The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Today the Chair welcomes the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune; the hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride; and the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, by leave.

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

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate the St. Anthony Polars Female Hockey Team on recently being crowned the provincial champs at the all Newfoundland and Labrador Female Under 20 C Hockey Tournament that was hosted in St. Anthony.

Four teams from across the Province competed in the three-day tournament, with Bonavista and St. Anthony competing in the championship game. The winning team was not only proud to have won with a score of 4 to 1, but they were also extremely proud to have done it in front of their home crowd.

I would like to congratulate each player who pulled off a stellar win. They are: Karla Patey, Madison Patey, Holly Earle, Sarah Blake, Nikita Pittman, Brooke Noseworthy, Kerry Patey, Heather Richards, Rebecca Sexton, Kristen Patey, Johanna Elliott and Dana Saunders. Their hard work, relentless effort and attention to detail have certainly led to their team's success.

I also wish to congratulate coaches Tonya Noseworthy, DJ Elliott and Phil Hancock for their hard work and dedication to the team which has certainly contributed to their victory.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating this team and their coaches and wish them well as they participate in future competitions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize RCMP Auxiliary Special Constable, Mr. Everett Hann, a resident of Meadows in the beautiful District of Bay of Islands.

Mr. Speaker, recently Sergeant Terry Foster of the RCMP B Division honoured Mr. Hann for his forty-plus years of service, and the longest serving member of the auxiliary policing program in Atlantic Canada. In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, Constable Hann is one of the longest serving constables in Canada.

Special Constable Hann is very highly committed and a dedicated individual who works countless hours of every year serving the communities they police.

Constable Hann states, "He enjoys it and you get to know the different aspects of policing and always aim to get out there and help the public."

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to acknowledge Special Constable Hann for his forty-plus years in serving the public.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to congratulate the St. Mary's All Grade girl's basketball team on recently winning the Small Schools Provincial Basketball Championships.

Mr. Speaker, the provincials were held in McKay's this past weekend where six top high school teams from the Small Schools Division participated to determine the champions. Once again, Mr. Speaker, the St. Mary's All Grade School team won the championship, this time with the girl's team defeating the host team from E.A. Butler All Grade School in the finals.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the team from E.A. Butler All Grade School on being awarded the most sportsmanlike team, as well as winning the silver medal. I would also like to recognize Stephanie Sooley from the St. Mary's All Grade team on being awarded the most sportsmanlike player. The other players from her team were: Lisa Rumbolt, Kelly Russell, Carla Rumbolt, Irene Simms, Cassandra Pye, Leslie Rumbolt, Sarah Lee Campbell, Tamara Pye, Jenna Rumbolt, Mayaa Thatchell, Hillary Roberts, Alexandra Pye, and their coaches Todd Farrell and Thomas Simms.

I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating both of these teams on their success in high school sports in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize an outstanding Newfoundlander and Canadian, Ms Edwina Wetzel of Conne River, who was appointed as a member of the Order of Canada this past December.

Distinguished by her unwavering commitment to improving the education of Aboriginal people, she was a leader in developing a modern education system which incorporates the community's Mi'Kmaq language and cultural traditions of the Conne River Reserve.

She commenced her career in 1962 with educational studies at Memorial University, after which she returned home to Conne River. Today, the community boasts a modern, technologically advanced pre K-12 school system, a community dream that has been realized under her leadership.

For forty-five years, she dedicated herself to furthering education, providing encouragement and skills that have enabled hundreds of Mi'Kmaq people to excel, all the while promoting their traditions and culture.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in honouring Ms Edwina Wetzel for achieving the prestigious Order of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I stand in this hon. House today to recognize an outstanding young woman from my district, Erica Halfyard, who on March 20 placed fifth in the Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador Pageant.

Erica is a Level III honour student at Bishops College. She is fluently bilingual and can best be described as an all around student. She excels in academics, music and sports, and she is an excellent singer. At the Miss Teen Pageant she placed second in the talent portion of the contest and her rendition of The Travelling Soldier captivated the whole audience.

In the past she has won numerous awards and placements for music, voice and musical theatre, including first-class honours for voice with Conservatory Canada.

Erica has won a public speaking award, student of the month award, as well as several sports awards. She is very active in swimming, soccer, volleyball and cheerleading. She is the student co-ordinator for Bishops College chapter of SADD – Students Against Drunk Driving. She is a member of several other school committees, including Bishops College Youth Action Committee, the GSA Committee, and the Graduation Committee.

Erica is an avid volunteer in her school and in public. She helps at Agnes Pratt Nursing Home and with World Vision's thirty-hour famine program.

Mr. Speaker, Erica is only one of the many exceptional young people in this Province. I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Erica on her accomplishments.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP for granting me leave to make this member's statement.

Mr. Speaker, the Herder Memorial Trophy –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: – or the Herder as it is more commonly known is the championship trophy of senior ice hockey in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is the most prestigious hockey championship solely dedicated to Newfoundland and Labrador and, as a result, has a significant following within the Province. In fact, many would say it is the Stanley Cup of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: In 1935, the trophy was donated by Ralph Herder, who was president of The Evening Telegram newspaper, in honour of his five hockey playing brothers. The trophy was to be awarded to the Province's best ice hockey team.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the best hockey team in the Province emerged victorious on Saturday night when the Grand Falls-Windsor Cataracts defeated the Conception Bay North CeeBees 4-0 and claimed the Herder.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: The Cataracts swept the series four games to none in the best of seven play-offs.

Winning the Herder Memorial Trophy on Saturday marks the eleventh time the Cataracts have claimed the title as Newfoundland and Labrador's best senior hockey team - the last time being in 1981-1982. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this eleventh win sets a record for the most Herder championships won by a single team, the Grand Falls-Windsor Cataracts. What an accomplishment!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the enthusiasm, excitement, and pride of the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor can hardly be contained as a result of this monumental achievement. On Sunday, hundreds of residents turned out to show their appreciation and offer their accolades to the team. The two-hour motorcade started in Botwood, made its way through Bishop's Falls, and concluded at the town hall in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Many individuals are to be commended for this win: the spirited and talented players; head coach, Brian Casey; general manager, Dave Canning; and a host of organization members as well as the devoted Cataracts fans and community partners.

In an interview following the final game, Coach Casey said, "We're an honest team. We played honest every night and we let our work ethic dictate the way we played. It was the attitude of the guys on and off the ice. They acted like professionals from day one. They played hard for each other and overall it was just a great team effort."

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, the MHA for Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South, and the MHA for Exploits, and I am sure the MHA for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, I invite all members of this hon. House to join me in offering congratulations to the Grand Falls-Windsor Cataracts on winning the coveted Herder Memorial Trophy. I also offer congratulations to the Conception Bay North CeeBees for a well-played series. Go Cats Go!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure on Friday to attend the graduation ceremonies for the Correctional Officer Recruit Training Program which was held this year in Clarenville. This was the first time, Mr. Speaker, that the program has ever been offered outside of St. John's.

I had the honour of presenting certificates to eleven proud recruits who are now embarking on a brand new career with the Department of Justice as correctional officers. I am proud to stand in this hon. House today and announce, Mr. Speaker, that six of these recruits were women, four of whom are from the Clarenville area. The other recruits are from the Stephenville area and the Northeast Avalon.

Mr. Speaker, these recruits spent a combined six weeks of comprehensive in-class training which focuses on CPR, mental health, gender awareness, suicide prevention, use of force and physical fitness, all components that are critical to their success and safety within our correctional facilities. In addition, Mr. Speaker, they spent two weeks on-the-job training so that they could experience practical and real life situations in the course of their work.

Since the 2009 release of Decades of Darkness: Moving Towards the Light, which our government commissioned, the Department of Justice has made significant strides towards revitalizing corrections. We have allocated approximately $7 million for the revitalization of the Newfoundland and Labrador corrections system. In addition, in the last two years we have trained a substantial number of correctional officers. From January 2009 to April 2011, ninety-three new correctional officers have gone through the Correctional Officer Recruit Training Program.

Mr. Speaker, Friday's graduation ceremony also included the first presentation of the Sean Colbourne Award. This new award is in memory of Sean Colbourne who was one of our cadets last year who died tragically just days after graduation. This award is given to the cadet who best exemplifies all the qualities that Sean showed during his own training and is determined, Mr. Speaker, by the winner's peers. Those qualities are determination, honesty, strength, perseverance, dependability and a resilient character. I am proud to announce that Nicole Critch of Clarenville is the first ever recipient of this award, which was awarded on Friday by Mr. Colbourne's father. Sean was well admired by his classmates and I cannot think of any better tribute for Sean than this award.

Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to congratulate these eleven new graduates of the Correctional Officer Recruit Training Program. I wish them all the best as they embark on their new career and I warmly welcome them to the Department of Justice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement today. We also would like to offer congratulations to these new graduates. It is a great career to pursue and now, of course, for these successful graduates the real work begins. They are entering into the real world and we wish them all the best.

It is good to see that we do have eleven more graduates, Mr. Speaker. The Decades of Darkness report that the minister alluded to came out in 2009 and it clearly found that there were serious problems with staffing shortages and aging infrastructure here in our Province. In the three years since that report was released, of course, it would still appear there are some incidents that would indicate there is not enough security yet, despite the advances that have been made.

We had some incidents, for example, one individual who escaped while he was at court, tumbled down through the roof and ended up in the judge's chambers; another guy on the West Coast who got through the back window in the Stephenville correctional facility; another person, of course, who went to court and they forgot to tell him that he was still in jail and they let him go home. So, we are still seeing some incidents where we still maybe need some more bodies.

Of course, that report also pointed out the dilapidated conditions of HMP. It dates back to the mid-nineteenth century. It is built to house 145 prisoners, it routinely houses 170-plus. In fact, I quote from the report and it says, "The cleanliness or the lack of it is horrendous."

At this time we would certainly wish these people all the best. Some of them, I am sure, are not looking forward to having to work in HMP because wherever you work it ought to be a decent place to work and live, but we wish them all the best when it comes to safety and security and enjoying their new careers.

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

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

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

I am happy, too, to join in congratulating the eleven graduates on completing their training program and becoming correctional officers, and especially in congratulating Ms Critch in receiving the award that she received.

It is good to know that we have a good mix of men and women coming into corrections. It is extremely important. The minister did make reference to the Decades of Darkness report and the recommendations that have been put in place. Of course the new Corrections Act was one of those recommendations so things are moving ahead, there is no doubt about that.

I am a bit concerned that Her Majesty's Penitentiary here in St. John's seems to have fallen off the radar. We have had the minister say that even though the federal government is still not showing an inclination to come in on this with us that he believes that we have to move ahead. I am waiting to see when we are going to be moving ahead; maybe the new relations that the government has with Ottawa are going to result in Ottawa saying yes to money for the penitentiary because what we have down there is completely unacceptable. It is so far beyond the pale that it is hard to describe to people if they have not seen it themselves. I continue to be assured by people who are working in the penitentiary that new programs cannot work adequately because of the facility in which they are working; the facility is holding back programs from moving ahead.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister continues to look at what is needed in corrections, I ask him to bring back HMP onto the radar and do something about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is perhaps no greater investment a business can make in improving its competitiveness and productivity than investing in its workforce.

To support local businesses in bolstering their workforce we launched the Workplace Skills Enhancement Program in fall 2009. It is a program for small businesses to upgrade the skills of employees to improve their productivity and competitiveness.

Over a relatively short period, the program has experienced tremendous uptake and is achieving its objectives. More importantly its success reflects the increasing focus that Newfoundland and Labrador's small businesses place on the continual development of employee knowledge. It is clear our business community recognizes that investing in their workforce is essential to staying competitive in an ever-changing global business environment.

In less than two years, more than $2 million has been approved for small businesses and business development organizations in communities and regions throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. It has led to the creation of more than fifty highly-skilled positions and almost 500 staff upgrading their skills.

In Labrador for example, the program led to personnel in Battle Harbour securing certification to operate passenger vessels; and the Labrador Straits Development Corporation coordinated an advanced jewellery and metalworking course to assist local entrepreneurs acquire new techniques to further strengthen business opportunities for these types of products.

Additionally, in Codroy, Codroy Seafoods is undertaking customized training for more than forty employees, which will help the company expand to secondary lobster processing; while in Centreville, the program is helping Noble Mouldings introduce on-the-job training for its employees.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government is extremely pleased with the interest shown in the program. As businesses invest in their workforce, it also serves as an important retention tool. Investing in staff development sends the message that employers value their employees and that they play an important role in the long-term viability of the business. Those businesses that address the issue of training are more likely to exceed in times of economic uncertainty.

On that note, I encourage local businesses to look at our programs and how they can benefit their operations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I certainly agree that there is no greater investment we can make in this Province than to invest in the workforces of our businesses that we have throughout the Province. It is good to hear about the Workplace Skills Enhancement Program and we recognize that the small and medium business sector of our Province is vital to our economy. Anything, again, that our government can do to support that sector in its development is very positive.

It is nice to see the personnel at Battle Harbour that were mentioned, the people involved in the Labrador Straits Development Corporation initiatives as well, and of course the two businesses mentioned there in the statement as well.

I would commend the government's commitment to supporting skills upgrading of employees, and I would also emphasize that government needs to continue to improve the access and support for businesses. In some parts of the Province, in particular, we take for granted that the information is out there and so on, but we obviously know then in some of the more rural areas there may be businesses that do not understand or are not totally familiar with the programs. So anything we can do to enhance the information, certainly.

Also, I would like to make a point that young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians need to be supported, and these programs obviously are designed to do that. We see recent statistics that were just put out by Stats Canada suggesting that the unemployment rate between our youth is 14.8 per cent, so that is a concern. As we move forward, hopefully, we can help our young people know these programs are available and they can find careers in our small and medium sized businesses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

It is good that we have the program that we do, with regard to helping small businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador train their employees. It is an extremely important thing for small businesses, especially as they look to growth. I look forward to this program being a long-standing program in the Province. I would like the minister to consider looking at particular areas and focusing on particular areas where training is needed; for example, in the forestry, in value-added processing in the fishery, and in the agricultural sectors, and encouraging training and growth in those developments.

There is a major barrier that a lot of small businesses do face in rural Newfoundland in particular, and that is the inadequacy of Internet connections, and the demand for high-speed is very great. The minister talks about what businesses are facing in an ever-changing global business environment. Well, in that global environment, having Internet access, especially for marketing, is extremely important. In this day and age, how can business grow without reliable high-speed Internet? I ask the minister to give some serious attention to that issue, along with the government.

We also need better air transportation as well, in this Province, in order to get our products to export markets. So I encourage looking at the other barriers that are there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, ever since the Premier and the Government signed on to the term sheet for Muskrat Falls, we have heard nothing only exaggeration and spin, when it comes to the numbers attached to this project. Yesterday, again, in the House of Assembly, she told the people of the Province that the price of power has doubled in the past five years, and will double again in the next five years.

Mr. Speaker, she said –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Yes, I stand to be corrected. She said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that it has increased by 35 per cent in the last five years.

I ask the Premier today, Mr. Speaker: Where she is getting those particular numbers? Because we tabled in the House of Assembly last week the electrical bills of customers in Newfoundland and Labrador for the last five years which indicated there was only –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have been consistent in our message on this side of the House. We have indicated that the rates of electricity, the price that people are paying for electricity - irrespective of what happens with the development of Muskrat Falls - is increasing and is projected to increase by 2017, by 37 per cent over the next five, six years; about a 4 per cent to 6 per cent increase per year, Mr. Speaker. It is not just us saying it. The other thing we know is that the National Energy Board is saying that the rates are going to increase. The CBC National News did a survey; they project up to a 50 per cent increase in the electricity rates.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we are developing Muskrat Falls is to solve that problem, and by solving it we will be able to ensure that the rates will increase by 0.7 per cent per year as opposed to the 4 percent to 6 per cent that they are increasing now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also knows that the national survey he refers to talked about replacing dirty energy, I say, in places like Ontario and British Columbia with clean energy, and that new production comes at a price. That cannot be averaged into what is going to happen exactly here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

My question is for the Premier. Yesterday she stood in the House of Assembly, she told the people of this Province that their light bills, Mr. Speaker, their energy bills had increased on an average of 35 per cent over the last five years. I ask you to table the information, the source of that information because consumers' light bills are indicating that they are only increasing at a rate of 2.1 per cent annually in the last five years.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to table the information. I do so time and time again when requested by the Leader of the Opposition. What I cannot count on, is that she is going to do anything with it, Mr. Speaker. It is like she stood here in the House yesterday complaining because the environmental review panel had not received information they requested from Nalcor, when in fact that information had been given to the panel last week and, in fact, had been posted on their Web site over the weekend.

Mr. Speaker, she is not paying attention, she is not interested in the facts, and she is not serving the best interests of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, serving the best interests of the people of this Province is not telling them that we are going to double up the cost of electricity that you pay every single day in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, Nalcor did not provide all the information, I say to you minister. They even wrote the panel and told them they would not provide all the information. Maybe you should read the letter.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Assembly, in questioning the Premier on why the people of Nova Scotia and in the Maritimes would get power cheaper than the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, she stood up to try to defend it, to say that they can produce their own power, Mr. Speaker, at less than ten cents a megawatt hour, so why would they pay fourteen-and-a-half cents for Muskrat Falls Power?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: I ask you today, Premier: Why would you want to sell power to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at 14.5 cents…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the cheapest way that we can provide power to the people of this Province in 2016 and 2017 is through the development of Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have looked at a number of alternatives, studied them, and that is the conclusion we have arrived at. The cost of that power to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, if we do nothing else, Mr. Speaker, if we do not get a loan guarantee, if we do not sell any power, if it is just the straight cost of the project, is going to be 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour, Mr. Speaker. That is the cost of providing power to the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It makes no sense as to why we want to use the taxpayers in this Province to subsidize power going into the Maritimes, I say to you Premier. That is not a good formula for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and they should not be expected to pay so that people in the Maritimes can get cheaper power from Muskrat Falls.

I ask you: How do you respond to the people of the Province who have to dig deep in their pockets to pay your bill while the people in the Maritimes will not have to do so?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, if we develop Muskrat Falls only, only for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, which we have to develop it for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but if we do not sell power or do anything else with that power, Mr. Speaker, it is going to cost us 14.3 cents a kilowatt hour, Mr. Speaker, but we will have excess power to our needs. What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is looking beyond our borders to see if there is a market for our excess power. If there is, Mr. Speaker, that means we collect extra revenue from the development of Muskrat Falls that can be put to the use of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In a briefing with Nalcor this morning we asked them, point blank, if they could confirm that any revenues from excess sale of power would go to subsidize the ratepayer in Newfoundland and Labrador, would go to bring down the cost of power to consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the answer, Mr. Speaker, was no.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the wonderful thing is that I get a briefing, too. The question was asked to Mr. Martin and the answer that Mr. Martin gave was that was a policy decision of government, not a decision of Nalcor.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Well, I would suggest that you check again. Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition check again.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and therefore the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, are the only shareholders of Nalcor, Mr. Speaker. These are policy decisions that will be made by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, not Nalcor, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ed Martin of Nalcor told us this morning, Mr. Speaker, that any extra revenues collected would go into Nalcor as an energy corporation to be invested in the Province; probably to drill holes in places like Parsons Pond where we just seen $23 million of the people's money spent, Mr. Speaker, to drill holes in the ground. That is a different story, Premier, than what you are talking.

I would like for someone to clarify once and for all, for the people of this Province, are you going to have to pay a base rate of 14.3 cents on your electrical bill while the people in the Maritimes get it for ten cents or less, or are you going to subsidize the power to these people so they do not have to pay all that money out of their own pockets?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, how quickly they forget. How quickly they forget. These are the same group of people who took every dividend they could get out of Nalcor and made the future of the utility questionable. They knew where to go to get the dividends when they needed to try to balance their budgets.

Now, as I said, Mr. Speaker, there is one shareholder in Nalcor: It is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: They will determine where the profits of Nalcor will go, whether it is to reduce energy rates, to build schools, to build hospitals, or to build roads. Mr. Speaker, the government of the day will decide; therefore, the people of the Province will decide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier confirm today that revenues from excess power on Muskrat Falls will go to subsidize the ratepayer in Newfoundland and Labrador and bring down the power costs to consumers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is far too early in the development of Muskrat Falls to make those kinds of decisions. The thing that we would prefer to see happen is industrial development attracted to Labrador where we could provide –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – very, very competitive energy rates. That is what we would like to see happen, Mr. Speaker.

Before this power comes on line, Mr. Speaker, there is a six-year wait. A number of things will change. When we get nearer to power coming on line, we will make these fundamental decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Thursday, we asked the Minister of Natural Resources a very pointed question here in the House of Assembly, and that was when he was informed about the drilling mud spill from the Henry Goodrich platform.

He avoided the question completely last Thursday in the House and now, Mr. Speaker, he is in the media saying that he was not made aware of it until that very morning.

I ask you today, Minister: Why did you not tell that to the House of Assembly when the question was asked of you on Thursday?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I responded to the question that I was asked on Thursday, as I have responded every time I stand on my feet here in the House of Assembly. When I was asked by the media specifically when I found out about the spill, I indicated to them when I found out and how I found out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister can read Hansard. In the House of Assembly last week, he defended the C-NLOPB's actions, said they had followed the correct process, and had posted the information to their Web site. Now he is out stating that they did not follow the correct process, and he is demanding a meeting with the chairperson.

So I ask you today, Minister, why did you stand in the House on Thursday, defend the process used by C-NLOPB, and then four days later come out and say that you are not happy with the process that was used?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my main concern as minister is to ensure that ourselves and the officials at the C-NLOPB are working in tandem to ensure the safety of the people working offshore and the safety of the environment offshore. That is my goal.

When I stood on my feet last Thursday, I indicated what I understood to be at that point in time. I gave the correct information that I had at that point in time. The only difference today, Mr. Speaker, is that I understand the C-NLOPB had some misinterpretation of the data themselves when it arrived to them, they misunderstood the information that was presented to them, and that was a part of the reason why there was a delay in responding.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the significant aspects of safety in the offshore is requiring the agencies to follow process and procedure, I say to you, Minister. So, it took the C-NLOPB three days to inform your office that this had happened, it took you four days to figure out that the process was not followed.

That is not acceptable and not good enough, and what are you going to do to ensure that it does not happen again?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have said it publicly, and I will say it here on my feet in the House of Assembly, I have to ensure that the Department of Natural Resources works in tandem with the C-NLOPB to ensure the safety of the people working offshore and the safety of the environment offshore. For that reason, I have written a letter to the chairperson of the board of the C-NLOPB requesting a meeting. He has indicated that he is prepared to meet with me. This afternoon, there was an officials meeting happening between officials of my department and officials in the C-NLOPB –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SKINNER: – in preparation for the meeting I will have with the chairperson in the very near future.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Safety was not a priority when they tried to appoint Elizabeth Matthews as the Vice-chair of the C-NLOPB, I say to you, Minister.

Mr. Speaker, back in May of last year, the government opposite commissioned Captain Mark Turner to do a review of the effectiveness of legislative and regulatory regimes in the event of an oil spill. He was supposed to have finished his work within ninety days, he had been given a couple of extensions since that time, it is nearly a year since the report was commissioned, and I think it is about eight months, probably, overdue at this stage.

I ask the minister: Have you received a draft copy of the report yet? If so, when will the report be made public?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, because of the seriousness that the government takes with the offshore safety, we commissioned a separate, independent report, the Captain Mark Turner report. We gave Mr. Turner sixty days initially to complete his work. When he delved into the matter, he came back and asked for an extension.

It was not going to be us on this side who were going to either restrict Captain Turner or rush Captain Turner into doing his work. He asked for more time, we gave him more time. We wanted to ensure he did a thorough analysis and a thorough investigation of the mandate that we had given him.

That report has been presented, it was in draft form, and there was some editing that needed to occur. It is my understanding the report will be presented to me in the next week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to an access to information request that was filed by the Official Opposition office, the latest round of poverty reduction consultations - and this is the round that was held between October 18 and November 10 of this past fall, a period of about three weeks - it cost the taxpayers of this Province nearly $85,000 for that consultation.

I ask the government how they can justify spending $85,000 on a consultation, on poverty consulting, Mr. Speaker, when there are families in this Province who are going without, there are families in this Province where that money should have been invested?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: I think I have heard it all today, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we should have asked everybody living in poverty to come to St. John's to tell us about their lives and what we needed to do to improve them, Mr. Speaker. This is offensive on so many levels; I really do not want to say anything more about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Premier can stand up in the House today and justify why there was $50,000 spent on advertising for these consultations when there are families out there in this Province living in poverty who could have used that money to assist their families and to improve their quality of living. Stand up, Premier, and explain to the people of the Province why you spent $50,000 in advertising these consultations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this government is lauded from one end of this country to the other on our Poverty Reduction Strategy. We are held up as an example to other provinces in terms of tackling this terrible issue that we all experience. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why we have been successful is because we approached this in a very respectful way, knowing but for the grace of God there go the rest of us, Mr. Speaker. It is important for us to listen to people who have to deal with these issues of poverty on a daily basis and, Mr. Speaker, we will do everything we can to support them, to come forward to talk to us so that our policy and our programs are well informed by the people who use them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier can stand in this House of Assembly and grandstand all she likes. To spend $85,000, Mr. Speaker, without a cent of it going into the pockets of families in this Province who need it is absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, while the Premier talks about our record on poverty, let me tell you what our record is. The number of families using food banks in Newfoundland and Labrador is increasing at an alarmingly rapid rate I say to you Premier. The number of people who are in poverty in Newfoundland and Labrador is climbing, I say to you Premier, and all of the indicators are telling us that.

What is it you are going to do for these people who are living in poverty in Newfoundland and Labrador besides the road show that you are putting off to promote your own strategy on poverty as a government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have sat through some highs and some lows in this House but I have to say the last five or six days we sit here listening to the member opposite run down good developments in this Province, developments that will put money in the coffers of this Province to help people out. Today, she is taking strips of the most vulnerable in society; $85,000 so that we could send people to her district, Mr. Speaker, and hear from the people in Labrador, heaven forbid that we force them to come to St. John's in the city and have to hear from them. We go out and we reach out, Mr. Speaker. More than $100 million we have invested I say to you. We are not spending money on helicopters and placemats like that previous government did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only one I am taking a strip off of in this House is you, Minister, you, Premier, and your government. It is ridiculous what you are doing; ridiculous that you would spend $50,000 of the taxpayers' money in advertising poverty consultations and not investing into the families and the children of this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know what this government is doing for poverty. They want to go out and increase the electrical bill of every single consumer in this Province, Mr. Speaker – every single consumer.

I ask you today, Minister, to stand in your place and defend the fact that your government has wasted $85,000 of the taxpayers' money and not invested it into the children and families of this Province.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to stand here in my place today and defend the fact that we are seeking input from the people of this Province. I will tell you what else I am prepared to do: I am prepared to share with the member opposite things that she is not tuned into, like $25 million in the provincial drug program for those who most need it in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: I ask you: What about the elimination of school fees and free text books? Are you prepared to cancel that for people in this Province?

I say to the member opposite: What about the expansion of the Medical Transportation Program for people who cannot afford to come to St. John's? Are you prepared to stand and defend that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you that our government would certainly not be throwing good money, Mr. Speaker – good money – in this Province out the window; good money that could be used by families in this Province. Our government, Mr. Speaker, would not be sinking $23 million into a hole in the ground in this Province because the government has pie in the sky ideas. We would be spending our money, Mr. Speaker, on families and on children in this Province.

So I say to you today, Minister: You should be ashamed of yourself that you spent this money in advertising sessions on poverty as opposed to investing it in the very people who need it in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing questions asked and answered.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues here on this side of the House sat here in Opposition. Some of my colleagues sat here when members opposite spent $85,000 or more on placemats for their leader's office in the day. They sat here while members opposite gallivanted around the Province in helicopters, Mr. Speaker, all over the place, crisscrossing north, south, east, west, you name it. Money was free. Go where you want.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to you, when we came to power – here is what we have done for poverty. I am more than happy to continue to talk about the rent supplements we put in this Province, to talk about the rent program that we have done for the people, Mr. Speaker. All across Newfoundland and Labrador, people who are suffering the most in society have benefitted from more than $140 million in investments by our government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The Minister of Justice has done a complete about-face and agreed to review the work on the Province's psychiatrists at correctional facilities –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: This, of course, comes on the heels of recommendations by the Citizens' Representative whose recent report the minister was so quick to dismiss. This review needs to happen very quickly, I would suggest minister.

My question today is: Have you put a timeline on having the review done and completed, and will you commit that the report will be released to the public when you receive it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we are in the preliminary stages of putting together this review. At this stage in the game I am certainly not going to give any information as to how that review is going to be constructed. I make no commitments at this time, Mr. Speaker, what will be released and what will not because it is too early in the game to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources said yesterday in front of the media that not only had the public not known about a substantial toxic mud spill on the Grand Banks for several days, but he himself had to find out from his own staff. The government was never formally notified by the C-NLOPB and this was a second such lag in communication between his department and the C-NLOPB. Mr. Speaker, the public trust in this government's ability to monitor offshore safety is being shaken.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Could he please explain how long this failure in communication between his department and the C-NLOPB has been going on?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, this was an incident that occurred. It is something that we are working on. I have indicated before that it is my priority to be able to work in tandem with the C-NLOPB and the officials down there to ensure the safety of the offshore workers and the offshore environment.

That is why I wrote the letter that I wrote. That is why there is a meeting between officials happening this afternoon between my department and the C-NLOPB. That is why in the next short little while I will end up having a face-to-face meeting with the chair of the board. We want to ensure that these incidents do not happen. It is unfortunate that it did happen, but our priority is to make sure we have processes in place to ensure they do not happen in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He did not answer my direct question, but maybe after he has his meetings I will ask him again how long has the communication breakdown been going on.

Mr. Speaker, I have stood in this House to ask the minister, and the minister before him, questions regarding many aspects of offshore safety, including the reliability of the S-92 helicopter, deepwater drilling, and oil spill monitoring, just to name a few. In each case government has given assurances that they were aware and in control of the situation.

In light of the minister's own admission that he did not know what was going on in this latest case, how can this minister be sure that both he and the Newfoundland and Labrador public are getting full information on all incidents in the offshore?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is a communications protocol that has been established. That communications protocol has to be followed. It is important that we work in tandem as I said. As a courtesy, we should know what is happening. In my opinion, they should be informing the public immediately about what is happening. It is my goal, when I met with the chair of the board, to ensure that that process is followed.

In terms of this particular incident, as I indicated, there was a breakdown there. They needed to inform us, they did not. They should have had the information up on their Web site, I believe, more quickly and inform the public; but, because of an interpretation error with the data that they were presented, they basically thought the spill was a lot smaller than it was, much, much smaller than it was, and were not going to put that information out publicly. When they realized the size of it, they put the information out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

As I said, I will be looking forward to asking more questions after the meeting between the minister and the head of C-NLOPB.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in responding to my questions on the removal of taxes from home heat, the Minister of Finance beat around the bush with confusing details. The minister does not seem to realize, Mr. Speaker, that rightfully we do not tax anyone in this Province on necessities of life like food. When we go to the grocery store we do not differentiate between high and low incomes in terms of who pays tax on food. No one does because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, if this government does not tax people, anybody on a necessity like food, why are they taxing them on the necessity of home heat?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP is on her feet many times in this House asking us to spend money on affordable housing, asking us to spend more money on poverty reduction, asking us to build long-term care facilities and to do that we have to raise revenue. We raise revenue in many different ways. We have to strike a balance between the revenue we need to provide doctors and other services.

One of the problems is that if you start giving exemptions - the HST is a value-added tax, it is a tax on everything - if you start removing it from home heating, if you remove it from home care, if you remove it from children's clothing, pretty soon the rate goes up. Provinces that have, in fact, removed that tax have raised the HST from 8 per cent to 10 per cent.

Government has to raise the money to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section 19.(5) paragraph (a) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby table minutes of the House of Assembly Management Committee meetings held on November 17, 2010, and the in camera budget meetings held on January 26 and January 27, 2011.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the Order Paper we will first go to the bills that are referred to the Committee of the Whole.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 3, 9, and 10.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole and that I do now leave the Chair.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Bill 3, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 3, An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Tax Credit Act". (Bill 3)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 9.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 9, An Act Respecting Correctional Services.

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

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 52 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 52 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 52 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting Correctional Services.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 10.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 10, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.

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

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 5 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 5 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: I move, Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bills 3, 9, and 10.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 3, 9, and 10 and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

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

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

The Committee of the Whole has considered the matters to them referred and has directed me to report Bills 3, 9, and 10 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee has considered the matters to them referred and has directed him to report Bills 3, 9, and 10 be carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bills be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bills 3, 9 and 10 ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the Order Paper, the Second Reading of Bills. We will commence with Order 5, second reading of Bill 1.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, that Bill 1, An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that Bill 1, An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults". (Bill 1)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this hon. House today to bring forth the Adult Protection Act which will increase the protection of vulnerable adults in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, this government has, over the last number of years, brought forward many pieces of legislation and brought in many policies to protect the most vulnerable of our society, especially our children.

Mr. Speaker, we have also as a government brought forward many pieces of legislation and policies to protect seniors in various ways. We have made significant investments in providing long-term care, home care and issues like that. Mr. Speaker, there is also another sub-segment of that population which we cannot forget, and that is the vulnerable adults. As I move through my discussion on the bill, I will talk about whom we consider to be vulnerable adults and what we are going to do to help protect them.

Mr. Speaker, the new legislation will replace the Neglected Adults Welfare Act which is thirty-eight years old and has had few amendments since its original proclamation. One of the roles we play as a government, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that legislation is updated and modernized, and is consistent with not only the needs of our population but where possible, consistent with legislation throughout the country.

This new act, Mr. Speaker, will ensure our government continues to support our most vulnerable adult population while at the same time, and this is very important - and it is always a difficulty in bringing forward any piece of legislation - while at the same time balancing an individual's right to make his or her own decisions with the overall protection of that individual. I will go through a few provisions of the act shortly, Mr. Speaker, and try to point out how we are accomplishing that end.

The adult protection legislation, Mr. Speaker, will establish a more efficient and modern response to adults who are unable to protect themselves from neglect or abuse. Again, Mr. Speaker, there are definitions which I will go through shortly and I will go through various sections of the act.

Mr. Speaker, the overriding consideration in bringing forward this legislation, or the purpose for which we have brought forward this legislation, is to protect adults who are incapable of caring properly for themselves, who refuse or are unable to make decisions for care on their own behalf and who are not currently receiving proper care and attention. Mr. Speaker, we consulted with stakeholders in May, 2010, and met with various groups. When I say stakeholders, various groups who have an interest in this legislation as to what they thought we should do.

Since the issue of consultations came up earlier in the House of Assembly today, it might be helpful to show that as a government we go out, listen to people, communicate with them and listen to what they have to say. We will then adjust legislation or policies where possible, Mr. Speaker, to meet the needs of the people. That is what we are elected to do, is to meet the needs of the people.

Mr. Speaker, for example, on May 11 there were meetings with Eastern Health. On May 13, we met with the Newfoundland and Labrador Elder Abuse Committee. There were meetings in Central Newfoundland and Labrador on May 14; Western Newfoundland and Labrador on May 17; Labrador-Grenfell on May 19. On May 11 we had everyone from representatives of the Canadian Paraplegic Association to the Coalition for Persons with Disabilities, the Independent Living Resource Centre, the Citizens' Representative Office, and Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group. Again, these are examples of groups who we met with during the consultation process.

The same process occurred, Mr. Speaker, when we met with individuals from Eastern Health and the Community Living and Supportive Services, the Elder Abuse Committee, which was comprised of representatives of the Seniors Resource Centre, Labrador West Status of Women Council, dieticians of Newfoundland and Labrador, the RCMP, the Coalition Against Violence, the College of Licensed Practical Nurses. I guess what I am trying to outline, Mr. Speaker, is that in May of this year we met with numerous groups who would be affected by this legislation, either as a result of the population they serve, an interest in the legislation or an interest in ensuring that the legislation was not too cumbersome and allowed the legislation to achieve the goal.

I will go through this, Mr. Speaker, and this is a complicated piece of legislation in many ways but, again, I always come back to the purpose of the act is to protect adults who are incapable of caring properly for themselves, refuse or are unable to make decisions for care on their own behalf, and who are currently not receiving proper care and attention.

Mr. Speaker, we, as MHAs, deal with all kinds of seniors groups. I think, at one point, there were over one hundred 50 Plus Clubs and seniors clubs in this Province. They serve very vital roles – I am sure you are aware as I am sure people in this Province are aware – in that they encourage, not only physical activity and healthy eating, but they socially interact with each other, Mr. Speaker, so that seniors who might otherwise be alone in their homes are out there with people and they are enjoying the company of others.

Mr. Speaker, depending on where you live and depending on your own personal circumstance that may not always be the case, so there can be situations where individuals, especially as they get older, they may not have family and friends or for whatever reason they may not have contact with their families and friends; they may not have anyone to look out for them. They may not have that seniors group who is saying: Where is our friend today, or I have not seen him or her now for the last few weeks, what is going on with them? I think I will give them a call.

Mr. Speaker, what we have to look at is individuals who, as a result of circumstances oftentimes beyond their control, find themselves in the kind of situations where this act will apply; in other words, vulnerable adults, Mr. Speaker.

By meeting with these various committees, and these are committees, Mr. Speaker, these are individuals who are dealing with seniors and adults – because they can be adults, I guess it depends how you define a senior – a 50 Plus Club, we see a lot of 50 Plus Clubs – I guess I could go into one of the clubs in Carbonear now having turned fifty myself this summer – but it can be an adult.

MR. F. COLLINS: (Inaudible).

MR. KENNEDY: My colleague, the Minister of Justice, who is a few years older than me here, Mr. Speaker, is making comments.

In any event, what we are trying to do is ensure that vulnerable adults do not fall between the cracks.

Mr. Speaker, I will perhaps look at, to put this in perspective, the definition of abuse because that is what, as I have indicated, if you look at Bill 1, and again, Mr. Speaker, the very fact that we call this Bill 1 means that it is a very serious issue and one that we are very proud, as a government, to bring forward.

Let's look at the definition of abuse in section 2.(a) of the act: ""abuse" means the deliberate mistreatment of an adult who lacks the capacity", and again, that is a word with a particular legal connotation, "to protect himself or herself that causes or is reasonably likely, within a short period of time, to cause the adult (i) serious physical, psychological or emotional harm, or (ii) substantial damage to or substantial loss of assets and includes intimidation, humiliation and sexual assault".

Mr. Speaker, just as we live in a society where we would hope that there would not be abuse - physical, sexual, mental, or emotional abuse - of children, women, and anyone for that matter, Mr. Speaker, we wish that we would live in a society where our elders are treated with respect. That is something, Mr. Speaker, we can certainly learn from our Aboriginal communities, where elders are treated with respect; but that is not always the case, Mr. Speaker, so what we are looking at here are the two forms, or there is a distinction here between the serious physical, psychological or emotional harm.

Again, this abuse, Mr. Speaker, could be physical. It could be – the kinds of ads that we saw in the Violence Prevention Initiative recently, which certainly highlight the emotional and psychological abuse of our elders, Mr. Speaker, and/or – it says or, it does not say and, so it is the disjunctive or: "or substantial damage to or substantial loss of assets". Again, Mr. Speaker, to address situations where children, relatives, friends or neighbours are essentially depleting the adult of their assets, of their monies. Mr. Speaker, that again can be of a criminal form, but does not have to be, because you can, for example, take an adult – again, I am talking about seniors, Mr. Speaker, but it is a neglected adults act – take an adult out to get groceries and charge him or her $50. Now, I am not sure you are committing a crime, but you are certainly, the morality of that kind of activity is questionable – "and includes intimidation, humiliation, and sexual assault".

This a very wide definition of abuse, Mr. Speaker, one that when we are bringing in a piece of legislation and you want to bring a definition in, you try to be as wide as possible, while not, certainly, going to the point where anything can meet the definition. So, when we use the word deliberate in a piece of provincial legislation it is different than it is used, for example, in the Criminal Code, but again, meant to be intentional, a deliberate act is one in which you know what you are doing, where you have thought it out and you have decided upon a course of action.

Mr. Speaker, I will come to the capacity issue in a second because that is one I think that is going to certainly demand some comment.

Mr. Speaker, there are currently seven individuals declared under the Neglected Adults Welfare Act, so the predecessor Act, under the guardianship of the Director of Neglected Adults. Mr. Speaker, seven individuals does not sound like a lot but when you look at the kinds of activity that this act is meant to protect against, it is seven too many. The Neglected Adults Welfare Act had a Director of Neglected Adults. While we do not necessarily think that the number of adults in need of protection will rise, we certainly want to highlight, Mr. Speaker, for our society the importance of treating all adults and seniors with respect, but especially adults who may have certain disabilities or vulnerabilities that make their everyday living more difficult.

Mr. Speaker, we have, as I indicated earlier, almost the precursor to this act brought in various strategies and policies which will go hand in hand with the Adult Protection Act. We have, I would suggest to you, in the past, demonstrated our commitment to addressing these types of issues. A number of the strategies and initiatives being implemented are consistent with the spirit of this proposed act. Mr. Speaker, this new legislation is consistent with government's blue book commitment to improve legislation and policies on programs that eradicate elder abuse.

Mr. Speaker, if we lived in an ideal world, there would be no need for these kinds of policies, there would be no need for the strategies, there would be no need for acts like this. Mr. Speaker, it is not a utopia that we live in, there is a real world where people make mistakes. Some people, it can be use and abuse of alcohol and/or drugs; it can be as a result of certain disabilities of their own. They commit certain acts and they do not always act the way that we would want them to act, nor do any of us, Mr. Speaker, always act the way that we want to act.

What we have to look at, Mr. Speaker, is not the individual who is committing the act here that we are trying to protect, it is the individual whom the act is being committed against. Mr. Speaker, oftentimes in our society, and I learned this as a criminal lawyer for twenty years, there are secrets out there which do not become uncovered easily. There are things going on, Mr. Speaker, in our society that are hidden and that some people want to keep hidden.

Mr. Speaker, I remember so clearly the ads in the Violence Prevention Initiative and other ads like that, that the person blames himself or herself for what is going on. Why did my son or daughter treat me like that? Well, I must have done something to deserve it. Why am I left alone? Is it because no one loves me? Is it because I do not have any friends? Am I a bad person because of that?

Mr. Speaker, people find themselves in situations that are sometimes beyond their control. It can be a result of poverty, of lack of education, or of mental illness. It can be as a result of being beaten down by mistreatment to the point that they cannot stand up for themselves any more. It can result, Mr. Speaker, in an adult living by himself or herself where they not only live a life of poverty but there is a life of desperation.

Mr. Speaker, with the new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, with the new act we have brought in and with all of the improvements we are making to that system, we are looking out in a big way for our neglected children. We are trying to prevent this from happening. The minute something does happen, we are there as a government with this new department to move. We have learned from our lessons of the past.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the way that we treat our adults, our seniors, and our elders, there is one really particular moment that comes to my mind. I see my colleague, the Minister of Labrador Affairs there, but I remember this so clearly during the announcement of the Muskrat Falls deal. Former Premier Williams was there and his mother was seated in the front row. The Innu people, their elders were with them as a sign not only of respect but of the sage advice that they provide. I can remember, Mr. Speaker, sitting a few rows over and I watched the Innu elders come in. I could not figure out where they were going. They were not going toward the stage where the Grand Chief and the Chief of Sheshatshiu were going. They were diverging off. Where they were going, Mr. Speaker, was to pay their respect to Premier Williams' mother. She was sitting in the front row. Each one of those elders, each one of those Innu came in and said hello to that woman as a sign of respect.

I think the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister of Labrador Affairs will tell you that that is something that is cultural within these Aboriginal societies. It does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that the issues that we are talking about here today cannot happen, because we know they do, but sometimes it is so important that not only do we look to protecting our children but we always have to protect that other vulnerable segment of our society, those who are being abused, as outlined in this section of the act.

Mr. Speaker, again, I talked about the Blue Book and our commitment to improve legislation and policies and programs that eradicate elder abuse. Again, that would be an ideal world; but, because something may be ideal, it does not mean that we are not going to strive to pursue that ideal. It means that we must be realistic and pragmatic as we try to achieve that goal, as we move toward the implementation of a very good piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this new act also aligns with the objectives of the provincial, of the new – as we are developing our long-term care and community support services strategy. As we look at ensuring that although we want people to, if they want to, age closer to home, we also have to keep an eye on what is happening in the home. The proposed act, Mr. Speaker, is also consistent with the Provincial Healthy Aging Policy Framework and the Violence Prevention Initiative.

Again, as a society, we have to balance the need to protect our vulnerable. Whether they are children, those who suffer from various types of disabilities, or as we are talking about here today in terms of vulnerable adults, we have to balance that with the individual's right to make his or her own decision. That is what makes this piece of legislation. What we have tried to do is to ensure or to achieve that balance, but that is what makes it difficult. Mr. Speaker, what we have tried to do with this act is to strike a balance between protecting and supporting an individual, while, where possible, respecting the right to make his or her own decisions.

It is proposed, Mr. Speaker, under the new act, that a person be presumed to have capacities to make decisions about their own personal health care, legal and financial affairs, business or assets, unless proven otherwise. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is where it can start to get really tricky and this is why we have to ensure that the people who are responsible for the implementation of this act, for the protection of these vulnerable adults, understand what is at stake.

Mr. Speaker, section 5 of the act says, "An adult in need of protective intervention means an adult who lacks capacity and who (a) is incapable of caring for himself or herself, or who refuses, delays or is unable to make provision for adequate care and attention for himself or herself; or (b) is abused or neglected." Now, Mr. Speaker, (b) maybe an easier one in terms of abused or neglected because that is a language that we understand. If someone is abused or if someone is neglected, you can tell that maybe by the way they are living; or, if you have an adult who is on your road and he or she has not come out of the house for two weeks or you have reason to believe, well, they are not eating properly or they are not looking after themselves or they have no visitors, then that one may be easier to bring within the parameters of this act; but, who is incapable of caring for himself or herself; how do we determine that? How do you determine if a person is incapable of caring for himself or herself? Because a person lives by himself or herself or because a person may shun the social interaction that most of us deem to be normal and acceptable does not mean that the person is incapable of caring for himself or herself.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, as we move through this act, you will see there are people with certain professional occupations or vocations who will be trained, and who are trained, to make these determinations. Mr. Speaker, how do you determine? How do you get in there? That is something we will come to in a second: How do you make that determination?

What section 6 says, Mr. Speaker, and section 6 balances the principles of this act, "An adult is presumed to have the capacity to make decisions unless the contrary is proven." Now, that line, when I was practising law, would have been good for an hour's commentary. Because in there you have a presumption to have the capacity - capacity has a particular meaning in law, it is used in a lot of statutes - unless the contrary is proven. So, we start out, this is a provincial piece of legislation which means that basically the Province is saying this is how we are going to, for lack of a better term, regulate. These are the rules we are going to set out.

It is not like the Criminal Code of Canada, Mr. Speaker, which is federal legislation and which deals with criminal law. The one presumption most of us in Canadian society would be familiar with is the presumption of innocence. Mr. Speaker, there are reverse onuses; there are all kinds of onuses in our law.

In this particular act, what we are saying to a court or to a person reading this is that this person is presumed to have the capacity. That is the starting point, Mr. Speaker. If we are going to interfere with the liberties, if we are going to interfere with the choice of an individual, then it has to be a starting point that this person can make his own choices and that they have the capacity, the wherewithal.

Capacity again, I do not mean to digress but I can remember, Mr. Speaker, a long time ago when I first dealt with this issue as a lawyer in a big way, I think it would have been in approximately 1991. What did the word capacity mean in law? Mr. Speaker, the number of decisions written by the Supreme Court of Canada – again, this is in the criminal context – on capacity was overwhelming. When you are speaking to a jury as a lawyer, you are talking about capacity. We have to reduce this to simpler terms so people can understand. You have the capacity to make decisions. That means you can make decisions. If you are living by yourself or with other people, then as a Province we presume that you can make these decisions, unless, and again, Mr. Speaker, the contrary is proven.

How do you prove the contrary? It starts out with if we are going to as a Province interfere with your liberties or choice, then we have to have evidence of some sort. Now, the type of evidence required for a provincial statute can be different than the type of evidence required, Mr. Speaker, for a Criminal Code offence. How do we determine when a person lacks the capacity? I think this is one of the crucial aspects of this act, Mr. Speaker, is understanding what we intend, as the Legislature, for people to have their rights and choices interfered with. "(2) An adult shall be considered to lack the capacity…"

Maybe I do miss my days as a lawyer a little bit more than I thought, Mr. Speaker, but you see, an adult shall, the mandatory shall is being used as opposed to the permissive may. "…shall be considered to lack the capacity to make a decision where that adult…" Okay, let's now look at, how do you lack capacity? "(a) is unable to understand information relevant to the decision where that decision concerns his or her health care…" If someone needs to see a doctor and they will not go, or they do not think they need to go. It could be a physical disability or it could be a mental illness. "…concerns his or her health care, physical, emotional, psychological, financial, legal, residential or social needs". Well, that is a pretty broad definition, Mr. Speaker, which essentially encompasses all that we engage in on a daily basis.

In other words, if you cannot look after yourself to the point that it is affecting your health, it is affecting your physical health or your mental health, well, then you lack the capacity. Because you are unable to understand that the way you are dealing with things in life, with your own life, is not in your own best interest. Again, that is potentially very tricky, Mr. Speaker, but what we have to do in law when you are interpreting an act is apply common sense and apply what is called the (inaudible). What is it we are trying to do here as a Legislature? We are trying to protect people who need help.

Mr. Speaker, now we get into 6.(2)(b) "is unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a decision or the lack of a decision." Now, Mr. Speaker, when you get into reasonably foreseeable consequences, I am going to try to break that down into very simple language. You are unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences. In other words, as a result of your situation, whether it be your physical health – which is oftentimes combined, Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware, with our mental health – that by not doing something, then that can indicate you lack the capacity. Because you cannot see as an individual that if I do not do this it is going to affect me.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the most obvious example I can use is that of going to a doctor. An individual again, if I use an example, has a broken limb, although the person is in pain, for some reason or whatever reason does not wish to go to a doctor. Well, Mr. Speaker, the average person, the normal person, is going to say: You do not understand here. You are really not able to comprehend the seriousness of this situation. If you do not get this done, you could die.

Now, that is an extreme example, Mr. Speaker, but it is one that I would suggest to you - you are unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable. Reasonably foreseeable means something that – again, this is my interpretation of this, Mr. Speaker – you or I, in making the decisions that affect our daily lives can look to something and say: Well, if I am sick and I do not see a doctor, well, I could get sicker. That is, again, very simplistic; but, what I am trying to do is show that this act is meant to protect those who, as simple as it sounds, may not be able to get that most basic point.

Mr. Speaker, now it gets even more complicated though when you come to subsection 6.(3) "Where an adult is determined to lack the capacity for decision-making referred to in subsection (2) in one particular context, he or she shall not be presumed to lack the capacity for decision-making in those other contexts…" Mr. Speaker, because a person may lack the capability to understand the reasonably foreseeable consequences, or if they do not understand information related to his or her physical health, it does not mean that he or she cannot look after their financial circumstances. Again, I would think if we are at the stage where section 6.(2) is reached, then section 6.(3) may not be necessary, but it is in there, Mr. Speaker.

Section 6.(4), "An adult's method of communicating with others is not grounds for deciding that he or she is incapable of making decisions." Some people communicate differently than others, Mr. Speaker. Some people, perhaps, do not communicate at all. Some people do not talk a lot. Some people may not have a good command of the English language. The English language may not be their first language. So you cannot determine that a person is incapable of looking after himself or herself, or rebutting that presumption of capacity simply because we do not like what they say or they cannot make themselves as clear to us as they would want to. Mr. Speaker, again, that is an important point there, is that you have to look at a contextual analysis here. Do not look at the way he or she speaks or communicates as simply being the guiding decision, or guiding your decision whether or not he or she lacks the capacity.

Again, I come back to under section 6 and section 5, the philosophical core of the act, or the purpose and intent of the act, the spirit of the act, Mr. Speaker, is that adults have the right to live as they see fit as long as they have decision-making capacity.

Mr. Speaker, then we get into, in any act like this where there is a possibility of impinging upon a person's rights or interfering with a person's rights the rules of natural justice, at a minimum, have to be complied with. In section 7, Mr. Speaker, what we see here is, section 7 deals with the right to be heard. We can see, get into courts or other persons as we move through this, that an adult has the right to be heard either on his or her own behalf or through a spokesperson. Mr. Speaker, this is a recognition of one of the principles of natural justice that if you are going to have your rights taken away then you have a right to be heard. I think it is the audi alteram partem rule in terms of appearing and saying this is what I want. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that person, because again there will be a continuum here or there could be a continuum, maybe there will be extreme cases whereby it will be fairly obvious, but there may be other cases as recognized in that capacity in one aspect of your life but not in another that it may not be as clear cut.

Mr. Speaker, I am for whatever reason as an individual may not feel comfortable in speaking for myself. I may not feel I have the education required. I may not feel I have the confidence or the knowledge required, especially if I am the individual who is subject to the application. Very importantly, Mr. Speaker, it says, "or through a spokesperson." Now a spokesperson, the way I read this, does not have to be a lawyer. A spokesperson could be someone you trust. It could be your next door neighbour, it could be your son, your cousin but you have that right to be represented and that is so important, Mr. Speaker.

We come to the service principles outlined in section 8, that, "The following principles apply to the delivery of programs and service under this act". Again, Mr. Speaker, in 8.(a) "an adult is entitled to live in the manner he or she wishes as long as that adult (i) has the capacity to make decisions respecting his or her lifestyle, and (ii) does not harm himself, herself or others". Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the basic principles of our society, of Canadian society, of democratic society, is that an adult is entitled to live in the manner he or she wishes.

Mr. Speaker, that is the crux of freedom. What is freedom? It is the ability to choose for myself, as long as I am complying with laws, how I want to live. Mr. Speaker, I can remember, again hearkening back to my days as a criminal lawyer, oftentimes we are very critical of the system, Mr. Speaker, very critical of the criminal justice system, always seeming to be attacking the system, attacking the police, attacking the rules but, Mr. Speaker, underlying that always was the belief that although the system maybe flawed it is the best one there is. Mr. Speaker, that is oftentimes what we can forget in our society.

The same I suppose, Mr. Speaker, could be said of democracy in many ways. What alternative is there? Do we see what is going on in the rest of the world? We see what is happening in Egypt and Libya as they fight for democracy, Mr. Speaker. In order for us to protect that democracy and freedom, we have to ensure this basic principle.

Now it goes on to state, "(i) has the capacity to make decisions respecting his or her lifestyle… (ii) does not harm himself, herself or others". Mr. Speaker, that is the basic principle here. You can live as you see fit. If you wish to live, Mr. Speaker, in a cabin or in a tent on the top of a mountain, you can live there. As long as you have the capacity, you understand what it is you are doing, you are able to look after yourself, and you are not interfering with others, it is not for us as a society, Mr. Speaker, to say you cannot live on the top of that mountain. Once you reach the point where you are living on the top of that mountain – now how we are going to find out, Mr. Speaker, I will come to in a second. If you are living at the top of that mountain and you cannot look after yourself, then as a society this act says well, we have an obligation to intervene. We can only intervene, Mr. Speaker, if certain criteria are met.

Mr. Speaker, section 8.(b)-8.(f) deals again with services. Section 9 deals with the appointment of directors, and section 10 then deals with the provincial director.

Mr. Speaker, section 12 gets now into the reporting required. This is an interesting section because it is something that I thought would have existed in common law. When I talk about common law, Mr. Speaker, I am simply talking about those rules that exist that are not codified or legislated as opposed to those which are. "12.(1) A person who reasonably believes…", again that word reasonable, the belief has to be reasonable, Mr. Speaker. You can believe anything but this act and in many pieces of legislation the word reasonable – because the word reasonable, Mr. Speaker implies that all of us or the average person who is informed, who has a view of the full circumstances as opposed to a particular or inherent bias that he or she may possess, we try to restrict the act, to reasonably believes.

Any of us in this House or anyone watching this today, Mr. Speaker, is that a reasonable belief? Is what is being said here, does that make sense? The use of the modifier, reasonable, "…that an adult may be an adult in need of protective intervention shall…" – so you have the word, may and you have the word, shall – "…give that information, together with the name and address of the adult, if known, to the provincial director, a director, a social worker or a peace officer."

Mr. Speaker, this is similar to the child abuse rules and regulations. Again, anyone who was in possession of information that a child was being physically or sexually abused had the obligation to report. Well, this is, Mr. Speaker, again, a codification of this obligation, but now we are dealing with adults in need of protection. So what happens is there is an obligation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you may think, or the average person may think, sure, we would all do that, we would all come forward. No, Mr. Speaker, people, again – when I go back to my days – people do not want to get involved, oftentimes, with the authorities, with the police, with the law. People want to mind their own business. Well, Mr. Speaker, there comes a point when there is a higher societal goal or need, and this is one of them, where there is now a legislative, a mandatory reporting condition placed upon all people in our society to report if you have this information. Now, we cannot force people, Mr. Speaker, but what we are saying, as a society, or as a legislature, is that this is so important that anyone who is in possession of this type of information must report it.

Mr. Speaker, I will jump ahead to, you will see section 13 deals with the director completing an evaluation. Section 14.(1), "Where an evaluation has been completed and a director believes, on reasonable grounds, that the adult is an adult in need of protective intervention, the director shall direct that an investigation be completed."

So, Mr. Speaker, we are not simply jumping here now. First, there is information that comes in. The director looks at this. He or she believes, on reasonable grounds, again, Mr. Speaker, reasonable grounds to believe that something is happening. So, I am perhaps making that a lot simpler than it is in law, but I think in the context of what we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker, reasonable grounds would have to be – and you will see in a second the types of evidence that may be considered.

So, we are going to do an investigation, Mr. Speaker. Now, this is where, as I referred to earlier, it becomes important, because section 15 says, "A person who acts as an investigator shall be a social worker or another person or class of persons designated by the minister in the regulations." Again, this is a recognition, Mr. Speaker, in our society, that certain people perform certain functions. That social workers are one example of one group who can go in and conduct the type of analysis required, who can look at the individual and can have that discussion required, because that is what they do, Mr. Speaker, on a daily basis; that is what they are trained to do.

Mr. Speaker, section 16 outlines an investigation. Now, when we get to section 17 and section 18, Mr. Speaker, again it gets to be complicated because now we are dealing with warrants and telewarrants. Just let me put it this way, Mr. Speaker, in a hypothetical situation, you have an individual, an adult may be in need of protective intervention, may be in need of protection. A citizen, it could be the next-door neighbour, it could be a son or daughter, or it could be anyone who says: Well, look, here is the information. The director takes that information and says: Okay, I am going to look at this. Then, they carry out an investigation, but that person is in their home. How do you get in there? If you knock on the door, there is no obligation on that person, that I am aware of, to say: Come on into my home. You are going to take me away, so come on in. You are going to do an investigation on me. Yes, come in and have a chat.

That person, Mr. Speaker, again if we are dealing with the issue of capacity, may simply say: Go away; there is nothing wrong with me. I like the way I live. It is not for you to impose your beliefs upon how I should live. So, what do you do? As a social worker, unless in criminal law, there has to be an offence being committed or is about to be committed. So, there has to be a way to get at that person or get into that house of the individual who may need help. Mr. Speaker, section 17, "…where the judge is satisfied on evidence under oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that entry on the lands or premises is necessary to assess the person who is the subject of the investigation…"

Again, to protect the rights of the individual you go before a judge, again these are similar grounds, Mr. Speaker, whether it be in criminal or provincial legislation, to believe that entry is necessary so that there is authorization. Mr. Speaker, I forget how far it goes back. I do not know but it is the Magna Carta about a person's home is his castle. That principle has been respected throughout the ages, Mr. Speaker, and that is why the warrant requirement is so important. We have a situation where the judge is satisfied. The judge can receive such evidence as he or she deems necessary and can make a decision for themselves.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what about you get to the point where it is impractical to get a warrant. I do not know if this is the situation in provincial court but, say, for example, we have a judge in Corner Brook who is on duty for the weekend or it is 3:00 o'clock in the morning or whatever, you do not have the time to go before that judge and you have a situation in Carbonear, what do you do? The telewarrant, which is a common warrant in today's age, can be utilized. "Where, in the opinion of a director or investigator it would not be practical to appear in person before a judge to apply for a warrant, the director or investigator may make the application by telephone..." Again, the same principles would apply reasonable grounds to believe.

Mr. Speaker, now we get to section 20, what happens after an investigation; section 21, an application for declaration. Under section 21, "(1) Where the provincial director receives a report…that an adult is believed by a director to be an adult in need of protective intervention, the provincial director may apply to the court for a declaration…"

Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to outline here are the procedural steps that highlight the significance, or our understanding of the significance of protecting the rights of that individual but also ensuring that the individual who may need protection is protected. There is also, I would suggest to you, a higher societal goal in ensuring that our vulnerable, whether they be children or adults, are also protected. There are times when the individual because of the vulnerability, the disability or the circumstances in which he or she finds himself or herself, may not understand the full implications and may not be co-operative. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in many cases may not be co-operative, I would suggest to you.

Then you have a hearing, there is a notice of time and place, Mr. Speaker. Subsection (10), "…has a right to be heard, directly or indirectly, in all proceedings…" Then, Mr. Speaker, section 22 outlines what a court can do under section 21. If the person is "in need of protective intervention, the judge may so declare and may, where it appears to him or her…make an order…" Then, Mr. Speaker, the types of orders include being removed to the home of some suitable person and committed to the care and custody of that person.

For example, Mr. Speaker, you may have a family member who said; I did not know this was going on with my cousin, my friend. I am willing to take him or her in; I am willing to try to help out here. There could be a lesser level of intervention required, Mr. Speaker, on that continuum that I talked about earlier. The person can also continue to live independently subject to supervision by a director. That would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, to be the least onerous, other than dismissing of course of the application outright, would be "continue to live independently subject to supervision by a director. Mr. Speaker, "(ii) remain where the adult is living in the care and custody of the person in whose care he or she may be, subject to supervision by a director". Again, be removed to the home or be committed to the care of the provincial director, which is subsection (iv), Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one other piece of this legislation which I want to touch on, which again is necessary, but we have to approach it with caution. I am sure it will be approached with caution by those who are responsible for the implementation of this act. That is section 22, Mr. Speaker. Now we are dealing with emergency intervention because there are always going to be situations where time may be of the essence, Mr. Speaker, where there may not be that time to sit back and reflect and do investigations prior to making that initial step. There can be situations where a person may, as a result of the progressive nature of the situation, require immediate intervention.

That is where section 23 comes in, "(1) Where a director or social worker believes (a) that an adult is in need of protective intervention; and (b) a less intrusive course of action that would adequately protect the adult is not available, the director or social worker shall file an application with the court for a warrant to remove that adult."

So, Mr. Speaker, this would be emergency intervention. The application can be done in person, a judge may issue a warrant, or it may be done by telecommunications. There can be emergency intervention for financial affairs.

Section 26 of act says that a proceeding under this act is civil in nature. Again, Mr. Speaker, consistent with what I am talking about today, this is an act that is brought in by the Province to allow for the protection of a vulnerable segment of our population. So, we are not infringing in any way on the constitutional aspects of the case. In other words, section 21 of the constitution act where the federal heads of power versus section 92, which deals with the provincial heads of power.

Mr. Speaker, "…(b) may be as informal as a judge may allow…" and that is so important, Mr. Speaker. What the judge has to do in a trial, whether it is criminal, it could be summary conviction, it could be a quasi-criminal trial, or it could be regulatory, certain rules apply. He or she may want to get to the bottom of it. The person may not be as articulate as a lawyer perhaps might be, although many people are much more articulate than the lawyers that represent them. The judge may say: Well, what do you think of all this, sir? What do you think we should do? Is it true what is being said here? In other words, there could be interaction, Mr. Speaker, that would be more informal than is normal in a courtroom.

Mr. Speaker, "…(c) shall be held in private, unless otherwise ordered by the judge." Why shouldn't it be held in private? The basic principle, Mr. Speaker, of our court system in criminal and civil proceedings is that it should be held in public. That way we do not have the Star Chamber, we do not have inquisitions. We have the public and the media in criminal law that can scrutinize what is going on, Mr. Speaker. Very seldom you have, for example, the voir dire or the hearing on the admissibility of evidence that there could be a restriction on the publication of evidence until after the trial is completed. You will have a ban on identity, Mr. Speaker, which can be to protect, especially children or women in criminal cases.

The basic principle, Mr. Speaker, is that proceedings should take place in open court; not this case, Mr. Speaker. Because that is what we are saying here, this is a sensitive area here. What we are dealing with are individuals who may co-operate, they may not. Mr. Speaker, the judge and everyone involved in this proceeding has to be cognizant of the conflict, or potential conflict here between the rights of the individual and what we are dealing with in this act.

Mr. Speaker, section 26.(2) deals with the proceedings under the act, the types of evidence, "(a) the evidence, including hearsay, that the judge considers relevant and reliable..." Mr. Speaker, again, hearsay in a criminal context is usually inadmissible, although there are certain circumstances where it can be admissible. In this particular case the informal nature of the proceedings indicate that you have to be careful with hearsay, Mr. Speaker, because hearsay: he told me that she said. There is no way to test, or often no way to test the reliability of that. Mr. Speaker, hearsay is something that goes to the truth. In this particular case, what the judge is trying to find out is: How can he or she best accommodate the balancing of the rights of the individual and the rights of society?

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to what I stated earlier, that the basic principle of this act is that there are certain adults in our society who will require protection or intervention; back to the basic principle that an individual is presumed to have the capacity to make his or her decisions. Mr. Speaker, we go to the panoply of procedural rights, which are outlined in the act. We get to the point of the investigation, the requirements for a warrant. What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is to protect the rights of the individual but allow for a decision to be made if that individual requires protection.

There will also have to be regulations here, Mr. Speaker, which will allow, and a policy manual, which will be developed, that explains how the act shall be applied in particular situations. The policy manual will contain the bulk of the details around definitions, procedures, and reporting requirements. The act will set out the provincial and regional accountabilities, including a ministerial review of the legislation after five years. There are penalties in the act which go from a fine of up to $10,000. The current act, for example, Mr. Speaker, has a fine of up to $200.

Section 28 of the act deals with providing for mandatory regulate reviews of the situation and services provided to an adult declared to be in need of protective intervention. We do not simply want an individual who at this point in his or her life may require that intervention - we cannot assume it will always remain like that and that this person will require intervention forever. There is a provision or a mechanism for review where - particularly if the individual suffers from an illness, be it a physical or mental illness which can, if not be cured, then certainly can be modified over time. So this will allow for a review, Mr. Speaker, again, highlighting the seriousness of the individual rights.

Mr. Speaker, in coming to a conclusion as to what should be contained in this act, the provincial government, our government, as I indicated earlier, held a series of consultations. In the last few minutes I have here, Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk a little bit about what we heard from the stakeholder consultations. Because, contrary to what was suggested earlier today during Question Period in the House of Assembly, it is important that we hear from people who have a particular interest in this type of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I can state that generally, there was overwhelming support for replacing the current Neglected Adults Welfare Act and for the policy direction of the new legislation. Many stakeholders, I am told, noted that prescriptive policies and procedures for implementation will be an important component of the act's success. Again, there were a lot of people who wanted to participate, Mr. Speaker, and it was also felt that education and public awareness will be instrumental.

Now, I guess that means, Mr. Speaker, if there is going to be public awareness, we have to spend money. If we are going to make people aware of rights, well, that is part of what we have to do to ensure that people understand the seriousness of a piece of legislation like this. Again, harkening back to Question Period, if you bring in a piece of legislation people have to understand the obligations imposed upon them, and there will be education required. All I have tried to do in the last few minutes is outline the procedural complexities of this act and, again, the overriding principles which must guide anyone in interpreting the act.

Mr. Speaker, the inclusion of abuse within the act was generally endorsed and supported. To ensure that it is understood, and this is important, Mr. Speaker, the act applies to a narrow group of people, adults in need of protective intervention. We changed a number of the changes to abuse and adult in need of protective intervention. Also, as I tried to say earlier today, there can be - I pointed out, when you are talking about abuse, you could have an assault. Well, an assault is something that will be dealt with under the Criminal Code. Although, I suppose it could be a component of an application under this nature. This act is not allowing for charges to be laid, it is allowing for abuse to be considered in determining whether or not the adult is in need of protection.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, there was a lot of discussion in these consultation sessions on the concept of capacity and their right to be heard. There are all kinds of views expressed and I think a little later on, I am not sure if it is in session, the Minister of Justice, I am sure at some point, will be talking about the issue of capacity. Capacity, Mr. Speaker, you just cannot simply use an assessment tool. There has to be a certain subjective interpretation but there will always be objective facts that one can look to and put it all together in making a determination.

Mr. Speaker, the service principles were endorsed and stakeholders have repeatedly emphasized that the legislation and policies must be client-centred and that the best interest of the adult, from the adult's own perspective, is the most important consideration. Again, Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, the adult, if he or she does not lack capacity, may feel to be in his or her own best interest may not be the case. Again, that is a complicated area. Overall, Mr. Speaker, there was very strong support for the mandatory reporting and for the good faith clause which protects members of the public and employees from reprisal.

There were discussions on the investigative power and the emergency intervention. Mr. Speaker, I can say that the emergency intervention provisions under the new act were also supported, as stakeholders felt they provided professionals with the legislative authority they need to intervene where adults are believed to be at risk.

Mr. Speaker, those would be my comments today in relation to what I consider to be a very important piece of legislation, again, a continuation of this government's approach to protecting those most vulnerable of our society whether they be children or adults.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am very pleased to stand and speak to Bill 1, An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults. I thank the minister for the excellent presentation that he has made of the bill, taking the time to go through some of the more important sections in terms of clarifying and making sure that we understand what is in the bill. I also want to thank his officials for the briefing that they gave to our staff on, actually, Friday afternoon, and also for their availability over the last two days to answer questions that we had as we continued to look at this act.

It certainly is an act that is extremely important and one that has been looked forward to by many people. I think that the importance of the act and the fact that many people were looking for it is evidenced by the extensive consultations that did take place – I am glad to see that they did – and the numbers of organizations that turned out around the Province to speak to the issues. I think that it is a discussion that has been going on for a long time and the need to come up with a more modern piece of legislation; this is replacing a piece of legislation that was called the Neglected Adults Welfare Act. The Neglected Adults Welfare Act, the very tone of that name implies less than what this act is dealing with because the neglected adults protection, that notion of people just being neglected can have much less meaning than the notion of people who are being abused, that there is active abuse against people. That is not the only reason for this act but abuse is one of the reasons for the act. The fact that this act with self-neglect - not just neglect by others, because there is a self-neglect that can go on with people. The reasons for that can be multiple.

This act is much more modern in its approach and it is very human rights oriented. I know that people concerned about human rights have been for a long time looking for a much more modern piece of legislation when it comes to the protection of adults.

Now the act, of course, defines adults very carefully. Just to remind us, ""adult" means a person who is not a child or youth within the meaning of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act". The minister, in the beginning of his comments, paid a lot of attention to the abuse of elders and did a lot of talking about elders. While that is a very serious issue and it is a growing issue in our society, this act is not just dealing with elders. Somebody being neglected can relate to an adult who is not a senior citizen. Somebody who is self-neglecting can be somebody who is not a senior citizen. Somebody who is being abused can be somebody who is not a senior citizen. So the act covers all adults who would fall under the act.

Elder abuse itself, as the minister said, however, is a very serious issue and is a growing issue in our society. It is very difficult to get local statistics on the extent of elder abuse in Newfoundland and Labrador because of the fact that it is not easily reported. It happens very often in people's homes, and the very people who are being abused, the very elders who are being abused, very often do not have the resources and the ability, and are very often terrified and therefore do not report the abuse.

However, the Seniors Resource Centre here in St. John's, which does have a provincial aspect to its work. They have unofficial numbers, and they put the percentage of elders who experience some form of abuse at 4 per cent to 6 per cent of the population. That is scary when we think about that. Now, the abuse we are looking at of course is everything from physical through to mental and psychological.

There is a series of ads. I am sure that others have seen them on television. I was trying to remember who actually does these ads. I think it is an arm of the federal government. They are about abuse of elders. Those ads include everything from seeing an elder being taken, grabbed and shaken by somebody who looks like it is probably the senior person's child, through to a senior citizen having a son take her wallet, and just take the money out of the wallet and go off using the money of the senior citizen. Abuse of elders, abuse of seniors has many, many facets to it. Certainly, the Seniors Resource Centre has been lobbying government for a long time with regard to educating people about elder abuse. It is a serious issue.

The abuse that is characterized in the piece of legislation is physical, financial, psychological, sexual or neglect. These are the aspects of abuse and neglect that can be experienced by elders in our society.

It is right for the minister to have spent as much time as he did on talking about seniors, but it is also important to point out – and he did say it but I would like to point out even more strongly – that this act covers all adults who are not defined as child or youth, or children and youth under the child youth protection act.

It is very important that we recognize that we do have a problem in this area. Some people, I am sure if they had been listening, must have been struck by the fact that the minister said that right now in the Province there are seven individuals who in the Province at the moment are recognized as protected adults. Some may think that is not very many. I think even having to have one person designated as a protected adult is enough to warrant legislation that is going to protect people.

It will be interesting to see with this legislation in place and with the protection that the legislation includes, that we may see more people being willing to identify abuse or neglect when they see it. If we have education – and the minister has indicated that there has to be education around the issue – then the more education around the issue that we have, the more we will probably see cases coming forward. If we look at what the Seniors Resource Centre is saying, there are many people who are experiencing abuse and neglect. Now, of course, it does not mean that everybody has to be protected because if there is an identification of abuse and neglect it is very probable that the case can be taken care of. In actual fact, the situation can be rectified without a person having to go under full protection of society. There is also the potential, of course, for somebody needing protection for a short period of time as the minister mentions. The legislation says that the plan that is worked out for an individual who is under protection has to be reviewed annually to see if that plan needs to be adjusted or if, indeed, the person continues to need to be protected. The legislation does recognize that putting somebody under protection does not mean the person has to remain there for the rest of their lives. As a matter of fact, that would be awful if that were the situation. That would be an extremely serious situation that would lead to that.

There are many aspects of this act that I would like to look at. Some are just some of the notable aspects of the act that I would like to pay a little bit of attention to and then I would like to look at some considerations. In general, in all, this is an excellent piece of legislation and I am very pleased to see it here on the floor; and, of course, I will be supporting it. Even with an excellent piece of legislation, there are always some things that we may have to pay a little bit more attention to and ask questions about. I will be doing that.

One of the things about the act is that the definitions that are in the act are rather broad, but they need to be broad. For example, the definition of abuse includes serious physical, psychological or emotional harm, or substantial damage to or loss of assets, intimidation, humiliation, and sexual assault. The definition of neglect is also broad. It is good that that is the case and it is good that we do not, in a piece of legislation, try to have too narrow a definition because there has to be latitude by people who are going to be working under this legislation, with the expertise that they have, to make the decisions about whether or not somebody is abused, neglected, or self-neglected. If you have it too narrow, you can have situations which might fall between the cracks. If you have it broad enough, then you can be able to look at a wide variety of situations, and I think that a wide variety of situations is important.

The minister spent a lot of time talking about the whole issue of capacity and he went into it in quite a legal way, and I am not going to do that. I think it is important to note that in section 6 of the legislation, it has a very important clarification that an adult is presumed to be capable, to have capacity, to be able to take care of his or herself. In order for them to become protected and come under this legislation, it has to be proven that they have to be protected. So, the assumption is that they have capacity. It is almost like when somebody is charged with a crime, we are supposed to have the presumption of innocence, and we have to prove their guilt before we say they are guilty, we have to prove it. Well, it is the same way with the legislation. No matter what the situation is, we presume the person has the capacity to take care of themselves in the situation that has been reported and is being investigated. We have to assume that they have that capacity and we have to prove otherwise.

So, for example, sometimes we look at choices that people make in life, and they may live their lives differently than we live ours, and we make think, oh, that person really does not have the capacity to live alone; but, in actual fact, they could be very deliberately living in the way that they are living and what may look like self-neglect sometimes is not self-neglect at all, it is that they are deliberately choosing to live this way. So, we have to be very careful about making judgements about how a person may be living in deciding whether or not that person needs to be protected.

I think it is important to understand that what has to be assessed when looking at a situation, we have to assess whether or not the individual has the capacity to make the choice they are making. If they have the capacity to make the choice, then we might not like their choice, but that is immaterial, if they have the capacity to make it. If they have the capacity to make their choice, then we cannot put them under protection. As I said, we may not like their choice, but if they have the capacity that they really know why they are making the choice and that is a reality, then they would not go under protection.

The legislation is very careful in covering all of those angles so that we do not, as a society, just assume that we have the right to go ahead and put people under protection just because one group, another group, or some individuals think that how a person is living their life shows that they do not know what they are doing, when, in actual fact, they may very well know what they are doing and this is their choice.

I am sure some of us can think of some examples. Every now and again we may hear stories in the media and we say: Why is that person living like that? Somebody should do something about it. Well, not if they know what they are doing. That is what the legislation says very, very clearly. We assume that they have the capacity and we have to prove otherwise.

The minister went through a lot of the details of the legislation. I am not going to go through that, but it is important to point out, and he has done it, that the principles that are behind this piece of legislation are similar to the principles behind the child, youth and protection act. Even things like the time frames that are set up for getting things done if a case is, for example, identified, somebody has made a report, there are time frames set up for dealing with it. As one reads it, I will not go through the details, but it shows that things must be dealt with in a timely fashion. It is important that things are dealt with. If there really is a serious situation that has been reported that it is just not left hanging and that there are long delays, it has to be dealt with in a timely fashion.

So, that is extremely important because if we have a serious situation, and if a situation is being reported, it undoubtedly serious, then we have to make sure that it does not continue to go on and on and on. The whole process around the reporting, the assessment, the evaluation, and everything around that has to be taken care of rather quickly. The act allows for that.

I am glad to see this, and it is coming into some of the legislation that is coming to this floor, for example the corrections act had it. The act allows for a mandatory five-year review of the act. I think that is really important, especially after the first five years to see how the act has played out.

The act does have a lot of details that I am not going to go through. As I said, the minister has gone through a lot of the sections. What I would like to do is look at some concerns, some considerations, and some things that I would like the minister to think about and come forward with some answers.

As I have said already, this is an excellent act and it is a major step forward; and I would like to reiterate that because I think it is important to do so. It is substantive, it deals with the issues, it is progressive and it is forward thinking. That pleases me very much and I have spoken to some people who have had concerns about this area and they too are very pleased with the act.

There are some concerns; one is that we do see a lot of ministerial discretions. For example, professionals who will determine a person's capacity will be approved by the minister but it is in the regulations that we will find the criteria that will be used by the minister to determine the person's capacity. Now, the professionals, we have to have faith – and I do have faith in this – that obviously the minister is going to make sure that the persons involved in determining the capacity of people who are being investigated with regard to needing protection, that they are going to be very careful about the regulations, the criteria for determining the person's capacity. What I would really hope and I would really urge the minister to speak to us about this is that the very people who were involved in consultations with regard to the legislation will also be involved with regard to putting the regulations together because I think this is -

Mr. Speaker, could I ask for some silence in the room please, there is some speaking that is really disturbing me.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much.

I was talking about the criteria that are going to be in regulations and it will be important to have consultation that will make sure that the criteria really are comprehensive. We really do need to have a broad group of people involved in putting the regulations together or the criteria together. That is one point. We can never assume that people inside of a department have all the answers. As a matter of fact they do not have all the answers. That is why consultations do take place. We have to involve the community of people who are involved in this issue and the professionals are very often the ones who are out there doing hands-on work and they need to be involved in setting the criteria for determining a person's capacity.

Another concern, and this is something that I really want to point out, is that in order for this act to be operative there is going to have to be put in place more staff and resources to make it happen. That was true too of the child and youth protection act and it is true of this one. The very fact that a provincial director of adults in need of protective intervention is going to be put in place, right off the bat means resources have to go into this. Once you set up a piece of legislation like this and you put a director in charge of this legislation we have to make sure that there are adequate resources, and not just within this department, in the Department of Health and Community Services, but in related departments and services in government to meet the needs of, for example, with regard to the time frame that is allowed, or asked for, demanded, actually, in the legislation, to deal with the situation. You have to make sure that if that process involves the legal system that the legal system will move quickly; that it involves just the Department of Health itself and that it still moves quickly. If there are enough people working on these issues that there are no delays and that the timelines that are laid out in legislation are going to be met. That was also a concern I expressed when we approved, some time ago, the child and youth protection act; that the resources be there to make sure that the intent of the legislation would be able to be followed, and the time frame is a serious one.

Government is going to have to be prepared to give people the tools they need to do the work. We probably will need dedicated social workers. That, I would say, would be something that would be attached to the office of the provincial director. All of this is going to have to be worked out. We know that we have a dearth of social workers in some other areas, for example, in child protection. Has government looked at special training of social workers to deal with this situation? Because there is a difference, it is not the same; the protection of children and the protection of adults are quite different. Having social workers who are trained in the protection of adults will be extremely important to make sure this legislation works adequately. It is going to be very important.

We know that we have a problem out there. If we listen to the Seniors Resource Centre, we know that we have a problem out there, and I think government is going to have to put in place a process for trying to find out the full extent of the problem. I would say working with the community groups who are working on this is going to be one of the ways in which they do that.

So, we have to make sure that we do not make errors, as we have done in the past; we have made a lot of errors with child protection, for example. We have to make sure that we do not do the same thing with the protection of adults. One of the big things is to realize that the protection of adults is different from the protection of children.

One of the questions that has come up, as we have looked at this piece of legislation, as we have talked to people, and I think it may have come up in the consultations, although I did not hear the minister say it, is that we do know that there are people who have told the minister in the consultations, because they have told us, that they believe that we need a seniors' advocate in the Province, just like we have a child advocate. I would say that I agree with that, and I am wondering if the minister will be able to tell us whether or not that is something that is being talked about inside the department.

Once you get a piece of legislation like this, that is based on the rights of the adult, and once you put in place a director, you start looking at, well, we really need more than that. We need somebody who is going to actually advocate for seniors, and not just for seniors, but advocate for adults. Seniors, in particular, are asking for a seniors' advocate. So, it is something that I think the minister is going to have to look at and look at seriously.

Another concern is that the test for assessing capacity is not outlined in legislation, and will be defined in regulation. Now, I think I understand why that is the case. I think the details of assessing capacity, to put that detail in the legislation would be a bit much. However, I do think that, once again, as I said, the department needs to work closely with professionals outside of the department in doing up that whole thing of the test for assessing capacity. I think that there are professionals from several different jurisdictions who would have to be involved in coming up with that test, and I recommend to the minister, and I am sure he is thinking that way, that the spirit of consultation has to continue.

One of the things I do have a concern about, and I am glad the minister has come back in because it is something I would like him to talk about when he stands at the end of the second reading, has to do with section 16.(5). Section 16.(5) allows specifically for an investigator to override solicitor-client privilege. It goes back to section 16.(4), and I would just like to read that. Section 16.(4) says – and this section is about investigation, when an investigator has been appointed to look at whether or not a person's situation would lead to protection. Section 16.(4) says that for the purpose of this section "…the right to information overrides a claim of confidentiality or privilege and a restriction in an enactment or the common law about the disclosure or confidentiality of information." In other words, the person doing the investigation has the right to say no, confidentiality does not count here, I can have this information. Legislation says I am to have this information.

Then, section 16.(5) says that this "Subsection (4) applies to information which is solicitor-client privileged." I find that a bit troublesome, and with the minister's background as a lawyer as well, I would like to hear his take on this. Overriding solicitor-client privilege to me is quite a step, and I am pretty certain actually, we have asked about it in the questions that we put to his people. That was not in the old act, in the Neglected Adults Welfare Act.

It is a pretty big step to take because it is one of the things we hold pretty sacred in our society, is the solicitor-client privilege. Even though the act says, and rightly so, that if a solicitor becomes aware of the fact that a client needs protection, that the solicitor is duty bound to report that. That is one thing, but to say that the rights of the investigator can override the solicitor-client privilege, I am really disturbed about; it seems to be a very broad thing. The need to protect a person's right to legal counsel is one of the things we hold very sacred in our society.

I look forward to hearing the minister speak to why he has agreed to that being in the legislation, especially from his perspective as a lawyer. Because if a person cannot trust their conversations with a lawyer and cannot trust that they are truly private, then they may not get appropriate legal advice. We remember that the investigation is on a person and a person's situation that has been reported, a person, who until proven otherwise, is seen as having capacity. If we believe that we are assuming the person has capacity and the investigation has to prove otherwise, then don't we assume - we are assuming the person has the capacity that they are capable of having a relationship with their lawyer that is not going to be in any way broken by the investigation. I do have a real problem with it and I look forward to hearing that.

For the moment, Mr. Speaker, I think I have made the points that I wanted to make. I know the Seniors Resource Centre say that they, in the public consultations, identified the seniors' need for an advocate; not just for issues pertaining to this act but for issues pertaining to seniors regarding financial institutions, landlord tenant issues, et cetera. Again, I put that to the minister as well, what thought is being given to a seniors' advocate? It is narrower than this act, this act is dealing with all adults but I am interested in hearing that.

Having said all of that, the main point that I would like feedback from the minister on is the point with regard to section 16.(5) and I look forward to hearing that.

I once again thank the Speaker for the opportunity to speak and I will be pleased to support this act but I do have that one question that is nibbling at me.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. Minister of Health for an opportunity to speak on this bill.

I do not think it is a coincidence that this bill is number one for the Fourth Session of the forty-sixth General Assembly. I think this bill is probably one of the most important ones we will be dealing with here in this House in this session, as it respects the protection of adults.

Mr. Speaker, this bill replaces the Neglected Adults Welfare Act which came into being in 1973. Apparently, I know now, this was the first act that protected seniors in the whole of North America. We probably were the first people to see there was a necessity to bring in an act of this sort. Looking at that, however, through the years things change. Of course, the change had to take place. In the last three years, our Department of Health worked tentatively to go and place this new act before us for further discussions and passing.

I know last year our government proceeded to have some public consultations on this particular act. I know the Leader of the Opposition disagreed with the advertising costs to have these consultations take place; however, I totally disagree. I did take in several conversations or consultations regarding the public consultations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member to confine his comments to the bill.

MR. LODER: Yes, okay. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, these consultations that we are talking about gives an opportunity to people out there in the field to come forward and explain what their concerns are so we could take it back to the department for consideration. I know last year I attended several consultations. One in particular, I travelled to St. Anthony and overseen the consultation for people with disabilities. This was well accepted by the public. It gave the opportunity to come forward, as I said earlier, to give these people an opportunity to say what their problems are, or what their neighbours are going through, or what their families are going through, whether it is disabilities or seniors' issues.

I know there are two people in my district who would be quite happy with this act. One in particular would be Minnie Vallis, who is a seniors' advocate for years and has been recognized by various departments throughout our government for her work in this field. She has been a wonderful volunteer over the years. Another gentleman, of course, is Israel Hann. Israel, as a senior advocate, is there, too, putting forth the concerns which cover the problems that may be encountered with seniors of the day.

Mr. Speaker, this act is really very important because it protects the vulnerable and covers the incapable person who cannot make decisions on their own. Of course, one of the most important areas of this act now that probably was not there before would be the mandatory reporting. This covers any person who has any knowledge of problems with a senior who is incapable of making decisions themselves to come forward and report it to a social service worker, or a director, or the RCMP. Once they get that report, they will initiate an investigation within two days. They will complete an assessment first and the decision will be made by the director whether a full-fledged investigation should be completed. Of course, that will completed by the social worker and a report will be provided.

Mr. Speaker, this act also gives more authority to the workers out in the field such as social workers. If there is a financial report, they would have the capability of going to financial institutions and request bank records. If it is related to physical health, they have the options of going to the doctors or the health authority and request medical reports.

Also, Mr. Speaker, another important point, one of the most important points, that is new in this area that was not in the old act would be the financial abuse. Of course, this may not be expanded throughout the Province or whatever, but anyway, it gives us the opportunity to put it in there because, I guess, through the report given to the people, through these public consultations, there are unfortunate incidents with our seniors where they are incapable of making decisions and are going through some financial hardships or abuse. This is one that is included in the act which would require investigation.

I heard the hon. Minister of Health mention the fact that this gives the health authorities, or social services, as I said, more authority and this gives an opportunity too for them to initiate an emergency investigation. For example, if they get a call of a report of negligence within a house - the hon. minister mentioned the fact that it could be overnight or whatever - and a warrant cannot be provided, a telewarrant can be secured from that source and an investigation could take place.

The social worker could have access to that particular home if that is the case, and go investigate and do an assessment, then after that assessment is completed, that case would have to be heard in the courts within two days. That, of course, safeguards the clients because it is not days that they are waiting for any further investigation. The court will hear that particular case and if need be that individual will be placed in protection.

Mr. Speaker, this does not exclude the next of kin, they are always involved in that. This probably will give an indication or give assistance to people who may not be home. For example, the next of kin may be living out of the Province somewhere in Ontario or anywhere in Canada, or the United States and they may not be aware of this abuse. We are not talking probably physical abuse; it could be just lack of food or improper taking of drugs or whatever. Before this particular case would go to court, the next of kin would have an opportunity to have their say and be involved in the decisions probably even before the court is heard.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate on a few key changes in this current legislation. First of all, the inclusion of the definition of abuse that allows the regional health authorities to investigate the suspected cases of abuse involving vulnerable adults, this would include physical, psychological, emotional and the financial abuse. Also, it provides the efficient and timely response, I mentioned there about the five-day investigation for the assessment and the two days to be heard in the court if there is an emergency case. The provision is there to permit regional health authorities to intervene more quickly, and I elaborated on that a little bit when it comes to emergency cases.

Mr. Speaker, another point brought out here are the penalties. There is an increase in penalties associated with violating this act. These people who are found guilty can face a fine up to $10,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one year. The current act includes a penalty of $200 or two months imprisonment. You can see there that there are major increases and, hopefully, a deterrent to people who may be proceeding or involved in this abuse.

Mr. Speaker, this act requires anyone who believes an adult may be in need of protection to come forward. We would appreciate the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, if any are aware or think there is abuse of any kind taking place, to come forward.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is great to see that the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is going to support this bill, and I am too, of course, and I encourage all Members of this House of Assembly to do likewise. It is there to protect the most vulnerable and incapable people – our adults.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand to speak to Bill 1. I am not going to get into a lot of the complex details of the bill, because I thought the Minister of Health and Community Services did a great job today of outlining what many of the changes are in this particular bill and how they will benefit the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, just a few quick comments, and that is that the bill itself will repeal an existing bill that has already been in place in the Province that goes back, I think, as early as 1973. That bill, Mr. Speaker, talked about the neglected adults, and it was called the Neglected Adults Welfare Act. Today, what we are seeing is a new bill. The new bill, Mr. Speaker, is called An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults.

Basically, it is doing the same thing. It is based on the same premise in our society. The only thing is that it is taking it a step further in terms of legislating other accountability measures and defining some different aspects of abuse, the categories of that abuse, and who is covered under this particular act. The act itself is updating the laws that are respecting adults in this Province, and the need for protective intervention. It is not unlike what we are seeing happening all across Canada. In fact, there are many provinces today who have either revamped acts similar to what we are doing here, or they have introduced new legislation that has spoken to the neglect and abuse of adults in their Province and in society, and how they should be protected.

The act itself, Mr. Speaker, requires a person who believes that an adult or may be an adult, if they are not sure of the age, because we are not just talking about older people here, although we all know that older people, older men and older women in our society, by statistics at large, are more susceptible to abuse, but any person out there, Mr. Speaker, who believes that there is an adult who is in need of protective intervention, now, has an obligation to report that information to the proper authorities, and the authorities are outlined in the bill. I will not get into them but we all know who they are. They are like your social workers, your RCMP officers, health care providers and so on.

Mr. Speaker, if a person in a community – and it does not matter where you live in the Province today, it makes absolutely no difference; you could be in Grand Falls, you could be in Baie Verte, you could be in Burgeo, you could be in Port Hope Simpson and, Mr. Speaker – if you know of incidents where adults are being neglected in your community or there is abuse that is occurring, under this new legislation it is now your responsibility to ensure that that abuse is reported.

Mr. Speaker, there are also some changes in the bill that outline specific time frames for submitting and processing applications to the courts. It also talks about a service plan that has to be completed. Now hopefully, Mr. Speaker, we will see these service plans completed because as you know in the case of Child, Youth and Family Services we have had many incidents where plans have not been completed. In fact, it has gotten to the point where the Auditor General actually wrote it up and reported on it. When we make laws like this and we write this into legislation, it is expected to be adhered to. Under this particular act they are asking that time frames be submitted for processing of applications for the courts, but, Mr. Speaker, it also talks about service plans being completed. Hopefully it will not be like the case of Child, Youth and Family Services where we have seen all of these plans not get completed at all, Mr. Speaker, and, in fact, the legislation will be upheld that is in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it also talks about penalties within the act if there are contraventions.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that this bill speaks to situations of neglect and self-neglect. It speaks to situations, Mr. Speaker, where an adult, if they are presumed to have the capacity to make decisions for themselves and they chose to live a certain lifestyle, well then that is legitimately their prerogative. I am referring to cases that I have had, Mr. Speaker, where individuals have lived in the country. They have actually lived in tents in the woods. That was their choice to do that. They were of sound mind, they had no mental issues, Mr. Speaker, they had the capacity to make decisions for themselves and they chose to live in that particular manner or in a certain way. Mr. Speaker, there was no real evidence, I guess, of neglect to a certain extent. However, Mr. Speaker, there are many cases where people live in situations that they do not choose to be in, and in a broader context they have been neglected by society either for reasons beyond their control, either they cannot afford to have certain standards of living conditions, either they cannot afford to maintain a certain standard of a lifestyle and therefore it becomes an issue of neglect.

The reality is, in this Province today, we have a lot of people who live on fixed income, especially our aging population. In many cases they have to make very tough decisions. Mr. Speaker, I remember a case that was brought to my attention, actually just today, in a story I was told about an individual who happened to be a senior, a retired pensioner, actually, retired from the civil service in Newfoundland and Labrador. Of course, they were living, Mr. Speaker, on a fixed income and they could afford their rent, they could afford their groceries, they could afford their light and power bill. At the end of the day they had $268 left over. Then, all of a sudden, their landlord said we are going to increase your rent by $200 a month so they no longer had that $200 a month to play with. They are now down to $68 a month in which they have to live on. This person, today, is living in Newfoundland and Labrador, they have a disposable income after everything is paid – they put a roof over their head, Mr. Speaker, they have covered off their electricity bills, they have covered off their expenses of maintaining that particular apartment – they have $68 left to play with.

What happens when their light bills double? What happens in the next year when Nalcor has to start borrowing money and they have to start, Mr. Speaker, paying down the debt and they have to increase people's power bills to do it? What happens to the person who is earning only a $68 disposable income?

Mr. Speaker, there are different forms of neglect, and there is neglect in cases of poverty. That is what I am getting at. There is neglect in cases of poverty, where people just cannot afford to provide for themselves.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are also cases of self-neglect, and that is defined in the act as well. Self-neglect is a little bit different. Self-neglect, Mr. Speaker, is when a person – and we know of many cases ourselves in Newfoundland and Labrador, where this has occurred – where a person who is living on their own, maintaining their own home, doing things for themselves, but then because of some either mental capacity or some other capacity that they are inflicted with, they are no longer able to perform and provide those services to themselves anymore.

Forms of self-neglect, Mr. Speaker, are often cases where people do not eat properly, either because they are unable to cook their food, buy their food, whatever the case may be. There are many cases of self-neglect, Mr. Speaker, where people are unable to look after themselves from the perspective of their own personal amenities that they need to perform. There are other forms of self-neglect, as well, to the point where maybe they are not living in proper accommodations. Maybe they do not have proper heating in the place where they are living, so they are often cold.

So, there are forms of self-neglect, and in lots of these cases and many of the cases that I am aware of, or have known of, Mr. Speaker, in my lifetime – and I am sure everyone in this House have known people who have fallen into that particular category – and Mr. Speaker, that particular category we often see people who have taken a lot of pride; a lot of pride in their lives in maintaining their homes, in maintaining a good standard of living for themselves, who have had all of their capacities, Mr. Speaker, to be able to get up every single day, do what they needed to do, provide for themselves, and then all of a sudden they are in a position where they can no longer do that. In lots of cases, Mr. Speaker, these people may not have family members around them. They may not have family members who live next door to them. They may not have people who they know that surround them, or people that care about them. Oftentimes, they are very much left on their own.

So, when there are cases like that in the future, what this bill is saying is that there is an obligation to report that. There is an obligation out of concern, out of caring, out of compassion, for the individuals to report the circumstances that you are actually seeing.

I know this, Mr. Speaker, because only recently there was a case in my own district where there was an individual who was elderly, who I can tell you lived by themselves their entire life. They provided for themselves and took a lot of pride in their life. Then all of a sudden, people in the community started to notice a change in the behaviour of this individual to the point that this individual never said a cross word to anyone in their life. This individual always went out and bought their own groceries, looked after their own affairs, cooked their own meals, paid their own utility bills and everything else and it was never an issue. Then all of a sudden the community started to notice that this individual was not performing those tasks in the same way, that they were neglecting themselves and their own health in certain circumstances. They were finding the individual's personality was changing, that they were becoming more confrontational.

The community, Mr. Speaker, being concerned and being responsible, reported that to the proper authorities and now that situation is being checked out and it is being looked into. That is basically what the bill is saying; that we need to look out for those who are most vulnerable in our society; we need to look out for those who oftentimes cannot lookout for themselves. We need to show that we care about the people in our society who may have suddenly found themselves in a position where they do not have the capacity to any longer care for themselves in the way that they had been accustomed to.

The bill also talks about neglect of individuals. It talks about neglect, in particular, of seniors. We all know that there are many cases where seniors are institutionalized in this Province, they are put into long-term care facilities and that becomes their home. In many cases, Mr. Speaker, these individuals, once they go into long-term care facilities, they may not always have the mental capacity sometimes to make decisions for themselves. They are put in a position of trust and they are entrusting their decision-making to other people. They are entrusting them, Mr. Speaker, to paid people in our environment, paid people in our institutions who have a responsibility to provide care for those individuals.

I am sure we have all had complaints. I have had many complaints over the years about cases and situations where family members felt that their loved one was being neglected in a government institution. I am sure other members have had, Mr. Speaker – it is pretty noisy, here. I do not know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are other members who have had cases similar to this, where they had reports of loved ones who had been institutionalized, placed in a position of trust with workers who were paid to provide their care, but felt that there were levels of abuse that had occurred. There is any number of incidences. I know, myself, I have had many incidences that have been reported to me where families felt that their loved ones were being neglected in the care of these facilities.

Why is that, Mr. Speaker? What is the rationale for that? Well, I guess there are several reasons. One, there is always going to be people out there who are abusive in society. They are not limited, Mr. Speaker, to streets and jail cells. There are people who are abusive emotionally; there are people who are abusive intentionally and psychologically. It does not always have to be physically or sexually. There are, Mr. Speaker, people in our society who work in all aspects of our society, in all different facets, who have the ability to be abusive. So I am sure that long-term care facilities are not an exception. They are not an exception. I am sure the number of people who fall into that category is minimal, and I certainly hope they are minimal.

Mr. Speaker, there are other factors as well. Oftentimes it is because of stress on the job. Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, you have to put yourself in the position of where some of these workers are and what they deem or see as being abusive may be very different than what a family member sees. There are a lot of cases, Mr. Speaker, where workers do not have the time always to take the time that is needed to provide this type of care in our institutions and our facilities. Sometimes that can be deemed by families as being a form of adult neglect. It is debatable as to whether it is or it is not, but many of us have had cases like this reported to us.

I talked to a couple actually just a couple of days ago, who told me of a case of their mother who was in a long-term care facility in the Province. Their mother, who no longer had the ability to speak for herself, who no longer had the ability to physically move about on her own, but yet was sexually assaulted in one of our long-term care facilities. Mr. Speaker, the story or the issue, the event, was actually reported by another co-worker. That was the accountability measure that we are talking about today because the co-worker, Mr. Speaker, felt it was their responsibility to report this form of abuse that had occurred against this person in one of our long-term care facilities.

It was reported to the family and the family had to make a decision. They had to make a decision as to whether they would bring this to the courts and they would have charges laid against the individual who performed the assault, or against the long-term care facility, or against Eastern Health, or against the government. That was a big decision because in bringing the issue to the courts and looking for justice through the courts, Mr. Speaker, they would have had to exploit the person they loved, the person they cared so much about who was reaching the shorter extent of their life.

That was a tough decision to make between justice and exploitation. They decided, Mr. Speaker, that they would not pursue the courts. However, justice was served in a very small way as the authorities saw fit to let go the individual who had assaulted the senior in our long-term care facility. Mr. Speaker, I understand the individual may well be back working in the system again now, but they were certainly let go at that time and let go from that particular institution.

Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, it is a very difficult call for families to make. We know, Mr. Speaker, that in our long-term care facilities, oftentimes workers are stressed, oftentimes these workers have a lot of responsibilities that are placed onto them. It is no excuse for physical, sexual or emotional abuse of any sort and I am not saying that it is. What I am saying is that sometimes when they neglect these patients because they do not have the time to always deal with their issues, or to cater to them in a way that they should be catered to, or to nurture them in a way that they should be nurtured. It may be seen by families oftentimes as a form of neglect; for the individual worker, it may not be seen that way.

One of the key points I am trying to get at here is that we need to have better controls in our long-term care facilities. We need to have better controls over what happens in terms of providing the care to people who are in these particular facilities because many times they cannot speak for themselves. Many times they may not have families to speak for them and oftentimes they cannot advocate in any way. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, then they are entrusted to the responsibility of the government and the health care authority to look out for their best interests.

All I am saying is that in order to look out for their best interests in many cases, to ensure there are no levels of neglect; we need to have the proper human resources to do that. We also need to have proper controls in place. We need to have controls in place so that employees have the proper process of reporting when incidents of abuse may occur. Whether that abuse is emotional or psychological or physical or sexual or whatever facet it may take, there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that it is reported and there has to be a level of accountability that is established for people who work in these particular institutions.

One of the other forms of abuse, Mr. Speaker, that we often hear about, very few people talk about, and as I said, there are little or no statistics on many of these forms of abuse. There are broader statistics in terms of what has been done across Canada and even some studies that have been done in the UK that talks about where the levels of neglect and abuse occur in adults in our society. There has not been anything specific done in Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the things that are used to determine abuse or neglect amongst adults in our society is the financial abuse. There are many cases where people, older people in particular, trust those around them; in lots of cases either family members or neighbours or friends, where they trust them and oftentimes become the product of financial abuse.

We have heard many cases of that as well. I have had cases reported to my office from people in different areas of the Province who felt that individuals in their community, mostly seniors, were being abused financially by other family members who were taking advantage of their money, spending their money and using their money and leaving them broke, Mr. Speaker. There are cases of that out there that occur. Like I said, there were no particular statistics that were available for Newfoundland and Labrador, but there are statistics that looked at it nationally. In terms of looking at it nationally, it indicated that a large number of the people who are abused or neglected in our society, in terms of adults, are done so by people who are close to them, related to them in some way, neighbours of theirs, or friends in some other capacity.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that particular aspect, because we all know in Newfoundland and Labrador that many of our elder, in particular, will be left to depend upon family, because we know our long-term care facilities will not be able to support the aging population that we have. We know the services we currently have in Newfoundland and Labrador will not support our seniors at the rate that we are going right now. We do not have the bed capacity to be able to do it. Many of our elderly people, men and women, Mr. Speaker, will have to depend upon other forms of care. They will have to depend upon family; they will have to depend upon friends and neighbours. They will have to trust those people around them to provide that kind of care for them.

When you look at it in that context, it is a very vulnerable position to be in; a very vulnerable position. Mr. Speaker, in many cases they are putting their trust into the people they love the most, as well as people who love them. Even when that relationship is there, things do not always work out the way it is intended. Unfortunately, that is the reality of what we have to deal with.

That is why it is so important that we educate people. That we education seniors, first of all, we educate adults in general, secondly, about what their rights are, what options are available to them if they find themselves in a position where they are being abused or they are being neglected. If they find themselves in a position where they are constantly being either humiliated or intimidated, because that is a form of abuse as well, or in a situation where they are commonly being assaulted, either physically or sexually, or whether they are being emotionally and psychologically assaulted, Mr. Speaker.

We need to educate the people in the Province, our seniors first, adults next, as to what their rights are if these things are occurring to them. We need to education them. If you are being taken advantage of financially in any way, you have rights, you have options. This does not have to occur. There is protection for you, and that is what this bill talks about. There needs to be a public campaign of letting people know that; letting them know what their rights are and how they go about accessing those rights if they are in a position of being abused.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we need to also ask the people who are paid workers, who care for people - for adults in particular we are talking about in this bill - for adults in particular who no longer have the ability or the capacity to provide for themselves; people who are entrusted with their care in paid positions, they too, Mr. Speaker, need to know and understand what is expected of them. What is acceptable and what is not acceptable; what can be deemed as being abusive or neglectful in providing care to these individuals in the job they are in, and I think it is only fair that they be aware of that.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we need to educate society in general, that you have a responsibility as well because under this act you do. If you live in a community today where you suspect there is abuse going on with an adult in that community, you now have the responsibility to report that to the proper authorities. That needs to be a message that penetrates the communities of this Province so that the population understands what their responsibility is and they understand what they have to do.

Whether it is neglect by another person, someone who is entrusted with the care of an adult and is neglecting to provide that care, or whether it is self-neglect, like I talked about earlier, self-neglect of individuals who are living on their own or living in a situation where they cannot provide the care for themselves any longer. Whether it is one situation or the other, the public out there today after passing this bill will have a responsibility of reporting that, and it is a level of accountability that they should be made aware of. They need to know it is incumbent upon them to actually do that.

So, Mr. Speaker, we support the bill. We support the amendments that are being brought forward here. We would go a step further in pointing out what the Leader of the NDP has already pointed out, because this is an issue that has been pointed out to me and to my caucus from seniors' groups around the Province, and that is they feel that there should be an advocate for seniors. They feel it is important to have an advocate for seniors today in Newfoundland and Labrador simply because of the growing population that we have, and because of the issues that they find themselves facing. Many of these issues are connected to poverty, many of them are connected to financial stress that they have in their lives, and a lot of it is connected to neglect or assault that may be going on in their lives. They feel that there needs to be an advocate for seniors' issues in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the thing I would point out to the minister in saying that we need to take it a little step further. We need to have that advocate so that these particular issues that our seniors face can be kept in the front of the political minds that govern in this Province, so that they can be kept out there in the public, so that they can get dealt with, and that we can see some results for those people who are affected.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation itself has been supported by seniors groups all across the Province. We have met with the Seniors Resource Centre that has been a strong proponent of these particular changes. A year ago, Mr. Speaker, they were out talking about the need to make these changes in Newfoundland and Labrador; the changes that we are seeing falls in line with all of the other jurisdictions across Canada in terms of what they are doing to show respect for their seniors, but also to protect adults in our society, adults who are vulnerable and cannot protect themselves.

Mr. Speaker, we support the legislation and we certainly join many other voices in this Province who are calling for a seniors' advocate to help address the pressing needs that our seniors have to deal with out their in society. We cannot forget, Mr. Speaker, it is our seniors who have really built the road that we travel today. They are the people who were the visionaries behind building this particular Province and they are the people who have served our Province for many years and many decades. Now, it is only right that we serve them in the latter years of their lives and give them the protection that they need, but also give them the care that they need, and give them the opportunity to have a voice through an advocate, give them the opportunity to live the later years of their life with dignity, with respect and with the ability to provide for themselves finically and otherwise, provide the level of care that they deserve in our communities.

Mr. Speaker, we just ask that it would be considered and maybe the minister will look at how we can bring forward something to put in place a seniors' advocate in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services. If he speaks now, he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I certainly listened with interest to the comments made by both the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the NDP. This debate is helpful. For example, the issue raised on the solicitor-client privilege is one that I will tell you I have to go back and look at and determine where we are going to proceed on that. The Leader of the NDP and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has certainly caused me to rethink the process and it is one that when we move to Committee, I will be in a better position to deal with.

On that basis, Mr. Speaker, those would be my comments for now and I will take under advisement the questions and issues that have been raised by both members. I will deal with those issues in Committee. (Inaudible) close the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 1, An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults, 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 Respecting The Protection Of Adults. (Bill 1)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Protection Of Adults", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 1)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call Order 6, second reading of Bill 11.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991, Bill 11, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991". (Bill 11)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991. Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend subsection 19(6) of the Sheriff's Act, 1991 basically to reflect the increase in the monetary jurisdiction of the Provincial Court Small Claims Division from $5,000 to $25,000. In the fall of 2010, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council increased the maximum amount of a claim from $5,000 to $25,000 pursuant to subsection 3(3) of the Small Claims Act. The maximum amount of $25,000 is now set out in section 2 of the Small Claims Regulations.

Mr. Speaker, this was a significant piece of legislation back in the fall and it was brought in, in response to a lot of requests from the legal fraternity. It was one of the most significant pieces of legislation brought in that session. It was long overdue. It goes a long way, Mr. Speaker, to improving access to justice for individuals because it gave the Small Claims Court the monetary jurisdiction – it increased the monetary jurisdiction of claims from $5,000 to $25,000. Prior to that, Mr. Speaker, you had to go to the Supreme Court if there was any claim over $5,000. Because of that change in the Small Claims Regulations and the Small Claims Act, that reflects on the Sheriff's Act because there is a very close connection between the Sheriff's Act and that significant piece of legislation.

The Sheriff's Act, 1991 establishes the Office of the High Sheriff. The High Sheriff, Mr. Speaker, is primarily responsible for providing administrative services to the Supreme Court and the Provincial Court. Anybody who watches the 6:00 news in the evening, for the first third of the news you will see sheriff's officers escorting prisoners in and out of court every day. They have a bit of a profile because they are always on television. Most people think that is what the sheriff's officer does, but there is much more to the duties of the sheriff's officers and the High Sheriff than that.

The Office of the High Sheriff, Mr. Speaker, also administers the jury system. It is responsible for the organization of jury panels and organizing juries for jury trials. They provide court security, as is evidenced from watching them on television, but not only in the main courts of the Province. I think we have now in excess of sixty deputy sheriffs and they are established in all of our courts in the Province. They also follow the judges on circuit court to provide security. They also execute orders and decisions of the court.

Most importantly for this act, Mr. Speaker, they carry out enforcement proceedings, they supervise enforcement proceedings, and they co-ordinate proceedings and duties in accordance with the Judgment Enforcement Act. Enforcement proceedings, Mr. Speaker, are actions and steps that are taken, or measures that are authorized by the Judgement Enforcement Act to enforce money judgements, including orders under the Small Claims Act.

Mr. Speaker, if I may take a minute to just talk briefly about the functions and duties of the sheriffs. The functions and duties of the sheriffs are set out in section 8 of the Sheriff's Act, and basically, execute attachment, recovery enforcement, contempt, and enforcement orders, and other orders of execution, carry out enforcement proceedings and duties in accordance with the Judgement Enforcement Act, as I just mentioned, make all returns to the court required by law, carry out duties under the Jury Act, to maintain a computer storage and retrieval system in accordance with the Judgement Enforcement Act, and to comply with and implement and exercise the requirements imposed upon the sheriffs by this act and by the Judgement Enforcement Act or any other act of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, section 19 of the Sheriff's Act sets up a mechanism whereby any monies that are held by the Office of the High Sheriff are paid by the High Sheriff into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Now, the simplest way to describe that, Mr. Speaker, is to just quote section 19 of the act. "Money paid into the office of the sheriff or collected under an enforcement order or under a statute of the province or of Canada and held in trust by the office of the sheriff to which, following an inquiry by the sheriff," – any kind of monies or fees, Mr. Speaker, commissions, allowances, expenditures, that sort of thing – and following an inquiry by the sheriff, if there is no person who is legally entitled to that money that the sheriff is entrusted with, there is no person legally entitled to it, or the person who is legally entitled is not known to the sheriff, or his whereabouts are not known, or the person who is legally entitled, for some reason rejects or renounces his entitlement, that money is then paid by the sheriff into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Any person entitled to money that is paid into that fund will apply to the Minister of Justice for a declaration that he is legally entitled to the money. If it can be shown that he is entitled to the money and the minister is satisfied that the person applying under that section is entitled to the money, he notifies the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Finance then pays out that money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the person entitled to it.

So, that section 19 of the Sheriff's Act, if a person is legally entitled to the monies, he is not known or his whereabouts are not known, or he rejects or renounces it, or they cannot find him, then that money is paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The person emerges, looking for the money, and he is qualified to it, he applies to the minister, the minister approves his application, and notifies the Minister of Finance that that money is payable.

Now, Mr. Speaker, section 19.(6) of the Sheriff's Act, where the minister is not satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the money, and the Minister of Finance is notified by the minister not to pay it, then an applicant can apply to a judge of the Provincial Court for entitlement to that money. Now, Mr. Speaker, section 6 states, "Where the minister is not satisfied of the applicant's entitlement to the money and refuses to direct the Minister of Finance to pay it to the applicant, the applicant may, within 15 days" … "apply to a judge of (a) the Provincial Court , where the amount is $5,000 or less", – the current act. If it is more than $5,000, he has to apply to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is where the interconnection is with the Small Claims Act. This Sheriff's Act was enacted, Mr. Speaker, when the amount of monetary claims awarded under the small claims court was $5,000. Anything over $5,000, you had to go to the Supreme Court. That has now been changed, Mr. Speaker. That has now been changed from $5,000 up to $25,000. So subsequently, we have to change the Sheriff's Act to reflect that change.

So 19.(6) now, of the Sheriff's Act, will be amended so that the applicant, within fifteen days of the minister's decision, applies to a judge of the Provincial Court where the amount is $25,000 or less, and to the Trial Division where the amount is greater than $25,000. That is the gist, Mr. Speaker, of that act. So, if, upon application by an applicant who claims he is entitled to the money and the minister does not buy or accept his application, then he can apply to the judge of a Provincial Court if the money now is $25,000 or less, the Trial Division, if it is $25,000 or greater. So, Mr. Speaker, this again, this act and this amendment, again provides for greater access to justice and is a necessary amendment in order to expedite that whole process.

As a result of the increase, Mr. Speaker, in monetary jurisdiction of the Provincial Court, Small Claims Division, from $5,000 to $25,000, Newfoundland and Labrador now no longer has the lowest small claims limit in the country. In fact, our current limit is now consistent with the small claims limits in Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Alberta, British Columbia, and Yukon. The limits are set between $20,000 and $25,000. Mr. Speaker, that small claims amendment that we did last year has gotten great reviews from the legal fraternity and from the public at large. It is a significant piece of legislation long overdue. So we now have to amend the Sheriff's Act in accordance with that.

Mr. Speaker, this change is positive for both the general public and legal profession; it improves public access to court services, and is an important amendment to be made.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the support of all hon. members in support of that bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity just to have a few words about this particular amendment.

It is certainly not rocket science, anything we are doing here today. Usually, when we amend one act, it consequentially affects a lot of other acts that depend upon it. For example, when we amended the Small Claims Act, as the minister said, last year, to increase the monetary jurisdiction of Provincial Court judges from $5,000 to $25,000, that was done. Usually when you would have done that, you would have picked up on these necessary amendments, or the consequential amendments to other pieces of legislation. I guess what happened here was somewhere in the queue we must have missed that, and we are just finding out now, through experience again, that we needed to make that consequential amendment to the Sheriff's Act, subsection 6, in order to give full reign to what we had done and fully intended to do by increasing the monetary jurisdiction under the Small Claims Act.

The minister alluded to the fact that the Small Claims Act amendment of last year was herald by most people in this Province as a great thing. Not so much just in the legal profession, but most particularly, to those people who are not in the legal profession, because the whole idea, of course, of small claims was so that people could look after their own claims in Provincial Court without the necessity of having to hire a lawyer. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, of course, of the Supreme Court of Canada commented some years ago in 2007 that it had just become horrendously expensive in Canada to access justice. If you had a claim, for example, that was for $4,000 – someone owed you money and you had to take them to court – if it was less than $5,000, you could get the paperwork done yourself. Take it into court and there is a process outlined in the Small Claims Act. But if it happened to be $5,000 or $6,000 – over $5,000 – you had to basically get a lawyer, because you got into the Supreme Court. As time went on, of course, things got more expensive. You can hardly buy a flat screen TV outfit today that is not above $5,000. Back in those days when the Small Claims Act first came into being, $5,000 might have been an acceptable limit, but of course, due to inflation and so on, and cost of goods and services these days, $5,000 was certainly a very restrictive amount. That is why the government amended it, based upon requests from people, the Law Society, public members at large who wanted that increased jurisdiction. That was done, unanimously passed this House last year, and everybody agreed that it was a wise thing to do.

I would like to emphasize that it was not just because lawyers wanted it, it was more so for the benefit of the general citizen who could not afford to retain a lawyer. For example, if you go through the court system today, if you have a claim that is anything less than $50,000, if it is any way complicated at all, sometimes you have to question whether it is worth going to court, because if it is complicated you can well spend that much today in the Supreme Court on recovering what you set out to claim. Take an example of a car; you might have a dispute with someone over a motor vehicle. The motor vehicle may only be valued at $22,000, and by the time you go to court and if you hired a lawyer, by the time you get your process fees served and you get the lawyer paid, you may not get much back. The court said: let's recognize that people are smart enough in most cases to do the claims themselves. It is not overly technical. You do not need to have a lawyer do it. So let's devise a system where they can do it themselves, and that is where the small claims court came in.

Now, I had some experience in that for thirty years or so, dealing with the court system, many of which involved small claims. Besides the jurisdictional issue on the money, there were and still are some problems with the Small Claims Act. It was overly paper conscious. I believe there was something like forty, fifty different kinds of forms that you had to fill out in order to – that could be filled out throughout the process, and that became complicated as well. I have not been in the field for some time, so I am not sure if they have ironed out the overload of paperwork, shall we say when it came to forms that were necessary in the Provincial Court system as a result of the Small Claims Act. That was always another grievance that a lot of people had as well.

This one we are dealing with here today is just an obvious follow-through. I would not even call it housekeeping, it is actually more of a consequential amendment that is necessary. What is the point of having a Small Claims Act that has a jurisdictional figure, from a money point of view of $25,000, when in the Sheriff's Act they are restricted to $5,000? It just cannot coexist. That is why, of course, it is necessary to do this.

The section itself, besides changing the monetary value - and that is all the minister is doing by putting this bill forward, is changing it from $5,000 to $25,000 - that particular section of the Sheriff's Act is in and of itself relevant. What I liked about the section, whoever put it in there in the first instance, the substantive part of that subsection (6) was the fact that it took the authority out of the minister's hands to make the final, binding decision when it came to money being paid out under those circumstances, because it says very clearly that if the minister is not prepared to pay the money out.

You might have a situation where someone is a legitimate, or feels he or she is a legitimate claimant of some money that is in the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the auspices of the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for the Sheriff's Act, might say: I do not believe you, I am not going to accept your arguments. I do not think there is any merit to it. He or she might say: you are done; you are not getting your money. What that section did was it said, we are not going to leave it just to the minister. In that case you have an access to the court yourself. If it was less than $25,000 you could go to the judge in Provincial Court, and over that amount you can go to Supreme Court.

So, Mr. Speaker, we would certainly have no problem with this. It only gives further life, as was intended, to the earlier amendments that we did to the Small Claims Act. It is absolutely consequential, of no controversy whatsoever, and we will certainly be supporting Bill 11.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): If the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General speaks now he will close debate on Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I thank the hon. member for his comments. He is right when he says that the amendments to the Small Claims Act were certainly more beneficial to the members of the public and more significant for the members of the public, and came about perhaps more so as a representation from the public than members of the legal fraternity. When I mentioned that it was a legal fraternity who pushed the issue with us, I think it was on behalf of clients and the public that they were so doing.

With respect to the paper load that he referred to, the only thing I can respond with is that statements of claim can now be filed electronically, I say to the member. That is a big improvement over what it was.

Mr. Speaker, with those few comments I close debate and move this to second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 11 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 11 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Sheriff's Act, 1991", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole on tomorrow. (Bill 11)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works, that the House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourned until 2:00 o'clock tomorrow, tomorrow being Private Members' Day.

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