The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome long time, former Mayor of Port Union and the present Town Manager of Trinity Bay North, Mr. Darryl Johnson.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The following private members' statements are welcomed: the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands; and the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today during Volunteer Week and recognize the Virginia Park Community Centre Volunteer of the Year, Mr. Jim Caul.

On Monday evening, Mr. Speaker, I had the enjoyment of attending the annual Virginia Park Community Centre volunteer celebrations and the volunteer of the year award. Mr. Jim Caul is an individual who has dedicated his time specifically to one of the Virginia Park Community Centre programs, youth softball.

In 2010, the community centre had the biggest turnout in its history of keen young girls to try out for the softball team. For the first time, the Virginia Park Community Centre had to have two girls' softball teams. Over the years, Jim Caul has taught many children to play and enjoy softball and has also helped to lead their teams to victory.

In 2010, Jim coached the Virginia Park 2 girls' team through three tournaments and in each tournament they placed first. The second team, Virginia Park 1, placed second in the same three tournaments. This is such a huge commitment for the coaches and all players.

Mr. Caul inspires everyone in the community with his dedication and drive, and the Virginia Park Community Centre wanted to say thank you to him for all his hard work and time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Jim Caul on his volunteer of the year award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Captain Mark Sheppard with the Canadian Forces, who was raised in Cormack.

Mr. Speaker, following graduation from Elwood High School, he completed his Bachelor of Science Degree at St. Francis Xavier University. He joined the Canadian Forces in 2003 and in 2005, he became a member of the Royal Canadian Regiment. While a Platoon Commander, Captain Sheppard completed an operational tour of duty in Afghanistan. During his tour, he was cited for gallant and distinguished service receiving a Mentioned In Dispatches from the Governor General for his leadership in close combat with the enemy. Upon his return, Captain Sheppard was awarded The Mons Box as the Top Platoon Commander in his Battalion.

Mr. Speaker, in July 2008, Captain Sheppard was posted to Trenton, Ontario as Officer in Charge of Military Parachuting, Helicopter Insertion and Mountain Operations training. He is now employed as the Officer Commanding the Canadian Forces Parachute Demonstration Team, The SkyHawks, who are celebrating their fortieth anniversary season. This year he will travel across Canada and the United States leading the SkyHawks, who are world renowned for their thrilling parachute formations.

Mr. Speaker, he will perform with his team at over forty major events and air shows for about 2 million spectators acting as an ambassador for Canada, the Canadian Forces, and his home Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. His hometown of Cormack will be announced at each show.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this House to join me in congratulating Captain Mark Sheppard on these outstanding achievements.

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: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize two gentlemen, Pastor David Crane of Cox's Cove and Mr. Randy Janes of Gillams.

Mr. Speaker, up until May 14, 2008 these gentlemen never met each other, but after the occurrences on this day, Pastor Crane regards Mr. Janes as a friend for life. On this notable day, Pastor Crane was on his motorcycle making a left-hand turn when he lost control of his bike after which he recalls very little.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, Randy Janes caught a glimpse of the motorcycle going off the road. He jumped on his quad and rushed to the scene. He found the operator face down in the stream with his arms to his side, not moving and the bike on top of him. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Janes got the good pastor's head above the water and shortly after, Randy's buddy, Leroy George, assisted and removed the bike off the driver. After hospitalization for a period of time, we are happy to report Pastor Crane recovered fully from his injuries.

Mr. Speaker, recently Randy Janes was recognized by the Governor General of Canada which read: Commendation is awarded to Randy Janes for an act of great merit and providing assistance to others in a selfless manner in Newfoundland and Labrador on May 14, 2008.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to recognize all people involved in the rescue, and in particular to Randy Janes, as Pastor Crane states: Without Randy's assistance life would have been completed and the work as pastoral ministry would surely have ceased.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the North Atlantic Refining Company in Come By Chance and their employees for working another 1 million person hours with zero days lost to injury.

Mr. Speaker, North Atlantic Refining employees continue to demonstrate their unwavering focus on the workplace safety. North Atlantic Refining management contributes workplace safety to their employee's full responsibility for their own safety and that of their co-workers, also to the Province being committed to workplace safety.

North Atlantic employees have surpassed the million person hour mark three times since 2004. In 2008, they had 1.8 million person hours worked with zero days lost to injury, a remarkable accomplishment for the company and its employees. Mr. Speaker, safety requires the full support of management and their employees as well as the allocation of appropriate processes and resources to safety programs and practices.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in saying congratulations to everyone at North Atlantic Refining for their efforts in building a safe and healthy work environment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to deliver some good news on the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program. This is a program that was created as part of our Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy, and implemented in 2007 with an investment of $6.6 million in fishing industry research and development. Including leveraged funds, the program has resulted in $25 million invested in fishing-industry led R&D, and a total of 128 projects have been funded since its creation.

In 2010, my department hired external consultants to conduct an evaluation of the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that through client surveys, it was determined that there is a very high level of approval for this program within the fishing industry. Ninety-five per cent of those surveyed described it as being useful in addressing important industry needs.

Mr. Speaker, approximately 85 per cent of the people surveyed stated that they would not have proceeded with their projects without this program. Our government believes this makes it a huge success. As well, my department provided more than funding. My officials also provided expert advice on project ideas, the preparation of proposals, and the development of new projects.

This program has been instrumental in fostering fishing industry research and development in some key areas. These include: fishing industry safety, energy efficiency, and seafood marketing and development. Projects such as these are critical to ensuring that our fishing industry continues to be competitive in the global marketplace. This research provides for effective and efficient fish harvesting and processing, and the development of new products in ever-changing global seafood markets.

The success of the program would not have been possible without the strong partnerships that have been built with industry participants in the harvesting and processing sectors, as well as academic organizations and research groups, such as the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University, and the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation. We look forward to working with them again in the future.

Our government believes the program has been a huge success. My department continues to work with the fishing industry to build a bright future for young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who wish to have a future in fisheries research, seafood marketing and development, and the marine sciences.

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, first of all, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Certainly, it is good to see money being invested in R&D. We realize it is important to industry and understanding what the issues are. The opportunity certainly is important.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest there is no member in this House who is more concerned about the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador than what I would be. That is not to underestimate how concerned other members would be, but the impact that it has in my district is tremendous.

We live in a day of uncertainty in this industry. I long for the day when I can come into this House and see the Minister of Fisheries, whoever it might be at the time, stand and really give a plan from this government. It has been eight long years now that we have been waiting to see the direction that this government is going to take the industry. We are still waiting.

There has been report after report. We have had the MOU, we have eighty meetings that have been mentioned – I believe is the number that went through in that twenty-month period.

The industry has many problems: there are the shrimp cuts, there are cuts in the crab quotas, there is processing, there are plant workers, there is aging in the work force, all of these issues, and so on. Industry today, Mr. Speaker, is looking for strong leadership. I have to say quite honestly and frankly they are not getting it today. As important as research and development is, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are for.

I would challenge this government and the Minister of Fisheries today to really engage. The very foundation of our industry in terms of fishing is undermined by the lack of direction. Mr. Speaker, that is fundamental today if we are going to have a good industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 an advance copy of his statement.

It is good to know that the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities program has been successful and it has obviously has been. I note that, of course, 85 per cent of people surveyed said they would not have proceeded with their projects because researchers really do need money. It is really good that this program is in place because without the money they cannot do the research.

Some of the projects I am impressed by. I am really glad to see projects on safety and energy efficiency. I think both of these are areas which we really need to look at in the fishery.

I note the research on seafood marketing. With regard to the marketing, what we really need is what has been recommended by the MOU and the minister's own consultants are saying: We have to have a seafood marketing board. I really hope that the research that was done is going to lead to the minister realizing we need that board and we are going to see in the near future information on a board being put in place.

Thank you very much, 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, the Premier claims the cost of electricity in this Province is going to increase by 4 per cent to 6 per cent annually because of the price of crude. That would imply that electricity rates are going to rise twice or three times as fast as they have in the last five years. However, Mr. Speaker, we know that that was not the case when we saw oil prices in the Province go from $30 to $150 a barrel and electricity rates in the Province, Mr. Speaker, went up on an average of 2 per cent a year.

I ask the Premier: Why is it that your numbers just do not add up on this deal?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition does not have to rely on me or on the Minister of Natural Resources or even on Nalcor in terms of prediction of oil prices or predictions around the generation of electricity and how much that is going to cost into the future, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the last ten years – and this is easily verifiable by her, by her colleagues, by anyone who is listening to us here today – electricity costs have risen by 38 per cent in the last ten years, Mr. Speaker. That is a fact. Mr. Speaker, they are predicted to rise by 36 per cent over the next five to ten years. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the truth, that is verifiable not only from us, from Nalcor but from forecasting agencies here and around the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would prefer to trust the experts at the Bank of Canada and in one of the bank's latest reports it says that both inflation and the consumer price index will rise at a rate of 2 per cent a year for the foreseeable future. That is a far cry from the 4 per cent to 6 per cent that you are projecting for energy prices year over year for the next ten years.

I ask the Premier again to explain how energy prices are expected to increase by 4 per cent to 6 per cent a year when they have not done so in the past, even though we have seen tremendous volatility in oil prices.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have stated in this House before – myself and the Premier – the percentages of increase that have occurred in the past. Mr. Speaker, I am looking at some numbers, dollar figures, just to take it from percentages; $216, if that was your bill in 2001, you are up to $279 today. That is 30 per cent plus, Mr. Speaker. This is just an average that we are doing. I have requested my own bill. I am going to look at my own bill and see what my own bill has been. We know that the price of electricity has been increasing in the 35 per cent, 36 per cent range over the last number of years. We also forecast that it is going to continue to increase as we move towards 2017. Mr. Speaker, Muskrat Falls is going to temper that increase, instead of 4 per cent to 6 per cent per year, it will be less than 1 per cent. That is why we want to do Muskrat Falls.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I might want to remind the minister that the $279 light bill that he is referring to that people might be paying today, under your project and your energy rates, will be $558 starting as soon as Muskrat Falls (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, that is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a government that wants to develop a hydro project in this Province that will benefit a private company in Nova Scotia, that will give cheap energy prices to Nova Scotia and the Maritime provinces, but will double the price of energy for people in Newfoundland and Labrador and they are not able to justify it with real numbers. Mr. Speaker, last year only 11 per cent of our energy came from Holyrood.

I ask the Premier today: How can you justify to people in this Province the need to develop a $4.5 billion project (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is very selective in the information that she puts forward. We talked about this yesterday in Question Period. She refers to the 11 per cent of electricity generated out of Holyrood last year. She does not speak about the other years, Mr. Speaker, when we have been as high as 35 per cent, 36 percent generated out of Holyrood. It depends on a variety of factors.

If she is suggesting to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we do nothing about forecasted energy needs in this Province and hope that it rains hard every year, Mr. Speaker, so that only 11 per cent needs to be generated out of Holyrood and keep our fingers crossed that we do not get in trouble if we need more than that, that is one heck of a plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has not seen trouble yet; wait until she sees the cost overruns that are going to come in on this project where she has not even built in to the price of the project that consumers today do not even know what the real price of electricity is going to be. We are being modest when we say the rates are going to double up.

Mr. Speaker, we know, last year, 11 per cent of the energy that we used in this Province came from Holyrood, 15 per cent the year before. The dependency on Holyrood is going down.

I ask you, Premier: Why can't you develop lower cost energy for the people of this Province than trying to sell them the bill of goods that you have on the table today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if she wants to talk about cost overruns, I am happy enough to do that, because their deal under Grimes would have been financed by Hydro Quebec, all of the power would have been sold to Quebec. The arrangement that they had in place in case of overruns –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: – and remember now, that the Grimes Lower Churchill Project would have been constructed while the bottom was falling out of the economy worldwide, and overruns were automatic and tremendous, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: What would have happened in the way that those overruns would have been financed, at the end of the day, would have seen Hydro Quebec owning all of the Lower Churchill, all of it; a deal worse than the Upper Churchill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier is the expert on every other deal, but knows nothing about the deal she cut herself, I say to you, Premier, knows nothing about the deal you cut yourself. Let me remind you of one thing: The deal that was done by the previous government showed 100 per cent ownership to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and it showed keeping their light bills down in this Province, and not doubling –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It did not include doubling up the cost of their electricity.

Maybe the Premier would like to stand and tell the people of the Province today why she chose to do a deal on Muskrat Falls that sold out 29 per cent ownership to a private company in Nova Scotia, and maybe she can tell the people of the Province why she giving a private company in Nova Scotia 20 per cent of the Muskrat Falls (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Their deal did not consider the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and their energy needs. Now, Mr. Speaker, we need energy in Newfoundland and Labrador by 2017, because even using everything we have now, we will have an energy deficit then. We have costed out bringing electricity in from Quebec. We have costed out bringing electricity in from Nova Scotia. We have costed out building on our isolated system. The cheapest cost which, in its financing, has contingency for overruns. This is the best deal for the Province.

Mr. Speaker, their deal saw all of the electricity going to Quebec, all of the profit going to Quebec and they wanted Hydro to build it, Mr. Speaker, the company they say now (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, maybe at some point, if we ask enough questions in the House, we might be able to get the government to tell us about their deal. You never know, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier today: Explain to the people of this Province why Muskrat Falls is a good deal for them when they know they are going to pay twice as much for electricity within the next twelve to twenty-four months under your deal. Also, Mr. Speaker, explain to the people of the Province why Nova Scotians can get their power a lot cheaper than anyone in Newfoundland and Labrador will receive a kilowatt of that power for?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental problems in trying to explain the project to the Leader of the Opposition is she appears to know nothing about how electricity is generated in this Province and how it is paid for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, she just stood in her place and said that power rates in Newfoundland and Labrador were going to double in the next eighteen to twenty-four months because of Muskrat Falls.

Mr. Speaker, she ought to know, and an informed Leader of the Opposition would know given you are entering into this important debate, that not one cent of money associated with Muskrat Falls can be charged off to a ratepayer in this Province until the project is in service in 2016, not in the next eighteen to twenty-four months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, for several years a group representing retired civil servants have been seeking a meeting with the government to talk about pension concerns. They have held meetings around the Province, they have made representations at pre-Budget consultations and they have yet to get a one-on-one with the Premier of the day.

I ask you today, Premier: Will you give this group, which has more than 10,000 registered members representing 22,000 public sector pensioners in this Province, the courtesy of a face-to-face meeting to hear their concerns and their ideas?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the pensioners who work for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and who have the benefit of a defined benefit pension plan are getting the exact benefits that the pension plan promised to pay them. They are getting the exact benefits that their contributions to the plan intended them to get.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, given the high cost of food, given the high cost of fuel, we have to help all retirees, not just those who happen to work for the government. We have to be fair to everybody.

The majority of retirees out there have their Old Age Pension and they have Canada Pension. They never had the benefit of working for an employer that had a registered pension plan. We have to look after them as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, we know the Premier does not touch fish questions in the House of Assembly, so I guess she does not touch pensioners' issues either. Mr. Speaker, this group has been looking for a meeting face to face with the current Premier. They would like to discuss their issues and propose their ideas.

I ask you today, Premier: Will you not grant them that meeting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the issues that have been put forward by pensioners in this Province. Every member of this caucus has listened intently to what they had to say. We have done an analysis of the positions they put forward. Mr. Speaker, the position as put forward by my Minister of Finance is the position of this government, which includes me.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the important thing for everyone to understand is benefits that were negotiated are being received by pensioners in this Province. Every piece that they negotiated, that they earned is being paid out, Mr. Speaker.

What we need to ensure and what this government has done, and that government did not do, is ensure the integrity of our pension fund.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Then the Premier would be aware of the fact these pensioners are arguing that in the early 1990s when the Province was basically broke, Mr. Speaker, because of the cod moratorium –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: – because of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that offshore oil revenues had not yet come on because the government of the day had no choice, only to withhold contributions to the Public Service Pension Plan. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, the pool is smaller than it could be for investment purposes and has resulted in less money being available today for annual increases to indexing.

I ask the Premier: Now that our finances are in much better shape, thanks to the deals that were done on oil by Liberal governments, I ask that you make good on the contributions that could not be made at that time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, a former colleague here in the House of Assembly used to refer to members opposite sometimes as having the face of a robber's horse. Mr. Speaker, we are seeing a great example of it today. The very people who robbed –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: - the pension fund are the people who are up now chastising us and assigning, Mr. Speaker, impacts that in fact did not happen.

Mr. Speaker, the monies that were taken from the pension funds have all been repaid to the pension funds. The most important thing, Mr. Speaker, is that every benefit that was negotiated has been received, and there has not been a piece of evidence brought forward to government that can show anything other than that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These pensioners certainly feel differently, I say to you Premier. They feel, Mr. Speaker, that they are being owed something by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and they certainly feel that you as a government have not been listening to what they have to say.

Mr. Speaker, some of these pensioners who worked for the civil service over the years may have comfortable pensions and may be fine financially. There are many of them out there not unlike many of the seniors who live in Newfoundland and Labrador who do not have an adequate amount of money to be able to live on. They feel that they have not been justly treated by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I ask you Premier: What kind of remedy can you give them? What hope can you give to these people who have given their life to the public service but today are living way below what are acceptable standards of living?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the majority of retirees out there never had the benefit of working for an employer who had a Defined Benefit Pensions. They are living on Old Age Pension; they are living on Canada Pension. So we have to look after all retirees, whether they worked for us or they worked for someone else.

That is why we have reduced personal taxes and income taxes, the lowest rates in Atlantic Canada. That is why we brought in the low-income tax reduction; that is why we enhanced the Home Heating Rebate; that is why we enhanced the Low Income Seniors' Benefit on three separate occasions. That is why we have the highest age exemption of any province in the country; that is why we have heating allowances for people in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, Provincial Home Repair Program, drug program. Mr. Speaker, stay tuned, there is more yet to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

I remind hon. members that Question Period is for thirty minutes; I ask that they not use up the time by using it for applause.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They may as well use up half of Question Period with applause because they do not provide answers.

Mr. Speaker, the public servants in this Province, the retired pensioners in this Province feel that they have been wrong done by. They feel that government deserves to listen to what they have to say. They feel that their premiums are being robbed today because adequate investments were not made. We are in a financial position today, Mr. Speaker, to right what was wrong.

I ask the minister and the government today, if they will not commit to ensure that those who live amongst us receiving the lowest incomes in our society are not given what they deserve and what should be coming to them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that our government put the $2 billion that Premier Williams received from Ottawa into the Teachers' Pension Plan. I am pleased to say that this government borrowed another billion dollars, $982 million, and put that into the Public Service Pension Plan and another $100 million into the Uniformed Services Pension Plan.

We put the money back, Mr. Speaker, but if we had - every pensioner who worked for this government is getting the exact pension that they were supposed to get, and we are pleased with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government has no exception, Mr. Speaker, to increasing electricity rates in this Province to people who are on fixed incomes knowing they cannot afford to pay double the electricity rates that are going to hit them in the next few years.

Mr. Speaker, last year government documents showed that your government spent $2.7 million on the Pensions Division. That is the arm of government that manages public employee pensions. All costs are covered from the pension pool contributions and not necessarily from the general taxpayers of the Province; yet, Mr. Speaker, workers and pensioners have very little to say in how this money is invested or managed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am just constantly being interrupted by members on the other side. It is Question Period and we should…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member, Question Period is to pose questions not to get into debate. The hon. member has gone over forty-five seconds and I ask her now to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have some order in the House when I ask questions, so I ask…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to leave order in the House to the Speaker, and I ask her to pose her question.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will he give the pensioners a say at the table for management of these funds?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Pension Investment Committee is made up of – I mean, I do not decide what they invest in – it is made up members from NAPE, from Nurses, from CUPE, all the unions, all the employees, are the ones that sit on that Pension Investment Committee and make the decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the shrimp fishery is expected to get underway on May 1, but the 4R shrimp fleet on the Northern Peninsula has indicated they will remain tied on in protest of the federal government's unfairness in slashing the inshore fleet by 40 per cent. The minister congratulated himself in the House yesterday that he has written the federal minister on this, but I say, Mr. Speaker, that is not acceptable.

I ask the Premier today: Have you asked for a meeting with the federal Minister of Fisheries to address this critical issue, and if not, why not?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we look forward to the quota being announced. As I said, Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the date in which the prices of shrimp have been made has been traditionally in May.

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, we have made our representation to the federal government; I asked them to put forward his representation. I have not seen that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I feel like the minister is offering me his job, I am not really sure. Now, if the Premier wanted to put me in as the Minister of Fisheries, we can talk about that, and I will see what I can do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am talking about being a Liberal Minister of Fisheries, by the way.

Mr. Speaker, all people in the fishing industry are to be shown some respect by this government, seriously. The Premier released a letter last week to the newest buddy of her government, as he is known throughout the Province, Mr. Harper, Stephen Harper, asking to define his approach on adjacency and allocating the shrimp quotas in this Province.

I ask: If you are so concerned about the current quota cuts, why has this government and you been silent? Why are you only asking the federal government for a commitment on future approaches to adjacency?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying I do not know if we would take him if he wanted to come over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me say one thing that is very clear for me, for the Premier, and for this entire government. There is no one who respects fishermen, fisherwomen, and plant workers more in this Province than we do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: As so many people have said, oil is a non-renewable resource. The fishery is a renewable resource, Mr. Speaker. We are looking to the industry to partner with us to ensure that the fishery is strong, vibrant, and viable into the future, 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.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the suddenly announced decision by Kiewit to drop its application for the Joint Support Ships thirty-year contract has shocked everyone. Mr. Speaker, Kiewit's walking away because they say they lack the ability –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – to put together a proposal is unacceptable.

The government has the obligation to remind large businesses in this Province of their corporate responsibility. Kiewit should be asked to prove they do not have the resources or capacity to do the Joint Support Ships application.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: If Kiewit is really unable to do the proposal themselves, will government offer assistance in preparing the application?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I know that this is a sad announcement for the people of the Burin Peninsula who were really hopeful that they might have a chance at landing this contract. They had the full support of their government in working with Kiewit in trying to make that happen.

Mr. Speaker, Kiewit is a private company and we do not dictate to them what they do or what they do not do. What we do, though, is try to develop a relationship that is supportive and beneficial to them and to the people of the Province. That is what we did with Kiewit, Mr. Speaker.

They never indicated to us there was a problem in terms of their own capacity. They talked to us about a problem in infrastructure, and we were very supportive in trying to find a solution to that, Mr. Speaker.

We will continue to try and drive good deals around oil and gas development here in the Province, Mr. Speaker, as well as in the development of our other commodities so that we can continue to provide work to workers here in the Province from our own resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Premier continues to insist that there is nothing the government can do now about Kiewit because they are a private company. Mr. Speaker, this government has found ways to help private companies in the past. The good relationships lead to something happening.

In the past, for example, the Department of Business granted $500,000 to Rolls Royce to establish its new marine service centre.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why won't this government take a proactive stance with Kiewit, go back and talk to them for the good of the workers and families of the Burin Peninsula?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Business has talked to Kiewit. Mr. Speaker, our MHAs and ministers from the Burin Peninsula have talked to Kiewit. Mr. Speaker, I have had any number of conversations with Kiewit in the last four years with regard to this contract. Mr. Speaker, Kiewit is a private company. We are very supportive in whatever legitimate and beneficial ways there are to do that for both the people of the Province and for the company. Mr. Speaker, when we came to government in 2003 there was $2.6 million being put into economic development in this Province by members opposite who formed the Liberal government. Today, Mr. Speaker, that is over $130 million. We support business in this Province including Kiewit, 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, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, by not being stronger in calling Kiewit to its corporate responsibility to continue with the bidding on the JSS contract, this government is continuing the legacy of giveaways that have plagued the Marystown Shipyard.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: If she is so satisfied to accept Kiewit's decision, is it because government and Kiewit known something that we do not know about Marystown's chances of getting the JSS contract?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, if somebody can name a reason why this government would not want Kiewit to be successful in this contract earning thirty-five years of work for people of the Province, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what it is.

Mr. Speaker, there was over $100 million ask before us from Kiewit for a graving dock, infrastructure that was going to be required in order to get this contract. Mr. Speaker, we were in very serious negotiations with them around that issue. Mr. Speaker, that is what I call being supportive of business and a region of this Province.

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: Pursuant to section 10 of the Public Tender Act, I hereby table the Report of the Public Tender Act Exceptions for November and December 2010 and January and February 2011 as presented by the Chief Operating Officer of the Government Purchasing Agency.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

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

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce the bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Fish Inspection Act, Bill 29.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the public sector pensioners in the Province, a petition –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I ask members to kindly respect the will of the member to deliver her petition and listen to the petition as delivered.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You can hardly get a question in, in Question Period, and now you cannot get a petition in. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of the public sector pensioners in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this is a group of people who feel that their issue has not been adequately addressed by the current government and they feel that they should have an opportunity to bring their issues to government directly and to work co-operatively with them to have it addressed.

This particular petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by 7,000 public sector pensioners across Newfoundland and Labrador. I will read it into the record:

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

WHEREAS provincial public sector pensioners in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador contributed to a pension fund during their employment years; and

WHEREAS the provincial government was and continues to be the trustee of the pension fund; and

WHEREAS prior to 1989, government, from time to time, provided for increases in pension payments to enable pensioners to keep up with the cost of living; and

WHEREAS workers who retired in the 1990s have reduced pensions due to government's financial restraints at that time; and

WHEREAS current pensioners have not received a fair and equitable pension increase for twenty-one years and are falling behind the cost of living;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to provide pension increases that will allow former provincial government employees to live in dignity after their years of contribution to the development of this Province.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by public sector pensioners who are retired from all over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador from almost every single community that you can imagine throughout this Province. Many of those individuals feel that because the proper contributions were not paid in at the appropriate times, that today they are losing money as part of their public sector pension plan.

Mr. Speaker, they also feel that they deserve to have a level of respect from the employer whom they have served for so many years in this Province, served for so many years at a time when there was no money out there, at a time when they understood that the revenues were not available in Newfoundland and Labrador; but, Mr. Speaker, because of good oil deals that were done by previous governments, by other Liberal Premiers in this Province, because of that, today, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as a whole, can enjoy seeing a tremendous amount of wealth in our Province, can look forward to seeing more money to be spent on different aspects of our society.

Mr. Speaker, the people who are petitioning the House of Assembly today, the public sector pensioners - I said it was 5,000, it is actually 9,000 of them who have signed this petition - are asking for the government to show them some respect and to honour their issue and to do what is right by public sector pensioners.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the citizens of Burgeo & La Poile and it concerns the provincial HST portion on home heating fuels. I will read the petition itself for the record.

The petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador pay the government harmonized sales tax on home heating bills; and

WHEREAS this tax is causing hardship to low-income families throughout the Province; and

WHEREAS the residents of this Province demand that our government remove the provincial portion of the HST from home heating bills;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to remove the provincial tax from home heating bills.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of discussions in this House daily concerning families, people who are trying to get by in our Province. The government, for example, touts itself on certain strategies and the Poverty Reduction Strategy, for example, which they have. Mr. Speaker, the statistics and the facts just do not match what they claim to be doing with their strategy.

Here is an example, again, where a lot of people living in this Province, we just heard the petition from the pensioners who are finding it difficult. Everybody in this Province, regardless if you are on a fixed income or you have a generous income, everybody feels the burden of it. It is certainly felt very much so by people who live on fixed incomes. Single parents, for example, as well.

The government claims to be doing a lot of good things for a lot of people – and some of their initiatives, you have to give credit where credit is due, have indeed been very good. For example, I refer to the dialysis piece. This is the type of thing that hits everybody in the pocketbook, and that is the HST portion on your oil bills, for example. Now, the government does not put a whole whack of money into the rebate program. The oil tank program we also had as well. I think it was $220,000 a year, maybe, was committed to that. This is something that every citizen in this Province who uses home heating fuels would benefit from.

Again, I understand they have made approaches to the Minister of Finance, I know they have been on Open Line shows; they have submitted letters to the Minister of Finance and to their own MHAs. In fact, I understand that many of the citizens throughout this Province asked to have this type of petition brought to the House of Assembly by their MHAs, and their MHAs refused to do it. Now, Mr. Speaker, in this House, regardless of who you might represent, whether they be of any particular political stripe, if your constituents call upon you to do something, even if you are a member of government, you ought to have the respect for the constituent and bring their concerns to the floor of the House of Assembly.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is the first, I have received already hundreds and hundreds of people who signed petitions who want this matter dealt with. I will be more than pleased on their behalf to rise each and every day that the House of Assembly is open, and to make this matter be heard by government.

The Minister of Finance always says: stay tuned. Well, Minister, people have stayed tuned long enough, when it comes to this issue, and it is time for government to deal with this issue. We are in a financial position, we claim to be a have province, if we are such a have province, as this government claims, let's see the government do something to respect the wishes of these people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Labrador, especially in the Lake Melville area, the South Coast of Labrador, and the Labrador Straits region, and the Labrador West area, are totally dependent upon a highway connection now in and out of Labrador. Mr. Speaker, they rely upon this road network to get them to the Island portion of the Province, to get their goods and services in, to get out to hospitals, to get out for other reasons as well. Mr. Speaker, they expect their government to maintain this highway to a standard that is acceptable for people to travel over, to a standard that is only acceptable elsewhere in Newfoundland and Labrador and elsewhere in this country. They want to see their highways paved, Mr. Speaker. They are tired of driving over gravel ridden roads that are filled with potholes, filled with deep ridges.

Everyday in my office I get e-mails from people from all over Labrador who have had to drive that road. Every single day the horror stories of how long it took them to drive from Happy Valley-Goose Bay down to the Cartwright Junction, or how long it took them to drive from Cartwright into Mary's Harbour or Lodge Bay, or down to get the ferry in the Labrador Straits because the road was so bad.

Mr. Speaker, this time of the year, of course, on any gravel road you expect to have extreme conditions. You are getting the snow melt, you are getting runoff from that, you are getting a lot of the gravel washed out of the roads, you are getting soft roads, and you are getting tractor-trailers and other big heavy vehicles that are travelling over this road leaving ruts in the road. All of these things are contributing to people being very, very frustrated, very frustrated, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: They expect the government to respond to what their need is. They were very disappointed, Mr. Speaker, disappointed in the Minister of Labrador, disappointed in the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who is from Labrador, disappointed in the Minister of Transportation and Works, simply because they have indicated to the people, the Minister of Transportation in a meeting in Goose Bay, that this is not on the radar of government. They are not even going to look at this until 2014.

Well, do you know something? Today, there are hundreds of thousands of pounds of freight coming in from the Island portion of the Province into Labrador that years ago was coming out of Quebec. Today it is coming from wholesale companies on the Island of Newfoundland. Do you think these tractor-trailers want to be driving all of that freight over bad roads? Do you think people want to be dragging goods and services into an area when every day they are doing damages on their vehicles and their cost of maintenance is overriding what their cost of profits are on some occasions? No, that is unacceptable.

Do we want people in Labrador to start turning again back to Quebec to import all of our goods and services? Absolutely not! We want to be able to deal with our brothers and sisters on the Island portion of the Province but we want to be able to have a good transportation network to do it, and that means we need a good ferry service on the Strait of Belle Isle. It means we need to have good roads across Labrador, so not only Labradorians but all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, can enjoy the privileges, the benefits and the opportunities that comes with having good transportation networks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased this afternoon to be able to stand again and present a petition to the House of Assembly. I will read the prayer of the petition:

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

WHEREAS we the students of French Shore Academy in Port Saunders from the towns of River of Ponds, Hawke's Bay, Port Saunders, Port aux Choix and Eddies Cove West appreciate the facility we currently learn in; and

WHEREAS unfortunately the sense of fairness and equality existing at school is absent on the outside due to essential services not equally available in all our towns; and

WHEREAS the lack of high-speed Internet in River of Ponds, Hawke's Bay and Eddies Cove West put some students or our school in an unacceptable disadvantage at learning today in the twenty-first Century;

WHEREUPON your petitioners call upon all members of the House of Assembly to urge government to direct funding to ensure high-speed Internet services are provided in these towns to allow equality and fairness for all members of our student body.

And as in duty bound your petitioners ever humbly pray.

Mr. Speaker, I would like for each member of the House of Assembly to imagine for a moment two students arriving at Memorial University or CNA in September for enrolment. They have just come from high school, one is from Corner Brook and one is from Hawke's Bay, and there are many other communities on the Northern Peninsula and I am sure in other areas of the Province as well where that student could be from.

The student from Corner Brook is used to downloading assignments. They are used to doing very heavy research on the Internet and so on in terms of looking for information for assignments and school work. They are used to video conferencing. They are used to accessing different types of literature and downloading photographs and all the other things that you can do through a high-speed Internet service.

Coming in to register on the same day is the person who has come out of the school in Hawke's Bay - or in Port Saunders or in other areas throughout the Northern Peninsula and other parts of the Province, as I said – and that person has never had high-speed Internet. It has always been dial-up. It has been a very basic service and they never had the opportunity to video conference. They never had the opportunity to interact with their school from their home and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I think we would agree today, that puts this particular student at a great disadvantage at the beginning of their post-secondary education. Mr. Speaker, that is why the students have taken the initiative and time to prepare this petition and to request that it be presented here in the House of Assembly. They recognize and realize the disadvantage they have as students in not having access to high-speed Internet in their community.

Mr. Speaker, despite being a significant part of the 2007 agreement between EastLink and the government, the fibre optic cable that was supposed to be available between Deer Lake and St. Anthony, which was meant to open up high-speed Internet to people on the Northern Peninsula, has yet to materialize. We need to ensure that our young people have access to the same educational opportunities, information and communication technologies and so on, that are available in other parts of the Province.

Again, I stand today, Mr. Speaker, to urge government to look seriously into this disadvantage for our young people and for the residents of many parts of the Province as presented here today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of the people from the Twillingate-New World Island area, from the District of The Isles of Notre Dame.

Mr. Speaker, these people are petitioning the House of Assembly because of the fact that government closed down five acute care beds in their health care facility in the Twillingate area. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, their MHA was a part of ensuring these beds did not reopen, but in fact went out and announced that they were going to put restorative care beds in the facility.

Mr. Speaker, this petition, which has thousands of signatures, has come to the House of Assembly. Basically, their issue is that at Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital last summer there were five acute care beds that were closed down in the hospital. That is not unusual. That happens at lots of health care facilities around the Province in the summer, Mr. Speaker, but they usually reopen in the fall.

What happened at Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital is that they did not reopen the five acute care beds last fall. Therefore, people did not have the same options, the same number of beds for acute care in that region as they had previously. That was a huge for concern for them.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, they wanted to have restorative care beds in their facility as well. So they were lobbying to get their acute care beds open and to get restorative care beds added to their facility. Mr. Speaker, what government did is they took the five acute care beds, they reallocated them to restorative care, and they said to the people in the Twillingate-New World Island area: Here are your five restorative care beds. In fact, they even went out there and made a press conference, made a public announcement to the people in the area that they were going to do this, instead of giving them the real facts, and that is their beds would close.

Mr. Speaker, the petition reads:

WHEREAS there were fifteen acute care beds in the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre; and

WHEREAS five of the acute care beds closed last summer and did not reopen in the fall; and

WHEREAS the availability of acute care beds is critical to the people of Twillingate-New World Island; and

WHEREAS the shortage of acute care beds is resulting in the people being denied admittance to Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre; and

WHEREAS the people of Twillingate-New World Island do not want to see their health care services cut;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and ask the House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the five acute care beds in the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital Health Centre.

That is the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker. That is why they are coming to the House of Assembly, and it is unfortunate that this situation has existed at all in our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I rise today to present my eighth petition on behalf of the people of La Poile, and Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, which is in my District of Burgeo & La Poile.

It is actually embarrassing to have to bring this petition. I have done it eight times because it definitely needs to be resolved, but every time I read the prayer here, I get e-mails and calls from people saying, you cannot be serious that this situation exists. Well, Mr. Speaker, I read it again for the record.

The petition of the undersigned showeth:

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

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

WHEREAS there is no restroom/waiting room area at the Town of Rose Blanche where users of the ferry service may use washroom facilities; and

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

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

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your Petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to immediately construct and operate a waiting room/restroom facility at the Town of Rose Blanche-Harbour Le Cou such that all users of the provincial ferry service which operates out of La Poile may be able to utilize such waiting area/washroom facilities and as in duty bound your Petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, as I say, it is utterly embarrassing when in this day and age the provincial government, this government, operates a ferry service for the people of La Poile to access medical services, to access centres where they can do their shopping and they do not have a washroom. In the dead of winter, February, in the middle of summer if they get to the wharf and they are waiting for the ferry they actually have to go up in the bushes or behind the rocks if they need to relieve themselves. Now in this day and age, Mr. Speaker, that is despicable and unacceptable.

I call upon the Minister of Transportation and Works: Please Sir, find the money so that these people can be treated as decent human beings and at least give them a washroom. I implore you Sir, do not do what you did to the citizens of Ramea and Grey River two years ago when I stood up here on the same type of issue and you took a porta-potty and stuck it out on the head of the wharf. That is not acceptable.

A basic human need is to have a washroom if you are using public services. This is not too much to ask and I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works, please find the money so that these people can be treated as regular, decent human beings that they are and not as second class, third world citizens.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call from the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 22, Order 5.

MR. SPEAKER: It is my understanding that Bill 22, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province was an adjourned debate.

Further debate on Bill 22.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

The Leader of the Official Opposition does intend to speak to this bill; she had to go to the washroom for a second that is why she is not here right now.

Just so we do not close debate on the bill I would be more than happy to have a few words on this most important piece of legislation.

I listened intently last week when the Minister of Health and Community Services spoke on this bill, at length, and I must say I appreciated actually the lengthy period of time that he took in order to deal with the issue. The practice of medicine in our Province, of course, we talk about a health care system but if we do not have a properly regulated, administered medicine and practice of medicine in this Province, the difficulty is, of course, the rest of it can fall asunder. The basic underpinning and foundation of our health care system is that the medical profession be properly regulated.

We, of course, have a multitude of issues in the Province when it comes to the medical profession. We went through an unfortunate episode this past fall when the doctors were threatening to go on strike in this Province. It came to a bitter loggerhead. This Province would have been placed in serious, serious jeopardy if it had not been – ultimately, before the final shot was fired – that the government came to its senses and made a deal with the doctors of this Province. That is only the financial part.

We have all heard, of course, of issues besides the recompense that doctors get, and physicians get in our Province which has been an issue for a number of years; there are regulatory issues besides that. What ought a doctor to be allowed to do, what not to do? For example, if you do something improperly what should be the proper resolution of that matter, or remedy to that matter when it comes to filing a complaint? Who should hear the complaint? Who is qualified to hear the complaint? How does the public access the medical profession when it comes to having their issues dealt with?

Mr. Speaker, we will get an opportunity to deal with this, of course, in Committee stage as well. The Leader of the Official Opposition is indeed the Critic Responsible for Health and Community Services, so she would like to have a few words after the Member for Port de Grave has a few comments here as well.

I will certainly be prepared when it gets to the Committee stage to have some further comments on the detailed sections of this act because the minister was quite elaborate when he went through some very good pieces in that legislation. I think it is very worthy of comment and the more discussion and debate that there is on that particular legislation to let the public know – it is a very good piece of legislation – exactly what is involved here.

Mr. Speaker, I will be certainly speaking to this in Committee stage. At this point, I will turn it over to the other members so that they can have their words and I will deal with it more detailed in Committee.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise and speak to Bill 22. Mr. Speaker, this bill, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province, I guess, needed to be revised. Although it is a new act, it is a more recent act that was only introduced in 2005, but because of circumstances in our Province that have arisen, especially in the field of health care, especially in terms of what is the vetting process for some of these incidents, it was absolutely necessary for government to look very seriously at the practice of medicine in this Province and to look at the act and to make some particular amendments.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, the act itself is divided up into a number of sections and that includes the Medical Association, the college, and that is the College of Physicians, which is a new term, a new entity that has been created in the Province over the last few years. I guess in the last ten years we have started seeing college representatives for different professional groups in the Province evolving through legislation in the House of Assembly. One of them, of course, was physicians. It also, Mr. Speaker, speaks to licensing and regulations. It speaks to the professional medical corporations, to discipline, to peer assessment, to quality assurance, and to transition, repeal and commencement of certain issues, along with a whole host of other particular incidents as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into explaining all of these in detail, clause by clause in the act, because when the minister did introduce the bill he did take the time to lay out all of the different clauses of the bill, where the actual changes were coming from. I would like to make some comments, Mr. Speaker, because the bill now does several things that I think needs to be pointed out.

One is that it incorporates quality assurance measures into it by authorizing the appointment of a quality assurance committee to perform quality assurance reviews and by requiring compliance with those reviews. These are things that we seen coming out of the Cameron inquiry. If you remember the Cameron inquiry, was established and Justice Cameron was appointed to do that particular review simply because there was a number of cases in the Province of faulty hormone receptor testing. Because of the faulty hormone receptor testing and the numbers of people who found out that they had been given wrong diagnosis, that they had been given wrong treatments, there was a full inquiry, as there should be, into this particular issue in Newfoundland and Labrador. In doing that inquiry, the government went out and appointed Justice Cameron. It was her job then, Mr. Speaker, to hold hearings, to dive into the professional practices of physicians, doctors, lab technicians, all other people in our health care system, along with how government themselves handled such issues in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Out of that particular inquiry – the Cameron inquiry as we now refer to it in the House of Assembly, in the broader public, and in the medical community – came a whole host of recommendations, something like sixty recommendations. I am just drawing from memory here, so the numbers may be off, but I think it was something like sixty.

One of those recommendations spoke specifically to quality assurance and the need to have a quality assurance committee in place to perform these particular reviews within our health care system and to ensure that there is compliance with the reviews. It is no good, Mr. Speaker, to lay out policy in the House of Assembly, to make laws, to enact legislation and pass it if it is not going to be followed through on.

It is like incidents that we have seen within the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, for example, where we saw a process put in place for the filing of reports, for doing assessments, and all of those particular pieces, yet they were not followed, as was pointed out by the Auditor General. These practices were not followed within the department.

Mr. Speaker, that is the point I am trying to make: We have no purpose in this House if the laws we pass and if the policies we put in place are not going to be adhered to and not going to be followed. One of the key components deals with quality assurance, a very strong recommendation that came from the Cameron inquiry itself, which said not only do we need to have a quality assurance committee, Mr. Speaker, to perform these particular quality assurances, but we also need to ensure that there is full compliance with the reviews themselves.

The other thing that Bill 22 will do, as part of this amendment, is that it will incorporate mandatory continuing medical education and continuing competency measures. I will get into that very shortly. It also speaks to revising and updating disciplinary processes. It also speaks to revising and updating requirements for licensures and would include a provision which would authorize a limitation on the scope of practice under a licence. So, these are basically the four main things that Bill 22 would actually do.

Mr. Speaker, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, as I spoke about earlier, one of the newer entities that have been established, a newer system that has been established in Newfoundland and Labrador, has been in practice in various regions of the country for quite some time. In the last decade in Newfoundland and Labrador, as I said, we have moved to establish colleges for almost all of our professional associations including everything from physicians to the legal community, to the accountants in the Province, to all professional groups, that has been the practice.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is now their job to regulate the practice of medicine in the public interest. We establish the laws, we establish the bill, and they ensure that the practices are followed and that they are done so in the best interests of the public in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are approximately 1,098, not quite 1,100 physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador; 1,098, so we almost have 1,100 physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador. Five hundred and fifty-five of those are specialists who practise, as you know, in very special areas of medicine. We have all been referred to specialists at different times in our lives for different ailments that we may have, Mr. Speaker, or different health issues that we might be experiencing at that particular time. In Newfoundland and Labrador, of the nearly 1,100 physicians that we have, 555 of them are practising in very specialized areas.

Mr. Speaker, there are 543 who are family physicians. We know that there is a shortage of family physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think the last count that I looked at which was actually some time ago – well, not a long time ago, within the last month or month-and-a-half – I think it was something like 100 vacancies in family practice in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So, there is still a requirement for about 100 family physicians out there in communities, in districts and regions all across our Province. That is the reason why we continue to hear from people that they still do not have a family doctor, or that they are on a wait-list, or that they are one of – I think at one point in Gander a few years ago, you were one of like 3,000 people on a wait-list for a family doctor in that particular region.

At times, the numbers have been staggering. I am not insisting that is the case today, but we do know of periods in the last few years where that has been case. We do know, Mr. Speaker, there are many regions of the Province where people are on a wait-list for a family physician and are unable to get one. That is simply because we have a shortage of family physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador to the tune of something like 100 vacancies today.

The college itself, Mr. Speaker, which is made up of these 1,100 physicians that I just talked about, has a mission, and its mission is to be able to set the qualifications for registration and licensing in the Province. Part of their responsibility is to ensure that physicians who come to work in Newfoundland and Labrador have the appropriate licences to practice in this Province, that they meet the requirements for licensure and that they are registered to practice in that field in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is one of the main focuses that this college has.

They also conducted a rigorous licensing process. That is to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that the public themselves, that we as patients are getting the best possible care. While the licensing process may be rigorous it is necessary, because these individuals are the people that we are entrusting our lives with, we are entrusting our health care needs to. We take their advice, and we take it very seriously. So it is important that they go through this very rigorous process in determining how they are licensed and who gets licensed.

The college also investigates complaints, Mr. Speaker, they conduct disciplinary hearings. They set standards for ethical and professional behaviour, they set standards for medical practice through bylaws, policies, guidelines and advisories, and they promote continued competency through revalidation and peer review. I will get into that as well because peer review has been one of the areas that have been probably one of the most controversial areas of medicine that has been publicly debated and discussed in the Province in the most recent years. I will talk about some of those cases that have been very prominent.

Mr. Speaker, it also talks about registering professional medical corporations and maintaining registers. The Council of Colleges of Physicians consists of seven medical practitioners who are elected members. So, it is not just all people who are appointed by government. There are people on the College of Physicians who are elected. They put themselves out there, they make themselves available, and they get elected amongst their peers, Mr. Speaker.

There are some people who are appointed. There are, in fact, four people who are appointed by the minister. Three of those are not medical practitioners, two are but three are not. That is the reason that we bring a rather public perspective to the College of Physicians as well. It is not just made up of physicians themselves, but it is made up of people in the public who deal with the service, who are the users of the service and may have a different perspective to bring to certain situations.

Mr. Speaker, the idea here is to ensure that the council not only represents the interests of physicians, but represents all of our interests. I think that is an important point to make. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the role of the college is to protect the public interest. It is not just about protecting the interests of doctors but it is there to protect the interests of the public, to promote very high standards of practice for medicine in this Province, and that is their job.

In protecting the public interest, not only do they promote high standards of practice in medicine, but they also ensure that there are quality improvements, that there is continued competency used in our system, and they also have to ensure that there are quality assurance programs, like I talked about earlier, and that there are proper standards of conduct. All of these key points are essential. They are essential to protecting the interests of the public, the people who have to go into our hospitals, into our health care facilities; people in this Province who have illnesses and health issues and have a total dependency upon the people who are on those front lines, have a total dependency upon what doctors are going to say to them, or specialists are going to say.

Mr. Speaker, their interests do need to be protected because it is their lives they are putting at risk. It is their lives they are entrusting to people in the medical community in our Province. It is important to ensure that there is a body that oversees this, to ensure that there is compliance, that there is quality assurance, that there is proper licensing, that there is transparency, that there is accountability. All of these things are very important.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, this process requires the co-operation of government as well. It requires the co-operation of government. That is a very key point, because in order for the College of Physicians to ensure that the greater public interest is protected, that there is proper quality assurance programs in place, that there is proper accountability in place to ensure that the practices of licensing people in this Province is done efficiently and to ensure people have the proper standards that they should be entitled to, in order for all of those things to happen, there has to be the co-operation of government. This is where I draw some concern.

We all saw what happened, a very short time ago, between the doctors in this Province and the current government. We saw a situation where it was almost volatile inside and outside of the House of Assembly in terms of the remarks and the comments and the attitude and the tone that was being used by the government opposite towards physicians in this Province. Physicians, Mr. Speaker, who I might add in some cases, maybe not all, but in some - or I should say in many cases, were out there basically putting forward a position to protect the interests of the people of the Province. They were saying we need more resources. We need more resources in these specialized areas.

We saw it with pathologists in the Province. We seen the government opposite come head to head with pathologists in this Province, had to knock them down, drag them out, bitter match, Mr. Speaker, back and forth. Back and forth in the media, not at a negotiating table, not in a board room trying to act calmly and collectively in negotiating a good deal for the people of the Province. No, Mr. Speaker, it was a shouting match. It was who could undermine who the most on any given day.

The government took that attitude with pathologists in this Province until, Mr. Speaker, we came to a point where finally they knew they would not win the public support and they had to concede to do a deal with pathologists and oncologists which seen improvements in our laboratories in the Province; which seen better quality assurance of programs; which seen the responsibility of people who are placed in those positions being shared by many as opposed to few. That was the real benefit of what came out of that negotiation at the end of the day after much confrontation with the government.

It is very similar to what happened with doctors in the Province. You must remember, there was day after day after day the Minister of Health and Community Services and the former Premier were out in the media trying to take a piece out of the Executive Director of the Medical Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. Why? Because the medical director was the spokesperson, was the voice, was the messenger for doctors in this Province. The messenger for patients in this Province who needed to see some improvements in their system, and because he was bringing that message, he was bad.

Something like the Opposition is looked upon by the government, Mr. Speaker, when we come in and ask questions and bring important issues to the floor of the House of Assembly. We are being told we do not understand things. It is just as well to say you are stunned or you are stupid as they get up every day and say you do not understand, I will tell you again. That is the kind of derogatory talking down to that you get from the government, Mr. Speaker, when you ask a question.

The fact that Mr. Ritter was out there as the Executive Director of the Medical Association asking questions of the government and representing the issues of doctors in this Province, he, too, was being talked down to, just like we are as an Opposition when we ask questions of the government. We are not supposed to be as bright because we ask a question; that is the insinuation of the government, Mr. Speaker. Because you do not do as I say and you do not take the same line and tow it the way that I am going to tow it, well then you are inferior in some way. You are inferior in some way; you are not up to the same standards, the same class, and the same level of thinking, understanding, and intellectuality that we are, Mr. Speaker. I have news for the government opposite: The only people who think like that are they themselves.

Mr. Speaker, they have had to eat their words on the doctors in this Province. They had to take their tone that they showed with Mr. Ritter and with the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and they had to haul it back. They had to haul it back, Mr. Speaker, because they knew the public was not on their side in this one. They knew the public was not on their side.

Even when doctors out there were so frustrated they tabled their resignations, doctors from the Janeway hospital, Mr. Speaker. We had parents calling our office, e-mailing us because they were afraid, they were in fear that their children would actually lose the service of this specialist who they were used to dealing with at the Janeway or this doctor who they were used to dealing with throughout their child's medical care. That is the kind of fear that was instilled in people in this Province. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the government wanted to pump its chest up and say: I am in control here and I am going to call the shots.

The government had to haul back, didn't they? They had to haul back and at the end of the day the doctors got every single thing they wanted, Mr. Speaker. Every single thing they wanted, they got, because the government were afraid. They were scrambling, Mr. Speaker. They were scrambling out there to try to find cover. They needed to settle this because they did not want it hanging over their head.

What did they do, Mr. Speaker? They strung the people in this Province along for months – for months – when the only response you got from them was ridicule, was talking down the doctors, was telling off the CEO of the Medical Association –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members when speaking to bills that we should keep our comments relevant to the subject of the bill.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am speaking to Bill 22, which is the Medical Act that regulates doctors in this Province, the College of Physicians, which is made up of the 1,100 physicians in this Province; the same 1,100 physicians who came to the government looking for a settlement and were talked down to. That is what this bill is about, Mr. Speaker. It is about doctors in this Province. It is about providing what is fair and right for doctors, but looking after the best interest of the public as well.

Mr. Speaker, the government knew they could not win with the doctors, and that was the reason they conceded. They knew that the public was not on their side. It does not change the fact, Mr. Speaker, that for many months out there in this Province, there were parents, families, patients, and sick people who were in agony over wondering what their health care system was going to look like at the end of the day.

Mr. Speaker, this particular document itself, although it only came in 2005 and we are making some very important amendments to it today, is a living document. As incidents unfold in our health care system in this Province, we are always going to see continuous changes being made to the Medical Act. I say that because there have been several changes, several incidents, in this Province in the last number of years that have really instigated the amendments that we are seeing to this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, this document itself speaks to a couple of the really landmark issues that caused the need to change the Medical Act. One of them I talked about earlier is the breast cancer issues and the faulty hormone testing in the Province. I talked about the fact that Justice Cameron had made sixty recommendations to government that she considered to be necessary and advisable in terms of protecting the public in this Province. Mr. Speaker, she made those recommendations because she wanted to see the improvements in our health care system. She recognized them through the inquiry and she wanted to see the changes made. Mr. Speaker, that was the whole issue behind the debate between pathologists and oncologists in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, there were fourteen recommendations in the Cameron inquiry alone that dealt with quality assurance and accountability. It was because of the Cameron inquiry that the government then moved forward to set up the task force on adverse events. This was a one-man task force that was chaired by Mr. Robert Thompson, a very well-known and respected public servant in the Province. It was born out of the whole breast cancer inquiry itself and the recommendations around disclosure relating to adverse events in the health system.

I will give you an example. Out of the Cameron inquiry, the most obvious example came when there were incidents regarding the faulty testing of individual patients that were not necessarily reported. That patient, Mr. Speaker, was adversely affected. They may have went on a year, two years or three years, or in some cases up to five years, without getting the proper treatments that they should have gotten. That was an adverse effect on their life, Mr. Speaker. The care they received had an adverse effect on their lives, but where did they have to go with that? There were no means to deal with issues like that in the Province. They ended up going to the courts. They went to the courts and they took a legal route. Even in a case, Mr. Speaker, when there is a task force on adverse events or a mechanism by which adverse events can be dealt with, it still does not exclude the court system, and that is not what I am implying. What I am saying is, in the absence of it, what are the other options or alternatives?

I will give you another example of an adverse event. You may remember the case of a patient at a hospital in Clarenville. This patient, Mr. Speaker, went to take a drug treatment for a form of psoriasis that she was going through. You might remember, I think she was a clergy member who lived in the Trinity area. Mr. Speaker, she went to the Clarenville hospital to get what was supposed to be a treatment of Remicade and instead she was given a treatment of chemotherapy. It was a really big mistake to make, a huge mistake to make, but it happens, and this is a perfect example of where it happened. This was an adverse effect on this particular woman's life. Where was she supposed to take her complaint and what had happened to her? Mr. Speaker, this is the reason why these amendments are being made in this particular bill. It is to ensure that people have a process of complaint. It is to ensure that they have somewhere to take issues like that, like the case of this woman in the Clarenville area who went to her hospital to get a treatment of Remicade for her psoriasis and actually ended up getting treated with chemotherapy.

Mr. Speaker, there are other cases and I remember a case from my own district, a very sad and unfortunate case, Mr. Speaker, of a young boy. A young boy who had just passed his graduating year in high school and this young boy had been going in and out of the medical system, in and out of hospitals in Newfoundland and Labrador trying to find out what the problem was, what his health issue was. There was a wrongful diagnosis being made in the case of this particular child. This particular child, by the time they made a right diagnosis, on what this child had, the disease that he had it was too late for him. It was too late for him. How do you think his parents are supposed to deal with that issue? How is his family supposed to deal with that issue, knowing that they had been bringing their child to doctors and specialists and in and out of hospitals in this Province for two and three years and he was not diagnosed with the proper disease until it was too late to do something about it, at eighteen years old. That is a huge adverse event that has affected patient lives in this Province.

These are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we need to have a complaint commission. We need to have somewhere for those families to take their issues. They may not be able to change the outcome for themselves but they can change the outcome for others that are coming behind them.

The family of this young boy, they needed someone to listen to them and how they had been treated in the health care system. They needed someone to listen to the fact that their child was being wrongly diagnosed by different specialists and different physicians and being treated for the wrong thing. They wanted to someone to listen to what they had to say and they wanted, Mr. Speaker, they wanted action taken. They wanted action taken for the tremendous loss that they were enduring; a loss that could never be replaced – never be replaced.

The College of Physicians, Mr. Speaker, will allow for that complaint process. They will allow for parents and families of loved ones to have somewhere to go when there is something wrong that happens with someone who is in their lives.

We always hear of cases, Mr. Speaker, where patients are being prescribed the wrong medications. As a result of that they have side effects, they have further illnesses, sometimes they have life altering conditions, Mr. Speaker, that they are inflicted with. We hear that very commonly, so it is important for those people out there in the Province today to know there is somewhere to take your complaint and there is a body that is there to ensure and protect the interests of the public.

I want to encourage people who find themselves in those situations like the family of this young boy, like the lady in Clarenville who took the wrong treatment, like many of those people out there who are being prescribed, Mr. Speaker, for one reason or another, wrong medications. I want to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that they know what options are open to them.

Mr. Speaker, there was a CBC program that aired back some time ago and it raised questions about the way that the college dealt with a couple of complaints that were before them. It was about two separate cases that had occurred in 2002 at Eastern Health's emergency rooms. In both cases, Mr. Speaker, the families encountered difficulty in trying to get to the bottom of their losses. Both families claimed to have had difficulty in dealing with the college and in dealing with the complaint process that was in place at the time.

There was one case where a sister died in the ER, but the family was not notified until six years later that something had gone wrong. It took six years for this family to have been told what went wrong in the ER on that day that their sister had died. That should not happen.

Those particular incidents should not happen in our Province. There should be better forms of accountability: accountability to the patient, and accountability to their loved ones, to their families.

There was a second incident that occurred as well in our ER in Eastern Health when a mother died after visiting the ER. She went in, Mr. Speaker, for a procedure – and I think the minister might have spoken to this at one point – she went in for a procedure, and Mr. Speaker, she passed away.

There needs to be a process whereby these families can get answers, they can get the answers that they need, and not have to wait for six years for someone to tell them what actually happened to their loved one on that day in an emergency room when they were supposed to have gone in and come out, but when they came out, Mr. Speaker, the results were devastating. Absolutely devastating. So, they need to have somewhere to take those particular complaints and to ensure that they are going to be dealt with appropriately.

One of the other incidents, Mr. Speaker, that we have seen in a very public way in this Province, was a huge story, was the top of the news for a number of days, that really had an impact on the changes that we are seeing in this bill today. They were the incidents around Dr. Sean Buckingham. Dr. Buckingham was a well known St. John's doctor, practised medicine for a number of years, right here in the city, in the downtown; had a whole host of patients, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Buckingham was convicted of drug trafficking and sexual assault, and he was found guilty of malpractice before the College of Physicians could take away his licence.

That was unacceptable, and I totally agree that it was unacceptable. It was a well known fact, Mr. Speaker, and it was out there in the public, what was happening with Dr. Buckingham. There were many, many stories being told in the public airwaves of sexual assault, of drug trafficking, of a combination of both by people who had been patients of his. Yet, the College of Physicians could not do anything in terms of restricting his particular licence, or in taking his licence away until, Mr. Speaker, there was a guilty charge of malpractice that was handed down by the courts in this Province. In other words, unless a physician was found guilty under the Criminal Code, there was nothing that you could do through the College of Physicians.

Mr. Speaker, now what this allows you to do is there is a section that talks about controlled drugs by the College of Physicians. By having the ability to control drugs, they have the ability to act in cases, like Dr. Buckingham's, without it having to be a criminal punishment under the Criminal Code. They have more flexibility and they can intervene. They can do something very early on when it becomes a known fact, when it becomes a testimony like we seen with Dr. Buckingham, where every night on the news there were testimonials from patients of his and testimonials to the incidents of sexual abuse, to the incidents of drug trafficking that was going on. The College of Physicians at that time had their hands tied, but with changes that are being made in the act today, the College of Physicians would be able to act in the absent of any charges being placed under the Criminal Code.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that instigated this particular change, or changes in this particular bill, Bill 22, was the OxyContin Task Force. You have to remember now the OxyContin Task Force came about as a result of the charges and the incidents of trafficking by Dr. Sean Buckingham. Mr. Speaker, the OxyContin Task Force made, again, a whole list of recommendations as a result of those particular situations and those particular cases that Dr. Buckingham was involved in.

Those are some of the current issues that have happened in the Province; many that I have outlined, there are many more. Mr. Speaker, I could probably go on for anther half an hour on all different cases but members understand, the public understands now why we have to bring in amendments to this bill, because of the adverse effects that it has had on people in our society; because of incidents like we have seen into the inquiry into breast cancer; because of actions that we have seen taken by physicians, like Dr. Buckingham in the Province; because of other task forces like the one on adverse events and the one on OxyContin. That is where all of these recommendations came from. It stemmed out of those real incidents that happened in the Province. That is the reason we are making these particular changes today.

Mr. Speaker, there are all different aspects of this particular bill that I could speak to, but I am just going to speak to a couple of them because I think it is important to note. One of them, Mr. Speaker, is that still today we know we are short 100 family physicians in this Province. That has not changed because we have just signed an agreement with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association.

One of the aspects of this particular legislation is requiring physicians to do additional training and education. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the physicians who I have talked to, they have no problem with doing further education, they have no problem with doing training programs, whatever it takes. The issue becomes, Mr. Speaker, because of the shortage, many of them are very restrained.

If you have to take a doctor out of Twillingate, or out of Fogo, or out of Forteau, or out of any of these smaller cottage hospitals around the Province, where in most cases they are the only physicians who are there, take them out to do training and education programs, we need to ensure that we can replace them. We need to ensure that we are not going to leave a gap in service for people who need it. That is one of the concerns I have. This is a concern that is being raised by physicians as well. It has nothing to do with the fact that they have any issue with doing the education and training components, which I would say, Mr. Speaker, are necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: It is always necessary to ensure there is continuous education in any profession that you may be involved in, and being a doctor in this Province is no exception, but you do have to face the reality. The reality is because we have a shortage of physicians right across Newfoundland and Labrador, that once you start taking these people out of the system to do those programs, you need to be able to still provide services for the members of the public and be able to cover off patients.

Mr. Speaker, it is a good mandate. There is no problem with requiring it. I just have to question the government in how they are going to balance it with continuing services for patients in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, having a requirement to do the training is not the issue; it is about how they are going to access that training. If all the doctors have to come to St. John's to do that training, we are going to leave gaps out there across the Province. I want you to be cognizant of that and to ensure that their services to patients in those areas will not be compromised.

Maybe there are other options. Maybe we can do things through teleconferencing or video conferencing, or Internet learning. Some of these options are available as well, but still, Mr. Speaker, requires time away from work, time away from patients. I just want to ensure that while this is good, and I am glad government is mandating it, and I am happy to see it is going to be a requirement and it is going to be regulated, I hope they have given some thought to how they are going roll that out.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other pieces to this is the sponsorship of new doctors, or foreign doctors coming into the Province. I think that is a very important component as well. Just put yourself in the position of many foreign physicians that we find in our own Province. If you were going over to India, or South Africa, or somewhere in South America to work, or even anywhere in Europe, if you were going over there now as a person - you are going into a foreign country, you are going into a different culture of people, a different way of thinking, a different way of running a health care system.

It is important, I think, to have sponsorship for foreign doctors who are coming into Newfoundland and Labrador so that they are paired with another physician who happens to be a resident or a longer-term resident practicing in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think the other piece, too, Mr. Speaker, is it gives assurances to the patient. It gives assurances to the patient that these foreign doctors are being monitored. They are being monitored by doctors who are currently in our system. They are new, they are coming in. Their practices are being looked at. The kind of care they are giving their patients is being reviewed. I think it works for both in this particular system. We do not have a lot of details on this, so we are not sure as to how it would be rolled out, what the responsibilities would be or what it is going to look like at the end of the day, but it certainly is an additional amount of security, I think, for all parties who are involved.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of other things that I do want to mention before I close my comments today, and one of them is on peer assessments. This was a really contentious issue, I guess, in the Cameron Inquiry. If you go back to 2008, it was probably making the news maybe every day in February month of that year. It was making the news, Mr. Speaker, because at the time during the Cameron Inquiry, there was evidence that was prepared by physicians which Judge Cameron felt should be entered into the inquiry for review, either for public knowledge or for her own knowledge, or whatever the case may be. She felt it was important enough to the case and the inquiry that she was responsible and charged to do, that she felt this information should be entered into.

At the time, Mr. Speaker, government was not prepared to release that information. I remember, and Hansard will show it, there was day after day when I stood in the House and I asked the government to make that information available, to give it to the Cameron Inquiry. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it went before the courts. It was the Newfoundland Supreme Court that finally made the decision on who would see this information. It was Supreme Court Justice Wayne Dymond at the time. What Mr. Dymond did is he rejected the arguments of Eastern Health, saying that the two reviews of the pathology lab should not be publicly disclosed when a pending judicial inquiry begins studying why so many tests at the lab failed. He rejected that. Because, remember, Eastern Health and the government was out there every day making a statement that these were peer reviews. In fact, they were reviews of the pathology lab itself. Very different, I say to hon. members, very different.

Mr. Speaker, at the time, Judge Dymond agreed that this was not a peer review. He agreed that this was indeed what it was, a review of the laboratories in Newfoundland and Labrador, and he agreed, through a ruling of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, that these particular reviews could be entered in and looked at as part of the inquiry under the Cameron review, Mr. Speaker.

So, where does this leave peer assessments? Peer assessments were never meant to be punitive in nature. We do not ask doctors or physicians in this Province to do peer assessments because we want to use it against them. We ask them to do it because we want them to improve themselves. We want them to ensure that they have the best performance. That is the reason we do it, Mr. Speaker. So, peer assessments are really voluntary in nature, and they were never meant to be made public. That is the difference between a peer review and what happened during the inquiry into faulty hormone testing in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

They are two very different issues, but government at that time tried to hide behind peer review as a reason to not allow the information to be looked at; however, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador saw it for what it was, saw it differently, and overruled the government and Eastern Health and allowed the information.

Mr. Speaker, peer assessments are something of a different nature. Peer assessments are meant to ensure that physicians' performances are top-notch, to ensure that they improve themselves, that they continue to ensure that they provide a better service to the people of the public, and that they are accountable. Even if they are only accountable to each other under a peer review, it makes them accountable to the broader public.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that peer assessments should not be used to penalize or be punitive towards physicians in the Province, but we do feel that they are necessary. We think they are necessary to ensure that physicians continue to improve themselves and provide better care to the public. We know that they are voluntary in nature. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, they should be kept private and not necessarily disclosed to the public. That is our understanding. We do not want peer review to be used as a crutch or a shelter for government and Eastern Health to hide behind when there are critical incidents and critical situations that are ongoing in our Province. That is the critical difference here.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have outlined a number of things that we see in this bill that we are supportive of. I have outlined the reasons why these changes have come about because of certain incidents that have happened in Newfoundland and Labrador. I would say that, as an Opposition, we may have some more questions as we get into the Committee stages of the bill, as my colleague from Burgeo & La Poile indicated earlier. At the current time, Mr. Speaker, we would certainly support Bill 22.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to get up, to make a few comments, and to speak to Bill 22. Firstly, I want to commend the minister for introducing this bill in the House of Assembly.

It has already been pointed out very clearly: The practice of medicine is changing rapidly. It has changed rapidly and it will continue to change and evolve over time. Unfortunately, the old piece of legislation we had in the Province had some minor amendments made a few years back. Essentially, the substantive parts of this particular piece of legislation we are repealing here today is about thirty years old and reflects old thinking and old standards and does not reflect the current day reality. So I really want to commend the minister for the introduction of this particular piece of legislation.

One of the things that we would recognize, the critical function of the College of Physicians and Surgeons is to protect the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and speak to ensuring that they are providing safe, quality patient care. The role of the college, Mr. Speaker, is patient safety and public protection. Protection of the public is their primary function. They need the legislative authority, they need to be rooted in legislation and regulation that gives them the teeth, gives them the ammunition to do what it is they do on a day-to-day basis in protecting the public. This particular piece of legislation does that. It is a fairly exhaustive piece of legislation; it has multiple sections in it. If I could, I want to zero in on just one or two areas in particular that I think are really important. In my short time that I have to speak today, I would like to focus some attention in that area.

I just want to speak to something that the Leader of the Opposition just said, and I am a little bit confused actually. Her comments are fairly confusing because it sounds like she is sitting on the fence in that I appreciate her acknowledgment and understanding of what peer review actually is, how peer review needs to be protected, and how the process, if it is to be credible, the physicians who participate need to ensure that their commentary and their critique of their colleagues is done in the spirit of improving the system and done in the spirit of making enhancements and protecting the patients who they serve and that information should not be disclosed. At the same time saying if a critical incident happens, then that same logic should not be used to protect the information.

I guess I say, Mr. Speaker, the real challenge in trying to deal with the peer review question is trying to ensure that physicians voluntarily participate in the interest of improving the health system and improving the performance of their colleagues. They, too, will benefit from that new insight, so it is important that that process be shielded from any kind of public disclosure. At the same time, you cannot say that will only happen, we will only shield it if everything is going along fine, but if there is ever a critical incident, then it must be disclosed, which is somewhat hypocritical on the part of the member opposite and somewhat contradictory because you cannot have both.

It sounds like she is really straddling the fence on both sides of public opinion and both sides of public commentary on this issue. Eventually, when this issue is dealt with, the member opposite and members in this Legislature are going to have to decide in a very definitive way what, in fact, will be protected and what will be the pure definition of peer review.

I say, Mr. Speaker, there is one particular piece of this legislation that I really want to focus on and I think inasmuch as it is a relatively short piece of this particular legislation, look at the sections, this is probably one of the shortest sections of the bill in question but it is Part VII and it deals with quality assurance. If you consider what the physicians in this Province are trying to do, what the health system is trying to do, it is trying to ensure that we provide quality patient care. The services that the health system delivers need to ensure that the quality is second to none, making sure that patients are safe and they are getting quality patient care.

One of the instruments or mechanisms that health systems have used for many, many years is quality assurance programs. Quality assurance, quality initiatives, and quality improvement projects are all part of the health system and have been for many, many years. What this does here, embedding this quality assurance section into the particular bill today, into Bill 22, gives now the strength, gives some powers to the college to establish a quality assurance program. I just want to speak to some of the elements of this particular initiative that I think are really important for the public to understand because there is a process here for the public to have some representation and to participate in the quality assurance program.

I will speak to a couple of sections in the bill in particular, Mr. Speaker, and highlight some of the significance of them. For example, section 69 of this bill requires the college to establish a quality assurance committee. Now, as a part of that process, Mr. Speaker, they will have people who will be a part of that quality assurance committee other than physicians. There will be an opportunity for the general public to be represented and participate in a process to improve the quality of health services being provided to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are a couple of very significant pieces, Mr. Speaker, to this.

Some of the things that the committee is going to be doing in terms of its powers; it will have an ability –and there are a number of ways that this committee gets triggered, Mr. Speaker, as well. The committee may decide that it will undertake a particular review and make that decision on its own as a part of an auditing process, Mr. Speaker. Or, it could be requested by the registrar of the college to conduct a review as a result of a particular concern or a particular desire to better understand the practices of either individual physicians or groups of physicians either by their discipline or by their physical location in the Province. Such a review might come about as a result of a complaint that has been registered with the college with respect to the practice of a particular physician and that might initiate a review.

Some of the powers that that committee has – and these powers are important to ensure that there is public confidence in the review process that is taking place. This committee would have the power and authority to inspect patient records with a view of understanding the nature of the treatment, the nature of the care being provided and to examine the physician's practice. They have an opportunity and have the authority to inspect patient records. Through that process they are determining whether or not a physician, the nature of their practice, the scope of their practice and whether or not the physician is fit to actually practise in that fashion, and whether or not they are practising beyond the scope of their training. They will be doing some random reviews of physician records and performance.

The committee also, if they find something – let us assume that they are reviewing a particular group of physicians or a physician's practice and they have a concern. They have a concern about the nature of the practice, some of the things that the physician may be doing. This committee has the power to provide direction to the physician, order the physician. These orders then become a condition of the physician continuing to hold a licence to practice in Newfoundland and Labrador, so it is significant. It is not just a matter of saying I think you should improve your practice so therefore we would like for you to do A, B, C, and D; it is much stronger than that. It is saying that we have evaluated your practice, we have some concerns, and here are some things we are directing you to do as a condition of continuing to hold a licence to practice in Newfoundland and Labrador. These are significant powers to give to a quality assurance committee. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is all with a view of protecting the public and ensuring that there is safe patient care being provided.

Some of the other things that they may be able to do, Mr. Speaker, for example, they could direct a physician to start to do some additional training, to take a particular course of study, to engage in some particular course work, or to work under the supervision of another more experienced physician to enhance their training, to engage in a mentorship process. They may also want the person to restrict the nature of their practice, limit the types of procedures that they may be engaged in that is more consistent with the training until they have in fact improved their competence in a certain area. I say, Mr. Speaker, these are some of the critical things that this quality assurance committee will, in fact, be engaging in.

There have been a couple of suggestions made, and comments made, and discussion around this particular bill about what generated this interest, what generated the discussion. We have heard a reference to the Cameron Inquiry. We made a reference to the OxyContin Task Force. These were initiatives that our government undertook, Mr. Speaker. The Cameron Inquiry, for example, was ordered by our government. The OxyContin Task Force was established by our government because we wanted to understand; issues arose that we needed to have a better understanding of. We needed to have an independent examination of the issues at hand and bring professional advice and insights to bear to the issue. From those initiatives there was a series of recommendations made. We have acted upon those, and are acting upon them as we speak and moving forward with implementation of new strategies and new directions to improve the overall health system.

This is just one of those, Mr. Speaker. If you think about it for a moment, the whole concept of quality assurance, it is an ongoing process. It is not an activity that we are going to pick July and August of each year and we are going to do quality assurance during that period. This is a process that is going to be implemented that will be ongoing. That is what the system is looking to, continuous improvement; continuous quality improvement is what we are striving for in our system. We have had it in many other aspects of our health system for many, many years. What this does, it imbeds it now in a piece of legislation that governs the practice of physicians in the Province. It governs and gives direction, gives clout, gives effect to the creation of a college that is responsible for licensing physicians of practice, it is responsible for defining the credentials that are required to practice medicine in the Province, and defining the scope of training that you need to have to carry out or to be involved in for the provision of certain services or conducting certain procedures.

I say, Mr. Speaker, this is a critical piece of this act, Bill 22. The quality assurance piece, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is probably one of the most significant. There are some other parts of this bill that speak to peer assessments. Other parts of it have talked about the college itself, the registration process, the disciplinary process; all very important and all an integral part of the bill.

I have always been keenly interested in this particular aspect because it speaks to the heart of some of the criticism that sometimes our health system gets, and that is the quality of care being provided and the ability of a health system to respond quickly to changes that are occurring in the nature of professional practices in the Province.

I say, Mr. Speaker, this is a significant piece of this bill and I commend the minister for introducing it. There have been a couple of other references, particularly by the Leader of the Opposition. She has tried to tie this to the number of physicians in the Province and whether or not this is going to complicate things because in some areas physicians may be practising by themselves or there may be a limited number of physicians in a particular area and compelling them to participate in continuing education compromises access to the system.

I say, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that become really important to appreciate and understand is that we have made, as a Province, significant strides in physician recruitment. The number of physicians we have in the Province today is greater than any time in our history. We have had tremendous success in physician recruitment.

One of the things we have had, Mr. Speaker, is tremendous success in recruiting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as they graduate from MUN's Medical School to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador. When we recognized that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians truly want to stay here and when we recognized that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians had an interest in pursuing a career as a physician, we in fact made a major commitment to expand the Medical School to allow for additional enrolments.

We are optimistic, Mr. Speaker, based on our track record, that as a result of that expansion, many more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will go to the Medical School and many more of those graduations will stay in Newfoundland and Labrador and continue to practice. Through that Medical School and through the implementation of technologies, we will be able to ensure that there is access to continuing medical education throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

So, having access is a critical consideration obviously and something we frequently talk about in this Province. What is even more important, Mr. Speaker, is having access to quality health services, having access to well-trained, capable, competent physicians in this Province who have an ability and who have a requirement for their continuing licence to maintain competency. Having access is critical, yes; having access to competent, well-trained physicians who are staying current with changes in practice, staying current with new disease indices, and staying current with the changes that are occurring within their practice is more important than just pure access. That is what we are trying to do through this process here by making continuing education a mandatory part of continuing to maintain a licence. Giving clout to an entity created by the college, through this quality assurance committee, to ensure that we have well-trained, capable and confident physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador.

With those few comments, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat. Again, I think this is a tremendous piece of legislation. It has come about as a result of a lot of consultation that started a number of years ago. There are many aspects of this that I believe will enhance and enrich the health services in this Province and will provide some clear direction to the college as they govern the practice of medicine in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): If the hon. Minister of Health speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I thank the speakers who have discussed this bill in detail. As I indicated in my comments several days ago, this is a very important piece of legislation in different ways. It is, in effect, or in essence, a response to the Cameron report as it relates to quality assurance, and as just pointed out by my colleague, the Minister of Environment. It is not only about Cameron, Mr. Speaker. Quality assurance is obviously an issue that we have to ensure that we are paying attention to on all occasions. So, that is one very important aspect of it, Mr. Speaker.

The other aspect, though, that I really want to come back to – and I think we can never emphasize enough, as legislators, when we are bringing in a piece of legislation, as to what the spirit and intent of the legislation is. At some point, it could be three years, it could be five years down the road, we could have a court looking at this legislation and saying: What is it that the legislators intended here? What we are dealing with is a very significant aspect of legislation. We are elected by the people to make legislation. The courts interpret that legislation, Mr. Speaker, but if you go back to the Green report, Chief Justice Green, on constituency spending, you will see early on, and I think it is in the introduction or in one of the first chapters, he talks about the important distinction and delineation between the various branches of government: the Executive, the Judicial, and the importance of the Legislature. So, the people elect us to present their voice to the public through legislation. The spirit and intent of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is about the protection of the public.

Section 8 of this act outlines clearly, Mr. Speaker, that the mandate of the College of Physicians and Surgeons is to ensure that the public is protected. Now, the public can be protected in many ways, but again, I will come to this in a second, but there is a point also that we have to emphasize here, is that the public also includes our doctors who work so hard on a daily basis throughout this Province. We have to ensure that the act also is fair to them and protects them in different ways.

When I spoke to the disciplinary procedures the other day, I want to emphasize that, because I think earlier this week when I was talking, I was speaking so much about the various cases that have come to our attention and how we are trying to ensure that the public receives the information required, we also have to ensure that there is a process in place whereby doctors, physicians, are not exposed unduly to frivolous claims. Mr. Speaker, as I have often said in this House, health care involves an emotional response and that is why if I am asked a question in this House and it is about a specific case, then I know it is of little comfort for me to say to the person, to the member opposite, or to the media, well, look at all the money we invested in health care, look at all of the significant improvements we have made, when individuals are affected themselves, their children or their families, then they react in terms of their situation.

So, a criticism may result, or I cannot answer with logic, but we have to ensure that if something happens in our health care system, people - when I say people, I am talking about doctors in this case - are not needlessly exposed to investigation. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, there has to also be the confidence in the public that there is that fearless investigation, when required. In other words - and this came out in that W5 story, that people were protecting each other. Doctors were protecting each other; the college was protecting the doctors. Well, what this procedure does, Mr. Speaker, what this act does is it outlines a procedure, we have the council which is set up to govern the college, we have the NLMA which is the bargaining agent, all members of the NLMA, the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, have to be members of the college. Mr. Speaker, we have a quality assurance committee.

I sat at the news conference the other day with the president of the council, Dr. Patel. Then they have a registrar, Dr. Robert Young, who deals with a lot of these complaints and things like that. What is the best way that the public can have confidence? It is to outline for the public the procedures, the policies; to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that the information, if I want to make a complaint against a doctor or a lawyer, whoever, that a self-governing body has clearly outlined the steps that I have to follow. I went through those steps the other day. I basically said steps one, two, three, four, five. You write a letter, the complaint is made; the complaint is acknowledged; the letter of complaint is supplied to the physician or physicians who are the subject of the complaint; they reply and it is provided to the complainant. It is then a screening process occurs. Cases that are determined to have a certain degree of merit as outlined in the act - and I went through this the other day, I am just trying to outline how we can make this as open and transparent as possible - then there can be further information required. A decision is made. Does it become a complaint? If it is a complaint then it goes to the complaints authorization committee. There are disciplinary panels.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what we have done as a department and what I have done as a minister in my discussions and in learning from my discussions with two of the families who were involved in the W5 cases is try to look at their situation. How can we improve? What are the problems you have had? Not when it comes to judging, Mr. Speaker, the merits of complaints. As I have indicated and I indicated clearly the other day, it is not my role as the minister or the role of this department to outline how you should reach judgment. That is why we have a self-governing body. They have the expertise. They are the individuals who are trained as physicians and doctors. When you are talking about whether or not there is professional incompetence, well there are members of the public on the committees but you have to allow for doctors to make that decision, is there incompetence? A mistake can be made, an error can be made. That is not necessarily incompetence, because in any profession, Mr. Speaker, we all know that mistakes are made. So we set it up.

What we are trying to do with this act, Mr. Speaker, is to say look, the public can be protected in different ways. The public has to feel confident that their voices will be heard. The College of Physicians and Surgeons in a letter to me dated March 11, 2011, Mr. Speaker, after discussions with my officials, acknowledged that in dealing with the public they need to speak in plain language. In other words, not in legalistic language, not in complicated procedural language, but if you wish to make a complaint, this is what your complaint should contain. It should contain the basis of your complaint in your own words. It should outline the time and date, for example, the event occurred so that records can be checked.

Mr. Speaker, again, that plain English, I cannot say enough about how important it is. When we are looking at legislation, it is written in a certain way. As a lawyer for twenty years, I argued on the interpretation of legislation in a courtroom. The word ‘and', a comma, or the word ‘or' could make a difference. How often do I remember talking about the conjunctive ‘and' and the disjunctive ‘or' and there is a comma there and not a semi-colon, but when you are looking at what it is the legislators are putting in the legislation, you have to look at that language. That is why the procedure we are engaged in here in the House is so important.

We had an example of that last week with the Adult Protection Act, where the Leader of the New Democratic Party came forward. She found something there that was certainly a very valid point and we amended the act. I know in the past the Opposition House Leader has raised issues that we look at in legislation, and say: Yes, that is a good idea; let's do this now and do it right. So, plain English, Mr. Speaker.

The second point, they acknowledged the description of the complaints process on the college's Web site does not adequately explain the process to the public. What it has outlined, is like I did the other day, because I was reading from a document that was provided to me by the College of Physicians and Surgeons on steps one, two, three, four, and five. Make it simple so that people do not have to acquire lawyers. People can obtain lawyers if they want, but the important point, Mr. Speaker, is that they know who to go to, how to bring it forward, and what to expect as the process unfolds. The way that will happen, Mr. Speaker, is dialogue. Not that the College of Physicians and Surgeons should be expected to give legal advice. That is not the issue. Process, procedure, and legal advice can be distinguished.

The third point that the College of Physicians and Surgeons agreed on was that complainants should be informed at regular intervals on the progress of the investigation. Again, Mr. Speaker, that is something I wholeheartedly concur with. It is something that I asked my officials to discuss with the college.

What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is we are going to bring in a process that will hopefully be user-friendly and a process that if an individual, a member of the public who feels aggrieved – and, again, I come back to something that has happened to themselves or to a loved one where they feel the need to make that complaint - that they are not seen by the college as an adversary but that the college will provide them with the basic advice on process and procedure. At the end of the day, if you get to a hearing process then the rules of natural justice have to apply and you have to have the right to present your case. The other individual has the right to be heard, and at the end of the day someone will make a decision.

Mr. Speaker, as I would often say to clients, and they did not always like this going through a courtroom: Look, you may not agree with the judge's decision, but the judge heard you. You had the opportunity to present your case and that is what you asked for, is a fair hearing. Mr. Speaker, that is what we have tried to encompass here in this particular act. Some of those points will be outlined on the Web site, and hopefully it will allow people to have that feeling of comfort that everyone is there seeking the truth.

Mr. Speaker, the other issues that are dealt with here, we have my colleague, the Minister of Environment talked about the quality assurance. We also have the mandatory continuing and remedial education. That is, again, so important in terms of doctors being required to stay current. We have the monitoring of provisionally licensed physicians, that they receive appropriate orientation, and the monitoring of prescribing practices. I have heard the Leader of the Official Opposition talk recently about events that have occurred in the past.

Mr. Speaker, this act also gives the power to the college to intervene earlier than they could in the past. Again, I want to come back to another point on that. In the past, it is my understanding that if there was a difficulty in a practice, an individual, a doctor, he or she could have some problems, it could be personal problems, it could be any of the problems that all of us encounter on a daily basis in life, that they would have to go through the disciplinary procedure before the whole thing could be dealt with.

We have to also be very cognizant of the stress that our doctors are under, the long hours that our doctors work, and how hard they work, because it is a very difficult job. A lot of these doctors train for many years, up to ten and twelve years, and probably longer for some specialities, Mr. Speaker. Then they are raising children, they are encountering the same difficulties in life that we all run into. There has to be a mechanism, Mr. Speaker, to deal, or to allow physicians to be dealt with in that way, without necessarily taking them through a disciplinary process. Because a disciplinary process, if there are no adverse patient outcomes - in other words, if there is no complaint from patients as to a physician's practice, then is that really a disciplinary issue or is it a quality assurance issue, or is it simply an issue that we all have to ensure that people in these professions are given help that they need and encouraged to come forward if they need help? That is how employee assistance programs have come into force over the years. If an individual has a difficulty or a problem – whether you are a public servant, doctor, lawyer, policeman – then, as a society, what we want is for people to seek help. If a doctor, for example, prior to this act, then if disciplinary procedure was the only way to deal with them why would he or she come forward? What we are hoping, Mr. Speaker, here now that this will be an avenue that will allow doctors to be very fair to their own. That will allow doctors to encourage their own to seek any help or counselling required or treatment required. I am hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that that section of the act can be utilized very effectively to protect not only our doctors, Mr. Speaker, but by doing that we are protecting the public.

Now, having said that, there will be circumstances where the college will want to move in and they know right away there is a problem. They know, Mr. Speaker, that there are prescribing problems, that there are issues going on. I am not going to get into the kinds of details that the Leader of the Opposition talked about, but we know that there can be cases where the college can be required to move quickly. They can come in; they can suspend or restrict a licence immediately. Which again is an important power; one that I am sure will be used objectively and used again to protect the public interest, Mr. Speaker. That is an extraordinary power because essentially you are taking away a person, or restricting a person's ability to make a living or affecting their livelihood without them having been found guilty of anything. Obviously there will have to be a basis upon which the college will act.

The monitoring of prescribing practices, Mr. Speaker, again, that is something that we all certainly, I think, will support because we know what has happened. We have seen, Mr. Speaker, for example, OxyContin on our streets and the OxyContin Task Force, a number of years ago, reviewed that. There has to be a mechanism. What we have now, Mr. Speaker, with the pharmacy network that we are either setting up or putting in place, it is not finalized yet, it will if not eliminate the ability to double doctor – by double doctoring, Mr. Speaker, I talk about the individual who can go to one doctor and get a prescription for a certain painkiller, can be OxyContin, or one of those types of pills and then go to another pharmacist – with the pharmacy network set up the information will be accessed by pharmacists, I understand, and they will not be able to do that. That is an example, Mr. Speaker, of how electronic medical records, electronic health records can protect the public.

We want to be on top of these – we, when I say ‘we', the public, society, the College of Physicians and Surgeons – want to be on top of the prescribing practice and have the ability to move as required, because, Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the monitoring of prescribing practices is necessary in the public interest. Again, I come back to the fact, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, as a criminal lawyer, the amount of cases that will come before the courts that there were a lot of illegal drugs involved, obviously, but there were a lot of prescription pills, Mr. Speaker, and they have to come from somewhere. They get on the streets; they have to come from somewhere. I think this is another good section of the act.

Mr. Speaker, we do have the authorization of the college to make certain regulations with ministerial approval. What ministerial approval means, Mr. Speaker, is not that the minister is going to be telling them what to do, but they will be encouraging the dialogue between the college and the department, Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that the kinds of issues that were raised in the W5 cases are being addressed, Mr. Speaker.

It does not mean we are trying to control them, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you right now when it comes to self-governing bodies they are the ones who, by legislation, are expected, entitled, and will govern themselves.

Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions you will see that issue of the authorization to make regulations with ministerial approval. Also, Mr. Speaker, at the Department of Health and Community Services we have at least three or four physicians on staff who can certainly play a part in making these regulations.

Mr. Speaker, this act is, I suggest, a significant piece of legislation, one that we certainly welcome the debate and one that will come into force upon receiving Royal Assent at the end of this session, except for a couple of areas will have to be proclaimed at a later date because there is more work to be done.

Mr. Speaker, with those comments I will now close debate on Bill 22.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read the 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 Practice Of Medicine In The Province. (Bill 22)

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? Presently?

MS BURKE: Presently.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province", read a second time ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 22)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call order 6, second reading of Bill 23.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Education, that Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance Act, be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance Act, now be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance Act". (Bill 23)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is meant to clear up a little bit of confusion that was identified in a review of the Crop Insurance Act and the Livestock Insurance Act. That confusion actually has to do with the amount of money that is available in both acts. By way of explanation, Mr. Speaker, both of these programs are insurance programs that are available to farmers and livestock producers in the Province to be able to get compensation should they have any acts occur which would either wipe out a crop that they might have planted or would they lose some animals. I will speak to each of them separately, Mr. Speaker, to try and give some context and some examples.

The Crop Insurance Program is a voluntary insurance program that we have that farmers can apply to be covered for any losses that they might have. It covers what are commonly referred to as root vegetables. I am no expert, Mr. Speaker, on root vegetables, but I can tell you that it covers things like beet, potato, carrot, turnip, parsnip and cabbage. The extent of my knowledge on that, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SKINNER: - as one of my colleagues just indicated, I am an expert on them because I eat them, typically with a Sunday dinner. That would be true, Mr. Speaker, these kinds of things you would often find in your Sunday dinner.

This particular program, Mr. Speaker, the producers, the farmers would pay 40 per cent of the premiums and the governments, both provincial and federal, would contribute the other 60 per cent of the premium to the program. That 60 per cent that is provided by the government is split 40 per cent for the Province and 60 per cent for the federal government. So I as a farmer would sign up and I would pay my premiums based on the vegetables that I have and the amount of vegetables that I have and so on. If something happened, if there was a blight, if there was a flood, if we had a hurricane Igor come through, if I lost a field of vegetables for some reason, I could apply to the Newfoundland and Labrador Crop Insurance Agency and be reimbursed for the value of the loss that I had.

The livestock program, Mr. Speaker, is fully funded by the livestock producers. In other words, there is no government money going into that particular fund. The premiums are paid fully by the livestock producers. That program mainly deals with sheep. Livestock producers in the past have lost sheep due to predation. The predation has come from sometimes dogs and bears, but in more recent years we are hearing reports of coyotes. Basically, right now, Mr. Speaker, we have a declining number of sheep farms in the Province and a declining number of sheep. So, we are seeing that the signing up for this is not as large as it used to be in previous years, but farmers still do, on a voluntary basis, fund themselves through the program.

What happens, Mr. Speaker, with the government money, with the act as it was previously written, is that government would put money into the program if it needed it, depending on the number of claims that were being made. In the case of the Crop Insurance Act for the root vegetables, we could put into that particular insurance program $100,000. The way the act was written, the interpretation of the government and the interpretation of the officials in my Department of Natural Resources was that we could put $100,000 into that program per year if needed.

There was a review done by the Auditor General. Their interpretation of the act was that there could only be a one-time infusion of money into that particular insurance program of up to $100,000. Once the government put in $100,000, if that was drawn down by the claims being made, then government could not replenish or put more money back into that according to the Auditor General's interpretation.

We did get Justice to look at it, and Justice basically said they could see both interpretations. The easiest thing to do would be to come back with clearer language, and to allow the department to have its interpretation be the interpretation that we would follow. That being, if the program needed money we could put up to $100,000 per year into the program as it was needed.

The same rationale, Mr. Speaker, also applied to the Livestock Insurance Program under the Livestock Insurance Act, the only difference being that the amount was less. The amount was $50,000. The intention again was that government, if required, could put up to $50,000 per annum into this program based upon the claims that were coming in under the insurance program. The interpretation of the Auditor General was that, no, $50,000 could only be put into the program one time. So, again, to clear up that confusion, Mr. Speaker, we are going to make these amendments that we are proposing here because they will allow for government to be able to put into up to $100,000 per year into the Crop Insurance Program, and up to $50,000 per year, if it so wishes, into the Livestock Insurance Program.

Mr. Speaker, there are not large payouts coming from these funds. Since 2002, no events have occurred to necessitate large payouts to either of these funds. After Hurricane Igor, there were some reports of crops that were either lost or damaged, but the amount was actually considered to be relatively small. There was not a big claim or a big run of claims on the programs.

Mr. Speaker, by way of some further information, when we look at the Crop Insurance Program, we can see that because it is funded by the federal government, typically the producers of the crops pay in a small amount of money and are able to have their claims paid out from this program. We have a good number of producers who are involved with the Crop Insurance Program, and there have been years, as an example, when we have had $50,000 in indemnities paid. In 2007, for instance, almost $200,000 in indemnities was paid out of that particular program. There are occasions when farmers have found it necessary to be compensated for losses that were beyond their control, basically.

In the case of the Livestock Insurance Program, we have a small take up on that, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before. The participants have been declining. Since 2003, there were over 700, almost 800 animals that were involved, and now we are seeing that the number of livestock being insured is down to about just over 200. In terms of the number of producers, it is very small numbers that are getting into the program. We think that is because a lot of the farmers are retiring and there are not a lot of younger farmers who are moving in and taking over. The number of farms, for instance, just as an example, relative to the livestock program with sheep, back in the early 1990s, there were 130 of those in Newfoundland and Labrador. Back in 2006, that number had declined down to about eighty-two. So, we have seen a significant decrease there.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I will indicate is that the Livestock Owners Compensation Board is going to conduct a review of the livestock program in this year, this year being 2011. The reason for that is the livestock producers feel there is an unfairness to the insurance program that they are enrolled in versus the Crop Insurance Program. The level of unfairness they have identified is that the federal and provincial governments pay 60 per cent of the premiums in the Crop Insurance Program but the Livestock Insurance Program ends up being fully insured by those who enrol in the program. These are annual programs that they would get an opportunity to enrol in.

The third thing we are amending here in this act, Mr. Speaker, which I just want to mention, is that there is an opportunity under the Crop Insurance Act, if somebody has a decision made for a claim – so you put in a claim, say my crops have been damaged, it could be bugs or it could be a flood, it could be drought, whatever it is. If the agency makes a decision and you find that you do not agree with that decision, there is an appeal process.

There was some confusion around when the time for an appeal started. The amendment to this act basically says that, "(a) an act of the agency, its officers or agents, within 14 days of the disputed act…" is when somebody must file their appeal. As soon as you are notified of the appeal, you have fourteen days within receiving notice of the finding to end up appealing that, Mr. Speaker.

These amendments, Mr. Speaker, are considered to be favourable to the Crop Insurance Program and to the Livestock Insurance Program. They are not considered to be negative towards the agriculture industry. If anything, I would suggest to you, they are more complementary. They will also allow us as a government to be able to put money into the program on an annual basis should the number of premiums rise to be able to help offset losses that our crop insurers or our livestock producers may end up having. We do not want them to end up having significant losses that may impact in a negative way the operations or the sustainability of their farms. That is why we have programs like the Crop Insurance Act and the Livestock Insurance Act available for that.

Mr. Speaker, with that I will conclude my remarks. These amendments, as I said, are meant to be minor amendments. They are meant to be favourable and should be viewed favourably by the agriculture industry. I look forward to comment from any members of the House.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

It is a pleasure to be able to stand today and make a few comments with regard to Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance Act.

As the minister said, the amendments to this piece of legislation are far from negative; however, there are few comments I want to make since there are, I guess, five or six fairly large farmers involved in the farming industry in my particular area. I have to say, as the minister said when he started out, I am far from being an expert on this piece of legislation and I think he mentioned that probably his most expertise would be on Sundays when he got a Jiggs' dinner cooked. I would have to say that is the category I fall in.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister stated, one of the amendments to this act has to do with the appeal process, whereas I think before it said within fourteen days of the disputed act, a finding, order or decision. Now that reads, Mr. Speaker, the order or decision of the agency within fourteen days of receiving notice of the finding.

He also goes on to say, with regard to the piece of legislation where it covers the livestock insurance, the $50,000 now states that it would be in a financial year, and with regard to the crop insurance it would be $100,000 in each financial year.

Mr. Speaker, the way the crop insurance works, from what I understand from some of the farmers in my area, and nobody has any, I guess, great dissatisfaction with it, but there are some issues that they did bring forward and have made comments on. For instance, I think when the policies are done up for them it is based on a fifteen-year average of each crop that particular farmer has. One of the examples was given to me, and he used the example of one of the crops, in particular, which was cabbage. In the year when we had the storm Chantal, this individual had eight acres of cabbage that were set out in two different locations. One of the areas where he had four acres of cabbage, the full area was flooded and all of that particular crop was lost in that particular area. When they get their coverage, they can apply for 60, 70, or 80 per cent coverage. What happens, when they have that damage, the other four acres of cabbage, which were up on the Trans-Canada area, whereas the previous four were down by the low-lying areas and were flooded, if that particular crop in the other area was a bumper crop, which it was, they did not get any coverage at all for the damage that they received on the previous four acres. The way they look at it, and it is unfortunate, I guess, but that is the policy, the way he explained it to me is like if I went out with my car and had an accident, and the back fender and the door came off my car on the back but because 80 per cent of my car was still good, I do not get any coverage for the damage that I had done. So, that is an issue that they have with that particular part of it.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing they are referencing now is an increase with the premiums that they have to pay. Where they have such a heavy start-up cost in the beginning of the season, one of the things they want to reference is, they are wondering: How much coverage will they get? How much can they afford?

It was explained to me that apparently the assessments are done in September. What happens if you do not have your premiums paid the end of September, you are charged a late fee of $100 a month. Like they said, now they are debating: Will I get coverage? Can I pay it upfront that early? Apparently, previously they would have other options that were open to them.

Mr. Speaker, another issue that they find, and I know that damage by moose is not covered under the crop insurance plan. A few years ago, government had what they called the big game compensation program and that was for damages to crops by moose. This particular farmer explained to me that they had one field of cabbage, 80,000 heads of cabbage, and the moose happened to get on that crop. A moose does not go in and eat a full head of cabbage; they just take one bite out of each head of cabbage and damage the full crop. Here they were with the full program. They lost the full thing. Like he said to me, if an average head of cabbage cost fifty cents, it was a $40,000 loss that they had. Even when the big game compensation program was in place, the most they would have received at that particular time would have been about $1,600.

So, there are issues that have to be dealt with. Even though there is this Crop Insurance Program, there are many concerns that those people have to this very day, Mr. Speaker. I know the minister has said that the program is on a voluntary basis. It is not mandatory, Mr. Speaker. Then again, a particular farmer who might want to apply for a program through the federal government - there is a particular program where they apply and they can get up as high as $20,000 - if that farmer does not have the crop insurance through this program, they are deducted a certain amount from the money they would receive from the federal government. Really, the pressure is being applied to them that you have to have this particular crop insurance. It is like I said; they are stating that is very complex. They are debating now and wondering should they get involved in that particular program or not.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Livestock Insurance Program, as he stated, mostly that is for anyone who has been raising sheep as a livelihood. He mentioned the figures and the great decline in the numbers of people who are involved today as to what it was a few years ago. That is a fact. I think he mentioned the damage that was done by the roaming dogs and so on. Many of the people did not get coverage because they had to produce the tags that were attached to the animals if they should be killed, destroyed, driven over banks and into the ocean, or what have you.

Mr. Speaker, all of these items may seem to be minor to a large operation, but for a smaller operation they are major concerns for the farmers. I know the minister mentioned that there is decline from 1990 of 130 farms, I think he said, to in 2006 down to eighty-plus. That is a major decline. We know that here in this Province, I think we have the opportunity in this Province to really do more when it comes to this industry, to grow more crops right here in our own Province to support the needs of our people.

Unfortunately, like many of the farmers' state, one of the major problems they find in the beginning of the new season when a new crop comes on the market is how the market prices drop, what they can get for their products here. They have everything going against them if there are damages one way. Just to give you an example, a farmer said to me they grow cauliflower and broccoli, when the new product comes on the market for them, the prices of that product in the supermarkets drop anywhere from $3.99 down to ninety-nine cents of the product that is coming in from the mainland. So, they find it very difficult to make this major transition into where they are going to go with their industry.

Mr. Speaker, with those few comments, I have to say that we support this bill. I know the issue with regard to what they can apply for, the circumstances they find themselves in from time to time, what they can get compensated for and what is not compensated, they find it very difficult. I have to say that it is good to see that this piece of legislation is here, and to know that the funding, whether it is $100,000 or the $50,000 for the livestock is put into the program, and to know that the federal government also put their portion in.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I will take my place.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is pleased to recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister Responsible for Forestry and Agrifoods, the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that introduction. I have never been introduced in such a fashion in this House, so I certainly appreciate the recognition. It has been a pleasure to serve as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister Responsible for the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency. He is a great minister, as a fellow minister has just pointed out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KENT: I am being heckled by my own colleagues, Mr. Speaker. That happens in this hon. House from time to time, especially at this point in the afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a busy few months in the Department of Natural Resources, and I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise and speak to amendments to two important pieces of legislation, the Crop Insurance Act, and the Livestock Insurance Act.

These acts and the amendments that we are making, while the amendments are minor in nature the legislation is actually quite important and provides a valuable service and support to farmers. Mr. Speaker, in recent months I have had an opportunity to meet with chicken farmers, and egg producers, and mink farmers, dairy farmers, vegetable farmers, and others involved in the Federation of Agriculture. I can tell you that the whole issue of insurance is one that is quite important to these industries and to these sectors.

In Bill 23, we are really doing two key things, as outlined in the bill itself. We are amending the Crop Insurance Act to clarify that advances for working capital may be made to the Newfoundland and Labrador Crop Insurance Agency in each financial year and we are also clarifying the timing of the appeal mechanism that is provided for in the actual act. Secondly, the bill is amending the Livestock Insurance Act to clarify that advances for working capital may be made to the Livestock Owners Compensation Board in each financial year. As the minister has outlined, it is fairly straightforward but these are necessary amendments.

I certainly want to pick up on a couple of the comments made by the hon. Member for Port de Grave. I want to let him know that this government is quite committed to doing what we can to increase local food production. In the time we live in where people are more and more concerned about food security and the sustainability and growth of our food supply, this is something that is very much on the radar of those at the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency. We are also very committed to encouraging more people to enter farming, particularly young farmers. The age of farmers in the Province is - the average age continues to climb. So, it is very important that we attract new entrants to farming, and that is a major goal of the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency as well.

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to providing an affordable and effective production insurance program through the Newfoundland and Labrador Crop Insurance Agency. We are also very committed to providing a comprehensive insurance program to producers through the Newfoundland and Labrador Livestock Owners Compensation Board.

As the minister outlined, under the Crop Insurance Act an insured person may file an appeal within fourteen days of the disputed finding, or the order, or the decision. What we are doing through this bill is amending that to prescribe that the person may file an appeal within fourteen days of receiving notice of the finding, or the order, or the decision. It is a small detail perhaps, but it is an important one in terms of those who may be filing an appeal. This amendment to the Crop Insurance Act will benefit producers directly because it clarifies the timeline in which producers can file an appeal for an insurance claim.

Mr. Speaker, the Crop Insurance Act also states that working capital may be advanced to the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency but these advances will not exceed $100,000. This is being amended so the advances can be made in each financial year up to $100,000. Again, a relatively minor detail, but nonetheless an amendment that is necessary and important.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, the Livestock Insurance Act states that working capital may be advanced to the agency but will not exceed $50,000. This is being amended to make sure it is very clear that the advances can be made in each financial year up to $50,000.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments also clarified the limitations on government contributions to these programs. It also enables us to better assist producers who have experienced loss, and that loss may be due to extreme weather conditions, it may be due to livestock losses during predator attacks, and there are a number of other circumstances that could come into play here.

The Crop Insurance Agency in Newfoundland and Labrador provides affordable production insurance for vegetable producers. I think it is a program that is very effective. The Livestock Owners Compensation Board in Newfoundland and Labrador provides compensation to livestock owners who do incur some of the losses that I just mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, while the Auditor General indicated it had some concerns with the operations to these entities, I think it is really clear, as outlined in the discussions today and through Bill 23, that we are very committed to addressing those concerns and acting accordingly, and ensuring that we have the proper supports in place for the farming industry.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 23 is relatively straightforward. I was very pleased to hear my colleagues in the Opposition say that they will be supporting this important piece of legislation and I am pleased to rise in this House to speak in support of Bill 23 today as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the House of Assembly there are ironies and there are ironies, I guess on this bill this would be one of the ultimate ironies. We have the minister, the Member for St. John's Centre, the Member for Mount Pearl North, and myself, the Member for St. John's North speaking on the crop insurance and livestock insurance. The closest we came I guess was over in the Opposition, we had the Member for Port de Grave. Mr. Speaker, it demonstrates the fact that perhaps more than anything else we are all open to learning and we learn something new all the time.

When we sat down with the officials from the department, they basically informed us, Mr. Speaker, that we are making an amendment to two bills, Bill C-39, An Act Respecting The Newfoundland and Labrador Crop Insurance Agency and also Bill L-23, An Act To Provide For Livestock Insurance And Respecting The Livestock Owners Compensation Board. Both of these separate bills, which are about twenty years old, are being amended by this one bill, C-23. As both the minister and the Member for Mount Pearl North have explained, we are dealing with two amendments. One deals with a time element in terms of appeal and the other deals with money and how much insurance is available to the board in any given financial year.

There was disagreement in terms of the Auditor General and those in the department in terms of specifically how much could be paid out in one given year. It is understandable, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the way the part of the act reads. It says, "(2) The Minister of Finance, with the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council…" – which of course is Cabinet – "…and on the written requisition of the minister, may advance to the agency for use as working capital those sums that may be stated in the requisition, but the total advances made…" under this subsection shall not exceed in the aggregate $100,000.

The other bill, Mr. Speaker, with the livestock was read exactly the same except that it stated $50,000. When it says in the aggregate $100,000, the interpretation could be in a given financial year or that would be the total. The Auditor General interpreted it to mean the total and the department of course based it on any given financial year.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we are clear in the thing and that is exactly what this bill is doing, is clarifying. Also indicating, Mr. Speaker, even though as the minister mentioned, there is not a huge uptake in terms of this insurance plan. It is a voluntary thing. The livestock has less uptake again than the crop insurance plan but it is important, I think, that this government indicate by clarifying this bill that we offer full support to those who are out there struggling to maintain the livestock industry and, of course, the farmers with the various crops. Even for us townies, the closest we come to vegetables is Churchill Square, it is important and we acknowledge the fact of how difficult it is. Some of us who have gone to Churchill Square on a rough day when those out selling off the back of their truck are bundled up against the weather, we just get our vegetables and go on home and start cooking, and they are out there making a difficult living.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that the government indicate our support for these industries. Anything we can do to clarify or to make easier for them, I think it is important we do it. The minister indicated as well now that this bill has come to light more so, there will be further analysis done on it to make sure that it is effective and to make sure that our farmers and livestock producers are being adequately supported.

This bill, again, as both speakers have said, Mr. Speaker, is rather innocuous, rather straightforward and simple, but I did want to say a few words on it and indicate that it is important that these clarifications be made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister of Natural Resources speaks now, he will close the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I appreciate the commentary from the members on both sides of the House.

Just to clarify, I would like to say to my colleague from St. John's North who talked about the irony of three, what I assumed he meant, urban people speaking to a bill about crop and livestock insurance: Lester's Farm, Gulliver's Farm, and Mundy Pond used to be a big farming area which happens to be in my district. Let's not forget that it was not that long ago there were a number of farms active in the St. John's and Mount Pearl region, and there are some still active. I do appreciate the opportunity as well to listen to the comments from the member opposite for the Port de Grave District.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, these are, for the most part, minor amendments to the bill. What we are trying to do is facilitate and help the farmers who grow crops and the farmers who raise livestock. I did indicate we will do a review of the livestock program relative to the inequity in terms of the premiums that are not being paid by the federal and provincial government to help the livestock farmers, but are being paid to help the crop farmers.

Some of the other comments that were made relative to the program being voluntary and should people participate or not, that is a risk management decision that farmers, as business people, need to make. Do they feel they are getting value for the premiums that they are paying? Even though they may not make a claim, it is no different than somebody who pays house insurance. You pay it year after year after year – I have been paying it for twenty-five or so years myself and I have never had to make a claim; and knock on wood, I hope I never, ever do, but I continue to pay it every year in case that ever happens. So, it is about risk management, and that is an individual decision for farmers, Mr. Speaker.

So, again, I do want to thank the members opposite and the members on my side for speaking to this bill, and I look forward to the opportunity to have further discussion in Committee on this.

Thank you.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance Act. (Bill 23)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow? Presently?

MS BURKE: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 23)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to call Order 8, second reading of Bill 25.

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

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 25 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009, now be read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009". (Bill 25)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009. This bill would amend the Public Trustee Act, 2009, to clarify certain transitional matters that are consequent to the transfer of the Estates Administration Division from the Supreme Court to the Office of the Public Trustee.

The Estates Administration Division, which is now presently under the administration of the Registrar of the Supreme Court, this Public Trustee Act sets up the Office of the Public Trustee in conjunction with the moving of the Estates Administration office to that office from its current administrative position in the Supreme Court. The duties of the Estates Administration office have to do with – and it falls under the duties of the Registrar of the Supreme Court – the administration of estates of deceased persons, such as probates, probating of estates, and administration of estates, and so on. It also has to do with the administration of trusts of minors, mentally disabled persons. On several occasions in my practice of law, in personal injury matters, for example, where the victim or the client is a minor, any monies paid out in a settlement has to be paid to the Registrar of the Supreme Court, who keeps that money in trust until such time as the minor reaches the age of majority. The same way with guardianships under the Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act, the registrar has the control and the administration of trusts and the administration of estates of these people. The registrar is the administrator of that division.

Mr. Speaker, section 31, to go back, the amendment to this act helps to enhance the transition, the transfer of that division from the Supreme Court to the Office of the Public Trustee. Section 31 of the Public Trustee Act, 2009 provides that the legislation shall come into force on a day to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That has not been done yet, this has been delayed, and there is a good reason for the delay in the proclamation of that legislation because there is a very close relationship between the Office of the Registrar, the Supreme Court itself, and the Estates Administration office.

So we had to devise, Mr. Speaker, a strategy to physically remove the Estates Division office from the administration of the Supreme Court, and to logistically and financially separate it as well. Now, I am happy to say that the proclamation of the Public Trustee Act, 2009, is pending, and the Department of Justice, in consultation with officials from the Supreme Court, have reviewed section 26 of the Public Trustee Act, 2009, the transitional clause, we refer to it as, and have concluded that this section needs to be amended to address two additional transitional issues.

Now, as I mentioned, most of the orders with the Estates Division of the Supreme Court come under the auspices of the registrar. All of these have to be moved to the Office of the Public Trustee when it is set up.

Section 26 states, Mr. Speaker, "On the coming into force of this Act, money which is held in trust as it relates to the administration of estates by the Registrar of the Supreme Court as required by the Judicature Act, shall, where the administration of the money now falls to the public trustee under the authority of…" the Public Trustee Act, "…be transferred to accounts created under Part II of this Act."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, that amendment transfers money only; monies in accounts to be transferred to the accounts under the public trustee. On review of all the instruments, Mr. Speaker, including orders that currently exist with respect to the power ands duties of the registrar in estates administration matters, the officials that section 26, being a transitional clause, is too narrow as it now stands. In addition to just addressing money and accounts to be transferred, it needs to properly address the transfer of all current orders that name the registrar in his capacity or her capacity as the estates trusts administrator. Including, not only orders for money, but including orders respecting real property and personal property, and orders affecting grants of probate; all of these should be transferred to the Office of the Public Trustee. That is the purpose of the amendment. We also felt, Mr. Speaker, that section 26 should be amended as well to clarify that all physical assets that are held by the Estates Administration Division will now be transferred to the Office of the Public Trustee.

Mr. Speaker, while these amendments are minor in nature, they are necessary in order for the smooth transfer of responsibility and the organizational framework that it is associated with the administration of estates from the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador to the newly created independent Office of the Public Trustee. That new office will be created by the Public Trustee Act. Once this bill receives Royal Assent, this government will be in a position to proclaim the Public Trustee Act, after it is amended, and at that time, the public trustee will be announced.

The Office of the Public Trustee has currently moved, and has been now for some time operating from the Viking Building on Crosbie Road in St. John's. Most of us remember when dealing with the Estates Administration Office that it was located on the second floor of the Supreme Court. The staff now will include a public trustee, a manager, estates officers, and a financial officer.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the concept of an independent public trustee is not new to this Province. Believe or not, back on March 20, 1962, the House of Assembly, under the leadership of Premier Smallwood at the time, passed a Public Trustee Act to provide for the creation of the Office of the Public Trustee, separate from the Registrar of the Supreme Court, which is the very thing we are doing today. The public trustee at that time, in that act, was, among other things, to act as the administrator of estates, act as a guardian of mentally incompetent persons, and oversee a whole range of other guardianship and trustee functions. The Public Trustee Act was never proclaimed, so it stayed with the Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, the public trustee will fulfill the role and responsibilities in relation to estates administration, which were previously conferred to the Registrar of the Supreme Court. I mentioned some of the duties earlier, the administration of estates of deceased persons, and administration of trusts of minors and mentally disabled persons.

In addition to that, that Public Trustee Act will also authorize the public trustee to administer the estates of missing persons, charitable trusts, and small estates.

Most, if not all of the provisions, Mr. Speaker, relating to the financial administration of the Office of the Public Trustee is really taken from three different acts, because the Estates Administration Division is really governed by a number of different pieces of legislation. The Judicature Act, for one, the Rules of the Supreme Court, and the Trustee Act all have an affect on the administration of the Estates Division. So this is all consolidated now, Mr. Speaker, in the new legislation.

This proposed amendment is an important one to this Province, a concept of an independent public trustee to oversee the administration of estates, as well as all the other guardianship functions as I mentioned, is now a widely accepted practice across this country. Members of the general public will be well served by the Public Trustee Act, because it reflects the modern reality of the administration of the estates within our Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple piece of legislation, and a simple amendment to the Public Trustee Act, which has already been debated in this House, and will be brought into force with this amendment. So I ask all members to cooperate and support this bill, and I await the comments from other members of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Burgeo & La Poile.

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

I appreciate a few words with respect to Bill 25, and we can say up front, we will certainly be supportive of this piece of legislation.

It is indeed a transitional piece. We debated the Public Trustee Act here in the House back in 2009, and we were certainly supportive of that piece of legislation as well. We were one of the few provinces that did not have, up to that time, a public trustee office set up, whereas most provinces in the country do work on that basis and have worked for many decades.

The minister referenced the 1962 act, so I guess we have been fifty years with the act, but we never proclaimed that one, and by the time we got around to proclaiming the 1962 act it was easier to get rid of it and repeal it and actually bring in a new one. The times have changed, of course, and circumstances changed. How public trustees act, what their responsibilities were, for example, had changed over that fifty year period. So we had to incorporate in the public trustee's abilities the current day practices when it comes to looking after estates, minor persons trust accounting and so on, even the method of accounting had changed. So it was indeed necessary to do that.

It is interesting to see, and I guess that is necessary as well, the physical plant associated with the Estates Office has been moved to the Viking Building, and the staff, of course, work there now, as I understand it; at least the manager, the estates officers, and the financial officers. It is basically a financial accounting set-up and requirement here.

There is not much legal work as such. Before, it went to the Registrar of the Supreme Court, who is involved in a lot of the actual Supreme Court process, whereas, the public trustee process is very strongly and hugely based upon financial type practices. You end up with someone's money, for example, who is not able to look after the money themselves for whatever reason, be it a mental incapacity, or being the fact that they are minor, for example, or some estate where you cannot identify people. The issue becomes what happens to their money, who cares for it, what are the rules and regulations around putting that money into an account, where can you invest it, what kind of investments can you use it for, what happens to the interest, who looks after the taxes on those estate funds and so on, and how do you ultimately see it. For example, in the case of a minor who subsequently attains the age of majority, how would that person go about getting that money paid out to him or her, and so on.

So really, it is a very progressive move, two years ago. It takes time. Everybody had wished, of course, you passed it in 2009, you were ready to do it in 2009, but that is not the reality of the real world. Once you get your grounding and your foundation with your legislation, it takes time then to actually put the physical pieces in place, find office space, decide what you are going to move and where you are going to move it from, and get the thing actually set up. That is understandable. We did that, for example in the case of privacy legislation, which was included under the access to information act back in 2002, but we could not actually proclaim the privacy legislation until 2009. So that is not unusual that there is a transition period from the actual grounding foundation of the act, to the point when you can make it workable in everyday goings on in society. It is great to see that we have reached that point where we can do that.

I noticed the minister indicated that the public trustee has not yet been named. I am just wondering if there is any particular reason that person has not been named? I am assuming, notwithstanding the proclamation of the act, that person could have been appointed and placed over in the Viking Building office to help with the transition. I am wondering who that person might be? Hopefully, it will not be a political appointee. Hopefully, the public trustee of the Province will be picked on his or her merits. It does not necessarily have to be a lawyer, it does not necessarily have to be an accountant, but it should be somebody for sure who is placed in that position of responsibility and trust, as the name itself explicitly says trust, because that person is a trustee, that it ought certainly not be a political appointment.

We would certainly be looking of course to see what kind of process was invoked in the hiring, in the selection process. There are a lot of well-qualified people within our public service who could fulfill that position. I am sure there are a lot of people in the private sector who could fulfill that position. I hope and trust and pray that the government does not, in this particular case, put someone in that position to which a political motivation might be attributed or even a political bias. I think that is very, very important.

This public trustee office must be seen to be absolutely unbiased, non-political in nature and therefore the trust of the parties who will be availing of it – surely a lot of lawyers will be using it because they deal quite frequently with estates and administrations of estates, for example, probates and administrations of estates. As I say, we live in hope that it will not be a political appointee who is put in that particular position, that it will be an open, a transparent selection process that is involved and people not only in the public sector and people who currently work in government bureaucracy, but also people in the private sector will have an opportunity.

For example, the Auditor General in our society today is always expected to be a person who does not have political motivations while they are there. Now some get it after. For example, we saw in the case of the former Member for Topsail that she certainly had political ambitions after, but that is after the fact. The point is when she went there she had been a well-respected, bureaucratic person who had the qualifications, became the Auditor General and fulfilled that position responsibly and respectfully. Hopefully, the government would treat this as the same thing.

We went through a quagmire here with an appointment in this House back some years ago, with the appointment of the elections officer. In that particular case, some persons on the Opposition side were absolutely opposed to it. This member in particular voted for it, was supportive of it and felt that we ought to give the individual in question an opportunity to show that he was in fact unbiased. I can certainly say in my case, any opportunity I have had to deal with the man he has been an absolute gentleman, has proven himself to be fair to everyone and unbiased.

Even though sometimes the appointment itself is suspect or questionable, sometimes an individual prove themselves as just the contrary. In this case, it is different even in that the elections office - for example, the Child and Youth Advocate in our Province, we have had issues there sometimes. Some felt an improper appointment process; the Citizens' Rep, that person again applied. Apparently it was an open process, a transparent process. There were certain criteria that needed to be met and the government went through that. We have had Mr. Fleming, of course, who was well respected in the legal profession in what he had done before. Now, the minister does not think much of his reports sometimes, particular the one he just did recently on HMP, but that is another case for another day. That is what you need, someone in that position who do not mind speaking out or writing reports that tell it like it is. We might not always like what we want to hear in those cases but we have to respect the fact that they have to do due diligence to their jobs and speak out about the issues that they need to and ought to.

In this case, a public trustee, you are talking absolute credibility required. Because you are talking about people's money and you are talking about the money, in lots of cases, of people who do not know how to do it and manage it themselves and that is why it is with the public trustee. If they could have managed their money themselves, they would not have to go to a public trustee. We are creating a safety net process whereby people who, for whatever reason, cannot look after their own selves when it comes to their financial wellbeing and their monies in lots of cases, that the state is setting up a system where their monies will be protected, invested properly and there to be used for them.

For example, in the case if you have a disabled child who gets money, or becomes a victim, for example, in a car accident; their money has to be used over thirty, forty, fifty years to care for them. It is a very onerous position of the public trustee and the person who holds that position ought not to be a political hack. I cannot put it any simpler than that. The person who hold that position should be a well respected, qualified, unbiased person who is not subject to any influences from anyone in government, whether it be the minister or anybody else. They should get the job on merit, whether it be someone in the public sector or someone in the private sector.

We know now we have the framework under the Public Trustee Act. We are going to have the office, we know where they are located, and we know the basics of their staff organization and so on. The only thing now is we have to make sure that we put the person in place who has the credentials to do it right and to do it with the credibility that it deserves.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a privilege to get up today and have a few words to say on this act. I will just go through some of the items in Bill 25, Mr. Speaker. Some of the notes I have prepared here was with respect to this and already alluded to by the minister and by my opposite colleague there.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to read off some of the amendments that would particularly apply to this act. This Estates Administration Division is currently a division of the Supreme Court which operates under the direction of the registrar. The registrar's overall authority is to confer by the Judicature Act and the responsibilities in relation to the estates administration. The concept of the public trustee is to oversee the administration of estates as well as other guardianship functions and is now a widely accepted practice in this country.

The concept of an independent public trustee is not new in this Province. It was first introduced back in 1962, many years ago. The House of Assembly passed the Public Trustee Act to provide the appointment and the duties of a public trustee; however, Mr. Speaker, the Public Trustee Act was never proclaimed.

In 2009, the Public Trustee Act was not proclaimed but ascended to. In this act now, Mr. Speaker, it is time to do the housecleaning and put forward this legislation so that we can have the public trustee in place to do the work that was meant to be done for many, many years. This act transfers the responsibility and organizational framework associated with the administration of estates from the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador to a newly created independent office of the public trustee.

Mr. Speaker, leading up to this proclamation, officials determine that section 26 of the Public Trustee Act, 2009 needs to be amended to address two additional transitional issues. Section 26 is too narrow to properly address the transfer of all current orders named to the registrar in her or his capacity as an estate administrator, including orders respecting real and personal property and the grants of probate to the Office of the Public Trustee. While the amendments are minor in nature, they are necessary in order to proclaim the Public Trustee Act, 2009 and create an independent Office of the Public Trustee to occur.

Mr. Speaker, the explanation of the note is that the bill was amend the Public Trustee Act, 2009 to clarify transitional matters consequent to the transfer of the Estates Administration Division from the Supreme Court to the Office of the Public Trustee.

Mr. Speaker, back when the act was tabled in 2009, section 26 at that time was amended to read, "The public trustee shall assume, on the coming into force of this Act, all the assets and property held by the Registrar of the Supreme Court as required by the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act, the Judicature Act, the Life Insurance Act, the Mentally Disabled Persons Estates Act, the Trustee Act or another Act where the administration of those assets or property now falls to the public trustee under the authority of this Act."

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, this act in 2009 was assented on May 28 and, of course, when this was assented to it was not proclaimed, so we must do this today. In order to do this, we have to define some of the things in the act of 2009 so that we could make this more accountable and more in tune to the needs of the people today with respect to some of the wording that was there back many years ago. Years ago when the act was first tabled, in section 26, which states, "On the coming into force of this Act, money which is held in trust as it relates to the administration of estates by the Registrar of the Supreme Court as required by the Judicature Act, shall, where the administration of the money now falls to the public trustee under the authority of this Act, be transferred to accounts created under Part II of this Act."

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know back years ago most people were more concerned about money but since that a lot of people not only kept money and saved money, but today a lot of people have possessions and property which are worth a lot of money. We need to make sure that not only just the money in the possession of people who require a decision to be made on what is going to happen to their estate, it needs to take into account all of the estate including property, money and any other assets that people have built up over the years. Sometimes there is a lot of discussion in families on who gets what in estates, so with this act the public trustee will be notified by a person who could apply for a closure in a person's will, in a person's estate. By having the public trustee, things could be moving more smoothly and easier for the people who need to avail of the needs of decisions when it comes to estates.

Mr. Speaker, we not only have to deal with wills and trusts in people's lives, we have to deal with other areas too when people become disabled and cannot make decisions and cannot decide who is going to receive their lifetime gatherings of wealth and property. Mr. Speaker, in this act of 2009 the "(j) ‘public trustee' means the public trustee appointed under this Act and includes the deputy public trustee or another person acting in the place of a public trustee…".

The duties, as I said, would have to incur dealing with a lot of applications from different groups and organizations and personal family issues. They have to be dealt with in a proper and legal manner. The public trustee will be that office and that association that will deal with a lot of the accounts of people when they pass on and they need their estates taken care of properly, what was in their wishes.

It is not a major amendment, it is not major discussion on it, but it is a very important thing that we have to do in order to make this more accountable and make it better for the people who are going to need the services of a public trustee. Every one of us here in this House can relate, especially the MHAs when we get calls from our constituents who are having problems dealing with their estates, dealing with the possessions that they have, and need some advice. When you have to go the legal route, to go through the Supreme Court, it takes a lot of time and, of course, sometimes a lot of money. By establishing the public trustee, then we can certainly make it a lot easier for the people to do that and make it more accountable for our legal system to deal with the estates of our public.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think I will just clue up with that. I appreciate the few minutes to say a few words on it. I know all of us, as MHAs, will be further involved in this legislation in accordance that it becomes law and we will certainly do better work for our constituents.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

If the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General speaks now, he will close the debate in second reading on Bill 25.

The hon. Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the hon. members for their comments in support of this bill.

I have just one final comment, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Opposition House Leader made a remark that he hoped the minister would make sure that this appointment is made properly and to be prepared to tell it like it is. He made some reference to the reports on psychiatric services of the HMP.

I am quite prepared to say that, without qualifications, I always tell it like it is. I told it like it is with regard to the report on psychiatric services. I also told like it is with respect to the retention of the law firm Roebothan McKay Marshall, which was supported this morning by the lawyer from the American company on the Morning Show.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Where he completely corroborated everything we said and completely rejected the allegations and innuendoes of the hon. Opposition and their attempts at fabricating a story that did not exist.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I move this second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009. (Bill 25)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 25 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 25 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 25)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 16, 22, 23, and 25.

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 (Osborne): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bill 16.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006." (Bill 16)

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 Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006.

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 carried 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: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bill 23.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 23, An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance Act."

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 and 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 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 Crop Insurance Act And The Livestock Insurance 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 carried 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 25.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009".

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 Public Trustee Act, 2009.

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 22.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 22, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Medicine In The Province". (Bill 22)

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 to 83 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 83 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 83 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 The Practice Of Medicine In The Province.

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, I move that the Committee rise and report Bills 16, 22, 23, and 25.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 16, 22, 23, and 25 carried without amendment.

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: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 16, 22, 23, and 25 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 16, 22, 23, and 25 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bills be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services, that this House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly 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 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Monday.

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