December 6, 2012                  HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLVII   No. 65


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start proceedings today, members might recall there is a point of order that the Speaker acknowledged the other day in the House. I said I would undertake a review and provide a direction for the House. I would like to do that before we start today.

It arises as a result of a point of order raised on Tuesday by the Opposition House Leader. This point of order is related to the tabling of documents which the Opposition House Leader suggested had been read by the Minister of Natural Resources during Question Period both on Monday and on Tuesday.

The Hansard Question Period transcripts and the video clips for Monday and Tuesday have been reviewed. The Minister of Natural Resources did not cite nor claim to be quoting from any document at the time. It is not clear from any of those sources that the minister was reading from, checking, or verifying from any document. Consequently the point of order cannot be upheld.

I want to provide some guidance for the House, because it is an issue in and of itself and may require some clarification. However, it was pointed out and stated in O'Brien and Bosc on page 433 that any document quoted, and the operative word there is quoted, by a minister in Question Period must be tabled. A minister is not entitled "…to read or quote from a despatch (an official written message on government affairs) or other state paper without being prepared to table it if it can be done without injury to the public interest."

It goes on, on page 609, same document: "Any document quoted…" – again, the word quoted – "…by a Minister in debate or a response to a question during Question Period must be tabled upon request."

Further on that page, quoting Speaker Glen in the House of Commons in 1941: "The principle upon which this is based is that where there is information given to the House, the House itself is entitled to the same information as the honourable member who may quote the document." Again, the emphasis is on quote.

On page 610: "A public document referred…" – the emphasis here is on referred – "…to but not quoted by a Minister need not be tabled." It goes on to say a minister is at liberty to table documents at any time. Consequently, if during Question Period a minister reads words or figures from a document, he or she must be prepared to table that entire document. Again, the operative word here: reads words or figures; if he or she simply cites a document as a source but does not read or cite clauses from it, the document need not be tabled.

Such the guidance of the House would be used as we talk about the tabling of documents and the requiring of ministers to table documents that they may refer to, read from, or quote from.

Thank you.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have members' statements from the Member for the District of St. John's East; the Member for the District of St. John's South; the Member for the District of Burgeo – La Poile; the Member for the District of Exploits; the Member for the District of Bellevue; and the Member for the District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate St. Pius X Parish in St. John's East. The congregation celebrated its Golden Jubilee – fifty years as an established parish – on September 2.

Throughout the coming Golden Jubilee Year, St. Pius X Parish has planned events and liturgies with the theme, For the Greater Glory of God: The Past, The Present, The Future. Their plan is to honour the parishioners who did so much to lay the foundation for the parish and to celebrate their present parishioners while enthusiastically embracing their future.

When the First Communion Class of June 2013 celebrates, for example, they will be joined by the people who received First Communion in June 1963.

The worship community first met in a chapel in 1956 and St. Pius X Parish was established in 1962 with 500 families – about 2,100 parishioners.

Construction on the church on Smithville Crescent was completed in 1976. Since then, the parish has thrived and grown, priding itself in strong Jesuit leadership and service to the community, both local and international.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating St. Pius X Parish on fifty golden years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to acknowledge Mrs. Ruth Wilkins who has been bestowed the honour of receiving the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal for her active involvement in, and dedication to, her community.

Ruth Wilkins is an inspiring leader in her community. She was instrumental in developing the Shea Heights War Memorial and worked tirelessly to make this war memorial a reality.

Ruth canvassed the Shea Heights area in search of war veterans from the community, both living and deceased. Ruth compiled the names of 151 veterans and sought funding to see this project through to completion. It was through her dedication that these veterans will forever be remembered in the community of Shea Heights and, indeed, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In addition to Ruth's work on the memorial, she authored a book about Shea Heights entitled Shea Heights: The Real Story of our Home and donated the proceeds back to the community. She was awarded Citizen of the Year in 2011.

I ask all members of the House to join me in offering Ruth Wilkins congratulations on receipt of this award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I rise today to recognize and congratulate Ms Kathryn Findlay upon being named to the top ten in the Miss Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador competition for 2012. Kathryn is a Grade 12 student at St. James Regional High School in Channel-Port aux Basques.

This event honours our Province's most amazing, intelligent, and talented young women. This program provides participants with an opportunity to win scholarships and awards, and raises community awareness about the positive contributions youth make to this Province.

Ms Findlay won the provincial Lions Club Speak-Off this year and placed third in the Atlantic Canada Lions Club Speak-Off held in Antigonish, Nova Scotia. She volunteers at the local hospital and teaches French to children with special needs. She is a talented singer and piano player. She is also the reigning Winter Carnival Queen for Port aux Basques and is an avid basketball and softball player. Kathryn plans to pursue a career as a speech pathologist when she graduates.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending congratulations to this multi-talented young lady and wish Ms Kathryn Findlay well with all her future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Exploits.

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, on September 26, 2011, the Government of Canada announced the creation of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation, which is the first landless band in the country. On Tuesday, October 23, 2012, their members held a provincial election to elect a Chief, a Central Vice-Chair, and a Western Vice-Chair.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Randy Drover, a resident of Bishop's Falls in the District of Exploits, was a candidate for the position of Central Vice-Chair. Randy began volunteering with the Exploits Indian Band Council which is now Sple'tk First Nations in the youth program, and served as National Vice Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal peoples. He is currently employed with the Town of Bishop's Falls as Town Manager.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of his House to join me in congratulating Randy Drover on being elected as the First Central Vice-Chair of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Bellevue.

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House to pay recognition to three outstanding constituents in the great District of Bellevue. Mr. Speaker, on October 11, I was joined by the former Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector and had the privilege of presenting Mr. Gerald Smith of Dildo and Mrs. Barbara Barrett of Arnold's Cove with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal.

These two individuals have been volunteers in many capacities within their communities and surrounding areas for many years. Their commitment and dedication certainly strengthen their resume in becoming a Jubilee recipient.

Mr. Hayward Smith, a peacekeeper, was presented with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal on Remembrance Day for his outstanding service, volunteerism, and leadership to the cadets and the Town of Norman's Cove-Long Cove.

Mr. Speaker, time would not permit me to adequately describe the many reasons why these individuals have been chosen for these awards.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating these three constituents in becoming recipients of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to deliver accolades to Northern Harvest Sea Farms, which has been officially recognized as a world leader in the aquaculture industry. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this company has become the first salmon operation in North America to receive the Best Aquaculture Practices three-star certification.

This is a testament that Newfoundland and Labrador fish farmers are leading the way with respect to sustainable and responsible farming practices. The Best Aquaculture Practices is an international certification program based on achievable, science-based, and continuously-improved global performance standards for the entire aquaculture supply chain – farms, hatcheries, processing plants, and feed mills.

For salmon and other major farmed species, Best Aquaculture Practices requires effective management of animal health, feed inputs, water quality, and food safety. We are leading the way in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and we are only just beginning!

I ask all members to join me in recognizing Northern Harvest Sea Farms for their contribution to the rural economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the aquaculture industry of North America.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to honour the memory of fourteen young women who were killed during what is referred to as the Montreal Massacre.

On December 6, 1989, fourteen female students were brutally murdered at Montreal's École Polytechnique. These women were students in the traditionally male-dominated field of engineering and targeted simply because they were women.

In 1991, the federal government designated today, December 6, as the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. It is important we honour the memory of these fourteen young women, and encourage every person in Newfoundland and Labrador to take a stand to end violence against all women.

Violence against women in our Province remains a serious issue. According to Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and Royal Canadian Mounted Police data, between 2006 and 2010 more than 14,000 violent incidents were committed against women over the age of eighteen. Unfortunately, the majority of cases of violence against women go unreported to the police.

We all have a responsibility to address violence against women. Through our $12 million Violence Prevention Initiative, the provincial government is proactively working to identify long-term solutions to prevent violence against women.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the provincial Purple Ribbon Campaign, funded through the Violence Prevention Initiative, was launched throughout the Province. The campaign promotes awareness about the prevention of violence against women, and honours women who have suffered violence or have died in a violent situation.

Wearing the purple ribbon, as members of the House of Assembly are wearing today, shows support for preventing violence against women, and making it an issue we can openly discuss in our society. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador encourages all residents to support and participate in the Purple Ribbon Campaign by wearing lapel pins or displaying the purple ribbon car magnets.

As a reminder to us all of the tragic events of December 6, 1989, I will now read into the record of the House of Assembly the names of the fourteen women who died that day: Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St. Arneault, Annie Turcotte.

Twenty-three years later, their memory continues to serve as a reminder that violence against women is a devastating reality in our society today.

To learn more about how to prevent violence against women, please visit www.respectwomen.ca

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of her statement.

Words cannot express the sadness that we all feel for what happened on December 6. The Montreal massacre was gender-based murder. Fourteen women, engineering students, were gunned down as classes were finishing for the semester. The gunman, Mr. Speaker, whose name I refuse to say, certainly blamed feminism and feminist actions for his inability to get into École Polytechnique Institute.

These women were accepted in the school, not because anyone did any favours for them, but because they were brilliant young women. They were about to embark on their young adult lives and they were working professionals. It is nothing short of a travesty that their lives were cut so short.

Indeed, women have faced considerable obstacles gaining ground in such fields. Women like Ann Mooney Bridger, the first female civil engineering graduate at Memorial University. They are tremendous role models for women and girls. A 1978 graduate, Bridger was and still is a trail blazer.

Today, programs like Women in Science and Engineering have helped increase the presence of women in these non-traditional careers. For those of you who will not be able to make the vigil tonight, I would suggest that we all take a moment today to think about those fourteen women and to reflect on what gender violence is and what courage these women and others have displayed in fighting for their rightful place.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we do not have to look back twenty-three years or look as far as Montreal to see how violence affects women in our society and the devastating reality of what we face.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remember some women in our own Province, some women who we hear about in the news and have filled homes with such sadness throughout Newfoundland and Labrador: Stephanie Chaisson, who was gunned down in March at her workplace; Chrissy Predham Newman, who was murdered in her home; Amanda Power, who was brutally murdered and her body was found by children; Mary Evans, an Aboriginal woman who was strangled and hidden in a sleeping bag.

Only two weeks ago, we heard of a case where police were searching for a man from Natuashish after a domestic violence incident, and the story of a woman being pushed off the roof of her house here in St. John's by her partner only a few years ago. We do not have to look too far, Mr. Speaker.

Violence in any aspect of our society is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. Women living in violence need support and they need all of our support to escape the situations that they often find themselves in. I hope that on days like this we not only remember them and acknowledge them, but we look to see what supports we continue to need to provide so that we do not see violent situations like this continuing in our own Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Twenty-three years ago today, these women would be in the prime of their lives. I was living in Montreal not far from École Polytechnique when this happened. A year later I made an award-winning film called After the Montreal Massacre.

My film, which continues to screen on television and on campuses and community events worldwide, is not only about a lone gunman killing female students. It makes the links between violence against women on a large scale, but also with the inequalities women everywhere experience daily.

We can only solve the problem of violence against women if we address these inequalities, inequalities of poverty, of lack of accessible and affordable child care, and of lack of representation of women in decision-making bodies, like here in our own House of Assembly, where still a mere 17 per cent of our seats are occupied by women.

I want to thank the women and men in our Province who work daily to address these inequalities and all those on the front lines who work to assist women and children who are direct victims of violence. As Arundhati Roy wrote, a world "…is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for St. John's South have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

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 House today to provide an update on the Newfoundland and Labrador Colon Cancer Screening Program that was launched in July of this year.

The provincial government, in partnership with Eastern Health and Western Health, implemented this screening program with the intent to reduce provincial mortality rates through the early detection of cancer. Colon cancer is the second-most common cancer in both men and women and the second leading cause of cancer death in this Province.

Men and women can reduce their risk of developing colon cancer by eating a healthy diet low in fat and high in fruits and vegetables, being physically active, living smoke-free, drinking alcohol in moderation, and by participating in regular screening.

Mr. Speaker, this provincial program, administered by Eastern Health, was introduced in the Western Region of the Province and will expand throughout the remainder of Newfoundland and Labrador over a three-year period. Through the program, men and women aged fifty to seventy-four are invited to request a take-home test known as a FIT kit from the Colon Cancer Screening Program by calling the toll-free number. The FIT is considered a very effective and user-friendly method for screening those at average risk for colon cancer.

To date, 857 FIT kits have been requested by people in Western Newfoundland and of that number, 434 kits have been returned for testing. As a result, sixty individuals have been contacted regarding a need for follow-up testing. The uptake on the program has been better than anticipated and is aiding in the early detection of colon cancer.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage residents of Western Newfoundland who fall within the target group to contact the Colon Cancer Screening Program through the toll-free line or by e-mail to participate in this effective screening program.

Our government is investing $3 million annually to fund this initiative. Over the past nine years we have invested over $140 million in cancer treatment and prevention, and we will continue to work to enhance cancer care in the Province and to improve quality in our health care system through investments in equipment and services for the prevention, early diagnosis, and treatment of cancer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement. Indeed, colon cancer is a big issue in this Province; we know it is one of the leading types of cancer of both men and women. The goal of this program was to reduce the mortality rate across the entire Province.

We are always hearing of cases, there are not many communities in this Province you can go into and you are not hearing somebody touched, especially by colon cancer. Anything we can do to improve screening and genetic testing to either prevent this or catch it early is to be commended. As we know, early detection is key.

This is a right step in the fight against colon cancer. Making it easier to do self-screening in the privacy and comfort of your own home is a good move. It is good that this program is expanding and it is necessary that we raise awareness. I commend you for doing that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I also would like to applaud the Minister of Health for this screening program which will benefit many people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – bravo.

Widespread screening is a key to early detection of colon cancer. Another disease where early detection is important is diabetes. In 2011, the Auditor General stated that our inadequate diabetes screening programs are causing people to become sicker. We know that mismanaged diabetes results in complications with serious medical consequences and greater cost to the health care system.

The Province needs more education and a more established screening program with benchmarks and accountability. Now I hope to see funds for a comprehensive diabetes screening program in the 2013 Budget.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for St. John's South have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Section 3.5 of the term sheet for the federal loan guarantee states that no government in the future can change the way government requires the billions it will spend on Muskrat Falls.

I ask the Premier: Why are you denying the ability of future governments to manage our own Crown assets?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

3.5 contains the conditions present, many of which are normal commercial agreements we see in commercial agreements. Also, the member's question reiterates a basic misunderstanding of this project. What it is, Mr. Speaker, is we are investing money in our future, we are taking money that would otherwise go to oil companies, and we are building a revenue-generating asset that will produce revenues for hundreds of years.

I do not get this – taking billions of dollars from other pots. In essence, what will happen is the money will be all paid back and it can be used by future governments to do as they see fit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the minister quite clearly said about the rate setting and what will happen. What we do know is the power purchase agreement will actually commit the ratepayers of this Province to fifty years of this revenue. That is the only thing that makes it successful.

Section 3.5 of the term sheet for the federal loan guarantee states that if Emera backs out of sanctioning, they will owe Ottawa $60 million in the penalty. That does not sound like a committed partner to me. Yesterday, Emera went so far as to say that Nalcor has agreed to pay a share of the penalty.

Why have you committed to giving away $30 million of taxpayers' money to Emera to help Emera get out of the commitment to the Maritime Link?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated yesterday, the key issue for the loan guarantee is the question of sanction. When Nalcor, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Emera sanction the project, Mr. Speaker, then that is binding and irrevocable and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the loan guarantee.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Nova Scotia and Emera, from everything I have heard and seen, are committed to the Maritime Link. The member opposite must realize that besides the agreements which we have, there are also commercial arrangements that have to be put in place between the companies. There is no indication anywhere that Emera wants to do anything but build the Maritime Link because they see it, Mr. Speaker, as a way to further their business, while the Government of Nova Scotia sees it as a way to get rid of the coal fire plants and to meet their environmental –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: I would just like the minister to confirm or deny: have you made a commitment to pay $30 million to Emera if they decide to break the contract on the Maritime Link and decide not to build it? Have you made the commitment of the $30 million to Emera?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, there are commercial discussions going on between Emera and Nalcor. There is no commitment on the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's part for that at this point, Mr. Speaker. Those discussions are going on and will continue up until the point of sanction. It is my understanding that any agreements that will be reached or anything that will happen will be disclosed at some point, because Emera is a publicly traded company.

Mr. Speaker, what we have is a situation where we are looking at, prudent businessmen are looking at putting into place agreements that cover all eventualities and all contingencies, Mr. Speaker, no matter how remote or how unlikely to occur.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Once again, it is quite clear, in my opinion at least, that we have committed to the $30 million. The minister did not deny that they have not made that commitment. It is bad enough that the Premier signed a term sheet that puts our Province on the hook for all the cost overruns on the Labrador Island Link that belongs partially to Emera, and half the overruns on the Maritime Link that belongs to Emera, for at least thirty-five years. Now she has agreed to cover half of Emera's penalty on the project.

I ask the Premier: What other secret deals have we signed with Emera that we need to know about?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are no secret deals. The Maritime Link is a good investment, Mr. Speaker, both in terms of allowing us to move power from the Province, but increasing the reliability of our system if something were to occur. The Maritime Link takes us off the isolated grid and literally connects us to the Mainland. Essentially what we have done is we have a federal loan guarantee which will save the ratepayers of this Province a billion dollars, Mr. Speaker; it was the Premier standing steadfast in the last number of weeks that resulted in this unconditional loan guarantee.

There are commercial discussions ongoing between Nalcor and Emera which at some point will become public, but I do not have the details today to provide to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, well, it is very clear that the federal loan guarantee can only be triggered if we indeed have a partner with Emera, and already we are talking about an out clause, and we are already talking about a $30 million share in that penalty.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has been publicly talking about upcoming legislation that will remove the PUB from the responsibility of setting rates in our Province.

I ask the Premier: Will power rates in the Province now be set by officials at Nalcor or by Cabinet?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have done nothing different here, or we will be doing nothing different than was done by the Liberals in 2000 with Granite Canal and with their proposed Lower Churchill development, Mr. Speaker. Next week I will refer to comments from their former Premier who outlined as to why they had to have these exemptions, Mr. Speaker, and they had to have a guaranteed source of revenue.

Mr. Speaker, it is not enough to say it was an export project. People of the Province would be paying, in the Liberal deal, Mr. Speaker, for all of the project if it did not meet the conditions and terms outlined. So, it is not as simple, Mr. Speaker, as to try to distinguish one project from the other. The reality is that what we are doing is what the Liberals set up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, the George River caribou herd appears to be headed towards decimation, down over 5,000 animals since last year's census, to 22,000. We are still waiting for conservation measures from the government for this season.

I ask the minister: The harvest has already begun for this year, why have you waited so long without implementing management measures?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I answer that question, I would just like to make a clarification. Yesterday, it was very disturbing here as an MHA for Labrador, to stand up and hear the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair make a comment about the people in Labrador and talk about people in Labrador, and then distinguish the Innu people separately from the people of Labrador.

I just want to make it very clear in the House, that this government speaks very clearly and highly of the Innu, and we include them. We work very hard to make sure they are included as people in Labrador – very clearly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: With the caribou, Mr. Speaker, we are taking the caribou in and we will be bringing out the details on that shortly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across had ample opportunity to stand up yesterday, he chose not to.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that the Aboriginal harvest has already begun on Orma Lake Road in Central Labrador. That means it is already too late to implement a zero harvest level.

I ask the minister: What enforcement measures are being taken to ensure a sustainable hunt that will not further decimate the herd?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we take our responsibility seriously when it comes to the protection of wildlife and conservation practices in this Province, whether it be in the Island portion or in the Labrador portion. The George River herd, as the member has pointed out, is in serious, serious decline, Mr. Speaker.

We are working as closely as we can. This herd is a little bit different because it is two jurisdictions as well. We have to deal with Quebec, and we have to deal with our Province. In all dealings, Mr. Speaker, we are moving towards putting in place what we believe is the best thing that we can do at this particular time. We have collected all the material, and that decision will be imminent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, during the 2011 election the Member for Humber East and the Member for Humber West said the construction of the hospital in Corner Brook would begin in 2012. During Estimates, one minister said that it is in the design stage. The former Minister of Transportation and Works said it was in the pre-design stage and that $1 million was committed for this. Now the Minister of Health is saying that they hired a consultant to see what they need, back to the drawing board.

I ask the minister: It is time to be honest with the people of Corner Brook and give us the true status on the hospital in Corner Brook?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, this government has made a commitment to the people of Corner Brook to construct a new hospital. We are firm in that commitment. It is an expenditure of an important sum of money. Due diligence and good stewardship requires that we do the job properly. We have not faltered, not one inch, on our commitment to the people of Corner Brook. They will have their new hospital, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Too bad she does not say the same thing when she is in a private meeting with the city councillors in Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance told the people of Corner Brook –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: – that the initial cost estimates for the hospital was $750 million to $1 billion. It has been confirmed by a second councillor that the Premier told them that if the price is $600 million, the hospital will not be built. I know the Member for Humber West, and he confirmed it to me that he was at the meeting. He will not stand up for the people of Corner Brook.

I ask the Minister of Finance: Will he now stand up for the people of Western Newfoundland that the original cost will stand and that the Premier will not use the hospital as a bargaining chip for the lack of funds?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when I go into a private meeting, regardless of the fact that you would expect that conversations might be somewhat protected, I am not naive enough to think that people are not going to repeat things that I say in a meeting. I have no problem owning what I say.

Mr. Speaker, I did not ever use $600 million. The number I used was well beyond that, over $1 billion is what I said. That is clearly what I said. That is what I own that I said, and that is what I stand by.

We have to ensure that we are spending the money of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in the most efficient, effective, and prudent way, Mr. Speaker. That is why the required planning is being done so we spend the amount of money that is appropriate only.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Six years later, Mr. Speaker, and we are still just starting the planning stage. I will say that is great planning, Premier. You should ask the city councils who are saying what you said in the private meeting. The Member for Humber West was there also. Stand up for them.

Mr. Speaker, it is back to the drawing board for the proposed Corner Brook hospital.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: While the Minister of Finance estimated $750 million to $1 billion, the Premier made it clear they would walk away from the project that exceeded $600 million.

I ask the minister: You said this exercise is not downsizing but rightsizing. Does your rightsizing have a $600 million limit?

Someone stand up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, several things in that tirade that he just went on with. First of all, this is a hospital for the people of Western Newfoundland, and all of us are standing up for that. All of us are committed, we have committed to it, and we will see it through.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, what he seems to want, and what I refuse to do, is to rush out and just do it. What we are going to do on this side of the House is that we are going to plan it and we are going to plan it properly.

Mr. Speaker, we have hired an internationally –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This is Question Period. Important questions are being posed on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and important answers are being provided. So, if members are going to ask the questions, ask the questions and then listen for the answer. If members are posing an answer in response to a question, the colleague who is responding to that, I ask other colleagues to respect the person who is on their feet responding to the question.

I acknowledge the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You are right; this is an important answer for the people of Western Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. We have hired an international company, a company with great reputation to do some very clear planning around building a piece of infrastructure that, frankly, we have not done in over thirty years, Mr. Speaker. We are going to get it right. When that hospital goes up, it is going to be the best hospital that Newfoundland and Labrador (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we have the highest rate of type 1 diabetes in the world. The Canadian Diabetes Association released a report this morning on the socio-economic benefits of insulin pump therapy. Insulin pumps help stabilize glucose levels, preventing complications like heart attack and amputation. Complications account for 80 per cent of the $255 million in diabetes costs each year.

I ask the minister: Will you lift the age restriction and fund insulin pumps for people all ages with type 1 diabetes?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Curious question, Mr. Speaker. He was criticizing our poverty reduction program earlier, and this is one of the initiatives of the poverty reduction program. In any case, Mr. Speaker, he wants us to raise the age. We are one of only three provinces in the country that has the age actually at twenty-five, as opposed to eighteen in most of the rest of Canada, Mr. Speaker.

We have invested a great deal of money in the insulin pump program: $2.1 million. Mr. Speaker, we take some exception with some of what is found in that report, that reports, as an example, that we only spend $700,000 when it is $2.1 million. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of assumptions in that report that are incorrect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, Andrew Codner is a local twenty-four-year-old with Type 1 diabetes. He is actually dreading his twenty-fifth birthday, as his insulin pump coverage will end. He will be forced to return to injecting insulin multiple times a day because he cannot afford the pump out-of-pocket.

I ask the minister: This is the gold standard of care; how do you explain to people, like Andrew, that they will be denied the same standard?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of diabetes is one of great concern to us here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We recognize how significant the issue is here in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why we have invested so significantly in the program, and that is why we continue to invest, Mr. Speaker.

We have invested not only in the insulin pump program but in the glucose strip testing and so on. Mr. Speaker, we have continued to invest. We have, for example, $5.9 million now in glucose strip testing, and we will continue to make those kinds of investments, Mr. Speaker. This is not anywhere, except at the top of our radar.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Fisheries Minister met with his federal counterpart this week. Search and rescue is a huge issue in the House of Commons, but a bigger one for our people. We have more people risking their lives at sea than any other Province, yet our services are nonexistent.

Can the minister advise us if he discussed this critical issue in his meetings in Ottawa? If so, what new strategy did he bring to Ottawa to show that this government is aggressively tackling this issue on behalf of those who work on our waters?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I did take an opportunity this week to meet my federal counterparts and recognize the importance of having a strong working relationship as we address multiple issues in our fishery. I had an opportunity to raise some important issues for the 2013 fishery, including the crab issue, and discussed the sealing industry as well.

At the same day, Mr. Speaker, the issue of marine search and rescue was raised in this House; it was also raised in the House of Commons, and I certainly raised it with Minister Shea and Minister Penashue as well during my meeting, and highlighted the concern that we have as a Province and our commitment to continue to raise this issue and to fight for the safety and concerns of our people working offshore. In my case, as Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker, I certainly highlighted the importance of marine search and rescue for our fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The loan guarantee term sheet for the Muskrat Falls Project allows for a sale or change of control of subsidiaries among the different parties to the loan guarantee. Section 4.11 does not specify which subsidiaries are referenced.

So, Mr. Speaker, would the Premier specify which entities of Nalcor this section refers to?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Section 1.4 of the federal loan guarantee deals with the question of subsidiaries of Nalcor for borrowing, and it will become clear next week, Mr. Speaker, but one of the reasons our subsidiaries are set up are to allow for non-recourse borrowing, which will result in the Province not being on the hook if something goes wrong. So, these are normal commercial arrangements that – I think there are four companies that have been set up that will deal with the various issues of the Labrador asset, in terms of the transmission asset, the Labrador-Island Link, and the generating station. The loan guarantee is set up so that the Province is protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: So, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me if Nalcor is unable to meet its financial obligations incurred because of the debt it takes on, it appears that it could lose ownership and control of the Muskrat Falls generation facility, the Labrador-Island Link, and the Labrador transmission assets.

So I ask the Premier to confirm that Nalcor could privatize by a sale to any of the partners, but especially to Emera, the assets belonging to the people of this Province if it does not have the money to pay its debt for building Muskrat Falls, because that is what this section means, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no idea what the Leader of the Third Party is talking about. Mr. Speaker, Nalcor was set up for the people of this Province to ensure a bright and prosperous future in our oil and gas industries, our hydro industries, and there is certainly no intention on anyone's part to sell Nalcor, like the Liberals were going to do many years ago, Mr. Speaker.

What we have is a situation, Mr. Speaker, where there is a loan guarantee. The effect of a loan guarantee is that if there is a problem, then the federal government comes in. The Prime Minister of Canada, after a rigorous economic audit, said last week: There is minimal risk to the taxpayer of Canada. Then he went further and said a zero risk, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: That is as good as it gets right now. We have every confidence in this project. We have every confidence in Nalcor, Mr. Speaker. This is a good project and it is for the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out to the minister: I was not talking about Nalcor. Section 4.11 says very clearly there cannot be a change of control or sale of Nalcor, but it does say there can be a change of control or sale of the subsidiaries.

So, once again: Yes or no – does that mean those four subsidiaries can be sold to one of the other partners or control can go to one of the other partners?

That is what this section is saying, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the minister to say yes or no to that question. I am not talking about Nalcor – the subsidiaries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker.

I am looking at the section here we have, Mr. Speaker, and it deals with change of control. There is not going to be any change of control. Nalcor is around for the long run. These companies were set up, Mr. Speaker, to allow for commercial financing. Separate parts of the asset –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: – will be financed separately. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, they were set up in terms of allowing non-recourse financing, which the minister, I am sure, will talk about next week.

When I look at the subsidiaries, I do not know how you sell a subsidiary and you do not sell Nalcor. It is not happening. Everything is safe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Then I ask the minister: Why does it very specifically say in one sentence the subsidiaries can be sold or a change of control can happen, and a very separate sentence says but not Nalcor?

That means they can be dealt with separately from the mother company. He should know that.

Yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, the loan guarantee 4.11 says: "There shall be no sale or change of control of any Borrower or subsidiaries, except as among the Parties, and no sale of any material Project assets. There shall be no sale or change of control of Nalcor."

Mr. Speaker, I really do not know what the Leader of the NDP is talking about. All I can indicate, Mr. Speaker, is that she should perhaps look at what her party did yesterday in voting against the future of this Province, the jobs we are going to see created, the creation of revenue – and shame on her for voting to keep Holyrood in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

Shame on that government, Mr. Speaker, for signing a loan guarantee that has that section in the loan guarantee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the loan guarantee term sheet stipulates the federal government is to receive regular and thorough financial and operational –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members one more time, this is Question Period, important questions are being posed. It is an issue that is very important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask all members to respect the individual who has been recognized by the Chair and who has the opportunity to speak.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will make it short.

Will the Premier make public the reports that will have to be made to the federal government according to the term sheet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have negotiated a collaborative agreement with the Government of Nova Scotia, with Emera, particularly Nalcor and Emera, that brings benefit to Newfoundland and Labrador, $1 billion at the very least to ratepayers because of that collaboration. We have protected the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We have reduced rates – we will reduce rates because of that collaboration.

Mr. Speaker, we have negotiated with the federal government terms that are favourable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, favourable to the people of Canada. When the Prime Minister of the country says this loan guarantee poses zero risk to the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker, that is only good news for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, until women reach full equality in all aspects of society, violence against women will continue to be a growing problem. This week we asked a straightforward question of a senior staff person in the Women's Policy Office, is there a gender equity policy for appointments to boards, commissions and tribunals? That person indicated she was not permitted to speak to Opposition members or their staff.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women: Is there s a gender equity policy for appointments to boards, commissions and tribunals? If not, will this government develop and implement one?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, social justice is something that is extremely important to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to say that it is particularly important to me as Premier of this Province and as a woman of this Province, Mr. Speaker. We have always adopted a policy of gender equity, Mr. Speaker, not only in terms of our appointments. We look always to right the balance within government and we have made tremendous progress, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of our boards, commissions and agencies, we have adopted the same policy, but we have gone beyond that, Mr. Speaker. For the first time in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, and perhaps for the first time in the world, we have gender and diversity agreements in all our major project benefits agreements – the first in the world, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS ROGERS: Nalcor Energy and Newfoundland Hydro, 2012, one woman, four men; Nalcor Oil and Gas board, 2012, five men.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest prevalence of diabetes in the world, increasing to one in three people by 2020; 80 per cent of medical costs are for treatment from complications from poorly managed diabetes. Research shows the insulin pump therapy is the best treatment for management and prevention of complications. Newfoundland and Labrador was a leader in extending its pump program to twenty-five years of age – bravo for that – but it is now time to make the next step.

On behalf of Andrew Codner, on behalf of the single mom with four kids in my district who needs the pump, I ask the Minister of Health: Will she eliminate the age restriction and extend the pump program to all people who need it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to address her first question first. Mr. Speaker, not only is gender diversity a policy, it is an absolute directive of this government. Mr. Speaker, that is evident through the numbers. Since this Premier came in our DMs have gone from 15 per cent to 45 per cent female, our ADMs are 47 per cent and we are near parity on all boards, Mr. Speaker. That speaks to not only policy but direction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The take-or-pay power purchase arrangement will lock NL Hydro into buying 40 per cent of Muskrat power for fifty years. If all ratepayers do not use this power we still have to pay the amount stipulated under the take-or-pay arrangement by Nalcor.

Question: If the power is not used, does the ratepayer still have to pay for the power even though he is not using it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We framed the debate around Muskrat Falls with a couple of questions. The first question: Do we need the power? Mr. Speaker, the MHI review of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's forecasting for 2012 – the demand paper out of the Department of Natural Resources clearly indicated that we need the power.

Now, what is going to happen is that 40 per cent of the power, Mr. Speaker, will be used in essence to replace Holyrood and allow for new commercial and industrial development on the Island. As long as 40 per cent of the power is used then we are fine.

I refuse to engage in the doom and gloom politics of the NDP. I see our Province heading upwards and onwards, Mr. Speaker, under this Premier and that is what is going to happen here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This is under the heading of Tabling of Documents. I know you are anxious, but that is the next one.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: Your turn now.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation Limited Lease Act, 1961 and the Electrical Power Control Act, 1994, Bill 53.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers To Questions For Which Notice Has Been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS with declining enrolment, distance education by Internet is now an accepted way to deliver educational services to students 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 community of Eddie's Cove West; and

WHEREAS there are no plans to offer high-speed Internet to residents of this community;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to partner with the private sector and offer high-speed Internet service to this community.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of high-speed Internet, broadband services, cellphone services – there was a time when these services might be thought of as being extras, or somehow special or exotic; fortunately as time has progressed, many communities have now been hooked up with all of these services. There is a great concern among communities that they are being left behind. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, people of these small communities are very concerned and present this petition, as have many other towns.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the people of La Poile must use the provincial ferry system in order to travel to and from La Poile; and

WHEREAS the people of La Poile and visitors are required to wait at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou from time to time for the ferry services; and

WHEREAS there is no restroom or waiting room area at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou where users of the ferry service may utilize washroom facilities; and

WHEREAS citizens of all ages, including men, women, children, seniors, and disabled persons require washroom facilities as a basic human need in the course of their travels, or wait inside out of the elements and harsh weather conditions, and particularly while awaiting the transit systems; and

WHEREAS it is an abuse of human dignity as well as health and safety regulations to allow such degrading and dehumanizing circumstances to continue;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately construct and operate a waiting room-restroom facility at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou such that all users of the provincial ferry service may be able to utilize such waiting area and washroom facilities.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that I have brought before previously. I know that the former Minister of Transportation and Works was certainly aware of it, so I bring it today, as we have a new Minister of Transportation and Works and I want him to be aware of this situation.

The fact is that these people rely on ferry travel to get home and to get up to the mainland every day. There are times when the boat is not there, it is not ready to go, and these people – it is a small community – do not have the basic facilities to use that everybody expects in this day and age.

Now, this government was aware of the situation in Burgeo and they took care of it and they did a good job. They have a great facility down there. I am asking that the same one be placed in Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou so that the people using this ferry – which also includes government officials who must travel back and forth to provide government services. We need the facility. I am bringing it up so that the current minister is aware, and hopefully we can work together to provide that service, which is not just a need; it is a want as well. Everybody needs it and wants it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to read the following petition into the record.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS Tordon 101 contains chemicals 2,4-D and Picloram; and

WHEREAS the chemical Picloram is a known cancer-causing carcinogen; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has banned the cosmetic use of the pesticide 2,4-D; and

WHEREAS safer alternatives are available to the provincial government for brush clearing, such as manual labour, alternative competitive seeding methods, and-or mechanical removal of brush; and

WHEREAS the provincial government is responsible for ensuring the safety and wellbeing of its citizens;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to cease the use of chemicals covered under its own cosmetic pesticide ban and begin using safer methods of brush clearance that will not place its citizens in harm's way.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is from St. John's, Lewisporte, Birchy Bay, and Campbellton. It is from a lot of people who are concerned with the use of these chemicals and they believe there are safer methods of –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will acknowledge the break in your time, I say to the Member for St. John's East, so you will not lose any of the time that I take on your behalf.

I am going to ask one more time, all members in this House, if you have private conversations, please take them outside the Chamber. The Speaker is having great difficulty in hearing members who are speaking. I know this is the end of the week and people are anxious to conclude the day, but I am going to ask all members to co-operate. The Speaker needs to hear what is taking place in the House and he cannot do it when there are private conversations taking place, and the member who has been acknowledged to speak in the House deserves the courtesy of being heard.

I call upon the Member for St. John's East to conclude his petition.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate that.

Again, this petition comes from anywhere: Lewisporte, Campbellton, Birchy Bay, and St. John's. There are a lot of people out there who are really concerned about the use of chemicals and the effect these chemicals make on our water supplies, particularly.

There are a lot of people who have legitimate concerns as regards to the use of such chemicals and, of course, the nature of how they stay in the environment and make their way up through the food chain. A lot of people are particularly concerned, in this particular case, about these chemicals ending up in their own water supplies.

We know we can take several initiatives to prevent cancer. We know that government has started on its own path toward fighting cancer. Good for government in doing that, but here is a way where government can actually sink its fingers into a preventative measure by being able to take up, for example, a mechanical means of clearing brush from our roadsides so that we are not going to have any growth. They can also go ahead and promote the use of competitive seeding methods, for example, like lupines and that sort of thing that are very hard against things like alders that are growing on the side of the road.

I present this petition to the House on behalf of these people who have signed this petition today.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought I was going to have to call the Open Line to get my petition on today. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I rise to present this petition on the crab fishery in my area. It says:

WHEREAS the crab being fished in Area 2J is currently landed and processed in Area 2J; and

WHEREAS this ensures that processors and plant workers adjacent to the resource benefit appropriately from the resource; and

WHEREAS any change to this practice will be detrimental to communities with processing plants in communities adjacent to Area 2J;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to commit to maintaining this practice and disallow any 2J crab to leave the 2J area to be landed or processed in other parts of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here and present this petition on behalf of hundreds of people throughout my district. I know the minister is diligently undertaking a decision with regard to this. We can only hope, Mr. Speaker, he will see, as we do, the importance of keeping this particular policy in place in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as long as the petitions come in, I will continue to stand and present them in the House. I will not sit, Mr. Speaker, when I have something that I would like to add to the discussion.

Unlike the Minister of Labrador Affairs, who yesterday when I asked a question in the House, Mr. Speaker, would not stand in his place and answer the question. Instead, Mr. Speaker, had the gall today – and to weasel his way out of it yesterday, the word the Premier likes to use, the weasel word. He weaseled his way, Mr. Speaker, and stood up today and got a side-hand sweep and sat down.

Mr. Speaker, the member lacks courage, obviously. He lacks courage and lacks the intestinal fortitude to stand in his place and say what he has to say. I never thought I would see it, Mr. Speaker, but it is evident to me today.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am not into those weasel ways of politics. I like to take on direct action when direct issues present themselves. Certainly, that is the case that I have always dealt with in this House, Mr. Speaker.

I would challenge the Member for Labrador West, the hon. Minister of Labrador Affairs, do not adapt to those weasel tactics of politics in the House of Assembly. When you have something to say, Minister, stand in your place and say it. Do not wait twenty-four hours and be advised by all the other people on the eighth floor, Mr. Speaker, and be advised by the Premier and the rest of the ministers in the caucus. If you have something to say, say it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS in the District of The Straits – White Bay North, despite the $4 million Rural Broadband Initiative announced on December 22, 2011, only one community, Ship Cove, is slated for broadband coverage; and

WHEREAS the communities of Pine's Cove, Eddies Cove East, Bide Arm, North Boat Harbour, L'Anse aux Meadows, Great Brehat, St. Carol's, Goose Cove, Grandois, and St. Anthony Bight still remain without services; and

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

WHEREAS broadband Internet permits a business to be more competitive than the slower dial-up service; and

WHEREAS broadband Internet enhances primary, secondary, post-secondary, and further educational opportunities.

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to reinvest in rural broadband initiatives in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that based on a carryover there has been a second call for the RBI of about $2 million, but there is still significant gaps. We have about 200 communities that do not have broadband Internet in many districts across Newfoundland and Labrador. So, mine is certainly no exception to that.

I think there are ways and means in which we can look at addressing bridging these gaps for business, for education, and for other opportunities when it comes to broadband. Maybe we need to do an analysis of looking at how we can use cooper wire as a means. There is a certain mileage around stations, current infrastructure that is there, where we may be able to use cooper wire to get through some of these communities, or using things like Wi-Fi repeaters and extenders.

There are innovative technologies, low-cost technologies, which are being used in places like Italy where they have 279 kilometres extending. So if our topography allows, I think it is something we need to do. We need to look at a different way as to how we can bridge these gaps so these communities, not only in the District of The Straits – White Bay North but in other areas also receive broadband or a similar equivalent coverage. That would be good for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I believe protocol is that we would now go for second reading and return to Bill 50, the one that we left off last day.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker recognizes the Minister of Health and Community Services, debating Bill 50.

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue on from where we left off the other night on Bill 50, An Act To Regulate The Practice Of Pharmacy. I know people in this House of Assembly do not need any review of what we did the other night, but if there are any people at home who are just tuning in and did not get to see on Wednesday night, I am introducing this bill this afternoon regarding the practice of pharmacy in Newfoundland and Labrador. Essentially, what we are doing here is we are repealing the current bill and introducing and replacing a new Pharmacy Act, 2012, which will just be a more modernized act.

Mr. Speaker, I talked last day about the board acting in the public interest and that that would be the primary function of this board. I will not give all the detail again, but there are provisions within this new act to ensure various practices that the board must adhere to in seeing to the public interest, public safety.

We talked about the Web site, Mr. Speaker. The bill requires that the Pharmacy Board maintain a Web Site and sets out some minimum content that has to be contained therein, but also we talked about making available to any person who would like it, a paper copy of the information that is on that Web site as well.

There are some governance changes, Mr. Speaker, in this particular bill as well, particularly in terms of additions to the board. The two additions that I referred to on Wednesday night when we spoke had to do with the addition of the seat for the Dean of the School of Pharmacy, which is a very welcomed addition to the board. The second would be a pharmacy technician representative. Because we are becoming so much more progressive within the practice of pharmacy here within Newfoundland and Labrador, that too will enhance what we are doing around pharmacy and the practice of pharmacy in the Province.

Looking as well at registration of pharmacy students and interns – though the current bill does set out some provisions for students to register, this one will just give more detail, greater detail, around the pre-requisites for student registration, basically stating what registered students are able to do in a pharmacy setting as part of their clinical practice experience. We all know how important clinical practice is to students. So, there are some general and more specific regulations in that particular section requiring pharmacy students to register prior to beginning their practical placement, Mr. Speaker, which is new in this particular bill.

We are looking as well, Mr. Speaker, in the bill around the provision for the registration of pharmacy interns. We know that they do an eight-week internship program, and we are looking again around the provision for the registration of those interns through the process.

On the last evening as well, I talked about the registration of pharmacy technicians, which is really in keeping with the trend across the country. This bill recognizes the role being played by pharmacy technicians and the expansion of that role in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is a very quick review of what we had looked at last time and then, as people in this House would know, we ran out of time the other evening, so I will just continue on.

I am going to start by looking now at the panel agreement, Mr. Speaker. The Pharmacy Board not only registers pharmacists and pharmacy students and interns and technicians, but it also licenses pharmacies, Mr. Speaker. I believe our government has made some very significant investments in pharmacies. As a result of our recent agreement with the Pharmacists' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, the provincial government will invest approximately $37 million over the next four years to support pharmacies in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Through that agreement, our government has committed to making investments in a number of areas, Mr. Speaker. The agreement identifies several professional services provided by pharmacists that can now be charged to the provincial government, including medication reviews for individuals diagnosed with diabetes, something that was topical today in Question Period. It was one of the pieces of information that I was going to provide an answer to had we not run out of time on that issue as well – but very important.

Medication reviews for individuals diagnosed with diabetes can really enhance the treatment that a person with diabetes is receiving, Mr. Speaker.

Additionally, pharmacies may now also bill for services to clients, such as providing an interim supply of medication or extending a prescription, Mr. Speaker. Again, those are all very progressive moves and that was something that we had done through our latest PANL agreement, something that we are very, very pleased about.

The fee for refusing to fill a prescription in instances where it is suspected the beneficiary is abusing or misusing a narcotic has also been increased, Mr. Speaker. These are important service enhancements for beneficiaries of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program, as well as recognition of the important role played by pharmacists as members of our health care system.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about provision of health care, it really is a team approach and pharmacists are very much part of that team.

Mr. Speaker, a remote subsidy valued at $1 million annually has also been put in place as a result of our latest agreement with PANL. This year, forty-seven rural pharmacies operating in under-serviced areas in the Province have been approved for subsidies ranging from almost $11,400 to just over $34,000. This certainly demonstrates government's commitment to the viability of rural pharmacies and to the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk as well about the creation of the quality assurance program, as we have done with several of the other bills that we have introduced in this House around health care in recent sittings. This particular bill, as well, will look at, in part VI of the bill, Quality Assurance. Quality assurance provisions are intended to permit the board to take action to address practice issues before they become conduct deserving of sanction, Mr. Speaker, thereby preventing harm to the public and enhancing patient safety.

Mr. Speaker, the quality assurance program will promote high standards of practice for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. It will also promote continuing competence and continuing quality improvement, both of which are really essential when we talk about the provision of good, quality health care in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The quality assurance program will include requirements for all pharmacy techs to participate in mandatory continuing education and professional development. We all know the value of that professional development, Mr. Speaker. The provisions in the bill will ensure that current competencies are maintained, enabling a continued high level of service to residents of our Province.

The bill establishes as well a quality assurance committee to investigate quality assurance concerns. The committee's powers will include the ability to subpoena records; order an evaluation, assessment or examination; order a review of a practice; and order periodic or random audits of aspects of a pharmacy practice. Mr. Speaker, the quality assurance measures in the bill provide the board with the legislative authority to investigate and assess the practice of a pharmacist or pharmacy technician before practice issues and concerns become matters so serious that they would have had to have been dealt with through the disciplinary process.

Mr. Speaker, early intervention will improve practice where there is a need for improvement, and ultimately it will enhance patient safety. The bill, Mr. Speaker, will require pharmacists and pharmacy techs to comply with orders made by the quality assurance committee. Failure to comply with such orders may result in disciplinary action. The quality assurance provisions in the bill are consistent with those recently added to the Psychologists Act, 2005, and the Optometry Act, 2012, Mr. Speaker, which were bills that we dealt with recently in this House of Assembly around the same issues of quality assurance.

Mr. Speaker, I want also to speak around regulations for this act. The bill will authorize the Pharmacy Board to make regulations with the approval of the minister in certain specific areas. In particular, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides regulation-making power regarding the scope of practice of pharmacists.

In 2010, our government approved changes to the Pharmacy Regulations to broaden the ability of pharmacists to refill, extend, or adjust prescriptions. These changes allow pharmacists to more fully engage their knowledge and skills to better serve the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. Across the country we have seen other jurisdictions act to expand the scope of practice for pharmacists.

As the most readily accessible health care professions, I am pleased to highlight this aspect of the bill, which will enable progressive changes for members of the pharmacy profession. My officials will be working with the Pharmacy Board in the coming months to discuss the additional services that pharmacists are qualified to provide to the people of the Province. One area of expanded scope that we are looking at is the provision, Mr. Speaker, of flu shots by pharmacists.

As the practice of pharmacy is rapidly changing, so too are the tools used in pharmacies, and how pharmacists receive prescriptions. The bill was drafted with a view to ensuring that new technologies can be used, but will be appropriately regulated so as to provide for patient safety. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, these new provisions serve to enhance public protection and patient safety while supporting pharmacists and pharmacy technicians in maintaining high standards of practice.

While most of the act will come into force upon royal assent, there will be a delayed proclamation for two sections of the act. The quality assurance provisions will come into force on September 30, 2013, and the pharmacy technician registration section will become law on June 30, 2013. That additional time, Mr. Speaker, will give the board an opportunity to appoint and train quality assurance committees. It will also allow the board to provide education and develop appropriate standards, policies, and procedures with respect to pharmacy technician regulation.

Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador Pharmacy Board requested a new act. They were fully engaged with us, Mr. Speaker, in the drafting process of this new act. I am pleased to say that the board fully supports this bill.

I look forward to seeing this legislation passed to improve the governance model for pharmacy in the Province, to enhance public protection, and to enable enhanced scope of practice for these important members of our health care system.

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 and speak to this new piece of legislation, the Pharmacy Act. I understand there is a lot of change happening, therefore it is easier to repeal and substitute rather than make various amendments.

I would thank the minister for making her staff available for a briefing that I think was held this week or last week. I cannot remember at this point, it seems so long ago. We did have an opportunity to meet and recognize what is exactly going on here. So I appreciate that opportunity.

The first thing I would say is that in this case the changes that are being suggested, from what I understand, are coming from pharmacists. This is what pharmacists want. Therefore, we have to recognize and respect what they want to do.

Like many of us here, I came from a background where I was in a self-regulating profession. The fact is that pharmacists are also self-regulating. When you are a self-regulating profession, you have to basically make sure that you treat, audit, and make sure that your profession maintains the highest standard of security and professionalism. The fact is if you do not do that, you are not going to have an opportunity to be self-regulating much longer.

That is why we want to make sure that we have a strong board, we have a strong piece of legislation and that there are enough procedures and practices there to monitor the practice of pharmacy, which is very important. I believe there are about 670 in the Province, all over rural, urban as well. It is easy to understate their importance but the fact is we know exactly what they do.

What I would say is, I have looked through the explanatory notes and I have looked through the entire bill. It is pretty hefty compared to some of the legislation we have looked at in this session, which have been fairly minor in nature. They have been very much housekeeping thus far, but this one has some definite meat to it that is being changed.

I want to discuss just a few points of the legislation. I would note that I had the benefit as well of having our Leader, the Member for Humber Valley with us, and having his background and expertise to discuss these. It is amazing to have his level of professionalism and his history of this practice to explain what goes on. How do pharmacists act, how does a pharmacy run, and how does the practice work? To have him there to help educate people like myself is a great thing and I really appreciate that.

The fact is he is somebody who has been behind the counter. I believe there may have been other pharmacists in this House from a previous life. The Member for Gander was also a pharmacist. So it is good when we are discussing legislation for professions. The fact is people who have done those professions it is nice to have that background.

Now, one of the things I would note is that there is a change to the composition of the board. What they have done is they have added new positions to the board. Formerly, there were seven pharmacists. There would have been two non-pharmacists who were appointed by the board, and there would have been the secretary registrar.

What they have done here is they have kept the seven pharmacists, the two non-pharmacists who are appointed by the board. They have also now added two pharmacists who are appointed by the minister. They basically balance each other out. You have non-pharmacists, lay people appointed by the board and by the government.

We have also added someone that I think is a great addition. You are adding the Dean of the School of Pharmacy to the board. I believe the Dean has actually been sitting in on some of these meetings. Obviously, to have their expertise, and they are the people – I guess the Dean, him or her, is the person who is primarily responsible for educating the new crop of pharmacists that are coming up through.

I would note that I had the very great pleasure of going to the last awards night for the School of Pharmacy. I know the Member for Terra Nova was there as well, and it was nice to see. Actually, I could not believe how generous the pharmacists were in making sure that there are scholarships and awards out for new pharmacists. So it is like a big family. They make sure that the new pharmacists coming up through are taken care of. It is not cheap to be going to pharmacy school. It is expensive, and the costs that come with going to school anywhere – lodging and board. So, the fact is that these pharmacists coming in and making sure that there is financial benefit to new pharmacists is a great thing, and I commend them for that.

Now, going back to the board composition, we have also added a pharmacy technician to that board to bring in their background and expertise in that area, and we have simply changed the name of the secretary registrar to registrar.

So again, we have added to the board. There are more people there. There will be more people with various points of view and backgrounds and expertise who will be sitting there. Again, this is something that was requested by pharmacists. So, if the pharmacists are asking for – and again, being self-regulators, they want to make sure that they have a good board and that they do a good job of overseeing. Because the way it is with these professions is that if one person does something that is wrong, whether it is inadvertent or not, the fact is it can taint everybody. So, we want to make sure that we have the high standards set there.

I would also note that a big change here is regulating pharmacy technicians. I have to be honest, Mr. Speaker, I am unsure right here now what section that is, but again, this was something that is requested, and I think it is going to add to the practice. What it is allowing pharmacists to do is to contribute more to their scope of practice. Again, we had a good briefing on this. This is something coming from pharmacists; this is something they want. It is also allowing now the registry of interns. We are making sure that interns that are practising are registered. We have to have a record of who is in the field, where they operating and their backgrounds, and so on and so forth.

Now, a big thing here – and I think this is good, when we talk about all pharmacists have to have continuing education. Even after they have their schooling done and they are out in the field, the fact is that with many professions you have to have that continuing education to make sure that you can keep up with advances in the field. We all know that, especially when it comes to prescription drugs. There are just so many new drugs coming on the market every day. There are billions of dollars spent in this field.

So, it is a big duty on pharmacists to make sure that they up-to-date with this. We all know the dangers that can come from having different prescriptions mixed up or over prescriptions and making sure how they counteract with each other. You have to be aware and understand what it is that these prescriptions are doing. So, continuing education is a great thing.

What they are also doing now, with the changes to this legislation, is they are allowing pharmacy students and interns to perform, under the supervision of a pharmacist, tasks within that practice. I think that is a good thing. It is similar to articling. You are basically under the wing of a senior lawyer and you have a chance to learn. You need that practice. Schooling is one thing, but the actual practice is where you can learn a lot of the skills that are necessary. When they are behind that counter, being able to perform again under the watchful eye of a practising pharmacist, this is a great thing. It is giving these students that actual practical, hands-on experience.

It is legislating something that is already in practice, we are talking about the requirement of the board to maintain a Web site and make sure that various pieces of information are on that Web site. That is something we have heard in a lot of different pieces of legislation that have been brought before the House this session. We have looked at a number of different health acts and basically saying you need to have a Web site, information needs to be available on the Web site.

The pharmacists already have a Web site and what we are doing now is making sure that Web site is legislated; it has to be there. I think that is a great thing. It is one thing to say they should, but it is another thing to say that they have to have this; they shall have it. That is a great thing, Mr. Speaker.

Another thing here, and this comes back to the self-regulation, and that is the quality assurance program that includes continuing education and professional development. We need to maintain quality assurance with just about any field, especially one as important as pharmacy. From what I understand, pharmacists every year have to send in their logbooks to be audited. Once in a while they will come back and they will want greater detail on your logbooks and on certain files that you have done. What exactly did you do?

That is the definition itself there of quality assurance. We are looking over your records to see how you treated certain files, what did you do, and maybe there are times where you could change methods of practice, how you handled something, how you did something. All we are doing here, it has been there, it has already been done but we are establishing that. To have quality assurance, professional development and continuing education – all great things, and that is why there will not be much contention when it comes to this piece of legislation. It is a necessary thing; it is a cleaning up and an addition to a previously existing piece of legislation.

One thing they will do is have the quality assurance committee perform these quality assurance reviews and require compliance. It is one thing to perform the quality assurance and it is another thing to ensure that there is compliance. We can say that people should do something but we need to ensure that it is being done, that recommendations are being followed. That is what we need to ensure the safety of the people in the Province who are relying on the work of pharmacists.

It is a very important field and they can have life and death altering consequences when you are dealing with people's health. For them to have the quality assurance there and the compliance, that is necessary. I applaud that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, I also understood that the privacy concerns of this are something people are made known of when their files are accessed. They know they were part of the quality assurance program and your file was reviewed for quality assurance purposes. I respect that and think that is a necessary thing.

Looking through the legislation and the various sections, a lot of it does stay the same. There are no changes to a number of different aspects here. There is a change in the governing structure, which I have already gone into in detail. In section 7, from the explanation provided to us and from my reading of the legislation, there is actually now more emphasis on public protection.

When you have a field, as I have said a number of times here today, that is dealing with the lives and well-being of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we need to ensure that public protection is paramount. It is the most important thing: that these people are getting the proper service and the proper treatment. When you are a self-regulating board, there is nobody more than you who wants to make sure you are doing the right thing here, because one black mark is a black mark on everybody. Nobody wants to see that.

There is a significant duty on these people and they place that duty on themselves. If not, if you have a self-regulating group that does not abide by that, they are going to very quickly end up not being self-regulated. That is not what they want. It is a privilege to have that. I am glad they are going to maintain that quality assurance.

I would note, Mr. Speaker, that in section 8 there is a change in the quorum part, but it is not a significant change; it is more of a change in the wording. What they have gone to now is that a quorum is not a particular number; quorum has now gone to a percentage. It is 50 per cent plus one member, one of whom shall be a member appointed to represent the public interest. It is a small change, but it is to recognize the fact that the percentage is the better method to use when determining quorum so that their votes are binding.

Another significant part of this was subsection (2) of section 8, where the chair essentially now does not have the power on a tie vote on a motion or resolution. Before, the chair had that power to vote in the case of a tie vote: say yea or nay and decide the fate of that motion or resolution. Now, the chair is not going to have that. Again, this is something that was recommended: to place that decision on them. Now if there is a tie vote, the tie vote will actually be considered a defeat. That is something that was requested. It is a lot of responsibility to be placed on the Chair. This is something the pharmacists have asked for and requested, and I believe it is also standard practice in other boards.

Subsection (9) deals with the annual report. I believe that is actually now being covered in other legislation we discussed previously in this session of the House, where financial reports and the annual reports of each organization will be given to the minister and the department will make sure that they are placed on the Web site and that they are placed on the Web site of the body. The pharmacist is no exception to that.

As I go through this legislation here, section 13 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: Section 13 deals with the Web site. As we have already said, the Web site is already in place. It is now just simply mandated.

We talk about the registration of interns; this is good practice, good procedure, and I do not have much to add to that particular section. We are just moving forward to make sure we have better record keeping. That is a great thing.

We also have the registration of students and the registration of pharmacy technicians.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important piece of legislation. I do not think there is anything that I would call earth shattering in it. It is stuff that has been recommended by the governing body of pharmacists. It is stuff that they want. I do note – and this is an important thing – the Complaints Authorization Committee. This is the committee that basically handles complaints to the body. You are basically disciplining your own. One of the things that I like here is that the Complaints Authorization Committee can actually suspend the practice of a pharmacist as opposed to before where they could only recommend to the board. Before, there was that time gap where you make that recommendation, the board got a look at it and then they have to make a decision, and we might have somebody performing unsafe practices out in the community.

The fact is, our pharmacists are dealing with stuff like methadone, they are dealing with a number of – we are talking pharmaceuticals here that are life and death. What they have effectively done here – and this is great – is they said: look, if we get the complaint and we feel it is necessary, we can go ahead and suspend that practice right away. That is a good thing. That is necessary. We cannot have that gap here and have somebody out there who is not performing up to the code that is necessary. The pharmacists themselves do not want this. They do not want somebody out there who is tarnishing their image, their reputation as a whole. Again, that is an important section. I am glad to see that in here.

There are a number of other sections here, Mr. Speaker, on the Complaints Authorization Committee. Another one – I think I touched on this or alluded to it earlier – is that they can make recommendations to pharmacists on better practices, or best practices.

Here is the situation: when the pharmacist sends in their logbook to be audited and reviewed, there might be something there that is not worthy of discipline; it is not something that is technically wrong, but it might not be the best practice, so there could be a better way of doing this. What the CAC, or the Complaints Authorization Committee, can do is come back and say, you did it this way, why not try it that way? We are disciplining you. You are not in trouble, but we recommend that you do it this way. That is always a great thing, to be able to be told: Look, maybe try it this way. Any profession should not be afraid of recommending different ways to do things or better ways of handling matters. I certainly like that section, Mr. Speaker.

We continue on here, right past the Quality Assurance section, pass section 55. I do note in section 58, the Duty to report, there was always an ethical or moral obligation to report. We come back to the same principle, that in self-regulating professions such as this, they want to make sure that nobody tarnishes their profession. They want to make sure people are doing things right.

They have always had an ethical obligation to report malfeasance or something being done wrong or somebody not performing in the ethical manner. Now it is a legal obligation. They have to do it. All we have done is strengthened that. It is recommended by pharmacists. All it is doing is ensuring the safe practices and the safety of the people of this Province to make sure that if somebody is out there doing something that is not above board, not right, they have to tell. It is now a legal obligation on them to do so. Again, I think this is a great step.

Overall, I think the changes are both necessary and proper, and desirable. They are progressive. When the body itself comes to you and says that they want something, it is not like you always do as they say, but in this case what they are saying is only making things better for everybody.

One thing – and I will mention this because I heard the minister mention it in her comments earlier. Something that is a huge thing in this Province is diabetes. The fact is in terms of diabetes control, a pharmacist is probably the person who has the most direct contact with a diabetic.

I listened to our Leader, the Member for Humber Valley tell me about his experiences with people with diabetes and talk about the troubles that some of them have maintaining their sugars. They get that spike, the high spikes and the low spikes. That is why I bring it up.

I say this in all seriousness, and I know the minister is very serious, we clearly would note that it was this government that did bring in the pumps for people under eighteen and then went to age twenty-five. You have to be commended for that. I have said this on numerous occasions in this House, when there is something that I feel is right or proper I will give commendation for it, as I have done here many times.

The colon cancer speech today was just one example. If a government does something right, that needs to be applauded and there needs to be awareness made of that. We talked about the colon cancer screening. We need to have more awareness made of that; people need to have access to this.

To have the insulin pump available to people up to the age of twenty-five is the right thing, it is a good thing. The quality of life for these people, it is hard to imagine. I cannot imagine it because I am not in that situation.

The fact is that basically – and I know the Member for Terra Nova was there at the breakfast this morning for the Canadian Diabetes Association. The phrase they use is that this pump is the closest thing they will ever get to mimicking a normal working pancreas. To have that quality of life – and I mentioned in Question Period earlier, young Andrew Codner. The gentleman ‘teared' up pretty bad when he was in speaking today, talking about his quality of life. He was only diagnosed at age twenty-one. He was only diagnosed then. His levels were so high the doctor who first diagnosed him was unsure as to how he was still functioning, why he was not in the hospital.

Then to get this pump and to have a quality of life that he has grown accustomed to now, and to see what they have gone through to go from needles everyday, multiple injections, and to go to the pump where they basically insert it in. They only have to change it every three days. They can live that normal life, whether it be exercise, whether it be eating late at night. Things I take for granted, but things they cannot take for granted.

This gentleman, he has gone to school. He went out and got his education and he is working now. He is not working in his field that he wants to. He is scared right now because he is off his parent's insurance now that he is out of school and he is forking out about $400 a month. It is tough. We all know it is tough, these costs are tough.

He is counting down the days to his twenty-fifth birthday. He is scared and he is worried because he knows he might not be able to afford to keep the same care, that little pack. It is always by his side, as he says, that pump.

That is why he is calling and I am calling, and I know the government hears the call that we need to make this technology available to everybody in this Province who has type I diabetes. I do not think the cost is prohibitive and I do not think it is something that government does not want. I think it is something obviously government wants. They –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker is having great difficulty seeing the relevance of these present comments to Bill 50, the Member for Burgeo – La Poile, if he could explain that to the Speaker. I do not see the relevance of your current comments to Bill 50.

MR. A. PARSONS: I apologize. I am speaking to the Pharmacy Act.

What I am saying is that the pharmacists are the main point of contact with people with diabetes, and I referenced the comments made by the minister. I just want to talk about the firsthand impact that pharmacists have on the lives of people with diabetes amongst many others.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the speaker of a previous ruling that the Speaker of the House has made that in second reading, when we are speaking to bills we are speaking to the principle of the bill. In reference to the explanatory notes, which I have just reviewed, I cannot see the relevance of what the member is speaking about right now.

I would ask the member to speak to the principle of the bill in second reading.

MR. A. PARSONS: Certainly.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo – La Poile to continue.

MR. A. PARSONS: What I would say to that is – and I will attempt to be relevant on what we are talking about here – the pharmacists covered by this board and this act now have an ethical and legal obligation to make sure they do due diligence. That is why I think they would all want insulin pumps for all the people who require them. We all want that. All I am saying at this point is: I am asking that this is something that is considered and put out there.

Going back to the act, it is a good piece of legislation. It is necessary changes. It is recommended by the crowd who want it, the pharmacists of this Province. They do a great job. They are going to continue to do a great job in regulating themselves in performing the quality assurance. Those are my comments to this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First, before I begin, I would like to thank the Member for Burgeo – La Poile for his remarks. I usually – I would say 80 per cent of the time – enjoy when he gets up and speaks. He said a lot of good things there. It really speaks to the legislation by the very fact we are in agreement here today. The further the speakers go into when we hear more Opposition speak, it is going to be a common theme: that everybody is on board with this amendment and this new legislation. This certainly is good legislation.

Mr. Speaker, everyone here is aware of the role that pharmacists play in the delivery of health care. They work with patients and other health care professionals to provide appropriate patient-focused pharmaceutical care. You cannot even begin to say how important that is.


Pharmacists make a commitment to the people they help and they are entrusted with their lives and health. It is as simple as that. Pharmacists interact with patients to help them gain further insight into their medical condition and counsel them to provide information on how to reduce the incidence of side effects and prevent drug interactions.

It was mentioned yesterday – even though the minister when she got up and spoke today was continuing what she had said just a couple of days ago; just to reiterate some of the points she had said, there are actually approximately 670 pharmacists in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is a huge number. Actually, that number works out to be the highest per capita in all of the country. It is something to be very proud of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS: I just spoke about the importance of pharmacists, so we understand that. To be able to say we have the highest per capita in Canada of pharmacists practicing in Newfoundland and Labrador speaks volumes.

Further to that, as a member who represents a rural district, I am also happy to say that almost 38 per cent of those pharmacists of the 670 practice in very rural settings. It is something that certainly I can appreciate, as well as many members of this House of Assembly.

I, for one, know growing up in Glovertown – which does not have a hospital – we have to go either to Clarenville or Gander, one way or the other, east or west. The pharmacist is your primary health care giver in a lot of instances, especially after hours. There is a many a time that you go over to the local drugstore, you go and talk to your pharmacist, and you get very good advice; certainly, they can counsel you in a number of different areas. As a new parent with a daughter that is almost two years old, I have enlisted their trust and their insight on a number of occasions over the past little while. So, again, you cannot overstate the importance of pharmacists; I would certainly like to put that out there today.

The provincial government, again, as was stated earlier, will be investing approximately $37 million in pharmacies during the life of the current four-year agreement with PANL; that is something that was just recently announced, of course. This investment includes a new dispensing fee structure and payment for professional services, such as review of a patient's medical profile to discuss such things as side effects and compliance.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there will be funding for pharmacies operating in under-serviced areas of the Province, which brings me back to my point I spoke about just a moment ago with regard to rural settings – certainly those are the ones that this will affect most greatly.

Mr. Speaker, the new four-year agreement with PANL – and I should say for those who do not know: Pharmacists' Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, PANL; sometimes we use the acronyms and we just assume everybody knows what they are, but that is certainly what I am referring to today. It is an agreement we are very proud of in this government. It is something that we consulted with the group over a number of months, I can easily say, and we are very happy with the outcome of that, as is the group, so, certainly, kudos to the department and government for that.

Now, as was said, there are seven differences in this act than there were from the one that we are in right now; the one that we are looking at putting in has seven differences. You have to go back and look. Pharmacists were first legislated in 1910. It is quite a time ago. I know it was before my time and before most people's time in this House, I would argue. Of course, now, since 1910, we are still looking at that legislation there. Of course, there were amendments over that period of time, but this is the first time we are going to do a repeal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. S. COLLINS: There may be a member or two that were here around 1910, but generally speaking – we had amendments from that time, from 1910 up to current, but, of course, this is where we are going to repeal the current legislation and put in some new legislation, certainly something that is up to date and something more relevant and meaningful.

There were seven parts I wanted to discuss, very briefly, just to touch on all of them. With regard – and this is probably one of the more important ones, I would think, in my estimation; as the minister has already stated, the bill emphasizes that the primary function of the Pharmacy Board is public protection. It clearly states that the board shall regulate the practice of pharmacy to protect the public interest. So, above all else, that is their first and foremost priority. Nothing comes before that. That is first and foremost, and something you do not take lightly, I am sure, because they have the protection, they have the health and life safety of residents of Newfoundland and Labrador in their hands, literally. It is something that they take great pride in and they are very good at it, so it is nice to have that recognized right off the bat.

The second is the Web site. Of course, under the new act, the Pharmacy Board will be required to maintain a Web site. I am pleased to report that the board already has a very detailed Web site. This is actually a group that has been relatively proactive – I would say very proactive actually, with regard to having that public disclosure and the transparencies. While sometimes you have to get groups, you kind of have to push them towards this, this is something that this group has already been partaking over the last number of months, years, whatever the case may be. They are going to move closer, into a more transparent area, but even before this they were practising at a very high level with regard to that. That is something to recognize and commend.

This Web site will also include information on how to file a complaint, the discipline process itself, and even upcoming hearings or tribunals. It is a spot that people can go. They can look at their Web site. They can find all the different information they need. It is a one-stop-shop. Something, obviously, to recognize is not everyone has Internet service but, more importantly, even people who have access to Internet service – I know most of the Province does, certainly. I could talk about that at a later time.

Anyway, there are other people who have access to Internet services but are not comfortable using it. I do not have to look any further than perhaps my grandmother. If I asked her to go on the Internet – now, I have an aunt who is the same age who on Facebook twenty-four seven. So, it is nothing to do with age as such, it is just that she does not deem it necessary. For someone like my grandmother, if she wanted information, she could certainly request that something be printed off from that Web site and that would be given to her for a nominal charge. That is also something important to note.

I would like to congratulate the board on the efforts put forward on this Web site. It is something that has been in the works for some time. So, it is not something new that we are talking about here today with regard to their Web site. It is something that they were, again, proactive on. So that has to be commended.

The third piece, Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes to amend the governance structure of the board to add a seat for the Dean of the School of Pharmacy at Memorial University along with a seat for a pharmacy technician representative, which would both be done for the first time. What this will add obviously is a new level of expertise. Any time you can get greater expertise and greater focus on a board, it is a good thing. I certainly see this as a tremendous step in the right direction.

The bill also recommends the addition of two people to represent the public interest. These people will be appointed by the board. In addition, there will be two members from the public appointed by the minister. This is also a very important part of the board. Again, the board is actually growing not only in numbers of people, but also in the level of expertise and accountability.

I just wanted to note because I do not know if we had spoke about this before. Outside of the thirteen voting members it is important to recognize the registrar who does not obviously – I should not say obviously, but he or she, and I believe she is newly appointed if memory serves me correctly. She does not have the opportunity to vote but certainly for the delivery of information to the board members, she plays a very key role. While we do not talk about her necessarily, the role that she plays behind the scenes is very important. Again, I would like to recognize the job that she does.

The fourth one: registration of pharmacy students and interns. The current act, Mr. Speaker, permits the board to register pharmacy students; however, the proposed bill sets out in greater detail the prerequisite for student registration, including what registered students are permitted to do in a pharmacy as part of a clinical practice experience.

Pharmacy students who are registered with the board will be permitted to perform tasks within the pharmacy scope of practice. Certainly, it will allow them to practise in greater detail but also it will be done with the supervision of a certified pharmacist. Not only is it a learning experience for them and making sure they are getting the right instruction, but public safety again, it comes back to that, which brings back my first point that it is all about public safety, public protection. Certainly this is a piece of that as well.

The Member for Burgeo – La Poile, when he was up there he was talking about the School of Pharmacy and as he had mentioned, both myself and him, I think, attended one or two events with regard to the scholarship and awards ceremony, as well as a graduation. I attend different functions on behalf of the minister, as well as MHA myself in my district. It really dawned on me the level of students they have in the School of Pharmacy. They are the brightest group of students you can ever imagine, kind of thing, they are so well spoken, they way they present themselves. It was something that left an impression on me. It is very assuring to a person like me to know this is the upcoming pharmacists we have coming into the system. They were exceptional students.

Actually, the School of Pharmacy now, as it stands, is probably more competitive than any other school, I would venture to argue, at the university or it is just as competitive. There are people who wait years to get in there. They apply and they reapply and they reapply. Some people with ridiculously high averages and are fantastic students cannot get in just because they are taking the cream of the crop. Again, you can see that when you sit down in front of crowd at a graduation or an awards and scholarship ceremony, you can see that. It is obvious. It speaks volumes to the group and how they are doing, the group of individuals they attract to that profession.

Moving right along, number five – there are seven as I have said – registration of pharmacy technicians. This is something that is currently being done, I believe, in BC and Ontario. It is in the works in Nova Scotia, as I understand it, but it is something new to this Province. I guess when you look at that we are kind of leading the country with regard to the registration of pharmacy technicians.

In keeping with the trend across Canada, this bill recognizes the role played by pharmacy technicians in the practice of pharmacy. Pharmacy technicians are not currently regulated, as I had said, in this Province. The bill we are talking about here today includes sections which provide for the registration and regulation of pharmacy technicians. In order for pharmacists to focus on the clinical aspects of their profession to optimize patient care, it is critical to have well-trained and qualified pharmacy technicians to take responsibility for the technical and clerical components of pharmacy practice.

Again, if you have these pharmacy techs in place, they allow the pharmacist to practice at full scope; they are able to garner all their attention and do what needs to be done. Of course, the pharmacy technician plays an important role as well, but there is a separation of duties. When you do that and you are able to have people better able to focus on their particular duties, you get a better service performed. It is something the pharmacy group had put forward and they see the importance of this. I think we all do here as well.

As there is an inherent risk in the dispensing of medication, it is in the interest of patient safety that pharmacy technicians are held to the highest standards and are accountable for their work. I do not think anybody would disagree with such a statement. It is only through regulation whereby educational requirements, standards of practice, and professional accountability are clearly established that the public can feel confident in the pharmacy technician's ability to assume this increased level of responsibility. Again, I think this is something that is needed and something that is going to prove very useful.

The registration of pharmacy technicians will enable pharmacists to provide more counselling to patients, collaborate with other health care professionals, and more generally, to practice to their full scope in keeping with their education and training. Again, these folks spend a lot of time in school. They study hard to get where they are. When they get to that place and when they arrive at their place of profession, they want to be able to practice to their full scope. That is exactly what this allows them to do.

Number 6, Mr. Speaker, is the creation of a quality assurance program. The quality assurance provisions will allow the board to take action to address practice issues before they become conduct deserving of sanction. I see this as a proactive measure, because before something gets to be a big problem, we will say – and certainly a big problem in the field of pharmacy can be life-threatening; it can be quite serious. So before a behaviour gets to that point – if you see a behaviour developing that could in days, weeks, or months become a serious behaviour and something with ramifications to public safety, there is a process now in place that you can nip that in the bud. You can do it proactively where you do not have to go and necessarily make heads roll, we will say, for lack of a better term.

There is a process in place now where they can address that at the beginning. A lot of times, if behaviours are developing that are not in the direction the board would want – it may not be done with neglect or such; it may be just something that has to be addressed. Certainly this provision is in place to address that and not allow it to turn into something bigger. The Member for Burgeo – La Poile pointed that out as one of the bigger points of this as well. It certainly is very important.

Finally, the regulations; Mr. Speaker, the bill authorizes the Pharmacy Board to make regulations with the approval of the minister in certain specific areas. In particular, the bill provides regulation-making power regarding the scope of practice of pharmacists. One of the areas under consideration is to allow pharmacists to give injections such as the flu shot. That is just one example. We have to recognize pharmacists' expertise and ensure they are permitted to practice to their full scope.

Pharmacists in this Province already engage in medication management, which is something very important. I think many of us have probably seen that on a first-hand basis, if we were not able to get to our doctor in time – say it was a medication that you had been on for some time, say the last couple of years, and you needed a prescription filled just to get you over that hump until you could get in to see your family doctor; they are able now to look at your medication history and, given different circumstances, they can provide that on a short-term basis to cover off that interim. That is an important component as well.

Pharmacists after all are medication experts; there is no other way to say it. That is what they do and I can say that. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is looking up smiling. As a pharmacist, certainly he understands it, and I know the Leader of the Opposition as well. As the minister had said, they complete the circle of care. There is a circle of care in this Province that exists; it exists all over the world, but when you look at this Province, there is a circle of care. It is made up of different health professionals. The role that pharmacists play is huge in that. You have doctors, you have nurses, you have all kinds of different professions, and pharmacists play an equally important role in that circle of care. This legislation certainly recognizes that.

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, these new provisions that we have talked about here today will significantly enhance public protection. That is first and foremost, not only what we are happy to see, but also the pharmacists themselves. As a self-regulating body they see the importance of this. There are liabilities concerned; they want nothing more than to be able to have public protection as their first and foremost priority.

I look forward to the rest of the speakers getting up to this. I think this is a bill that is very positive. I have not been able to see another angle on that. There was huge consultation done with the board. This is something they were certainly on board with and also pushing as well. Government and the Department of Health and Community Services were more than happy to work with them. Through that consultation process we have, I think, a very, very nice piece of legislation here today.

I look forward to others speaking to it and I certainly look forward to others supporting this. I think it is well needed. Like I said, the first legislation was set up in 1910, so it is time probably to make a move on this. Anyway, with that I will take my seat. Thank you for the opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I, too, would like to thank the staff of the Department of Health for their excellent briefing. It was interesting to sit in that briefing because they were pretty pumped up and very proud of the work that was being presented to us that day. I am must say I, too, was very proud of that work and to know that we were all going to be part of being able to speak to this work and acknowledge this work.

I also would like to thank Mr. Rowe, who although he has been retired, I understand he continued to play a very important role in consulting on this bill and consulting on this piece of legislation. He stayed on to help develop and shape this new bill. It is very important to acknowledge that because he brings with him not only the public interest and the interest of public safety, but also such a thorough knowledge of the profession of pharmacy and the role that pharmacists have played, play now, and will play in the future of our health care system on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I understand that this bill is very much in the interest of the public and it emphasizes public protection. I also understand that this act dates way back to the original bill of 1910, to the original act of 1910. It carries with it a weight of history and substance and experience.

Pharmacists play such an important role in our health care system, and that role is – years ago they played a much larger role than they do now, and now they are continuing once again to play a very crucial, very vital, very professional role in our health care system. They not only are the purveyors of drugs and the deliverer of drugs and the fulfillers of prescription, but they teach, they advise, they consult and oftentimes they are people and professions that people will call late at night or on the weekends to get advice. We want to thank them for the vital role that they play in our society.

We know that pharmacists, particularly in rural areas, play an ever-increasing role. Oftentimes people who are economically disadvantaged, who sometimes have to get their pills before they get their next paycheque, that many independent pharmacists have given medications to people who are needy and wait for their payment, trusting that their payment will come; or, pharmacists who have delivered drugs to people, particularly to seniors, to people who have physical disabilities who are not able to go to the pharmacy themselves.

There are a number of hidden roles and hidden benefits that pharmacists give in our community, oftentimes just because of their own generosity, their own benevolence. So, I would like to thank them for the role that they play in the health care system for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think what this new bill and this new legislation shows is a fantastic symbiotic relationship, a great working relationship between the government, between medical professionals, PANL – the Pharmacists' Association – and the Dean of Pharmacy. How wonderful that on the board makeup now, the role of the Dean of Pharmacy is expanded to not just be an observing member, but that role, that seat comes with it the ability to vote on matters undertaken by the board. I think that is a great thing, because within the university setting one would hope that they are on top of the most technological findings and research in the area of pharmacology, and that can only benefit us. So, it is a wonderful thing to see the expansion of the role of the Dean of Pharmacy on the board.

Good advice is preventative care, and that is the role that so many of our pharmacists give. They consult with patients, they give them good advice. As a preventative role, that means less cost to our health care system. Particularly in the area of seniors, where we know that we have the fastest aging population in the country, in terms of a proportion of aging citizens in our population.

We know that the highest percentage of hospital visitations and hospitalizations for seniors are because of mix-ups in drugs, are because of confusion about drugs. We know that pharmacists have a key role here to play in terms of perhaps preventing that and an important role in education, in helping seniors manage their prescriptions.

I would like to say that what this bill reflects is a very progressive step in terms of the whole area of pharmacology and in the profession of pharmacists. Also, this bill smacks, it absolutely smacks of respect for the professionals who undertake this role in our society. You can see that the pharmacists have their fingers all over the bill, which is a good thing. We know that is has been reviewed by the Pharmacy Board and that they accept it. That is a good thing.

Again, at a time when our population is aging, more now than any time do we need a more vibrant, a more empowered, a more active role of the pharmacists and the pharmacy technician. Where we have in Newfoundland and Labrador the highest rate of diabetes in the world, we know that by 2020 one in three people in our Province will be diagnosed with diabetes or pre-diabetes. The role of the pharmacist is even more important now than ever because we know that 80 per cent of health costs, as a result of people living with diabetes, are because of mismanagement of the disease. We know that the role of the pharmacist is so crucial in this.

Again, the role of the pharmacist is more important now than ever. When we look at the board we see that the role of the board is about regulation of pharmacists and it dictates what you have to do to become and to stay a pharmacist. Their mandate is about the interest of the public, how the work of the pharmacist interacts with that, and it is about the safety of the public.

That is a good thing, and I am also pleased that it requires the board to have a Web site. We know that the governance of the board is about regulation and licensing. Again, the fact that there are more seats from the public added to the board is a good thing.

I think the expanded role of the technician is a positive step and it is one that, again, acknowledges and respects the role of the technician and respects the profession, also the fact that it will clearly define the educational needs for a technician. This protects the technician and it protects the public. It adds that extra support to pharmacists so that again it enables and frees up pharmacists to fulfil their expanded role and their ever-expanding role, especially their expanding role because of our increasing aging population.

The needs we see in the rural areas, we see that the role of a pharmacist is expanding in that area as well. Again, because of the expanding role of technology, the ever-changing role of pharmaceuticals in our health care, the very minutiae in pharmacology in terms of the expanding number of drugs to treat health problems are growing. We need our pharmacists to be able to be freed up to do what they do best. It is a good thing to be able to acknowledge and expand the role of technician as a support service that allows the pharmacists to do the best that they can.

It is good that it seems the quality assurance program is similar to the Psychologists Act, which has been successful, and the Medical Act that has been successful. To see mirroring something we already know is very effective and is successful is a good sign. It is good that the board can now make recommendations on new regulations with approval of the minister.

Again, that smacks of the respect it has for the profession. This once again capitalizes on the expertise of the pharmacists and of the board. It is a win-win situation when we know we can capitalize, that we can use the expertise of our professionals, that we have a formalized mechanism for input so that their voices can be heard, that we can benefit from their experience, and that we can benefit from their expertise. So often we see where there is not a formalized process for professionals to have input into regulation and the development of best practices. Again, this is a win-win situation for pharmacists, for the general public, and for the department, which one would hope means the department is totally open to input from these experts.

Again, we see the expansion of the scope of practice for pharmacists. We see that this has happened all over Europe. It is interesting that they had expanded roles years and years ago. Then we see that they became a little more commercial and strayed a bit from their particular area of practice. Now to see they will be freed up to do that ever-expanding role is such a fantastic thing. Because the way we manage our chronic diseases and the way we manage our health care system is so more particular than it has ever been and it is so more specialized than it has ever been, this is a positive thing for the people of the Province. I would like to commend the department. I would like to commend the staff in the department for getting to this point and for acknowledging how this is really a win-win situation.

We know a high number of hospitalizations for seniors is about medication confusion and medication mix-up. Hopefully – hopefully – by being able to circumvent some of this, it will mean we can bring down our per-capita health care costs. We know that the pharmacists can play a major role here. I think hopefully what will come along with this is an educational campaign to encourage people to use the services of their knowledgeable and expert pharmacists in their community –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: – to allow people to know the expanded role of the pharmacist and the role that the pharmacist can play for them.

I am also happy to hear about the expanded role where pharmacists can adjust or extend short periods of run-outs of medication. I know at times, when I was going through chemotherapy and I would run out of medication, the pharmacist sometimes – even though I did not have an extended prescription – knew what I needed and would take care of me until I was able to go back and see the oncologist. That is so important. It relies on the expertise of the pharmacist, which makes total sense.

Particularly now in this age of increasing generic drugs, we can see that the pharmacist has a very important role here. The pharmacist plays a role not only with patients but also with doctors. The pharmacist is someone who doctors can consult with because they are more knowledgeable than doctors in some ways on the effects of some drugs and on the interactions of some drugs. Having technicians, having an expanded role, having that more regulated, and having it very established about what their educational needs are is a good thing, again, so that pharmacists can play that expanding role.

The Complaints Authorization Committee, now that it can do its work without calling the whole board together, that is a positive thing. That can only serve the profession well. The CAC now can instruct someone to do things better. That opens the field to encourage colleagues to empower one another, to push one another to best practices. It creates a more positive and a collaborative working relationship among peers so that they can move towards best practices and excellence. This is what we would hope among peers, that they were able to do that in a non-threatening and collaborative way.

I am happy to see that this, the words and the spirit, are also in line with the Medical Act. The whole area of quality assurance, mandatory continued education – never before in our history of health care has that become so important. Because of the specificity and the particularities of drug therapy and the advances that are being made rapidly – not only with technology but with specific drugs – that mandatory continued education is so important.

That pharmacists are obliged to report standards of practice violations; hopefully this will be required less because of the quality assurance, because of the mandatory continued education, and because of the Complaints Authorization Committee being able to do their work. It is good to have that backup, but hopefully that will be needed less because of the support that will happen within the profession.

We know that by 2020, one in three people in Newfoundland and Labrador will be living with diabetes or pre-diabetes; we know that 80 per cent of the health care costs for people living with diabetes are from mismanagement of treatment. As we see the growing population of people living with diabetes, which is going to place an incredible health care challenge on the Province, the role of the pharmacist in this area will be so crucial.

Again, when we see the increasing number of people diagnosed with cancer and the ever-increasing and new drugs for cancer therapy and for cancer treatment, the role of the pharmacist once again is increasingly crucial.

To get back to people living with diabetes, that huge increase that we are going to see – 60 per cent of people with diabetes in Newfoundland and Labrador cannot afford their drug therapy, cannot afford to manage their diabetes properly, because they cannot afford it, so they be relying on their pharmacists for advice. They will be relying on their pharmacists for an educational role. It is their pharmacists; they have – particularly people living with diabetes – more contact with their pharmacists, probably, than their diabetes doctors, whether it is an internal medicine professional or an endocrinologist.

It is my hope also that our pharmacists play not only a role of one-on-one with the people of the Province who are experiencing medical difficulties; it is my hope that the pharmacists also will play an activist role and have a two-way communication with the Department of Health, and letting the Department of Health know the particular pharmaceutical challenges that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador face because they cannot afford drugs, because they cannot afford perhaps the most advanced and the best standard of practice in pharmaceutical therapy. It is my hope that the pharmacists will play that role.

We know the Canadian Diabetes Association, with the Newfoundland and Labrador association of diabetes held an information session today and talked about the insulin therapy pump as the standard of practice, as the standard of care for people with diabetes. They said it is the best drug therapy for the management of diabetes, and it is a cost-saving measure in the long run. It is my hope that pharmacists will also push for this, for the expansion of the insulin therapy pump program.

There is a woman who lives in my district, she is a single mother. She has four children. She takes six needles a day for her diabetes. She has multiple hospitalizations because of infections. She cannot manage her diabetes well because she is not on the pump. It is unfortunate that she must leave her children, be hospitalized because she does not have the best care that she can for her diabetes. Again, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have spoken to this bill –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: I am very happy to have spoken to this bill.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the member her time for speaking has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now she will close debate in second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to stand today to close this bill. I think we have heard some really good debate around this bill. I want to thank the speakers, because what I heard was a lot of positive commentary around some very good work that has been done by members of my department, certainly members of PANL and the board, and all of those with whom we made time to consult, Mr. Speaker. This is very much a good piece of work for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When we look at the regulation of the practice of pharmacy in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, it was certainly time to have updated some of what we were doing. I am very happy that this new bill we have introduced, and hopefully will pass here in this House, will mean great benefit for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Particularly as it looks at enhancing quality assurance measures, the governance structure particularly of the board, Mr. Speaker, the regulation making authority of the board.

I think one of the issues that we all spoke to today with some pleasure has to do with the expansion of the scope of practice of pharmacists in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, which is so important, and important to tell the people of the Province that this legislation will ensure appropriate safeguards for public safety. The block of work that we have done around pharmacy technicians, Mr. Speaker, is very, very progressive. It is a piece of work that we are very happy with, as is the board and as are the pharmacists with whom we have consulted.

As well, patient counselling and medication management, which will now be done and be able to be done more widely by our pharmacists in the Province as a result of introducing some of these new regulations. Particularly around the registration of pharmacy technicians, I think it will only enhance the care given to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy we are looking at the evolving technologies that can assist us in dealing with pharmacy issues, particularly when we look at electronic prescribing and tele-pharmacy and all of those issues.

I am very happy to have presented this bill to the House of Assembly today. I am certainly going to support the bill, An Act to Regulate the Practice of Pharmacy. From what I have heard, Mr Speaker, I think all of those members in the House of Assembly today are very pleased with this board and with this bill, and I am anticipating that we will see full support.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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 Regulate The Practice Of Pharmacy. (Bill 50)

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. KING: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill "An Act To Regulate The Practice Of Pharmacy," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 50)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Appointments To Boards, Councils And Tribunals. (Bill 47)

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

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am calling third reading of a bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Calling third reading. Are you moving?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KING: Okay, thank you. Yes, okay; make sure we are on the right track. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Service NL, that Bill 47, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Appointments To Boards, Councils and Tribunals, Bill 47, be now read the third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 47, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Appointments To Boards, Councils And Tribunals, be now read the third time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Appointments To Boards, Councils And Tribunals. (Bill 47)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read the third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting Appointments To Boards, Councils And Tribunals", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 47)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 6, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Trust And Loan Corporations Act. (Bill 48)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 48.

The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MCGRATH: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, that Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Trust And Loan Corporations Act, be now read the second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Trust And Loan Corporations Act, be now read the second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Trust And Loan Corporations Act". (Bill 48)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Service NL, through its Consumer and Commercial Affairs Branch, is responsible for administration of trust and loan corporations in the Province through the Trust and Loan Corporations Act. The current act replaced the previous Trust and Loan Corporations Licensing Act in 2007.

One key area of amendment for the new act in 2007 was to eliminate the provincial licensing requirement for trust and loan corporations, as this is covered under the federal Trust and Loan Companies Act of Canada. This reduced red tape and eliminated duplication of licensing requirements.

The current act in section 3 prescribes specific licensing and registration requirements for trust and loan corporations operating in the Province. It states: "A corporation shall not carry on business in the province unless it (a) holds a valid and existing licence under the Trust and Loan Companies Act (Canada); (b) hold valid insurance of its deposits through the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation; and (c) is registered in the registry of companies under section 383 of the Corporations Act."

Due to an unintended consequence, a company operating in the Province was no longer permitted to operate in Newfoundland and Labrador due to the regulatory change but has continued to do so since that time. Through these amendments, section 3 will be changed to permit associations registered under the Cooperative Credit Associations Act Canada which are also registered under the Co-operatives Act in the Province to operate as loans corporations in this Province.

As it was never intended to restrict these federally licensed co-operative credit associations from operating in the Province, these amendments will reinstate their ability to operate legally. In addition, this permission to operate will be made retroactive to July 1, 2007. This change will benefit that particular company, but may provide more choice to the consumer.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, this bill, Bill 48, An Act to Amend the Trust and Loan Corporations Act, will amend the Trust and Loan Corporations Act to permit co-operative credit associations licensed under Cooperative Credit Associations Act Canada to operate as deposit-taking loan corporations in the Province and it will become retroactive to July 1, 2007.

Just to give you a little bit of background, Mr. Speaker, the Trust and Loan Corporations Act proscribes licensing and registration requirements for trust and loan corporations operating in the Province. Under section 3 of the act, it requires that the trust and loan corporations operating in the Province hold a federal licence and Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance, as well as register with the provincial Registry of Companies.

Specifically, section 3 of the act states: "A corporation shall not carry on business in the province unless it (a) holds a valid and existing licence under the Trust and Loan Companies Act (Canada); (b) hold valid insurance of its deposits through the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation; and (c) is registered in the registry of companies under section 383 of the Corporations Act."

The Trust and Loan Corporations Act repealed and replaced the former Trust and Loan Corporations Licensing Act in 2007. The Trust and Loan Corporations Licensing Act required that the trust and loan corporations hold a provincial licence in addition to the federal licence. For the purposes of reducing red tape and eliminating the duplication in their licensing requirements the 2007 Trust and Loan Corporations Act eliminated the provincial licensing requirement. The Trust and Loan Corporations are required to have a valid and existing licence under the Trust and Loan Companies Act, a valid CDIC insurance, and registration with the Provincial Registry of Companies.

Some co-operative credit associations licensed under the Cooperative Credit Associations Act also meet the definition of a loan corporation in the Province's Trust and Loan Corporations Act.

I just wanted to give a definition of both the difference between the two. A co-operative means a corporation that is organized and operated on a co-operative basis, and is incorporated or continued under this act. That is written right into the Co-operatives Act.

Also, it says it includes a corporation that has as its object the operation of an enterprise or service on a co-operative basis or on a basis that, in the opinion of the registrar, is substantially similar to a co-operative basis, and is registered under the act.

The definition given for a corporation is that corporation means a trust corporation or a loan corporation incorporated under the laws of a Province of Canada or the Parliament of Canada and carry on business in the Province. So that gives the definition of the co-operative and the corporation.

The act was intended to prescribe licensing and registration requirements for all trust and loan corporations operating in the Province. Federally licensed co-operative credit associations that meet the definition of a loan corporation in the act should have been captured when the legislation came into force in 2007, but they were inadvertently omitted.

As a result of this inadvertent omission, federally licensed co-operative credit associations that met the requirements of the former act are now legally precluded from carrying on business in Newfoundland and Labrador because they do not satisfy the requirements prescribed under subsection 3(a) and 3(c) of the new act. This, as I commented earlier, Mr. Speaker, is an unintended consequence.

This issue was brought to Service NL attention a while ago by an existing association in the Province and it is a federally licensed co-operative credit association which operates as a mortgage lender and deposit-taking loan corporation in the Province. Notwithstanding that it does not currently satisfy the requirements applicable under subsection 3(a) and 3(c) of the act, it should be noted that this association met the requirements of the former act and was licensed by the Province to do business in the Province. While they satisfy the requirement of subsection 3(b) of the act as a co-operative credit association licensed under the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, it does not hold a valid and existing licence under the Trust and Loan Companies Act, nor is it eligible to be registered in the registry of companies under section 383 of the Corporations Act.

Service NL is of the opinion that the federally licensed co-operative credit associations that meet the definition of a loan corporation in the act should be permitted to operate in this Province as permitted prior to 2007. To our knowledge, this is the only federally licensed co-operative credit association that is operating at the present time in the Province, and the department has been aware of this for a while. This association, however, is presently unable to operate legally as a loan corporation in this Province under the present act.

The department – therefore, what we are recommending is that we will make changes to section 3 of the act and amend them to permit associations registered under the Cooperative Credit Associations Act and are registered under the Co-operatives Act in this Province to operate as a loan corporation in the Province. These amendments would satisfy the intended policies from section 3 of the act. Should this submission be approved, the amendments would be made retroactive back to July 1, 2007, which would satisfy the particular company that brought it to our attention.

In the act itself, the change that would be made is not a big change that we are making, it is more housekeeping than anything else. The change would be in "Paragraph 3(a) of the Trust and Loan Corporations Act is repealed and the following would be substituted: (a) holds a valid and existing licence under the Trust and Loan Companies Act (Canada) or the Cooperative Credit Associations Act (Canada); (2) Paragraph 3(c) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted: (c) is registered in the registry of companies under section 383 of the Corporations Act or the registry of co-operatives under section 18 of the Co-operatives Act." and "2. This Act shall be considered to have come into force on July 1, 2007."

That is the amendment that we are recommending. As I stated earlier, it is more housekeeping than anything else. It was inadvertently missed when the act was changed; the amendments were made in 2007 and what this does is allow a company that has been operating in the Province since 2005 – when the act was amended in 2007, that was inadvertently missed and the changes were not made there so basically it put this company in a position to be operating illegally.

I guess there is no major – there are no drawbacks to the amendment that we are making. There is no impact when it comes to competition for term deposits. The company has been, as I stated, operating within the Province for a number of years now. Where credit unions are concerned, there are really no impacts on the credit unions because credit unions fall under the Credit Unions Act and this is the Co-operative Credit Association.

I am recommending, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the House of Assembly accept the amendments and hopefully will vote in favour of this act.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty in supporting this bill, but my observations are that in the general thrust of things with financial institutions in the Province, this is a very minor piece of legislation; being such a minor piece of legislation, I think it misses an awful lot in the financial institution regulation in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I hear colleagues congratulating me on their assumed new status that I may have shortly, as the first man of Ontario. While I am very gratified by their confidence in the outcome of a certain contest in another province in a few months time, we should not take things for granted. We should just play along and wait for the outcome. That is just an aside.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BENNETT: In any event, Mr. Speaker, financial institutions in the Province, the chartered banks, five of the six do business in this Province. Then we have the institutions that this particular piece of legislation is designed to work with, and then we have credit unions. One of the areas that we are missing in my submission, my view in financial institutions in this Province, is that we have no provincially mandated bank.

Mr. Speaker, when we came into Confederation we did have a Bank of Newfoundland and Labrador. All those operations were then turned over to another charter bank in order to provide service. Large, well-advanced financially provinces do not really require their own financial institutions. In my view, this type of legislation could and should be used to provide the framework for a bank in our Province.

As an example, Quebec controls much of its own finances through its caisse popûlaires. While they are similar to credit unions, they are not entirely credit unions. Credit unions fill a significant void, Mr. Speaker, but they are undercapitalized in my view. The amount of funds that they have at their disposal is insufficient for the type of banking that we really should be looking at in the Province.

The high-end charter banks are basically purely profit driven – and why wouldn't they be? – but that does not provide the service that I feel we need in this Province. The type of model that we should be looking at in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is something like the Alberta Treasury Branch. In 1938, the Alberta Treasury Branch was commissioned and it would have been similar to the Bank of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It was commissioned and settled with just $200,000 and a half-a-dozen branches. From 1938, with Premier Aberhart, that bank was designed to protect the local interests of local people in their province because the large charter banks were very difficult to deal with and foreclosed on a lot of investments and businesses.

If we were to have a similar institution here, Mr. Speaker – I can say that the Alberta Treasury Branch from 1938 until just recently has grown from $200,000 of capital to more than $1 billion of capital entirely owned by the Government of Alberta and entirely funded by the people of the Province of Alberta. It follows all of the parameters of a major charter bank but it deals exclusively in their province.

I believe that our banking could do well; our Province could do much better if this type of legislation were taken, and if we extended it so that we could have our own provincially-owned and provincially-funded bank. That would mean, Mr. Speaker, that if an individual went for a loan, for example, for as little as $10,000, some of the financial institutions we see charge maybe 30 per cent interest and all of those profits go up along. Whereas if we had a local bank and charged maybe one-third as much as that, all of that interest, all of the capital that then accumulates would stay in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, in my view we can never properly control our own destiny, which is very important to all of us, unless we control as much of our own capital on a retail basis and even, yes, on a wholesale basis for all of our people to fund our own pension plans, to be able to fund our own major projects, and to fund, as many other provinces have done, pension funds that are run through our own financial institution, owned and operated by the people of this Province.

While this legislation is useful and necessary – in fact, it appears that it is necessary to correct an omission from 2007, which is not very encouraging, this legislation is necessary, useful, and I have no difficulty to support it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister and his staff for the briefing we had the other day. It was very informative.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a bill today, Bill 48, the Trust and Loan Corporations Act, and basically, it is a housekeeping piece. It was an oversight in legislation back in 2007, that a particular business was inadvertently omitted. Legislation and the amendment today are here just to correct that omission.

Service Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, through the Consumer and Corporate Affairs branch, is responsible for the administration of the trust and loan corporations in the Province through the Trust and Loan Corporations Act. Service Newfoundland, as well, through its Consumer and Commercial Affairs Branch, is responsible for the administration of trust and loan corporations through the act as well.

Mr. Speaker, what basically happened was when this legislation was first proclaimed in 2007 a particular business was inadvertently omitted from it. It was a piece of legislation that at times, when you are reading legislation, things get omitted. It is human error and human mistake. This particular company has been in the Province, and actually operating in the Province a good business, providing a great service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador since 1996 under various names.

Mr. Speaker, there is no concern with this business operating in the Province. They have been a good business. They have provided a great service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. In no way, shape, or form do they provide any threat or any harm forthcoming to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is just a fact, Mr. Speaker, that when the legislation was done, it was not picked up in the legislation. It was an unintended consequence, Mr. Speaker. We all know at times through human error, and no matter how many sets of eyes are set on a piece of legislation, sometimes things fall through the cracks. I would suggest that is exactly what happened in this piece of legislation. This fell through the crack and inadvertently, this co-operative credit association – that should be allowed to operate because they have already been in the Province, as I have said, in one way, shape or form, since 1996 – got inadvertently omitted.

Again, this is just something to clean up the act. It is a very simple amendment. It puts thing in line. It brings our legislation up to date. I think, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member opposite said, it is well done and all the rest.

It was not intended, Mr. Speaker, to restrict these licensed co-operative credit associations from operating in the Province. The amendment today will give them the legal ability to be a loan corporation within the Province. It makes it all legal, it brings things in line, and that is the purpose of this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, again, an unintended oversight, a human error, and I think this legislation today is pretty straightforward. It will just regulate and put in place the oversight that occurred in 2007.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to stand up and talk today to Bill 48, the trust and loans changes that they are looking for. I guess by definition, if we go through the definitions of what we are looking at here in this piece of legislation, trust companies, credit corporations and loan companies. A trust company is a financial institution that operates under either provincial or federal legislation and conducts activities similar to those of a bank. However, because of its fiduciary role, a trust company can administer estate's trust and pension plans, that sort of thing.

When we are talking a loan corporation, of course, things change a little bit. A loan corporation is a financial institution that operates under either provincial or federal legislation and conducts activities similar to those of a bank. Then we go on to the role of a credit association, which would be, I guess by definition, an association that is organized and operated on co-operative principles, with one of its principal purposes being to provide financial services to its members.

We have three different fiduciary roles, three different basic institutions here that we are talking about. The change that they are looking for would actually bring the trust and loan companies under the present act, and allow the addition of co-operatives to fall under the same guise as what you would see trust and loans.

I think that is a pretty beneficial thing to be doing, particularly when it comes to credit co-operative associations and moving them in under this act. What it in fact does – and I am thinking about the rural scene here in Newfoundland and Labrador right now when it comes to the provision, for example, of monies and probably loan opportunities, that sort of thing, for co-operatives to possibly expand their business, or if not that, to probably provide an opportunity for a financial institution of some kind to move in and provide services for the people.

I am thinking about what the minister is proposing in these changes, too, at the same time. I am also thinking about the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island who was on the radio the other day in pursuit of a financial institution of some kind for the people of Bell Island. I think that this is probably a beneficial move. I would suggest to the hon. Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island that the changes in this act can possibly help you out with a little potential problem that you might have over on Bell Island as regards to Bell Island becoming self-supporting. It is a place where you can have money centered a little bit, and probably now with these changes coming into effect you might be able to make a ‘pursual' of that opportunity and hopefully have some form of a financial institution back on Bell Island.

I wish him all the best with that. I know when we were up against each other in the by-election in 2010 that was a big issue. I want to wish him all the best because the people of Bell Island deserve nothing better than to have a basis of which to do their own banking services, that sort of thing. The opportunity for co-operatives is there, no doubt. I would really like to bring that one forward.

The curiosity in all this, in my background research, is that while it is coming in under the Trust and Loan Corporations Act –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: While it is coming in under the Trust and Loan Corporations Act, Mr. Speaker, the question has to be asked – and a matter out of curiosity, maybe I will even save it again for Committee of the Whole but I will bring it up now. A co-operative credit association set up to operate under co-operative principles. That, we know. Why would this association not fall under the Credit Union Act versus the Trust and Loan Corporations Act? That is just a matter of curiosity on my part.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have their own act.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, they do have their own act. I am just wondering why we are making this other change and bringing them underneath that other point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes.

The other things that are coming to mind here, in fact these changes will (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to take his seat.

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the Member for St. John's East and, of course, the Chair needs to hear the member to decide if the member's comments are relevant to the bill that is at hand. So, I would ask all members, please, for their co-operation.

I go back to the Member for St. John's East to continue.

MR. MURPHY: I am kind of surprised, Mr. Speaker, that you could not hear me. That is okay. It is all great.

I just wanted to make a couple of other points here for the minister too at the same time. While the others were speaking, I guess a lot of other points came to mind.

I have already gone over the point that it is a good starting point for the promotion of banking in rural areas where financing and other money management needs would be there for the people of the Province of course, and I see that as being a really positive thing that he is bringing forward in these changes.

Some of the questions that I did have for him – and perhaps, like I said, as they point to some of these changes too as regards to how all this came about. These changes are being made as a result of an oversight in licensing – he did bring that up – by the association. It was brought by the association. I am just wondering the role of Consumer Affairs in that regard, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the actual inspection of licensing, for example, of financial institutions. I think that might be a very important point to bring out. Who is responsible for the financial oversight in the licensing of these institutions?

Like I said, I think you brought it up already, or the hon. Member for Port de Grave brought it up about there being an oversight since 2007. Again, that is five years later that this change is coming through and we are going to make it retroactive to 2007. I do not know if the minister can actually get into the fact of what happened there when it came to what happened for those five years of oversight, what led the association to come forward and let government know there was an oversight here and the need for the correcting of the problem.

The other things that come to mind here – again, maybe the minister can address it later on – the simple fact of the licensing of financial institutions. Are they done on a yearly basis or every five years or what happens there? The other thing that I am thinking of too – when we are talking about other kinds of financial institutions, the money markets are changing really quick and, of course, over the last ten or twelve years we have seen the advent of payday loan institutions. I think a pretty important point here, when you are talking about payday loans, perhaps the minister in the near future is going to be looking at the role of payday loan companies and what their impact is, particularly on consumers. The previous minister told us about where they fell under federal regulations, and hopefully the minister will go back and look at these financial rules that we have now regarding financial institutions and perhaps take in an umbrella and start bringing payday loan companies in under the umbrella of some of these institutions who are doing such fine work under the Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, just a final summation on it, and I have already expressed the role of government in bringing this forward. Yes, it is going to be a good change, and good on them for bringing it forward – but again, there is a timeline, a bit of a space here, and I am just wondering about the whole regulation of the financial institutions. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I will clue up. That will be it from me.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the Minister of Service NL speaks now, he will close debate in second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the members from both sides of the House for the comments that they made for this bill.

I would like to answer one question concerning the licensing. The companies have to register with the Registry of Companies right now. There is a $200 fee for that, and then they are relicensed every year. If they switch over, if we amend this and this amendment goes through, they then also have to register with the Registry of Co-operatives. There is an initial fee of registering with them of $250, and then an annual fee to relicense at $50. So that would answer that question.

Some very good comments made there. As I said, I am not going to prolong this. It is an amendment that is mainly housekeeping. In 2007, when the original amendments were made, there was an oversight here; it was picked up. It is not a piece of legislation that is read on a daily basis by any association or co-operative, and when the loan corporation company picked it up, they brought it to our attention. The whole idea of this amendment is to bring it back to a legal position.

So, I thank you again for speaking, and hopefully I will get your support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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 Trust And Loan Corporations Act. (Bill 48)

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. KING: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Trust And Loan Corporations Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 48)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 7, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences Act, Bill 49.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 49.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, that Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences Act, be now read the second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 49, entitled An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences Act, be now read the second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences Act". (Bill 49)

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

MR. KING: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to introduce this bill today. I just want to take a few moments to talk about the essence of what we are dealing with here.

The Young Persons Offences Act, Mr. Speaker, is a special piece of legislation we have in the Province recognizing the difference between youth and adults and how they ought to be treated and need to be treated on certain occasions for particular offences, whether they are of a minor or a major nature. We have what is called the Young Persons Offences Act. It essentially applies to those who are between the ages of 12 years of age and less than 18 years of age. It does, Mr. Speaker, provide for some specific guidelines for the justice system on how youth would be treated somewhat differently than adults.

For example, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with youth, courts have to examine whether the facts presented in a case actually make out a charge laid against a young person, even, for example, if they happen to plead guilty. There are a lot of circumstances that have to be considered.

The act also provides an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of any minimum sentence prescribed in another act, a court can apply any sentence set out in section 11 of the Young Persons Offences Act. That can be any number of things, including an absolute discharge, a fine not exceeding $500, probation, or even community service. In order to apply the sections of that act, Mr. Speaker, a young person must appear in court.

What we are talking about here today, Mr. Speaker, are, however, a couple of exceptions we feel need to be addressed in the act. Specifically, they are the Highway Traffic Act and the Motorized Snow Vehicles and All-Terrain Vehicles Act. Mr. Speaker, most of the offences we see with youth as it pertains to these two particular acts – actually 98 per cent – are ticketable offences, particularly speeding.

To cut through, I do not want to give a long preamble to this because I think members all have a fair understanding. Essentially what we are attempting to do here is make an adjustment in this particular bill so that if a youth is charged with a ticketable offence under the Highway Traffic Act or the Motorized Snow Vehicles and All-Terrain Vehicles Act, they will not be required to appear in court as would normally be expected under the Young Offenders Act.

Mr. Speaker, what that really will do, I think, is acknowledge a process that has already been occurring in the legal system. In some respects, it will legitimize the practices that have been occurring in the legal system and give more clear direction to the courts of law that deal with our young offenders in the system. As I said, it is essentially going to sort of right size the act and it will put in context the practices that we are seeing, for the most part, in the system today.

Essentially, under the Highway Traffic Act and the Motorized Snow Vehicles and All-Terrain Vehicles Act where ticketable offences are made or charges laid, young offenders will not have to appear before court but can simply plead guilty.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am going to conclude my opening comments and open the floor to members opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

It is a pleasure to stand and speak to this legislation. I thank the minister for making solicitors from the Department of Justice available to have a briefing with us and go over this amendment to the Young Persons Offences Act, which sometimes I still have a slip of the tongue and say the Young Offenders Act as it used to be called. I will apologize in advance if I change the wording up there. It is certainly by accident.

What is being suggested here is fairly straightforward in essence. What is happening here is we are amending the Young Persons Offences Act so that certain provisions of the act are exempted as we are dealing with the Motorized Snow Vehicles, ATV as well as the Highway Traffic Act. As well as certain city bylaws, such as the City of St. John's, the City of Corner Brook, the City of Mount Pearl, and the Municipalities Act as it relates to bylaws regulating the traffic within those cities. It is a regulatory change here. That is one of the key differences here, is that we are not dealing with criminal matters but we are dealing with regulatory matters.

When we talk about young people, many people here even now, in their past careers have dealt with young people, whether it be in the education system, in sports, or in some cases – we take the current Minister of Natural Resources who had a long career in the justice field, primarily in the criminal field. He is someone who had plenty of opportunity to deal with matters of this nature and to recognize the fact, obviously, that young people, due to their youth and due to development, they do not have, we will say, capacity until the age of eighteen.

We have to recognize that young people growing up, they are going to make mistakes, as we all do, and that is recognized. Young people often have age limits put on a number of things, whether that be consuming alcohol, voting, or driving a vehicle.

The fact is even when you talk about the criminal justice field, even when young people are above the age of eighteen there are still sentencing provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada that consider youthful offenders. We talk about young offenders under the age of eighteen but there are provisions to govern the fact that people when I guess breaking a section of the Criminal Code of Canada can be covered off under youthful offenders. The Member for St. Barbe would know that as well, someone who has handled plenty of these cases.

The fact is we have to recognize that young people are going to make errors, as we all do. In this case, what is being done here is to avoid the necessity of taking regulatory charges and forcing young people to possibly go into the court or judicial system to have them dealt with when perhaps that should not be the case. They can be handled under the Highway Traffic Act and under the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act where you get the ticket.

Depending on how you want to handle it, you do not have to go into court you can go ahead and pay your ticket. Now if you want to challenge that ticket, then you can go ahead and defend yourself in the court the same as you would if you were an adult. There is also the default provision, that if you do not pay with a certain time you are deemed to – you are convicted of the offence, I guess.

What we are doing here is we are providing that convictions by way of tickets issued under the authority of the Provincial Offences Act, and convictions by way of a ticket for offences relating to the regulation of traffic, we are saying anything under that, that they are valid. That the sentences imposed under those, usually in fines, are confirmed and that the fines paid as a result of these were properly paid. We are saying by changing this, it is proper and it is legal and it is not going to be challenged.

What we were also told in the briefing and I appreciate the solicitor from the Department of Justice, he took the time to explain this. He said: look, this is current practice. Now, I guess what we are doing is enshrining it in the legislation.

Basically, the goal is to have young persons who are offenders or young offenders who get traffic tickets to be simply treated as traffic offenders without the necessity and the cost of going into the court system. Now in certain matters, especially the serious ones, I think when somebody does something serious I think a visit to the courtroom or the court system is not a bad thing.

I know the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs probably has seen this plenty of times too. Going into that court system can be a real shock to the system in straightening people out and realizing: Oh, my God, I might have gotten myself into trouble. It can have a sobering effect on you. Some people who are on that borderline, especially young people, they can go either way; knowing that, by going in there, and the seriousness of the offences, it is a good thing.

In this case we are talking about traffic tickets mainly, primarily speeding tickets. What we are saying here is: look, you can be treated the same way, but you still have the option of going into court to defend yourself if you feel you did not commit the offence that you were alleged to have done, whether that be not wearing a seatbelt or talking on the cellphone while you are driving. There are a number of them under the Highway Traffic Act. There is driving without a licence; there is failure to keep your identification plates clean.

The Highway Traffic Act itself is a very interesting piece. I saw one section where I believe it is an offence – if you are driving along the roadway and you overtake a person on a horse, you are not to alarm that horse. If the person falls off, you can be deemed to have committed an offence. I saw a case once where that was being alleged. Very interesting parts of our law stemming from older times; you do not see it much now, but there are still people out there who are using horses as methods of transportation.

We are dealing with regulatory offences which have a lower burden, we will say, than your criminal offences. One issue that I did have that I brought to the solicitor was that under the Highway Traffic Act, there are still provisions where imprisonment is a possible punishment – not just a fine, but there is actual imprisonment there, and sometimes it is thirty days; it can be longer. Or in some cases, if you do not pay the fines, in lieu of a fine or in default, there could be imprisonment. That was my concern: was there the possibility of a young person committing the offence not having the protections afforded them under the Young Persons Offences Act and being treated as an adult where there could be imprisonment?

I recognize that this is very rare. The fact is that judges still have the ability to take into consideration they are youth. If we are talking about: you have to pay a fine, and if that person does not have the ability to pay the fine, then jail time or incarceration is one of the other punishments. I did have some concern there and I believe that may be a possibility. That could possibly be something that I bring up to the minister when we enter into the Committee stage. I am putting that out there now so he can get the suitable answer when we come back into Committee from the department and answer my question there.

When we are dealing with legislation, we want to make sure that there is no unintended oversight here; that is simply what we are trying to do. I agree with what is being sought here. I agree that we do not need to be taking people who might have a minor traffic ticket and forcing them, because of this legislation, to go into the court system.

The other thing, too, is it is not just hard on the young person; it is hard on the young person's parents, because they are often the ones who have to pay for a solicitor to go into court with them, and that can be a significant cost for something like a traffic ticket. So, we have to take into account, that we are dealing with people under that age of eighteen; they are out there driving.

Again, I have had the opportunity – the sections proposed here are very small in nature. We have two sections here, and we are not just talking about the Highway Traffic Act, we are talking about the motorized snow vehicles as well, and ATVs. We have a lot of people, a lot of young people using ATVs or on their bikes, so we have to take that into consideration as well. So that is one of the concerns that I will be bringing to the minister, but it is probably better done in the Committee stage.

For instance, under section 106(24), Failure to Stop at a Stop Sign, there is an imprisonment aspect to that if you default the fine. So are they still afforded the protections under the Young Persons Offences Act? That is the main point of where I am going with that.

We all recognize the purpose of the Young Persons Offences Act. We understand the concepts of what it is going at, it is recognized here – especially the ages of twelve to eighteen. It is like any piece of legislation where we are covering off crime and punishment – because, as they say, people have issues at times with it and there can be concerns, but that is natural and that is going to happen. I do not know if you could ever make the legislation such that people will not express concern, depending on a sentence or a particular set of facts.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to this. I will have some questions for the minister when we hit the Committee stage, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to take an opportunity this afternoon to make a few comments with respect to this particular bill.

As the hon. member across the way pointed out, it deals with regulatory offences and not serious criminal matters involving youth. Really, what it does is it solves an inconsistency between two different pieces of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Young Persons Offences Act – we hear every day in the community the discussion about the treatment of young offenders in the justice system; there is always a lot of confusion and emotion about whether or not offenders get a slap on the wrist and so on, whether or not they are being treated fairly in the justice system, but this is not about that. This is not about serious criminal offences; this is about regulatory offences only.

The Young Persons Offences Act, Mr. Speaker, sets out a number of principles that govern the treatment of young people in the justice system. Even though they are held accountable for their actions – they have to be held accountable for their actions and society has to be defended from the offensive actions of anybody – yet there are a set of principles that govern young offenders that are different from adults. The Young Persons Offences Act points that out.

Any time a young offender or a young person is charged he has to appear in court. Section 10 of the Young Persons Offences Act says you have to appear in court if you are a young person charged. Now, there is an inconsistency here because by appearing in court that gives the court the opportunity to consider all the parameters around that young person. There may be any number of conditions or circumstances, as the member obviously across the way pointed out, that would influence the court's decision in dealing with that person, whether he pleads guilty or not. Whether he pleads guilty or not, the court has the discretion to give non-judiciary sanctions to the person instead of fines or anything else.

Mr. Speaker, there was an incident in the court that brought this up to our attention not long ago. The court has found, for example, in offences under the Highway Traffic Act, you, I, and everybody else under the Highway Traffic Act have at some time or another been ticketed with an offence. Most of us, Mr. Speaker, never take the time to go to court to pay our fines. We let it lapse and by letting it lapse we are automatically found guilty and convicted. We usually pay our fines then when we go to get our driver's licences or our vehicle permits.

It is present practice that youth and adults are treated the same in that way. When the youth is picked up or given a ticket for a speeding offence, the same practice is followed. He can go and pay his fine if he wants to, or he can contest it if there is reason to contest, but very rarely are these things contested, or he can let it lapse. If he lets it lapse, then he is convicted in his absence by default and faces fines the same as everybody else.

The Young Person Offences Act says that where a youth is charged, whether he is guilty or not he has to appear in court. That is where one of the problems comes up. He does not appear in court, obviously, and neither do you nor I when we get a ticket under these conditions. There is an inconsistency between the legislations.

What this bill is going to do is amend the Young Persons Offences Act to exempt ticketable offences under the Highway Traffic Act and under the Motorized Snow Vehicles and All-Terrain Vehicles Act. Now, young people get tickets also under several other pieces of legislation, like the Liquor Control Act for example and wildlife regulations. These are not included. They will be in the act the same as they always were. The act will be amended to exempt ticket offences under the Highway Traffic Act and the motorized vehicles act and youth will be treated there in the same way as adults. That is what this one is all about. Mr. Speaker, to make sure we go back and cover the offences that have been ticketed, convicted and paid in the past, we are making this amendment retroactive to make sure that all those charges were valid.

Mr. Speaker, if the current system stayed in place, then the court does not have the opportunity to apply all the discretion it has because it never gets to court. For example, the maximum fine under the Young Persons Offences Act was $500. If a youth is ticketed going through a construction zone, for example, speeding going in a construction zone, the maximum fine is $600 or even higher. That is inconsistent with what is allowed under the Young Persons Offences Act.

Mr. Speaker, all this act does is it gets rid of the inconsistency between the legislation. If you enforce the Young Persons Offences Act here – I think there were 1,276 ticketable offences against young people in 2011 – they would all have to be brought to court. Imagine the impact on resources that would cause.

Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of this amendment. It is a good amendment, and I certainly encourage everybody here to vote for it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

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

I am happy to stand and speak to this bill. I do understand the intent of this bill to amend the act to exempt offences under the Highway Traffic Act and the Motorized Snow Vehicles and All-Terrain Vehicles Act. I want to thank the department for the briefing. It was a great briefing and I want to thank that.

I do have some concerns. Again, I understand the intent of this, but I am a little bit concerned about some of the possible outcomes, which we will probably discuss a little more in Committee of the Whole. Some of the concerns that I do have, Mr. Speaker, would be on the surface this looks good, but with the Young Persons Offences Act we look at perhaps less harsh penalties on youth than on adults. I am a little bit concerned about what happens if we have a youth who may have thousands and thousands of dollars in ticketable offences and fines that are not paid. Once that youth gets to eighteen years of age and is not going to court about these offences and has not gone to youth court, then once this person is of eighteen years of age and wanting to go to university, or wanting to work and needs to be able to drive to school, or needs to be able to drive to university, what happens with them?

They are under an incredible debt load of fines which they cannot get out from under. The potential implications of this bill on the lives of youth may be far-reaching. These are issues that I am a little bit concerned about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: I am also concerned about, what about parents' rights and, particularly, the rights of notice to parents. If this provision is removed then young persons who often get their traffic offences while driving their parent's vehicle, they can be ticketed and charged, and the parent may be none the wiser.

What happens if a young person receives a ticket and then wants to refute it? What happens then? Will they go to court? They are not legal adults but they will be appearing in general provincial court. What about young people's right to privacy? We know that young offenders are treated differently in the law, because of the Young Offenders Act, than are adults. However, if they have to go to traffic court, what about their right to privacy and the restrictions on publishing their names and their offences, et cetera?

This is currently under sections 20 and 22 of the Young Persons Offences Act. What would disappear for them and for the other traffic offences if this goes through? There are a few concerns that we have.

Again, I understand the intent of this, and on the surface it looks good. We do not want all of those ticketable offences going to court; yet, there is a possibility of some negative ramification on youth, particularly if there are escalating fines that they are not able to pay. What does that mean for them in the future?

What happens if they dispute a ticket, if they dispute an offence? How will that be handled? Will that be handled back in youth court? Will that come back under the Young Persons Offences Act, or are they going to be treated in an adult court? Again, then violating what we have all worked so hard in terms of the protection of young offenders and how we deal with young offenders in our legal system.

Also, when we look at young offenders one of the reasons we have a Young Persons Offences Act, one of the reasons that we deal with them differently is because of their state of dependency, their level of development, their level of maturity. They also have special needs. They require guidance and help. So there is a concern again. What happens if we have repeat offenders? Maybe some kind of intervention is needed but not in adult court, not in adult traffic court.

I have some concerns. I am looking forward to Committee of the Whole where we can talk about these particular issues, where we can talk about what the ramifications will be for youth. Whether or not there will be some unintended consequences that may have far-reaching effects on their lives, particularly once they do become of age.

These are the main issues. We have a history for youth of far less, harsher fines and more lenient penalties. Not for any other reason but because of how we deal with youth within our judicial system. It will be interesting to see the rationale for this. How we will balance the needs of youth, how we will balance the needs of youth as they go through our judicial system, and how we will balance also the often unnecessary requisition to go to court for any kind of traffic violation for youth. That is not desirable at all.

I look forward to a further discussion on this, Mr. Speaker, and I will wrap up for now. I look forward again to the discussion in Committee of the Whole.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. Minister of Justice speaks now he will close debate in second reading.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the comments made by all members who participated in this debate. I look forward to further discussion in committee, and I move we close debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I see the Member for St. John's North, are you standing on a point of order?

MR. KIRBY: I was going to speak to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker certainly did take a look around the Chamber before he recognized the Minister of Justice. There was nobody standing, so the debate is now closed in second reading.

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 Young Persons Offences Act. (Bill 49)

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. KING: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 49)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, that the House now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to discuss Bills 48, 49, and 50.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 48, 49, and 50.

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'.

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Littlejohn): Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 48, An Act To Amend The Trust And Loan Corporations Act.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am just wondering, from the minister, if he can answer a couple of questions here. "The change is being made as the result of an oversight in licensing by the association"; I think you made it clear about how often they are – they are inspected once a year. Could you give some background as regards to why this went on for five years and did not get picked up?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Basically – and I thought I had explained it when I presented the bill – it was an oversight when the amendments were made in 2007; they missed that one item. It is not a bill that somebody will pick up and read all the time. When we had one company in the Province that is affected by this bill – when they realized it, they brought it to our attention and we corrected it. This is why we are bringing the amendment forward now.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just a second question now, about payday loan companies; not only their need for oversight, but are they going to be affected in any way by this act, knowing that co-operatives – is there an "opportunity" for payday loans to enter into the co-operative end of things?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That is something that we are discussing. As of right now there is no effect at all.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In your discussions, then, with payday loans, and you are talking about the regulation of payday loans, at the same time, if you are going to be bringing them under the act here, does that mean that you are going to be taking the payday loan division as such too under provincial regulations? My understanding right now is that it is covered federally.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is covered federally right now. In our discussions we are not at a point where we would make a decision on that.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: I just have one question specifically around the co-operative credit association, why you are looking at putting this under the trust and loan versus the Credit Union Act, because of the co-operative nature of a co-operative credit association – just a point of clarification more so than anything else.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. MCGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The credit unions work under their own act. This particular company was under the Co-operatives Act before, so we are leaving it where it is and just putting that addition in there.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Trust And Loan Corporations Act. (Bill 48)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

We will now go to Bill 49, An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences Act". (Bill 49)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

I just have a question for the minister. It is one I sent to a solicitor within the department. I believe I brought it up during my time in second reading.

My question is: The bill proposes to remove certain regulatory offences from the Young Persons Offences Act, for example Highway Traffic Act offences or Motorized Snow Vehicles and All-Terrain Vehicles Act offences; will this eliminate any protections they are provided with under the act as it relates to possible imprisonment? For example, there are offences under the Highway Traffic Act that carry imprisonment with it as a possible sentence. Will they now be treated as adults possibly?

I am just hoping you can confirm whether that is a possibility, your understanding of will this will apply, and so on and forth.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The short answer to the member's question is that the changes will in effect apply the same procedures, yes, as adults will face with the Highway Traffic Act and the All-Terrain Vehicles Act; however, while we understand there are offences that can have imprisonment, the Criminal Justice Act, as I think the member would know, provides that in any judgement the court of law is supposed to take into consideration the special circumstances of the person before them.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Young Persons Offences Act. (Bill 49)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are now considering Bill 50, An Act To Regulate The Practice Of Pharmacy.

A bill, "An Act To Regulate The Practice Of Pharmacy". (Bill 50)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 through 69 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 69 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 though 69 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Regulate The Practice Of Pharmacy. (Bill 50)

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those in favour, ‘aye'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural Development, that the Committee rise and report Bills 48, 49, and 50.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 48, 49, and 50.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave and Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole.

MR. LITTLEJOHN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 48, 49, and 50 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and has directed him to report Bills 48, 49, and 50 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. KING: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bills be read a third time?

MR. KING: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bills ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the hour of the day, I move seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources that the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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'.

Carried.

This House stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.