June

8, 2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 34

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome the 50 Plus Worsley Park Association,

as well as other residents from the Districts of Topsail, Conception Bay South

and Harbour Main. The group is accompanied by Ms Kayla Lynch, the assistant

recreational director with the Town of Conception Bay South.

Also, a special welcome to another member of the 50 Plus group; Mr. Stan

Wicks who, I understand, served in the House of Assembly as an RNC Duty

Constable back in the days of Premiers Moores and Peckford.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon.

the Member for the District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the District of

Mount Pearl North; and the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to recognize the members of the

Worsley Park 50 Plus Club.

Mr. Speaker, the Worsley Park 50 Plus group was established in 1984 and

currently has eighty active members. The club's membership is comprised of

residents from the Towns of Conception Bay South, Paradise, Holyrood and the

City of Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, our government has made the commitment to healthy aging one of

our top priorities, and the 50 Plus Worsley Park group is certainly contributing

to this goal. Through an array of activities and enticing outings, this club has

helped to foster both active, healthy lifestyles and close friendships amongst

its participants.

Mr. Speaker, this club is always seeking new and intriguing places to visit

on their excursions. Certainly, there is no place filled with as much history

and passion as this Province's Legislature.

Today, I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing the 50 Plus Worsley

Park Club and congratulating them on their continued success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the City of Mount Pearl for

holding the twenty-first Focus on Youth Awards at the Reid Community Centre

recently. I was joined by my colleagues, the MHA for Topsail and the MHA for

Mount Pearl South, at this wonderful event.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate all of the nominees and winners of

the awards. In particular, I offer my congratulations to the following award

winners: Female Athlete of the Year, Hannah Jardine; Male Athlete of the Year,

Adam Keating; Team of the Year, Mount Pearl Synchro Club Tier 6 Team; Adult

Volunteer Working with Youth in Sport, Mike Oliver; Official of the Year, John

Kennedy; Youth Volunteer of the Year, Kiersten Didham; Female Youth of the Year,

Lindsay Collins; Male Youth of the Year, Brian Peach; In Service Youth of the

Year, Gillian Elliott; Group of the Year, the thirteenth Mount Pearl Pathfinder

Unit; Visual Performing Arts, Jasmine Dezeeuw I am almost done, Mr. Speaker.

Literary Arts Award, Erica Hayward; Performing Arts, Individual of the Year,

Jeffrey Sullivan; Adult Volunteer of the Year, Patricia Clancy; Performing Arts

Group winners, O'Donel High Jazz Band, Mount Pearl Senior High Drama Club, and

Mount Pearl Show Choir.

I would like to extend my best wishes to all of the nominees and winners on

their hard work in sport, the arts, and volunteerism.

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

City of Mount Pearl and its youth on a fantastic Focus on Youth Awards ceremony!

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize

Hampden Academy's graduating class of 2010.

Mr. Speaker, they held their special graduation ceremony in their school

gymnasium on Friday, May 13. The graduating class consisted of twelve students

and included: Nicholas Avery, Stacey Burton, Billy Davis, Kerra Davis, Corina

Day, Kyle Gabbard, Ashly Parsons, Samantha Pynn, Ellis Stokes, Kayla Stride,

Travis Young, and James Zarowny.

Mr. Speaker, this entire event was first-class and my sincere congratulations

to the organizers which included students, parents, teachers and the community.

The attention to detail and the overall quality of this graduation experience

was second to none. The decorations were exceptionally well done and I extended

my sincerest of accolades to all participants.

Mr. Speaker, all the graduates had a role at the event. Kayla Stride was the

valedictorian. She did an exceptional job. Mr. Neil Osmond, a former graduate of

the school who is now an educator, did a tremendous job in addressing the

graduates as guest speaker.

It was indeed a pleasure for me, as their MHA, to share with these

impressive, young graduates a special night as they celebrated their successful

completion of high school and look to embrace the many opportunities that await

them in the future.

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

congratulating the twelve members of the graduating class of Hampden Academy and

extend best wishes as they embark on their individual career paths and journey

to lifelong learning.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the honour of being in Cupids

for the launch of Tourism Awareness Week in Newfoundland and Labrador

Mr. Speaker, Tourism Awareness Week is an opportunity to acknowledge tourism

operators in this Province who are working hard to further build this very

important industry an industry which contributes about $850 million annually

to the provincial economy.

It was certainly appropriate that the launch of Tourism Awareness Week took

place in Cupids, which this year celebrates the 400 anniversary of its

Mr. Speaker, that they had marvellous fish cakes and wonderful bakeapple tarts.

So I encourage everybody to go out for that alone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRENCH: I even brought some home.

Mr. Speaker, there have already been several events throughout the region to

mark this milestone, and we expect to see an influx of visitors this summer who

will take the opportunity to tour the Cupids archaeological site, take in live

theatrical productions, and visit the newly constructed Cupids Legacy Centre.

The provincial government has invested $5.3 million in support of the

anniversary celebrations, including upgrades to municipal infrastructure,

beautification initiatives and construction of the Legacy Centre. This fabulous

facility, which will open to the public next week, will showcase the history of

World. It will serve as an anchor tourism attraction which will serve Cupids and

surrounding areas for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, this year is shaping up to be an excellent year for tourism

throughout our Province and that is due in large part to the growing

professionalism within our tourism industry and the operators who are providing

visitors with unique experiences they come here to enjoy.

In acknowledging Tourism Awareness Week, I ask my colleagues in this hon.

House to join me in congratulating Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, the

Province's Tourism Industry Association, and all the individual tourism

operators who are ensuring that Newfoundland and Labrador remains a travel

destination of choice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. It is too bad he

just brought us the statement and not the bakeapples, maybe the next time.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed these major tourism type attractions are great for

tourism. It started, of course, back in Premier Tobin's days with the flagship

celebrations, I call them, when we had the Matthew visit, the Soiree, the

Vikings and the Marconi. All of these major type initiatives, of course, are

great for tourism in the Province, especially when they are spread around all

over the Province. I note the minister says about $850 million annually comes

into this Province as a result of tourism. So that is certainly a major economic

contributor to people who are involved in the industry. We, as well, would join

with the minister in wishing luck to all of those who are involved in this

week's announcement, but of course those who are involved in the tourist

industry on a full-time basis as well.

I would, of course, encourage the minister we have heard a lot in the media

these past few weeks about Marine Atlantic as well, and they are another major

involved party and stakeholder in our tourist industry. We have certainly heard

a lot of complaints and I would urge the minister, even though Marine Atlantic

have undertaken some major initiatives in the last couple of weeks, we still

need to keep the dialogue open between this Province, the federal government and

Marine Atlantic because there is still lots to be done.

Other than the air people who come in by plane, of course the major

number of tourists who come to our Province in the summer come across on the

Gulf ferries and the Argentia run. So we would certainly like to see that that

service operates top-notch as it ought to.

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 the advance copy of his statement.

I am delighted to stand with him today and to commend tourism operators who

contribute so much to our economy. I particularly would like to mention one

thing that he had in his statement, and that is the Cupids archaeological site

which is certainly a fantastic tourist attraction for people in the Province, in

Canada and from around the world.

At this time, I would like to use the opportunity to particularly mention and

acknowledge the work of archaeologist Bill Gilbert, who has worked for so long

on the Cupids Cove dig. It was his vision and determination that even when he

had to scrape up money, he kept at it. What he hoped to find he found and now we

are reaping the benefit of that as we come to the 400 anniversary of the

community in Cupids.

So I do congratulate the Cupids 400 committee for their hard work and

commitment, but I also hope that we recognize the work of Bill Gilbert. I do

encourage the minister to put a lot of support behind the archaeology work that

still needs to be done in our Province, there is still a lot more of our history

that we need to learn.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today is Oceans Day and we know how important our ocean

environment is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The current

catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrates how fragile our oceans are and

the importance of necessary precautions, especially when balancing the risk of

the oil and gas industry. We have questioned the government extensively over

offshore drilling in the Orphan Basin and today I would like to ask the Minister

of Environment to outline the protections that are in place for oil shipping

lanes in Placentia Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today, because according to comments made by

the Mayor of Placentia there is no emergency management plan in place to address

a spill in Placentia Bay, and I ask her today: Why hasn't government implemented

such a plan.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my voice holds up here - but in terms of Placentia Bay,

Mr. Speaker, that is under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada. Certainly, the

Department of Environment and Conservation is involved. We participate in the

SmartBay project. We participate - we have a voice on the REET, the Regional

Emergency Environmental Team.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly consult with the communities on all of the

environmental issues and as it goes through the environmental assessment process

we participate and are certainly aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but this is under

the jurisdiction of Transport Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this is about the only Minister of Environment

that I have ever seen that will have nothing to do with the environment, but I

say it did not stop them in 2003 in the Progressive Conservative Blue Book, Mr.

Speaker, to committing to a full strategy on the environment for Placentia Bay,

I say to the minister.

Well, this is an area of the Province, Mr. Speaker, that has supported a

vibrant inshore fishery for well over 400 years, and, Mr. Speaker, fishermen

have stated that a spill in Placentia Bay could destroy their livelihoods, and

environmentalists have stated that a spill of any magnitude could wipe out the

seabird population in Cape St. Mary's, and we all know the impact that oil has

on land once it reaches shore, minister.

I ask the minister today: Is there a comprehensive plan in place to

immediately deal with a spill, should one take place in Placentia Bay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that she has right, and that

is that we have the jurisdiction in the Department of Environment and

Conservation should the oil, in the unlikely event, that should the oil reach

land then it does come under the Department of Environment and Conservation, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when we came into government in 2004 we saw that there was not

one plan in place, not one procedure in place, not one person hired to deal with

should there be an oil spill that reached shore, Mr. Speaker. That is why we

immediately consulted with the industry, talked to other jurisdictions, Mr.

Speaker, and actually hired somebody in the department so that we would have a

policy in place should it reach land. That is under my jurisdiction. That is

something that I oversee and that is something that we are working towards, but,

Mr. Speaker, all of the other things that she is talking about in the bay, while

we do participate and we are very interested and very concerned, Mr. Speaker,

they are not in the jurisdiction of the Department of Environment and

Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You have over 500 fishing enterprises in that area. You have one of the

busiest areas and ports in North America for that kind of business, or at least

in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and you have the mayor out there saying that we do not

have a strategy or a plan in place, and you, minister, are part of a government

that in 2003 committed to put that strategy and that plan in place without ever

saying at that time we have no responsibility for the environment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again today: Will there be a comprehensive

strategy implemented, as her government committed to seven years ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, we certainly consult with the FFAW. They have

been in my office for certain meetings. Vale Inco is one of the projects that

also have impacts on Placentia Bay, and my understanding is the mayor also wrote

on that particular project and was very supportive of that project, which could

also have cumulative impacts on Placentia Bay. So consultation does take place.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and I meet about Placentia Bay. As I

said, we are involved in SmartBay, which is one of the most comprehensive

projects that are in place in all of Canada. It is a very comprehensive

committee, and we certainly participate in that Mr. Speaker. Anything that the

Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and myself, as minister, and certainly

DFO, can do to ensure the safety of the fisherpeople and the environment in that

bay, we will certainly do that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Seven years, no strategy, as was committed to by the government opposite.

Yet, we know that Placentia Bay, Mr. Speaker, is adjacent to the main

transatlantic shipping routes between North America and Western Europe, and we

know the traffic that occurs there.

Mr. Speaker, in 2007, and again in 2010, Transport Canada performed an oil

spill risk assessment for the South Coast of Newfoundland. It estimated that a

spill in the range of 10,000 barrels will likely occur within the next thirty

years.

I ask the minister, because I am sure you do some work with your counterparts

or I hope you do, the federal government: What actions were taken in

conjunction with your federal counterparts to address the alarming findings that

were in both of those reports?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, as I said, SmartBay is one of the most

comprehensive projects that is going on in Canada right now. The purpose of the

SmartBay is to look at all of the ecological aspects of the committee. People

from the Placentia and surrounding areas are involved. My department - there are

officials there from my department. There are officials from the Department of

Fisheries and Aquaculture; there are officials from Transport Canada and the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, when projects like this are filed environment comes to the

forefront, and that is something that we are very committed to protecting is the

environment. There is all kinds of development not just the transshipment

facilities, there is Vale Inco, there was the proposal for the second refinery,

and there was expansion to the current refinery. We look at cumulative effects

in all of this, Mr. Speaker, and that is what the environmental process is all

about, it is ensuring at the end of the day that (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During consultation on various industrial projects in Placentia Bay, and the

minister just mentioned a couple of them with regard to the Inco smelter and

with the second refinery proposal, which never materialized, but anyway, Mr.

Speaker, concerns were raised about the lack of safeguards and early response

measures for potential oil spills even at those times, Minister.

I ask you today: Are there sufficient human resources and capital

infrastructure available within the Province, particularly in the Placentia Bay

area, to detect and immediately clean up a large scale spill?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, there are different levels of oil spill

response. I understand that the member and the Opposition had a briefing about

the oil spill response. There are Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 responses. There is

the ECRC in terms of a spill of up to 10,000 barrels. Mr. Speaker, above that,

we certainly have the Coast Guard who also responds to spills. All of those

policies are in place and plans are in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are being told that one of the pieces of infrastructure required to

respond to a large oil spill in the Placentia Bay area would be an ocean going

tug. We are also told that the nearest tug to this Province would be located in

Halifax.

I ask the minister if that is true and if there is a strategy, in the case,

again, of a large oil spill in Placentia Bay, what is the process to respond to

it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to do my best to provide information

that I have in speaking to my counterparts within the federal government, but,

Mr. Speaker, these questions are really better suited to be asked to the federal

government. So, I suggest that she get in contact with the Minister of Transport

Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Absolutely unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of

Environment in this Province cannot answer the questions on how they would

respond to an oil spill in Placentia Bay that affects the fishing industry,

every other industry that surrounds the ocean including the bird population,

Minister. You should be ashamed today to stand in this House and even say such a

thing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, environmentalists and the mayor of Placentia have

been very vocal about the lack of response capability in Placentia Bay.

Currently, equipment needed to respond to a spill is located in St. John's and

Halifax, and there have been concerns expressed about the impact that this could

have on response times.

I ask the minister once again: Since Transport Canada has concluded in both

2007 and 2010 that Placentia Bay was most at risk of having a spill, have there

been any changes made to the location of response equipment in the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, the member can get all worked up all she wants.

It is not within my jurisdiction. I am trying my best to help her with the

information that I have. It is not our equipment that is in the area. It is not

our equipment; that is owned by the Coast Guard. I can certainly give her the

information I have, but again these questions are better put to somebody else.

It is not to say that we are not concerned about the environment or that we

do not consult with our federal counterparts. Mr. Speaker, these are not my

questions. I am trying my best to give her the information. She can get all

worked up as she wants, but we all have our own jurisdictions to be responsible

for and the questions she is asking

MS JONES: I cannot believe it (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: While she is saying she cannot believe it, she was a former

Minister of the Crown

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: she would know what she is responsible for in her certain

department and, Mr. Speaker, that goes true for any minister of this government.

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, yesterday on the Fisheries Broadcast, the Member for Baie

Verte-Springdale stated that he is quite confident that the licence for Little

Bay Islands would not be transferred out of the community.

So I ask the Minister of Fisheries today: As you have the final say on such a

transfer, are you ready to provide the same assurance to the people of Little

Bay Islands today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member that represents Little Bay

Islands, as would the Member for The Straits, would like to see things remain in

their communities, but as the member representing Little Bay Islands pointed

out, he informed the people in his community of the process and they will

present the information to the licensing board, then the licensing board will

make the recommendation that comes forward to me, as minister. Then, Mr.

Speaker, I will either accept or reject it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Fisheries rejected a

recommendation from the fishery licensing board just last year and we know the

final decision ultimately rests with the minister.

So I ask the minister again: Are you willing to ease the minds of the

residents of Little Bay Islands and assure that this rejection or this request

for transfer will be rejected, or is this really just an indication that the MOU

rationalization really has begun?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I swear to God they do not want to see this MOU

process working. On three or four occasions now the member opposite has got up,

in their statement tomorrow, and said that there is no progress that has been

made.

Mr. Speaker, I have outlined to him time and time again the meetings that we

have made, the input that the FFAW, the ASP, SPNL have all brought forward. Mr.

Speaker, we are hoping for a positive result that comes from the MOU.

As to his issue around licensing, Mr. Speaker, we have a licensing board in

place. I intend to allow them to do their work and they will bring forth their

recommendations based on the information that is submitted to them, 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.

Let me say first of all that we certainly do hope the MOU process brings us a

good solution. I have said that before and I will say it again. What we do not

see is this government giving the leadership to the MOU process that is

required.

Mr. Speaker, last month the community of Jackson's Arm, again, abruptly heard

the news that it was losing its shrimp plant that some 120 people would be out

of work. Earlier this week, I understand the minister met with union

representatives at the union's request to discuss this critical issue.

I ask the minister if he and his department has had discussions with the

owners of the plant on their decision for this year, and if government has

received or indeed requested a written confirmation that the plant will operate

next year for those people.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member may not be aware of this, but on

Friday past, I visited his area. I went to New Ferolle; an issue that he has

raised from time to time. I, as minister, and we, as government, have no problem

meeting with any groups that represent fish plants or communities across this

Province. We indeed did meet with the representation from Jackson's Arm. We have

asked them to provide us with some information. The company has indicated that

they will not open this year, but they have not said that this is definitive and

that the plant will not open the following year. They are making business

decisions based on current economic conditions and cuts to quotas.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with the community to find the best

resolve that we can to this situation, like we do in all situations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the facts, New Ferolle is not in

my area; it is in the area of St. Barbe. Also, ICO does not operate the plant in

St. Anthony either; nevertheless, the fishery is in crisis in this Province

right now, and not every plant worker or community has the luxury to wait for

the MOU process, and that is the point we are trying to make.

I ask the minister: In the absence of any short term, long-term plans for the

fishery by this government, are you prepared to implement a response measure

that will provide income for plant workers at communities like Jackson's Arm,

because there will be another community next week and so on, and just as

importantly, provided at levels of incomes that they are used to earning?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, he indicates no short term, no long term. I do

not know if there is any other term in between there, but, Mr. Speaker, let me

assure the member opposite that the members who represent the communities that

he mentioned, we have set - the Minister of the Department of Human Resources,

Labour and Employment, we have met with her. We are in the process now of having

her officials go and make contacts within these respective communities and we

will roll out the plan as we have in other communities, Mr. Speaker, who have

faced similar circumstances.

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, we also met with these plant workers yesterday and they are

simply astounded by what is happening in their community, and rightfully so. We

understand that, and they are looking for some assistance from this government

beyond what they termed as being make-work programs.

I ask the minister: We will not talk about long term and short term, but what

is the long-term strategy for dealing with these plant closures outside of the

MOU? As we wait for the MOU process to develop, where is the long-term strategy?

Are we willing to provide early retirement programs? Are we willing to look at

worker adjustment programs, community infrastructure money and so on, that will

allow these communities to attract new opportunities and give them a sense of

hope?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, he is right in saying one thing, that the

people who come in to meet with us in communities that are faced with this

challenge, rightfully so, they face a tremendous challenge. Any time that

happens to a community there are repercussions. We certainly sympathize and we

are willing to work to the extent that we can with them.

Mr. Speaker, we have an MOU process that is in place. I hope that the member

opposite is not suggesting that we start another process outside of the MOU. We

have the groups at the table that can make a difference in this fishery engaged

in this MOU process, Mr. Speaker, and I am certainly hoping that as a result of

that process, we will have a stronger fishery in the Province in the future, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, again, either intentionally or unintentionally, it

seems to be misunderstood. I am not suggesting another process of the MOU.

Again, I will state that we are in support of the MOU, but many of these workers

that we met yesterday suggested to us they have two or three weeks of

unemployment left, they have been waiting for their plant to open, we know the

plant is not going to open, and they are looking to government to give some

assistance, some direction as to what they can expect in their communities.

Again, I ask the minister: What is the plan?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, despite the challenge that some of these

communities face, in terms of plant workers, Mr. Speaker, we have stepped up for

plant workers time and time again and we will do likewise in the situations that

we have before us right now, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you of that.

Mr. Speaker, in the long term, as I indicated I believe here in Question

Period last week, I met with the chair of the MOU and I directed him to have

something to me by January 11, which is the anniversary of this process. Mr.

Speaker, shortly after that, I asked that we have something submitted in

writing. So, if we can have that put before us, Mr. Speaker, hopefully that will

lay out the direction for the

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot she is shouting at me, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

I guess that is not unheard of in this place, when somebody shouts at you.

Anyway, yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Business about the

graving dock for Marystown, given the federal government's announcement of the

two new $35 billion contracts that were going to be let over the next number of

years. The minister responded that there had been conversations between him and

the people in the Marystown area and that government would step up to the plate

if there was some infrastructure that was needed and if they were successful in

the bidding process. I say to the minister, the graving dock is needed, not

after the contracts are let and awarded, minister. The graving dock is needed in

order to make them successful in the bidding project.

I ask you again: After years and years of conversations and consultations, is

this government prepared to commit to a graving dock so that they can enhance

their chances of being successful, and if so, when are you going to tell the

people of Marystown?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said yesterday that we as a government were very pleased that the federal

government has now decided to proceed with a new shipbuilding strategy, and that

Marystown yard, because of its history and successes that it has had, is well

positioned to bid for that kind of work. They have indicated to us that to help

with that process, depending on the nature of the work that they get because

that thirty-year strategy involves a full range of boats and ships to be built

over that period time, some of them large, some of them small, and some of them

mid-sized. Depending on the nature of the work that will be going to Marystown,

that will influence the kind of investment they need to make to be able to

respond to and to do that piece of work, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that we have been trying to do, and working with the

company, is as they have been trying to identify the infrastructure requirements

that they will have, depending on the scope of work that they get to complete.

We have indicated to them that we would want to work with them to ensure that

their position

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister is like a tape recorder.

I will put this very bluntly: Are you prepared to commit money to a graving

dock? Period!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Business.

MR. WISEMAN: Now that the member opposite has clarified the punctuation,

let me try to respond to his question.

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that in the Department of Business, and

other departments of government, we frequently find ourselves having discussions

with private companies who are interested in soliciting support from government.

It is very difficult on the floor of the House of Assembly to discuss what is

very confidential information in a very public way. So the members opposite get

up frequently and ask questions of government and the ministers on this side of

the House about issues relative to their discussions and negotiations,

potentially, with private companies. It is difficult - in fact, impossible, I

say, Mr. Speaker, for ministers to get up and to actually start to disclose the

nature of what might be very private and confidential discussions. So I ask the

member opposite to respect the notion that government may on occasion

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We know a lot about what the Department of Business does not do, but we know

what this minister is good at doing.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Innovation, Trade and

Rural Development. Last month in the House, minister, the Minister of Natural

Resources slipped that a German company had toured the former AbitibiBowater

mill with an interest to possibly doing something with it. Upon hearing the

news, the president, I believe, of the Grand Falls Chamber of Commerce revealed

that they had no idea there had been an Expression of Interest from that

particular company and, in fact, he expressed concern about being kept out of

the loop.

I ask the minister: Have you since included the partners in the process -

such as the Chamber of Commerce - and can the minister provide us with any kind

of update as to where things might stand with respect to the German interest?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this House before, the work that the

ministerial task force does in relation to the shutdown of the mill in Central

Newfoundland and Labrador is done through the Community Development Committee;

so we engage with the Community Development Committee on any economic

development issues or other issues that we may have related to the mill closure.

So, in terms of going out and speaking to individual Chambers of Commerce or

individual municipalities or other individual groups that may be out there - and

there are many of them - we have certainly talked to them in the past, but, in

terms of formally engaging, our engagement would be done with the Community

Development Committee.

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.

My questions are for the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

We have learned today, Mr. Speaker, through the media, that half of our

capacity of containment boom is en route to the Gulf of New Mexico. The

containment boom is what is necessary, in the case of an oil spill, to keep oil

from reaching the coastline.

I would like to know from the minister, Mr. Speaker, if the Province has been

involved in this decision to have half of our boom capacity moved to the Gulf of

Mexico.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly check for the member and get back to her. I do

know that we did send a staff person who has involvement with the cleaning of

birds, very highly specialized within Canada, and they work at one of our

provincial parks here; we did send one of those down to help out. They just came

back yesterday, or the day before, and we are looking forward to a report from

them, but I can certainly check on the other one for you and get back to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister - she said earlier in

Question Period that her department is in consultation with all those who are

involved in issues around oil spills: Canadian Coast Guard, DFO, et cetera - how

could this decision be made without the Province being consulted, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that this equipment is

privately held. I am not saying that they did not consult with anybody in

government; I am saying that I am not aware of any consultation done in my

department. Our department is responsible for, should there be an oil spill on

land. We are not responsible for the offshore, Mr. Speaker. Again, I can

certainly check around within government and see if anybody within government

was consulted, but again I think it is private equipment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out to the minister that the boom that has gone down is half of the

capacity of the Canadian Coast Guard, so she may want to look further into that

issue.

Mr. Speaker, we know that Placentia Bay is at very, very high risk when it

comes to the potential for oil spills much higher than the offshore, Mr.

Speaker and the Mayor of Placentia and others who are concerned say that we

are not adequately prepared for an oil spill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: So I am asking the Minister of Environment and Conservation:

What is her concern about the implication of half of our boom capacity being

deployed to the Gulf of Mexico?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, it seems like the member opposite answered her

own question. She said herself that half of the equipment came from the Canadian

Coast Guard, so a very appropriate entity to ask would be the Canadian Coast

Guard, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, we consult with the communities; we participate on the SmartBay.

Certainly, there are environmental assessments that go on, that we pay very

close attention to, Mr. Speaker. We consult with the FFAW, with the mayors

themselves, and we keep in very close contact with the federal government, Mr.

Speaker.

As I said, this is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I know

in the past that the mayor has been very outspoken. I know that he does not

believe that he has gotten the attention that he deserves from the federal

government, Mr. Speaker. There are certainly discussions that we have had with

the feds on that, but again it is the jurisdiction of the feds and certainly the

Canadian Coast Guard. If they make a decision to send half of their capacity,

then that is certainly a decision that is within their rights to make.

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.

It was on Sunday that the federal government announced it was sending 3,000

metres of boom, and I heard that in the news on Sunday. I am asking the

minister: If she is so up on consulting with all of the parties involved,

whether it is the communities or the mayors or Canadian Coast Guard or DFO, why

would her department not have started asking questions about where the 3,000

metres of boom were going to come from when the federal government made this

announcement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, again, I do not mind providing information when

I consult with the various organizations in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, this is not within the Department of Environment

and Conservation. I have no issue whatsoever I think it has been demonstrated

in this House - I have no issue with answering questions that fall within my

jurisdiction. I certainly would never want to answer questions for the Minister

of Finance

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: or for the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services,

and I certainly should not be answering questions for the Department of

Transportation, or Transport Canada or the Canadian Coast Guard, Mr. Speaker.

I just said that I can certainly follow up within government. Certainly, if

she does not want to ask them herself, I can certainly ask on her behalf. That

is what I can offer to her, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to

section 26.5(

a) of the Financial Administration Act

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that Question Period has expired.

Tabling reports.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to 5(

a) of

section 26 of the Financial Administration Act, I am

tabling two Orders-in-Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the

2011-2012 to the 2012-2013 fiscal years.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, one commitment is for the Department of Human

Resources, Labour and Employment. It authorizes that department to enter into a

cost-shared arrangement with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited to support

implementation of a comprehensive training program. The other is for the

Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, to authorize an equity

contribution to the Republic of Doyle television series.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services,

for leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Architects Act,

2008, (Bill 26), and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the

Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Architects Act, 2008, (Bill 26), and that Bill 26 be now read a first

time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 26 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Architects Act, 2008", carried. (Bill 26)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 26 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 26 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 26 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we adjourned debate in second reading on Bill 1. Today

I will call from the Order Paper, Order 7, and we will continue second reading

of a bill,

An Act Respecting The Care And Protection of Children And Youth.

(Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: The House is now ready to hear debate on

An Act Respecting

The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth. (Bill 1)

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

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

I just want to say that it is a pleasure to be able to stand today and take a

few moments with regard to Bill 1,

An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of

Children And Youth.

Mr. Speaker, as we look at this bill it is a very detailed bill which will

replace the Child, Youth and Family Services Act. Included in this bill there

are some eighty-seven sections. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to say I guess from the

outset, and it has been stated by two of my colleagues, that we support this

bill even though we have a couple of amendments that will be coming forward. We

look forward to working with the government through the committee stages in

implementing, or hopefully they will accept those amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I also have to say that it was a pleasure that the Official

Opposition were given the opportunity to get involved in the process and to know

that maybe - I think some of the issues that were brought forward has been

implemented into this bill.

I guess I am not the only one here who has spent quite a bit of time involved

in the political arena, but when you go back twenty-one years - I guess my day

started as an EA in the old department, when I was Executive Assistant to the

Minister of Social Services. That was back in 1989. I have to say, Mr. Speaker,

that at that time, not only within your own district that you represented but

throughout the Province, you heard many heart wrenching stories of incidents

that involved families, foster care, and yes, court action.

I remember one particular time, I received a phone call in the office and it

was from a mother who went to the school bus to pick up her children, they were

not there. There was an incident that happened and they were taken into foster

care; a very serious situation. What was done was the proper thing to do, but I

just want to relate several incidents that happened and hopefully with this

bill, with the new guidelines that are in this bill, many issues we know this

will happen again, but hopefully the situations can be looked after.

There were many incidents back in 1989 that came forward with relation to

foster care. We hear so much about foster care here today, that there are many

families in this Province who look after children, and yes there are also

vacancies. I have heard the minister make the comment that, yes, we need more.

That is very important because those people play a very important part.

Over that period of time, you get to know not only the social workers but

many of the chief financial officers when you are dealing with various issues. I

have to say, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is a very important piece of

legislation, but we also have to have the numbers and the skilled people to see

that what is in this act is carried out. I have to say, not only in that time

frame but down through recent years, the work that those people have to do is

very crucial as they deal with children, families in crisis, and foster parents.

We all know there is another bill that is coming forward Bill 20, a

Practice Of Social Work Act and I am sure we will be given an opportunity to

touch on the same issue there, to know the work that those people go through and

how stressful it can be. I believe there are approximately 1,342 social workers

in the Province today. As the minister stated, there is additional funding

allocated in the Budget hopefully that extra people will be taken on and that

proper training will be provided for them all.

Mr. Speaker, in 2007, there was a survey done listed as quality of work life

survey, and it showed what those individuals go through on a daily basis. Many

times the work conditions take a tremendous toll. They have a serious issue,

whether it is balancing their personal and work lives, knowing the strenuous

situations that they have and the harassment that they have to put up with on

the job.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is solely for the protection of our most vulnerable,

children and youth. As good as this bill is, it has to have the people and I

am sure with the new department, with the minister just dealing with those

issues and the staff that is there now with extra training, we will see that

this act will carry out what needs to be done for the children and youth of our

Province.

Mr. Speaker, many speakers yesterday touched on the custody orders; the

continuous custody, protective intervention, plan of care, and access to

information. I guess one of the key components - I know we all find from time to

time that when someone reached the age of sixteen, but now we know there is an

extension to the age of eighteen if they are in care, and possibly to the age of

nineteen, but I think they have to be attending school.

The new act, Mr. Speaker, replaces the old act. However, there are some

sections I guess that are similar or the same as what is in the old act. One of

the key issues that I see involves the investigative services, where all

complaints should be followed up on. We know there have been incidents in the

past, and hopefully this will be corrected, that this situation will not be

involved, or we hear talk of it in the media any time in the future. It is good

to know that children are going to be protected from physical harm, sexual

abuse, and yes, emotional harm.

When we had our briefing yesterday, I just forget the ladies name that does

not matter but one of the things she did tell us, I think the word director

will be changed to manager. It goes on and lists the duties of that manager,

that they cannot give consent for adoption unless the consent is there from the

family where the child was removed.

Mr. Speaker, we all know the other key component that was mentioned yesterday

is the wording foster parents will be brought back in, as versus caregivers. I

think that is very important because we all know the tremendous job that foster

parents do throughout this Province.

I remember first when I moved to Bay Roberts, a long time ago, there was one

foster home there that had quite a few children. As a matter of fact, they went

on to adopt some of the people that they had there. They had children who were

Aboriginals and so on, but I can tell you, the love and respect that they showed

for those individuals made a tremendous difference in the lives of those young

people.

All too often, like this year, the foster care I think their theme for this

year is Taking Care of Me Taking Care of You. I guess all of us received the

booklet that foster care or a different association has put out from time to

time. It is very interesting to hear the stories by young people who write to

this magazine, outlining the care they have been given and knowing that they

have been protected when they have been removed from a home.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to touch on

section 11 and

section

Section 11

has to do with duty to report, and

section 44, a child returned at any time. It

also goes on to comment on a child returned within seventy-two hours, or after

seventy-two hours

Mr. Speaker, another incident that happened in my particular area - and

hopefully this legislation can take care of that. What I am going to say is not

blaming anyone in the system because they carried out the work that they were

supposed to do according to the regulations that they had to work with. This

little child about a year or a year-and-a-half old was taken from the family. We

all know that the end result or what we should be aiming for is that families do

get back together. Many times that happens and more times it does not happen.

In this particular case - and that is why I reference duty to report and a

child returned at any time - this particular little child in the estimation of

many, and with the staff who were dealing with it at the end, realized that they

thought everything was fine to return that child, but the individual who had the

child made a report, it was not followed up on, maybe it just slipped by the

wayside, and I know they called us and asked us to get involved, but at the end

the right thing was done. That child was left with the individual who had it in

their care because the family were not prepared. They were not back to the stage

where they should have the care of that child. I believe that this piece of

legislation will strengthen this because it is outlined in the regulations with

regard to the duty to report and a child returned at any time.

Mr. Speaker, also under

section 12, determining the need for protective

intervention, we all know that when the staff and the social workers, they

receive phone calls, whether it is from a school, whether it is from some

individual, they have to react and react immediately. Many times the situations

become very serious. I know another incident, an individual from my district who

was living here in St. John's and the time came when the call had to go out that

the children would be removed from that home and what was done was done

properly.

Mr. Speaker, even the RNC had to be called in and the lady had to be taken to

the Waterford Hospital and the children were put in care. Mr. Speaker,

unfortunately, that lady was released from the Waterford Hospital within an hour

and fifteen minutes. When she went back home, the children were not there. She

called to see what could be done, nothing could be done, and that is

understandable. The act that was carried out was proper, but the lady just could

not cope with it and the next morning the RNC received the fatal call.

So what I am saying, even though there are issues that have to be dealt with,

and were dealt with properly, but I think there is something, maybe not missing

from this piece of legislation, but there should be something else to follow up

with the family members who are on the other end of the spectrum. All too often

that has happened. I do not blame that on anybody, but I think with the new act

that we have now the situation will change to see that those issues are looked

after properly.

I understand, from comments made yesterday, that there are some 644 children

in custody in our Province. That is a staggering number, and it just goes to

show the work that those individuals have to deal with. I can assure you, none

of them are easy cases. As I said, hopefully this bill will take care of those

major concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe that if we are to advance this bill and no

doubt, we will, because it is something that has to be done I think it will be

one of the most important bills, if not the most important, that we will see put

through to not only this sitting of the House but up until we head to the polls

again because this is a crucial piece of legislation to protect the children and

the youth of this Province. As my colleagues stated, they will be supporting

this bill. I can assure you, I will be supporting it.

If there is one issue that I see in this bill that I would have any negative

thoughts about, it is under

Part IX, where it comes to Offences Against

Children. I know it says there: $10,000 or imprisonment up to but not exceeding

six months, or both. If I was to have anything to say about this bill and I

say this for a reason because we are going to debate two other bills, hopefully,

in this sitting, Bill 21 and Bill 23. My hon. colleague, the Minister of

Government Services, know the bills I refer to. In those two bills one has to

do with insurance brokers, the other one has to do with securities, and talks

about scams and so on. The fines in those two bills, one of them is up to a

maximum of $100,000, and the other one is $500,000. When I look at this, and

maybe there is a reason for it, and hopefully the minister can explain it in her

closing remarks, but to know that someone would be able to do something to a

child and the fine would be only $10,000. I think that fine should be a lot more

when we look at the other pieces of legislation and see where we are going to

with the offence part.

Mr. Speaker, this bill as I stated - and I will conclude with this - is a

very important piece of legislation. I commend the minister and all those who

were involved in putting this together. I know we also heard yesterday that this

should be implemented within a year and we all know that it takes time to put

legislation through, but if there is anything that could be done to speed this

up, to implement this act, I think it should be done.

So with that, I thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill, Bill 1,

An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth.

Mr. Speaker, there are many pieces of proposed legislation that have been

introduced and are at various stages before this House, and I have to echo the

comments of the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General when he rose and

spoke on this bill when he addressed it as a very important piece of

legislation. I, too, believe that this piece of legislation is by far the most

important bill before the House today.

That is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that other legislation is not important

because every bill before the House is important in its own right; however, this

legislation, the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act, is written to

provide a clear authority for and to set the guidelines respecting services to

children and youth who are at risk. I believe this legislation is the most

important currently before this House.

This new act, Mr. Speaker, will provide the authority to intervene when a

child or youth is not only at risk of harm but also risk of neglect by a parent,

or when a child or youth is a victim, a victim of an action or a victim of a

crime.

Before we go too far into my comments this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I think it

would be valuable to clearly understand the difference when we use the term

child and refer to a child and refer to a youth. In the

interpretation

section

of the act, which is quite often known as the definition section, a child is

defined and means: a person actually or apparently under the age of sixteen.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one may ask or inquire why it would be worded like that. I

know there has been circumstances, and in all likelihood in the future there

could be circumstances again, where the absence of specific information may be

available, and in a case where a child does not have the capacity to articulate

their age that a conclusion could be reached by an employee of the Child, Youth

and Family Services, or an employee acting under this act, a conclusion could be

reached that a child is actually or apparently under the age of sixteen and

therefore can be considered a child under the act. As well, under the definition

section, or

interpretation section, a youth is defined, or means: a person who

is sixteen years of age or over but under eighteen years of age.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important change. It is a very critical change

that is occurring in this piece of legislation from the current legislation and

there are many benefits for adding this age group. The age of under eighteen

years is consistent with the age applicable under the federal Youth Criminal

Justice Act, and it is also consistent with similar legislation in other

jurisdictions in other provinces. The increase in age also increases the age

whereby a youth will have continuous custody opportunities, which is not

available to a person between the age of sixteen and eighteen today and also

provides for support for a youth will continue longer as the youth enters

adulthood. Because we all know and are aware that a sixteen, seventeen,

eighteen-year-old is at a very difficult time in their lives and being able to

provide for a continued support through those ages is very important.

Under current legislation, the termination of a continuous custody order

occurs at the age of sixteen; as I said, which is considerably a young age. At

that time a youth service agreement can be entered into. However, currently it

is the only option available to a sixteen-year-old youth.

As well, with this increased age, Mr. Speaker, the new act will extend the

automatic termination of a youth who has a youth service agreement from the age

of eighteen years to nineteen years, allowing for that continued support as the

youth works towards completing high school or other formal program or

educational opportunity. Again, it is quite often a difficult age for young

people and if a young person working towards high school, completing high

school, or a high school graduation or other program, this extra year, bringing

them to nineteen years, is an important time for them.

Mr. Speaker, in

Part II of the proposed legislation, the purpose and general

principles of this act is stated. Under

section 8 of the proposed act it states,

"The purpose of this Act is to promote the safety and well-being of children and

youth who are in need of protective intervention". It is a very clear statement.

It is a very straightforward statement. It is a very meaningful statement. "The

purpose of this Act is to promote the safety and well-being of children and

youth who are in need of protective intervention".

If you read that and consider that as well, it clearly demonstrates that this

piece of legislation is written very child centered and youth centered. It is

written around the best interests of the child and youth, which brings me to the

general principle under

section 9 of the legislation.

Section 9.(1) which

states, "This Act shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the

principle that the overriding and paramount consideration in a decision made

under this Act shall be the best interests of the child or youth."

Mr. Speaker, this is different from the previous legislation, the current

act, which considered the best interests of the child principle, but also

referenced other several general principles. This act clearly, and very clearly

states, that the best interests of a child is stand alone, general principle.

That really is the overriding consideration, the paramount consideration

affecting decisions made relating to children and youth who are at risk.

However, we do go to

section 9.(2) which states that, "In determining a child

or youth's best interests" when making that determination of what is in the

best interests of a child or youth "all relevant factors shall be considered".

So, all relevant factors shall be considered. Then the

section goes on to

explain some of the factors that are included in what will be considered or

shall be considered. It includes "the child or youth's safety, health and

well-being". A very basic principle, a very basic consideration and factor that

is very important to consider.

It also states "the child or youth's physical, emotional and developmental

needs". Another very important aspect of a child or youth's life and needs; "the

child or youth's relationship with family or a person significant to the child

or youth", that shall be considered. Also, what must be considered is "the child

or youth's identity and cultural and community connections; the child or youth's

opinion regarding his or her care and custody or the provision of services".

As well, within that

section is "the importance of stability and permanency

in the context of the child or youth's care." These are considerations that when

determining what is in the best interests of the child or youth, these are all

considerations that must be considered by the worker or the employee under

Child, Youth and Family Services who is acting and will be acting under this

act.

Section 10 in the act adds new grounds for protective intervention to include

the risk of emotional harm. That is a new ground that does not currently exist.

It gives new latitude to workers who have to work under this legislation and new

opportunities to, in the best interests of children, for protective

intervention. It also indicates not only the risk of emotional harm, but also

where a child or youth is living in a situation where there is risk of violence.

That is currently absent in current legislation and I am sure it can be very

frustrating for child protection workers who work with, quite often, very

difficult times and very difficult circumstances and have to make decisions that

are in the best interests of children and youth. Now these new grounds will

provide broader protective intervention opportunities for workers.

I want to speak for a few minutes, if I may, Mr. Speaker, under

section 11 of

this new proposed act.

Section 11 is referred to as the duty to report. This is

a very important

section that affects all of society. It affects everyone in our

community and it clearly articulates and affirms the obligation placed on all

members of society to ensure the safety of all children.

It says under

section 11.(1), "Where a person has information that a child is

or may be in need of protective intervention, the person shall immediately

report the information to a manager, social worker or a peace officer." Now that

is a very important part of this piece of legislation, a very important part.

Now it does not say that a person must have conclusive evidence and it does not

say that a person must have grounds to believe, reasonable probable grounds as

the police are required to have to lay a charge. It does not say that. It just

says a person has to have information, "information that a child is or may be in

need of protective intervention, the person shall immediately report the

information to a manger, social worker or a peace officer." That is a duty that

is placed on all members of society within jurisdiction of this legislation,

within the Province, where it indicates you must report that information.

It goes on to say, "Where a report is made to a peace officer under

subsection (1)" the

section I just read, "the peace officer shall, as soon as

possible after receiving the report, inform a manager or social worker." So it

not only provides a burden and an obligation on members of society, it also

places an obligation on peace officers to ensure that that information is

reported to a social worker or a manger under Child, Youth and Family Services

so they can act and be informed of that information.

"This

section applies, notwithstanding the provisions of another Act, to a

person referred to in subsection (5)", which I am going to get to in a second,

"who, in the course of his or her professional duties, has information that a

child is or may be in need of protective intervention." Some of those

professionals include a health care professional. So if a health care

professional, engaged in their professional duties, has information that a child

is or may be in need of protective intervention, that health care professional

is obligated to report it to a manager, a social worker, or a peace officer. It

also applies, Mr. Speaker, to a teacher, an educational psychologist, a guidance

counsellor, and a school principal. It is interesting to note, through my own

experiences in my previous career, it is quite often that this type of

information of protective intervention requirements actually come through

schools, come through educators, come through people who are working with

students through education systems, guidance counsellors, and school principals.

Quite often that is where the information comes from, and this act clearly

articulates that all of those professionals are obligated to report that

information. It includes a social worker, a family counsellor, a member of the

clergy or religious leader, operator or employee of a child care service, a

youth worker, and a recreation worker. Again, under professional duties, for

persons in the course of their professional duties, it also includes a peace

officer and a solicitor. All of these persons, acting in their professional

capacities, are obligated to report the information to a manager or social

worker. This is in the best interest this requirement is clearly in the best

interest - of the safety of our children, the children who are most in need of

protection and most in need of intervention. These people have to report this.

There is a penalty

section involved with this, as well, for a person who

fails to report. Under the penalty section, a person who contravenes this

section is guilty of an offence and liable on

summary conviction to a fine not

exceeding $10,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to

both a fine and imprisonment. Now, we have to reflect as well that this piece of

legislation is not a federal criminal law. It is a provincial legislation

designed for the care and protection of children and youth, and to have a

$10,000 fine and a term not exceeding six months is, under this type of

legislation, I believe, a very strong penalty. It is a very strong message to

the community and to society, that this is a very important aspect of the bill

and it is a very important requirement, and failing to report such information

would be taken very seriously.

To further support that belief, if we read the next paragraph, it indicates,

notwithstanding

section 7 of the Provincial Offences Act. I should tell you

that the Provincial Offences Act, under

section 7, indicates that an information

or complaint under this act may be laid. So a charge may be laid. What that

refers to is, if a charge is going to be laid against someone for an offence, a

provincial offence, under the Provincial Offences Act, the charge may be laid

twelve months from the day when the matter or the information or complain arose,

unless another time limit is provided; so, it is twelve months. So, if a person

- under provincial legislation there is quite often what is referred to as a

statute of limitations of twelve months that a charge may be laid, but under

this new legislation, under

section 11.(9) it says not withstanding what I

just read "an information or complaint under this

section may be laid or made

within 3 years from the day when the matter of the information or complaint

arose". Three years. So, if a person has withheld information that a child is,

or may have been, in need of a protective intervention, then that liability

under the act continues for a three-year period, and that is significant. That

is a very significant part of this act. It highlights once again the importance,

the high importance, of reporting information. I cannot stress that enough,

because the eyes and ears of protection of children exist everywhere in the

Province, and it is people who quite often will have those pieces of information

who do not want to get involved: I know there is something happening in my

neighbourhood, I know there is something happening in my family, but I do not

want to be a part of it. It is none of my business. I want to stay out of it.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is everybody's business. It is everybody's

business to get involved with the care and protection of children and youth.

That is why that

section is written the way it is and has those important

aspects of it: three years where a charge can still be laid, and the significant

penalties attached to them, because it is everybody's responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of minutes left, and before I conclude, I just

to speak for a couple of minutes, if I may, on my own experiences in my past

career as a police officer. With twenty-five years of policing, I was engaged in

a number of different roles as a police officer: for several years as a

front-line officer, a first responder, and I could not begin to count the number

of times - it may have been 3:00 o'clock in the morning, it may have been 6:00

o'clock in the morning, it may have been 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon - where I

responded to circumstances and situations that involved less than ideal

circumstances for children and youth, where I had opportunity to work very

closely with child protection workers under difficult circumstances, under very

stressful times, when those workers would join us at a home or circumstance. I

can tell you that the decisions that these people make under those circumstances

are very, very difficult, very stressful and very critical, and very important

to the best interests of children. I can tell you that from my own experiences,

the number of times that I have had those first responders - something just

occurred, we had to respond, and we would contact the on-call social worker who,

whenever possible, would join us at the scene. Quite often that was not

possible, and quite often it was, and they would join us in the capacity that

they could. We would work very closely together and, of course, the focus quite

often was the best interests of the child, the best interests of what was taking

to place to the child or children quite often it was more than one child - and

I can tell you they work under very difficult circumstances.

As well, I have had experiences in the past that were a little bit different

but somewhat the same where, in an investigative capacity, I worked very closely

with child protection workers more long-term through the course of an

investigation, either investigating allegations of physical or sometimes sexual

abuse or assaults against children, and would work very closely with child

protection workers, conducting joint interviews, joint interventions, sharing

information as we could do, as well. Again, I can tell you from first-hand

experience, the work and decisions that these people face on a daily basis is

extraordinary. It is very stressful and very difficult, and I admire them for

the work that they continue to do on a daily basis for the children and youth in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the passing of this legislation and look

forward to the continued progress and development of the new Department of

Child, Youth and Family Services. I look forward to the day that all of its

employees are equipped with this new act so that they are better equipped in the

efforts to provide care and protection to children and youth in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay

North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my privilege this afternoon to be able to stand and speak for a few

moments to Bill 1,

An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And

Youth.

I would suggest, as the hon. Member for Topsail just did, that protection of

our children and youth is certainly everybody's business and we all need to be

involved. Oftentimes, people are reluctant to be involved for different reasons,

and it is so important that we have the proper legislation and so on in place

that protects our children when people do get involved. Children need that type

of protection.

The innocent part of our society, I would suggest, is our children, and it is

certainly important that we protect them as they go through the young years and

require that type of extra attention and so on. Child abuse comes in many forms,

as we know. Sometimes it is physical, and it is easy to see that, obviously, and

often in those times intervention is easier or quicker. There is sexual abuse,

there is verbal abuse, there is emotional abuse, and those are the kinds of

abuse that often really seem to drag on and at times can be the most

devastating.

The purpose of the act is to promote the safety and well-being of children

and youth who are in need of protective intervention. So, as submitted to

government some time ago in the legislative review, good legislation is

important, but alone it cannot guarantee that a quality of service for children

and for their families will always be there.

The effectiveness of the legislation concerned and with the welfare of the

children is dependent on a number of factors. For example, the way we interpret

it and the actions that are engendered by it are important to the legislation

being effective. If it is interpreted improperly and not acted upon properly and

so on, then, obviously, the legislation really does not do justice and does not

achieve its mandate. Certainly, when it comes to protecting children and so on,

and intervention, the timeliness of that is so important. When we get into these

critical situations and situations that do require intervention, intervening

prematurely, or intervening at a point that is too late, obviously, can be

detrimental to the situation.

Also, of course, the effectiveness and the purpose of the legislation being

fulfilled really depends on the quality and qualifications of those that are

responsible in carrying out its mandates, whether that is the judge in the

court, or whether it is the social worker, or whether it is a foster parent, or

whatever the case might be, then it is important that these people are able to

fulfill their duties and able to really ensure that their positions are

effective in that regard. The general principle of the act, as was stated in the

briefing yesterday that it is paramount, is that the decision that is being made

is being made in the best interests of the child. There are a lot of other

factors involved, there are a lot of things to be considered, but at the end of

the day it is important that the decision that we are making is one that will be

rendered as being in the best interests of that child.

The principles also acknowledge, of course, that the family is the basic unit

for social responsibility, for the safety and the health and the well-being of

the child. The challenge is in balancing family preservation, if you will, while

reducing risk of harm to a child and developing a reasonable plan to achieve a

permanent home for a child and so on. So, certainly there is a great challenge

in all of this for those of us who would be responsible and involved in

protecting our children.

We have indicated in the legislative review as well that the first principle

is, and really always should be, that of the safety of the child. We try to

really stress that, and I know that has been coming out in this debate in the

House in recent days. Where the child's safety can be assured, it is also

necessary that supports to preserve the family may be required as well, and

should be provided. Even when a child is taken into care, it is important that

the family be preserved in that situation as well, when possible. Whether it is

in situations of divorce, non-custodial parenting and so on, that parent does

not cease to be a parent. So that is a part of the process of getting through

that and so on.

There are several significant changes that are outlined in this act, and

there are two or three that I would like to just touch on this afternoon for a

moment. One of them is the extension of the age from sixteen to eighteen. I

think that is a good change; I think it is important. Government has changed the

age for the automatic termination of continuous custody to the age of eighteen.

In our submission to the legislative review, we certainly recommended that the

age would be changed, and obviously, are pleased to see that it has been.

The responsibility again of providing care for children, as a parent,

certainly carries through at least until they finish their schooling, and well

beyond that it would seem as some of them, in particular, more are ready for

every child is ready for independence at a different point in their life,

possibly. So it is important that as time is needed - as a further extension of

time is needed I should say, then it is important that that parenting role

continues in the situation of children that have been removed from their homes.

So every attempt should be made to encourage and support success in school.

That was sometimes undermined in the past because of the age of being sixteen,

then, obviously, by extending it to eighteen has been a good thing. Children

should not have to worry, whether they are a foster child or in protective

services, they should not have to worry about where they will be living next

year, or what changes they will experience as they try and finish off this

schooling and so on. So, it is good to see that their needs are being protected

at least until they finish school. Quite frankly, should they be entitled to or

really need support and assistance after leaving that particular care, then I

think it is important that that would take place as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DEAN: Okay, thank you. So it is to the age of twenty-one. It is good

to see those kinds of changes.

Another thing that was important to see there was the expansion of the

grounds, if you will, for protective intervention and emotional harm. I have had

the opportunity, if you will, throughout my career to see people, young people,

children, who have been really challenged and harmed in emotional ways. To see

this new act as having included that is important. The previous act outlined the

cases in which children were acknowledged to be harmed and in need of protective

intervention; however, emotional harm was not indicated to be a reason for

intervention. This is changed in this act and that is very important and it is

good to see.

Again, in our submission, we said that it would be wise to extend the need of

protection to those who would be at risk of emotional harm. Domestic violence in

particular often constitutes risk of emotional harm, but often parents, victims,

female victims in particular, are sometimes reluctant to report that emotional

harm in fear of losing their children. Often, that is one of those things that

are covered up. I guess in some ways it is an easy thing to cover because it

really does not show itself in the way that physical abuse would show itself in

particular. So there can be a lot of emotional harm taking place within a home,

and yet, not really anything being done about it.

So it is important to note as well that because a child may be suffering from

emotional harm does not necessarily mean that a parent will lose that child or

lose their children. It is important that it is dealt with, that there is

legislation there to cover it and so on. Again, I am glad to see that it is

included in this new act in protection of our children.

Some things that are not included that we would want to raise and just to

mention briefly as it goes into debate further and so on - one thing that was

put forth in the legislative review was the review of decision. In the previous

act, there was no provision that allowed a child or a guardian or a caregiver to

ask for a review of a decision made by a director under the act. It still does

not appear that that has changed. The minister can correct me on that if that is

the case, but in the legislative review submission we indicated that there

should always be provision for review. It would have added value as its

provision would enforce or reinforce the likelihood of consultation and shared

decision making before problems occur at times. It would be preferable to any

difference of opinion be resolved at an informal level and so on.

So the first line of defence, I would think, is always to promote

communication and collaboration and so on to try to resolve the issue. If it

becomes necessary, of course, the next step is to allow a child or a guardian or

a caregiver or a parent or other concerned party, whether it is a teacher or a

school counsellor or whatever the case may be, to request a case conference. If

the issue is not resolved than a statutory review panel would then be in order.

We also recommended that a foster parent who has parented a child for at

least a six-month period or more be entitled to participate and be heard in any

court hearing regarding care and custody. So that is one of the things that does

not seem to be included in this legislation that we had suggested and so on.

The second thing was duty to report. In our response, again in the

legislative review, we indicated that the person reporting be kept informed as

to the results of the investigation and the actions that are being taken. That

does not seem to be addressed in the review as well.

I go back to my opening statement referring to the hon. colleague from

Topsail, his remark in the fact that child protection is everybody's business

and that we all need to be involved. I would suggest that as we get involved and

as we see situations where we are concerned about a child's safety and a child's

protection, if we get involved then it is unfair to expect the public at large

to share responsibility for the safety and the security of children, and at the

same time let alone be kind of kept in the dark as to where that is so to

speak. So while we understand the issue of confidentiality, and we understand

the importance of things not being totally public and so on, yet I think it is

good that if a citizen reports something, that somehow they can be abreast of

where that is and how it is doing and so on, at appropriate levels - that

certainly I would not be one to determine. Again, just something that I feel

would be important.

Another thing is that we indicated in our legislative review submission that

parallel family supports are put in place to assist families who struggle with

addictions and behavioural problems and so on. In fact, any issue, I guess, that

has contributed to disfunctionality in the home then this does not appear to be

addressed in the legislation as well.

One of the things in the act that, in my review of it, and certainly I think

is very important, is in

Part VI of

section 62. It talks about the placement of

children and youth. "The placement of a child or youth shall be conducted in a

manner which is least disruptive to a child...." I think that is very important

that when we reach those places - because I have seen it unfold in front of me

when children are taken away from homes. It can be a very disruptive process,

and at best it is disruptive anyway, yet in their interests, obviously,

recognizing first of all, when that is done, the importance of placing them with

siblings and contact with his or her families who are significant to the child

or to the youth. That certainly is important for consideration. Of course, as it

states, first consider placement of a child or youth with the child or youth's

family or a person with whom the child or youth has a significant relationship.

Then, of course, if that is not possible, that they be placed in accordance with

the subsection, with a foster parent or into a residential placement.

So I think it is very important that again and I know that those working in

the field certainly would be aware of that - they understand the assessment that

is necessary at that particular time to ensure that the placement is as close to

the child as possible, if that is possible. If not, then it is done in a timely

and a proper process.

One of the things that I believe it takes to ensure that is done properly is

that we have adequate support staff within the system to do that. I know that

social workers play a vital role in our health and community care system,

whether they are helping individuals, whether they are helping families,

whatever the case might be; they play a very important role. Across our

Province, in a vast number of areas ranging from supporting those who are

impacted by addictions to ensuring the protection of our children and their

safety and so on, they play a very vital role.

Yet it seems, from the statistics that I am reading and the information that

I have, that the caseload continues to increase. I do not know what the average

is, and I guess it is not necessarily important at this moment, but it is

certainly important that as we give them clear direction as we look for greater

protection of our children and so on, that those who are the front-line people

are not over-tasked to the point where really they are not able to carry out

their role effectively.

The statistics that I was reading in some of the reports that were available

to me suggested that probably five or six years ago it may have been thirty

thirty-eight cases, approximately - across the Province in terms of caseload per

social worker. It seems as though that has increased substantially in recent

years, and I am sure it is something that government is looking at and something

that hopefully can be controlled.

I was concerned when I read in The Telegram , I believe it was, just a

couple of months ago, as the university graduates were coming out, the fact that

Eastern Health appeared not to be hiring any new graduates this year. My first

thought is that if an organization such as Eastern Health as big as Eastern

Health is not hiring any of our graduates from the social worker program,

well, where does that leave us? What would be the reason?

AN HON. MEMBER: No vacancies.

MR. DEAN: We can debate whether there are vacancies, or whatever the case

might be, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DEAN: Okay. Well, I know that was a statement in one of the

interviews of one of the young ladies who was graduating, and that was one of

the comments that she made in a CBC interview as well, the fact that Eastern

Health was making that statement.

Again, not to belabour that, just to make the point, Mr. Speaker, that I

would hope that as a Province, as a government, we can continue to put the

resources in front of them -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DEAN: I can give you a copy of that, if you want. That is not a

problem - and that we can continue to support the program, and that the

legislation, as it comes into place, can have the proper mechanisms in place.

Again, I support the legislation, the act, obviously, as does the Opposition,

as we have already stated. I appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to stand

for a few moments to speak to it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

and the Government House Leader speaks now she shall close debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of comments I want to make as I close debate

on Bill 1, but I feel compelled to address the issue just mentioned by the

Member for The Straits & White Bay North: the fact that when we talk about

hiring social workers in Eastern Health and Child, Youth and Family Services

specifically, there has been no decision made to even suggest that we are not

hiring any more social workers. That is absurd.

What the situation is with Eastern Health or any other regional health

authority, and Child, Youth and Family Services, is that if there is a vacancy

they hire someone. If there are no vacancies they are not going to out and hire

people in Child, Youth and Family Services, and get them to come on, and say: I

am sorry, but there is no work for you today.

If there are vacancies, we will hire. Just to say that they are not hiring

should probably indicate to some degree that the efforts to do recruiting over

the last three years have probably worked to some extent, that we are not

running a lot of vacancies all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I do need, though, to clarify some points that came up in the

debate of Bill 1. I must say, I was certainly pleased with the calibre of the

debate, and it obviously shows that the people who sit in the House of Assembly

here really consider this important legislation and we will work together to

make sure that if there are any possible amendments that come in through the

Committee stage that make sense and that can enhance this bill, that we would

certainly be open to that, but I do want to clarify some situations just in case

there may be amendments to address issues that may have already been addressed

in this legislation and need further explanation.

I know that most people who spoke are very comfortable with the purpose of

this bill, and the intent and the general principle being that this bill is all

about serving the best interests of the child. We had to do this bill, because

when we look at some of the reports that had in recent years, whether it was the

Turner report or the Clinical Services Review, it felt that the legislative

review was necessary, and we had to put more focus on the best interests of the

child. There is a pendulum that swings in child protection, and it is in family

reunification or family preservation, and the best interests of the child.

Although the family, as a unit to take care of the child, is extremely

important, it does not trump the best interests of the child.

So we need to be able to find a balance that serves this child best, and if

the family can be part of that and can be part of the program and the treatment

and the case plan as we move forward, and be able to provide the care and

nurturing that that child needs, that is where we put our emphasis.

Unfortunately, there are some children who will not thrive within their

families, and we also have to be able to work with those children as well.

I want to address some of the issues that I feel are necessary. I notice

there are a lot of times we are debating issues here and listening to, in

particular, some of the members of the Opposition talk, truly about operational

issues, as opposed to the philosophy behind the legislation or the legislation

itself. I am going to try not to get into the operational issues in the House of

Assembly, unless there are specific questions, again, I will get into at that

point, but I want to clarify points within the legislation.

One is the emotional harm. I know the Leader of the Third Party indicated

that when we talk about emotional harm in the legislation, we give a list and it

says: it may include. She recommended that we change the wording to say: may

include, but not limited to. Well, we consulted with Legislative Counsel

regarding that particular word change, and the way the legislation is worded now

means exactly that. So it is unnecessary to bring in, but not limited to. I

appreciate that she said it and it was clarified because it is certainly a good

point to be made. It is not an exhaustive list that is in the legislation.

There was also comment here this afternoon regarding the fines and penalties

section 76. There are no changes in the fines and penalties that were in the

previous act. It is there in this present act. It is rarely used under this act,

and usually when situations regarding child protection issues, whether it is

sexual abuse or physical abuse or parents not caring for the children, if it

leads to court or charges, the charges come under the Criminal Code of Canada,

although they can still come under this act, but that would be the way that we

would most likely proceed with a case here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There has been suggestion that we should share information back with the

source that provides information on a referral. Mr. Speaker, I do have some

concerns about that. I do understand what people are saying is that you make a

referral to Child, Youth and Family Services because you genuinely care and you

would like to know that something has been done about a particular case.

What we can do is we can provide assurance that every referral that comes in

has to be acted on. Now, if we can find instances where that has not happened,

we can label that inappropriate and deal with it, but it by no means lets any

office or social worker off the hook. If there is a referral that comes in, it

has to be acted upon; that is why we exist as a department.

The problem with reporting information back is simply because it may be

somebody who does not have your best interests or the best interests of the

child at heart that reports something. Then we go back there could be very

personal matters we are dealing with, it could a mother or father who is dealing

addictions issues, mental health issues, coping with stressful situations, they

could be diagnosed with cancer or HIV and unable to cope and having to try to

care for their children all at one time. Then we go back and we report this back

to the neighbour or the person down the street. This is highly confidential,

personal information. This may be information they will not even share within

their own family. If they have extended family parents, aunts, uncles, these

adults, these parents they may not want to share that information within their

families, but we are going to phone the neighbour or the person down the street

and we are going to tell them. Now, what happens if they go on Open Line and

talk about it? What happens if they say enough to identify these people and the

issues and what is going on within that home? What if they decide to get on the

evening news or in the newspaper? This is something private, confidential,

involves your children, it is private and at a point of probably crisis in their

lives, and we are going to report it back to the neighbours. I do not think that

is appropriate.

I understand the rationale and why they ask because people want to be assured

when they make a referral that we act upon it. I understand that, but we cannot

report back. We would not expect that in any other situation, whether it is

addictions counselling we would not expect a psychiatrist to be phoning a

neighbour. If you phoned in and said you thought that somebody who was bipolar

or manic depressive was out driving a car and they intervened and the

psychiatrist dealt with them and we have to report that as well. No one would

expect a psychiatrist to phone and give a report on your mental health or your

treatment or your medication. So, we do not expect that and we cannot put that

other standard in Child, Youth and Family Services either.

We also have a number of reviews underway now, whether it is the Duggan case

or the Labrador fire, and we will wait for the reports whether it is from Susan

Abell or from the Child and Youth Advocate. If at that point we see that there

is need to further amend the legislation, this new legislation, or if there is a

need to incorporate anything from those studies or those investigations into our

policy, we are more than willing to do it.

One thing, Mr. Speaker, I think that I have made very clear since being the

minister of this department is I am not afraid of reports that suggest changes.

We did not create this new department because status quo was the way to go. We

created this new department because there were issues and there were concerns.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He is bothering me and I cannot concentrate, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have developed this department because we truly feel a need

to change. We feel that we need to bring in some changes in the legislation, in

the policies and we need to build a more accountable system in Newfoundland and

Labrador that serves the best interests of the children.

There were also some questions around consultation from the Member for Burgeo

& La Poile wondering if we met with judges or police. I can say that there were

meetings with judges at the Unified Family Court. There was also a

teleconference with another judge who had input into the legislation. We also

contacted the Chief Provincial Court Judge and invited participation. There were

several meetings with the RNC, including their lawyer and the chief, and at

least three meetings with the RCMP. Further to that, Mr. Speaker, there were

also quite a few other people who we consulted with. I would just like to go

down through that list because I know the judges and the police are important

but there are so many stakeholders I think, for the record, I would just like to

indicate who we consulted with.

We consulted with Choices for Youth and a youth focus group for Choices for

Youth; the Central Regional Health Authority Child, Youth and Family Services

division; Daybreak Parent Child Centre; a client focus group with the Daybreak

Parent Centre; the Department of Education; the Board of Directors from the

school boards; Health and Community Services, the division of Child, Youth and

Family Services; also with Health and Community Services, the division of family

and child development.

We asked Mental Health and Addictions, they did not have any feedback for us.

We also consulted with the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment

and the employment disability office within that department. We also consulted

with the Human Resources, Labour and Employment, the Office of Immigration and

Multiculturalism. I know that the Leader of the Opposition asked us about that

yesterday as well.

We consulted with the Family Justice Services in the Department of Justice;

the Family Litigation Unit within the Department of Justice; Child, Youth and

Family Services within Eastern Health; Community Health and Nursing Services

within Eastern Health; the department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry with

Eastern Health. These are all agencies that provided information and met with

us.

I can keep going through a list of people who did not provide feedback, but

these are people we heard from: the Foster Families Association; the Janeway

Family Centre; Professor Ken Barter with Memorial University's School of Social

Work. We also had feedback from the St. John's Native Friendship Centre, from

Labrador-Grenfell Health Authority, Child, Youth and Family Services division,

from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers, from the

Nunatsiavut Government, from Newfoundland Legal Aid Commission, the Office of

the Child and Youth Advocate, the Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner, the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the RCMP,

the RNC, Dr. Stephen Ellenbogen from the School of Social Work over at MUN,

Unified Family Court judges, Waypoints - Waypoints also had a youth focus group

- Western Regional Health Authority, Child, Youth and Family Services, the

Women's Policy Office, and the Women's Policy Office staff within the Violence

Prevention Initiative.

So, Mr. Speaker, there was extensive consultation. It did include the judges

and the police and issues regarding immigration, as we were asked by members of

the Opposition yesterday. I just want to confirm that point because I think that

is also important. They felt it was important enough to ask and I think it is

also important enough to show that we did connect with these groups and we

understand the issues, and we certainly did our best to consult with as many

stakeholders as we felt absolutely possible.

There was also a question from the Leader of the NDP yesterday regarding a

child's culture and how do we protect that, or work with that, as the child

comes in care. It is noted in

section 9 of the act, and I will refer to that.

That was the

section referred to by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. That

part reads it is the purpose and general principle and it reads, "In determining

a child or youth's best interests, all relevant factors shall be considering,

including" and that is subsection (2)(d) "the child or youth's identity and

cultural and community connections." Then if you go to

section 29 it further

outlines that once a child, once we have to go through the court process and

enter a plan of care, part of that plan of care that is identified that we have

to follow under

section 29.(3)(e)(iii) reads, "a description of the

arrangements made or being made to recognize the importance of the child's

identity and cultural and community connections." So that is important, Mr.

Speaker.

Now I want to explain a bit about

section 25 and

section 26 because there

were questions on that yesterday from the Member for Burgeo & La Poile. In doing

that I have to explain that there is about 5,900 children who are clients in the

protective intervention program of this service in Newfoundland and Labrador -

so 5,900 cases. Of the 5,900 cases, only 4 per cent go to court. So what that

means is most times, with the majority by far, with 96 per cent of the parents

who we deal with in our protective intervention caseload, they co-operate with

the plan that we put in place. Now, that means we may put services in the home

to mitigate the risk or what is going on that may put the child at risk, or we

may remove the child, and the child may go live with a family member in what we

call a child welfare allowance agreement, or the child may go in foster care. In

96 per cent of the cases, it is a voluntary arrangement through the family; they

agree to the plan. So that addresses, in some way, an appeal process because the

family agrees with what is going on.

When a family does not agree to what is going on, but we decide that the

child does not need to come out of the family home,

section 25 of the act comes

into play. The questions yesterday from the Member for Burgeo & La Poile, who

read through the criteria of what we do under

section 25, he asked: What are the

time frames under

section 25? If you look under

section 25, and you look under

subsection (2) it says: A hearing under this

section shall be held within thirty

days of filing the application. So, once we determine that the child is in need

of protective intervention services, we have to have our court proceeding, our

protective intervention proceedings, within thirty days. Now, if we feel that

things are escalating in the home and that we are unable to work with the family

any more, we always have the option of removing the child and invoking

section

26. So that can happen as well.

When we remove a child under

section 26, we then have ten days for a

presentation hearing, and then thirty days for the protective intervention

hearing. So the thirty days under

section 26 is the same as under

section 25.

The difference is there is a presentation hearing within ten days. There is no

presentation hearing if we invoke

section 25. It was in the current legislation,

but it is unnecessary. The presentation hearing basically gets the case to

court, it does not necessarily evaluate the merits of the case at that time, but

it evaluates whether or not the procedure and appropriate criteria were used for

the removal of the child. Therefore, we do not need the presentation hearing if

we use

section 25. I know it is a bit tangly to explain that, but I hope people

understand that.

The other point I want to clarify is that under

section 29, it outlines a

plan that we submit when we go to a protective intervention hearing. That plan

is presented at the presentation hearing, which is ten days after the child is

apprehended. That is referred to as a plan of care, and

section 29 outlines the

criteria in the plan of care.

There were questions here yesterday as to who monitors the plan of care.

Well, the plan of care is monitored by the courts because you go to court, you

present your case to the court, and you say this is the plan we are going to

follow, then you get an order it could be an interim order or a temporary

order or a continuous custody, but continuous custody would likely follow a

number of temporary orders. You go back to court within the time frames and you

show that plan of care. You are questioned about how it is followed or why you

updated it or how you updated it. So that is for court purposes.

That would apply to the 4 per cent who actually go to court. The 96 per cent

of our cases do not have that plan that needs to go into court. Now, by saying

that, it does not mean that 96 per cent of our cases do not have a case plan. So

there is a difference between the plan of care outlined in

section 29 that

accompanies court proceedings and the fact that every case that comes to our

attention, whether it is part of the 4 per cent that goes to court or the 96 per

cent, there is a case plan done on every single case. That is what is monitored

by the social worker and the front-line supervisor and the manager to ensure

that we are meeting the best interests of the child.

So when you refer to

section 81 of the act,

section 81 of the act says, "The

minister shall develop a process to monitor plans for children who are under the

supervision or in the custody of a manager." What that means is not the plan of

care that is submitted to the court which needs to be monitored through the

courts and followed, what this refers to is the plan - the case plan - that will

be developed for each and every child who comes into Child, Youth and Family

Services under this particular legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the need for this

section 81 goes back to the Susan Abell

report, the Clinical Services Report, where there were, I guess, some alarming

statistics and information. One thing was that only probably two-thirds of our

files had cases. That is completely inappropriate; 100 per cent need it. We

accepted Susan Abell's report and we accepted all of the recommendations. This

is reflective of one of the recommendations, that we need better monitoring and

oversight and supervision of the cases. This means that we will develop a

process that will provide direction as to how we will oversee these cases.

This is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, because we need to make sure that

the work is being done and that it is being supervised appropriately and people

are held accountable for what they are doing. It is almost impossible to outline

that procedure in legislation because we are going to have so many different

kinds of cases and work that we are involved in. We could have cases that need

very little intervention, very low risk. We could have some very complex cases

that involve social workers. Some could involve more than one social worker,

sometimes two or three, based on if they are falling under different programs.

We cannot be as definitive in this legislation and say how we are going to

look at these cases and how we are going to oversee it. One thing we are going

to be doing is, we are going to be setting up what I call an audit unit, or

quality control unit, where we have our social workers

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS BURKE: With leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

We want to set up a quality control unit - I prefer to call it an audit unit

- with a director and with social workers who are our auditors. They will

conduct work very similar to what was done in the Susan Abell report. They will

review cases for individual workers for offices and for the Province. They

should be able to provide feedback to individual workers, and be able to go to

their supervisor, and be able to identify where there are gaps in their skills

that we need to focus training. They will be able to deal with supervisors and

say in this particular team they need better leadership in this area or that

area, because the trend should become apparent. We should be able to look at it

from a provincial perspective to know; we should be able to get trending from

across the Province after we compare offices and regions, to see where we need

to go.

We also want to make sure that this audit or quality control office is

separate from all of our other social work offices, from our Child, Youth and

Family Services. We do not want to set up a scenario where we have people who

are out having a coffee break, sitting down and having coffee together, and then

one has to go out and audit the other person's files and provide feedback that

sometimes is not always pleasant to hear, but it is reality and we have to deal

with it. It is no good for us to try to sugar-coat anything here.

We want to have a stand-alone, independent office where they feel empowered

to do their work and to be able to give us the best and the strongest results

they can; because it is only through doing a thorough analysis and really

looking at where the gaps are in our service that we will actually improve in

any meaningful way.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to have any type of service or evaluation that

looks good on paper and we can talk the talk and here is the theory behind it. I

want something that is going to provide real results and that is going to

provide real information that we are going to be able to use to develop our

policies, amend our legislation, influence our training programs, but it has to

be meaningful information. It has to be able to come and affect the work of the

department in a most positive way. I think that is extremely important.

I will just touch again on the appeal process. There were questions: Where do

you go if you are not satisfied with your case? Well, in 96 per cent of the

cases there is a level of satisfaction, and it is voluntary, and the agreements

are signed; the case plans are signed and agreed to by the parents. Where we

cannot get an agreement, we invoke

section 25. Then the courts see the plan,

they hear the parent's side, and they make some decision if the child can stay,

and what plan is in place, or if the child is in need of protective

intervention. If they do not like it at that point there is an appeal process

through the court; the same under

section 26. Only 4 per cent of our cases are

involuntary, that the parents do not agree with. They are the cases that go to

court, and they would then have access to an appeal through the court process.

I have explained the difference between our case plans and our plan of care

and what is necessary for court, and I spoke on the appeal process and the

difference between

section 25 and

section 26 on a presentation hearing and a

protective intervention hearing, so I think I have been able to address most of

the concerns that came up during second reading.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place and therefore adjourn debate in

second reading on Bill 1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 1,

An Act

Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth, be now read a second

time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And

Youth. (Bill 1)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And

Youth," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House

presently, by leave. (Bill 1)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

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 1, 4,

7, 8, 1