May

25, 2009

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 25

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the House of Assembly would like to welcome thirty students from Grades

3-6 from Hillview Academy of Norris Arm in the District of Lewisporte. The

students are accompanied by their teachers, Ms Shelly Whiteway, Mr. Wayne West,

and Ms Kimberly Preston.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also visiting the House of Assembly today is a group of

forty Level I students from Mount Pearl Senior High. The students are

accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Darrell Penney, Mr. Shane Antle and Miss

Sarah Alexander.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following member's statements will be heard: the hon.

the Member for the District of Lewisporte; the hon. the Member for the District

of Mount Pearl North; the hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis;

the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the

Member for the District of Bonavista North; and the hon. the Member for the

District of Labrador West.

The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a recent accomplishment by a

group of elementary students from Hillview Academy in Norris Arm.

Hillview Academy, Mr. Speaker, is a small rural school with an enrolment of

108 students. It is a great school that serves students from Norris Arm North

and Norris Arm South.

This group of recorder students, under the direction of their teacher, Krista

Murphy, participated in the Gander Kiwanis Music Festival on March 3 of this

year. They played their hearts out and received a first place award for their

efforts. They were so good they were invited back to perform at the Starts of

the Festival.

Members of the House, please join with me and with the principal of Hillview

Academy, Mr. Peter Wheeler, his staff and the parents in congratulating the

elementary recorder group from Hillview Academy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge a youth group that has been

very active in communities across this Province and across Canada.

Katimavik is a national volunteer service organization that aims to empower

youth to make a significant contribution to local communities and participate in

nation-building while fostering their personal and professional development

through a challenging youth-volunteer, leadership and service-learning program.

The City of Mount Pearl and its residents have been seeing the benefits of

Katimavik first-hand. A new group of volunteers joined our community in January.

They will volunteer five days a week with local non-profit organizations,

including: Admiralty House Museum and Archives, Association for the Arts in

Mount Pearl, Circle Square Ranch, the Glacier and Smallwood Areas, Seniors

Independence Group, Mary Queen of the World Elementary, Morris Academy, O'Donel

High School, Mount Pearl Sport Alliance and Masonic Park Nursing Home.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in welcoming our

newest volunteers and send best wishes to those who participate in this exciting

nine-month journey of discovery, which allows them to visit three regions of

Canada. This truly is a mutually beneficial program that serves volunteers and

organizations alike.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KEVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Holy Trinity Concert Band

and Jazz Band who won gold at the Heritage Festival held in New York City on May

8 and May 9. There were over 1,200 participants from all over the United States

and Canada.

The Holy Trinity Concert Band consists of forty-five students and the Jazz

Band consists of sixteen students, along with their director Mr. Ron Collins.

Also a member of the Jazz Band, Hilary Moores was singled out. Hilary is a Grade

11 student who plays saxophone and sings as well. Her vocal performance of Orange

Coloured Sky caught the attention of adjudicators and she was presented with

the prestigious Maestro Award. Hillary was one of only six of the approximately

1,200 students who participated who was chosen for an individual honour.

The director, Mr. Ron Collins, and the parents and teachers were very proud

of the students, not only on their performance but how the students were great

ambassadors for our Province in New York City.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to join with me in

congratulating the Holy Trinity Concert Band and Jazz Band on their impressive

performance at the Heritage Festival in New York.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la

Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pride that I rise in this hon. House today to deliver

accolades to the Bay d' Espoir Midget Hockey Team, who won the provincial gold

hockey championship in Botwood on April 15.

This is a testament to what children in rural Newfoundland and Labrador can

achieve. Through endless hours of dedication and volunteerism, parents and

residents of the Bay d' Espoir area ensure that our children are receiving

quality recreational activities comparable to anywhere in the Province.

It was a great day of jubilation for these young athletes, and for our

communities as a whole. I would also like to give honourable mention to the

goalie, John MacDonald, who was named player of the game.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this hon. House join with me to

congratulate the Bay d' Espoir Blizzards on their remarkable accomplishment.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an exceptional

young resident of Bonavista North who recently received a tremendous honour.

Jeanna Goodyear of Lumsden was nominated by the Army Cadet League of Canada,

Newfoundland and Labrador Branch, to be their nominee for the extremely

prestigious General Walsh Memorial Sword.

This award was established in 2004 by the Army Cadet League of Canada. Jeanna

is now entered in a competition with twelve of her peers from across the country

as she vies for this top honour. This extremely select group of individuals is

chosen based on their performance as cadets, their level of community

involvement, and their academic standing.

Jeanna and the other nominees are truly representative of the very best and

brightest our country has to offer. Even at their young age, the level of

discipline, dedication, and commitment to their community, as evidenced by their

inclusion in this select group, provides a standard that we can all aspire to.

Jeanna is currently a Chief Warrant Officer with 2910 Lions Army Cadet Corp

in New-Wes-Valley and attends Lester Pearson Memorial High where she also serves

as student council president. We are indeed incredibly fortunate to have Jeanna

represent our Province in this competition, and I expect this is only one of

many accomplishments that will be realized by this extremely capable individual

in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all hon. members of this House join with me in

extending congratulations to Jeanna Goodyear on her recent honour and to offer

our support and encouragement as she vies to become our country's top Army

Cadet.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday, May 8, the Town of Labrador City and the Labrador City Recreation

Commission hosted their thirty-fifth annual volunteer appreciation and awards

evening to honour its volunteers and athletes. I was proud to attend and bring

greetings.

Volunteer awards were presented in various categories. The ten year plus

volunteer of the year award was presented to Sharon Brown, a teacher at Menihek

High School for her dedicated work above and beyond her normal duties. Kelsey

Butt was chosen as youth volunteer for a wide-ranging list of activities at the

school and community level. The adult volunteer award went to Beatrice Whittle

for her work with cross-country skiing.

Tim Leriche was chosen coach of the year for his work with the junior ski

program. The executive of the year was awarded to Max Rogers for his work in

restructuring the minor soccer program. Builder's awards recognizing community

involvement over an extended period were presented to Lester Murphy, George Kean

and Mayor Graham Letto.

In the athletic category, the team of the year award went to the Labrador

West Pee Wee Lakers for success at the regional, provincial and the national

level. Soccer player Glenn Freake was chosen as senior male athlete of the year,

Taylor Ryan was selected junior female athlete for her success in soccer and

gymnastics, and the junior male athlete was a repeat winner from last year, Kyle

Power for cross-country skiing. The rising star award for athletes twelve and

under went to figure skater Emily Benson and cross-country skier Konrad Kuhne.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating all the award

winners in the volunteer and athletic categories for their outstanding

contribution and success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, on September 29 of this year, Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians will go to the polls to elect their municipal representatives for

the next four years. Local government is where the action is. Every day, this

level of government impacts the lives of just about all residents of our

Province.

From my experience, I cannot stress enough the level of satisfaction and

pride one can gain from contributing to your community by offering yourself for

election as a mayor, deputy mayor or councillor.

Mr. Speaker, in 2007, Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, through the

Community Cooperation Resource Centre, conducted a survey with municipal

councillors where only 38 per cent said that they would run again in the next

municipal election. Strong municipal representation is essential for our

Province's success. This primary level of government contributes to the

foundation that strong communities are built upon. And our communities, Mr.

Speaker, are the foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, our government will soon announce a campaign to

promote participation in our treasured democratic process leading up to the

September 29 election. The anticipated launch of this campaign is early June.

Today however, Mr. Speaker, I will say that the campaign will incorporate

means to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas. We will actively

recruit individuals who may have been on the fence about offering themselves for

election in previous years. Making a contribution in this way can be of great

importance not only to the general population, but to their family and friends

as well.

One focus of our plan is to encourage the active involvement and full

participation of women and youth in municipal government. With the face of local

government possibly changing forever this year, it is time to persuade young

people and other potentially interested groups to join this very important

democratic institution.

Mr. Speaker, we are excited about this upcoming campaign. At the Department

of Municipal Affairs, we see first-hand each and every day how important strong

representation is when working to make the communities we call home a better

place to live and to raise our families. I feel it is our duty to encourage as

many people as possible to take the next step by offering themselves for

election, because, Mr. Speaker, where you see a construction worker, I see a

councillor. You may see a school teacher, I see the next mayor of a town.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement and to say

that we, too, on this side look forward to this fall and hoping that each and

every town and municipality and local service district in our Province will have

full slates of individuals running.

Mr. Speaker, from a lot of the smaller towns that we hear from, from time to

time, with issues that they have, one of the main reasons why there is only 38

per cent saying that they are running - and this is not just fear mongering or

anything. What they are saying is, they agree with the new waste management

project that is coming on-stream. They know it has to be done. They are in total

agreement, but many of them are saying, I cannot do to my residents what we have

to do and increase the fees to see that this is taking place.

Mr. Speaker, I believe municipal government is the key level of government

because many individuals start at the municipal level in hopes to come to this

hon. House of Assembly. Many have been successful, as I look across the House

and on this side, and others have not been able to get here for that reason, but

we hope that this campaign will encourage men and women both young and old to

take

part in municipal government this year and hopefully when the fall comes we

will see the greatest percentage we ever saw before, people taking

part in a

municipal level of government.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal HillQuidi

Vidi.

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I, too, think

municipal government is very important and is key to our whole governmental

structure in our Province and in our country. We do need more people running.

The result of the survey that was done by Municipalities Newfoundland and

Labrador is a serious number, only 38 per cent wanting to run again. I would

encourage the department as they put their campaign together, while looking at

women and young people, we have other diverse groups as well in our Province and

in our municipalities who should be encouraged to run.

Minister, I am not quite sure what you mean when you say that you will

actively recruit individuals who may have been on the fence about offering

themselves. I am not sure it is the role of the department to recruit

individuals but maybe you are talking about seeing them as a group that you are

going to focus on. That way I can understand, if that is what you mean.

It is a hard job, being a municipal councillor. For the most

part it is

volunteer work. It takes a tremendous amount of commitment. We have a lot of

municipalities where the tax base, number one, is getting smaller because of

younger people moving out. So we are losing both tax base and volunteers. So the

provincial government does need to encourage people to run but also find ways in

which to more and more support our rural municipalities so that they can govern

themselves with wisdom and resources.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Central Newfoundland has been waiting for the services of an MRI

machine for the past couple of years. We know that funding has been approved,

but we are not sure why government would be stalling on announcing whether that

equipment would be based out of Gander hospital or Grand Falls hospital. We are

aware that there has been an internal study done to look at where the equipment

should actually be positioned.

I ask the minister today if you can advise the people of Central Newfoundland

as to when an announcement will be made, or where the MRI equipment will be

located.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The member opposite was half right. There was a consultant

engaged; it was not an internal process. There was an external group of people

engaged to provide a recommendation to government. They have done that.

I have had an opportunity to review the report, and I will be bringing that

forward to my Cabinet colleagues in the very near future. We would anticipate,

right on the heels of that, being able to make a public announcement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was over three weeks ago, actually, when the minister indicated to me that

the report was in his department and that they would make a decision within a

few days. While government has been delaying this announcement for well over a

year, the people in Central Newfoundland have to drive to St. John's to access

the service and be placed on a wait-list.

I ask you today, Minister: When can you make a firm commitment as to when

this equipment will be open and operational and available to the people in

Central Newfoundland?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: As I said a moment ago, the report, I acknowledged we have

had it in the department and I will be bringing it forward in a matter - I would

suspect that within a week to ten days I will be able to bring that forward to

my Cabinet colleagues. I suspect that right on the heels of that we will be

making a public announcement. At that time we will be able to talk a little bit

about when we might anticipate that becoming operational.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the House opened for this session, one of the first issues we raised was

around the Cameron report and the minister committed to provide information,

including the action plan, for the implementation of the report's

recommendations before the final session of the House of Assembly.

I ask the minister today if you can give us some indication as to when that

action plan and those timelines will be tabled in the House and made available

to the public.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I suspect some time before the House closes in

the next couple of weeks. As I said, I had indicated that I would have it tabled

before the House closed. The House is not yet closed, and I am not aware that we

are planning to close any time soon, so before the House closes I will have that

tabled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 23 when I questioned the minister about the details of costs

associated with implementing the Cameron report he also committed to finding

those details and advising the House of Assembly.

I ask the minister today: Now that you have had two months to get this

information, could you please provide the people of the Province with the

details around the cost of implementation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite would recall, I had said

at that time as well that would be a part of the implementation; as I tabled the

implementation strategy I would be able to firm up some of the costs associated

with that.

My answer to this one is the same as the previous one. Before this session

adjourns, I will be tabling the action plan and I will provide the House and the

people of the Province an update on what we anticipate to be the costs

associated with the implementation of those recommendations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Also, Justice Cameron identified the need for more staffing positions within

Eastern Health and within the four health authorities.

I ask the minister today - because he did commit to bring forward a list of

those positions and a timeline as to when those positions would be filled - I

ask him today: What action has been taken on that issue, and have any of those

positions now been recruited or filled with Eastern Health or the other health

authorities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Members of the House would recall, I think it was probably

two weeks ago the Budget finally passed in this House. In that Budget submission

there were a whole number of new initiatives in health, and the member opposite

might recall in the Estimates we talked in some detail about how that money

might be spent.

Some of the money in this year's allocation responds to the recommendations

in the Cameron report as well as some of the recommendations made by the Task

Force on Adverse Health Events. So, with the passing by this House of the most

recent Budget, Eastern Health now would be advised of the new allocation they

have for this year and the recruitment process will be undertaken by that

organization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also questioned government on their commitment to compensate families that

have been affected by the faulty breast cancer screening who may be excluded

from any financial settlement. The Premier did commit to help facilitate this

process.

I ask today, if government can give us an update on what actions have been

taken in the last two months to help ensure that these families do get the

compensation they deserve.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize, I didn't catch the first part of the question. I

wonder if the Leader of the Opposition would pose the question again, and I will

do my best to answer.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier in the House of Assembly, when we first opened, we questioned the

government as to what action would be taken to ensure compensation for patients

who were affected by faulty breast cancer screening that may not meet the other

financial compensation programs that are available. At the time the Premier said

that he would facilitate a process and we are asking for an update on what has

happened and what action has been taken to ensure these people do get

compensated.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, in all his remarks regarding this issue, has stated

time and time again that we will do everything we can, as a government, to

ensure that fair compensation is paid to the people who have been most directly

affected by the whole breast cancer piece.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has also said there is a legal process that has to

be gone through. We are waiting until that process completes itself, and then if

there are other actions that have to be taken we will take that under full

consideration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister could give us an update in the House of Assembly how many

of those families who were affected by the faulty breast cancer screening will

receive financial settlements based on the assessments that have already been

done by Eastern Health, and how many will be excluded that will have to be taken

some interest in by government.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, in this particular instance these are court cases against Eastern

Health, not against government. As the Deputy Premier indicated, there is a

process that has to be engaged in and government will await the outcome of that

process before giving consideration to any request that might be made to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Our salaried medical specialists state that stress and fatigue

are compromising patient safety, and recruitment has largely been unsuccessful,

resulting in shortages of doctors and gaps in the system. In fact, according to

Eastern Health, the net gain for new recruits since 1997 has been zero.

I ask the minister today: Is there anything specifically being done to

address the recruitment and retention of salaried medical specialists in the

health care system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to be able to comment further as I have done in this House

many times on the success that we have had in physician recruitment in this

Province, Mr. Speaker. One of the most successful tools that we have been able

to use has been our bursary program. You may recall, last year around this time

I was announcing with the Dean of the Medical School the new graduates who had

actually gone through the program sponsored under the bursary program who are

now committing to practice in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Some time in the very near future we will have some thirty-one new graduates

coming out of this year's program who are again recipients of a bursary

program, who have a return and service commitment to practice in Newfoundland

and Labrador. I am looking forward to, in the very near future, announcing the

locations of where those thirty-one physicians will be practicing throughout our

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the evidence here is that there has not been a net gain. There have

been more people leaving the system than there has been going into the system

and that is why the net gain has been zero. So, minister, it seems like there is

quite a bit of work that needs to be done.

We have the fastest pace in population aging and the highest rate of chronic

disease. Yet, since 1994 only eleven residents have completed the general

internist training at MUN but only four of them remain to work in the Province

and right now there are no new entrants in the program at the university.

I ask the minister: What is the plan by government to address this general

internist shortage and increased demand - with an increased demand for their

services today in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting things that is happening

- and she was very selective of her words and I appreciate and understand that.

She talks about general internists, and one of the things that we are noticing,

not only in Canada but throughout the world, there is a real movement away from

general practice, and in that terms, Mr. Speaker, specialty as well. What we are

finding is a lot of internal medical specialists are deciding to specialize in

some sub-specialty areas. Instead of being a general internist, now they want to

become a sub-specialist in some further area of training that they require.

One of the things we are experiencing as a country is a general shortage or a

shortage across the country of general internists. Mr. Speaker, that is

something that we are not only just grappling with in this Province but we are

as a country; connecting that, though, to the aging population, Mr. Speaker,

there is not necessarily a correlation. We have been saying for many, many years

that as a Province we are aging more rapidly than many other parts of the

country and chronic illness is one of the biggest challenges facing all of us.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows we have the highest rate of chronic disease in this

Province, of any Province in Canada, including high blood pressure, diabetes and

heart disease. Minister, there are currently thirty-four general internists that

are working in our Province; almost 30 per cent of them are over the age of

sixty-five. These general internists provide about 50 per cent of the internal

medicine, in-patient services and emergency services at our main hospital, the

Health Sciences Centre.

I ask the minister: What is being done to secure the proper complement of

internal doctors that we require to be able to continue to run these emergency

rooms and our hospitals in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: If the member opposite were the Minister of Health we would

perpetuate a circumstance we have in this Province, and we need to fix it, Mr.

Speaker.

We have said many times before that we have, as she has indicated, one of the

highest rates of chronic illness in the entire country. The real way we are

going to deal with that is the kind of investment we are making in our wellness

piece. The way to manage chronic illness is not to provide cures for it, Mr.

Speaker. We need to have a system. We need to have Province. We need to have a

society to take in responsibility for our own health, looking at the investments

we are making in wellness, look at what we are doing and this generations to

change, Mr. Speaker. Some of the work we are doing today in our schools, looking

at our new school guidelines, healthy eating, exercise, physical activity. I

join with my colleague responsible for recreation, looking at a new recreation

strategy.

If we are going to come to grips with chronic illness in this Province we

need to start building a foundation today so future generations, as they age, do

not age with the same degree (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Great speech, Mr. Speaker, but the reality is that we do need

general internists in this Province. They are declining at a fast ratio and the

positions are not being filled. In fact, they do a lot of the community

promotion and healthy promotion work.

Mr. Speaker, rheumatologists treat complex diseases such as lupus, rheumatoid

arthritis, and osteoporosis. In fact, the recommended specialist-to-patient

ratio is one for every 50,000 people. In Newfoundland and Labrador we have one

for every 120,000 people. Our wait times for this service are twelve times the

national standard and this is having a major impact on patients with

inflammatory arthritis.

I ask the minister: Does he feel that these wait times are acceptable to the

people in the Province who require this service?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, as a health system we are constantly trying to

improve our wait times, trying to shorten them. One of the things we found

and let's connect the two questions, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite talks about the incidence of chronic illness in this

Province, and she is absolutely right. The incidence of chronic illnesses in

this Province is driven to increase utilization. So if we are going to truly

come to grips with some of the issues we are dealing with, whether it is wait

times or chronic disease management, it goes back to the original point I made a

moment ago. We need to change our approach to how we provide services to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. As a society, we need to change the

approach to our thinking about health care. It is not all about cure, Mr.

Speaker, it is about prevention. The emphasis we are placing on our strategies

for prevention, a healthier society, whether it is health aging, our recreation

piece, our chronic disease strategies, Mr. Speaker, are all things to ensure we

are better as a society and we will age much healthier than the generation we

currently have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but the minister did not answer my

question.

Right now, today, the wait time for inflammatory arthritis, patients who

suffer from that, is twelve times the Canadian standard.

I ask you, minister: Is that an acceptable wait time for these patients in

our Province, and what is the plan by your government to deal with this?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledged in my last answer, the wait

times are something that as a government, through our four health authorities,

are continuously working on, trying to improve, trying to shorten, and there is

no one magic solution, Mr. Speaker, to trying to deal with some of the issues we

are facing in our health system.

I was trying to map out for the members opposite some of the things we are

doing through a wellness piece, so that we are not always focusing on cure,

cure, cure, Mr. Speaker. We need to be investing more in prevention. Investing

more money in prevention, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we have made

unprecedented investments in our wellness strategy, so that we do not have the

increased incidence of chronic illnesses that we are now experiencing, and we do

not have the increased pressures on many of our health providers because of the

wait list they have because of the increased number of visits people need

because they need support in managing their chronic illness, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Province's physicians are the next group hoping to negotiate a contract

with government.

I ask the minister: If you can update the people of the Province today as to

what the status of those negotiations are?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, members of the House might be fully aware, we

have announced it much earlier, that the physicians' contract does not expire

until September.

Wanting to be very proactive, Mr. Speaker, wanting to make sure that we were

working with physicians to ensure that we had a successful conclusion to

negotiations, we started negotiations some time ago, Mr. Speaker, so we will be

ready well in advance of the expiry of that contract in September. Because we

want to make sure that, as she just pointed out, that the physicians will be the

final group of individuals that we will have a very successful conclusion to

collective bargaining with, and those discussions are moving very well. In fact,

if I am not mistaken, there was a meeting again this morning; it was the most

recent one.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, progress is being made. The parties are at the table

talking, and there have been some really good initiatives coming forward by both

the Medical Association and our negotiating team and we are very optimistic that

we will have a successful conclusion to those (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On or about March 24, near the community of Burnside, the ferry Sound of

Islay collided with a privately-owned wharf and did enough damage to lift

the foundation with regard to the major structure.

I ask the minister: What are the procedures, the processes and reporting

mechanism that his government have when a government-owned-and-operated ferry

causes damage to private property, and if he can confirm that these processes

were followed in this particular case.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, whenever there is an event with any vessel on the water,

likewise in the air with aircraft, Transport Canada becomes engaged. In the case

of the incident at Burnside, it was brought to my attention some time shortly

after it happened. I believe that most, if not all, of the official processes

were followed, with the exception of whether or not the individual who owned the

wharf was contacted in as timely a fashion as should have happened.

Mr. Speaker, that incident is under investigation. If we are liable for it,

we will do the right thing and compensate the person for the wharf. I believe

those discussions have, to some extent, taken place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I guess my next question is really a follow-up

to what the minister had said, and one of the most important parts.

According to the individual, he advised us that he had not received any

confirmation from the department and, even worse, when the accident was brought

to the attention of the authorities, officials within the department preferred

to deny or otherwise minimize the incident.

I ask the minister: Can he advise the House - and I know he said he was going

to look into this, or what have you, but I am wondering what action he has taken

to address the reluctance of officials in his department to properly address

this issue before it was reported in the media and became a subject of a

potential hit-and-run incident.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the member opposite on that is,

whenever there is an incident with any of our vessels, or any of our equipment

for that matter, as soon as I become aware of it, I direct officials to take as

expeditious and firm an action as can be taken.

I cannot vouch for whether or not our ferry damaged that wharf or not. I was

not there that day. I understand that we have had some incidents with our

vessels this spring. I know that one of our captains has been off on paid leave

as a result of an investigation on whether or not disciplinary action should or

should not take place. I cannot quite remember if this is the same incident or

not. In any event, when we have an incident where our vessel touches a rock or a

wharf that we should not be touching, it is being investigated as soon as I find

out about it, if not before, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, as of this morning this gentleman who had the

damage done to his wharf at Burnside advised our office that nobody from

government has contacted him to even apologize or give an explanation or an

indication of what repairs would be made by the department. What he stated to

us: all he has seen is an e-mail statement from the minister to The Telegram

which was reprinted in the paper this past weekend.

All I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Can he advise this House, will he

provide a proper apology to this individual and make sure that compensation will

be offered to address this problem?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I have asked our officials, if appropriate, that

we compensate the individual for damage that our vessel if our vessel

damaged the wharf, then we provide the appropriate compensation.

Mr. Speaker, wharves in bays in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially on the

Northeast Coast where there is ice, may or may not be damaged by ferries. Once

we establish whether or not we damaged that wharf, if we damaged it, we will

compensate. If we did not damage it, then the owner of the wharf will have to

look after it himself.

No, we are not going to issue an apology yet. I do not know the details of

whether or not we did it. I was informed that there may have been an incident

there. I asked that it be investigated and that the appropriate action be taken

once we find out what the answers in the investigation are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we were also advised this morning that the

individual has stated that someone from the department has looked at the damage

that was done and said yes, they did do it.

My question to the minister now, since he mentioned with regard to the

captain, whether he was on or off duty, is: Will he check this out and confirm

to this House what did happen, and if the captain was involved in this

particular incident or was he off at that particular time?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, either the owner of the wharf or the hon.

Opposition Transportation critic needs to get their story straight. He is

suggesting that nobody has contacted him, in one sentence, in one set of

questions, and then he turns around, in the last question, and said that

somebody from the department had been in contact with him. So, what was it? You

cannot stand up here in the House in the course of three minutes and accuse

officials in my department of not contacting the owner of the wharf, and then

turn around and say that we were in contact with him.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I am aware of the incident. I asked the

people involved, the officials involved, to ensure that appropriate action was

taken.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Once we find out if we were liable, what the cost is, the

person will be dealt with appropriately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Just as a follow-up, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister:

neither the minister nor any official in his department actually spoke to the

individual who owns the property.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then how do you know (inaudible)?

MR. BUTLER: He has other relatives that were spoken to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor, the former Grand Falls Academy high

school has now been listed as a potentially harmful structure. The building is

full of asbestos. According to Occupational Health and Safety it is safely

contained at the present time; however, if this building is disturbed in some

way such as by fire, which has already occurred and damaged the building, and if

this further continues, asbestos could become potentially hazardous to the

exposure and to those individuals who are nearby. The Town of Grand

Falls-Windsor is extremely concerned about the safety implications and should

this old building remain in place, and they feel that government should be

helping them to deal with this situation.

I ask the minister: What is government doing in order to solve this problem

in an efficient manner and ensure that the surrounding residents will not be

exposed to the asbestos?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the information of the member opposite, the building is not the property

of the provincial government or the school board; it was disposed of. The

expectation from me would be that the current owner of the building would

dispose of it in a manner that falls within the legislation of government with

respect to the handling of dangerous materials such as asbestos.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, another week, another tragedy. It appears a possible adverse

event happened last week in the Clarenville Hospital, though there is still no

official word from Eastern Health one way or the other. This information has

been on a radio station Province-wide and could create a panic.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Why isn't

Eastern Health saying anything publicly at this point about the death of the

child who was seen by personnel at the Clarenville Hospital emergency room on

Thursday past?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: There was a real tragedy in Clarenville on Friday and our

thoughts and prayers are with the families who have been affected by that.

To the member's question: I understand that the Medical Officer of Health

with Eastern Health has been speaking publicly this morning. At least on two

media outlets I understand he has made comment. I would be only too glad to

supply the member opposite with a copy of those transcripts so that she may have

the same information that the public does.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am aware of what the Chief Medical Officer from Eastern Health has said,

and he has confirmed that the child died of meningitis, but the information that

is on the Province-wide radio station is giving much more information than that

with regard to the child's being sent home from the emergency room and all

those details. I am sure if the minister knows what the Chief Medical Officer

said, he knows that information as well.

Because of the public nature of the information out there, why has Eastern

Health not yet made a public statement addressing those issues?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: It is a delicate topic that she is raising here, and I want

to separate two issues.

One is Dr. Allison has been out talking about the public health issue, making

sure that the information is in the public domain with respect to meningitis.

The other issue at hand, Mr. Speaker, is the tragedy itself, and it would be

very inappropriate for Eastern Health to be, in a public way, responding to

comments that may have been made in the public domain by other people, or

responding to questions that may be being asked by family members. Those sorts

of things will be dealt with in a very private fashion.

It is not a practice of Eastern Health or any other health authority to get

into a discussion in the public domain with respect to issues around patients or

their families, this confidential information. Sometimes family members may

choose to raise questions in the public domain, but unfortunately the health

authority does not have the ability to be able to respond publicly because of

confidentially, Mr. Speaker.

During this very sensitive time, I appreciate why Eastern Health would not

want to engage in a public discussion around what may or may not have taken

place, until an investigation is finally concluded.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

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

The minister and I both know that if there has been an adverse event, that

there are two dimensions to the reporting by Eastern Health. One, is admitting

the adverse event to the family or those involved, or to the individual, if the

individual has not died. The other is making public statements with regard to

it.

So, I am not asking for confidential information to be made public, but I

think the public needs to know from Eastern Health if there was an adverse event

that took place. If they do not know it as yet, when are they going to know it?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask that question of the minister.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I fail to understand why the member opposite would want to

start prying into something so private in such a very public way.

Eastern Health has indicated that there has been I think Dr. Elliston

commented this morning that there was an event that happened on Friday. The

event is under investigation, and until that investigation is over, Mr. Speaker,

Eastern Health themselves are still trying to determine exactly what went wrong

and what happened, and until that is done, no one is in a position to make a

comment.

So thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers have expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motions.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, and I say this with all seriousness, I give

notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Revise The

Law Respecting Rail Service. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 11 I shall

move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 26, 2009.

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

not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 26, 2009.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Wednesday being Private Members' Day for the Official Opposition, we give

notice, moved by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and seconded by the

Member for Port de Grave, pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3):

WHEREAS autism spectrum disorders are lifelong neurological disorders that

affect a person's development and how the brain processes information; and

WHEREAS ASD is the most common neurological disorder affecting children; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador had a prevalence rate of 1 in 132 in 2008,

and the rate is expected to be even higher for 2009; and

WHEREAS the number of people receiving a diagnosis of autism is on the

increase in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS evidence-based research shows that the lifetime cost of assisting a

person with autism can be reduced if the child receives early diagnosis,

effective treatment and adequate supports; and

WHEREAS all current direct government programs for children with autism end

after age 6; and

WHEREAS schools do not have adequate resources and there is a demonstrated

need for programs; and

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House calls on government to extend autism

services currently offered for children below six years of age to all children

of the Province.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, questions have been raised in this House on December 10, 2008

and again on April 30, 2009 regarding the status of a report that I have

requested into financial transactions at the Chicken Farmers of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when it was brought to my attention that there were possible

financial irregularities with the Chicken Farmers of Newfoundland and Labrador I

directed my staff to contact the RNC to ask them to do an investigation. The RNC

indicated that they would require some evidence or proof of wrongdoing before

they would initiate an investigation. I then instructed my staff to engage an

outside auditor to review the finances of the Chicken Marketing Board. We were

not successful in engaging a firm to review another auditor's books in the

absence of any specific concern. It was at that time, Mr. Speaker, that I

engaged our internal government resources, through the Office of the Comptroller

General, to conduct a review of the financial transactions of the Chicken

Marketing Board.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to update the House as to the

status of this review. My department received a report of the Comptroller

General and his recommendation a few weeks ago. My officials have done a

preliminary review of the report and action has been taken to implement the

recommendations in the report that will ensure protocols, checks and balances

are in place at the board.

Although the report does not make any conclusions with regard to criminal

wrongdoing, I have sent the report on to the RNC to ensure that we have done our

due diligence on this matter with respect to any untoward activity. The report

has resulted in a tightening of the protocols at the Chicken Farmers of

Newfoundland and Labrador and an implementation of proper processes for handling

future transactions by the board and its staff manager.

I am now interested in ensuring we have covered all bases with our

investigation by bringing this report to the RNC and to a proper conclusion. I

will keep the House informed of the outcome, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further answers to questions for which notice has been

given?

Petitions.

Orders of the Day

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 4, pursuant to Standing Order 11

that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Monday, May 25, 2009, and

further, Mr. Speaker, I move Motion 5, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that this

House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Monday, May 25, 2009.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion is that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock today, Monday,

May 25.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Further, a motion that this House do not adjourn at 10 o'clock

p.m. on Monday, May 25, today.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion carried.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, on the Order Paper, Motion 3.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and the

Attorney General

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

The Government House Leader is providing Orders of the Day and the Speaker is

unable to hear the instructions that are being provided over members'

conferring back and forth the House.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, Motion 3 from the Order Paper. I

move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Justice and the Attorney General for

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child

Care Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional

Health Authorities Regulations, Bill 35, and I further move that the said bill

be now read a first time.

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

of Child, Youth and Family Services shall have leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care Services Act, The

Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health Authorities

Regulations, Bill 35, and that this bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 35 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 Child, Youth and Family Services to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care

Services Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health

Authorities Regulations," carried. (Bill 35)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Adoption Act, The Child Care Services

Act, The Child, Youth And Family Services Act And The Regional Health

Authorities Regulations. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 35 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 35 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 35 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 2, third reading of a bill,

An Act

Respecting Credit Unions.

Mr. Speaker I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services that

An Act Respecting Credit Unions, Bill 11, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 11,

An Act

Respecting Credit Unions, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting Credit Unions. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 11 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Credit Unions," read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 11)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 3 on the Order Paper.

I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services,

third reading of Bill 19,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 19,

An Act To

Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act, be now read a third time.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans Act. (Bill

19)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 19 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Savings Plans

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

Paper. (Bill 19)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 4.

I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services,

that Bill 21,

An Act Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents,

be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 21,

An Act Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And Other Documents, be now

read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting The Registration of Deeds And Other

Documents. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 21 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that Bill 21 do now pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Registration Of Deeds And

Other Documents," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on

the Order Paper. (Bill 21)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 5.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, that Bill 23,

An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act, be now read a third

time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 23,

An Act To

Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act, be now read a third time.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBER: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety Act.

(Bill 23)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 23 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Occupational Health And Safety

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

Paper. (Bill 23)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 7, second reading of Bill 1.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 1,

An Act Respecting

Apologies, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Apologies."

(Bill 1)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in my seat this afternoon to speak to second reading of

Bill 1,

An Act Respecting Apologies.

Mr. Speaker, I seem to remember a time many years ago when, if we did

something to harm our fellow citizen, our neighbour, we were all taught to take

responsibility for that action and to go to that other person, to go to that

neighbour, and to apologize for your harmful activity and to attempt to right

the wrong that you have accomplished.

I guess - I certainly have an impression - that our society may have changed

somewhat over the years in the sense that our society has become more of a

litigious society and that we are involved in lawsuits a lot more. As a result

of that, our lawyers and our litigators will tell us not to admit to anything,

not to apologize, because that might be taken as an admission of liability, an

admission of fault, and that therefore you are responsible and therefore you

will be sued for lots of money.

I think that those who practice alternate dispute resolution mechanisms will

be the first to tell you that an apology is a first step and it goes a long way

in leading to a resolution of your fight or your battle, and it will lead to a

settlement, and it will lead to reduced litigation, and it will lead to an

increase in the number of settlements that exist.

This bill attempts to do that, and this bill is set out in the Explanatory

Note. It says that the bill will provide that an apology that is made on behalf

of a person in relation to a civil matter does not constitute an express or an

implied admission of fault or liability by the person. It is not admissible in a

judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding as evidence of the fault or liability of

the person in connection with the matter. It may not be taken into account in a

determination of fault or liability. It does not affect the insurance coverage

available to a person.

I understand that in some insurance policies there is a provision that says

that if there is an apology or an admission of liability that the insurance

policy will be void. This law will change that.

Finally, it does not constitute a confirmation of a cause of action in

relation to a matter, and that has to do with our Limitations Act.

Mr. Speaker, the concept of apology legislation is not new in the world.

Statutes of this nature can vary significantly in different areas. Some

jurisdictions have adopted what is known as safe harbour legislation, which

provides that where there is an expression of sympathy or regret it is excluded

from evidence, but the legislative protection does not extend to situations

where there has been an admission or expression of fault. Some American

jurisdictions have also enacted legislation which excludes admissions of fault

as evidence in certain types of proceedings, but not in all proceedings. Some

form of apology legislation has been implemented in more than twenty American

states, as well as in Australia.

This legislative trend, the reason we are having these various jurisdictions

enacting apology legislation, is a result of a growing body of evidence that

apology law assists in increasing the number of settlements that exist and

decreasing the time it takes to reach a settlement, so this legislation will

facilitate settlements and avoid lengthy and protracted and costly litigation.

In 2007 a group of lawyers known as the Uniform Law Conference of Canada

adopted a uniform Apology Act in a number of commentaries and they recommended

it to all jurisdictions for enactment. This uniform act provides that an apology

is not admissible in civil proceedings for the purposes of proving liability,

and that an apology is not an admission of liability; an apology is not an

admission of fault; an apology cannot be used in a court proceeding to prove

fault or liability.

In Canada, in our country, six jurisdictions have already enacted apology

legislation. The first was British Columbia back in May 2006. That was followed

by Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, Nova Scotia, and in March of this year

Ontario passed this legislation as well. While these provinces all have similar

legislation, it cannot be said that they are all identical, but a

section common

to all apology legislation provides that an apology will not disentitle a person

to insurance coverage if their policy or even provincial legislation stipulates

otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, in the discussion group that was released by the British

Columbia government at the time British Columbia was looking at apology

legislation - the first in the country - they indicated that there were three

benefits of apology legislation. One was to encourage people to engage in the

moral and humane act of apologizing after they have injured another and to take

responsibility for their actions. Secondly, another benefit of the legislation

is to encourage natural, open and direct dialogue between people after there

have been injuries. Thirdly, as I indicated earlier, to avoid litigation and to

encourage the early and the cost-effective resolution of disputes.

For many parties, Mr. Speaker, an expression of sympathy, an expression of

remorse often opens the doors to communication and assists parties in building

an agreement that best meets their interest. For parties that are truly seeking

a resolution of their dispute, apology legislation is another tool that will

assist in this endeavour.

I think we have all known people who have been involved in protracted

legislation and who have said: all I wanted was an apology. If they had gotten

that, maybe they would have been settled a lot quicker.

The decision to apologize has often been wise where, for example, a

corporation may face harm to its reputation as a result of a product liability

issue, or because it has caused environmental damage. I think Maple Leaf Foods

is a classic example of that. For a victim, an apology is often considered to be

instrumental in the healing process and a potential catalyst to discussions to

settle that dispute.

As I said earlier, for most litigators an admission of any nature runs

contrary to their best advice and can cause significant alarm. They do not want

an admission. They want it put to the other party the burden of proving the

liability, of proving the fault. However, Mr. Speaker, by recognizing the

positive impacts that may come from an expression of regret, traditional views

should be revisited. As many alternate dispute resolution practitioners would

indicate, and as I said earlier, a great deal can be accomplished, a great deal

can be gained by the simple acknowledgement of fault.

A number of health care organizations in the country, such as the Ontario

Medical Association, the Canadian Medical Protective Association, the Registered

Nurses' Association of Ontario, the Canadian Patient Safety Institute, have

encouraged provinces and territorities to enact apology legislation.

In our own Province, the recent task force on adverse health events that was

headed by Mr. Robert Thompson, the former Chief Clerk of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, our Province's highest civil servant, the report

was released in December, 2008. In recommendation number nineteen the report

proposed that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador adopt apology

legislation, and in its report the task force suggested, and I will quote: that

the adoption of an apology act in Newfoundland and Labrador should be designed

to allow health care providers, institutions and boards to express honest regret

or remorse without a fear of the apology amounting to an admission of liability

or voiding the provisions of an insurance policy. In addition, Mr. Speaker,

Madam Justice Margaret Cameron, the head of the Cameron inquiry, in her report

on hormone receptor testing, also recommended that government adopt apology

legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is listening and

is following the recommendations of the task force and the Cameron Inquiry. Not

only will this legislation help the effectiveness of the justice system by

removing barriers to settlement discussions, but it will contribute to improving

communications and relations between patients and health care professionals.

Mr. Speaker, apology legislation is not about eliminating litigation, but it

is about dialogue and allowing parties to come together in a fashion they have

not been able to do in this Province in the past. If a resolution is truly

desired in a dispute, than an apology can be the first step in reaching that

goal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned before the discussion paper in British Columbia

and the recommendations in favour of the legislation. Now the discussion paper

also did raise some negative factors. These negative factors, in turn, have been

raised by the women's community in this Province. The negative factors include

that public confidence in the courts could be adversely affected if a person who

has admitted liability in an apology is subsequently not found liable in the

(inaudible).

Secondly, an insincere apology or a strategic apology might be encouraged by

the legislation. Apologies encouraged by legislation might create an emotional

vulnerability in some plaintiffs who may accept settlements that are

inappropriately low and I could think of family violence situations where

that could happen. I believe that our judicial system, our court system, with

experienced and knowledgeable judges will not be fooled by an insincere or a

strategic apology, and government is of the view that the benefits of this

legislation will outweigh possible negatives.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I thank you for an opportunity to discuss Bill 1,

An Act Respecting Apologies. I ask for the support of all members in passing

this bill and I look forward to the debate from colleagues on it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few words with respect to Bill 1,

An Act Respecting Apologies.

As the minister says, we have become pretty litigious in Canada and the

United States over the past number of years. As time went on, of course, you

felt even if you were sorry for something, and you wanted to say you were sorry,

people would use that against you, and it quite often happened in court cases

that your sincerely intended apology became an admission of liability. The two

are separate and apart I would suggest.

The fact that you may or may not have done something negligently is one

issue. That is to be determined based upon certain standards of proof and

certain omissions and so on that parties have. Albeit you may have done or not

done something that has led to some harm to someone that does not mean that you

cannot feel sorry for what happened. Leave that matter to the courts but do not

intersperse or mix the two such that simply making an apology or an expression

of sympathy gets you into trouble. That is where our legal system got wrapped up

with our moral values and where we thought we should or should not do as human

beings and be humane to someone, all of a sudden expressions of sympathy and

humanity and feelings for someone, all of a sudden that was being used against

you in a courtroom. The two should not have been mixed so.

Of course, when we get into - as time goes on, like most things, we sometimes

learn that the road we are going down is not the right road and therefore you

try to make changes. It is unfortunate in fact, that we have come to that point

where we actually have to legislate the fact that you can make an apology. I

mean let's consider what we are doing here. We have, as human beings, to pass

a law saying that it is okay to apologize. Now that in and of itself suggests

that maybe we have some big problems at the core when it comes to that. That it

is just not simply okay anymore to say I am sorry. No matter how sincere and

heartfelt it is, we actually need the protection of Legislatures in order to say

that.

That is exactly what we have here, and we know going back that the Cameron

Inquiry of course brought this on. It was recommendation number thirty-six, I do

believe, of the Cameron Inquiry which says that we as a Province should adopt it

because we saw as the evidence unfolded in the Cameron Inquiry that the

officials at Eastern Health grappled with this issue. They were getting legal

advice, for example, from different sources as a board, lawyers of course

because they are trapped in that ideology of: Oh, we cannot apologize because

that is an admission of liability.

From my understanding, there were some suggestions that there was a bit of

reluctance on the board because of that, to come out and say that they were

sorry. So that complicated the system. It made people more protective. Instead

of being open and trying to communicate, it clammed people up. It made them take

certain courses of action that they probably would not have taken if they felt

that the lawyers were not involved and that any such admissions were going to

lose the case for them or make them be liable. Obviously, that is recognized by

the Cameron Inquiry people.

Justice Cameron herself, of course, has been a long-standing member of the

legal community and the judicial community in this Province, and they came to

what I think is a very sensible recommendation here in that regard; but, as I

say, it is unfortunate that we actually have to legislate it, to tell ourselves

that it is okay to make an apology, as human beings, and that if you do so it

will not be held against you in a court of law.

There is something inconsistent about these two things that we are doing

here; but, needless to say, because the courts have interpreted it and lawyers

have interpreted it that an apology is sometimes a bad thing because it will get

you in trouble, we find ourselves that we have to do this. That is unfortunate

in that regard, but it is proper.

We saw, as well, that the lack of communications quite often lead to

problems, whether it is even an apology or not. Just the communications

themselves, and how you do or do not go about communicating with someone,

because there are two ways to mess it up, shall we say. One way is not

communicating at all, not disclosing to people by way of communication what they

ought to know and what they ought to be made aware of, particularly as in the

Cameron case where we were talking about people who had health issues and they

were, or ought to have been, informed promptly of what the situation was.

Now, there are all kinds of factual findings that were made, of course. There

have been suggestions or findings that a lot of the information was not

accurate, that a lot of the information that was given was incorrect. There was

not only a communication but actually a management of the information that was,

from what I am reading in the Cameron report, pretty messed up, and there have

been a lot of recommendations by the Cameron report that suggest that the

management systems used by health care authorities in this Province should be

vastly improved; and the government, as the minister has indicated, is prepared

- I believe I heard the figure that it might take up to $100 million to make our

system proper, vis--vis information that needs to get out.

The other way, of course, is not that you do not disclose. That is one way of

messed-up communications, not to disclose something at all, to keep it to

yourself and to not tell the parties who are impacted. The other way, of course,

is when you give them wrong information. Some would say giving them wrong

information sometimes is worse than not communicating with them at all, because

in the case of Cameron we found out there were people who were told the wrong

things. People went off thinking they were healthy, only to find out later that

they got the wrong reports. People who were told that they were not healthy had

surgeries done, who actually found out later that was wrong. So there are two

ways of messing it up, shall we say, when it comes to communication.

In any case, there has been an acknowledgment now that there is nothing wrong

with making an apology to someone, and if you do it cannot be held against you.

I don't think it is any more complicated than that. It is pretty broad

ranging. I noticed a word in here when they describe where this would apply.

There is a

Definitions

section which is pretty brief, two

definitions. One tells

you what an apology is. I guess that is a bit ironic, as well, that we are told

what an apology will be today. "(

a) apology' means an expression of

sympathy or regret, a statement that one is sorry, or other words or actions

indicating contrition or commiseration, whether or not the words or actions

admit, or imply an admission of, fault in connection with the matter to which

the words or actions relate."

We know now, regardless of what we all might have thought an apology was we

are told now with this law what an apology is from a legal point of view. This

is our legal definition now of an apology. We do not need our Oxfords any more.

We do not need our Canadian dictionaries any more. We know now legally what an

apology is.

They tell us what a court means. A court just does not mean a courtroom. It

can be, "a tribunal, an arbitrator and another person who is acting in a

judicial or quasi-judicial capacity."

Now, I notice the word matter is used there, and there is no definition given

for the word matter. I am just curious as to, I would think that is probably

defined in some other piece of legislation. Probably the Supreme Court rules,

probably the Judicature Act, might have a definition of a matter but I do not

see it defined here.

This is all that is to this, by the way. There are only three sections in

this act, but it talks about an apology, it talks about a court, it talks about

a matter, but it does not define what a matter is. I do not know if that is

crucial. I am assuming that it might be somewhere else and the minister, when we

get to Committee stage, might have some commentary in that regard. We have

defined what a court is but we have not defined what the matter is. Is that just

wide open still for

interpretation on a go-forward basis, what kinds of matters

do the apology apply to? Because a matter can be, just using a little bit of

common sense, I would think, what is that matter all about? A matter can be so

broad ranging, is there anything excluded by this or is there anything that

constitutes a matter? A little bit of commentary from the minister in that

regard would be it just sparked my interest here, and curiosity, as to what

a matter might mean, because I do not see it anywhere described here what a

matter might be.

Other than that, it does not take a lot of consideration and debate on this.

I think it is an appropriate thing. It has taken us years. Law Reform

Commissions have commented on it, studied up on it, and people who are into

arbitrations and dispute resolutions have recommended it. It helps to settle

matters, and anything that makes matters settle easily, that does communicate

that there is an apology, and you feel sincerely about wanting to do it, sure,

you should be allowed, I would think, morally, to do it and not have to worry

about getting sued for it.

That is all the commentary I would have, Mr. Speaker, and with that I just

say that we certainly would be supportive of Bill 1.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General speaks now he

will close the debate on Bill 1,

An Act Respecting Apologies.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. Opposition House Leader for his comments and I therefore

move second reading of a bill,

An Act Respecting Apologies.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 1,

An Act

Respecting Apologies, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting Apologies. (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 1 has now been read a second time.

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

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Apologies," read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

(Bill 1)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 8, second reading of Bill 24,

An Act

Respecting The Registration Of Births, Marriages, Deaths And Other Vital Events.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 24,

An Act Respecting The

Registration Of Births, Marriages, Deaths And Other Vital Events, be now read a

second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Registration Of

Births, Marriages, Deaths And Other Vital Events." (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal

Affairs, that Bill 24,

An Act Respecting The Registration Of Births, Marriages,

Deaths And Other Vital Events, be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, this is going to be one of three acts that we are bringing

forward today to update and streamline the legislation pertaining to vital

events in the Province. The others are:

An Act Respecting Marriage In The

Province; and,

An Act To Provide For Change Of Name, which are all interrelated

to vital statistics and vital events in the Province.

The current Vital Statistics Act has been in existence since the late 1800s.

It has received a number of amendments over the years, but again it is not

reflective of the society that we find ourselves in, in the years we find

ourselves in now, in 2009. A lot of things have happened and a lot of things

have changed since the 1800s in the way people govern themselves and also the

way they conduct themselves when it comes to marriages and births, and the

registration of those types of things. We felt that a complete update was needed

to ensure that the policy issues, language and privacy requirements reflect

today's standards and practices.

Our objectives are certainly to modernize the language used in the act,

remove gender bias and bias against common-law couples. We also want to

strengthen the provisions surrounding protocol and to protect a person's

personal information and clearly outline any information in the sharing of those

protocols too. So many of the changes we are proposing are already founded in

policies. We have been using them for some time, but we felt, as well, that we

needed to update the act in order to reflect these policies and the trends in

society, which I just referenced a few moments ago.

Also, we always go out to other jurisdictions and across Canada in regards to

other provinces and federally wise. We also want to reflect the trends within

those other jurisdictions, including the federal government. So we used the

Vital Statistics Act of Nova Scotia and Manitoba as models, as well as the

Uniform Law Conference model act.

Peoples' dealings with the Vital Statistics offices will not radically

change or be disrupted in any way with these amendments that we are bringing

forward today in the new act in itself. If anything, I think they can take

comfort that our primary objective continues to be in meeting their needs for

the registration of vital events, such as births, marriages and deaths, with an

enhanced security of their personal information sensitivity to the family

situations as well.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I want to say this too and

certainly have it in Hansard, that we take privacy concerns seriously and a new

act will reflect today's stringent standards for the protection of that

personal information.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just highlight a couple of items in

regards to the most significant changes that you will find in the new act in

that it will now bring forward provisions requiring the providing for the

registration of stillbirths, foundlings and adoptions. There will be new

provisions related to the changes of gender and the ability to amend a birth

certificate to reflect the same with that change of gender, if that were to

happen in the Province.

It brings forward provisions encompassing births and deaths occurring at sea

or in the air, which was not reflected in the old act. It defines the persons

entitled to request birth, death and marriage certificates. It defines who is

eligible to be designated as the mother, father, or other parent as well. It

provides for the naming of the father, mother or other parent on the birth

certificate, which will encompass children born of or to same sex couples as

well. There are inequities in the current act in regards to that, in that it was

automatic in regards to a husband and wife. Under the act now, it was an

automatic without signing of the birth certificate, if the husband's name

would be included on the birth certificate. So now we have removed that. Each

and every one, regardless of them being married or not, or being husband and

wife, or common law, that each one would have to sign that birth certificate.

That makes it equal for each and every situation that we find ourselves in the

Province.

There is a provision governing the naming of a child, which establishes who

is eligible to name a child and provisions enabling the registrar general to

reject names chosen by parents that may be objectionable under certain

circumstances. It is hard to believe that each and every one of us, or a good

many of us here have children, and we name our children in regards to those

particular names, and mine are three girls. So naturally you had to have three

common names to a certain degree, I guess. Their names, and I will read it here

as well, is Adrianne, Tricia and Taylor.

Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we actually get names that are kind of out there in

left field or right field, whichever way you want to and I do not understand

why that would happen in regards to parenthood, but it does happen, and we now

give the right to the registrar to object and to reject that name. Now, if the

parents want to bring it further, there is court action. They can go to the

courts in regards to that particular issue, and they can petition the court for

a ruling on that too, as well, I believe, Mr. Speaker. So that will cover off

that as well. So we are not taking away every right of the parent, or any right

of the parents, as well, but we have to protect the child too, in regards to the

registering of vital stats as well. Sometimes when they get older they might

have a very real problem in regards to the name that was provided to them by

their natural parents.

Mr. Speaker, I think I covered off most of the significant changes to the

act. I think this is a very important piece as well, in regard to the work by my

officials in the Department of Government Services. We have already addressed, I

think, five pieces of legislation in this sitting of the House and we will do

another three today.

This one is as equally important as the other in regard to the services we

provide to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and also in regard to their

privacy and the protection of that information which is housed within the Vital

Statistics Division of Government Services.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and welcome any comments that my

hon. colleagues would have across the House, and I equally welcome any support

they will give to my department and my officials in regard to the work they have

been doing.

I will listen intently, Mr. Speaker, and with that I will wait for the

comments from my hon. colleagues.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take a few minutes with regard to Bill 24, And Act Respecting

Registration Of Births, Marriages, Deaths And Other Vital Events.

As the explanatory note states, it is basically replacing the Vital

Statistics Act. I guess, it is a bringing together of many changes that have to

take place. It outlines the various rule and regulations when it comes to

registration of all three very important events in the lives of individuals.

I took notice, in particular, with regard to the information concerning the

birth of the child, with regard to how it has to proceed to the registrar

general, and that has to be done within five days by the medical practitioner.

We have to have rules like this to know what is happening and to make sure that

all births are recorded. Then, within thirty days after the date of the birth,

they have to be registered.

As is outlined in the legislation, in clause 4, it states how both parents or

one parent - or in some particular cases if the child is in care then it would

have to be signed off on by the Director of Child, Youth and Family Services.

Mr. Speaker, it is also in this legislation with regard to adoption orders

and certified copies which are issued under

section 25 of the Adoption Act. It

is very important to have it included within this piece of legislation as well.

It explains the procedures that have to be followed, and they are very details.

Then again it has to be done, as the minister stated, and it is the bringing

together of various issues.

Under clauses 7(1) and 7(5), the name of a child: From time to time, I guess,

that becomes an issue because they shall be registered showing a surname that

has been chosen by the parents. Sometimes that gets complicated, because if the

parents are not married, the father wants it in his name or the mother wants it

in her name. Here it states very clearly that if they cannot agree then the

surname shall be hyphenated, combining both surnames, so that is very important

to take care of that particular issue.

Also, as the minister stated, if the registrar general refuses a name then

there is a process where it can be appealed to the Trial Division. That is very

important because I guess from time to time the registrar general would see

different names coming forward and, like I said, it could be crucial for the

individual when they get older, later in years.

Also, clause 14, the registration of a stillbirth, is very important. It is

only, I would say, about a week-and-a-half ago that I had an incident in my

area. A child was born through that means maybe eighteen or twenty years ago,

and now members of the family are trying to find a way to get some documentation

pertaining to that. They went to the hospital and there is nothing registered

there. They went to the church and there is nothing registered there, because

for a stillbirth at that time it did not have to take place. I guess when it

comes to the death part of this piece of legislation I do not know what was done

then. Maybe back in those days there were no orders saying that the minister or

the clergy had to have any documentation and you could probably go ahead and

bury them without anything. Under this rule here now that will not happen and

that particular case that I just referenced would be taken care of.

With regard to the registration of death under clause 15, this is very

important because the funeral director shall obtain all the personal particulars

and obtain a medical certificate stating the cause of death, and all of this has

to be provided to the funeral director and so on, but one of the issues here, if

a death occurs without medical attendance, the funeral director then shall

notify the chief medical examiner.

I am not going to say any particular names, or where this happened, but I

would say it was about two years ago now that an incident happened in my area

where an individual unfortunately took their life through a particular means.

During the investigation back and forth I even spoke with the medical examiner,

trying to find out what was the actual cause. Because of the format that they

took when they took their life, that is what was registered so there was no

autopsy that took place. Now the family is wondering: Why did they do what they

did? Were there drugs or something else involved? It is out of the realm now; it

cannot be investigated or so on.

Things like that can happen, but hopefully with this legislation now things

will be more broad based. The guidelines are there, and hopefully incidents like

that will not be able to happen. Like I said, you have to obtain a burial

permit. I do not know in this particular case, the incident I mentioned earlier,

if that ever took place.

Under clause 19 it talks about what has to be done there with regard to

requirements for a burial permit. You have to have this permit. "19.(1) a

person shall not (

a) bury or otherwise dispose of the body of a person who dies

in the province; (

b) remove a body from the province; or (

c) conduct a funeral

or religious service in connection with the burial or other disposition of a

body."

We know now what has to be done, and those regulations are all in place.

Really, I guess, this piece of legislation takes you right from birth to the end

of your time. It is almost like a one-package deal.

On a serious note, it also mentions here we have a piece of legislation

coming out shortly pertaining to marriages, but under here we also have

registration of marriages. That is very important, too, and it outlines the

regulations that have to be followed: the signing officers, each party

pertaining to the marriage, the witnesses, it tells you that they have to be

sixteen years of age or over, and so on, but that is very important.

The only thing I think it is under clause 30 I just want the minister

to reference this when he takes his place again in closing the debate. It is

clauses 30, 31 and 32, and it is all the same. I will just reference one, Mr.

Minister. I will just take clause 30.(1) where it says, "With respect to a

birth that occurred 100 years ago or more, the registrar general may issue the

following documents: (

a) a certificate of birth, only to a person referred to in

paragraphs (2)(

a) to (f);" - and it outlines who can get it - "or

(

b) a certified copy of the registration of the birth, to a person."

I am just wondering when it says, "to a person". It is the same

thing with regard to your date of birth, 100, and I think it is marriages of

seventy-five years more or less where it says the same thing again under that

one, where it says a certified copy. I know it is not the actual certificate but

it says a certified copy of the registration of the marriage to a person. I am

wondering, when they reference person, does that include anybody, everybody, or

people with authorization from the particular family? In some cases they may be

deceased, but I am just wondering who is referenced there.

The only other piece that I have is with regard to clause 43 in relation to

fees, forms and so on. If there are offences that take place, if there is

registration that is taking place under false pretenses or not accurate or not

used properly we have some pretty hefty fines here. It goes on to say, "and

is liable on

summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $50,000." So it

is very serious business when you make those registrations, whether it is a

birth certificate, a marriage certificate or a death certificate. You have to be

very careful what you are doing, because if there is false documentation there

are pretty hefty fines if something is going on.

My last comment, I guess, is with regard to the fees. I know we have to have

fees for everything but I guess the only one we have brought this up many

times is there is no fee for a death certificate issued within the first

year of your death. So, I guess if you are going to get your certificate you had

better get it in the first year that you are gone, because after that you have

to pay $20.

Having said that, I agree, Minister, with this piece of legislation. There

are some minor changes, I guess, and some that have been in the format before,

but it has to be compiled in a bill such as Bill 24 so that the rules and

regulations are there to govern each and every resident of this Province;

because, like I said, it takes us right from birth to the grave, from your birth

to your grave.

Mr. Speaker, those are the only comments I have to make. Probably you can

elaborate - I do not think it is complicated or anything - on the one where I

mentioned about a certified copy of the registration of the birth to a person.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

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

I am very glad to speak to Bill 24, which has to do with the registration of

births, marriages, deaths and other vital events. It is very important, with the

changes that are going on in our society - and they are quite rapid in recent

years - that we make sure that all of our legislation is brought up to date to

cover all of the situations that we encounter.

While I know that amendments have been made to other acts that have become

part of the new bill, we just keep making amendments and that becomes rather

complicated, actually, and you start losing a sense of continuity in

an act when

you have a lot of amendments made. So, having this new bill which puts together,

replaces the Vital Statistics Act and revises and consolidates laws with regard

to registrations, we now will have

an act that will be modern, that will

eliminate things that were in other acts unintentionally or intentionally,

elimination of bias, for example, with regard to gender and sexual orientation,

with regard to same-sex marriage and common-law relationships, especially with

common-law relationships. Common-law relationships have existed in time

immemorial. There have been common-law relationships, and they have been

recognized in law as common-law relationships for a long, long time. It is good

to have language in our act which covers vital statistics that recognize

common-law relationships.

Now that we have moved, in our society, to recognizing the rights of same

gender relationships, for example, and the rights of people, whether they are

gay, whether they are straight, whether they are transgendered, whatever, that

all of our legislation is brought up to date to recognize all of those rights.

I am not going to speak to everything in the bill, obviously, because it is

an administrative bill, and certainly I am going to support it, but there are

some things that I think are good to mention.

One is the registering of still births. I think that is a very, very

important move. I am sure that we are all aware, and in our lives at different

times have had friends or acquaintances or heard of people who have experienced

still births. It is quite a traumatic event for parents, or a parent if the

mother is on her own, to go through a still birth, because usually there has

been no indicator that that is going to happen, especially when the still birth

happens really close to term. It can be an extremely traumatic experience, and

the parents of the stillbirth child want to recognize that, the same as if the

child had been born live and then died. They want a recognition, they want

funerals. I have seen funerals of stillbirths happen, because the child was long

enough in the womb to be recognized as a child on birth. This is extremely

important, that we now legislate the registering of that child.

Registration of events, such as the ones that this bill covers, births,

marriages, deaths, registrations of this kind are very important for people,

when it comes to self-identity, and the identity of the community that they are

a part of and the family that they are part of. Years down the road, the need

for somebody to prove that a death happened or a marriage happened, or whatever,

can be extremely important in their lives. Having everything that one can

register now being recognized, I think is extremely important.

Another thing that is covered which is certainly something new because of

today's technology is the

section on artificial insemination. It can be very,

very tricky with artificial insemination where the artificial insemination is

not from the spouse of the woman who is becoming pregnant. What happens to the

partner, to the spouse of the woman who has become pregnant? This now allows for

the spouse of the common law partner to be the other parent and it does not

matter whether the spouse of the pregnant woman is male or female. There is no

bias. Same sex or different sex, it does not matter. The other spouse, the

spouse of the common law relationship, can, not only can but will, be the other

parent. This recognition of these rights, this recognition of new realities in

our society, are so important because they help us in the creation of being a

society that cares about one another, that cares about people's rights, that

does not judge people, and that accepts the realities of people's lives.

The other one, too, which certainly has to do with new technology - a lot of

these things in this act are there because of new technology - is the point on

surrogacy. Certainly surrogacy is something that, in the form that I mean it,

did not exist 100 years ago. Now, if there is no genetic link to the child, the

one who is going to be the parent, in other words the woman who carries the

child, if she is not going to have anything else to do with the child once she

carries the child, she will have to legally adopt the child. This is extremely

important. The one who is going to be the parent, not the one who carries it - I

think I said that backwards - not the one who carries the child but the one who

is going to be the parent, in order to be the parent just cannot be, oh, I paid

to have that person, in the states it would be paid, we do not do that here.

This person has carried the child and I am going to become the mother, and

that is fine. The baby is born and this other person with no genetic link cannot

automatically become the parent - it could be the father as well - cannot become

the parent automatically without legally adopting. That is extremely important

both for the child as well as for the mother who carried the child in her womb.

There has to be protection for both and it has psychological and emotional

impacts down the road as well.

The surrogacy

section deals with many different kinds of surrogacies. The

wording in the

section covers all types of surrogacies and that is extremely

important. The language, I think, from what we have been able to tell, and in

speaking as well with people from the ministry, from the minister's office, is

that the language has been worked based on language that is used in acts in

other jurisdictions. The language has been proven to cover all cases and to work

in other jurisdictions. For that reason I think we say yes to this language.

Having said all that, the other one that was interesting for me - and this

will be my final point I think, Mr. Speaker - had to do with the Change Of Name

act. If an individual wants to change his or her first name and they want to

change it on any shared documents - that would be legal documents where the

person's name as well as their partner's name is in the document - then the

spouse or partner has to be involved with the change of the name, that that

person has to give permission for the name change to happen. It is because of

the implications of that person's name also being on the document. It does not

have to do with a document where only the individual's name exists.

For example, if somebody wants to change his or her name on his or her own

birth certificate, that person does not need permission of a spouse or a

partner, but if they had a document which had to do with ownership, for example

a legal document where both names are on the document, then the other person has

to give permission for the change. That is not a power issue, it is an issue of

legality, that both names are on the document, therefore any change to the

document would have to be approved by both people who are signators to the

document.

Having said that, I am delighted to see that so many pieces of legislation

are being "cleaned up" and that we are bringing our legislation into

the twenty-first century. I will be happy to support this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services. If he speaks

now, he shall close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

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

Certainly, I welcome the comments of my colleagues across the House and their

support in regard to this very vital bill because it is the Vital Statistics Act

and a very vital bill to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think there was only just one question, it was pertaining to clause 30, 31

and 32, I believe, in regards to a definition, what is the definition of person.

If I could explain it this way, is that after 100 years the public can actually

access the registration form that was submitted by the parents. That

registration form only gives very informal, or the basic information. That is

all that is there after 100 years. Also, as was referenced by my hon. colleague,

the person is probably passed way by then and only the family members themselves

can access the certificate, which is the formal documentation of identity. That

protects the identity of the person in regards to identity theft that the person

has to be a family member who can get that actual piece of information. This

certainly reflects current policies and also current policies in other

jurisdictions. So I hope that explains it for my hon. colleague.

Certainly, they have reflected too on the importance of this piece of

legislation and the amendments and the new act itself in pertaining to a lot of

things that were never addressed in the piece of legislation that was first

enacted in the 1800s. As my hon. colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said,

there were many, many amendments brought forward to the actual act but it became

more complicated as we went along.

I also want to compliment my staff in the Department of Government Services

because they are doing an absolutely fabulous job

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: - in regards to the 150 pieces plus legislation that we

find. You will find that in the fall we will be bringing a number of pieces of

legislation forward too, as they do their most important work for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat and move to the next piece of

work for the day.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 24,

An Act

Respecting The Registration Of Births, Marriages, Deaths And Other Vital Events

be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting The Registration Of Births, Marriages,

Deaths And Other Vital Events. (Bill 24)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall the

said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, now, tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Registration Of Births,

Marriages, Deaths And Other Vital Events," read a second time, ordered

referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 24)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Order 9, second reading of a bill,

An Act

Respecting Marriage In The Province. (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, that Bill 25,

An Act

Respecting Marriage In The Province be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 25,

An Act Respecting

Marriage In The Province be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Marriage In The

Province." (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

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

This is, again, one of the three acts that we are bringing forward today that

are all pertaining to much the same thing in regards to the registering of vital

events and very, very important to the Province. It is a part, again, of the

ongoing work of my officials in the Department of Government Services, to not

only clean up the acts that have been there for a long, long time but also to

bring forward new legislation and also taking into account other jurisdictions

and what works. Why reinvent the wheel when they have experienced that probably

previous to us because of their population density?

The current act, the Marriage Act or The Solemnization of Marriage Act, has

been in existence since the mid-1970s I believe, and it certainly has received a

number of amendments over the years which has sort of complicated it to a

certain degree in regards to the general public being able to read the act and

understanding what it actually means. So we believe that a complete update was

needed to ensure that the policies, issues, language and the privacy

requirements reflect today's standards and practices as well.

Many of the changes that you will find in this act today are administrative

in nature, such as changing the name of the act in itself, to make it easier for

people to identify it if they go looking for the act itself on-line or wherever

they might look for it. Other changes will certainly modernize the legislation

to today's standards, much different than what we find ourselves in the 1970s

as well.

Again, I will just reflect, the name of the old act was The Solemnization of

Marriage Act. If I went on-line I would not type in solemnization, I would

actually type in marriage, and nothing would come up. Anyways, in regards to

that piece of Internet service and IT service, we certainly thought that a

change in the name of the act was warranted.

Also, one of the other changes, there was not a whole lot of changes in

regards to this act. One of the other ones was to allow me as the minister, or

the minister, whoever that may be, to appoint marriage commissioners or licence

issuers from outside the Province on a temporary basis, where they make a good

case for doing so.

This provision already exists to the clergy. It is also reflective of other

jurisdictions as well. They do it, and certainly we thought that we should do it

as well to keep everything current. We have people probably, that actually marry

people, say in Ontario, Alberta or wherever, and they are issued a temporary

licence to do so. So, this gives the same right to the people that we find in

other provinces as well.

In general, I think this act is a great improvement, and certainly more in

keeping to the standards that we find ourselves today. It reflects the

importance of the registering of vital events, and also in regards to the whole

surrounding piece of work around marriages today and how they are actually

performed and how they are actually registered as well. So everything has

changed again since the 1970s, and we want to reflect the modernization and stay

in modern times.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I do not have a whole lot to say because there is not

a whole lot of work there, other than it was administrative in nature and we

cleaned up the act and then made a couple of changes, too, as well.

So, I am going to take my seat now and welcome any comments. I will listen

intently to my colleagues across the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure, again, to be able to stand and take a few minutes with

regards to Bill 25,

An Act Respecting Marriage In The Province.

I guess, as the minister stated, his department is doing a lot of work. We

are noted here in Newfoundland, in the spring we do a lot of housecleaning, and

I have to say, the minister is doing a lot of housecleaning. I think there are

eight or nine bills that he is bringing in during this session, and I think that

is great to see that bills are coming together. Any deletions and anything that

has to be done to clean up the bills is being done.

Just a few comments with regard to Bill 25; as it states, it is to repeal and

replace the Solemnization Of Marriage to revise and consolidate the law

respecting marriages in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, under clause 3 and under clause 7, I think these are two very

important clauses of the act. One is with regards to the Labrador Inuit rights,

and it states very clearly: the provision, term or condition of the Labrador

Inuit Land Claims Agreement shall have precedence over the provisions of this

act. I think that is very important to know that that is there.

As well, in clause 7, the Baha'i Faith has approval from their National

Assembly of Canada to appoint a marriage registrar, and if the marriage

performed is in accordance with the rites it shall be considered to be valid. So

there is consideration given to that in this particular piece of legislation.

Under clause 4 we reference who can perform a marriage. It is all listed the

various rules and regulations. A member of the clergy who is registered under

this act or a marriage commissioner authorized under

section 11 to perform a

marriage.

With regard to sections (1) to (4) of clause 5, it outlines with regards to

registration of clergy. I think I have a couple of questions as we go through

there for the minister. I am just wondering, is this new or would not all

clergy, with regards to registration of clergy? I was just wondering if it is

new because I would have thought that all clergy of all faiths would be

registered through their various religion or religious body or society when they

take up their chosen careers, or is this something that has to be done now? It

states there that it has to be repeated by January 31 each year. So I am

wondering, does each religion, each group in the Province have to report to the

department through the minister to register whoever is with their particular

faith each and every January 31? Maybe I am reading it wrong, but just some

clarification on that. Is there a fee attached to that? If they register say

January of 2009 is there a fee when they register again in January of 2010?

Under

section 9 with regards to "cancel authorization to perform

marriages." I am just wondering, does the minister receive this information

from other groups or bodies or just from the religious body or society that they

belong to? Is it just when - I will just use the United Church or whoever, any

denomination, is it when they know that someone has left the practice or for

whatever reasons they might have moved on to another career. I guess the only

information that you would be judged by is what would come from this group or

society.

Then again with regards to who or who is not a member, would it not be

acceptable that their word when they joined that religious group - that would be

the ones that it would come under I guess and they would remain registered until

clause 9 would become a factor. Once they are registered I guess, until you

heard from those particular groups or religions.

With regards to clause 10, even though I brought up that what I just

mentioned, Mr. Speaker, but they are given the option to appeal anyway. For

instance, there might be someone who is performing marriages and for whatever

reason their name was put forward to be cancelled, they do have an appeal

process.

Under

section 11, appointment of marriage commissioners, 11(1) and (2), where

it says, the mayors, the Provincial Court Judges, by virtue of their office,

marriage commissioners: I am wondering: When it comes to the mayors, does that

particular council have to report every January 31, or the Department of Justice

or whoever, with regard to the judge who can perform? Do they have to register

again every January 31, like is done through the other religious bodies?

Clause 12(2), a form of ceremony: If a marriage takes place by a

commissioner, the ceremony outlines, "an expression shall not be

used..." I guess when it is done by a religious group or society it is

different from when it is done through the commissioner, because they are told

what they cannot say or can say there. It says, "the exclusion of other

persons while both of the parties are alive." till death do us part. I

guess that is what you are referring to, because with a lot of the religious

groups that is in the marriage ceremony. I guess it is telling the commissioners

that they can't use that or don't have to use it, or whatever.

The other thing in the bill that I think is very important explains the

timeframes, the deadlines, what forms have to be used, and the required fees.

All this has to be in order before anything can take place.

Clause 14 states that a marriage commissioner or a member of the clergy

cannot issue the licenses. I guess an issuer can't marry and vice versa the

other way. That is clarified by the minister.

Clause 27, where it talks about secrecy: I think that is very important. As

we went through Bill 24, the same thing with the registration of marriages,

birth certificates and death certificates. It is very important, because if a

person willfully violates this

section they are not off the hook either. There

are fines for various offences, not to exceed $5,000. I think that is something

that has to be done to make sure that people understand this and are not filling

out applications or applying for applications, whatever they are for, and in

particular marriage certificates. They know there is a penalty there in case

they should try to do something wrong. There is a timeframe once they rece