March 20, 2012                        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLVII No. 10


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today I would like to welcome to our galleries the members of the Special Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador who recently competed in the Winter –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: These members just recently competed in the Winter Games in Alberta. Congratulations on a great showing and welcome to our House today.

Also today we are joined by the Mayor of St. Lawrence, Mr. Wade Rowsell; Deputy Mayor, Paul Pike; and Councillor, Pat Brake. Again, welcome to our House of Assembly this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements from the following districts: the Member for the District of Kilbride; the Member for the District of Torngat Mountains; the Member for the District of Bonavista South; the Member for the District of Humber West; the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor – Green Bay South and the Member for the District of Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.

The hon. the Member for District of Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to recognize an outstanding young man in my district, Daniel Noftall. Daniel was hired four years ago as an instructor with the Waterford Valley Summer Sports Program and has worked every summer since, most recently as supervisor.

From the start, Daniel displayed great leadership qualities and quickly became the go-to guy when something had to be done. His organizational skills and ability to communicate his superior knowledge of the game of softball gave a great boost to the whole Waterford Valley Association. Kids and parents really like Daniel, and the Association president, Paul Healy, says he is the best supervisor that he has seen in ten years as president.

Daniel played fast pitch softball from the ages of eight to eighteen, and is recognized as a talented player who has represented the Province in numerous Eastern Canadian and national championships.

Daniel graduated from Bishops College in 2010 with an 87 per cent average. Currently, Daniel is attending Memorial University, majoring in athletic psychology. His marks are at the top of his class.

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

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the efforts of the Ground Search and Rescue team in Makkovik, Nunatsiavut.

Those efforts were evident, Mr. Speaker, during the search for Burton Winters. I feel proud to be a member of this group of men and women who went beyond the call of duty in their efforts to bring young Burton home to his family.

I saw incidents during the search where members put their own lives in jeopardy. I witnessed members cutting footholds in ice cliffs to descend to inaccessible areas. I saw members falling through the ice in the cold Labrador Sea trying to reach areas where Burton could have been and not even going home to change.

I witnessed members suffering from frostbite in minus thirty-five degree temperatures, but did not turn back.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the commitment of the Ground Search and Rescue team in Postville. Their contribution to the search was greatly appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members in this hon. House to join me in thanking the Ground Search and Rescue team of Makkovik for the valuable service they provide to the community, and especially during the search for young Burton.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LITTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Honourable colleagues, I rise in this House today to congratulate Mr. Charles Fry and Mrs. Pearl Fry on reaching quite a significant wedding anniversary. On December 15, 2011, Mr. and Mrs. Fry celebrated their sixty-fifth wedding anniversary.

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

At the age of seventeen, Mr. Fry served in the 166 Newfoundland Field Regiment Royal Artillery during the Second World War.

In 1956, Mr. Fry became the founding president of the Royal Canadian Legion, Bonavista South, Branch 37. Over the years he earned numerous ribbons and medals that include Past District Commander, Past President, Past Chaplin, Treasurer, Service Officer, 50 Year Medal, the Diamond Jubilee Medal, the Meritorious Life Member Medal, the Italian Star, the Defense Medal, the Newfoundland Volunteer Medal, and the 1939-45 Medal, the Commemorative Medal, and the Golden Jubilee Medal. Charlie is very proud of his service in the Royal Canadian Legion and is currently an honorary member.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of this House to join me in paying tribute to such an honorary member of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Charles Fry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRANTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to congratulate an exhibit of great community collaboration and effort in the City of Corner Brook.

Curlers were able to take to the sheets of a state-of-the-art curling facility during the fall of 2011 after a two-year hiatus.

On Saturday, January 21, 2012, the community was invited to attend the opening ceremonies of this fabulous facility. The day started with a fun spiel with local curlers of all ages participating, and ended with official ceremonies and celebration.

I extend congratulations to two individuals who believed in this project and spent tireless hours to see the project through. George Spracklin and Carl Loughlin gave and continue to give many hours to this sport and this project.

George and Carl believe that this facility was important as a community builder, and it was through their time, effort and dedication that the area now has a wonderful sporting addition. Since opening in the fall of 2011, there has been steady curling activity at the rink each and every day of the week.

To George and Carl and the entire Corner Brook Curling Club, I would ask all hon. members to congratulate and wish many years of curling and community success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Lifesaving Society of Newfoundland and Labrador has created the Tina Moores Memorial Cup for Lifeguard of the Year.

This award has been established in memory of Tina Moores, who lost her life trying to save the life of a young child in 2009.

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

Tina's family have received many awards of bravery since her death in 2009, including the Medal of Bravery from the Governor General and the Carnegie Heroism Medal which is presented throughout North America to those who risk their lives while trying to or saving the lives of others.

I ask my hon. colleagues to join with me in remembering Tina and congratulating The Lifesaving Society on their new award for lifesaving excellence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to congratulate the St. Mary's All Grade girl's basketball team on recently winning the Single A High School Provincial Basketball Championships, as well as being named the most sportsmanlike team.

Mr. Speaker, the provincials were held in McKay's this past weekend where six top high school teams from the Single A School Division participated to determine the champions. I am proud to say that the St. Mary's Wolves were repeat champions taking on the host team – and as one of the girls on the Mary's Harbour team said: It's a great day to be a Wolf.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the team from E.A. Butler All Grade School on winning the silver medal and to recognize their outstanding job as the host school.

I would also like to recognize Irene Simms on being awarded the Most Sportsmanlike Player. The other players from her team, I congratulate them. They were Stephanie Sooley, Tamara Pye, Alexandra Pye, Sarah Lee Campbell, Leslie Rumbolt, Cassandra Rumbolt, Hilary Roberts, Jenna Rumbolt, and their coach Todd Farrell.

I ask members of the House to join me in congratulating the St. Mary's All Grade girl's team from Mary's Harbour, as well as all the high school girls who took part in this provincial event, and to commend their coaches and volunteers who continue to make high school sports a great event in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to rise in this hon. House today to highlight the recent success of Team Newfoundland and Labrador at the 2012 Special Olympics Canada Winter Games held in St. Albert, Alberta.

The team of twenty-seven athletes and fourteen volunteers won a total of twenty medals at the games. This is a wonderful accomplishment and a testament to the efforts of everyone involved.

Participation in these games and other activities would not be possible without the dedication and combined efforts of the athletes, families, coaches, volunteers, staff, and board members of Special Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador. I commend all who have played a part in the team's success.

The Premier was honoured to attend the ceremony to commission the Newfoundland and Labrador team just before they headed to Alberta to compete in the games. She was struck by the energy, passion, and enthusiasm of the athletes and their supporters. In the face of such eager dedication and commitment, we cannot help but be inspired to strive for excellence in our own lives.

Mr. Speaker, Special Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador serves 500 people with intellectual disabilities in this Province and provides them with the opportunity to engage in activities like the games.

Our government is proud to support their work, which achieves one of the key objectives of our recreation and sport strategy, Active, Healthy Newfoundland and Labrador – to increase opportunities for participation, particularly by those in underrepresented groups.

On behalf of our government and the people of our Province, I congratulate Team Newfoundland and Labrador on their achievements, and commend them for being outstanding ambassadors for our Province. I wish them continued success. I also extend very best wishes to Special Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador as they prepare to host the Special Olympics Canada Winter Games in Corner Brook in 2016!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy. I see all the medals that all of the Olympians got up there. As a former player, I wish I had that many medals around my neck, I can guarantee you that. Great job!

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great pleasure to rise on such an occasion and the team from Newfoundland and Labrador did such a great job athletically for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I had the privilege of attending several Special Olympics and the events. What inspires me more is the enthusiasm by the athletes, their spirit of co-operation, and their sportsmanship for each athlete. It is something that we all can learn from all throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, how they co-operate, win or lose, win or draw, no matter what, how they are always there for each other.

To all the parents and all the support groups and to the government who also helped out, I say congratulations because all working together we can make a much better place for the Special Olympics in Newfoundland and Labrador.

To all the athletes, thank you for being such great ambassadors for Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank you for promoting Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank you very much for, once again, showing all of us what it is like to have true sportsmanship, to show what it is like to play hard but you have to cheer for your fellow competitor. Thank you very much. I think all hon. members here are very appreciative of all the work that you have done for Newfoundland and Labrador and continue. You think you had a good time up in Alberta, wait until you get in Corner Brook in 2016 when we will have a much better game than anywhere else in Canada because of you up there.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: I, too, would like to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Congratulations to the athletes and their supporters who participated in this year's Special Olympics Winter Games. I was so proud and honoured to be at the send-off.

The games are extremely important for hundreds of people with intellectual disabilities in our Province. It is a great opportunity to improve and prove your athletic performance and to boost self-esteem and independence. Bravo to you all!

We must make sure that we are putting enough resources into the everyday lives of people with intellectual disabilities in this Province. We need to ensure that everyone has access to decent accommodation, recreation, education, and employment so that everyone can reach their potential and contribute to society.

Bravo, once again!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to remember and pay tribute to Dr. Nigel Rusted, who passed away on Sunday, March 18, 2012. Born in 1907 in Salvage, Dr. Rusted's long and distinguished career as a medical professional, pioneering surgeon, and son of Newfoundland and Labrador will long be remembered by his many patients, the medical community, and all of the people of our Province.

Dr. Rusted graduated from the inaugural class of Memorial University College in 1927 where he received his diploma in arts and sciences. He then went on to complete his medical degree at Dalhousie Medical School in Halifax and in 1933 he joined the Newfoundland Medical Association.

During the early years of his career, Dr. Rusted travelled by hospital ship and ferry to isolated coastal communities in our Province, and he was the first health officer to travel along the Coast of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, among his many other firsts, Dr. Rusted is known for being the first to perform several operations in Newfoundland and Labrador, including the partial surgical removal of the stomach, cleft lip and cleft palate repair. He went on to become renowned for his cleft lip and cleft palate surgeries, performing 560 reconstructive surgeries during his career.

Dr. Rusted has been recognized for his contributions to our Province many times and was awarded the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2007 and the Order of Canada in 2011.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Nigel Rusted, like many of the physicians who have and continue to work in our Province, dedicated himself to the act of bettering the lives of the people around him. Even after his retirement in 1987, Dr. Rusted's presence continued to be felt in the medical community as he acted as a mentor to medical students, and in 2002 he established the Dr. Nigel Rusted Trust to promote the study of the humanities in health.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to remember Dr. Rusted for the work he has done, the people he has helped, and for representing the best aspects and characteristics of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

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

Certainly, Dr. Rusted is an icon in our Province. When you think back – he was a pioneer as he travelled doing his medical practice – the things that we take for granted today were not available. All the technology that is commonly used today, none of that he had available to him. He was a highly respected surgeon and he did travel usually by hospital ship or ferries through isolated coastal communities, and indeed throughout Labrador.

I think what he will be most remembered for is his reconstructive surgery, especially in cleft lip and the cleft palate repair. For years he was the only surgeon who actually performed this surgery on the Island, so for that he deserves much credit. He also performed 9,000 surgeries during his career, and I think what struck me the most with all of this, prior to Medicare, he did over 1,500 of those for free, for people who could not afford to have them. To say that this person was always on call, I think, was an understatement; 9,000 surgeries and 1,500 for free is certainly, as I said, an understatement.

He was also a donor to Memorial University and even attended, I think, the 2011 capital campaign. He was the oldest member of the Memorial Alumni and he served on the first Board of Regents and on the Building Committee. As was mentioned, he was awarded and recognized with the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2007, and I am sure all those who are members there, he actually raises the bar for that whole group, and of course the Order of Canada in 2011.

Even though this Province will miss Dr. Rusted and all the contributions that he made, I think his memory and what he has done for the people of this Province will live on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

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

I am honoured to stand with the minister and with the Leader of the Official Opposition to mark the passing of a constituent and a respected Newfoundlander and Labradorian, Dr. Nigel Rusted. Newfoundland and Labrador has definitely lost one of its wisest and most experienced citizens; I know none of us doubt that. Dr. Rusted served his country, whether it was the country of Newfoundland or that of Canada, with distinction and it is right that he receive both the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Canada. His career serves as a model for everyone in the medical profession today and I encourage all new people entering the medical profession to study him – his energy, his enthusiasm, and above all else, the dedication that he had to the health and well-being of the people of this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Environmental groups have filed a court challenge against the federal government and Nalcor for not addressing key issues on Muskrat Falls during the environmental assessment process, things like other options. The court challenge could drag on for months.

I ask the Premier: Are you able to secure financing for the project while a court challenge is ongoing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We live in a system whereby people are certainly entitled to take their grievances to court. They are certainly entitled to have the issues heard. I am not aware of any injunction application being filed, so until such time, we will continue. An interesting comment was made yesterday or attributed yesterday to the Minister of Environment, I think it was in Halifax, where he said that the ongoing court proceedings will not affect the federal loan guarantee, so we will proceed to receive the Decision Gate 3 numbers, to look at all of the options, and to make a decision on sanction when all of the information is in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Just to clarify, lawyers for the court challenge expect the case to be heard during the summer and this is around the time frame that we mentioned this project could be brought to sanction.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have indicated, everyone has the right to present their challenges in court. That does not mean that they have a good case; that does not mean that there is substance to what is being said. Often times, the courts are used for political purposes and other purposes. What we will continue to do, Mr. Speaker, is examine all of the information. We are working with the federal government. We will continue to look at the information provided by Nalcor. We will hear what the PUB has to say. We will continue to do our work and, Mr. Speaker, we will make the decision on sanction when all that information is in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, contaminated medical waste was found on the Prince Phillip Drive right next to an elementary school. In addition, the medical waste actually had patient names identified. This is a major public safety issue. Eastern Health has confirmed that the medical waste was from one of their facilities. We understand that the Privacy Commissioner is looking into the issue.

I ask the minister: How did this happen, have patients been made aware of this breach, and what assurances can you provide that this serious safety issue will not happen again?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is clearly an unacceptable incident that has taken place. It is an isolated incident and an unfortunate incident. I think there were three questions asked; one, in terms of whether or not patients whose names might have been identified have been notified. We are – or Eastern Health is in the process of doing that; not all patients were contacted up to the point where we came here, but we were certainly trying to contact all patients.


I can certainly assure the patients, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in general, that this is an isolated incident; we are taking steps to rectify this, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In actual fact, it is unfortunately not an isolated incident. Over the last couple of years we have seen reports of employees accessing patient files; we have seen inappropriate disposing of medical equipment; we have seen a medical video that ended up on YouTube; we have heard the CEO talking about a patient in the media.

I ask the minister: These are all serious breaches of privacy. Why do they continue to occur at Eastern Health?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we were referring to the disposal of biomedical waste, and that was an isolated incident as I indicated here. We have taken several steps already this morning to ensure that this, in fact, does not happen again.

Eastern Health takes this and views this as a very, very serious incident, Mr. Speaker. We are in the process of reviewing through security cameras what exactly had happened and how those three bags of waste were inadvertently put into the wrong bin. We are doing that, Mr. Speaker.

We are conducting staff interviews to see if we can further determine why this particular incident happened. We are reviewing the waste disposal processes that Eastern Health uses, Mr. Speaker, and we are also reviewing the compactor removal procedure that is in use at Eastern Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Thursday we raised the issue of patient monitors in the House, and the minister was at the time unaware of the issue. Over 100 critical care nurses signed a petition saying they feared for the safety of their patients. Eastern Health has confirmed that over 250 occurrences have been reported in the last six months.

I ask the minister: Has patient safety been affected or comprised in any of the incidents related to these patient monitors?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we understand the incident that we are talking about here when we are talking about these patient monitoring systems. What we have here is a system that has a monitor connected to the patient that is connected to a huge – and I am not a technical expert, but if you would view it as a huge camera or a huge screen that is located in the hospital.

What happens is that the monitoring system continues to function at all times. It drops off, however, on our ambulatory patients who move around the hospital, and occasionally the linkage between that monitor and the Wi-Fi is not in sync. That is what happens there.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: We do have some obvious concerns and those monitors were at a cost of $7.3 million and Eastern Health skipped the clinical evaluation phase, which is normally a component of the purchase for this medical equipment. Nurses who use the equipment every day did not get the opportunity to identify equipment issues until the purchase was complete.

I ask the minister: Why was such a critical step skipped in such a significant purchase affecting patients all around the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are 2,600 such monitors used in some of the largest hospitals right throughout Canada. Sick Children's in Toronto is an example of one of those hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of training for nurses, our nurses here received double, if not triple, the amount of training that other nurses have received in terms of the operation of these particular patient monitors. The clinical chief of cardiology at Eastern Health is satisfied that this monitoring system is a very good system, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, despite the Outrage Newfoundland and Labrador Campaign and the Safe and Caring Schools Policy, kids are still being subjected to serious bullying tactics. Bullying is still prevalent in our schools. I understand government will review the Safe and Caring Schools Policy this spring; however, we need action now.

I ask the minister: What is government planning to do to protect these children under their care?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any time that we hear of incidents around bullying, Mr. Speaker, it should not only be for the school community, it should be for us as an entire society. This type of activity is totally unacceptable, and until we get to a point where as a society we come together and take our responsibility and address those particular issues, Mr. Speaker, those things will continue.

Our Safe and Caring Schools is exactly about that. Mr. Speaker, you will recall, and people will recall that just recently we put in My Gay-Straight Alliance as a resource that supports these types of initiatives. We, as a government, take this very serious, and we will continue in our efforts to protect our children from bullying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, this latest bullying incident in Conception Bay South indicates kids are being bullied in all areas of the school, from bathroom cubicles to hallways themselves. This past year, the Department of Education allocated $230,000 to support Safe and Caring Schools Programs designed to prevent violence and bullying. Despite such investment, bullying remains as prevalent an issue.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have invested in individuals who work at both the school board level and at the school level to address these particular issues, and we have, as I said, introduced resources that will support teachers in their efforts to combat bullying.

Mr. Speaker, will we ever eradicate it completely? I doubt very much. The only way will be that we, as a department, and we, as a people, accept more of the responsibility, talk to our children, teachers will use these resources to talk to their students, and this is the way we change attitudes in society, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the government has issued an RFP for freight vessel service to the Coast of Labrador. The people of Northern Labrador, Mr. Speaker, made it quite clear that they want a roll-on, roll-off vessel for long-term service.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Works: Will the minister confirm today that the RFP specifies a roll-on, roll-off vessel for the provision of freight service to the Coast of Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed issued an RFP for a roll-on, roll-off freight vessel to travel with the ports from Lewisporte and Happy Valley-Goose Bay for the people on the North Coast. Again, an RFP, Mr. Speaker, that we believe will deliver what we need and what the people of the coast need in order to have a successful freight program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, the RFP allows for the provision of a fifteen-year-old-plus vessel for up to three years to provide freight service to the Coast of Labrador. Last year's service, Mr. Speaker, was a complete disaster.

The question is to the Minister of Transportation and Works, Mr. Speaker: If we have to wait another three years before we get a long-term solution, can you outline what the short-term freight and passenger service of the North Coast of Labrador and Black Tickle will look like, given that last year's service was a disaster?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A point of clarification: the RFP is for freight, not for passenger. As well, we are hoping, Mr. Speaker, that by putting out the RFP as we have, we will get a boat that is less than fifteen years of age, perhaps even a new boat that is specifically built for that particular service. It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we get it right. As I have indicated in the past, last year with a tender process we ended up with the Dutch Runner that was hardly adequate for that particular service.

This year, with the RFP, we certainly hope that we will be in a position to choose the best possible service provider that we can get.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, a report obtained by the Freedom of Information Act on the Placentia lift bridge exposes the structure to be rotted, rusting, missing bolts, and showing cracked beams. This is an alarming exposure of unsafe conditions. The minister and the government were well aware of this report for months.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Works: Why did the government sit on this report for four months before taking any action, given the deterioration and the safety implications for the travelling public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Without any doubt, Mr. Speaker, this government certainly does not take a backseat to safety. Safety is what this is all about. As people are aware, last year we put out a tender to replace the aging bridge in Placentia. That was not a successful tender because it was well over budget and one bidder, so we went back to the drawing board.

In going back to the drawing board, Mr. Speaker, we had to look and make sure that the bridge that we had, the old bridge, did not have any shelf life left in it. So we did a comprehensive evaluation. In the process of that evaluation, there was a request by the consultant to do a load-bearing test. That is what we did. At the end of it, we got the results back and of course acted accordingly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: You should have let know the council and the people who were using the bridge that they were using an unsafe bridge while you were sitting on the report, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, this report raises the alarm for all other bridges in this Province and whether they are safe to be travelled over. People have a right to know if they are travelling over unsafe infrastructure and government has the responsibility to inform them.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Works: How many other unsafe bridges are there in the Province and will the minister do the right thing and release all reports on any unsafe bridges across our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it is disheartening to have thrown across the House here the fact that bridges are unsafe, when actually we have done due diligence with all of the bridges here in Newfoundland and Labrador, making sure that they get annual inspections, making sure that the travelling public can travel the highways safely. With regard to the lift bridge in Placentia, again, it is in poor shape and poor condition, Mr. Speaker. We all know that. That is the reason why we are replacing it. To stand there and say that we are taking chances with the lives of people is unconscionable and not acceptable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Nordic Economic Development Corporation has been denied an extension to the timber harvesting assistance program by the Minister of Natural Resources. I understand there is money in the program that could benefit many of these harvesters.

I ask the minister: Why is he not extending this deadline beyond March 31, 2012?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are investing significantly in our forest industry as the member is aware or should be aware. We have invested significantly in Holson Forest Products in the Roddickton area, Burton's Cove Logging, and Sexton Lumber. We are in constant discussion with Cottles Island Lumber. We are in discussions, Mr. Speaker, with Kruger. We take this, we recognize the significance of the forest industry; what we do is we look at the investments, we look at the requests made, and decisions are made based on what exists at the time. This letter was sent out, Mr. Speaker, based on a decision made at the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, an employee of the Maritime Search and Rescue Sub-Centre and an individual who was rescued from Cape Harrison last June are in Ottawa today lobbying to keep the Search and Rescue Sub-Centre open beyond April 2012 in the Province.

I ask the government today: Have you sent anyone to Ottawa as part of this delegation on behalf of the people of the Province, and what have you been doing to ensure that the sub-centre stays open in St. John's beyond the end of the month?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The answer to the hon. member's question is that we have continued, and always will continue, in regard to lobbying the federal government to have the right assets placed in Newfoundland and Labrador to enable us to carry out whatever searches we have to carry out, be it ground search and rescue, Maritime or whatever it may be. We will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker, and I have been in conversation by letter to the federal minister and continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding from discussions with people inside Eastern Health that the wireless patient monitoring machines being used at the Health Sciences Centre were removed from two places in Quebec and are not used elsewhere in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: Would she please confirm this information?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know what the ministry in Quebec is doing in terms of the operation of their hospitals, and I do not purport to know that. What I do know, however, is that there are 2,600 of these patient monitoring systems throughout Canada in some of the largest hospitals in Canada, Mr. Speaker. One hospital, as I said earlier, is the Toronto sick children's hospital, and there is a second one as well in Ontario that is a huge hospital, Mr. Speaker.

We have had years of using these monitoring systems in other parts of the country, Mr. Speaker, with great success. The same has been true here, Mr. Speaker. There are some anomalies. There have been some problems along the issue of Wi-Fi, Mr. Speaker, but we are working those issues through.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I suggest to the minister that she find out why Quebec had to get rid of the ones they were using there. Mr. Speaker, for the five months that the wireless patient monitoring devices have been installed at the Health Sciences Centre, they have not been working and have been eating up precious nursing hours while nurses monitor the monitors. Mr. Speaker, Eastern Health said that bugs are being worked out as the minister has just said before they continue installing more wireless devices.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister please give us a timeline on when the equipment will be fully functioning? Five months is a long time to work out the bugs.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the issue is not the equipment. I need to reiterate this; the issue has to do with the linkage between the equipment and the Wi-Fi, so that when the patients who are mobile actually enter an area of the hospital where it does not pick up for those few seconds that becomes the issue. The monitoring system that they are wearing, Mr. Speaker, is still working; it is still working, and it is working very, very efficiently, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I suggest to the minister that there is more to it than she has just explained here, and even if that were the only bug, that bug has to be gotten rid of, Mr. Speaker. The situation that has been described to us is beyond what she is saying.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to our attention that there have been hundreds of occurrences officially reported having to do with the malfunctioning of these monitors.

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services: What is the official procedure with dealing with such a large number of occurrence reports on a piece of equipment that is reportedly malfunctioning, no matter what the reason?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there have been no adverse events reported at all with the use of this equipment. There has been no patient harm reported whatsoever. We are working through with the nurses and those who are using these monitors at Eastern Health. They are working through the problems with the nurses. Meeting after meeting has been scheduled, and will continue to be scheduled until the bugs are worked out. Patient security, patient safety is still paramount, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the Cameron Report noted in 2009 that Eastern Health was in the process of implementing an electronic occurrence reporting system. The report recommended that all regional health authorities have the same system and work together to prevent repetition of adverse events. Mr. Speaker, government committed at that time to expand the Clinical Safety Reporting System to all regional health authorities who would work together in its implementation, with an estimated completion date of March, 2012.

Mr. Speaker: Can the minister give an update on the plan to expand electronic occurrence reporting to all health authorities to prevent adverse events?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, certainly, what we learned from Cameron is exceptionally important to us as a government and as a people here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will never underestimate that. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that today we have either implemented completely or substantially implemented fifty-five of the sixty recommendations. In this sitting of the House, Mr. Speaker, I plan to bring forward more recommendations; at least three more recommendations having to do with, in particular, adverse events.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, last May the Minister of Health and Community Services amended the Third Party's private members' motion on diabetes to say that the House will urge the government to give consideration in the next budgetary process to covering the cost of glucose testing strips for all diabetics.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Has her government taken this action to include coverage of glucose testing strips for all diabetics who need them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, through the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program, we cover glucose test strips as the member opposite certainly knows – 16,000 beneficiaries, in fact, at a cost of $5.7 million annually. Mr. Speaker, we are committed to ensuring – as with all patients who suffer from chronic diseases in Newfoundland and Labrador, we are committed to ensuring them the best health care that we possibly can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my questions on the air ambulance service that government took away from St. Anthony, the Minister of Health said the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are very, very well-served by this service. Mr. Speaker, I asked her to let the people who pay for it, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to be the judge.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will she table the associated cost of St. Anthony air ambulance service before and after the relocation of this service from St. Anthony to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, including the cost of chartered flights flown out of St. Anthony for the years since the relocation of the air ambulance?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure what the question he is asking or why he is asking that particular question. What needs to be asked is how many incidents have really been at the heart of the issue that he is trying to raise over there, Mr. Speaker. The answer to that is zero.

Mr. Speaker, our concern here is about providing the best service that we can to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians through our air ambulance program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we have three King Airs right now that we operate within Newfoundland and Labrador; two in St. John's, one in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and another that we have in St. John's as a spare. We have at our disposal six helicopters, Mr. Speaker, five of the Bell 206, one of the Bell 407 that we are currently retrofitting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, government announced last week that funding for employment assistance service providers across the Province has been extended for up to six months.

Was this temporary extension granted to allow government enough time to decide this funding should be cut permanently?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, with the new Department of Advanced Education and Skills we want to ensure that all of the programs and services that we have set up certainly meet the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as we try to make sure that people have every opportunity to participate in the emerging labour market.

Mr. Speaker, we will look at how we spend the funding that is provided under the Labour Market Development Agreement to ensure and maximize that the people here in Newfoundland and Labrador have every opportunity to be able to avail of skills development to prepare themselves for the labour market.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, parents in Newfoundland and Labrador are paying thousands of dollars out of their own pockets to cover private special education services that the education system is failing to provide.

I ask the Minister of Education: Why is this government privatizing special education services in Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, am I hearing the member opposite say that our teachers and our education system is not providing for special education students? Mr. Speaker, I find the question appalling. We have, in this Province, some of the best-qualified teachers that we have across this entire country.

Mr. Speaker, to suggest that our system is not providing a quality service to our special education students – it is unthinkable that someone would even pose that question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, many students in this Province are unable to complete high school in three years and must return to school for a fourth year in order to graduate. The graduation rate for these students is 20 per cent lower than the graduation rate for other students.

Mr. Speaker, why does this government have no plan to help these Level IV students graduate and enter the workforce successfully?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the hon. member our graduation rates. The grad rate in 2002, Mr. Speaker, was 85.1 per cent and in 2010-2011, 91.7 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: The number of students, Mr. Speaker, that have gone from the general program to the academic and honours program has increased. The fourth year of schooling, Mr. Speaker, is there for those people who simply do not qualify and do not complete their education in three years. It is a wonderful program, Mr. Speaker. It just takes some people that much longer to complete the program – support, Mr. Speaker, for the students of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, in nine years this government has done nothing to address the challenges of Level IV students.

I ask this minister: When is his department going to finally act to help vulnerable students, or does he plan to sit on his hands like his predecessor did?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the blood boils. Yes, the blood boils, Mr. Speaker, when you cannot get the responses that you want to get by posing the questions.

Mr. Speaker, this Province has provided more and this government has provided more for the students of this Province, I would contend, than any other government past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, our Level IV students will be supported just as well as all of the other students within our system, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 22, 2012; and further, I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Thursday, March 22, 2012.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 13)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice and ask leave to introduce for debate the following private member's resolution:

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

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

WHEREAS almost 2,000 small businesses operate –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Sorry.

WHEREAS about 2,000 small businesses operate in the Province today, employing over 40 per cent of all paid workers; and

WHEREAS small business revenues and profits stay in the communities where they are generated; and

WHEREAS the present level of taxation can be a barrier to anyone starting a small business today; and

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

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge government to immediately help stimulate the economy in a manner that helps every part of the Province by reducing the Province's small business tax rate by 25 per cent, dropping it from 4 per cent to 3 per cent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am seeking leave to announce a private member's motion for tomorrow, March 22, pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3) which requires that the announcement of the private member's motion be made on the Monday prior, but not able to do that yesterday because of the holiday, I ask leave to do it today.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am also announcing that the motion to be discussed tomorrow will be the one that was just read into the record by the Member for St. John's East.

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

Petitions - I am sorry.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Tabling of Documents.

Does the minister have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand today to table the 2010-2011 Annual Report for Professional Engineers and Geoscientists Newfoundland and Labrador, the 2010 Annual Activity Report of the Embalmers and Funeral Directors Board, and the Second Annual Report of the Architects Licensing Board of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BENNETT: (Inaudible) humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there is no cellphone service –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: WHEREAS there is no cellphone service in the towns of St. Paul's, Cow Head, Sally's Cove or Trout River, all of which are enclave communities for Gros Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS there is either very poor or no cellphone service in most of Gros Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually, expect to use cellphones when they visit the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is an important safety feature for numerous travellers, hikers and others in the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is necessary to modern business development;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to partner with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage throughout Gros Morne National Park and the enclave communities within the park.

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

MR. KIRBY: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the fifth time that I have tabled this petition in the House of Assembly. This is a petition regarding needed changes to the Department of Education's school bus transportation policies. It reads as follows:

WHEREAS school district restructuring has resulted in longer bus travel times and more hazardous winter travel for rural students of all ages; and

WHEREAS due to recent school closures, children living within 1.6 kilometres of school face increased barriers of congested streets and busy intersections in the walk to schools, and parents without cars are having more difficulty getting children to different schools on foot; and

WHEREAS only those child care centres outside the 1.6 kilometre zone and directly on bus routes are included in kindergarten noontime routes, causing hardship for working parents; and

WHEREAS the 1.6 kilometre policy has been in place since 1975, and student transportation policies have not been reviewed through consultation since 1996; and

WHEREAS parents are expressing the need for flexible policies for student transportation and school restructuring to meet the current needs of school children;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to conduct a review of school bus transportation policies and school restructuring to ensure safe and quality education for all school children in the Province.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

I just wanted to say that it is important that we get around to reviewing this now. We always talk about our new have status in Canada – we are a have Province now. Well I would argue, Mr. Speaker, as would these petitioners, that we have to have a review of these school bus transportation policies, because we have to have policies that are modern and work for today's working parents.

This petition has been circulated across the Province. It is being signed by citizens from towns, communities, and cities all across the Island and in Labrador; today, the petition I am presenting has individuals from St. John's, from Gander, and from Glenwood.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of people who are petitioning the House with regard to the Animal Protection Act. It says:

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

WHEREAS it has been almost two years since the Animal Protection Act was passed in the House of Assembly but has not yet been proclaimed;

WHEREAS the inadequacy of the current animal protection laws is of great, grave, and immediate concern to the SPCA; and

WHEREAS the new Animal Protection Act would ensure much more severe punishment and ultimately reduce instances of these crimes;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately proclaim the new Animal Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, this act, which the government introduced in the last session of the House under Bill 30, passed unanimously in the House of Assembly by all members. It is nearly a year now and the act still has not been proclaimed. This is where the concern is coming from, from people out there in the Province. I do not need to recap the events of the news in the last number of weeks to know that there have been repeated offenders of crime and cruelty against animals who are getting just a slap on the wrist when they are walking into the court rooms these days.

What people really want to see is stiffer penalties and fines that were contained within Bill 30 when it was passed in the House of Assembly. They want that to come into force and to become law so that when people are walking into the courts and being charged with cruelty to animals like we are seeing on the news every evening, then they are walking away with stiffer sentences, stiffer penalties. Hopefully it will be more of a deterrent to people who are cruel to animals, whether they be the pet owners or whether they be others in society.

They are really encouraging the government and pleading with the government to enforce the act that has been passed in the House of Assembly. Have it proclaimed, make it law so that we can start giving out heavier fines and penalties to those people who are committing acts of cruelty towards animals in this Province.

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this petition. The petitioners are from the Towns of Bellburns, Portland Creek, St. Pauls and Sally's Cove. They petition this hon. House and say:

WHEREAS with declining enrolment distance education by Internet is now an accepted way to deliver educational services to students –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: – living in small communities; and

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

WHEREAS many families do not have the ability to relocate so that their children can access educational opportunities in larger centres; and

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

WHEREAS high-speed Internet permits a business to be more competitive than does slower dial-up service; and

WHEREAS no high-speed Internet service exists in the communities of Bellburns, Portland Creek, St. Pauls or Sally's Cove; and

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

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to partner with the private sector and to offer high-speed Internet service to these communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act, Bill 12, and I further move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act, Bill 12, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 12, and that the said bill will be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act", carried. (Bill 12)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Services Act. (Bill 12)

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

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 3, second reading of Bill 3.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act". (Bill 3)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act. Bill 3 proposes to amend the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act to facilitate access to a federal Registered Disability Savings Plan, or an RDSP, by adults who may lack legal capacity.

Mr. Speaker, before I introduce those amendments, it is necessary to give some background and set the context as to why we are bringing in these amendments. I need to speak briefly about what the Registered Disability Savings Plan is and talk as well about the whole concept of legal capacity.

Mr. Speaker, the Registered Disability Savings Plan – we will refer to it in this presentation as RDSP – is a federal initiative. It was introduced in 2008 by the Canada Revenue Agency, and it was established by the Government of Canada as a savings plan intended to help parents and others save for the long-term financial security of a person with a disability. Anyone who qualifies under the federal Income Tax Act for a federal Disability Tax Credit is qualified to apply for an RDSP.

Mr. Speaker, the plan operates with a specific beneficiary, who, of course, is the person with the disability, the beneficiary of the plan. It also can have one or more plan holders, and the holder is the person who opens up the plan or can contribute or authorize contributions to the plan on behalf of the beneficiary.

Now, if the beneficiary, Mr. Speaker, is a person who has legal capacity, then the beneficiary and the holder could be one and the same person. Because a disabled person may have legal capacity, they may have a physical disability, may have the wherewithal necessary to enter into legal agreements, and in such a case can open the plan himself or herself and contribute to the plan himself or herself. Consequently, the beneficiary could also be the holder. The federal guidelines for this plan, Mr. Speaker, require that the plan may be established at a financial institution.

Mr. Speaker, this plan, the RDSP program, involves two mechanisms. The first is a savings mechanism where the individuals with a disability, their parents, a family, or any person can contribute to that RDSP established for the person with the disability. The maximum contributions are up to $200,000. So the first mechanism is a savings plan.

The second mechanism, Mr. Speaker, is a federal government contribution to the RDSP through grants and bonds. They can provide matching dollars, $1 for every dollar that is contributed by the individuals. That can be increased to $3 for $1 for matching funds, depending upon the income of the individual and additional funds that are available to low-income beneficiaries. The maximum contribution that the federal government would make for the grants and bonds would be $90,000. So, it is a savings plan with a matching federal contribution.

Mr. Speaker, the program is designed to support long-term savings. It is not tax deductible, but the investment growths and the government contributions are only taxed on withdrawal from the plan, similar in some ways to a Registered Education Savings Plan in that it provides tax shelter for investment growth and also provides shelter for federal contributions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the long-term savings aspect is also reflected in the fact that when any funds are taken out of this plan, you have to pay back the federal contributions made in the past ten years. That is a protection in there to make sure this program exists for the long-term savings of the individual. When the person reaches sixty, funds can be withdrawn without penalty, but the federal contributions stop at age forty-nine. This is one of the ways, Mr. Speaker, that the RDSP is designed to provide a means to support a person with a disability over the long term. If you start digging into the fund and taking out funds in the short term, then you are going to be penalized by the fact that you have to pay back what the feds have contributed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the advantages of this program, the RDSP program are obvious. It permits the parents of a child or an adult with a disability to save and invest funds over their lifetime, and also to have those funds enhanced by federal contributions so that when the parents are no longer around, the child will have access to funds for financial support. It also permits this individual with a disability, themselves to establish such a plan to access federal contributions and enjoy the tax-sheltered investment growth.

Mr. Speaker, what leads to this bill is the fact that the requirements as to who can open an RDSP differ significantly between a plan being opened by a minor with a disability, and one opened by an adult with a disability. For a minor, a parent may open the RDSP, but for an adult with a disability, that is a different ballgame. The guidelines particularly state that if a beneficiary has reached the age of majority – which in our jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, is nineteen years of age – the beneficiary has reached the age of majority and he is legally able to enter into a contract, then that beneficiary can establish and be holder of a plan. A parent can only do so if the parent has already established the RDSP in the first place when the person was a minor; but if a beneficiary has reached the age of majority, he is able to enter into a contract himself or herself and be the established holder of the plan.

If the beneficiary has reached the age of majority but may not be legally able to enter into a contract, due to a mental impairment of some kind, then he cannot open the RDSP because he does not have the legal capacity to enter into a contract. The plan then can only be opened by an individual, by a public department or an agency that is legally authorized to act for that beneficiary. Simply being a parent is not enough. If the person is over the age of nineteen and does not have legal capacity to enter into an agreement, that plan can only be opened by someone who is legally authorized to act for the beneficiary in this circumstance.

Mr. Speaker, it is this legally authorized requirement which leads to the amendments being presented today. The RDSP, as we mentioned, is a federal program, but the laws governing who may be appointed to be legally authorized are a provincial responsibility. This is why, Mr. Speaker, in the 2010 federal budget all provinces were encouraged to look at their respective legislative regimes with a view to streamlining the process to ensure more Canadians with a disability could access this federal RDSP initiative. It was found, Mr. Speaker, that a lot of people with disabilities in the Province were not taking advantage of this opportunity.

In this Province, Mr. Speaker, we have learned that our existing legislation poses a problem for adults with an intellectual disability and for their families. In particular, the parents of adults with intellectual disabilities were having difficulties accessing the federal RDSP program. This was brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice by the Minister of Finance who had discussions with his federal counterpart, and by the Disability Policy Office.

The difficulties occur, Mr. Speaker, where there are questions about the mental capacity of the adult individual involved, and whether that individual has the capacity to enter into necessary RDSP arrangements. Mr. Speaker, at this point we need to discuss what is meant by mental capacity of an individual. This concept has a number of meanings in different contexts.

In the case of the RDSP, because it involves investments, it involves taxes, it involves banking arrangements as well as monetary obligations between individuals, the capacity we are talking about here is a capacity to enter into a contract. When we talk about legal capacity, it is a capacity to enter into a contract. Capacity has been defined as the ability to understand the nature, the essential terms and the effects of the agreement. You do not have legal capacity to enter into a contract unless you are able to understand the nature of the contract, the essential terms and the effect it will have. Mr. Speaker, it is a fundamental requirement of common law that an individual have capacity to enter into a contract at the time the contract is made. In other words, at the time the contract is made the individual must be able to understand the nature, essential terms and effects of that agreement.

In our jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, there are no varying degrees of legal capacity, it is black or white, you either have legal capacity or you do not. There are no degrees or stages of incapacity in a contract. It is understood in this Province that legal capacity does not exist in minors, for example, but it is assumed to exist in all those who have reached the age of nineteen, unless there are reasonable grounds to conclude that it does not.

Mr. Speaker, the consequence of a contract where an individual does not have the capacity can be severe to both parties because there is tremendous risk to the individual involved if they sign a contract that takes advantage of them, or they did not have the capacity to enter into it in the first place. An individual with legal capacity would never have entered such a contract in the first place. It is a tremendous risk to individuals who do not have capacity in this situation, but there is protection for these people generally.

The law generally provides for an individual or their representative to get out of the contract whether it is disadvantageous to the person or not, but the requirements are very stringent. If the requirements cannot be met, then the contract stands. If they can be met, the courts would rule the contract to be void. If that happens, that mechanism is beneficial to the individual who entered into the contract.

What about the other party on the other side of the contract? Quite often, that person is left holding the bag, so to speak. It creates risk for the other party to the contract. The legitimate contract suddenly becomes void and the party is left, as I mentioned, holding the bag.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, it is not uncommon for a party that has concerns about the capacity of the other party to enter into an agreement to refuse to enter into that contract. If one party sees that the other party does not have the capacity to enter into the contract, they can legitimately refuse to enter into that contract because of the results that might occur. From their perspective, the contract may not be reliable and at the end of the day, as I said earlier, they might be left in a compromising position. The result then is the individual in whom the capacity is in question, the individual who may not have the capacity to enter into the agreement, can find it hard to find another party who will contract with him or her.

That is what is happening, Mr. Speaker, with RDSPs. Banks, financial institutions, are reluctant to enter into a contract with an individual who they feel may not have the capacity to do so, because at the end of the day, the result will not be favourable to the bank if the contract is declared void.

Now, Mr. Speaker, our laws do provide a solution for individuals who do not have capacity generally to care for themselves or to look after their affairs. We do have a way. We do have a mechanism to cope for those people who cannot look after their own affairs. That is under the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act. Under the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act, the representative of the individual who is mentally incompetent can apply to the court to be appointed the legal guardian of that individual; this includes a power, Mr. Speaker, to act on behalf of the individual.

It is a court application, not a complicated process, but a process that quite often involves legal personnel, lawyers. The appointment – when a person is appointed, the court appoints the person as the guardian, the power of that guardian, Mr. Speaker, is comprehensive and absolute. It entirely removes the legal authority from the individual to deal with their affairs and instead rests all the authority solely in the guardian.

Mr. Speaker, that presents a problem because it removes all legal authority, all the ability of the individual who could otherwise deal with a lot of his affairs; now he has no rights whatsoever to deal with his affairs, all encompassed by the guardianship. It is a one-size-fits-all solution and there are some very complex individual situations, Mr. Speaker, that the guardianship under the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act is not appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, in the context of this federal program, this RDSP program right now in this Province, the legally authorized representative can only be such a guardian appointed under the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act. That is the only mechanism that is available.

Where there are concerns that an adult does not have the capacity to enter into the contracts necessary for this RDSP, their only option for them or their families is to have a guardian appointed under the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act. That is all that is open to them at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, therein lies a good part of the problem, and families are reluctant to follow that particular avenue for a number of reasons. First, it can be expensive. You have to pay lawyers to get it done; costs of applying to the courts for legal guardianship is one reason, but probably the most significant reason why families are not interested in pursuing this initiative is because of that comprehensive and absolute nature of the legal guardianship, which means that the individual no longer has any legal capacity to deal with his affairs and the result will deprive what might otherwise be independent and functioning adults who are generally capable of managing most of their affairs. They are deprived of having such authority simply because of accessing the RDSP program.

Mr. Speaker, one of the first meetings I had, on being appointed the Minister of Justice, was to meet with the Newfoundland and Labrador Association for Community Living. That was two years ago, and they brought this issue of legal capacity to our attention at that point in time.

There are a lot of people out there, Mr. Speaker, who are very capable of managing their own affairs, who are functioning adults, who are working, who have jobs, probably have families, drive their own cars, and make money. In order to access and have the opportunity to access the RDSP program, the only way you do it is through a guardianship, the guardianship takes away all of their rights and authorities. So, families are reluctant to go that route. The coalition for community living emphasises the fact that these people should have legal capacity of some sort.

The UN Convention says all people, regardless of disability, should have a right to legal capacity. In our jurisdiction, you either have legal capacity or you do not. That is the conundrum we are in. That is the only mechanism available right now to families of adults with disabilities who do not have legal capacity to access this RDSP program.

Mr. Speaker, our approach to this problem is not to amend the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act, we still need that act. We still need that act for those people who are mentally incompetent of looking after their affairs and where a legal guardian is necessary, and a finding of mental disability which is not reversible is needed to guarantee a guardianship.

As a practising lawyer, and I am sure the other lawyers in this House have proceeded with numerous applications in the courts for legal guardianships, and in all cases, the mental incompetence of the disabled individual has to be certified by a physician. The certification is not only to say the person does not have the mental capacity to look after his or her own affairs but that condition is not reversible.

We are not going to amend the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act. Rather, Mr. Speaker, we are hoping to turn to the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act and make RDSP-specific amendments to that act, make amendments to that piece of legislation that are specific to an RDSP.

Mr. Speaker, the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act, under that act anyone can appoint a power of attorney to handle their financial affairs. A lot of times, when people come in to do wills they will also do a power of attorney so that in the event that you get to the stage where you no longer have the legal capacity to carry on your affairs, your power of attorney can step into your shoes and do these things for you. Again, with enduring powers of attorney, when that happens, the power of attorney has all the rights of that individual as well.

We have to make then some amendments through the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act so as to deal with the RDSP issue. The act currently states that in order for you to give a power of attorney, then you have to have legal capacity at the time the power of attorney is granted to sign. We have had, I am sure, a lot of these situations where someone has come and said that my mother wants to sell her home or my mother has some certain activities she wants to pursue. She does not have the legal capacity to do it, she is in a home, and I want the power of attorney to do it for her. The fact of the matter is the mother has already gone beyond the stage where she has the capacity to enter into that power of attorney so the power of attorney cannot be proclaimed at that time. That is one of the requirements of the act: You have to have capacity when the power of attorney is first signed. It does not expressly limit the powers of attorney to any certain transactions; instead, it covers the entire estate of the individual.

These two concepts, Mr. Speaker, they both have to be adjusted if we are going to capture the situation of concern with respect to the RDSP. The purpose of the proposed amendments would have to be adjusted so that a person may use that act to gain access to the RDSP programs. Out of the above, these comments, Mr. Speaker, Bill 3 now proposes to amend the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act to provide a means for adults with an intellectual disability to establish RDSPs. The amendment, Mr. Speaker, will restrict the amendment through the RDSP context only, and will not in any other way vary the application of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act. Everything else in the act remains the same, but a specific provision to deal strictly with RDSPs.

The bill proposes, Mr. Speaker, to create a restricted form of representation solely for the purpose of dealing with the RDSP. The proposed approach, Mr. Speaker, is that the individual will execute a document called a designation agreement. In that document, it will appoint representatives with authority to act, but only in relation to the RDSP, otherwise the individual with a disability keeps authority for the rest of his life. All the other activities in his life, all the other functions of his life, he keeps complete authority over, but for the purpose of the RDSP, there is a particular provision in this act where other people can be legally authorized to act for him.

Now that process, Mr. Speaker, will deal with the concerns that have been expressed by families of adults with disabilities, to access the RDSP. You will avoid the requirement to go to court for a guardianship because all that is needed is that designation agreement, and as I mentioned before, it will be restricted only with respect to the RDSP. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, as far as the law is concerned, these amendments propose to change the law of capacity in this Province, and that is the significance of this bill – to change the law of capacity in this Province by relieving the requirement for a strict capacity for the execution of the RDSP agreement. Instead, what this amendment does, it creates a different threshold that we believe relates more closely to the issue of whether or not the individual involved understands and can communicate their intentions for the purpose of the RDSP.

Mr. Speaker, the criteria set out in the act, which I will just refer to briefly, the threshold "In deciding whether an adult who may lack legal capacity to enter into an RDSP has the capacity to enter into a designation agreement, all relevant factors shall be considered, including (a) whether the adult communicates, orally or otherwise, a desire to enter into the RDSP and the designation agreement;" whether he demonstrates preferences and can express feelings of approval – I am using he, I ask the House to bear with my political incorrectness here: "(b) whether the adult demonstrates preferences and can express feelings of approval or disapproval; (c) whether the adult is aware that entering into a designation agreement or changing or revoking it means that the designates may make, or stop making, decisions or choices that affect the adult as they relate to the RDSP; and (d) whether the adult has a relationship with the persons who are intended to be designates that is characterized by trust." In other words, Mr. Speaker, the criteria if this person shows some indication that he has a trustful relationship with the people that he has designated, that he has a general understanding of what he is doing – or she is doing – and this criteria was patterned after the Representation Agreement Act in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, there was concern expressed by a lot of us when we started putting together this bill. We are going from a place where we have strict legal capacity, you have to have it or you do not, to setting up a different threshold for legal capacity. That is breaking new ground as far as legal capacity is concerned. I recall the discussion with the coalition for community living. They suggested that there is a continuum. If you think about a continuum, where on one end of the continuum you have people who have perfect capacity – most people have perfect capacity to understand and manage their own affairs – to the other end of the continuum where people have no capacity whatsoever; for example, people who extend advanced dementia.

In between both ends of that continuum, Mr. Speaker, there is a wide range of levels of mental competence. As we come down the continuum, there are people who have all kinds of competence in certain areas but may not have competence in others. Our laws at the moment state you either have it or you do not. That is the group we are talking about, Mr. Speaker. As you move up the scale of the continuum, you are obviously going to move into areas where it is clearly recognizable that the person does not have the capacity to enter into an agreement and in that case a guardianship is going to be needed.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, a person may be completely functioning in all areas of his life, a working individual with a family and drives his own car, but may not have the mental capacity to understand investments, monetary obligations, tax purposes, and so on. It is only for that particular reason that he needs the designated individual. If we stick with the laws we have, that person will not have access to this program because of the way legal capacity is defined.

That concern is still there. Banks will have to make that decision. When the designation agreement is done in the bank, the bank can still make the decision. As we mentioned earlier, this contract may not be viable at the end of the day. We might be left holding the bag here because we are not sure this person knows what he or she is doing. In that case, the bank can walk away from it. In that case, maybe the parents can apply to have a public trustee be the designated or authorized individual. So because of that uncertainty that exists, the grey area that exists of whether or not a person has the capacity or does not, at that stage, in order to offset that, Mr. Speaker, we have built in a number of safeguards and oversights to help that situation.

Not only did we want the individual to access the program, but we are also very concerned about ensuring that the best interest of that individual is protected. We have included in the proposed amendments a number of safeguards to ensure that this system cannot be subject to abuse or malfeasance. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation has more safeguards built in to protect the disabled person than any other piece of legislation we have, including the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act, because once a guardianship, legal guardianship is given under that act, then that person has complete power to do what he wants or she wants as far as the rights of the other individual is concerned. In this case, we have built in oversights and safeguards to do that. Some of these, Mr. Speaker, are in the operation and designation of the agreement itself. For example, we are requiring that there be two representatives, not one – two representatives whose decision must be unanimous, or in the alternative, if you cannot name two people, then the public trustee will serve as the representative. People can apply to the court to have the public trustee be established.

We have also separated the management of the RDSP and the ability to receive funds on behalf of the individual. We have separated these two functions. Being a representative does not automatically mean that you will be able to get funds from the RDSP. That has to be part of the designation agreement. Even if these individuals can receive the funds as per the agreement, the amendments will prescribe, to this act, the uses to which these funds can be put and for what purposes in the best interest of the RDSP's beneficiary.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we have installed a public trustee who will have important oversight role of all the designation agreements. For example, all the designation agreements will only remain valid when notice of them is given to the public trustee. The representatives will be required to file annual reports of the financial activities in the RDSP with the public trustee. Where the representatives are able to and do receive funds out of the RDSP, they will have additional reporting requirements to the public trustee as to how these funds were spent. In all cases, Mr. Speaker, the public trustee will have the authority to request any additional information that he or she requires.

In addition to all that, Mr. Speaker, the public trustee, or any concerned member of the public for that matter, who are concerned that there is some abuse going on here, or there is something untoward happening with regard to this individual, he has the ability or she has the ability to access the courts and bring to the courts' attention any concern with regard to the establishment or the management of the RDSP. The courts will have broad authority to make such orders as are necessary to deal with these issues and these circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, in light of all this, this government is pleased to introduce these amendments through the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act and they are very specific to the federal RDSP program. Mr. Speaker, they do six things; they have six results: they will "allow adults who may not otherwise have legal capacity to do so to designate persons as their legally authorized representatives, and those persons may act as the holders of the adult's RDSP; secondly, it will "provide that a designation agreement is valid notwithstanding the current or subsequent legal incapacity of the designator"; three, it will "require persons who have been named as designates to act in the best interests of the designator in the administration and operation of an RDSP, and further provide that those persons are trustees of the designator; four, it will "provide that a designation agreement is effective when filed with the public trustee, and require designates to report annually to the designator and the public trustee respecting the operations and accounts of the RDSP"; fifthly, it establishes a "…process by which a person, including the public trustee, may apply to the court for a determination on matters concerning the administration and operation of the RDSP"; and finally, Mr. Speaker, it provides "…that the court may make an order, as appropriate, respecting the administration and operation of the RDSP."

Mr. Speaker, these amendments through the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act are positive and they are constructive, and it will remove barriers for Canadians, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with a disability wishing to access that federal program. In addition, Mr. Speaker, these amendments can help provide financial security and independence for people with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to discuss Bill 3. I look forward to the comments from the other speakers in the House. I ask for the support of all hon. members in passing this bill and look forward to the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I appreciate the opportunity to stand today and discuss this piece of legislation, which is much needed, and I can understand the reasoning for it. What I would say today is that when you first, as a practising lawyer, read any kind of new legislation that deals with capacity and creating new capacity, you are a bit worried about it. That is something that is entrenched in us as practicing lawyers, the ability to have capacity – does that person have capacity or none.

Saying that, I can say up front that I understand the concept and the background for this amendment that is being discussed here today, and the purpose of my speaking to this is just to ask questions of the minister which I am sure he will answer. I have questions that really I would like answered and to make sure that we have the best piece of law going forward and certainly to raise some issues that may be there, and hopefully these concerns that I have may be allayed by answers of the minister down the road as we move forward.

Again, nobody wants to get in the way of allowing disabled persons to take advantage of federal monies. This is a great initiative. When we have disabled people, we are basically trying to provide for a safe way of retirement for these individuals, when they hit age sixty we know that there is a pot of money there and the same as we are investing money for – I am investing in an RRSP for my child so that I know there is money there and there is money coming from the federal government, we want the same thing here. I think that is a great thing.

Certainly, as a practising lawyer I understand the difficulty we have had when it comes to capacity issues. Again, it really is black or white. They come in and you have to wonder, does this person have the capacity or not. What I did in my day-to-day dealings, a lot of times I did not exercise that power, I asked those people, if there was a concern, can you go see a medical doctor or can you go make sure that there is a proper assessment done by people, depending on what background they have. Again, I wanted to avoid having to make that judgement call because it is really hard to judge. You get people who come in, they might be, in certain cases, older and they might just be forgetful, but you have wonder whether they have early on-set dementia or Alzheimer's. So, there is always a big concern.

When we talk about the powers of attorney itself, powers of attorney, it is amazing how many people do not understand the importance of powers of attorney. Certainly, all of the lawyers in here understand it. Again, the fact is this world is different now. In a post-9/11 world, in a world filled with fraud, it is not like the old days where I could go down to the bank and take care of mom's and dad's banking or their estate. Now, we need to have documentation showing that. If something happens to me tomorrow, if I were to have a mental episode tomorrow, or a seizure or a stroke, my wife or my family cannot just take care of me. They should have something on paper saying that they could. They should have a power of attorney. So the act itself has done that, but again, I understand where the minister is coming from there where there is a very wide gap in between no capacity and being fully capable, we will say.

Some of the concerns I have, again, when we talk about the capacity – I am going to go through the act here. The first thing I have is maybe the first line of defence or the first line of this happening, from what I understand, is that people are interesting in this program, they go to a bank with the people who they expect are going to handle this and the bank sets it up. The first question I have is that I have some concerns over the individual at the bank, whoever it might be, it might be a client service officer, it might be the manager, there are all different lines of people at these financial institutions, but they are the people who are making that judgement call. I have some concerns over that; again, not that they are being untoward or anything along those lines, but I prefer to have somebody with the proper background to make that judgement call.

Now, when I did a Justice Department briefing on this, I understand that the number of people who are going to be out there able to take advantage of this federal program is fairly minimal; there is not a lot. I think the number actually used was somewhere in the range of 500 was the number given to me. What I would suggest is maybe there is a way where we can introduce a subsection saying that just to verify this, capacity could be judged by using proper assessment tools or a medical practitioner of some sort. Just to protect this here and put in one further step for protection.

I understand exactly what the minister is saying here in that there are a lot of safeguards here. The possibility of malfeasance occurring here, it is going to be hard to get around this again just due to the nature of the funding. Again, when I go into the bank as the disabled person, we have to wonder about the level of capacity. I mean we have high functioning versus low functioning.

When we use the wording in section 15, section 15 says in deciding whether a person who lacks capacity to enter may sign this designation agreement, may communicate orally or otherwise. Sometimes I worry about that. Again, I do not know if a person in a financial institution is the person to make that call. Just to be safe and sound, maybe we need to add a further subsection in there just to put in who the actual judge or arbiter of that decision will be.

Again, we talk about whether the adult is aware that entering into the designation agreement basically means that these individuals can make their decisions. Now, a lot of times you get a lot of people who are considered fully capable or have full capacity. When they go into a bank, they sign what is in front of them. It happens all the time in a law office. The people just sign what is in front of them. They say they understand, but they are just basically doing what they think they should do. There is some concern over that, but I agree that we need to continue on this path, I believe, because whenever we have an opportunity to take advantage of federal funding for people's retirement, we have to see what we can do.

I guess a side note there is that I really do think that, beyond this act, we need to do more as we look at the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act to address those issues, and I believe the minister would be on board with that. I think this is a step in the right direction; however, I think we need to get a bit farther with this.

I have seen plenty of situations – again, I am unaware as to whether I should continue talking. I am just trying to be polite, Mr. Speaker. I have had situations where individuals come in with a family member. The family member has a mental incapacity, sometimes very high and sometimes just borderline where you are not sure, and you do not risk it. You have to go through a guardianship process, which is lengthy, which is time consuming, and which is expensive whenever you are dealing with lawyers and court costs, like out in my area.

Again, out in my area, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, if you want to do it you have to go to Supreme Court. Sometimes, not very often, you have to travel to Corner Brook to Supreme Court to do it. It can be a lot of money. I have seen cases where the cost of the process was higher than the value of the estate or assets that the people were trying to deal with and you are better off not bothering with it at all. This is another reason why this is a good first step. I am going to ask some more questions that I am hoping will be answered, just to make sure my concerns are laid down the road. Being new at this, I am hoping my questions will get answered so I can feel sure the law here, this first law, besides Internal Supply, I have had an opportunity to review and debate will be the best piece of legislation possible.

I will continue on here. The first thing in this case, it is rare actually. It is different than anything I have seen. We have to have two people designated. Now, I understand the reasoning behind that in that if you have two people it is an extra layer of safety where we have two people who have to consent to everything being done; just three concerns with that. Number one, many people do not have two trustworthy individuals who they want to put on. Many people only have one person they trust or they are safe with. One person, one family member or very close friend, they are comfortable with. Having to get two might be a bit of a hindrance to them. It is a small concern, I know, but just putting it out there.

The second problem, and I have seen this happen, is where you have two individuals who down the road, for whatever reasons, perhaps unconnected to this, get into a dispute and then they say: We are not going to agree with this. I do not like how you are going forward, and I do not like how you are going forward. We are not going to agree. You are forced to go back to a court process in order to have one person put in. We all know that when it comes to wills and regular powers of attorney, you only need one person who has been deemed safe. For right or wrong, better or worse, most of the documentation that we have done so far has been with one person. To have two, I can see why, but we need to make sure that is the best way to go forward.

I understand the backdrop or safeguard to that is if you do not have two people, or if the two people cannot agree we have the public trustee now. I am always hesitant about that. I think sometimes that person could have one very trustworthy person. The way the system is set up, it is very, very hard to abuse the system the way the funds are administered and locked in. I think one person could do the job. If a person only has one family member, that family member cannot do it so now we have to go to the public trustee, which can also be a bit of a process, especially when you are dealing with estates. The public trustee's office can be very, very burdened by a lot of paperwork, administrations, estates, probates. It is good to have that as a protection but hopefully we will not have to fill the public trustee's office with these types of applications. I do not think it is too big an issue but it is there.

One question I would put forward is that normally speaking the public trustee, whenever they administer an estate, they receive a cut from the value of that estate. They get some percentage of that estate, whether it be a probate, whether it be administration, guardianship. They usually get some kind of cut because they have to pay towards the costs. My understanding of this is that the way these funds are with them being locked in, we cannot take the funds out of the RDSP to pay the fees that might be administered by the public trustee. They cannot come out. If they come out people are going to get taxed on them because that is the nature of this program.

I know the proposed amendment says, well, in that case you bill basically the disabled person's assets, but in many of these cases there are no assets. The disabled person has no assets. In many cases it is the family members or, in this case, the holders who are contributing. Now not only are they contributing but now they have to pay their own money towards these fees. I am wondering, is the public trustee going to be provided with a mandate to handle these gratis or pro bono? What do we do in these cases where people have to take their own hard-earned money that they may be investing for the benefit of the disabled person in question? Who is going to pay the costs on this? Maybe that is something that needs to be discussed, and I know that might be a difficult one because it relates to the federal side of this, the funding side of this. In a lot of cases many of these people – and it does not matter if it is a guardianship, it does not matter if it is an estate or matters being handled, the people involved, the amount of funds they have there may be nil or minimal. They have to spend those monies to have a public trustee handle it when they have one person who they trust that could do it and could probably eliminate that problem. That is just a suggestion.

On another aside to that, I had the opportunity to do a briefing with the Justice Department staff, and they were excellent, they sat down with me, they took the time to talk to me, but one of the questions I had is whether the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador was consulted in this process. My understanding is they have not been so far. The reason I suggest that is they probably have a committee that might provide some guidance on possible practical applications of this new amendment, to make sure that we have not only a law that has good safeguards, but a law that is practical in its use, practical in its application, because we all know there is absolutely no point in putting a law in that cannot be used effectively, or if there are burdens there. Maybe that is something we should avail of, is avail of the Law Society's expertise before we hit committee stage, and if there is any possible amendments it would be nice to take advantage of their expertise.

I come back to the section here, section 15.(2)(d). That is the part where we talk about whether the adult has a relationship with the persons who are intended to be designates. Again, I am not sure of the criteria that need to be established or met there. Sometimes it is very obvious. Even in the case of an adult disabled, we might have parents who are administering this for them. It is hard to dispute that, but in certain cases, maybe in rare cases, the person establishing this test, which appears to be the bank manager or the bank official, they have to make a judgement call: Do I trust these people? Ninety-nine times out of a hundred this might not be an issue, but we might have one time where we do have somebody trying to pull a fast one. I am interested to know how that section is going to be applied; what is the criteria; just to make sure that it is properly utilized.

Again, I certainly agree with the minister when we talk about capacity, and this is groundbreaking when we go from a black and white capacity versus none capacity. I agree that we need to move forward. There is a wide spectrum of high-functioning disabled people who are able to lead full, rich lives but in terms of using this terminology are deemed disabled and therefore have no capacity. I do not agree with that. In moving forward, my only concern is - this is something that I think down the road, this is a test that is going to be applied in other pieces of legislation. So we need to make sure we have the best piece of legislation possible, the best one put forward and to cover off all possible events, occurrences, situations.

We look at what has been done in the past; I know we have another safeguard or backdrop to this, which is if you cannot use it you go to the Mentally Disabled Persons Estates Act. Hopefully, now that this piece of legislation is being looked at, we will have that discussion in the very near future too. I guess we will have to wait and see how it works, how it is applied.

When we talk about powers of attorney, these are mandatory for just about anything. If you want to sell a house, and you live out of the Province, you have to get somebody to sign a power of attorney to handle that for you while you are out of the Province. You just cannot have your spouse sign, you need to sign it, and it has to be a specific power of attorney. It cannot be unrestricted.

Going back to, I guess the crux or the overlying aspect of what I am trying to get across here, I just want to make sure the passage of these amendments do not have any unintended, long-reaching effects that we are not aware of now. What I will go to, Mr. Speaker, is my biggest concern really is the arbiter or judge of capacity. We need to make sure there is a safeguard put there. Just going through the legislation itself, which I have studied and I have compared it to the existing act, basically all we are doing is adding on six sections at the end. The first part of the act stays the same, a few small changes, more procedural or housekeeping in nature. These are very RDSP specific changes that we are proposing.

What I would say, again, we have to make sure that section 15.(2) – I am actually interested to see how the application of that is going to work in this test here. When we discuss whether the adult demonstrates preferences and can express feelings of approval and disapproval – that is a pretty loose wording there, because that can go either way. I understand the good news here is once this is executed and is filed with the public trustee, whether it be by Telefax or whether it be by e-mail, once it is filed I understand that there is a yearly review.

Maybe the minister can answer this question just to make sure: Once it is filed, is there an automatic annual review of this agreement to make sure that the funds were touched or not touched, or is it only a review in the case where there has been some – we will say – withdrawal of the funds?

I am not quite sure; maybe I just overlooked something there. I just want to make sure on that specific aspect, because if we are putting something in and we are saying there is a review – but the review itself, how is it triggered? Is it an automatic trigger where once a year the public trustee starts going through all of these that have been filed, and has a look back? I guess a step further to that would be when the public trustee looks into this, what is the range of powers that the public trustee has in terms of looking at the financial records of the holder, or I guess we will say, the adults with capacity. If there have been funds withdrawn from this RDSP, the public trustee is going to want to have a look at the RDSP itself, but will they have access to the bank accounts of the two holders? Will they be able to look into their banking records?

Again, it is hard enough trying to get people to do anything where the government gets to review their financials, especially if you are dealing with – I have seen it a million times – child support or spousal support; in this case the public trustee needs to have powers, but I would not want the public trustee's powers to be so overbearing that it scares people off this. Let's hope that is not the case.

I would continue on here; section 15 is obviously the big section here, I have discussed already 15 (2) and just about every sub-clause of that, (a), (b), (c), and (d). If you go a bit further to that, as we continue on, I would want to make sure that there is safeguard in place to make sure that when they – it says here the "designation agreement is effective when filed". Now, we all know how filing can go a bit off at times, due to nobody's intentional fault, but just due to technology, or just due to unintended human error. So I would want to make sure we have some kind of backup system so that not only is it filed electronically, but a paper copy must be sent. What if there is a failure of the electronic system? What if the e-mail did not get sent to the right person? We all know how many people have tried to send an e-mail to one person and it went to the wrong person. You do not know any different because it was not rejected. It did not bounce back, but it went to the wrong person and that wrong person did not do anything with it.

So maybe we should tighten that up to make sure there is a backup to that. If the public trustee does not have notice of this, just one slips through the cracks, and that one is the one that is abused by people who are just there to take advantage of disabled people, then that is one too many. So maybe that is just another thing we can look at there, maybe in the Committee stage.

The best interests section is great. That continues with what The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act was meant to do anyway. Obviously, if you are going to do this and as long as you act in the best interests of the person who you are looking after, then you will be absolved, I believe, of any personal liability. Again, it is one thing to look after somebody and try to do something – I might have the power of attorney for the minister. I go to do something I am thinking is going to increase the value of that asset, it does not, and somebody gets mad at me because I did not increase the value. Well, I was not negligent there. I did not try to hurt anybody. So as long as that is still there to make sure that people who are looking after the best interests, but for no reasons of their own besides bad luck, something is negatively affected – I would want to make sure that personal liability, as long as there is no inherent negligence or bad faith, these people are not going to be penalized.

Again, that goes back to the previous point I made where public trustees or people who take care of these things are often allowed to have remuneration of some sort. Many people in this case are not going to take the remuneration, and that is fine, but we do not want to penalize them. We do not want to have money out of their pocket for handling something in the best interests of, in this case, the disabled person.

I would continue on here with, further to what I just said, section 17.(5): "Designates are not entitled to be remunerated but may be reimbursed from the designator's assets". That is a section that may have some concern for every situation where mom and dad come in with the adult disabled to fill this out solely to take advantage of federal funding, which they should, that is one thing. We do have situations – they are out there and I have seen them – where we have a disabled person who is cared for by other people who may not be as protective. If this banker does not know them or just makes an assumption, boom, these people are now the designates, they are not allowed to get payment but they are allowed to be reimbursed from the assets of the designator.

That is something that they might be able to get access to without – if they tried to take money out of this RDSP, they are going to be dinged by the federal government. The federal government is going to say you have to pay; you are getting taxed on that, which is good. If they are saying to the disabled person look, you owe me for doing this, I am entitled to be remunerated, I should be remunerated from the bit of money you might have coming in from whether it be they receive a government cheque, or some kind of stipend, or funding, we want to make sure that we are protecting every one here.

When we talk about this spectrum, this continuum of disability, for every high-functioning disabled person, we have someone on the lower end that could be easily taken advantage of. That is what we are always trying to avoid. I would just want to put that out there to make sure that there is a safeguard. As I say, I am asking these questions today very honestly to make sure we have the right things. If I overlook something here, if there is a safeguard, I am sure the minister will let me know, and that is what we are all aiming for here.

When we get into section 18, we talk about the designation agreement may be revoked by a designator. I would want to make sure that is not something that can be abused. We talk about the person has two people who come in, he signs-off and says I want these people to handle this for me. This disabled person gets into an argument of some sort with these people and says no, these two people here, I want them to take care of me. We want to make sure that this is not abused. When you have capacity you are allowed to do what you want when you want, you can change your documents any day of the week. In this case when capacity is an issue, we want to make sure that this groundbreaking section here, where we are talking about capacity, that it is not abused. We want to make sure that we use it in the best interests.

I have looked through the rest of this document, Mr. Speaker, and I agree with it in theory. I think it is a good thing and I am sure the minister has had meetings as he referenced in his statements. We are doing the right thing. Basically what we are trying to do is grease the wheels here. We are trying to grease the wheels or make it easier, if people are putting money in, to get some of that federal money back. My concern is solely that we make sure that we cover off the practical applications of it because in many cases these laws are drafted and they are drafted with the best intentions in theory, but we need people on the ground, people who are doing guardianships or dealing with these issues every day to have a look at this. That is why I referenced the Law Society, it is not a bad idea, especially in something like this that I think is going to be used down the road. I think this is going to be put into other pieces of legislation. This is not going to stop here. This is really a slippery slope. Usually when you say slippery slope, it is a bad thing. In this case, it is a slippery slope in that this is going to be going into other legislation. So, let us make sure that we let people – and again the Law Society has lawyers there who deal with this stuff everyday. Let's maybe let them have a look at it to make sure that we have the best piece of legislation.

If you will just bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I have a few notes here I just want to double check to make sure that I have – I think I have plenty of time. I do not plan on using all that time, but I want to make sure I have covered off all the issues that I noticed when I reviewed this legislation.

I have just a few questions there. These are actual questions, they are not rhetorical. I am wondering if the minister does have an accurate number of people who can possibly take advantage of this program. Even if it is just one person, we should take advantage of it. Again, when we are creating legislation that relates to a specific subset, I just want to know the number to make sure that I have proper information myself.

I would say I am looking forward to the new legislation when it comes to the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act. Mr. Speaker, what I would say is I think I have adequately addressed my concerns here. I will be suggesting amendments to this at the Committee stage. My amendments are solely in the intentions of creating a stronger law. I appreciate the House's time listening to me here today on these concerns, and I thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): The Chair recognizes the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this piece of legislation today because it certainly relates to persons with disabilities and the office representing persons with disabilities lies with the Department of Advanced Education and Skills; therefore, it is an opportunity for me to be able to speak about this legislation and how it relates certainly to the department.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I think we should note is, there have been questions about consultation and who has been consulted on this piece of legislation. The most important group would be anybody who has a disability or works with people who have an intellectual disability, including the advisory council that we have set up. It is all right to consult with the law society and lawyers, but, Mr. Speaker, sometimes we seem to forget, or overlook, that the people most affected by this certainly have an opinion, can express that opinion as well, and need to be consulted.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government recognizes the needs of individuals and the families who have intellectual disabilities, and we certainly strive to make sure that there are effective programs and services that are available in this Province. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, sometimes we have to look at the legislation and the policies as they exist to ensure that we remove any barriers that may exist.

The issue that we are dealing with today, the Registered Disability Savings Plan, certainly addresses a barrier that needs to be removed. It is designed right now, what is known as the RDSP, to assist individuals and their families, to help them make plans to look after the long-term care of individuals or the financial needs of persons with intellectual disabilities, or persons who receive the Disability Tax Credit. The way the system is set up right now in this Province, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult. There are barriers for people to be able to avail of this particular federal program.

There are a number of government departments involved in the process to bring about these changes today. As we heard from the Minister of Justice, Justice was involved, the Department of Advanced Education and Skills and the Disability Policy Office, as well, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance – the minister will speak to that as well; the Department of Health and Community Services also had input. This is a piece of legislation that seems to go across departments and certainly hits the mandates of various departments in order for us to be able to remove these barriers.

What this legislation means is a person with an intellectual disability will be able to appoint a person to be able to manage their RDSP. They will be able to appoint somebody who will oversee the RDSP and then this information is filed with the public trustee, so there a monitoring going on. It is not just that they sign away this level of responsibility without any oversight taking part.

Prior to this, the only person who could manage the RDSP for a person was a legal guardian. Mr. Speaker, that process can be onerous. The other thing is, sometimes legal guardianship is unnecessary because people may have intellectual disabilities, but it certainly does not mean that they do not have some levels of independence and can operate independently and live independently to some degree; therefore, to have a legal guardian is unnecessary. So, to set up that whole process certainly takes away somebody's right to independence, and to be able to live an independent lifestyle, in order to be able to benefit from this RDSP.

So, the other process of having the papers submitted to the public trustee protects that process as well, so that they have somebody who will overlook this narrow aspect concerning their financial matters without going into legal guardianship, and also will be filed with the public trustee – so therefore the oversight is available as well.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we established as this government in 2009 was the Provincial Advisory Council for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities. This particular advisory council provides advice to government on programs, legislation, and policies of government. It is very important that we have that oversight set up, because we want to make sure that we establish a community within this Province that has the value and understood value and people want to have an inclusive society. An inclusive society, Mr. Speaker, is a right, and it is a way we think, and it is a way that we make sure that people have access to the services and the programs and it is barrier-free. I know I have often met with groups and we will all talk about inclusiveness and how we value inclusiveness, and then you will hear people say, I agree with inclusive education if, or but, or however. So, it is almost like a value that you should have, regardless. It is not all about if you have this or if you have that then you agree with inclusive education or an inclusive society. Sometimes when groups put in these buts or these ifs, it certainly shows that they do not have the value that needs to be there, regardless. We need to make sure that people feel welcome and they feel included and they are able to access whatever services or programs that are available.

We certainly value the work being done by the Provincial Advisory Council and we have various individuals who serve on that council. It is either people who are active within the disability community on different organizations, or they work for different organizations; some people on the committee have a disability and they certainly have an insight far greater than what most people would ever have, and they bring that to their discussions as well.

One person who we have on the committee, Mr. Speaker, who I have great respect for, is our Chair, Joanne MacDonald. Joanne is known in Newfoundland and Labrador as a person who is an Officer of the Order of Canada and a member of the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. Most people of my generation know Joanne MacDonald as an athlete, and a very successful athlete, who competed, who represented this Province, and who had amazing accomplishments. Not only does she bring her experience, her insight, and her analysis, I think there is some level of star power that she brings to our Advisory Council as well. When you are in her presence, you are certainly in awe of all the accomplishments she has had for Newfoundland and Labrador and as an individual.

Joanne is only one person on our Advisory Council. We have a whole council made up of people who certainly have the analytical ability to look at these policies, look at government's decisions, and be able to help us ensure that inclusiveness remains a value that we do not lose sight of.

Mr. Speaker, based on the fact that the changes we are suggesting in this legislation will mean that people with intellectual disabilities will have the ability to benefit from the RDSP, that they will be able to designate somebody to look after these affairs without having to have a legal guardian, which is unnecessary in many cases; with the oversights that are provided by the public trustee, I feel this is a move in the right direction. It is certainly recognizing that people with intellectual disabilities should be able to access these RDSPs without a barrier set up by government. Therefore, removing a barrier certainly helps us, as we want to make sure this Province is considered an inclusive society.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am very pleased to stand this afternoon and to speak to this bill, Bill 3, with regard to the Enduring Powers of Attorney (Amendment) Act. I think it is an extremely important amendment that is being suggested here by the Minister of Justice and I think it is something we have to take very seriously.

I do thank the minister for the good explanation he gave at the beginning of this afternoon's session to add to the explanatory notes that come with the bill. I think a lot of his explanation was very, very clear and necessary.

The thing we have to understand, and the minister certainly spoke to it, about the Registered Disability Savings Plan, is that it was originally intended to be set up earlier in a child's life. The whole idea was to make sure that such a savings plan would be set up so when the child became an adult, and after the age of sixty, the adult would have some financial security as they continue in their lives. By that time you can probably be assured that perhaps their parents would be dead, or if they were not, they would be very elderly. It is important that people with disabilities can be sure, and those who love them can be sure that they will always be taken care of.

There are a lot of problems that do not exist if the RDSP is put in place when the person is a child because the parents, of course, have the right to put the RDSP in place, and then the law would continue to recognize that RDSP after the person becomes an adult. The management of the RDSP or the decisions around who is representing the child, et cetera, are all happening at a time when the parents or guardians are the ones who have that responsibility. There are a lot of potential problems that do not exist when an RDSP is getting set up, when the person for whom it is being set up is a child.

When you get into dealing with adults who have disabilities, and trying to set up an RDSP for adults with disabilities, obviously it becomes more difficult. That is something that the bill does speak to and speaks to very well, as we have had pointed out by other speakers. The heart of the bill really is section 15.

Section 15 does put care into defining who is able to enter into an agreement that would allow designates to stand in for them, who has the capacity to designate others. That whole section 15, especially subsection (2) which defines "In deciding whether an adult who may lack legal capacity to enter into an RDSP has the capacity to enter into a designation agreement…", there are factors that have to be considered. Section 15.(2) spells out the factors that have to be considered when trying to decide whether or not the person who may lack legal capacity has the capacity to enter into the agreement.

I was concerned in reading the bill initially, until you come to subsection (3), where subsection (3) does talk about an adult who does not meet the definitions under subsection (2), and when an adult is not entitled to appoint designates under designation agreement, but that the parents or guardians of that adult may apply to court for an order appointing the public trustee as the designate of the adult under designation agreement.

Now, there are many cases in which public trustees are given legal authority with regard to people who do not have the ability to take care of themselves, and it is important that the state does that. It is extremely important that we make sure there is somebody designated in law to make sure that all persons are protected. We have that, for example, with children. We have the Child Protection Act, and we have the Child, Youth and Family Services which is set up to take care of children. My concern is, and I guess in this case it is the Department of Justice that would take care of adults who fall under this bill, but my concern is that there is nobody or group - if there is, I would like the minister to speak to this probably in committee or even when he speaks later on today. My concern is - I am not sure, I will put it that way - who the body or group is other than the Ministry of Justice, who is going to make sure that public trustees are taking care of what they should be taking care of. If a public trustee is defined as the person who is going to be in charge of the RDSP, for example, or have other authorities over the adult with disabilities that there is an overarching system whereby somebody regularly checks to make sure that public trustees are doing their job well, that public trustees are protecting.

I am going to use the whole thing of protection of children as a parallel. We have the Child, Youth and Family Services and we also have our guardian with regard to children, we have an overarching body as well that can look at Child, Youth and Family Services and make determinations as to whether or not Child, Youth and Family Services is doing its job correctly. Who will make sure that public trustees are doing everything for the good of the individual? That is something that is not clear in the bill. I am not sure where in our system we have that kind of mechanism to make sure that the individual is protected once they come under the public trustee. It is one thing to say you have designates who have been chosen by the adult with disabilities and that person has the ability, him or herself, to monitor what is happening. While they do not have the legal capacity to do the work, they still are aware of who their designates are and they can voice if they become aware that they are not being treated well.

The system is there, I would hope, to make sure that is being monitored as well. Nowhere in the bill is monitoring talked about. Nowhere in the bill is there a sense of monitoring what the result of enacting this bill is going to mean. Nowhere in the bill does it talk about monitoring how designates are doing their work, but I do think our legal system would be able to be used with the designates. I think there should be a way in which that can happen. I do not see it here, and I would like the minister to speak to it.

Then, the extra level is, what if it becomes the public trustee? Then who is monitoring the public trustee who is part of the system, who is part of the legal system? I think we need to make sure that we have those questions answered, because not only are we talking about a power of attorney here or a form of power of attorney – it is not power of attorney, it is a form of power of attorney, but it is people acting in the stead of somebody else. Not only do we have that, but we have money involved. We all know that greed is a very powerful thing with human beings. If there is any place that we need to protect people, it is where others could benefit by getting their money.

We know that is one of the issues, for example, with abuse of seniors. Unfortunately, in our society, we actually have children who abuse their parents by finding ways to take their money. We cannot assume, which the bill does – and I understand that – but we cannot assume just because the people who are being designated are there for the good of the designator. It would be lovely if that were the case, but there are too many instances, that I am sure lawyers in the room know of – there are two many instances where people who designate others to take care of them, trusting that the others love them and are going to take care of them, learn, unfortunately, that that is not always the situation.

A big question to ask the minister: Does the government intend to monitor the results of the bill itself, and does the bill have within it – I cannot find it – or is it somewhere else in the system that I am not aware of, do we have a structure for monitoring those who are the ones designated to represent the adult with disabilities? Then, on top of that, who monitors if that is the public trustee? We have to protect the individual. The individuals we are talking about need the protection, most of them know they need the protection and they are trusting in us to make sure that they have the protection. That is one thing I put to the minister and I look forward to hearing from him.

The other thing that is not so much an issue of the bill but it is an issue that is connected, and that is we do know that this bill does eliminate some barriers that exist to stop people from making use of the RDSP; however, it is my understanding that there are issues with how the RDSP is administered by the federal government. There are a lot of rules established by the federal government that make it difficult for an individual to take money out of the RDSP and stop it from being properly used by those who need it.

There are some weaknesses in the RDSP itself. I guess what I am wondering is will the minister be discussing those issues with the federal minister who is responsible for the RDSP. Is this a discussion that has ever come up? In putting this bill together, has the Department of Justice looked at what some of the weaknesses in the RDSP are, not the RDSP itself but the administration of the RDSP. There is no sense putting that money there, having money to protect people, and then making it difficult for them to access that money. They have to be able to access it. We all know there is always the danger of government making decisions that are not always good for the individual, and we do not want that. We all want to have rules, laws, and regulations that are good for the individual.

We do know of these weaknesses, and I am wondering if the minister has thought of that, if the department has thought of it, and if these issues have been brought up with the federal government at all. If not, I think that it would be extremely important that the minister and the people who work in the ministry look at this issue because we are now, through this bill, we are going to be putting in place something that will help the vulnerable – because they are vulnerable – to be taken care of. We want to make sure that the system that we are encouraging them to use, the system of using the RDSP, is not going to render them even more vulnerable.

We want to make sure, for example, that it is going to be easier for the individuals to work with the RDSP and work with the government program than it is for them to work with the bank. Right now, under our current system, an individual with a disability can set up the RDSP, but it is the bank that is empowered. The bank is empowered to force the individual to enter into court proceedings to have a single guardian given Power of Attorney over the individual if the bank has any concerns about the individual's contractual capacity.

We do not want to change one system, which is not good for the individual, by another system which might be problematic for them as well. That is why I do have these concerns with regard to how the federal government administers the program. If we are going to encourage people and facilitate their being able to have RDSPs and to have people take care of those RDSPs for them, then we have to make sure that this is a better thing for them, not as same as they have now or worse.

I think these are the major points that I want to make, Mr. Speaker. I am glad, for example, to know that groups in the Province who are concerned about these issues have been consulted. I am aware that the Independent Living Resource Centre is pleased with this bill, and that is good. I know that consultations took place, and that is good. We have to make sure, even with that, that the bill, number one, is going to be carried out efficiently and we need to monitor that, we need to monitor how it is happening; and number two, it is going to make things better for the adults with disabilities and not add to difficulties for them.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My colleague, the Minister of Justice, and the members opposite from the Opposition and the Third Party have certainly canvassed this legislation in some detail and raised some important questions that the minister will answer and can be dealt with in more detail in committee. I wanted just to say a few words to speak to this Bill 3. It is a bill to Amend the Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act.

The idea behind the amendment is to enable greater access by people that have intellectual disabilities to avail of this Registered Disability Savings Plan, which is a federal government plan brought in by the Government of Canada, the Harper government, and in particular, Finance Minister James Flaherty. Minister Flaherty raised this whole issue at a joint Federal-Provincial-Territorial meeting of finance ministers, and his concern was – it is a concern about access. He said, we have this program to help people with disabilities; it is a savings plan to enable them and their families to put money into the plan and to grow the plan so that it can be available for their retirement. Because of this issue of capacity, which of course is a provincial issue, or something that comes within provincial jurisdiction, he said there are a lot of people not getting access to that program.

That was a major concern to him, and he asked the finance ministers from the different provinces if we would go back to our provinces and territories to discuss it with the ministers responsible for justice and the attorney generals to see if we could do something, to see if we could come up with a law and a method that would make it easier for people to be able to access these Registered Disability Savings Plans without having to go through the time delay and the expense of getting your guardian appointed for that particular purpose.

The Registered Disability Savings Plan, an RDSP, was established for the benefit of an individual who is eligible under the Disability Tax Credit, and that person is the plan beneficiary – and the plan holder, the holder of the plan is the person who opens up the RDSP and makes the decisions regarding the contributions, the investments, and the withdrawals. As was said earlier, there are basically three elements to the plan. Parents, beneficiaries, and others who wish to save on behalf of the beneficiary are allowed to contribute to the plan with the written permission of the plan holder. Contributions to an RDSP for the beneficiary have a lifetime limit of $200,000. Contributions are permitted to continue up to the end of the year in which the beneficiary gains the age of fifty-nine years.

So not only is it a savings plan, but it is also a plan where annual contributions made to a Registered Disabled Savings Plan can attract what is called a Canada Disability Savings Grant, and those are grants from the federal government at matching rates of 100 per cent, 200 per cent, and 300 per cent, depending on the beneficiary's family income and the amount contributed, up to a maximum lifetime of $70,000. So not only do you get the tax-efficient growth in the funds, because once the money is put in the fund I do not believe there is a deduction, but once it is in the plan, it will grow tax free while it is in the plan and then will be taxed, I would imagine, when the money comes out. Of course, while it is in the plan, if it can grow tax free, the money in the plan will grow at a much faster rate to the benefit of the beneficiary.

It is the same with a RRSP. It is the same with a RESP, a Registered Educational Savings Plan. With the RRSP, I think there is a tax deduction when the money goes into the plan that does not exist for a Registered Educational Savings Plan, but the money in the plan grows and is not taxed. So if it earns interest, there is no tax on that. If it is in the stock market and it earns dividends or increases in value, there is no tax on that. When the money comes out of the plan, the person presumably is in a low tax bracket and so would pay low taxes. So it is all designed to enable this pool of money to grow so that it can provide a benefit for the person who needs it, whether that person is a senior who is retiring, whether it is a person who wishes to go to university or extend their post-secondary education, or whether it is a person suffering from a disability.

The amendments that my colleague has introduced here today will serve to complement previous efforts by the government to encourage the use of the RDSP as a savings tool for persons with disabilities. The overall effectiveness of the plan depends upon treatment under provincial legislation. To ensure that individuals can take full advantage of the benefits provided by the RDSP, provinces and territories have to take action. The action, of course, as has been said here, is that when you open up one of these plans it is a contract and you have to have the legal capacity to contract. You have to have the intellectual capacity to understand the effect of the agreement you are entering into. It has been said by others that if that does not exist, then the plan could be declared null and void to the detriment possibly of the plan holder but possibly to the financial institution, like the credit union or the bank or the life insurance company that set it up.

As the minister said earlier, when it comes to intellectual capacity or mental capacity to contract, you either have it or you do not have it. We are trying to do something helpful here. We are trying to come up with something that where normally you would have to apply to the courts to have a guardian appointed, we are trying to do something quicker, something faster, something less expensive for the benefit of the people who do not have this disability. In trying to do that there, where we are changing a major law that has been accepted by the Common Law for many, many years, people like the hon. Member for Burgeo – La Poile and the Leader of the Third Party, I note, are having questions that have to be answered.

It is something here that we want to do, we want to help people access these programs because there is a benefit to them, but we also have to ensure that they are protected under our provincial laws. I can tell you that Minister Flaherty, when I went back to the next joint federal-provincial-territorial meeting of Finance Ministers, he was very concerned, I think upset would be a word, that we are not moving with this, we are not moving fast enough. He has a great interest in this area. He wants to see people with disabilities benefit.

In certain circumstances, individuals with disabilities and their families have experienced problems in establishing the RDSP as the nature of their disability precludes them from entering into a contract. Questions of appropriate legal representation in these cases are a matter of provincial law, not federal law. In many jurisdictions the only way that an RDSP can be opened for these individuals is for the individual, as I said earlier, to be declared by a court as legally incompetent and have someone named as their legal guardian.

As I said earlier, this process can involve considerable time and considerable expense on the part of concerned family members. As the minister pointed out, there was also a concern that once a guardian is appointed there are people who may have a disability in which they would not have the capacity to understand this contract they are entering into but would have the capacity to do many other things.

The bill will allow adults who may not otherwise have legal capacity to designate persons as their legally authorized representatives, and those persons can be the holders of the RDSP. It can provide for a designation agreement, a document that would be valid notwithstanding that the person signing it does not have legal capacity now or may subsequently not have that legal capacity. It will require the persons who have been named as designates to act in the best interests of the designator in the administration and operation of an RDSP, and to further provide that those persons are trustees placing the very onerous obligations of people who are trustees on the designator. It would provide that a designation agreement is effective when filed with the public trustee, and will require the designates to report annually to the designator and the public trustee respecting the operation and accounts of the particular plan. It will also establish a process by which a person, including the trustee, may apply to the court for determination on matters concerning the administration and the operation of the RDSP, and provide that the court may make an order, as appropriate, respecting the administration and the operation of the plan.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to discussions that will take place in Committee and seeing some of the answers to some of the questions that the members opposite have put forward. I think it is important that this bill or something like it be passed to ensure that people who suffer from disabilities can have access to the plan, reduce barriers to financial independence for persons with disabilities which is an important public policy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I applaud the intentions of this bill as it certainly sets out to fill a void and to solve a potential problem; however, I have concerns that it may introduce additional problems for the people who are intended to benefit. First of all, if we consider capacity, capacity can come in many forms depending on the type of transaction that is contemplated. My understanding of capacity is that the person who is entering into the agreement understands the nature and consequence of what they are doing.

We are talking about the nature to enter into a contract. There is also the testamentary capacity to execute a will, which I think most counsel would say is higher; capacity to execute a deed, which might be less testamentary capacity; and for many of us who have frequented divorce courts, the capacity to marry, which apparently is a very low level of capacity, maybe lower than what they are contemplating here today.

However, when I read section 15, and it says: "whether the adult is aware that entering into a designation agreement or changing or revoking it means that the designates may make, or stop making, decisions or choices that affect the adult as they relate to the RDSP", that seems to have defined capacity. It seems to mean that the person understands what they are doing, so in that case, they would in fact have capacity. If we are dealing with somebody who does not have capacity, then the bill says that, in looking at the capacity in the designation agreement, "all relevant factors shall be considered, including (a) whether the adult communicates, orally or otherwise, a desire to enter into the RDSP and the designation agreement".

Presumably, this is somebody who has some form of incapacity, which means that they would not have been shopping for one of these, so they would not have known about it in their own right. Somebody would have had to come to them and explain it to them. I think it is a great thing that an issue that troubles parents, particularly of children who have capacity issues, is: What happens when I am gone? Who will look after my son or daughter for however long, and how will they not be victimized or properly cared for?

In some cases, we may be looking at people who have already made a transition to group homes. When we look at this and say whether the adult demonstrates preferences and can express feelings of approval or disapproval, we wonder about the level of the person's capacity.

In 15, it also goes on to say: "whether the adult has a relationship with the persons who are intended to be designates that is characterized by trust". This may well be a homecare worker; it may well be a person in a group home. Just because the person trusts the other person, does that mean that is what is intended here?

I can see a situation with this bill whereby a designator can designate two people who may have gotten to know that person over time and realized that this person is actually the owner or beneficiary of a Registered Disabled Saving Plan, gain that person's trust and then have them execute a designation to them and pretty much loot the fund. It is made even easier in section 16.(5), which says: "A designation agreement is effective when it is filed with the public trustee…" – that is the good part. The bad part is: "that filing may be made by facsimile transmission or other electronic means."

Now, in this Province, a person cannot go into a law firm and retain a lawyer without providing proof of identification. You must prove your identification to the lawyer, even if the lawyer has known you for fifty years. This seems to introduce a weakness into what is legislation that is well meant. So, this seems to say that two individuals would be able to gain the confidence of a person who had one of these funds, have that person execute a new designation – and I am not sure how the person would execute it, because the person may or may not be able to write. The person likely cannot read. So a designation can be then registered or filed with the trustee and taken to the bank and the whole fund cashed out.

Even in the news today, there was a story of an eighty-seven year old woman whose accounts have been looted and who had even applied for and received a line of credit, because she thought or maybe she was in fact giving money to grandchildren in need; the son was saying that the mother did not want to be identified because she was embarrassed. We have difficulty taking care of the rights and the financial needs and other needs of elderly people with elder abuse, and this legislation may inadvertently introduce opportunities for people to be able to take advantage of people who are not just elderly, but vulnerable and elderly. So, hopefully, we would review the legislation to make sure that it does the job that it needs to do.

In some areas it seems to introduce maybe an unnecessary complication. In section 19.(1) it says: "Where a designate resigns, dies or is unable to act, notice shall be given in writing by that designate" – presumably not by the designate – "or the designate's representative to (a) the designator", who is incompetent and might not realize he or she has even died, "(b) the other designate under the designation agreement; (c) the public trustee; and (d) the bank or financial institution". What happens if that designate dies intestate? Whose death is not reported? We are assuming, in my view, quite a bit of good faith by individuals, for better or worse, coming from one of the professions that is not known as a trusting profession. That is why people say they love each other and they want to get married, and the lawyers say: Well, let's have a premarital, written contract to make sure you do love me, and that when you go I am going to keep all my stuff.

The bill has significant merit in its intentions but some of the potential difficulties that I see would make it hard to support, because practicing law over the years, lawyers always struggle with and try to convince the judge of what the legislators really intended. When the lawyers go off to court and try to convince the judge of what the legislators really intended, you would wonder if you were even in the same country. The lawyer is trying to find a remedy on behalf of their clients in front of a judge.

I would hope that we will be able to work with the bill. Some potential improvements might be that if there was some simplified procedure available through the courts. We have seen progress in the courts in the last eight years, and credit is due to the government. We have seen improvements in the small claims court in jurisdictional amounts. We have seen the Unified Family Court expanded. We have seen more people who are unrepresented feel more comfortable in being able to appear in court. Judges and lawyers do not necessarily prefer unrepresented people because they are a lot more work. That does not necessarily mean it is a bad thing. It just means the law has to be explained to them in real English so they can understand it and not wonder what happened. It would be possible, in my view, to have a simplified process so an application could be made to court in a very simplified procedure by individuals, form driven, forms that could be produced by, presumably by the department, and rulings or appointments could be made.

Another potential remedy for the issue of unscrupulous or self-serving designates could be that when we apply to court for an application for letters of administration, the people who are the intended administrator has to show evidence that that administrator has the financial means to be able to indemnify the estate if something happens, if there is wrongdoing. It would seem to be of some assistance in this bill, in this legislation, if anybody who sought to be a designate had to demonstrate the financial means to be able to indemnify the disabled person if there was any wrongdoing. That would tend to probably limit the field to a very small number of people who would agree to be designates. Why would anybody want to be a designate if they did not truly have the person's best interests at heart? If they truly have the person's best interests at heart, then they would want to indemnify them for any shortcomings. If they did not want to do that, then they are probably not the right person as a designate.

I am encouraged that the federal legislation could be of such potential assistance to people. I agree that we need to do something to facilitate this ongoing process, but I am looking forward to seeing some discussion and maybe revisions so that this legislation gets passed ultimately.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member for St. John' Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have found the discussion very interesting and the complex issues that have been presented today. While I feel it is a step in the right direction, I do hope that the government intends to monitor the result of the enacting bill to ensure that it does not have any unintended consequences.

Again, what we are attempting to do here today with this bill is to encourage and facilitate more people and families participating in the RDSP process, which may be of benefit to many people with cognitive or mental disabilities who are so very vulnerable in our society. My concern - and I realize this is a federal issue - is the ceiling of sixty years old. We know that oftentimes in our communities and in our society people with disabilities, particularly people with cognitive or mental disabilities, are often very much assisted and cared for by their families or by their parents. In a situation of a person who has a disability reaching the age of sixty, often their parents are eighty years or older. We know that as we age our financial needs often increase. Our ability for income diminishes, and often our financial needs, again, increase. I am concerned. I have spoken to many parents who are very worried about their sons or daughters who do have disabilities, who may become vulnerable, and who do need assistance from their parents. They are very, very concerned about the well-being and the financial well-being of their sons and daughters.

My concern by encouraging and facilitating more people to take advantage of this program is that their money is so very locked up until the age of sixty. My concern is that the age of sixty for this particular population is probably too late. I would hope that our government would bring to the federal powers that be a concern about the age before redemption – redemption before the age of sixty results in significant penalties.

I would like to see a review of the age and that perhaps the age in this particular category of program should be lowered to better reflect and address the needs of people with cognitive or mental disabilities; again, because of their specific needs and the fact that often their parents may have predeceased them or are significantly older at that age.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Minister of Justice speaks now, he will be closing debate in the second reading on Bill 3.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this is not a complicated bill but it is a complicated issue that we are dealing with here. We were aware of that from the get-go, from the first initial discussions on this subject in my department and with the stakeholders that it was going to raise some interesting questions and concerns with respect to changing the law on legal capacity, and with regard to establishing a different threshold as in the case of the RDSP applications. In any area where you are breaking new ground, you can anticipate a lot of questions and concerns about whether or not we are doing it right, whether or not we have all the glitches out of it, and whether or not we can guarantee that at the end of the day we are not going to get any unintended results.

Theoretically, Mr. Speaker, that is where we should be. So, we fully anticipated the questions and concerns – at least some of them – that the other side has raised. I appreciate their comments and appreciate their questions, and they are taken with all sincerity.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we did do here that we are very satisfied with, we consulted comprehensively with the stakeholders and with the disability office in coming up with this bill. We were satisfied at the end of the day that in searching to see what we could put into effect to address this specific issue, we were satisfied that what we have accomplished here is the best that we could come up with. We perfectly appreciate the fact there are issues and concerns. We have them, and we have had them from the start, and I am sure they will be raised in Committee.

I have so many notes here from the people who spoke today and I have questions and issues all over the place that I do not think it would be wise for me to try to explain an answer, or give a response to each one of them at this stage that would be in any ways effective or conclusive that would not have to be revisited again in Committee. So, Mr. Speaker, what I am going to suggest is that we will try to get responses for – many of the responses are already here in the act. Many of the responses can be addressed pretty simply, very quickly, but some of them are a bit more complicated and we need to explore a little bit further. So, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to speak to these in Committee, at the introduction in Committee, and try to address some of the issues that the people have raised at that time.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will stop there and now request that this bill proceed to second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act. (Bill 3)

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

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Enduring Powers Of Attorney Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 3)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I now call Order 4 from the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Government House Leader, that Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000". (Bill 4)

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in this House today and to introduce the second reading to Bill 4, which is An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. Pursuant to the Budget 2011, this government seeks approval to amend the Income Tax Act to allow for the introduction of a non-refundable tax credit for volunteer firefighters in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us can remember when we were in primary or elementary school and we were always asked the question a lot of what we wanted to be, and what we would like to be when we grew up. Invariably, the majority would answer: firefighter, police officer, doctor, or nurse. I do not think many would have said politician. So even at a very young age, there was a great degree of admiration for firefighters. I think the response from children is not only because of the bright red fire truck or the sirens, but also because of an understanding of the very valuable contribution that firefighters make to our Province, our country, and all of our society.

One of the key reasons that children admire firefighters and love firefighters is because they make them feel safe and secure in their own homes. They help them feel that their entire community is as safe and secure as their own homes. That feeling, Mr. Speaker, is priceless.

Volunteers are the lifeblood of any community. As a volunteer, I do not think there is any greater calling than to serve as a member of a volunteer fire department. Volunteer firefighters spend countless hours training and upgrading to ensure that they are prepared and equipped with the necessary skills to take on the responsibility of providing protection to the property and to the lives of their fellow citizens. This often requires personal sacrifice, taking valuable time away from their family and their friends, and for that we can all be sincerely thankful.

Now, as the hon. members of this House very well know, firefighters are held in the highest esteem by all members of the general public for the critical role they play in our lives, and the respect they are accorded is certainly well-deserved. It takes a great deal of commitment and a great deal of courage to put on a bunker suit and to crawl into a smoke-filled building. The images we see on TV of the firefighter with his or her face covered with soot as he or she walks out of the rubble of the Twin Towers in New York City will forever be etched in our memories and serve as a testament to the dedication and the valour of firefighters throughout the world. We all attend the annual balls of the volunteer firefighters in our districts and I have heard it said on a number of occasions something that I will never forget, and it is the statement that during 9/11 when everybody was rushing away from the building with fear in their eyes, and the firefighters, of course, were the ones running toward the building; and we all know the results of that.

Mr. Speaker, people care about their communities and they want to be actively involved in them and many community services only survive because of the volunteers who freely give their time and I thank those that do this. Their contribution enriches our communities and it makes us more resilient and helps define the character of our Province. In so many cases it is the fire department that is central to representing the ideals of the community while also maintaining the safety of its residents.

Fire departments have a special uniqueness. There are not many groups that require the volunteers to put down their pens or their tools or their children day or night to rush off and put themselves in danger to protect the lives and the property of others. This is exactly what many of them do.

Mr. Speaker, before I entered public life, I was not aware of what volunteer firefighters do, so I had the opportunity to be invited to the annual balls that the firefighters have and I went to the first one in Massey Drive and then in Pasadena and Steady Brook, Little Rapids, and of course the one in the City of Corner Brook. I got to see what they do and I am sure, like every other member in this House, that when you meet them and you see how they give up their time, and how much respect all of us have for them. We have all been tremendously impressed at their dedication and the work ethic of volunteer firefighters and all firefighters for that matter, especially those who do not get paid.

I also married one, so I am always – she always tells me of the important role that they do play in the community and the time and effort that they put in.

As our population ages, volunteers have less and less ability, or there are less and less volunteers in the community. I understand that for volunteer firefighters the numbers – while under pressure – are holding up, but pressures are growing on their time right across the Province. Staffing volunteer departments with people who can respond within minutes of an incident, of a fire, can be very, very tough. Changing demographics, changing work patterns and continual training requirements, among other things, all place demands on firefighters.

With this pressure in mind, our government wished to acknowledge the commitment of the men and women in the volunteer fire service. I first heard of this through talk that there was going to be a federal tax credit for volunteer firefighters. There is a lot of talk of that at the federal level but no one ever suggested we do it at the provincial level. When the federal government came in with their non-refundable tax credit in the federal budget, which is based on the amount of $3,000 and their tax rate is 15 per cent, so it is a $450 credit. We recognize that if we did the same thing, if we mirrored exactly what the federal government would do, that would enhance their credit by an additional $231. That is why Budget 2011 proposed this new non-refundable tax credit based on the amount of $3,000 for certain volunteer firefighters. Non-refundable credits are applied to the tax rate applicable to the first bracket, or the lowest bracket. The value of the credit is the same regardless of a person's income. A non-refundable tax credit can be used to reduce federal or provincial territorial taxes payable down to zero.

Since Budget 2011, officials in the Department of Finance, of course, have been asked: How do you qualify, and what constitutes eligible volunteer firefighter services? You may recall the federal budget, which also included a non-refundable tax credit, and the provincial non-refundable tax credit would generally parallel the credits available to taxpayers under the federal Income Tax Act. As announced on Budget Day, the government indicated that the provincial tax credit would replicate the federal Volunteer Firefighters Tax Credit to every extent possible. In most cases, a taxpayer's eligibility for the credit is dependent on their eligibility for the corresponding federal credit.

These rules proclaiming credits are the same as the rules for the federal tax credit. This avoids confusion and it avoids the unnecessary requirements for volunteer departments having to comply with two different sets of rules governing the administrative and the compliance requirements. To qualify for the credit the person must be a volunteer firefighter and must have completed "…a minimum of 200 hours of eligible volunteer firefighter services with one or more fire departments in the year."

Eligible volunteer firefighter services will include the services that the person provided as a volunteer firefighter to a fire department, which consists primarily of the following primary services. First of all, responding to or being on call for firefighting and related emergency calls as a firefighter; secondly, attended meetings held by the fire department; and, participating in required training relating to prevention or suppression of fire. Other services that would be eligible would be where the firefighter is responsible for maintenance of vehicles and equipment used by the fire department, and the delivery of educational sessions undertaken by that person's fire department. Volunteers will rely on their respective fire departments to determine the number of hours of eligible volunteer firefighter services that have been completed in the year. The applicable policies and procedures of a fire department would be applied in determining the number of hours the person was on call for firefighting and related emergency calls as a firefighter.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this tax credit is a non-refundable tax credit. When we prepare our income tax returns the first step is to calculate our taxable income. Depending on what bracket you are in, the taxable income is then multiplied by one or more of our three tax rates. The lowest tax rate in this Province, which is the lowest in Atlantic Canada, is 7.7 per cent. For all of us who are now in the middle of preparing our tax returns for last year, that rate is the one that gets applied to the first $31,904 of taxable income.

The non-refundable tax credits are handled in the same way. Whether it is your personal exemption, tax credit, your age or spousal amounts, your CPP or your EI contributions and premiums, or now your $3,000 Volunteer Firefighters' Tax Credit; the amount of the credits are multiplied by the lowest personal income tax rate for the year or 7.7 per cent. Effectively, a $3,000 credit will remove the tax paid on $3,000 of income at the first rate. This ensures that the actual value of the credit is the same for everyone regardless of how much income they have. At a 7.7 per cent tax rate, the $3,000 credit would have a value of $231. This initiative will return an estimated $1.4 million back into the pockets of volunteer firefighters across the Province to show them, in a small way, that we all appreciate what they are doing. When combined with the federal tax credit of $450, it makes it even better.

Mr. Speaker, I know all members fight very hard for the volunteer fire departments in their districts. We have a duty on them and we have a responsibility placed on them to protect our lives and to protect our property. We want to make sure they have the necessary training and the necessary equipment to do the job that we mandate that they do. I look here at some of the things that have gone into the volunteer fire departments in Steady Brook, in Pasadena, and in Massey Drive in Corner Brook, in my district. I know that all members from all sides of the House are very concerned in ensuring the volunteer firefighters, wherever they work and whatever community they are in, do in fact have the resources they need to do the job we ask them to do, a job they do very, very well.

One other thing I will just mention is that there is an error in the bill. The bill that has been distributed, Bill 4, was sent up to Ottawa because the tax credits are administered by the Canada Revenue Agency on our behalf. They are administered in conjunction with the federal Income Tax Act. The provincial legislation is required to act in concert with the federal Income Tax Act. The bill was submitted to the Canada Revenue Agency and approved by them. On March 13, we noted there was a flaw in calculating the benefit identified. Instead of A x B, in reality it is A x B over C. So I want to give notice that when we get to Committee stage, I will be moving an amendment to the bill to correct that error.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on this very important bill, the income tax bill, and I thank the minister and the government for recognizing the work of the volunteers through this bill. We will be supporting this bill. I think it is a great move and a great gesture by the government to recognize the volunteer firefighters throughout their roles in their communities.

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I have noticed over the years, and I knew it for a number of years, being in the Bay of Islands and being around, is the role of the volunteer firefighters. If we look back years ago when a lot of them were just starting up their own fire brigades in their own little towns, they would all be scrabbling for a bit of equipment, they would all be trying to bum a hose off somebody, or bum a ladder off somebody, and they came such a long way to protect their community and protect their fellow residents.

One of the things that I have noticed evolving maybe in the last ten or twelve years, is the volunteer firefighters in some departments now in rural Newfoundland and Labrador – now I know in the Bay of Islands it is, and as I look across, I would say probably in a few here – some 80 per cent of the calls now are medical calls. It has gone beyond the fire protection, and I will go through some. Like out in Lark Harbour, if you get a call in Lark Harbour, the time for an ambulance to get out there, it is going to be the minimum thirty-five, forty minutes. So the first responders are usually the firefighters who are medically trained. That also takes up a lot of time for them to get the proper training to ensure that they can respond to a lot of it.

The minister mentioned about the amount of meetings that they go to, the amount of work that they have to put in to make sure the equipment is up and running, to make sure that it is a high level of maintenance to ensure that when you need the call to go that they would do it very quickly, and that all takes up a lot of time.

I said at a lot of firemen's balls, if you get the firefighters who are volunteers in their communities, I am sure that they can find a lot better things to do with their family than be up working on the truck or working – but because of their dedication to their town and dedication to their community and dedication to the fellow citizens, they decided to become a volunteer firefighter, and it is a great way to recognize them. I know the minister, and I know the government, there is no way to be able to repay the amount of services that they give, but this is just a recognition to all the volunteer firefighters, and a thank you from the government and the people to say that we recognize the work that you do, and thank you very much.

As I mentioned earlier with the expanded role, the medical role now that they have with the defibrillators, – just about every fire department now has one; they have it and there is a certain number of them on the fire brigade itself who had to go and get trained on it - their role now has become much more than just firefighting and their role itself now, their towns are depending more on them for medical calls also. It is not just that if you happen to get a fire now; if you have a medical call, a lot of times they will phone someone in the fire department to come over, then they call 9-1-1 or call the ambulance. It is a bit of a difference for the firefighters and they understand that and they accept the role. I heard the minister state that 9/11, when firefighters were running to, everyone else was running away. That is so true. I know I heard it on many occasions from the minister and I see in many occasions in rural Newfoundland, and especially in the Bay of Islands, where the firefighters, when they go to a fire – on a lot of occasions they put their own lives at risk and they are definitely to be commended for the work that they do.

I will just go through some of the fire departments, Mr. Speaker, in the Bay of Islands. I go out to Cox's Cove; there is a fire brigade in Cox's Cove, and a good friend of mine is the fire chief, Wayne Payne. In Cox's Cove, it is a bit isolated from the rest; it is probably eight to ten kilometres from McIvers, and a lot of hills to get there, and they almost need their new brigade; I know they will be looking for a new fire truck, I say to the minister, to ensure. All the equipment that they get, Mr. Speaker, most all the equipment that they get is through fundraising. They have a very active Firettes in Cox's Cove, very active – over forty Firettes in Cox's Cove in conjunction with the firefighters that they keep the town running.

If we can remember – and I am sure some people can, and just to talk about the expanded role, if you can remember probably a few months back when two elderly people were found in their homes, passed away in their homes, the firefighters – and Wayne was one of them, that were the first responders to the house. It is not only the physical toll that you have to go through as a firefighter, but it is the mental toll. The firefighters there, and Wayne in particular, knew those people and they were the first responders to that elderly couple that were in their home that were passed away.

The volunteer firefighters play a much more significant role than a lot a people recognize until you are actually involved.

When you move up to McIvers, Mr. Speaker, under Fire Chief Dave George, it is isolated from one end, Cox's Cove, and the other end, Gillams, so they almost have to stand alone also.

Once again, these firefighters – with the help of the council and the groups that are involved – have to do a lot of the fundraising themselves to keep the fire hall. I know that there has been a lot of assistance coming from provincial government to the firefighters. There is absolutely no doubt about that, but there are always the nicks and knacks for the stuff that they need extra that they have. The firefighters themselves go about, raise that themselves, work at it themselves, and spend extra time, extra energy themselves.

Then, up in Gillams also – every one of these places that I have mentioned have their own fire brigade. With their own fire brigade, you have the firefighters, then you have your own little fire hall, then you have your own fundraising that you need; so up in Gillams, we have Cecil Kerr and the fire department. They are rebuilding. They are coming back on a sound footing in Gillams. In Gillams, back years ago, the fire department really had to be at the top of their game because they had a high school there in their own town. The high school has moved up to Meadows, but the fire department there was very active, extremely active. Cecil now is getting the fire department back moving again. I spoke to Cecil about this tax credit and he thinks that it is more of a recognition to the firefighters, just a little thank you from the government, that everybody supports and recognizes it. I know a lot of these fire chiefs.

I know the minister is familiar with this because they just got a fire truck in Meadows – Colin Tucker, the Fire Chief in Meadows, they just got an announcement that is the truck the minister is going to come out and deliver himself. We do not know who is going to drive and who is going to present the keys, but, minister, we will work that out. Minister, if you are nice to me, I will let you drive the truck, but I am not too sure how many nerve pills I am going to need to take if you are driving. Anyway, minister, it is a nice gesture and I already let the town know that you will try to work it in your schedule to make it out. I am sure they will appreciate that, minister.

If you look at Meadows, here we have a bunch of volunteer firefighters who have a seniors' home in their own town and they also have the largest K-12 school in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in their hometown. They have committed to the best of their ability to protect all the citizens and students from all the North Shore who come to Meadows, in that area, to protect them. In order to do that, we all know how much work and dedication they have to put in themselves, the training and the hard work. I know they - probably I am going back five or six years – just built a brand new fire hall for their fire truck, and now the new fire truck that they are going to get. They have a lot of extra equipment.

I am not sure how many other fire brigades around the Province do this, Meadows Fire Department has brought themselves up training to the level where they actually help out the fire commissioner's office and do training to other fire departments. To me that is dedication. They help out, and in the long run they actually save the fire commissioner's office some of the funding that they would use on training because the Meadows Fire Department, the group of volunteers they have there went out and did extra courses so that they can go out and do training all throughout the West Coast. To Colin Tucker, and to all the trainees who took these courses, I say congratulations.

In Meadows, Mr. Speaker, they also have a great firettes group. They are a great group; they work hard to raise money for their brigade in Meadows. They work very publicly with the fire department. All the firefighters are very actively involved with the firettes, and the firettes are very actively involved with the firefighters in the town itself. Once again, this was discussed with Colin, this tax break that is being brought forward. They also want to express their gratitude that it is an acknowledgement of the work they do. Through this means of the House of Assembly, I want to pass on their acknowledgement of that.

Let me go up to the H.I.S. Fire Department, Mr. Speaker, and Rick Parsons, a good friend of mine - Rick Parsons who is the fire chief in the fire department in the H.I.S. It is called Hughes Brook, Irishtown, Summerside because it was three towns, they were separate towns. The three towns combined. They have a very large distance to cover, so it is three of them combined, Mr. Speaker. With three of them combined, they have created one great fire department there.

They also have a senior's home, a capacity of about ninety beds in a senior's home right in their own town that they committed to ensure that it is going to be safe. They have a large number of residents. They have a population now where they know they have to stay on top of their training, to be on top of what they need to know with all their new equipment coming. I think they just received from the government, I believe $50,000 to do some renovations for their fire hall. I want to acknowledge that they received a contribution for their fire hall to help with the roof. I just want to recognize that also. That is going to be great, because they just received a fire truck also in the last four years. They had it committed, but they have a new fire truck. They are going to increase the fire hall to ensure the capacity for the new fire truck.

They also are very active, and Rick, himself, mentioned to me – I am going to bring up something else that I know the Minister of Health is familiar with because I wrote her. It is about the hepatitis B shots that I am going to bring up later, that Rick Parsons asked me to bring up. I wrote the Minister of Health on it. I will be bringing it up later on the hepatitis B shots, minister, for volunteer firefighters, and your response. I will be bringing that up later on behalf of Rick Parsons.

All those fire departments, Mr. Speaker, on the North Shore, which goes about forty-five, fifty kilometres on the North Shore, they all have a mutual aid agreement. It is great to see how well they work together, how much they all are intertwined and ready to help out. If their compressor is down, they are (inaudible) to borrow the other air compressor. They are always there to help each. This is what volunteer firefighters do, Mr. Speaker. They are always there to help. They are leaders in their communities. They are always on the move to try to find something else, how they can improve the fire department to improve the safety for their towns.

On the south side, Mr. Speaker, we have Mount Moriah. Mount Moriah is adjacent to Corner Brook, but Mount Moriah has its own fire department also. Paul Butt is the fire chief there. Again, back years ago – I am going back eight, ten, twelve, probably twelve years ago they had a new fire truck also. They have a very active fire department. They have a group of individuals also who put a lot of time into their fire department, in training, in equipment, and in preparing for the fire.

There is one thing all members here have recognized. Over the last number of years, infrastructure in all of our towns has increased. Water and sewer have become much more abundant in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. So they have to ensure the equipment is capable of the new water and sewer and of the new valves that are on the fire hydrants. Some do not have it. Some just may have the runoff valves. All of that has to be tested and all of that has to be ensured, especially in the winter time, that the hydrants are flowing properly and that the runoff valves are running just in case you need to go to a fire.

So this is all the kind of stuff that we in this room, a lot of us in this Assembly, take for granted. On a Monday night when they are going for training, a lot of them say: Well, let's go check a few fire hydrants to make sure that the hydrants are working properly. This is the kind of stuff we do not see and a lot of people do not see, but we all know it is happening. I just want to thank all of the firefighters for that.

Mr. Speaker, as you move down the south shore of the Bay of Islands, we have the town of Humber Arm South. Glenn Savard is the fire chief. They are a very active fire brigade – very active. There are twenty-seven members, I think they mentioned to me when I was down to the fireman's ball just recently, twenty-seven members. They had a new truck probably about little over four years ago, Mr. Speaker. About four years ago they got a new truck. They had a lot of renovations done to their fire hall.

This town here, when the Minister of Municipal Affairs back years ago, when we all talked co-operation among towns, when we all started sharing services, this town was four communities. The four communities all combined into one and they created the town of Humber Arm South. It was Halfway Point, Benoit's Cove, John's Beach, and Frenchman's Cove, and it runs probably about 14 kilometres or 15 kilometres – probably 12 kilometres to 14 kilometres, one end to the other. So this fire brigade and these firefighters have to ensure that the fire hydrants, which are in place in most parts of the town now, are up and running. They have to ensure when they get a call that the response time is reasonable, so they have to do a lot of the dry runs to ensure they can get there in the response time both winter and summer. It is a town with a fish plant with 200 or 300 people working there at a time, so they have to be ready for an evacuation. They have a school there; they have a K-9 school, which again they have be prepared to evacuate if there is any problems, any fires or any other emergencies there at the school.

A lot of these firefighters which I know personally are people who put their heart and soul into it. I know that – and I spoke to Glenn on this also – they do it for the love of their town, and I know they do it because their families are the ones involved, and I know they do it because of their commitment to the town, commitment to the community. I guess this is just a little way to say that we recognize what you do, the government recognizes, and we on this side recognize what the firefighters do for the people all throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Me, in particular, I am just singling out the Bay of Islands, but I know that I am speaking for all members here because I know that all members want to have the opportunity to speak on this bill; I know I am speaking for all members here that they recognize the volunteer firefighters all throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as you move further on out to the Bay of Islands, you look at York Harbour-Lark Harbour volunteer firefighters; Bill Sheppard is the fire chief there. Bill, again, this fire department has been energized; they have a great group involved with them, and I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs, with a job creation program – and if the minister has time when he is out, we can show some great results with the job creation program that the town council out there have gotten. The town council in York Harbour were able to upgrade their fire hall, and if you see the difference of this fire hall that Bill and the council have undertaken over the last two or three months, you would be amazed with the transformation of this fire department, the building location itself. I know, minister, they are going to be looking for a new fire truck also. Their request is in. They are on the outside of the Bay of Islands; York Harbour-Lark Harbour has combined services with their fire department and it is much needed out in the outer Bay of Islands with the new fire truck and with the work that they just did on the fire hall.

Minister, they did ask me to mention to you that they are appreciative that there were some extra funds there. If you had seen the difference – they have pictures before and after the building; it was a great job and a lot of the work was done, designed after by some of the firefighters with the volunteer work after. They are very appreciative, and again to Bill and all the firefighters out that way, we recognize the work you have done and I can see it first-hand, as do a lot of other people.

You cannot discuss the firefighters and you cannot discuss their volunteer work unless you mention the town councils. Every town council that I know that has volunteer firefighters has great support from the town council. I just want to recognize the town councils for their support because without them a lot of these volunteer firefighters would not be able to carry out their duties. Collectively, for everybody in this House, I just say thank you to the councils, thank you for the fire departments.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned a thing earlier about vaccinations for hepatitis B. This was an issue that was brought up to me during the election, before the election, and after the election. I wrote the minister on this here and it was brought up and it was pushed a lot by H.I.S. Rick Parsons and David Ruth. They mentioned it to me a couple of times and they were very concerned about it.

The reason why, Mr. Speaker, they are very concerned, as I mentioned earlier, in some of these fire departments 80 per cent of their calls are medical. It is hard for a firefighter – and I do not think any firefighting brigade or any member here, if they get a call medically they are going. Even if they are not covered under hepatitis B they are going, there is no way of stopping them, no way whatsoever. The concern with them is that if there is any way through the Department of Health that they can get this hepatitis B shot – I think the cost is probably up to $95 or $100.

I know the minister wrote back and the minister explained in the letter that I have who is covered and what constitutes to be covered, but I just ask the minister if there is any way to revisit that. Part of the concern they have is that they do these medical calls, and in cases they do save lives and they do help out the medical system in a lot of cases, but also, Mr. Speaker, they put their own lives at risk by a chance of catching this hepatitis B. When you go to a car accident, if you are going to someone's home, you are not sure yourself. The big thing that Rick Parsons mentioned in a letter, in rebut to a letter that was in the paper by the person, Vince MacKenzie who is with the Newfoundland and Labrador firefighters, like Rick said, Newfoundland and Labrador gets a lot of people visiting Newfoundland and Labrador from away, how do we know who has hepatitis B. Even people around here, everyone knows we are all covered because we may get it in high school or we may get it – but how do we know, if people are away, who has had hepatitis B. If you are going to a medical scene and before any respondent can get there, you are there for a half hour, you are going to do your best, whatever it is, you are going to do your best.

I know that some of the things that Mr. MacKenzie put in – and I am not criticizing Mr. MacKenzie because I have never met the man in my life. Some of the things that he put in, in rebuttal, and I just want to explain to the minister, one of the things he put in his rebuttal is that the schools were all vaccinated since 1978. From my research and my understanding of it, it is 1995. So, anybody who is beyond 1995, twenty-six years or older, is not covered under hepatitis B. They are not covered under the hepatitis B. This is a big concern because as we know and I know as the Minister of Finance mentioned that a lot of people who are firefighters in rural Newfoundland have been there for years. A lot of them are much older than twenty-six. They are much older than twenty-six years old.

I know the Department of Health looked at this and I know that they did, but there is another little issue there, Mr. Speaker, you could bring up. These volunteer firefighters, if they go out and get hurt they are covered under Workers' Compensation. The whole government recognizes the role that they play; we all recognize that. In this case it was mentioned with the tax credit that some people may be able to go out and that would offset the cost for the hepatitis B shot. My question is, then, if we are giving a service to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, if we are fulfilling a mandate because we are such a rural area in Newfoundland and Labrador, somewhere along the line we should look at this, Minister. I feel that we should look at this hepatitis B for volunteer firefighters across Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the criteria and you look at the pre-exposure to previously immune for hepatitis B – and it was mentioned in the minister's letter, up to $231 eligible to volunteer firefighters; this would offset the financial burden that may be incurred in relation for their voluntary services, which is the hepatitis B. If you look at the pre-exposures to people who were given the shot by the Department of Health, "Health care workers and students of their professions who are at increased risk for infection, particularly those exposed to blood or blood products and bodily fluids", Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, those are the ones who have been immune.

If you go down to see who is recommended: "For those who are considered to be at risk of exposure to blood and bodily fluids by virtue of their occupation." Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I have a touch of the flu. I just find it hard speaking, but this is such an important issue that I just had to come in today to speak on it.

Mr. Speaker, there is no difference here between the people who receive the shot for hepatitis B and the volunteer firefighters who are out doing this every day, absolutely none. The only difference is the people who have the hepatitis B shot are directly employed by the department or are doing the services. That is the difference.

You can come out with the argument that because they are covered under Workers' Compensation, that if they get injured while attending a fire or some medical call – if they are going ahead and doing that and they get hurt in any way, then they are covered under Workers' Compensation. My question to the minister and to the government is: Why can't these volunteer firefighters across the Province – why would they have to use this $231 tax credit to go and pay for this shot where they are doing the service for all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador?

I ask the government to consider that. I know one of the concerns that they are saying is that we should not be able to use our fundraising efforts and the money that we use for fundraising for equipment for the hepatitis B shot; that is always a big concern with them. So, I ask the government to consider that, because along with this tax credit – which again I recognize is a great contribution and is a great acknowledgement to all the firefighters in the town, Mr. Speaker – I also ask them to look at the hepatitis B shot. I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs if there is any way that we can find some way to get around that to help out.

I think if someone off the street went up, I think it is $125 or $135, but if you get it at through the Department of Health, they can give you a cut-rate for, I think it is, $95 or $90. Mr. Speaker, by the time you add that up – HIS, for example, $90, and by the time you have twenty-seven or twenty-eight firefighters, we are looking at $3,000 of their hard-earned money fundraising that they are using for other pieces of equipment to go toward that. It is a very important issue, and I committed that I would bring it up. When I saw this bill here, I thought it was a great opportunity.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to once again recognize all the volunteer firefighters throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially in the District of Bay of Islands, for all their hard work and dedication. I want to make it quite clear to them all, and I know the minister will agree with me on this: this is not, by any way, trying to say this is what you are worth. We know that this is just a token of our appreciation to say we recognize what you do.

Once again, another concern that I am glad was fixed up with the federal minister, Gail Shea, is the 200 hours that was needed to qualify. Back when I was dealing with some of the firefighters and this came up – and from my understanding, this has been resolved with the department, and I am not sure to what degree, because I have not seen the final details on it; if you go out on a medical call, is this covered for firefighting? I am not sure. That was one of the concerns before: that it was not.

Then, again, as I mentioned before, a lot of towns out my way, most of their calls, the vast majority now are medical calls. I do not know, and I am assuming - I do not know if the minister had any correspondence from her federal counterpart on that. Minister, if you did, can you let me know so I can pass it on to the firefighters out in the Bay of Islands who expressed concern to me? I am glad that this on-call - because a lot of times if you are at a fire, if you are there, for example, doing some of the duties, and the police ask you to stick around just in case there is a hotspot, in a lot of cases where you would be on-call, just waiting, that was not covered. From my understanding now, Minister, that is being covered.

We have to ensure that the training is spelled out, because a lot of the training that you do, the medical training, is that being covered? Is that being covered for the 200 hours now? I hope it is, Minister. These are questions that you can answer later, Mr. Minister, when you get up again and close debate on this bill.

Again, as I said to a lot of people at a lot of firemen's balls that I attended, these firefighters train all year round, praying that they will never have to use their training. We all agree with that, Mr. Speaker. They all hope they will never have to use their training; that they would not have to use any part of their training because if they do, that means there is an emergency going on.

I always said to all the firefighters in the town, and I said it at many firemen's balls that I attended over the last twenty-one years, there is no better feeling or no better sense, that if you happen to be training all year long and you happen to save someone's life, there would be no better satisfaction for anybody than doing that if you are a volunteer firefighter.

The volunteer firefighters, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, it is the mental stress of it. One of the guys mentioned about two months ago when there was a fire in Halfway Point and the fire chief said to me: We received the call. Once I received the call, he said, the first thing I thought about were the two kids living in the house. That was my big concern: are the kids at home? That is the other mental aspect for all the firefighters.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say government, it was great to follow suit and great to recognize the volunteer firefighters. Our Liberal caucus will be supporting this 100 per cent, and I know the minister will have an opportunity later to answer some of the concerns that I have that were expressed to me.

I ask the minister, if there is any way that you can revisit that hepatitis B for volunteer firefighters, because they do put themselves at risk, they do some of the same things as people in health care. Probably not as much, not as often, but they do come across people.

Mr. Speaker, I finish and I now adjourn on debate. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This being Tuesday, and tomorrow being Private Members' Day, this House stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.