April

5, 2011 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 10

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today the Chair welcomes the following members' statements:

the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; the hon.

the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for the

District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of

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

the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, by leave.

I understand the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans has leave.

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate the St. Anthony

Polars Female Hockey Team on recently being crowned the provincial champs at the

all Newfoundland and Labrador Female Under 20 C Hockey Tournament that was

hosted in St. Anthony.

Four teams from across the Province competed in the three-day tournament,

with Bonavista and St. Anthony competing in the championship game. The winning

team was not only proud to have won with a score of 4 to 1, but they were also

extremely proud to have done it in front of their home crowd.

I would like to congratulate each player who pulled off a stellar win. They

are: Karla Patey, Madison Patey, Holly Earle, Sarah Blake, Nikita Pittman,

Brooke Noseworthy, Kerry Patey, Heather Richards, Rebecca Sexton, Kristen Patey,

Johanna Elliott and Dana Saunders. Their hard work, relentless effort and

attention to detail have certainly led to their team's success.

I also wish to congratulate coaches Tonya Noseworthy, DJ Elliott and Phil

Hancock for their hard work and dedication to the team which has certainly

contributed to their victory.

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

congratulating this team and their coaches and wish them well as they

participate in future competitions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize RCMP Auxiliary

Special Constable, Mr. Everett Hann, a resident of Meadows in the beautiful

District of Bay of Islands.

Mr. Speaker, recently Sergeant Terry Foster of the RCMP B Division honoured

Mr. Hann for his forty-plus years of service, and the longest serving member of

the auxiliary policing program in Atlantic Canada. In actual fact, Mr. Speaker,

Constable Hann is one of the longest serving constables in Canada.

Special Constable Hann is very highly committed and a dedicated individual

who works countless hours of every year serving the communities they police.

Constable Hann states, "He enjoys it and you get to know the different

aspects of policing and always aim to get out there and help the public."

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to acknowledge Special Constable

Hann for his forty-plus years in serving the public.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

basketball team on recently winning the Small Schools Provincial Basketball

Championships.

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

top high school teams from the Small Schools Division participated to determine

the champions. Once again, Mr. Speaker, the St. Mary's All Grade School team won

the championship, this time with the girl's team defeating the host team from

E.A. Butler All Grade School in the finals.

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

School on being awarded the most sportsmanlike team, as well as winning the

silver medal. I would also like to recognize Stephanie Sooley from the St.

Mary's All Grade team on being awarded the most sportsmanlike player. The other

players from her team were: Lisa Rumbolt, Kelly Russell, Carla Rumbolt, Irene

Simms, Cassandra Pye, Leslie Rumbolt, Sarah Lee Campbell, Tamara Pye, Jenna

Rumbolt, Mayaa Thatchell, Hillary Roberts, Alexandra Pye, and their coaches Todd

Farrell and Thomas Simms.

I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating both of these

teams on their success in high school sports in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize an outstanding Newfoundlander

and Canadian, Ms Edwina Wetzel of Conne River, who was appointed as a member of

the Order of Canada this past December.

Distinguished by her unwavering commitment to improving the education of

Aboriginal people, she was a leader in developing a modern education system

which incorporates the community's Mi'Kmaq language and cultural traditions of

the Conne River Reserve.

She commenced her career in 1962 with educational studies at Memorial

University, after which she returned home to Conne River. Today, the community

boasts a modern, technologically advanced pre K-12 school system, a community

dream that has been realized under her leadership.

For forty-five years, she dedicated herself to furthering education,

providing encouragement and skills that have enabled hundreds of Mi'Kmaq people

to excel, all the while promoting their traditions and culture.

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

Edwina Wetzel for achieving the prestigious Order of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

outstanding young woman from my district, Erica Halfyard, who on March 20 placed

fifth in the Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador Pageant.

Erica is a Level III honour student at Bishops College. She is fluently

bilingual and can best be described as an all around student. She excels in

academics, music and sports, and she is an excellent singer. At the Miss Teen

Pageant she placed second in the talent portion of the contest and her rendition

of The Travelling Soldier captivated the whole audience.

In the past she has won numerous awards and placements for music, voice and

musical theatre, including first-class honours for voice with Conservatory

Canada.

Erica has won a public speaking award, student of the month award, as well as

several sports awards. She is very active in swimming, soccer, volleyball and

cheerleading. She is the student co-ordinator for Bishops College

chapter of

SADD Students Against Drunk Driving. She is a member of several other school

committees, including Bishops College Youth Action Committee, the GSA Committee,

and the Graduation Committee.

Erica is an avid volunteer in her school and in public. She helps at Agnes

Pratt Nursing Home and with World Vision's thirty-hour famine program.

Mr. Speaker, Erica is only one of the many exceptional young people in this

Province. I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Erica on

her accomplishments.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand

Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP

for granting me leave to make this member's statement.

Mr. Speaker, the Herder Memorial Trophy

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: or the Herder as it is more commonly known is the

championship trophy of senior ice hockey in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. It is the most prestigious hockey championship solely dedicated to

Newfoundland and Labrador and, as a result, has a significant following within

the Province. In fact, many would say it is the Stanley Cup of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: In 1935, the trophy was donated by Ralph Herder, who was

president of The Evening Telegram newspaper, in honour of his five hockey

playing brothers. The trophy was to be awarded to the Province's best ice hockey

team.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the best hockey team in the Province emerged victorious on

Saturday night when the Grand Falls-Windsor Cataracts defeated the Conception

Bay North CeeBees 4-0 and claimed the Herder.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: The Cataracts swept the series four games to none in the

best of seven play-offs.

Winning the Herder Memorial Trophy on Saturday marks the eleventh time the

Cataracts have claimed the title as Newfoundland and Labrador's best senior

hockey team - the last time being in 1981-1982. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this

eleventh win sets a record for the most Herder championships won by a single

team, the Grand Falls-Windsor Cataracts. What an accomplishment!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the enthusiasm, excitement, and pride of the

Town of Grand Falls-Windsor can hardly be contained as a result of this

monumental achievement. On Sunday, hundreds of residents turned out to show

their appreciation and offer their accolades to the team. The two-hour motorcade

started in Botwood, made its way through Bishop's Falls, and concluded at the

town hall in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Many individuals are to be commended for this win: the spirited and talented

players; head coach, Brian Casey; general manager, Dave Canning; and a host of

organization members as well as the devoted Cataracts fans and community

partners.

In an interview following the final game, Coach Casey said, "We're an honest

team. We played honest every night and we let our work ethic dictate the way we

played. It was the attitude of the guys on and off the ice. They acted like

professionals from day one. They played hard for each other and overall it was

just a great team effort."

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, the MHA for Grand

Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South, and the MHA for Exploits, and I am sure the MHA

for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, I invite all members of this hon. House to join me

in offering congratulations to the Grand Falls-Windsor Cataracts on winning the

coveted Herder Memorial Trophy. I also offer congratulations to the Conception

Bay North CeeBees for a well-played series. Go Cats Go!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure on Friday to attend the graduation ceremonies

for the Correctional Officer Recruit Training Program which was held this year

in Clarenville. This was the first time, Mr. Speaker, that the program has ever

been offered outside of St. John's.

I had the honour of presenting certificates to eleven proud recruits who are

now embarking on a brand new career with the Department of Justice as

correctional officers. I am proud to stand in this hon. House today and

announce, Mr. Speaker, that six of these recruits were women, four of whom are

from the Clarenville area. The other recruits are from the Stephenville area and

the Northeast Avalon.

Mr. Speaker, these recruits spent a combined six weeks of comprehensive

in-class training which focuses on CPR, mental health, gender awareness, suicide

prevention, use of force and physical fitness, all components that are critical

to their success and safety within our correctional facilities. In addition, Mr.

Speaker, they spent two weeks on-the-job training so that they could experience

practical and real life situations in the course of their work.

Since the 2009 release of Decades of Darkness: Moving Towards the Light,

which our government commissioned, the Department of Justice has made

significant strides towards revitalizing corrections. We have allocated

approximately $7 million for the revitalization of the Newfoundland and Labrador

corrections system. In addition, in the last two years we have trained a

substantial number of correctional officers. From January 2009 to April 2011,

ninety-three new correctional officers have gone through the Correctional

Officer Recruit Training Program.

Mr. Speaker, Friday's graduation ceremony also included the first

presentation of the Sean Colbourne Award. This new award is in memory of Sean

Colbourne who was one of our cadets last year who died tragically just days

after graduation. This award is given to the cadet who best exemplifies all the

qualities that Sean showed during his own training and is determined, Mr.

Speaker, by the winner's peers. Those qualities are determination, honesty,

strength, perseverance, dependability and a resilient character. I am proud to

announce that Nicole Critch of Clarenville is the first ever recipient of this

award, which was awarded on Friday by Mr. Colbourne's father. Sean was well

admired by his classmates and I cannot think of any better tribute for Sean than

this award.

Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to congratulate these eleven new

graduates of the Correctional Officer Recruit Training Program. I wish them all

the best as they embark on their new career and I warmly welcome them to the

Department of Justice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement today. We also

would like to offer congratulations to these new graduates. It is a great career

to pursue and now, of course, for these successful graduates the real work

begins. They are entering into the real world and we wish them all the best.

It is good to see that we do have eleven more graduates, Mr. Speaker. The

Decades of Darkness report that the minister alluded to came out in 2009 and it

clearly found that there were serious problems with staffing shortages and aging

infrastructure here in our Province. In the three years since that report was

released, of course, it would still appear there are some incidents that would

indicate there is not enough security yet, despite the advances that have been

made.

We had some incidents, for example, one individual who escaped while he was

at court, tumbled down through the roof and ended up in the judge's chambers;

another guy on the West Coast who got through the back window in the

Stephenville correctional facility; another person, of course, who went to court

and they forgot to tell him that he was still in jail and they let him go home.

So, we are still seeing some incidents where we still maybe need some more

bodies.

Of course, that report also pointed out the dilapidated conditions of HMP. It

dates back to the mid-nineteenth century. It is built to house 145 prisoners, it

routinely houses 170-plus. In fact, I quote from the report and it says, "The

cleanliness or the lack of it is horrendous."

At this time we would certainly wish these people all the best. Some of them,

I am sure, are not looking forward to having to work in HMP because wherever you

work it ought to be a decent place to work and live, but we wish them all the

best when it comes to safety and security and enjoying their new careers.

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

Vidi.

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

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

I am happy, too, to join in congratulating the eleven graduates on completing

their training program and becoming correctional officers, and especially in

congratulating Ms Critch in receiving the award that she received.

It is good to know that we have a good mix of men and women coming into

corrections. It is extremely important. The minister did make reference to the

Decades of Darkness report and the recommendations that have been put in place.

Of course the new Corrections Act was one of those recommendations so things are

moving ahead, there is no doubt about that.

I am a bit concerned that Her Majesty's Penitentiary here in St. John's seems

to have fallen off the radar. We have had the minister say that even though the

federal government is still not showing an inclination to come in on this with

us that he believes that we have to move ahead. I am waiting to see when we are

going to be moving ahead; maybe the new relations that the government has with

Ottawa are going to result in Ottawa saying yes to money for the penitentiary

because what we have down there is completely unacceptable. It is so far beyond

the pale that it is hard to describe to people if they have not seen it

themselves. I continue to be assured by people who are working in the

penitentiary that new programs cannot work adequately because of the facility in

which they are working; the facility is holding back programs from moving ahead.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister continues to look at what is needed in

corrections, I ask him to bring back HMP onto the radar and do something about

it.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is perhaps no greater investment a business can make in improving its

competitiveness and productivity than investing in its workforce.

To support local businesses in bolstering their workforce we launched the

Workplace Skills Enhancement Program in fall 2009. It is a program for small

businesses to upgrade the skills of employees to improve their productivity and

competitiveness.

Over a relatively short period, the program has experienced tremendous uptake

and is achieving its objectives. More importantly its success reflects the

increasing focus that Newfoundland and Labrador's small businesses place on the

continual development of employee knowledge. It is clear our business community

recognizes that investing in their workforce is essential to staying competitive

in an ever-changing global business environment.

In less than two years, more than $2 million has been approved for small

businesses and business development organizations in communities and regions

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. It has led to the creation of more than

fifty highly-skilled positions and almost 500 staff upgrading their skills.

In Labrador for example, the program led to personnel in Battle Harbour

securing certification to operate passenger vessels; and the Labrador Straits

Development Corporation coordinated an advanced jewellery and metalworking

course to assist local entrepreneurs acquire new techniques to further

strengthen business opportunities for these types of products.

Additionally, in Codroy, Codroy Seafoods is undertaking customized training

for more than forty employees, which will help the company expand to secondary

lobster processing; while in Centreville, the program is helping Noble Mouldings

introduce on-the-job training for its employees.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government is extremely pleased with the interest

shown in the program. As businesses invest in their workforce, it also serves as

an important retention tool. Investing in staff development sends the message

that employers value their employees and that they play an important role in the

long-term viability of the business. Those businesses that address the issue of

training are more likely to exceed in times of economic uncertainty.

On that note, I encourage local businesses to look at our programs and how

they can benefit their operations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay

North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

I certainly agree that there is no greater investment we can make in this

Province than to invest in the workforces of our businesses that we have

throughout the Province. It is good to hear about the Workplace Skills

Enhancement Program and we recognize that the small and medium business sector

of our Province is vital to our economy. Anything, again, that our government

can do to support that sector in its development is very positive.

It is nice to see the personnel at Battle Harbour that were mentioned, the

people involved in the Labrador Straits Development Corporation initiatives as

well, and of course the two businesses mentioned there in the statement as well.

I would commend the government's commitment to supporting skills upgrading of

employees, and I would also emphasize that government needs to continue to

improve the access and support for businesses. In some parts of the Province, in

particular, we take for granted that the information is out there and so on, but

we obviously know then in some of the more rural areas there may be businesses

that do not understand or are not totally familiar with the programs. So

anything we can do to enhance the information, certainly.

Also, I would like to make a point that young Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians need to be supported, and these programs obviously are designed to

do that. We see recent statistics that were just put out by Stats Canada

suggesting that the unemployment rate between our youth is 14.8 per cent, so

that is a concern. As we move forward, hopefully, we can help our young people

know these programs are available and they can find careers in our small and

medium sized businesses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for the

advance copy of her statement.

It is good that we have the program that we do, with regard to helping small

businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador train their employees. It is an

extremely important thing for small businesses, especially as they look to

growth. I look forward to this program being a long-standing program in the

Province. I would like the minister to consider looking at particular areas and

focusing on particular areas where training is needed; for example, in the

forestry, in value-added processing in the fishery, and in the agricultural

sectors, and encouraging training and growth in those developments.

There is a major barrier that a lot of small businesses do face in rural

Newfoundland in particular, and that is the inadequacy of Internet connections,

and the demand for high-speed is very great. The minister talks about what

businesses are facing in an ever-changing global business environment. Well, in

that global environment, having Internet access, especially for marketing, is

extremely important. In this day and age, how can business grow without reliable

high-speed Internet? I ask the minister to give some serious attention to that

issue, along with the government.

We also need better air transportation as well, in this Province, in order to

get our products to export markets. So I encourage looking at the other barriers

that are there.

Thank you, 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, ever since the Premier and the Government signed on to the term

sheet for Muskrat Falls, we have heard nothing only exaggeration and spin, when

it comes to the numbers attached to this project. Yesterday, again, in the House

of Assembly, she told the people of the Province that the price of power has

doubled in the past five years, and will double again in the next five years.

Mr. Speaker, she said

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Yes, I stand to be corrected. She said yesterday, Mr. Speaker,

that it has increased by 35 per cent in the last five years.

I ask the Premier today, Mr. Speaker: Where she is getting those particular

numbers? Because we tabled in the House of Assembly last week the electrical

bills of customers in Newfoundland and Labrador for the last five years which

indicated there was only

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: - an increase of approximately 2.1 per cent annually.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have been consistent in our message on this side of the

House. We have indicated that the rates of electricity, the price that people

are paying for electricity - irrespective of what happens with the development

of Muskrat Falls - is increasing and is projected to increase by 2017, by 37 per

cent over the next five, six years; about a 4 per cent to 6 per cent increase

per year, Mr. Speaker. It is not just us saying it. The other thing we know is

that the National Energy Board is saying that the rates are going to increase.

The CBC National News did a survey; they project up to a 50 per cent increase in

the electricity rates.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we are developing Muskrat Falls is to solve that

problem, and by solving it we will be able to ensure that the rates will

increase by 0.7 per cent per year as opposed to the 4 percent to 6 per cent that

they are increasing now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also knows that the national survey he refers to talked about

replacing dirty energy, I say, in places like Ontario and British Columbia with

clean energy, and that new production comes at a price. That cannot be averaged

into what is going to happen exactly here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

My question is for the Premier. Yesterday she stood in the House of Assembly,

she told the people of this Province that their light bills, Mr. Speaker, their

energy bills had increased on an average of 35 per cent over the last five

years. I ask you to table the information, the source of that information

because consumers' light bills are indicating that they are only increasing at a

rate of 2.1 per cent annually in the last five years.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to table the information. I do so time and time again

when requested by the Leader of the Opposition. What I cannot count on, is that

she is going to do anything with it, Mr. Speaker. It is like she stood here in

the House yesterday complaining because the environmental review panel had not

received information they requested from Nalcor, when in fact that information

had been given to the panel last week and, in fact, had been posted on their Web

site over the weekend.

Mr. Speaker, she is not paying attention, she is not interested in the facts,

and she is not serving the best interests of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, serving the best interests of the people of this

Province is not telling them that we are going to double up the cost of

electricity that you pay every single day in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr.

Speaker, Nalcor did not provide all the information, I say to you minister. They

even wrote the panel and told them they would not provide all the information.

Maybe you should read the letter.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Assembly, in questioning the Premier

on why the people of Nova Scotia and in the Maritimes would get power cheaper

than the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, she stood up to try to defend it,

to say that they can produce their own power, Mr. Speaker, at less than ten

cents a megawatt hour, so why would they pay fourteen-and-a-half cents for

Muskrat Falls Power?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: I ask you today, Premier: Why would you want to sell power to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at 14.5 cents

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the cheapest way that we can provide power to the people of this

Province in 2016 and 2017 is through the development of Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have looked at a number of

alternatives, studied them, and that is the conclusion we have arrived at. The

cost of that power to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, if we do nothing

else, Mr. Speaker, if we do not get a loan guarantee, if we do not sell any

power, if it is just the straight cost of the project, is going to be 14.3 cents

a kilowatt hour, Mr. Speaker. That is the cost of providing power to the

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It makes no sense as to why we want to use the taxpayers in this Province to

subsidize power going into the Maritimes, I say to you Premier. That is not a

good formula for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and they should not be

expected to pay so that people in the Maritimes can get cheaper power from

Muskrat Falls.

I ask you: How do you respond to the people of the Province who have to dig

deep in their pockets to pay your bill while the people in the Maritimes will

not have to do so?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, if we develop Muskrat Falls only, only

for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, which we have to develop it for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but if we do not sell power or do anything

else with that power, Mr. Speaker, it is going to cost us 14.3 cents a kilowatt

hour, Mr. Speaker, but we will have excess power to our needs. What we are

doing, Mr. Speaker, is looking beyond our borders to see if there is a market

for our excess power. If there is, Mr. Speaker, that means we collect extra

revenue from the development of Muskrat Falls that can be put to the use of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In a briefing with Nalcor this morning we asked them, point blank, if they

could confirm that any revenues from excess sale of power would go to subsidize

the ratepayer in Newfoundland and Labrador, would go to bring down the cost of

power to consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the answer, Mr. Speaker,

was no.

I ask the Premier today: Who is telling the right story here? Is it you, or

is it Ed Martin at Nalcor?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the wonderful thing is that I get a briefing, too. The question

was asked to Mr. Martin and the answer that Mr. Martin gave was that was a

policy decision of government, not a decision of Nalcor.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Well, I would suggest that you check again. Mr.

Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition check again.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and therefore the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, are the only shareholders of Nalcor, Mr. Speaker.

These are policy decisions that will be made by the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador, not Nalcor, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ed Martin of Nalcor told us this morning, Mr. Speaker, that any extra

revenues collected would go into Nalcor as an energy corporation to be invested

in the Province; probably to drill holes in places like Parsons Pond where we

just seen $23 million of the people's money spent, Mr. Speaker, to drill holes

in the ground. That is a different story, Premier, than what you are talking.

I would like for someone to clarify once and for all, for the people of this

Province, are you going to have to pay a base rate of 14.3 cents on your

electrical bill while the people in the Maritimes get it for ten cents or less,

or are you going to subsidize the power to these people so they do not have to

pay all that money out of their own pockets?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, how quickly they forget. How quickly they forget. These are the

same group of people who took every dividend they could get out of Nalcor and

made the future of the utility questionable. They knew where to go to get the

dividends when they needed to try to balance their budgets.

Now, as I said, Mr. Speaker, there is one shareholder in Nalcor: It is the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: They will determine where the profits of Nalcor will

go, whether it is to reduce energy rates, to build schools, to build hospitals,

or to build roads. Mr. Speaker, the government of the day will decide;

therefore, the people of the Province will decide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier confirm today that revenues from excess power on Muskrat

Falls will go to subsidize the ratepayer in Newfoundland and Labrador and bring

down the power costs to consumers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I do believe she is warming up to the

project.

Mr. Speaker, it is far too early in the development of Muskrat Falls to make

those kinds of decisions. The thing that we would prefer to see happen is

industrial development attracted to Labrador where we could provide

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: very, very competitive energy rates. That is what

we would like to see happen, Mr. Speaker.

Before this power comes on line, Mr. Speaker, there is a six-year wait. A

number of things will change. When we get nearer to power coming on line, we

will make these fundamental decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Thursday, we asked the Minister of Natural Resources a very pointed

question here in the House of Assembly, and that was when he was informed about

the drilling mud spill from the Henry Goodrich platform.

He avoided the question completely last Thursday in the House and now, Mr.

Speaker, he is in the media saying that he was not made aware of it until that

very morning.

I ask you today, Minister: Why did you not tell that to the House of Assembly

when the question was asked of you on Thursday?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I responded to the question that I was asked on Thursday, as I

have responded every time I stand on my feet here in the House of Assembly. When

I was asked by the media specifically when I found out about the spill, I

indicated to them when I found out and how I found out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister can read Hansard. In the House of

Assembly last week, he defended the C-NLOPB's actions, said they had followed

the correct process, and had posted the information to their Web site. Now he is

out stating that they did not follow the correct process, and he is demanding a

meeting with the chairperson.

So I ask you today, Minister, why did you stand in the House on Thursday,

defend the process used by C-NLOPB, and then four days later come out and say

that you are not happy with the process that was used?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my main concern as minister is to ensure that ourselves and the

officials at the C-NLOPB are working in tandem to ensure the safety of the

people working offshore and the safety of the environment offshore. That is my

goal.

When I stood on my feet last Thursday, I indicated what I understood to be at

that point in time. I gave the correct information that I had at that point in

time. The only difference today, Mr. Speaker, is that I understand the C-NLOPB

had some misinterpretation of the data themselves when it arrived to them, they

misunderstood the information that was presented to them, and that was a part of

the reason why there was a delay in responding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the significant aspects of safety in the offshore is requiring the

agencies to follow process and procedure, I say to you, Minister. So, it took

the C-NLOPB three days to inform your office that this had happened, it took you

four days to figure out that the process was not followed.

That is not acceptable and not good enough, and what are you going to do to

ensure that it does not happen again?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have said it publicly, and I will say it here on my feet in

the House of Assembly, I have to ensure that the Department of Natural Resources

works in tandem with the C-NLOPB to ensure the safety of the people working

offshore and the safety of the environment offshore. For that reason, I have

written a letter to the chairperson of the board of the C-NLOPB requesting a

meeting. He has indicated that he is prepared to meet with me. This afternoon,

there was an officials meeting happening between officials of my department and

officials in the C-NLOPB

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SKINNER: in preparation for the meeting I will have with the

chairperson in the very near future.

The goal, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure the safety of the environment and the

safety of the people working offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Safety was not a priority when they tried to appoint Elizabeth Matthews as

the Vice-chair of the C-NLOPB, I say to you, Minister.

Mr. Speaker, back in May of last year, the government opposite commissioned

Captain Mark Turner to do a review of the effectiveness of legislative and

regulatory regimes in the event of an oil spill. He was supposed to have

finished his work within ninety days, he had been given a couple of extensions

since that time, it is nearly a year since the report was commissioned, and I

think it is about eight months, probably, overdue at this stage.

I ask the minister: Have you received a draft copy of the report yet? If so,

when will the report be made public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, because of the seriousness that the government takes with the

offshore safety, we commissioned a separate, independent report, the Captain

Mark Turner report. We gave Mr. Turner sixty days initially to complete his

work. When he delved into the matter, he came back and asked for an extension.

It was not going to be us on this side who were going to either restrict

Captain Turner or rush Captain Turner into doing his work. He asked for more

time, we gave him more time. We wanted to ensure he did a thorough analysis and

a thorough investigation of the mandate that we had given him.

That report has been presented, it was in draft form, and there was some

editing that needed to occur. It is my understanding the report will be

presented to me in the next week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to an access to information request that was filed by the Official

Opposition office, the latest round of poverty reduction consultations - and

this is the round that was held between October 18 and November 10 of this past

fall, a period of about three weeks - it cost the taxpayers of this Province

nearly $85,000 for that consultation.

I ask the government how they can justify spending $85,000 on a consultation,

on poverty consulting, Mr. Speaker, when there are families in this Province who

are going without, there are families in this Province where that money should

have been invested?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: I think I have heard it all today, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps we should have asked everybody living in poverty to come to St. John's

to tell us about their lives and what we needed to do to improve them, Mr.

Speaker. This is offensive on so many levels; I really do not want to say

anything more about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Premier can stand up in the House today

and justify why there was $50,000 spent on advertising for these consultations

when there are families out there in this Province living in poverty who could

have used that money to assist their families and to improve their quality of

living. Stand up, Premier, and explain to the people of the Province why you

spent $50,000 in advertising these consultations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this government is lauded from one end

of this country to the other on our Poverty Reduction Strategy. We are held up

as an example to other provinces in terms of tackling this terrible issue that

we all experience. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why we have been successful

is because we approached this in a very respectful way, knowing but for the

grace of God there go the rest of us, Mr. Speaker. It is important for us to

listen to people who have to deal with these issues of poverty on a daily basis

and, Mr. Speaker, we will do everything we can to support them, to come forward

to talk to us so that our policy and our programs are well informed by the

people who use them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier can stand in this House of Assembly and grandstand all she likes.

To spend $85,000, Mr. Speaker, without a cent of it going into the pockets of

families in this Province who need it is absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, while the Premier talks about our record on poverty, let me tell

you what our record is. The number of families using food banks in Newfoundland

and Labrador is increasing at an alarmingly rapid rate I say to you Premier. The

number of people who are in poverty in Newfoundland and Labrador is climbing, I

say to you Premier, and all of the indicators are telling us that.

What is it you are going to do for these people who are living in poverty in

Newfoundland and Labrador besides the road show that you are putting off to

promote your own strategy on poverty as a government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have sat through some highs and some lows in

this House but I have to say the last five or six days we sit here listening to

the member opposite run down good developments in this Province, developments

that will put money in the coffers of this Province to help people out. Today,

she is taking strips of the most vulnerable in society; $85,000 so that we could

send people to her district, Mr. Speaker, and hear from the people in Labrador,

heaven forbid that we force them to come to St. John's in the city and have to

hear from them. We go out and we reach out, Mr. Speaker. More than $100 million

we have invested I say to you. We are not spending money on helicopters and

placemats like that previous government did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only one I am taking a strip off of in this House is you, Minister, you,

Premier, and your government. It is ridiculous what you are doing; ridiculous

that you would spend $50,000 of the taxpayers' money in advertising poverty

consultations and not investing into the families and the children of this

Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know what this government is doing for poverty. They

want to go out and increase the electrical bill of every single consumer in this

Province, Mr. Speaker every single consumer.

I ask you today, Minister, to stand in your place and defend the fact that

your government has wasted $85,000 of the taxpayers' money and not invested it

into the children and families of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to stand here in my place

today and defend the fact that we are seeking input from the people of this

Province. I will tell you what else I am prepared to do: I am prepared to share

with the member opposite things that she is not tuned into, like $25 million in

the provincial drug program for those who most need it in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: I ask you: What about the elimination of school fees and free

text books? Are you prepared to cancel that for people in this Province?

I say to the member opposite: What about the expansion of the Medical

Transportation Program for people who cannot afford to come to St. John's? Are

you prepared to stand and defend that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members asking questions and answering to direct their comments to the

Chair.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you that our government would certainly not be throwing good

money, Mr. Speaker good money in this Province out the window; good money

that could be used by families in this Province. Our government, Mr. Speaker,

would not be sinking $23 million into a hole in the ground in this Province

because the government has pie in the sky ideas. We would be spending our money,

Mr. Speaker, on families and on children in this Province.

So I say to you today, Minister: You should be ashamed of yourself that you

spent this money in advertising sessions on poverty as opposed to investing it

in the very people who need it in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing questions asked and answered.

I call on the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues here on this side of the

House sat here in Opposition. Some of my colleagues sat here when members

opposite spent $85,000 or more on placemats for their leader's office in the

day. They sat here while members opposite gallivanted around the Province in

helicopters, Mr. Speaker, all over the place, crisscrossing north, south, east,

west, you name it. Money was free. Go where you want.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to you, when we came to power here is what we have

done for poverty. I am more than happy to continue to talk about the rent

supplements we put in this Province, to talk about the rent program that we have

done for the people, Mr. Speaker. All across Newfoundland and Labrador, people

who are suffering the most in society have benefitted from more than $140

million in investments by our government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The Minister of Justice has done a complete about-face and agreed to review

the work on the Province's psychiatrists at correctional facilities

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: This, of course, comes on the heels of

recommendations by the Citizens' Representative whose recent report the minister

was so quick to dismiss. This review needs to happen very quickly, I would

suggest minister.

My question today is: Have you put a timeline on having the review done and

completed, and will you commit that the report will be released to the public

when you receive it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we are in the preliminary stages of putting together this

review. At this stage in the game I am certainly not going to give any

information as to how that review is going to be constructed. I make no

commitments at this time, Mr. Speaker, what will be released and what will not

because it is too early in the game to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources said yesterday in front of the

media that not only had the public not known about a substantial toxic mud spill

on the Grand Banks for several days, but he himself had to find out from his own

staff. The government was never formally notified by the C-NLOPB and this was a

second such lag in communication between his department and the C-NLOPB. Mr.

Speaker, the public trust in this government's ability to monitor offshore

safety is being shaken.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Could he please explain how long this

failure in communication between his department and the C-NLOPB has been going

on?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, this was an incident that occurred. It is

something that we are working on. I have indicated before that it is my priority

to be able to work in tandem with the C-NLOPB and the officials down there to

ensure the safety of the offshore workers and the offshore environment.

That is why I wrote the letter that I wrote. That is why there is a meeting

between officials happening this afternoon between my department and the

C-NLOPB. That is why in the next short little while I will end up having a

face-to-face meeting with the chair of the board. We want to ensure that these

incidents do not happen. It is unfortunate that it did happen, but our priority

is to make sure we have processes in place to ensure they do not happen in the

future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He did not answer my direct question, but maybe after he has his meetings I

will ask him again how long has the communication breakdown been going on.

Mr. Speaker, I have stood in this House to ask the minister, and the minister

before him, questions regarding many aspects of offshore safety, including the

reliability of the S-92 helicopter, deepwater drilling, and oil spill

monitoring, just to name a few. In each case government has given assurances

that they were aware and in control of the situation.

In light of the minister's own admission that he did not know what was going

on in this latest case, how can this minister be sure that both he and the

Newfoundland and Labrador public are getting full information on all incidents

in the offshore?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is a communications protocol that has been established.

That communications protocol has to be followed. It is important that we work in

tandem as I said. As a courtesy, we should know what is happening. In my

opinion, they should be informing the public immediately about what is

happening. It is my goal, when I met with the chair of the board, to ensure that

that process is followed.

In terms of this particular incident, as I indicated, there was a breakdown

there. They needed to inform us, they did not. They should have had the

information up on their Web site, I believe, more quickly and inform the public;

but, because of an

interpretation error with the data that they were presented,

they basically thought the spill was a lot smaller than it was, much, much

smaller than it was, and were not going to put that information out publicly.

When they realized the size of it, they put the information out.

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.

As I said, I will be looking forward to asking more questions after the

meeting between the minister and the head of C-NLOPB.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in responding to my questions on the removal of taxes

from home heat, the Minister of Finance beat around the bush with confusing

details. The minister does not seem to realize, Mr. Speaker, that rightfully we

do not tax anyone in this Province on necessities of life like food. When we go

to the grocery store we do not differentiate between high and low incomes in

terms of who pays tax on food. No one does because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, if this government does not tax people, anybody on a necessity

like food, why are they taxing them on the necessity of home heat?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP is on her feet many

times in this House asking us to spend money on affordable housing, asking us to

spend more money on poverty reduction, asking us to build long-term care

facilities and to do that we have to raise revenue. We raise revenue in many

different ways. We have to strike a balance between the revenue we need to

provide doctors and other services.

One of the problems is that if you start giving exemptions - the HST is a

value-added tax, it is a tax on everything - if you start removing it from home

heating, if you remove it from home care, if you remove it from children's

clothing, pretty soon the rate goes up. Provinces that have, in fact, removed

that tax have raised the HST from 8 per cent to 10 per cent.

Government has to raise the money to

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with

section 19.(5) paragraph (

a) of the House

of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby table

minutes of the House of Assembly Management Committee meetings held on November

17, 2010, and the in camera budget meetings held on January 26 and January 27,

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

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: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the Order Paper we will first go to the bills that are referred to the

Committee of the Whole.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Natural

Resources that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to

consider Bills 3, 9, and 10.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House now resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Bill 3, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 3,

An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored

Venture Capital Tax Credit Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit

Act". (Bill 3)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit

Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 9.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 9,

An Act Respecting Correctional

Services.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Correctional Services". (Bill 9)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 52 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 52 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 52 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act Respecting Correctional Services.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 10.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 10,

An Act To Amend The Labour Relations

Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act". (Bill 10)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 5 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 5 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bills 3,

9, and 10.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 3, 9, and

10 and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's South and Deputy Speaker.

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

The Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to them referred and

has directed me to report Bills 3, 9, and 10 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the

Committee has considered the matters to them referred and has directed him to

report Bills 3, 9, and 10 be carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bills 3, 9 and 10 ordered read a

third time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the Order Paper, the Second

Reading of Bills. We will commence with Order 5, second reading of Bill 1.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

General, that Bill 1,

An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults, be now read a

second time.

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

An Act

Respecting The Protection Of Adults, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of

Adults". (Bill 1)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this hon. House today to bring forth

the Adult Protection Act which will increase the protection of vulnerable adults

in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, this government has, over the last

number of years, brought forward many pieces of legislation and brought in many

policies to protect the most vulnerable of our society, especially our children.

Mr. Speaker, we have also as a government brought forward many pieces of

legislation and policies to protect seniors in various ways. We have made

significant investments in providing long-term care, home care and issues like

that. Mr. Speaker, there is also another sub-segment of that population which we

cannot forget, and that is the vulnerable adults. As I move through my

discussion on the bill, I will talk about whom we consider to be vulnerable

adults and what we are going to do to help protect them.

Mr. Speaker, the new legislation will replace the Neglected Adults Welfare

Act which is thirty-eight years old and has had few amendments since its

original proclamation. One of the roles we play as a government, Mr. Speaker, is

to ensure that legislation is updated and modernized, and is consistent with not

only the needs of our population but where possible, consistent with legislation

throughout the country.

This new act, Mr. Speaker, will ensure our government continues to support

our most vulnerable adult population while at the same time, and this is very

important - and it is always a difficulty in bringing forward any piece of

legislation - while at the same time balancing an individual's right to make his

or her own decisions with the overall protection of that individual. I will go

through a few provisions of the act shortly, Mr. Speaker, and try to point out

how we are accomplishing that end.

The adult protection legislation, Mr. Speaker, will establish a more

efficient and modern response to adults who are unable to protect themselves

from neglect or abuse. Again, Mr. Speaker, there are

definitions which I will go

through shortly and I will go through various sections of the act.

Mr. Speaker, the overriding consideration in bringing forward this

legislation, or the purpose for which we have brought forward this legislation,

is to protect adults who are incapable of caring properly for themselves, who

refuse or are unable to make decisions for care on their own behalf and who are

not currently receiving proper care and attention. Mr. Speaker, we consulted

with stakeholders in May, 2010, and met with various groups. When I say

stakeholders, various groups who have an interest in this legislation as to what

they thought we should do.

Since the issue of consultations came up earlier in the House of Assembly

today, it might be helpful to show that as a government we go out, listen to

people, communicate with them and listen to what they have to say. We will then

adjust legislation or policies where possible, Mr. Speaker, to meet the needs of

the people. That is what we are elected to do, is to meet the needs of the

people.

Mr. Speaker, for example, on May 11 there were meetings with Eastern Health.

On May 13, we met with the Newfoundland and Labrador Elder Abuse Committee.

There were meetings in Central Newfoundland and Labrador on May 14; Western

Newfoundland and Labrador on May 17; Labrador-Grenfell on May 19. On May 11 we

had everyone from representatives of the Canadian Paraplegic Association to the

Coalition for Persons with Disabilities, the Independent Living Resource Centre,

the Citizens' Representative Office, and Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group.

Again, these are examples of groups who we met with during the consultation

process.

The same process occurred, Mr. Speaker, when we met with individuals from

Eastern Health and the Community Living and Supportive Services, the Elder Abuse

Committee, which was comprised of representatives of the Seniors Resource

Centre, Labrador West Status of Women Council, dieticians of Newfoundland and

Labrador, the RCMP, the Coalition Against Violence, the College of Licensed

Practical Nurses. I guess what I am trying to outline, Mr. Speaker, is that in

May of this year we met with numerous groups who would be affected by this

legislation, either as a result of the population they serve, an interest in the

legislation or an interest in ensuring that the legislation was not too

cumbersome and allowed the legislation to achieve the goal.

I will go through this, Mr. Speaker, and this is a complicated piece of

legislation in many ways but, again, I always come back to the purpose of the

act is to protect adults who are incapable of caring properly for themselves,

refuse or are unable to make decisions for care on their own behalf, and who are

currently not receiving proper care and attention.

Mr. Speaker, we, as MHAs, deal with all kinds of seniors groups. I think, at

one point, there were over one hundred 50 Plus Clubs and seniors clubs in this

Province. They serve very vital roles I am sure you are aware as I am sure

people in this Province are aware in that they encourage, not only physical

activity and healthy eating, but they socially interact with each other, Mr.

Speaker, so that seniors who might otherwise be alone in their homes are out

there with people and they are enjoying the company of others.

Mr. Speaker, depending on where you live and depending on your own personal

circumstance that may not always be the case, so there can be situations where

individuals, especially as they get older, they may not have family and friends

or for whatever reason they may not have contact with their families and

friends; they may not have anyone to look out for them. They may not have that

seniors group who is saying: Where is our friend today, or I have not seen him

or her now for the last few weeks, what is going on with them? I think I will

give them a call.

Mr. Speaker, what we have to look at is individuals who, as a result of

circumstances oftentimes beyond their control, find themselves in the kind of

situations where this act will apply; in other words, vulnerable adults, Mr.

Speaker.

By meeting with these various committees, and these are committees, Mr.

Speaker, these are individuals who are dealing with seniors and adults because

they can be adults, I guess it depends how you define a senior a 50 Plus Club,

we see a lot of 50 Plus Clubs I guess I could go into one of the clubs in

Carbonear now having turned fifty myself this summer but it can be an adult.

MR. F. COLLINS: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: My colleague, the Minister of Justice, who is a few years

older than me here, Mr. Speaker, is making comments.

In any event, what we are trying to do is ensure that vulnerable adults do

not fall between the cracks.

Mr. Speaker, I will perhaps look at, to put this in perspective, the

definition of abuse because that is what, as I have indicated, if you look at

Bill 1, and again, Mr. Speaker, the very fact that we call this Bill 1 means

that it is a very serious issue and one that we are very proud, as a government,

to bring forward.

Let's look at the definition of abuse in

section 2.(

a) of the act: ""abuse"

means the deliberate mistreatment of an adult who lacks the capacity", and

again, that is a word with a particular legal connotation, "to protect himself

or herself that causes or is reasonably likely, within a short period of time,

to cause the adult (

i) serious physical, psychological or emotional harm, or

(ii) substantial damage to or substantial loss of assets and includes

intimidation, humiliation and sexual assault".

Mr. Speaker, just as we live in a society where we would hope that there

would not be abuse - physical, sexual, mental, or emotional abuse - of children,

women, and anyone for that matter, Mr. Speaker, we wish that we would live in a

society where our elders are treated with respect. That is something, Mr.

Speaker, we can certainly learn from our Aboriginal communities, where elders

are treated with respect; but that is not always the case, Mr. Speaker, so what

we are looking at here are the two forms, or there is a distinction here between

the serious physical, psychological or emotional harm.

Again, this abuse, Mr. Speaker, could be physical. It could be the kinds of

ads that we saw in the Violence Prevention Initiative recently, which certainly

highlight the emotional and psychological abuse of our elders, Mr. Speaker,

and/or it says or, it does not say and, so it is the disjunctive or: "or

substantial damage to or substantial loss of assets". Again, Mr. Speaker, to

address situations where children, relatives, friends or neighbours are

essentially depleting the adult of their assets, of their monies. Mr. Speaker,

that again can be of a criminal form, but does not have to be, because you can,

for example, take an adult again, I am talking about seniors, Mr. Speaker, but

it is a neglected adults act take an adult out to get groceries and charge him

or her $50. Now, I am not sure you are committing a crime, but you are

certainly, the morality of that kind of activity is questionable "and includes

intimidation, humiliation, and sexual assault".

This a very wide definition of abuse, Mr. Speaker, one that when we are

bringing in a piece of legislation and you want to bring a definition in, you

try to be as wide as possible, while not, certainly, going to the point where

anything can meet the definition. So, when we use the word deliberate in a piece

of provincial legislation it is different than it is used, for example, in the

Criminal Code, but again, meant to be intentional, a deliberate act is one in

which you know what you are doing, where you have thought it out and you have

decided upon a course of action.

Mr. Speaker, I will come to the capacity issue in a second because that is

one I think that is going to certainly demand some comment.

Mr. Speaker, there are currently seven individuals declared under the

Neglected Adults Welfare Act, so the predecessor Act, under the guardianship of

the Director of Neglected Adults. Mr. Speaker, seven individuals does not sound

like a lot but when you look at the kinds of activity that this act is meant to

protect against, it is seven too many. The Neglected Adults Welfare Act had a

Director of Neglected Adults. While we do not necessarily think that the number

of adults in need of protection will rise, we certainly want to highlight, Mr.

Speaker, for our society the importance of treating all adults and seniors with

respect, but especially adults who may have certain disabilities or

vulnerabilities that make their everyday living more difficult.

Mr. Speaker, we have, as I indicated earlier, almost the precursor to this

act brought in various strategies and policies which will go hand in hand with

the Adult Protection Act. We have, I would suggest to you, in the past,

demonstrated our commitment to addressing these types of issues. A number of the

strategies and initiatives being implemented are consistent with the spirit of

this proposed act. Mr. Speaker, this new legislation is consistent with

government's blue book commitment to improve legislation and policies on

programs that eradicate elder abuse.

Mr. Speaker, if we lived in an ideal world, there would be no need for these

kinds of policies, there would be no need for the strategies, there would be no

need for acts like this. Mr. Speaker, it is not a utopia that we live in, there

is a real world where people make mistakes. Some people, it can be use and abuse

of alcohol and/or drugs; it can be as a result of certain disabilities of their

own. They commit certain acts and they do not always act the way that we would

want them to act, nor do any of us, Mr. Speaker, always act the way that we want

to act.

What we have to look at, Mr. Speaker, is not the individual who is committing

the act here that we are trying to protect, it is the individual whom the act is

being committed against. Mr. Speaker, oftentimes in our society, and I learned

this as a criminal lawyer for twenty years, there are secrets out there which do

not become uncovered easily. There are things going on, Mr. Speaker, in our

society that are hidden and that some people want to keep hidden.

Mr. Speaker, I remember so clearly the ads in the Violence Prevention

Initiative and other ads like that, that the person blames himself or herself

for what is going on. Why did my son or daughter treat me like that? Well, I

must have done something to deserve it. Why am I left alone? Is it because no

one loves me? Is it because I do not have any friends? Am I a bad person because

of that?

Mr. Speaker, people find themselves in situations that are sometimes beyond

their control. It can be a result of poverty, of lack of education, or of mental

illness. It can be as a result of being beaten down by mistreatment to the point

that they cannot stand up for themselves any more. It can result, Mr. Speaker,

in an adult living by himself or herself where they not only live a life of

poverty but there is a life of desperation.

Mr. Speaker, with the new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services,

with the new act we have brought in and with all of the improvements we are

making to that system, we are looking out in a big way for our neglected

children. We are trying to prevent this from happening. The minute something

does happen, we are there as a government with this new department to move. We

have learned from our lessons of the past.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the way that we treat our adults, our

seniors, and our elders, there is one really particular moment that comes to my

mind. I see my colleague, the Minister of Labrador Affairs there, but I remember

this so clearly during the announcement of the Muskrat Falls deal. Former

Premier Williams was there and his mother was seated in the front row. The Innu

people, their elders were with them as a sign not only of respect but of the

sage advice that they provide. I can remember, Mr. Speaker, sitting a few rows

over and I watched the Innu elders come in. I could not figure out where they

were going. They were not going toward the stage where the Grand Chief and the

Chief of Sheshatshiu were going. They were diverging off. Where they were going,

Mr. Speaker, was to pay their respect to Premier Williams' mother. She was

sitting in the front row. Each one of those elders, each one of those Innu came

in and said hello to that woman as a sign of respect.

I think the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister of Labrador

Affairs will tell you that that is something that is cultural within these

Aboriginal societies. It does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that the issues that we are

talking about here today cannot happen, because we know they do, but sometimes

it is so important that not only do we look to protecting our children but we

always have to protect that other vulnerable segment of our society, those who

are being abused, as outlined in this

section of the act.

Mr. Speaker, again, I talked about the Blue Book and our commitment to

improve legislation and policies and programs that eradicate elder abuse. Again,

that would be an ideal world; but, because something may be ideal, it does not

mean that we are not going to strive to pursue that ideal. It means that we must

be realistic and pragmatic as we try to achieve that goal, as we move toward the

implementation of a very good piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this new act also aligns with the objectives of the provincial,

of the new as we are developing our long-term care and community support

services strategy. As we look at ensuring that although we want people to, if

they want to, age closer to home, we also have to keep an eye on what is

happening in the home. The proposed act, Mr. Speaker, is also consistent with

the Provincial Healthy Aging Policy Framework and the Violence Prevention

Initiative.

Again, as a society, we have to balance the need to protect our vulnerable.

Whether they are children, those who suffer from various types of disabilities,

or as we are talking about here today in terms of vulnerable adults, we have to

balance that with the individual's right to make his or her own decision. That

is what makes this piece of legislation. What we have tried to do is to ensure

or to achieve that balance, but that is what makes it difficult. Mr. Speaker,

what we have tried to do with this act is to strike a balance between protecting

and supporting an individual, while, where possible, respecting the right to

make his or her own decisions.

It is proposed, Mr. Speaker, under the new act, that a person be presumed to

have capacities to make decisions about their own personal health care, legal

and financial affairs, business or assets, unless proven otherwise. Now, Mr.

Speaker, this is where it can start to get really tricky and this is why we have

to ensure that the people who are responsible for the implementation of this

act, for the protection of these vulnerable adults, understand what is at stake.

Mr. Speaker,

section 5 of the act says, "An adult in need of protective

intervention means an adult who lacks capacity and who (

a) is incapable of

caring for himself or herself, or who refuses, delays or is unable to make

provision for adequate care and attention for himself or herself; or (

b) is

abused or neglected." Now, Mr. Speaker, (

b) maybe an easier one in terms of

abused or neglected because that is a language that we understand. If someone is

abused or if someone is neglected, you can tell that maybe by the way they are

living; or, if you have an adult who is on your road and he or she has not come

out of the house for two weeks or you have reason to believe, well, they are not

eating properly or they are not looking after themselves or they have no

visitors, then that one may be easier to bring within the parameters of this

act; but, who is incapable of caring for himself or herself; how do we determine

that? How do you determine if a person is incapable of caring for himself or

herself? Because a person lives by himself or herself or because a person may

shun the social interaction that most of us deem to be normal and acceptable

does not mean that the person is incapable of caring for himself or herself.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, as we move through this act, you will see there are

people with certain professional occupations or vocations who will be trained,

and who are trained, to make these determinations. Mr. Speaker, how do you

determine? How do you get in there? That is something we will come to in a

second: How do you make that determination?

What

section 6 says, Mr. Speaker, and

section 6 balances the principles of

this act, "An adult is presumed to have the capacity to make decisions unless

the contrary is proven." Now, that line, when I was practising law, would have

been good for an hour's commentary. Because in there you have a presumption to

have the capacity - capacity has a particular meaning in law, it is used in a

lot of statutes - unless the contrary is proven. So, we start out, this is a

provincial piece of legislation which means that basically the Province is

saying this is how we are going to, for lack of a better term, regulate. These

are the rules we are going to set out.

It is not like the Criminal Code of Canada, Mr. Speaker, which is federal

legislation and which deals with criminal law. The one presumption most of us in

Canadian society would be familiar with is the presumption of innocence. Mr.

Speaker, there are reverse onuses; there are all kinds of onuses in our law.

In this particular act, what we are saying to a court or to a person reading

this is that this person is presumed to have the capacity. That is the starting

point, Mr. Speaker. If we are going to interfere with the liberties, if we are

going to interfere with the choice of an individual, then it has to be a

starting point that this person can make his own choices and that they have the

capacity, the wherewithal.

Capacity again, I do not mean to digress but I can remember, Mr. Speaker, a

long time ago when I first dealt with this issue as a lawyer in a big way, I

think it would have been in approximately 1991. What did the word capacity mean

in law? Mr. Speaker, the number of decisions written by the Supreme Court of

Canada again, this is in the criminal context on capacity was overwhelming.

When you are speaking to a jury as a lawyer, you are talking about capacity. We

have to reduce this to simpler terms so people can understand. You have the

capacity to make decisions. That means you can make decisions. If you are living

by yourself or with other people, then as a Province we presume that you can

make these decisions, unless, and again, Mr. Speaker, the contrary is proven.

How do you prove the contrary? It starts out with if we are going to as a

Province interfere with your liberties or choice, then we have to have evidence

of some sort. Now, the type of evidence required for a provincial statute can be

different than the type of evidence required, Mr. Speaker, for a Criminal Code

offence. How do we determine when a person lacks the capacity? I think this is

one of the crucial aspects of this act, Mr. Speaker, is understanding what we

intend, as the Legislature, for people to have their rights and choices

interfered with. "

(2) An adult shall be considered to lack the capacity"

Maybe I do miss my days as a lawyer a little bit more than I thought, Mr.

Speaker, but you see, an adult shall, the mandatory shall is being used as

opposed to the permissive may. "shall be considered to lack the capacity to

make a decision where that adult" Okay, let's now look at, how do you lack

capacity? "(

a) is unable to understand information relevant to the decision

where that decision concerns his or her health care" If someone needs to see a

doctor and they will not go, or they do not think they need to go. It could be a

physical disability or it could be a mental illness. "concerns his or her

health care, physical, emotional, psychological, financial, legal, residential

or social needs". Well, that is a pretty broad definition, Mr. Speaker, which

essentially encompasses all that we engage in on a daily basis.

In other words, if you cannot look after yourself to the point that it is

affecting your health, it is affecting your physical health or your mental

health, well, then you lack the capacity. Because you are unable to understand

that the way you are dealing with things in life, with your own life, is not in

your own best interest. Again, that is potentially very tricky, Mr. Speaker, but

what we have to do in law when you are interpreting

an act is apply common sense

and apply what is called the (inaudible). What is it we are trying to do here as

a Legislature? We are trying to protect people who need help.

Mr. Speaker, now we get into 6.(2)(b) "is unable to appreciate the reasonably

foreseeable consequences of a decision or the lack of a decision." Now, Mr.

Speaker, when you get into reasonably foreseeable consequences, I am going to

try to break that down into very simple language. You are unable to appreciate

the reasonably foreseeable consequences. In other words, as a result of your

situation, whether it be your physical health which is oftentimes combined,

Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, with our mental health that by not doing

something, then that can indicate you lack the capacity. Because you cannot see

as an individual that if I do not do this it is going to affect me.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the most obvious example I can use is that of going to a

doctor. An individual again, if I use an example, has a broken limb, although

the person is in pain, for some reason or whatever reason does not wish to go to

a doctor. Well, Mr. Speaker, the average person, the normal person, is going to

say: You do not understand here. You are really not able to comprehend the

seriousness of this situation. If you do not get this done, you could die.

Now, that is an extreme example, Mr. Speaker, but it is one that I would

suggest to you - you are unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable.

Reasonably foreseeable means something that again, this is my

interpretation

of this, Mr. Speaker you or I, in making the decisions that affect our daily

lives can look to something and say: Well, if I am sick and I do not see a

doctor, well, I could get sicker. That is, again, very simplistic; but, what I

am trying to do is show that this act is meant to protect those who, as simple

as it sounds, may not be able to get that most basic point.

Mr. Speaker, now it gets even more complicated though when you come to

subsection 6.(3) "Where an adult is determined to lack the capacity for

decision-making referred to in subsection (2) in one particular context, he or

she shall not be presumed to lack the capacity for decision-making in those

other contexts" Mr. Speaker, because a person may lack the capability to

understand the reasonably foreseeable consequences, or if they do not understand

information related to his or her physical health, it does not mean that he or

she cannot look after their financial circumstances. Again, I would think if we

are at the stage where

section 6.(2) is reached, then

section 6.(3) may not be

necessary, but it is in there, Mr. Speaker.

Section 6.(4), "An adult's method of communicating with others is not grounds

for deciding that he or she is incapable of making decisions." Some people

communicate differently than others, Mr. Speaker. Some people, perhaps, do not

communicate at all. Some people do not talk a lot. Some people may not have a

first language. So you cannot determine that a person is incapable of looking

after himself or herself, or rebutting that presumption of capacity simply

because we do not like what they say or they cannot make themselves as clear to

us as they would want to. Mr. Speaker, again, that is an important point there,

is that you have to look at a contextual analysis here. Do not look at the way

he or she speaks or communicates as simply being the guiding decision, or

guiding your decision whether or not he or she lacks the capacity.

Again, I come back to under

section 6 and

section 5, the philosophical core

of the act, or the purpose and intent of the act, the spirit of the act, Mr.

Speaker, is that adults have the right to live as they see fit as long as they

have decision-making capacity.

Mr. Speaker, then we get into, in any act like this where there is a

possibility of impinging upon a person's rights or interfering with a person's

rights the rules of natural justice, at a minimum, have to be complied with. In

section 7, Mr. Speaker, what we see here is,

section 7 deals with the right to

be heard. We can see, get into courts or other persons as we move through this,

that an adult has the right to be heard either on his or her own behalf or

through a spokesperson. Mr. Speaker, this is a recognition of one of the

principles of natural justice that if you are going to have your rights taken

away then you have a right to be heard. I think it is the audi alteram partem

rule in terms of appearing and saying this is what I want. Now, Mr. Speaker, if

that person, because again there will be a continuum here or there could be a

continuum, maybe there will be extreme cases whereby it will be fairly obvious,

but there may be other cases as recognized in that capacity in one aspect of

your life but not in another that it may not be as clear cut.

Mr. Speaker, I am for whatever reason as an individual may not feel

comfortable in speaking for myself. I may not feel I have the education

required. I may not feel I have the confidence or the knowledge required,

especially if I am the individual who is subject to the application. Very

importantly, Mr. Speaker, it says, "or through a spokesperson." Now a

spokesperson, the way I read this, does not have to be a lawyer. A spokesperson

could be someone you trust. It could be your next door neighbour, it could be

your son, your cousin but you have that right to be represented and that is so

important, Mr. Speaker.

We come to the service principles outlined in

section 8, that, "The following

principles apply to the delivery of programs and service under this act". Again,

Mr. Speaker, in 8.(a) "an adult is entitled to live in the manner he or she

wishes as long as that adult (

i) has the capacity to make decisions respecting

his or her lifestyle, and (ii) does not harm himself, herself or others". Now,

Mr. Speaker, one of the basic principles of our society, of Canadian society, of

democratic society, is that an adult is entitled to live in the manner he or she

wishes.

Mr. Speaker, that is the crux of freedom. What is freedom? It is the ability

to choose for myself, as long as I am complying with laws, how I want to live.

Mr. Speaker, I can remember, again hearkening back to my days as a criminal

lawyer, oftentimes we are very critical of the system, Mr. Speaker, very

critical of the criminal justice system, always seeming to be attacking the

system, attacking the police, attacking the rules but, Mr. Speaker, underlying

that always was the belief that although the system maybe flawed it is the best

one there is. Mr. Speaker, that is oftentimes what we can forget in our society.

The same I suppose, Mr. Speaker, could be said of democracy in many ways.

What alternative is there? Do we see what is going on in the rest of the world?

We see what is happening in Egypt and Libya as they fight for democracy, Mr.

Speaker. In order for us to protect that democracy and freedom, we have to

ensure this basic principle.

Now it goes on to state, "(

i) has the capacity to make decisions respecting

his or her lifestyle (ii) does not harm himself, herself or others". Mr.

Speaker, that is the basic principle here. You can live as you see fit. If you

wish to live, Mr. Speaker, in a cabin or in a tent on the top of a mountain, you

can live there. As long as you have the capacity, you understand what it is you

are doing, you are able to look after yourself, and you are not interfering with

others, it is not for us as a society, Mr. Speaker, to say you cannot live on

the top of that mountain. Once you reach the point where you are living on the

top of that mountain now how we are going to find out, Mr. Speaker, I will

come to in a second. If you are living at the top of that mountain and you

cannot look after yourself, then as a society this act says well, we have an

obligation to intervene. We can only intervene, Mr. Speaker, if certain criteria

are met.

Mr. Speaker,

section 8.(b)-8.(

f) deals again with services.

Section 9 deals

with the appointment of directors, and

section 10 then deals with the provincial

director.

Mr. Speaker,

section 12 gets now into the reporting required. This is an

interesting

section because it is something that I thought would have existed in

common law. When I talk about common law, Mr. Speaker, I am simply talking about

those rules that exist that are not codified or legislated as opposed to those

which are. "12.

(1) A person who reasonably believes", again that word

reasonable, the belief has to be reasonable, Mr. Speaker. You can believe

anything but this act and in many pieces of legislation the word reasonable

because the word reasonable, Mr. Speaker implies that all of us or the average

person who is informed, who has a view of the full circumstances as opposed to a

particular or inherent bias that he or she may possess, we try to restrict the

act, to reasonably believes.

Any of us in this House or anyone watching this today, Mr. Speaker, is that a

reasonable belief? Is what is being said here, does that make sense? The use of

the modifier, reasonable, "that an adult may be an adult in need of protective

intervention shall" so you have the word, may and you have the word, shall

"give that information, together with the name and address of the adult, if

known, to the provincial director, a director, a social worker or a peace

officer."

Mr. Speaker, this is similar to the child abuse rules and regulations. Again,

anyone who was in possession of information that a child was being physically or

sexually abused had the obligation to report. Well, this is, Mr. Speaker, again,

a codification of this obligation, but now we are dealing with adults in need of

protection. So what happens is there is an obligation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you may think, or the average person may think, sure, we

would all do that, we would all come forward. No, Mr. Speaker, people, again

when I go back to my days people do not want to get involved, oftentimes, with

the authorities, with the police, with the law. People want to mind their own

business. Well, Mr. Speaker, there comes a point when there is a higher societal

goal or need, and this is one of them, where there is now a legislative, a

mandatory reporting condition placed upon all people in our society to report if

you have this information. Now, we cannot force people, Mr. Speaker, but what we

are saying, as a society, or as a legislature, is that this is so important that

anyone who is in possession of this type of information must report it.

Mr. Speaker, I will jump ahead to, you will see

section 13 deals with the

director completing an evaluation.

Section 14.(1), "Where an evaluation has been

completed and a director believes, on reasonable grounds, that the adult is an

adult in need of protective intervention, the director shall direct that an

investigation be completed."

So, Mr. Speaker, we are not simply jumping here now. First, there is

information that comes in. The director looks at this. He or she believes, on

reasonable grounds, again, Mr. Speaker, reasonable grounds to believe that

something is happening. So, I am perhaps making that a lot simpler than it is in

law, but I think in the context of what we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker,

reasonable grounds would have to be and you will see in a second the types of

evidence that may be considered.

So, we are going to do an investigation, Mr. Speaker. Now, this is where, as

I referred to earlier, it becomes important, because

section 15 says, "A person

who acts as an investigator shall be a social worker or another person or class

of persons designated by the minister in the regulations." Again, this is a

recognition, Mr. Speaker, in our society, that certain people perform certain

functions. That social workers are one example of one group who can go in and

conduct the type of analysis required, who can look at the individual and can

have that discussion required, because that is what they do, Mr. Speaker, on a

daily basis; that is what they are trained to do.

Mr. Speaker,

section 16 outlines an investigation. Now, when we get to

section 17 and

section 18, Mr. Speaker, again it gets to be complicated because

now we are dealing with warrants and telewarrants. Just let me put it this way,

Mr. Speaker, in a hypothetical situation, you have an individual, an adult may

be in need of protective intervention, may be in need of protection. A citizen,

it could be the next-door neighbour, it could be a son or daughter, or it could

be anyone who says: Well, look, here is the information. The director takes that

information and says: Okay, I am going to look at this. Then, they carry out an

investigation, but that person is in their home. How do you get in there? If you

knock on the door, there is no obligation on that person, that I am aware of, to

say: Come on into my home. You are going to take me away, so come on in. You are

going to do an investigation on me. Yes, come in and have a chat.

That person, Mr. Speaker, again if we are dealing with the issue of capacity,

may simply say: Go away; there is nothing wrong with me. I like the way I live.

It is not for you to impose your beliefs upon how I should live. So, what do you

do? As a social worker, unless in criminal law, there has to be an offence being

committed or is about to be committed. So, there has to be a way to get at that

person or get into that house of the individual who may need help. Mr. Speaker,

section 17, "where the judge is satisfied on evidence under oath that there are

reasonable grounds to believe that entry on the lands or premises is necessary

to assess the person who is the subject of the investigation"

Again, to protect the rights of the individual you go before a judge, again

these are similar grounds, Mr. Speaker, whether it be in criminal or provincial

legislation, to believe that entry is necessary so that there is authorization.

Mr. Speaker, I forget how far it goes back. I do not know but it is the Magna

Carta about a person's home is his castle. That principle has been respected

throughout the ages, Mr. Speaker, and that is why the warrant requirement is so

important. We have a situation where the judge is satisfied. The judge can

receive such evidence as he or she deems necessary and can make a decision for

themselves.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what about you get to the point where it is impractical to

get a warrant. I do not know if this is the situation in provincial court but,

say, for example, we have a judge in Corner Brook who is on duty for the weekend

or it is 3:00 o'clock in the morning or whatever, you do not have the time to go

before that judge and you have a situation in Carbonear, what do you do? The

telewarrant, which is a common warrant in today's age, can be utilized. "Where,

in the opinion of a director or investigator it would not be practical to appear

in person before a judge to apply for a warrant, the director or investigator

may make the application by telephone..." Again, the same principles would apply

reasonable grounds to believe.

Mr. Speaker, now we get to

section 20, what happens after an investigation;

section 21, an application for declaration. Under

section 21, "

(1) Where the

provincial director receives a reportthat an adult is believed by a director to

be an adult in need of protective intervention, the provincial director may

apply to the court for a declaration"

Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to outline here are the procedural steps that

highlight the significance, or our understanding of the significance of

protecting the rights of that individual but also ensuring that the individual

who may need protection is protected. There is also, I would suggest to you, a

higher societal goal in ensuring that our vulnerable, whether they be children

or adults, are also protected. There are times when the individual because of

the vulnerability, the disability or the circumstances in which he or she finds

himself or herself, may not understand the full implications and may not be

co-operative. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in many cases may not be co-operative, I

would suggest to you.

Then you have a hearing, there is a notice of time and place, Mr. Speaker.

Subsection (10), "has a right to be heard, directly or indirectly, in all

proceedings" Then, Mr. Speaker,

section 22 outlines what a court can do under

section 21. If the person is "in need of protective intervention, the judge may

so declare and may, where it appears to him or hermake an order" Then, Mr.

Speaker, the types of orders include being removed to the home of some suitable

person and committed to the care and custody of that person.

For example, Mr. Speaker, you may have a family member who said; I did not

know this was going on with my cousin, my friend. I am willing to take him or

her in; I am willing to try to help out here. There could be a lesser level of

intervention required, Mr. Speaker, on that continuum that I talked about

earlier. The person can also continue to live independently subject to

supervision by a director. That would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, to be the least

onerous, other than dismissing of course of the application outright, would be

"continue to live independently subject to supervision by a director. Mr.

Speaker, "(ii) remain where the adult is living in the care and custody of the

person in whose care he or she may be, subject to supervision by a director".

Again, be removed to the home or be committed to the care of the provincial

director, which is subsection (iv), Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one other piece of this legislation which I want to touch on,

which again is necessary, but we have to approach it with caution. I am sure it

will be approached with caution by those who are responsible for the

implementation of this act. That is

section 22, Mr. Speaker. Now we are dealing

with emergency intervention because there are always going to be situations

where time may be of the essence, Mr. Speaker, where there may not be that time

to sit back and reflect and do investigations prior to making that initial step.

There can be situations where a person may, as a result of the progressive

nature of the situation, require immediate intervention.

That is where

section 23 comes in, "

(1) Where a director or social worker

believes (

a) that an adult is in need of protective intervention; and (

b) a less

intrusive course of action that would adequately protect the adult is not

available, the director or social worker shall file an application with the

court for a warrant to remove that adult."

So, Mr. Speaker, this would be emergency intervention. The application can be

done in person, a judge may issue a warrant, or it may be done by

telecommunications. There can be emergency intervention for financial affairs.

Section 26 of act says that a proceeding under this act is civil in nature.

Again, Mr. Speaker, consistent with what I am talking about today, this is an

act that is brought in by the Province to allow for the protection of a

vulnerable segment of our population. So, we are not infringing in any way on

the constitutional aspects of the case. In other words,

section 21 of the

constitution act where the federal heads of power versus

section 92, which deals

with the provincial heads of power.

Mr. Speaker, "(

b) may be as informal as a judge may allow" and that is so

important, Mr. Speaker. What the judge has to do in a trial, whether it is

criminal, it could be

summary conviction, it could be a quasi-criminal trial, or

it could be regulatory, certain rules apply. He or she may want to get to the

bottom of it. The person may not be as articulate as a lawyer perhaps might be,

although many people are much more articulate than the lawyers that represent

them. The judge may say: Well, what do you think of all this, sir? What do you

think we should do? Is it true what is being said here? In other words, there

could be interaction, Mr. Speaker, that would be more informal than is normal in

a courtroom.

Mr. Speaker, "(

c) shall be held in private, unless otherwise ordered by the

judge." Why shouldn't it be held in private? The basic principle, Mr. Speaker,

of our court system in criminal and civil proceedings is that it should be held

in public. That way we do not have the Star Chamber, we do not have

inquisitions. We have the public and the media in criminal law that can

scrutinize what is going on, Mr. Speaker. Very seldom you have, for example, the

voir dire or the hearing on the admissibility of evidence that there could be a

restriction on the publication of evidence until after the trial is completed.

You will have a ban on identity, Mr. Speaker, which can be to protect,

especially children or women in criminal cases.

The basic principle, Mr. Speaker, is that proceedings should take place in

open court; not this case, Mr. Speaker. Because that is what we are saying here,

this is a sensitive area here. What we are dealing with are individuals who may

co-operate, they may not. Mr. Speaker, the judge and everyone involved in this

proceeding has to be cognizant of the conflict, or potential conflict here

between the rights of the individual and what we are dealing with in this act.

Mr. Speaker,

section 26.(2) deals with the proceedings under the act, the

types of evidence, "(

a) the evidence, including hearsay, that the judge

considers relevant and reliable..." Mr. Speaker, again, hearsay in a criminal

context is usually inadmissible, although there are certain circumstances where

it can be admissible. In this particular case the informal nature of the

proceedings indicate that you have to be careful with hearsay, Mr. Speaker,

because hearsay: he told me that she said. There is no way to test, or often no

way to test the reliability of that. Mr. Speaker, hearsay is something that goes

to the truth. In this particular case, what the judge is trying to find out is:

How can he or she best accommodate the balancing of the rights of the individual

and the rights of society?

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to what I stated earlier, that the basic

principle of this act is that there are certain adults in our society who will

require protection or intervention; back to the basic principle that an

individual is presumed to have the capacity to make his or her decisions. Mr.

Speaker, we go to the panoply of procedural rights, which are outlined in the

act. We get to the point of the investigation, the requirements for a warrant.

What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is to protect the rights of the

individual but allow for a decision to be made if that individual requires

protection.

There will also have to be regulations here, Mr. Speaker, which will allow,

and a policy manual, which will be developed, that explains how the act shall be

applied in particular situations. The policy manual will contain the bulk of the

details around

definitions, procedures, and reporting requirements. The act will

set out the provincial and regional accountabilities, including a ministerial

review of the legislation after five years. There are penalties in the act which

go from a fine of up to $10,000. The current act, for example, Mr. Speaker, has

a fine of up to $200.

Section 28 of the act deals with providing for mandatory regulate reviews of

the situation and services provided to an adult declared to be in need of

protective intervention. We do not simply want an individual who at this point

in his or her life may require that intervention - we cannot assume it will

always remain like that and that this person will require intervention forever.

There is a provision or a mechanism for review where - particularly if the

individual suffers from an illness, be it a physical or mental illness which

can, if not be cured, then certainly can be modified over time. So this will

allow for a review, Mr. Speaker, again, highlighting the seriousness of the

individual rights.

Mr. Speaker, in coming to a conclusion as to what should be contained in this

act, the provincial government, our government, as I indicated earlier, held a

series of consultations. In the last few minutes I have here, Mr. Speaker, I am

going to talk a little bit about what we heard from the stakeholder

consultations. Because, contrary to what was suggested earlier today during

Question Period in the House of Assembly, it is important that we hear from

people who have a particular interest in this type of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I can state that generally, there was overwhelming support for

replacing the current Neglected Adults Welfare Act and for the policy direction

of the new legislation. Many stakeholders, I am told, noted that prescriptive

policies and procedures for implementation will be an important component of the

act's success. Again, there were a lot of people who wanted to participate, Mr.

Speaker, and it was also felt that education and public awareness will be

instrumental.

Now, I guess that means, Mr. Speaker, if there is going to be public

awareness, we have to spend money. If we are going to make people aware of

rights, well, that is part of what we have to do to ensure that people

understand the seriousness of a piece of legislation like this. Again, harkening

back to Question Period, if you bring in a piece of legislation people have to

understand the obligations imposed upon them, and there will be education

required. All I have tried to do in the last few minutes is outline the

procedural complexities of this act and, again, the overriding principles which

must guide anyone in interpreting the act.

Mr. Speaker, the inclusion of abuse within the act was generally endorsed and

supported. To ensure that it is understood, and this is important, Mr. Speaker,

the act applies to a narrow group of people, adults in need of protective

intervention. We changed a number of the changes to abuse and adult in need of

protective intervention. Also, as I tried to say earlier today, there can be - I

pointed out, when you are talking about abuse, you could have an assault. Well,

an assault is something that will be dealt with under the Criminal Code.

Although, I suppose it could be a component of an application under this nature.

This act is not allowing for charges to be laid, it is allowing for abuse to be

considered in determining whether or not the adult is in need of protection.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, there was a lot of discussion in these

consultation sessions on the concept of capacity and their right to be heard.

There are all kinds of views expressed and I think a little later on, I am not

sure if it is in session, the Minister of Justice, I am sure at some point, will

be talking about the issue of capacity. Capacity, Mr. Speaker, you just cannot

simply use an assessment tool. There has to be a certain subjective

interpretation but there will always be objective facts that one can look to and

put it all together in making a determination.

Mr. Speaker, the service principles were endorsed and stakeholders have

repeatedly emphasized that the legislation and policies must be client-centred

and that the best interest of the adult, from the adult's own perspective, is

the most important consideration. Again, Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated on a

number of occasions, the adult, if he or she does not lack capacity, may feel to

be in his or her own best interest may not be the case. Again, that is a

complicated area. Overall, Mr. Speaker, there was very strong support for the

mandatory reporting and for the good faith clause which protects members of the

public and employees from reprisal.

There were discussions on the investigative power and the emergency

intervention. Mr. Speaker, I can say that the emergency intervention provisions

under the new act were also supported, as stakeholders felt they provided

professionals with the legislative authority they need to intervene where adults

are believed to be at risk.

Mr. Speaker, those would be my comments today in relation to what I consider

to be a very important piece of legislation, again, a continuation of this

government's approach to protecting those most vulnerable of our society whether

they be children or adults.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

I am very pleased to stand and speak to Bill 1,

An Act Respecting The

Protection Of Adults. I thank the minister for the excellent presentation that

he has made of the bill, taking the time to go through some of the more

important sections in terms of clarifying and making sure that we understand

what is in the bill. I also want to thank his officials for the briefing that

they gave to our staff on, actually, Friday afternoon, and also for their

availability over the last two days to answer questions that we had as we

continued to look at this act.

It certainly is

an act that is extremely important and one that has been

looked forward to by many people. I think that the importance of the act and the

fact that many people were looking for it is evidenced by the extensive

consultations that did take place I am glad to see that they did and the

numbers of organizations that turned out around the Province to speak to the

issues. I think that it is a discussion that has been going on for a long time

and the need to come up with a more modern piece of legislation; this is

replacing a piece of legislation that was called the Neglected Adults Welfare

Act. The Neglected Adults Welfare Act, the very tone of that name implies less

than what this act is dealing with because the neglected adults protection, that

notion of people just being neglected can have much less meaning than the notion

of people who are being abused, that there is active abuse against people. That

is not the only reason for this act but abuse is one of the reasons for the act.

The fact that this act with self-neglect - not just neglect by others, because

there is a self-neglect that can go on with people. The reasons for that can be

multiple.

This act is much more modern in its approach and it is very human rights

oriented. I know that people concerned about human rights have been for a long

time looking for a much more modern piece of legislation when it comes to the

protection of adults.

Now the act, of course, defines adults very carefully. Just to remind us,

""adult" means a person who is not a child or youth within the meaning of the

Child, Youth and Family Services Act". The minister, in the beginning of his

comments, paid a lot of attention to the abuse of elders and did a lot of

talking about elders. While that is a very serious issue and it is a growing

issue in our society, this act is not just dealing with elders. Somebody being

neglected can relate to an adult who is not a senior citizen. Somebody who is

self-neglecting can be somebody who is not a senior citizen. Somebody who is

being abused can be somebody who is not a senior citizen. So the act covers all

adults who would fall under the act.

Elder abuse itself, as the minister said, however, is a very serious issue

and is a growing issue in our society. It is very difficult to get local

statistics on the extent of elder abuse in Newfoundland and Labrador because of

the fact that it is not easily reported. It happens very often in people's

homes, and the very people who are being abused, the very elders who are being

abused, very often do not have the resources and the ability, and are very often

terrified and therefore do not report the abuse.

However, the Seniors Resource Centre here in St. John's, which does have a

provincial aspect to its work. They have unofficial numbers, and they put the

percentage of elders who experience some form of abuse at 4 per cent to 6 per

cent of the population. That is scary when we think about that. Now, the abuse

we are looking at of course is everything from physical through to mental and

psychological.

There is a series of ads. I am sure that others have seen them on television.

I was trying to remember who actually does these ads. I think it is an arm of

the federal government. They are about abuse of elders. Those ads include

everything from seeing an elder being taken, grabbed and shaken by somebody who

looks like it is probably the senior person's child, through to a senior citizen

having a son take her wallet, and just take the money out of the wallet and go

off using the money of the senior citizen. Abuse of elders, abuse of seniors has

many, many facets to it. Certainly, the Seniors Resource Centre has been

lobbying government for a long time with regard to educating people about elder

abuse. It is a serious issue.

The abuse that is characterized in the piece of legislation is physical,

financial, psychological, sexual or neglect. These are the aspects of abuse and

neglect that can be experienced by elders in our society.

It is right for the minister to have spent as much time as he did on talking

about seniors, but it is also important to point out and he did say it but I

would like to point out even more strongly that this act covers all adults who

are not defined as child or youth, or children and youth unde