I am

actually interested to see how the application of that is going to work in this

test here. When we discuss whether the adult demonstrates preferences and can

express feelings of approval and disapproval that is a pretty loose wording

there, because that can go either way. I understand the good news here is once

this is executed and is filed with the public trustee, whether it be by Telefax

or whether it be by e-mail, once it is filed I understand that there is a yearly

review.

Maybe the minister can answer this question just to make sure: Once it is

filed, is there an automatic annual review of this agreement to make sure that

the funds were touched or not touched, or is it only a review in the case where

there has been some we will say withdrawal of the funds?

I am not quite sure; maybe I just overlooked something there. I just want to

make sure on that specific aspect, because if we are putting something in and we

are saying there is a review but the review itself, how is it triggered? Is it

an automatic trigger where once a year the public trustee starts going through

all of these that have been filed, and has a look back? I guess a step further

to that would be when the public trustee looks into this, what is the range of

powers that the public trustee has in terms of looking at the financial records

of the holder, or I guess we will say, the adults with capacity. If there have

been funds withdrawn from this RDSP, the public trustee is going to want to have

a look at the RDSP itself, but will they have access to the bank accounts of the

two holders? Will they be able to look into their banking records?

Again, it is hard enough trying to get people to do anything where the

government gets to review their financials, especially if you are dealing with

I have seen it a million times child support or spousal support; in this case

the public trustee needs to have powers, but I would not want the public

trustee's powers to be so overbearing that it scares people off this. Let's hope

that is not the case.

I would continue on here;

section 15 is obviously the big

section here, I

have discussed already 15 (2) and just about every sub-clause of that, (a), (b),

(c), and (d). If you go a bit further to that, as we continue on, I would want

to make sure that there is safeguard in place to make sure that when they it

says here the "designation agreement is effective when filed". Now, we all know

how filing can go a bit off at times, due to nobody's intentional fault, but

just due to technology, or just due to unintended human error. So I would want

to make sure we have some kind of backup system so that not only is it filed

electronically, but a paper copy must be sent. What if there is a failure of the

electronic system? What if the e-mail did not get sent to the right person? We

all know how many people have tried to send an e-mail to one person and it went

to the wrong person. You do not know any different because it was not rejected.

It did not bounce back, but it went to the wrong person and that wrong person

did not do anything with it.

So maybe we should tighten that up to make sure there is a backup to that. If

the public trustee does not have notice of this, just one slips through the

cracks, and that one is the one that is abused by people who are just there to

take advantage of disabled people, then that is one too many. So maybe that is

just another thing we can look at there, maybe in the Committee stage.

The best interests

section is great. That continues with what The Enduring

Powers Of Attorney Act was meant to do anyway. Obviously, if you are going to do

this and as long as you act in the best interests of the person who you are

looking after, then you will be absolved, I believe, of any personal liability.

Again, it is one thing to look after somebody and try to do something I might

have the power of attorney for the minister. I go to do something I am thinking

is going to increase the value of that asset, it does not, and somebody gets mad

at me because I did not increase the value. Well, I was not negligent there. I

did not try to hurt anybody. So as long as that is still there to make sure that

people who are looking after the best interests, but for no reasons of their own

besides bad luck, something is negatively affected I would want to make sure

that personal liability, as long as there is no inherent negligence or bad

faith, these people are not going to be penalized.

Again, that goes back to the previous point I made where public trustees or

people who take care of these things are often allowed to have remuneration of

some sort. Many people in this case are not going to take the remuneration, and

that is fine, but we do not want to penalize them. We do not want to have money

out of their pocket for handling something in the best interests of, in this

case, the disabled person.

I would continue on here with, further to what I just said,

section 17.(5):

"Designates are not entitled to be remunerated but may be reimbursed from the

designator's assets". That is a

section that may have some concern for every

situation where mom and dad come in with the adult disabled to fill this out

solely to take advantage of federal funding, which they should, that is one

thing. We do have situations they are out there and I have seen them where

we have a disabled person who is cared for by other people who may not be as

protective. If this banker does not know them or just makes an assumption, boom,

these people are now the designates, they are not allowed to get payment but

they are allowed to be reimbursed from the assets of the designator.

That is something that they might be able to get access to without if they

tried to take money out of this RDSP, they are going to be dinged by the federal

government. The federal government is going to say you have to pay; you are

getting taxed on that, which is good. If they are saying to the disabled person

look, you owe me for doing this, I am entitled to be remunerated, I should be

remunerated from the bit of money you might have coming in from whether it be

they receive a government cheque, or some kind of stipend, or funding, we want

to make sure that we are protecting every one here.

When we talk about this spectrum, this continuum of disability, for every

high-functioning disabled person, we have someone on the lower end that could be

easily taken advantage of. That is what we are always trying to avoid. I would

just want to put that out there to make sure that there is a safeguard. As I

say, I am asking these questions today very honestly to make sure we have the

right things. If I overlook something here, if there is a safeguard, I am sure

the minister will let me know, and that is what we are all aiming for here.

When we get into

section 18, we talk about the designation agreement may be

revoked by a designator. I would want to make sure that is not something that

can be abused. We talk about the person has two people who come in, he signs-off

and says I want these people to handle this for me. This disabled person gets

into an argument of some sort with these people and says no, these two people

here, I want them to take care of me. We want to make sure that this is not

abused. When you have capacity you are allowed to do what you want when you

want, you can change your documents any day of the week. In this case when

capacity is an issue, we want to make sure that this groundbreaking

section

here, where we are talking about capacity, that it is not abused. We want to

make sure that we use it in the best interests.

I have looked through the rest of this document, Mr. Speaker, and I agree

with it in theory. I think it is a good thing and I am sure the minister has had

meetings as he referenced in his statements. We are doing the right thing.

Basically what we are trying to do is grease the wheels here. We are trying to

grease the wheels or make it easier, if people are putting money in, to get some

of that federal money back. My concern is solely that we make sure that we cover

off the practical applications of it because in many cases these laws are

drafted and they are drafted with the best intentions in theory, but we need

people on the ground, people who are doing guardianships or dealing with these

issues every day to have a look at this. That is why I referenced the Law

Society, it is not a bad idea, especially in something like this that I think is

going to be used down the road. I think this is going to be put into other

pieces of legislation. This is not going to stop here. This is really a slippery

slope. Usually when you say slippery slope, it is a bad thing. In this case, it

is a slippery slope in that this is going to be going into other legislation.

So, let us make sure that we let people and again the Law Society has lawyers

there who deal with this stuff everyday. Let's maybe let them have a look at it

to make sure that we have the best piece of legislation.

If you will just bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I have a few notes here I just

want to double check to make sure that I have I think I have plenty of time. I

do not plan on using all that time, but I want to make sure I have covered off

all the issues that I noticed when I reviewed this legislation.

I have just a few questions there. These are actual questions, they are not

rhetorical. I am wondering if the minister does have an accurate number of

people who can possibly take advantage of this program. Even if it is just one

person, we should take advantage of it