November 29, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 40

The House met at 1:30 p.m

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings today, I would like to welcome to the

gallery four students from the newly-elected student council executive for the

Newfoundland School for the Deaf, accompanied by teachers: Ms Linda Clarke,

Principal, Ms Irene Barnable and Mr. Chris Jackson, Vice- Principals. Along with

their teacher's aids, two interpreters: Sheila Keats and Marguerite Peddigrew

from the District of Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to recognize today, the former Member

for Conception Bay South, Ms Patricia Cowan, who is in the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to inform hon. members that the Newfoundland and Labrador Organization

for Women Entrepreneurs - NLOWE - has named Tina Stewart, of Corner Brook, this

year's western region woman entrepreneur of the year.

This award recognizes outstanding contributions by women in the advancement

of business and community economic development.

Tina is the owner and chief executive officer of Notable Images, a Corner

Brook based note card company that showcases photographs and original artwork

focused on Western Newfoundland images.

In addition to her Entrepreneur of the Year award, NLOWE has also recognized

Tina for her community work as an educator, as an administrator, and as an

interpreter for the deaf.

Included in her many activities, Tina recently spearheaded the highly

successful Women, Age, Grace and Laughter calender project to raise $100, 000

for a palliative care unit at Western Memorial Regional Hospital.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join with me in extending

congratulations to one of Corner Brook's newest business women and a very

community-minded individual, Tina Stewart.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to ask the hon. members of this House to join with me in

offering congratulations to Ms Betty Ann Kennedy of Conception Harbour, a recent

winner of the Fairfax Scholarship, a national award.

Betty Ann is currently enrolled in a Tourist Studies Program at the College

of the North Atlantic, Bay St. George Campus, Stephenville. She is one of only

twenty-four students across Canada to be awarded the $3,500 scholarship.

Just getting to be the sole nominee for a college the size of CONA, thousands

of students spread out over eighteen campuses in this Province, was indeed a

great accomplishment. As reported in The Compass , a local newspaper, one

of her instructors, Ms Donna Pippy, described Betty Ann as a very mature student

with a positive attitude, high personal standards, many admirable qualities that

will be assets to her as she pursues a career in the tourism industry. The

Fairfax Scholarship is a prestigious national award. It is the third time the

college has applied and submitted nominations, but it is the first year a

student from this Province has won.

Betty Ann remarks the scholarship has given her lots of motivation and

confidence going into her second year of studies and the $3,500 certainly will

help out with the expenses. Ms Kennedy is the daughter of John and Betty Kennedy

of Conception Harbour, Conception Bay.

I am sure I speak for all members of this House in offering Betty Ann

congratulations for winning this prestigious award and wishing her well in all

future endeavors.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, recently the Avalon North Wolverines Search and

Rescue building in Bay Roberts was officially named the Frederick R. Bowering

Memorial Building.

This tribute was a fitting one to the entire Bowering family. All four

children of the late Mr. Bowering have devoted at least part of their lives to

either rescue or firefighting after their father's death in 1970 from

exhaustion and exposure after two days and nights lost in the woods.

The Bay Roberts Ground Search and Rescue team was organized in 1994 and

certified the following year. After its coverage area was expanded, the name was

changed to the Avalon North Wolverines. Today, the Wolverines consist of seventy

members and the group is on call twenty-four hours a day. The new building is a

result of the Wolverines fund-raising efforts and, to indicate the effectiveness

of this organization, I inform the House that this beautiful new building is

completely debt free.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members of this House to join with me in commending the

Wolverines Search and Rescue on the work they do and for the fitting tribute

they have paid to the memory of the late Mr. Bowering.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 16, I had the pleasure of attending, in my

district, the official opening of the newly renovated Carew Lodge, providing

independent housing units for otherwise homeless people.

With its refurbishment, Carew Lodge now provides fourteen self-contained

apartments that will help address some of the needs in our community for safe

and affordable housing.

Less than one year ago, Carew Lodge was a dilapidated building, close to

uninhabitable, barely offering shelter to its tenants, much less a supportive

and secure environment.

I want to commend Executive Director Jocelyn Greene of The Stella Burry

Foundation, Geraldine Lush, the Superintendent of Carew Lodge, and Mick

Newchurch, who runs the resource centre, for their work in securing funding and

succeeding in this transformation, and for involving the tenants who had input

into the process.

Safe and affordable housing is not only vital to improving the health, social

and economic well-being of homeless people; it is a fundamental right of all

people under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

This project stands as a beacon of hope that government commitment and

community action can make an important difference in people's lives.

We hope, Mr. Speaker, that this work will continue.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to extend congratulations to the St. James Anglican

Church Heritage Committee of Carbonear on their efforts to have St. James

Anglican Church designated as a heritage site. Their efforts paid off recently

when the church received its designation from the Heritage Foundation of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

St. James Anglican Church was completed in 1864 and was noted for its unique

design. The absence of pillars was unusual for that period and it was noted that

the people admired the design because it caused no interruption in sight or

sound. Many of the original features of the church can still be seen, as well as

other features such as a barrel organ that was brought to the church in 1904 and

on display at the head of the church. The church is currently undergoing

renovations to its bell tower and there are some other projects in the works to

preserve the unique character of the church.

The St. James Heritage Committee has put forth an effort that clearly

demonstrates their commitment to preserving one of the many great churches that

are a defining part of the history and culture of our Province. Therefore, I ask

all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating the St. James

Heritage Committee and the Town of Carbonear on the recognition of St. James

Anglican Church as a provincial heritage site.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to take this opportunity today to send congratulations to a very

special couple in my district, John and Helen Hennessey, of Branch, St. Mary's

Bay, who will be celebrating their 50 th wedding anniversary this

Saturday night, December 1.

John and Helen will be joined by family and friends in the Branch Community

Centre on Saturday night for a coming together to celebrate this very special

occasion.

John was a long-time employee of the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation. His years of operating heavy equipment, especially clearing

Branch country after a snowstorm, have produced many stories that have become

folklore on the Cape Shore. Helen is a remarkable woman who is well-known for

her ability to carry out any task with commitment and passion.

I would ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in

congratulating John and Helen Hennessey of Branch on their golden wedding

anniversary this Saturday, December 1.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear!

MR. REID: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to inform this House that the Special

Panel on Corporate Concentration in the Fishing Industry has completed its

deliberations and has submitted its final report to me.

As promised, when this panel was convened on September 6 of this year, and in

keeping with this government's policy of openness and accountability,

government will release this report today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the panel, which was chaired by Mr. Les

Dean, along with panel members, Mr. Sam Walters and Mr. Harold Wareham. These

individuals were asked to take on an enormous and complex task in a very short

period of time.

I would like to thank the panel, on behalf of government and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, for their important work.

Mr. Speaker, we are now in the process of completing a thorough review of the

panel's report and evaluating the implications and feasibility of implementing

these recommendations. I am confident that this report will be a great asset in

the future fisheries policy framework.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last spring when we raised concerns about the change in the Board of

Directors of FPI and the concentration of ownership in the industry, this

government saw nothing to ask questions about. When we filed a submission to the

Competition Bureau, they saw nothing to ask questions about. When finally FPI

made a bid to take over Clearwater, the minister was shamed into taking action

and establishing this panel.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to reviewing the panel's report, we look

forward to discussing it in this House, and we look forward to the review of

fisheries processing policy in this Province that the minister committed to last

winter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Corporate concentrations for many years have been a concern. Communities have

had plants closed that were perfectly capable of operating, due to ownership

issues. Fish harvesters have had prices suppressed because of concentration, and

there is a need for this. I hope the report has positive recommendations that

can be addressed by this government to correct some of the problems.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier. Bill 49 is intended to protect the

privacy and personal information of residents of our Province. Personal

information is defined under

section 2 of the act as recorded information about

an identifiable individual, and not only includes name, phone number, address

and age, but also includes religious beliefs, political beliefs, sexual

orientation, fingerprints, blood type, medical status or history, including

physical and mental disability, financial, educational, criminal or employment

status, the individual's personal views or opinions, and other persons'

views or opinions about that individual.

Would the Premier not agree that this constitutes very detailed and personal

information about residents of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, what he just described does constitute

very detailed information.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Premier for the

answer to that question.

Mr. Speaker,

section 38 of the bill sets out nineteen circumstances when this

information may be disclosed, and one of those circumstances is to collect a

debt owing to government. Does the Premier think it is appropriate to use the

fingerprints and blood type of an individual to collect $100?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Premier for that

straight answer to that question.

Mr. Premier, do you think it is appropriate to disclose the complete medical

history of an individual to the Department of Justice for use against that

individual when he decides to sue the government for negligence?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I assume he will get to the point of his

question some time soon and I will answer it then.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will continue with my questions. Mr. Speaker, does the Premier think it is

appropriate to disclose the complete financial, educational and employment

history of an individual any time it wants to enforce any right under any law of

this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not that I am not giving my usual lengthy answers today just because I

have a sore throat; it is that I really would like to know what the point of the

questions is. There is no intention under any piece of legislation to do the

kinds of things that the Leader of the Opposition is referencing at this point

in time.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to clarify the point for the Premier, under

section 38 of the

act, it gives the government the power to disclose this information under these

circumstances: the lengthy list of information that I gave you in the initial

question. I will ask you another question.

Mr. Speaker, does the Premier think it is appropriate to disclose the

religious beliefs, the political beliefs and the sexual orientation, to an MHA

who is investigating a problem for a particular individual? That is what the act

says, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the issue that we have been discussing for some three days

now, the new Freedom of Information Act which is before this Legislature for

full debate, as I have indicated, if the Leader of the Opposition or any other

member of the Opposition, or any member in this government for that matter, has

a concern they would like to raise during the debate, please raise the concern

and we will deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing again is a consistent approach by the

Opposition which is usually inconsistent. The consistent approach is to

misrepresent information that is there, to suggest it means something it does

not. Last week, Mr. Speaker, there was a misrepresentation, a gross

misrepresentation, of the word "concern" in the Auditor General's

Report, that everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador knows was a

misrepresentation of the concern of the Auditor General.

Mr. Speaker, today, for the third day in a row, the number one issue on the

minds of the Opposition in Newfoundland and Labrador is the new Freedom of

Information Act. There is nothing else of importance to them. This is the most

important issue in the Province today, the most urgent issue.

The Leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest that there is going to be a

piece of Freedom of Information legislation, that has been researched to be

consistent with everything else that is in Canada, that allows for the kinds of

things that he is suggesting in his questions. It is not allowed elsewhere in

the country. That is not the intent of the act. He knows the difference, Mr.

Speaker, and he should not be trying to misrepresent what the piece of

legislation says.

Let's have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker. Let him stand and take his hour,

which he refused to do on the Voisey's Bay debate, where he didn't stand at

all and debate his concerns about the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to take his seat.

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you in particular for that answer, Premier, because

it shows the contempt that you have for the rights and privileges of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: In a question yesterday by the Member for St. John's

South to the Minister of Environment, we showed that you are violating the

Charter of Rights of individuals in this Province. That is what you are doing,

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier not agree that the

protection of privacy under this act in fact protects the government and not the

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the record will show, in the some twelve-and-a-half years that I

have been here, that I don't have contempt for anybody. In fact, I have total

respect for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, all of them, including the

Leader of the Opposition who is trying his best to do a tough job. Mr. Speaker,

it is not for me to pass judgement as to whether he is doing a good job or not,

but he is trying to do a tough job.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, if he wants, we can have the

Government House Leader call the bill on freedom of information today, and

debate it in its entirety. He can speak for an hour, as he is entitled to do,

Mr. Speaker, about his concerns with respect to freedom of information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Because it is very unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that he is

trying to suggest that there are things in this piece of legislation that do not

exist; this is not the norm across Canada. The committee researched freedom of

information right across North America. These are standard pieces and clauses

and things that are contained in freedom of information in other jurisdictions,

that the Leader of the Opposition suggested today, Mr. Speaker. They do not lead

to those kinds of actions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board. The net deficit of the Province as tabled in the Public Accounts

report yesterday show wide variations between the Budget Estimates as

communicated to this House and the actual expenditures. For example, for the

year 1999-2000, the budget deficit was estimated to be $33 million but the

actual deficit as recorded on page 12 of the Public Accounts report yesterday

was nearly $269 million. In the following year, 2000-2001, the budget deficit

was estimated to be $34 million but the actual deficit was nearly $350 million.

I ask the minister: Why have your good news budgets had such an underbelly of

consistently poor estimations, and why have your budgets been so out of touch

with the real financial situation in our Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to answer the question because the information put forward by

the member opposite is not accurate. Mr. Speaker, our budget -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to his question and

I would appreciate an opportunity to explain because it is a very important

issue to the people of the Province. It is important to set the record straight.

Mr. Speaker, in fact we did better than we predicted last year by coming in

$6 million less than our projected deficit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: That is a fact.

Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that every year in this House of

Assembly, in addition to tabling a budget, at the end of the year we table, on

the recommendation of the Comptroller General, a recording, a record, of all of

our Public Accounts for the whole year. Mr. Speaker, we have done this every

year, every single piece. There are four volumes. Volume III accounts for the

cash statements, which he is trying to refer to in his comparisons between the

two years, but there are four volumes. One is on the cash basis, and the others

refer to the accrual basis. I will be happy to go into each of the four volumes

in detail, but the point is that it is inaccurate what he said. We had a better

than projected outlook last year. We came in $6 million less than projected in

our deficits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can just quote to the minister, on page 12 it says: Net Expenditure over

Revenue. Now, in my world, that is a deficit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, that clearly shows that in 2001 there will be

a $249 million deficit.

Madam Minister, it is time to tell the truth about the real financial

situation in this Province. You say we are expecting an $80 million deficit. You

were off by $230 million in 1999-2000. You were off by $300 million in the next

year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the member now is on a supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: Will you not be off by another $350 million this year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite the acting finance

critic to come and join myself and the Comptroller General to go through a good

briefing of the four volumes because what I tabled yesterday - and it is

important for the people of the Province to realize this. He is comparing a

budget that we have not event laid down for next year, to the one that I tabled

yesterday; not the budget but the actual Public Accounts for the whole Province

ending March 31.

Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite is neglecting to say - because again it

is always about inferring the wrong information in this case - it is important

to note, I put out a press release yesterday. I hand delivered these documents

to the media. They were delivered in the House for all to see. In the figure to

which he refers, the amount that is included includes the interest payments on

our unfunded pension liability.

Mr. Speaker, when you go to the grocery store to buy your groceries, you do

not go and say: Sir, I have no money but I have a house. You have to have cash.

You have to know how much cash you have. You have to know what expenses you have

to pay out.

Mr. Speaker, our cash sheet is a reflection of our expenses and our revenues

for the year. They are accurate and they are contained in Volume III of the

records of the Public Accounts report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Mines and Energy. This government is

negotiating with Husky Oil and Petro Canada to have most or all of the work on

constructing the topside storage and offloading vessel for the White Rose

project done here in this Province. My question for the minister: Can the

minister tell us if there is an agreement at this point in time to have any of

that work completed and done at Bull Arm?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member, I believe, can appreciate the fact that the White Rose

Development Application is going through a process that will lead to either

sanction and approval of a project, or no project. Once we arrive at that

position, the proponents will know whether or not they can do a project. It will

not confirm whether or not there will be a project. When I announce on behalf of

government inside of thirty days whether or not we approve the Development

Application and/or the Benefits Plan, that will not trigger automatically a

project. That will be the ultimate decision of the corporate boardrooms of the

proponents, Husky and their partners.

At what point they determine whether or not they are going to proceed with

the project, then the issue of level of benefits really becomes important and

critical as a matter of full public disclosure in terms of what their intent is

versus what we would like to see.

The standard that I have laid down to the proponents in this project on many

occasions in my own boardroom is this: We want to see, for this project, no less

than 100 per cent of all of the benefits that can accrue to Newfoundland and

Labrador and/or Canada delivered as benefits accruing to this Province. That is

the standard that we have laid down.

The standard to which we subscribe is maximum and full benefits. The extent

to which that is practical and a realistic expectation will be determined when

the Benefits Plan is finally revealed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. MATTHEWS: I can tell the hon. member this: He can rest assured that

tonight he can sleep well, knowing that this project will yield up more benefits

than any project heretofore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: The President of Friede Goldman Newfoundland, which

operates the Marystown Shipyard, admits his company cannot bid on White Rose

work. My question for the minister is: If Marystown is not sold or leased to a

company that can successfully bid for major components of the White Rose work,

is it possible that some or much of the work will go outside this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer to the question is this: It is possible, but I have to say to the

hon. member that it is so highly, highly unlikely that will happen, he has no

need to worry about that issue today. We will achieve, on this project, the

highest level of benefits that has ever been seen to accrue to this Province

from any of the previous two projects. The third one will be better than the

first, it will be better than the second, and we hope that the fourth one will

be better than the third, as good as the third will be!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's

East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, is it possible that either Husky or Petro

Canada could be looking for concessions from this Province in exchange for

guaranteeing that all or most of the work on the FPSO topside storage and

offloading vessel is possibly being done, even in part, in the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is no secret that in the corporate world in which the companies operate,

they obviously strive to achieve the best possible deal in the interest of their

shareholders. That would be the norm. They would be derelict on behalf of their

shareholders if they did not do that. But, equally as strident, equally as

committed, equally as forceful, and equally as firm as any corporate individuals

are with respect to this project, we, on this side of the House, are just as

firm, just as strident, and just as hard bargainers as they are on their side,

because we want to ensure that our shareholders, the people of the Province, get

the absolute maximum level of appropriate benefits from this and every other

project that we are negotiating.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of the Environment. The five-year logging

plan for forest management, District 16, which includes the main river

watershed, was registered October 31 by Corner Brook Pulp and Paper with the

commencement of the plan proposed to start January 1, 2001. As the minister well

knows, the Environmental Assessment Act regulations require that such a plan be

registered no fewer than 180 days before the proposed commencement.

I want to ask the minister: Given the fact that the time for the commencement

of the plan is only sixty days from the registering, has the minister told

Corner Brook Pulp and Paper that they are going to find a way to waive the

regulations, or has he told them that they have to comply with the act?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

What the hon. member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi failed to mention was that

the minister also has the authority, with the agreement of the proponent, to

change that time frame. There was a request to change the time frame. He also

knows that the proposal is now in the environmental assessment process. As

regards to the time frame, the minister, in agreement with the company, can

change that time frame upon a request of the company.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On November 14, Abitibi Consolidated registered six five-year logging plans,

two of which specify commencement on January 1, 2001. Does the minister also

feel that the regulations should be waived for Abitibi Consolidated? Is it true,

Mr. Speaker, that this minister and this government have consistently over time

done this type of thing, preventing the public from having full access to these

plans and the opportunity to comment on full environmental assessment to take

place? Hasn't this been the consistent practice of this government and this

minister under the environmental protection for the forestry and logging and

other areas in our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: The short answer, Mr. Speaker, is no. This government

has not changed the time frame under which an environmental assessment can be

registered. The hon. member knows full well that there is a forty-five day

period for the environmental assessment process and at the end of the forty-five

days the minister has to give a decision.

So, Mr. Speaker, no, we have not violated the legislation in any way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker under

section 71 of the new Environment Act, where the minister

is of the opinion that the disclosure of certain documents or matters is not in

the public interest, the minister may decline to disclose those documents or

matters. This decision, to release information, is completely at the discretion

of the minister. Another example of government's new openness and

accountability policy.

Doesn't this clause permit the Minister of Environment to circumvent the

Freedom of Information Act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite has a tendency, from what I have gathered in the last 2

days or so, of picking out certain clauses of the acts that are in first reading

here in the Legislature and putting them in a place to somehow justify the

argument that he is putting forth, confirmed, of course, a few minutes ago by

the Leader of the Opposition. I understand now that he is his legal advisor. He

wouldn't do that this morning on the Open Line Show when he was asked the

question. You have three lawyers in your caucus and they are advising you and

you would not admit it. But he did today, and the Leader of the Opposition has

confirmed that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: What the hon. member failed to read, Mr. Speaker - he

mentioned

section 71, but what he did not read by

section 70. It is a condition,

Mr. Speaker, of every license and permit issued under this act that the holder

shall immediately, upon request, allow inspectors to carry out inspections

authorized under this act of a place other than a dwelling place to which the

licence or permit is issued.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, that was feeble attempt at yesterday's

answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, now I ask him to get to his question.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, not the answer at all. Clause 4 of the new

environment act states that in the event of a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, he ought not to be quoting from

documents or bills in the House. I ask him to get immediately to his

supplementary. It should be a follow up from the original question.

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

Is the minister aware that under clause 4 of the new environment act, that in

the event of a conflict between this Act and another Act, the Environment Act

will prevail?

Mr. Speaker, why would the Minister of Environment wish to override the

Freedom of Information Act and not disclose information to the public?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday it was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that he was adamant that

this government and this legislation was violating the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms. Well, Mr. Speaker, he is absolutely wrong. This legislation that we

are putting before the House does not violate the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are three acts that have been approved by this

House that use the very same clauses, the Liquor Control Act, the Tobacco Tax

Act and the Wildlife Act, that have been approved by this House. Also, Mr.

Speaker, there is legislation across this country using the same clauses. I also

want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Legislative Counsel here always checks

legislation to ensure that it is not against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So the hon. member should do his homework a little bit better and probably,

Mr. Speaker, get better legal advice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this government and the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation are again planning to weaken the Public Tender Act through the

passing of Bill 25,

An Act To Amend The Public Tender Act.

Mr. Speaker, will the minster explain what he is really trying to accomplish

with Bill 25 when he must know that sections 3(2), (d), (

i) and (

j) of the

existing Public Tender Act give government the authority to purchase goods and

services without going to public tender in an emergency situation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to get up to respond to my hon.

critic. The bill is on the Order Paper for debate because the Auditor General

recommended that we bring this legislation forward.

I guess the whole answer to the question is: When you have a ferry that

services some of the islands in Newfoundland and Labrador, I guess the Official

Opposition would like the vessel to be tied up for four or five weeks until we

go to public tender to get emergency repairs done. That is what the Official

Opposition is saying to me today. Is that the approach that you want to take as

an Official Opposition? If we get a breakdown on the Flanders this

afternoon, for example, the Official Opposition says that we should go to public

tender which would take six to eight weeks, and that ferry won't be operating?

Is that the approach of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, final

supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the minister read the existing Public Tender Act.

Mr. Speaker, who is really going to benefit from these unnecessary changes to

the Public Tender Act, when the Auditor General in her 2000 yearly report,

section 3.26, confirms that government can do the very thing they are looking

for in Bill 25, if they follow proper procedure?

Mr. Minister, are you planning to purchase another rust bucket like the

Ahelaid without going to tender? Is that your plan?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: The hon. member in his question said: Who is going to

benefit from this amendment to the Public Tender Act. I want to remind the hon.

member that last year we carried 750,000 passengers on our ferry service;

750,000 passengers will benefit from this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has ended.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want to submit to Your Honour that the procedure

being used by the Opposition in the last couple of days about asking questions

about legislation that is before the House is quite out of order, out of order

in the sense that the rules and procedures of our Question Period do not permit

that kind of questioning. Your honour had to bring a couple of members to order

a couple of times for citations, for reading from the legislation. As hon.

members know, that is not permissible and when we get into that kind of

questioning that it permits or promotes, I should say, and encourages long

answers on this side of the House which again is not permitted.

Mr. Speaker, the questions are not permitted primarily because when you get

into legislation one is getting into detail and that kind of detail is not

permitted in Question Period. Mr. Speaker, we have a place for that in the

House, a place to debate. Again these types of questions promote debate.

Question Period is not for debate. We have a place in the House for that, Mr.

Speaker, for detailed questions separate from Question Period.

I suggest that these questions ought to be ruled out of order and not

permitted in this House, Mr. Speaker, in the intensity, the way that they have

been permitted over the last couple of days, because there is a procedure, there

is a process in this House for these types of detailed questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government House Leader either knows or ought to know the ruling that you

provided, Mr. Speaker, some time ago.

Now, he has referred to the purpose of Question Period. The purpose of

Question Period is clear. I quote: " The primary purpose of Question Period

is the seeking of information and calling the Government to account." and

any government to account, and that is exactly what we did today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, the Government House Leader knows, Mr. Speaker,

that your ruling is clear, that we are allowed to ask, as an Opposition, a

question on any piece of legislation before this House that is not being called

to debate on the day we ask it. The Government House Leader also knows that, on

this day, Thursday, November 29, 2001, all of the legislative questions that we

had today none of that legislation will be debated. It is clearly within the

ruling that you provided.

My suggestion to the Government House Leader is simply this; that if you want

to make a point of order in terms of how we conduct ourselves, look yourselves

in the mirror, look at the speaker's ruling, and then conduct yourselves

accordingly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The chair will certainly take the matter raised by the hon. Government House

Leader under advisement. Just one comment: Questions that are asked in the House

- and I illustrated this yesterday when I made a ruling on a previous point of

order - ought to be of an urgent and important nature. Question Period ought to

be an opportunity for members to ask questions that otherwise they would not

have an opportunity to ask in the House. So, I want to take the points raised by

hon. members under advisement and will get back to members.

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition, and it

reads:

To the House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the

petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS the roads in the area of Jamestown and Winter Brook are in very poor

condition and are in desperate need of paving; and

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to pave approximately 1 kilometer of road in Jamestown and approximately 6

kilometers of road leading to and including part of the community of Winter

Brook, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, this a

section of road - I say to the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that this petition is certainly

current. Last year there was 2 kilometers of pavement laid through part of the

community of Winter Brook and 1 kilometer through part of the community of

Jamestown.

Mr. Speaker, I stood here on different occasions to talk about this

particular

section of road, and if anybody listened to the petition, you did not

hear me ask for the road to be upgraded and re-paved or recapped. Here is a

group of people, two communities - one recently celebrated their 100 th

anniversary - asking for their road to be paved for the first time. For the

first time! Never has the road been paved leading into this community of Winter

Brook and parts of the community of Jamestown. On this particular stretch of

road, on this particular 6 kilometers of road, Mr. Speaker, there is one of the

biggest employers on the peninsula, I say to members opposite, Jamestown Lumber.

The owner of that particular sawmill has raised the issue with me and other

members, and with other ministers on the opposite side, of his concern. This

particular individual has paved his parking lot in order to be able to carry out

the business of saw milling, so he can go there and not have to close down his

mill every half-hour or every hour to sharpen his saws and sharpen his knives

because of dust. It is the only

section of dirt road that his lumber goes over

from the time it leaves his mill until it gets to the markets in the United

States. The only

section of dirt road is the

section of road leading into the

community of Winter Brook.

Mr. Speaker, those people are asking to be brought up to the year 2001. They

are not asking for anything that they should not expect. I have stood here and I

have delivered petitions with attachments on them here in the House, tabled

documents from clergy, from people who go to the small stores in those

communities, supporting the individuals who are trying to get the minister's

attention and the government's attention to get this

section of road paved.

I say to the minister, and I suggest to him, it is probably the cheapest

pavement that he will lay in the Province. Back some four or five years ago, the

road was prepared to be upgraded and paved. At that particular time the

upgrading was done but the pavement was never delivered.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister, that I certainly support this

petition and I ask if he would consider it when he puts forward his budget for

road paving and upgrading in the coming fiscal year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Two or three first readings, Mr. Speaker.

Motion 2, first reading of Bill 59 under the name of the Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board,

An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions

Act, 1991 And The Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Pensions Act, 1991

And the Uniformed Services Pensions Act, 1991," carried. (Bill 59)

On motion, Bill 59 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker, Bill 48.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law,"

carried. (Bill 48)

On motion, Bill 48 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker, Bill 54.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Labour to introduce a bill, "An Act To

Amend The Labour Standards Act," carried. (Bill 54)

On motion, Bill 54 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, Order 16, second reading of Bill 46.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting The Child And Youth

Advocate." (Bill 46)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today to introduce

the second reading for Bill 46, which will see the establishment of a Child and

Youth Advocate for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When established, the role of this advocate will be to act, of course, in an

advocacy manner for the interests of children and youth, both individually and

collectively.

This legislation reflects a commitment that was made by our government to

establish an effective and transparent system of advocacy for children. The

establishment of a Child and Youth Advocate is another important step in

recognizing the United Nations Convention on children and the rights of the

child.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 46 shows our continued and ongoing support for our

Strategic Social Plan in this Province. With our Strategic Social Plan, we

commited ourselves to lining government policy in the interests of early

intervention and prevention. We recognize the need for integrating services

across government departments, and in this regard we recognize that establishing

our Child and Youth Advocate will help to make our systems work better around

children. It will allow for continual review and improvement of programs and

services available to children and youth in this Province.

While I was asked, as Minister of Health and Community Services, to lead the

initiative to develop this piece of legislation, I received considerable input

from various other departments in government, and various other individuals.

There has been an extensive consultation process to develop this particular

piece of legislation. The bill reflects the recommendations arising out of a

community consultation process which occurred last March, Mr. Speaker, and it

also includes a review that we did of other relevant legislation right across

the country and many other national documents. This included a review of

legislation in the seven jurisdictions within Canada who currently have advocacy

legislation.

The advocate will have a mandate to provide support to children and youth who

receive services from any government department or agency. The primary

responsibility of the advocate will be to assist children and youth to resolve

the issues in relation to the services that they receive. In this regard they

will work with the department or agency, and with the child, to try and bring a

successful resolution to any concern or issue that may have been brought

forward.

This ensures that they have a voice - that children will have a voice - and

will be supported where there is not a natural support system available, or

where the natural support system that is available just has not been successful

and it has not worked for the child.

Of course, in addition to that, this legislation provides an additional scope

of mandate. The advocate will also have the ability to conduct investigations

where he or she is unable to resolve the matter through advocacy, perhaps

through mediation or through other less adversarial approaches.

The mandate of this office will include children and youth up to the age of

nineteen years. This is generally, of course, seen as the age of entering

adulthood, the natural school-leaving age for young people as well, when we

recognize them as having that level of independence. However, recognizing that

in some cases children who are in the care of the Director of Child Youth and

Family Services, or in custody under the Young Offenders Act, the bill also

provides services to be extended to those individuals until their twenty-first

birthday, or until they are no longer receiving these supports.

Mr. Speaker, the advocate has authority to respond to systemic policy issues

related to the Department of Education, but it will not have the authority to

provide individual advocacy services. This approach is consistent with that of

every other jurisdiction in the country.

This legislation, in fact, goes further than the legislation in most other

jurisdictions. For example, in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario, their advocacy

legislation for children only addresses matters of child welfare. In Quebec and

Nova Scotia, these provinces include in their legislation child welfare and

youth corrections only. Our legislation goes much beyond that.

The advocate, as prescribed in the legislation, will be an officer of this

Legislature and thereby be independent of government. When the legislation has

been proclaimed, there will be an open recruitment process for this position and

the structure will meet government's commitments of developing systems which

are open, transparent and objective.

Again, this legislation will place our Province among the leaders in this

country as it relates to child and youth advocacy. With successful passage of

Bill 46, we expect that the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate can be

operational in 2002. Once in place, then, we would expect the advocate to bring

forward an operational plan to the Commission of Internal Economy for its

consideration.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador is pleased to join other jurisdictions

in Canada which have child and youth advocates and to once again recognize, in a

very meaningful way, the importance of children and youth in our society and in

our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very, very pleased to be bringing this forward now for second reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very happy to be standing here today to speak on Bill 46 as well. The

Opposition have been pushing for a long, long time for the establishment of a

Youth Advocate. It was the primary recommendation of the Select Committee on

Children's Interests and when that report was released in June, 1996,

five-and-a-half years ago, we began asking for the establishment of a Child

Advocate.

Interestingly enough, while we were asking for the establishment of a Child

Advocate to look out for the best interests of the children of our Province,

that was back in the 1990s, this government saw as its priority at that time the

appointment of a Consumer Advocate to take care of people who were power

consumers. That was a worthwhile venture, of course, but the priorities were not

right at that time and I am glad to see that we have finally gotten around to

the establishment of a Child Advocate.

New child welfare legislation at the time, when we were asking for a Child

Advocate, did nothing more than set up an advisory committee which had no

independence, no research capacity or funding, no authority or power to review

documents or call witnesses, and no specific mandate other than to submit a

brief review every two years. That legislation saw devolution of ministerial

powers to boards which made the establishment of a Child Advocate even more

important.

A couple of highlights outlining our quest for the appointment of a person to

advocate on behalf of our children, the House of Assembly Select Committee on

Children's Interests comprised of: a Chair, the present Minister of Human

Resources and Employment; Vice-Chair, the present Member for Waterford Valley;

the Member for Burin-Placentia West; and the original Chair was Ms Pat Cowan.

In this House on November 18, 1996, the Member for Waterford Valley called on

the government to appoint a Child Advocate. The Minister of Social Services at

the time said the government was not ready to act on this recommendation. On

November 19, 1996, the PC Party released its platform on Children's Interests,

in which it called for a Child Advocate. On November 19, 1998, here in this

Legislature, I called on the government to appoint a Child Advocate. The

Minister of Health and Community Services at that time said the government had

undertaken many initiatives for children since the Select Committee released its

report. Unfortunately, a Child Advocate was not one of those initiatives.

In this House on November 26, 1998, speaking to the Child, Youth and Family

Services Act, the Opposition Leader at the time, the Member for Kilbride, called

on the government to appoint a Child Advocate. The Health and Community Services

Minister said, "...we have not said no to a children's advocate, but if

this government is going to spend money creating a systems approach, a high-cost

bureaucracy, it has to be something that is proven with evidence-based decisions

which is the direction we are trying to go, and then we will consider it."

She wanted to wait and see if the new child welfare legislation would address

the problems.

In an endeavour not to set up a bureaucracy, the Child, Youth and Family

Services Act provided for a provincial director, six regional directors who

would report to their respective boards, and so on. That was, I guess, another

form of bureaucracy.

Then, the one proven way to get this present government to act, the PC Blue

Book in the February 1999 election campaign stated, "Children frequently

find themselves at the mercy of the system, sometimes as wards of the state; but

there is no office of government dedicated to looking out for their best

interests. It is time to establish an Office of the Children's Advocate, as

recommended by the House of Assembly Select Committee on Children's Interests,

whose sole purpose is to advocate for the rights of children and to ensure

children's best interests are served when they are at the mercy of one part of

the system or another. A PC Government will immediately establish an Office of

the Children's Advocate."

That was one of the things in our Blue Book that it took them a little while

to get around to. I am happy to be here today speaking on this legislation and

to say that they have finally gotten around to another piece of our legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Congratulations!

MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, congratulations!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: You are learning.

MS S. OSBORNE: You are learning.

Almost six years after the release of the report and almost a year since the

present Premier promised in his leadership campaign to establish a children's

advocate. Obviously, it was not a priority then either, or it would have been

done in the spring sitting. However, we are here and I would like to

congratulate the government for it. We are glad to part of it and have input

into it.

The committee recommended that the advocate report to the Legislature as

opposed to the minister. This reporting structure would be similar to that of

the Auditor General. It is gratifying to see that

section 5 of this bill states

that the advocate will be an officer of the House of Assembly.

The committee also recommended that the advocate be a system's advocate,

but one with access to the type of information one can only get from case

advocacy.

Section 21 of the bill does seem to address that. An ideal situation,

of course, would be a case advocate, but it is reasonable to suggest that

financial limitations certainly preclude that happening at this time.

I would like to propose another recommendation that the select committee put

in at that time, and that is towards a child advocate. That is the creation of a

House of Assembly standing committee on children and youth. This standing

committee would facilitate the exchange of information between the advocate and

members of the House of Assembly, who many times, by virtue of their role as an

MHA, find themselves advocating for their constituents, and they would assume

the position of quasi-advocate. It would be nice to have a standing committee of

this House of Assembly that could act with the children's advocate on behalf

of many of the children who are marginalized out there and whose families do

approach the House of Assembly members for advocacy on their behalf. The

creation of this standing committee, together with the system's advocate,

would be effective, not perfect, but, I would suggest, very effective.

The committee has, therefore, recommended the following safeguard protocols

be established: The advocate accept individual requests for assistance, but be

empowered to act only upon those cases determined in his or her professional

judgement to be of sufficient importance to require individual advocacy; that

legislation affecting children in closed custody or otherwise in care of the

state, be amended to ensure that government officials are required to make these

children aware of their right to appeal to the advocate for assistance; that the

advocate be mandated to carry out an ongoing public awareness campaign, a

campaign designed to inform the public, and especially children and youth, of

the role and mandate of the advocate; and that the advocate provide a means for

young people to contact the advocate's office, for example, a well publicized

1-800 number. That was one of the recommendations that was also in the Report of

the Select Committee on Children's Interests; that there be a hotline

established so that people from all over the Province would have access, at any

time, to a person to advocate on their behalf.

Many times in small communities there are families who have something that is

going on and the mom's or dad's or somebody in the family or the children

themselves, are looking for somebody to talk to, but because some of these

communities are so close-knit and because they are afraid of bringing forward

things to somebody in the community, in case of rumors, gossip, etc., many times

problems are kept within the families. If there is a hotline or a 1-800 number

that children and families can access, with some sort of anonymity or at least

privacy outside of the community. That, I would suggest, would be very valuable

on behalf of the children.

The objective of the advocate's office should be twofold. Firstly, it

should provide constructive advocacy that will assist government with the

direction of social policy to ensure that it is child friendly. That is very

important. Many times there are policies and legislation that come before the

government, legislation that the government is bringing forward, and it is not

always child friendly. So a grid of some sort to put down, to ensure that the

legislation that we are bringing forward would be friendly to the children.

Secondly, although this would appear to be contradictory to the first, the

advocate must be independent of government. In other words, the advocate must be

seen as a useful instrument of governance by government, while at the same time,

not appearing to be, or in fact to be an instrument of the government.

The government's mandate should empower the office to review and comment on

the operations, programs and mandate of all provincial government departments,

as I have said, and agencies, and to comment on the approach of municipal

governments towards children and youth.

The minister inferred that the advocate would have some powers in terms of

education, but glaringly absent from this bill is provision for educational

advocacy.

Article 23 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes that

children with disabilities have the right to enjoy full and decent lives. This

research indicates that this opportunity is not fully enjoyed by all children

with special needs.

What I would like to zone in on at this time, in particular: A school in my

district, and that is St. Matthews, has a developmentally delayed unit, and the

children who attend that school, who attend that unit, are very severely

physically and mentally challenged. I understand that the Minister of Education

has not closed down that unit, however, I think that there are no new children

being accepted to that unit. The parents of those children who, unfortunately,

are unable to speak for themselves, have called me and I have met with them many

times. They are very, very concerned about this. I am sure that they, along the

way, when the Office of the Children's Advocate is established, would

certainly like to bring their concerns on behalf of their children to a children's

advocate, to ensure that a unit like this does prevail. I realize that it is

important to have inclusion, but when the parents of children are saying that

they want the children to remain in such a unit, they figure that their children

are doing better by being in such a unit, I think that that need should be

recognized as well.

The advocate should not be limited to an in-house role within the

bureaucracy. Rather, it should have a broad mandate and the capacity to focus on

concerns raised in the community, the media and by individuals. The advocate

should be able to commission research into given areas affecting children and

youth, monitor ongoing research and publications, both academic and

governmental, and tailor them to the Newfoundland and Labrador context, make

them fit the children of our Province, and monitor departments and agencies to

ensure they are aware of this material and not commissioning duplicated research

needlessly.

An ideal children's advocate office would serve children indirectly in

other ways. At present, there is no avenue for social workers in the child

welfare system to voice their grievances about matters of policy within their

department.

How often have I been dealing with social workers out there, and they are

frustrated by the policy, but they also realize that they do not have any place

to go to discuss that. In some instances there still exists an atmosphere of

fear amongst the social workers, that if they speak up against policy there will

be retribution. A child advocate should be a vehicle for social workers to bring

failures in the policy to the attention of a person who would actually be able

to do something about it. I have seen that so often in dealing with social

workers who are dealing with children. They are dealing with children and they

feel that there is a frustration there because they can see a policy, they can

see that policy is not working for the child, but where do they go? The Office

of Children's Advocate should have an open door for social workers and, in

fact, any government worker within the system who sees that legislation is

putting children at risk.

An ideal child advocate should also be cognizant of the rights of children

and parents. At present social workers have tremendous power. They even have the

power to overrule the decision of a judge of the Family Court, and it is

supposed to be in the best interests of the children. If a judge in the Family

Court makes a decision and then the social worker goes against it, it will be

good to have an office of the advocacy there so that the parents or the

caregivers for the children themselves could go to the advocate and say: I am

not happy with this, this is putting me in a position that I do not want to be

in. There is seldom an opportunity for the parent or the child to learn of their

rights.

Social workers, as well, are many times put in the awkward position of, in an

evening, having to go in and apprehend a child and then the next day having to

go back and work with the parents whom they have apprehended the child from.

That presents a very awkward situation for the social worker, for the parents

and everybody, because immediately there is a defensive there. So an office of

children's advocate, if it is open to the parents, open to the social workers

again, it would certainly alleviate some of the frustrations and other problems

that arise from a situation like that.

As I said, when I stood, I am really delighted to be on my feet here today. I

am glad that the government has decided to bring in the office of child

advocate. Unfortunately, we are not leading, but rather following the lead of

others who are today realizing the benefits of having a children's advocate in

place. In Canada, there are currently six provinces and one municipality that

have children's advocates: British Columbia; Alberta; Saskatchewan; Manitoba;

Ontario; Quebec; and the City of Vancouver. I understand that Newfoundland and

Labrador became one of the first jurisdictions, if not the only one, in the

country to disband the Office of Ombudsman that was already up and running. It

was a shameful decision and it was taken for all the wrong reasons, and

hopefully one which it looks like will soon be corrected.

As I have just stated, we are followers not leaders in the establishment of a

children's advocate. I welcome it, I say to the minister and to the

government. Better late than never and certainly, in this instance when the

legislation is passed, rather sooner than later.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER(Mercer): The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and

Employment.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a real pleasure for me to be able to rise today in this hon. House and

speak in debate on this particular bill. I think this is a memorable day in the

history of this Legislature. I think it is a day that will be recognized right

throughout the Province. As the hon. Member for St. John's West has pointed

out, this is something that her party has advocated for. I must say to her, that

really the genesis for this in the beginning goes back to the Report of the

Children's Interests Committee which was struck in 1994 and was charged to go

across this Province to examine what the needs of our children were and to

report back to the Legislature.

I see my role here today, Mr. Speaker, in addition to supporting the

legislation that has been brought forward, is to also take a few moments to put

this historic legislation into an historical context. As I indicated, this

select committee of the House which was struck in 1994 - and two of the original

members still sit in this Chamber, I am pleased to point out, my hon. friend for

Waterford Valley who was a member of that committee and myself, and I noticed

earlier today Ms. Patricia Cowan who was here in the gallery. She was the

original chair who did much of the work.

The committee traveled extensively, with the support, I also note as well, of

Miss Elizabeth Murphy from the Clerk's Office and Mr. Richard Abraham who now,

I understand, resides and works in England. These were all people who traveled

with us and worked with us on carrying out this important piece of business on

behalf of the children and the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, when I was approached at that time and asked if I was interested

in getting involved in that piece of work, I must say I was very glad to accept

the appointment. I came in from a career in education where I worked, for most

of my career, at the primary and elementary level. I was a principal of an

elementary school for twenty-two years, and in that capacity, working with

primary children, as well played an active role in trying to introduce many of

the things which we were able to bring forward later as recommendations within

our report.

One of the things that we had been able to do, back in Port au Port when I

was principal of the school, was to introduce pre-school programs and to bring

in universal pre-school whereby children in that area were getting to school a

year earlier, because we recognized the tremendous advantages of having that

early intervention.

Mr. Speaker, I guess part of my motivation goes back to then, because I can

remember back at that time, back in the 1980s, when we were developing an

initiative on the Port au Port Peninsula, an initiative that we had approached

with so much enthusiasm and an initiative that we saw as having so much merit to

the people and children of our area. We did up a presentation, traveled to St.

John's, met with officials of the Department of Education at that time, and

made the presentation. I will always remember the response that we received,

because to me it spoke volumes as to where we were in terms of our thinking. A

senior official in the Department of Education at that time, after we had made

the presentation, his response was: What if this works? I mean, we were

absolutely flabbergasted. We had a senior official within our bureaucracy, who

presented with an novel idea, the first thought was: Well, we cannot even think

about this. This is going to cost us so much money, that is not where we can be.

It really caused me concern, Mr. Speaker, because it does not cost anything to

be visionary.

We all recognize that at some point in time somebody has to make hard

decisions. I guess what we are seeing here today, when the hon. Member for St.

John's West pointed out the delay in bringing about this piece of legislation,

is that unfortunately governments and elected officials do have to deal with the

reality, but that does not stop us from being visionary. As the hon. member

concluded, better late than never. I am certainly pleased today they were able

to participate in this hon. chamber in a debate that will see this legislation

come to reality.

Mr. Speaker, this particular committee, as I mentioned, traveled extensively

across the Province. It sat for fifteen months. We met in some thirteen sites.

The response was overwhelming. We had a total of 215 briefs and we heard from

some 600 people; I think a consultation that is certainly comparable to anything

that has ever been undertaken before or since in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the thing that I remember today, as we sit in this House, is the

many emotional presentations that we were party to, especially when we sat - I

think back to the times that we met in closed sessions, with children and youth

in care. It was so moving and heart wrenching to sit down and talk to some of

these young people and to learn of their experiences.

I am so proud today to be able to rise in this Chamber and to participate

with this government and all hon. members present in delivering on a commitment

that my hon. friend opposite and I and the other members of the committee made

at that time, that we would endeavour to make a difference, that we would make

sure that their concerns were heard. I think today, in moving forward with this

important and historic piece of legislation, we are delivering in large part on

that promise which we made to those young people way back when.

As the hon. member opposite pointed out, the final report was submitted in

1996, and in the report itself there were a number of points that anyone who

goes back - I reread the report, just to goes back and look through it in

preparation for my brief comments here today.

The main points that came out of that report - first and foremost, what we

heard in talking to the people of the Province way back when, is that there was

a tremendous interest, not surprisingly, with regards to the issues related to

children. We also recognized, Mr. Speaker, and noted that there were reasons to

be concerned, and that there were some serious problems which existed throughout

this Province, but we also recognize, as is evidenced in the recommendations

which we brought forward, that something could be done to improve the situation.

We also pointed out in our report that society has to realize that it makes

more sense sometimes to make that commitment and investment right now, because

otherwise you will be paying for it year over year over year. The investment

that you make now will pay off in spades, and we will all be winners because of

the interventions that are made early on.

Many of the recommendations did carry a price tag. One of these, the Child

Advocate, carries a price tag and we, as a committee - and the hon. member will

remember our final deliberations with regard to that, and trying to draft our

recommendation - we recognized that there was going to be some difficulty in

getting the government of the day to accept and go forward with that, but we

also felt so strongly about it, that it had to go there, it was needed, and it

is so nice today to see that we are finally moving on them.

A number of the recommendations, as I have pointed out, I think there were

some sixty-four in total, were wide-ranging. They covered the whole spectrum.

Over the intervening years, many of them and most of them have been addressed in

one fashion or another, but this was certainly one major piece that had been

waiting to be acted upon. This is one important piece, as the hon. member who

spoke prior to me pointed out, that I think was recognized throughout the

Province. It was necessary and it was an idea that, in time, we knew would

happen, and I guess it is an idea whose time has now come.

Personally, Mr. Speaker, if I could say, I am proud to be a part of the

government that is bringing forward this progressive piece of legislation. The

hon. members opposite obviously, I know, have been supportive of this and they

have pushed for this. In doing so, they have been saying as well to the people

of the Province that they recognize that this is an important thing to do on

behalf of our children.

Mr. Speaker, I want today to commend the minister. I also want to commend her

parliamentary assistant, the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, who

did a lot of the work in consulting with groups and actually in drafting the

legislation that is before the House today.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I recall from the report as well, and I

read with interest in re-reading the report - and I would say to the hon. member

opposite that maybe it might do him well to read it as well; maybe he might

learn something about the subject. One of the comments from the report, it was a

quote that we used in the report, and I remember at the time our discussion on

it, that I had actually read the quote in another publication. As a matter of

fact the author was unknown, but the quote goes: Children are the messages that

we send to a time when we will not be there.

I thought that was so profound in terms of what it says about us as a people.

I think history will judge us on how well we treat this precious resource.

History will truly judge us on how well we treat our children; because they are

indeed the message that we will send to a time when we will no longer be there.

With this legislation, Mr. Speaker, that we are about to adopt, it is my hope

that no child in this Province will ever again need to feel alone or abandoned.

I hope they will now feel that there will always be a place to turn, and there

will always be someone to listen.

How many of us here in this hon. Chamber today, if you take time to reflect

of what you are and who you are, how much of it is just purely by chance? None

of us had any control over the circumstances of our birth. A lot of the young

people we have encountered in our lives, and a lot of the young people that we

encounter on a daily basis, young people with problems, if you look at it, it is

a circumstance of birth, pure chance. They were born in a circumstance when they

did not have the opportunities that those of us who sit in this Chamber did.

I think it is incumbent on us, especially people who have been elected to

represent, and to sit in this Chamber, to make sure that we move forward to try

to fill that void, to be those significant others for those young people who are

disadvantaged and need someone to stand up for them. That, Mr. Speaker, I

suggest and submit to this House, is what we are indeed doing here today.

Given a choice, no one would choose to live in poverty or to live with abuse;

yet, we know that is the reality for so many of our children not only in this

Province but indeed throughout the country and throughout the world.

The Office of Child Advocate will not solve all of the problems facing our

children, but I have absolutely no doubt that it will make a significant

difference.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I am confident, and I submit to this hon. House,

that years from now we will look back at this piece of legislation as a defining

moment in our political careers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to participate in debate at second reading of Bill

46,

An Act Respecting The Child And Youth Advocate.

This Legislature has had several defining moments since I came here in 1993.

Today is one of those days. I am hoping that when this bill is eventually

passed, you will have the absolute, unanimous consent of every member in his

House.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking today, I acknowledge with respect all those many

individuals and community groups whose wisdom and years of experience were

shared with the Select Committee on Children's Interests. That committee was

appointed in December of 1994, and after extensive consultations submitted a

report to this House in June of 1996, entitled: Listening & Acting: A Plan

For Child, Youth and Community Empowerment.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said a few moments ago, it was my privilege to

serve as Vice-Chair of that select committee. It is with that specific

background, in addition to my nearly thirty years as a teacher and as an

administrator in our school system, that I want to comment on Bill 46 today.

Mr. Speaker, we, the members of this House, must never forget that family is

the most natural and nurturing place for a child. Most often, parents are the

most obvious and usually the most dedicated advocates for children. That is why

parents and guardians are called the natural advocates. However, Mr. Speaker, we

must admit and acknowledge the limitations of resources faced by parents in

dealing with frustrations and in dealing with family conflicts and in dealing

with the problems of raising that most precious gift of all, a child.

Mr. Speaker, regardless of their physical, of their mental, of their social

strengths and abilities, every child deserves love and respect because they are

children, and for no other reason. All children deserve respect from family and

they also deserve respect from their government and from the bureaucracy, from

the educational system and every individual who interacts with a child.

Mr. Speaker, the lack of an effective mechanism to represent the interests of

children is one that the Select Committee on Children's Interests heard from

many of the presenters at the time of our public consultations.

Mr. Speaker, I vividly recall many of these powerful presentations, often

made by parents with tears streaming down their faces, frustration in their

eyes, and also made by social workers who were obliged to work in a bureaucratic

structure that they found to be excessively rigid as well as process and crisis

oriented. Mr. Speaker, these parents and these social workers told the committee

that they wanted change in how our Province delivered services to children and

to youth.

Mr. Speaker, frustrations caused by bureaucratic red tape and a feeling that

nobody cares about individual situations was a common reaction of many who

shared their experiences with the select committee. The voice of children and

the concerns of children do not always find a listening audience and a caring

response from those who work in the bureaucratic systems of government. Mr.

Speaker, some people call it the bureaucratic jungle.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have many caring and nurturing social workers and we

have many caring and nurturing teachers. Some of these people find the

bureaucracy itself the most serious impediment to solutions involving children

and their issues.

I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, of the comments of Bruce Rawson, the former

Deputy Minister of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in a 1991

article in which he criticized the modern government bureaucracy. He said, and I

quote, "...the system is not built to serve. It is built to avoid error,

deflect criticism and justify action." That is a terrible indictment of any

bureaucracy.

Suffice it to say, Mr. Speaker, that many people who have had interactions

with government and the bureaucracy in this Province on children's issues

share Bruce Rawson's assessment. Our bureaucracy was not designed to serve the

best interests of children and, Mr. Speaker, in this case, both those served and

those who offer the services know the priority has often been focused on

avoiding errors, on deflecting criticism and justifying actions taken,

regardless of whether they serve the best interests of children or not.

Mr. Speaker, I recall the comments made by Trudy White of the Straits Area

Child Protection Team. She summarized the feelings of many of the presenters who

spoke strongly in favor of the creation of an independent child advocate. In our

hearing on September 14, 1995, in St. Anthony, Trudy stated the following, and I

quote, "Children need someone to speak up for them: they are too scared to

speak up sometimes. An advocate who has the responsibility and is specifically

empowered to deal with children's issues can focus his/her time exclusively on

these critical matters. I think it would be great if we had a child advocate in

Newfoundland and Labrador."

Mr. Speaker, Trudy White is one of those front-line workers in our

bureaucracy. She works every day with young people and youth. Her comments were

echoed in every community that the committee visited, and in many of the

consultations and in the written comments that were received by the committee as

well.

Mr. Speaker, through the creation of a Child and Youth Advocate, parents and

teachers, children and youth in care, as well as social workers and clergy,

school guidance counselors and many others, hope to facilitate a permanent

mechanism for ongoing input into the development and delivery of social policy.

Mr. Speaker, in the nearly nine years that I have been privileged to sit in

this House, I have spoken positively and encouragingly when legislation serves

the public good. Today, Mr. Speaker, is such a day.

Mr. Speaker, since 1981, when the first child advocate was appointed in

Norway, there has been a growing awareness that the rights, views, and

aspirations of children and youth are, at best, under-represented in our

government structures, including our parliamentary system.

One of the best pieces of research consulted by the select committee is a

book written by Martin Rosenbaum and Peter Newell, published in 1991 in London

and appropriately entitled Taking Children Seriously: A Proposal for a

Children's Rights Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 46 reflects the general principles outlined by Rosenbaum

and Newell for the creation of the Office of a Child and Youth Advocate. Mr.

Speaker, I would also want to recognize the consultations that our committee had

with Professor Alastair Bissett-Johnson, a renowned, internationally known

legislator, a law professor. He had worked in Nova Scotia. He had worked also in

London. He drafted some wonderful pieces of legislation involving children. He

currently resides in England.

Mr. Speaker, it was people like Professor Bissett-Johnson who encouraged the

committee to move forward and to always have as our focus the best interests of

children. Mr. Speaker, I note positively the commitment of government to keep

the office an independent officer of the Legislature. In other provinces, I will

note, where the office was mistakenly answerable to a line ministry, there has

been a history of frustration, and in some cases a history of absolute

intimidation.

The Child and Youth Advocate must not have its primary focus as the

facilitator or as the apologist for government's action or government's

inaction. The mandate must be to comment freely on all government policies, to

review and comment on all of its operations, its programs, and all departments

of government, or any of the government's agencies. The Child and Youth

Advocate will abrogate his or her responsibility to children and to families of

this Province if the office becomes an echo that repeats unquestioningly the

policies of government. However, that is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that the only

role of the advocate is to be critical; far from that. Mr. Speaker, the role is

to look independently at situations, independently at problems and policies, and

feel independent, absolutely independent, to comment thereon.

The future credibility of the Office of Child and Youth Advocate will depend

on how successfully the advocate is able to evaluate programs and policies as

well as offer reasonable criticisms without causing the office to become solely

focused on the presentation of negatives. In our services to children, there is

the good, there is the bad, and there is the ugly, Mr. Speaker. The advocate

must carefully navigate a course for the office that reasonably assures

continued respect from the clients, the agencies and public servants who offer

services to children and from those elected to public office, whether they serve

in this House, in our municipal councils, in our communities, on our school

boards or wherever. There are people who have interactions with children.

Although I have indicated general support for Bill 46, there are several

concerns I want to share with members of the House. Although

section 32 of the

bill gives the Cabinet the authority to add or remove associations, commissions

or other groups from those listed in the schedule, it is regrettable that the

bill does not give the advocate access to child and youth files or other

relevant documents that may be held by school boards or any of the other

associated agencies. While the legislation permits a systemic commentary on

school board policy, it does not permit the advocate to be directly involved in

many of the issues that concern children in our educational system.

Mr. Speaker, every child of school age has daily interactions with teachers,

with administrators, with guidance counselors, with therapists and many other

specialized professional personnel who work at the school level. To omit school

boards from the

schedule is, in my opinion, a very serious weakness of the

legislation.

The second commentary I want to make deals with the definition of youth, in

clause 2(g). It is very restrictive. While the definition of youth includes

those persons between the ages of sixteen years and nineteen years and may be

extended to age twenty-one, it particularly refers to youth who are in care or

custody. The bill, by its very definition, excludes all other young people who

may wish to avail of the services offered by the advocate. Unless you are in

care or in some form of custody, I fear you will have very little interaction

with the advocate. This is very regrettable, Mr. Speaker, and it is incumbent

upon me to ask the minister to look carefully at that kind of definition and

what it is means for the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, fundamental to the successful operation of the Child and Youth

Advocate is a commitment to be pro-active and to seek ways and means to engage

in early intervention in situations before children and youth are placed in

foster homes, group homes, or in some form of custody. The whole commitment of

research that we found when we did the select committee studies is that we have

to be commited to early intervention. I do not see that commitment coming

through in this particular piece of legislation.

I must again refer to the comments of Bruce Rawson in his assessment of the

modern bureaucracy. The office of the advocate must do more than deflect

criticism, must do more than avoid errors, must do more than justify actions.

The best interests of the children, as Professor Alastair Bissett-Johnson would

say, must be served.

This legislation is designed to look after those children primarily in the

care of the state. I do believe that this is a serious weakness. In other words,

unless your child is already in serious trouble or unless the children have been

taken from the parents and placed in foster homes or other form of care, the

advocate's office will do little to offer them the kind of attention they

might need and the kind of attention they might deserve.

A much broader scope of authority should be given to the advocate if this

legislation is to assure that all children and youth have adequate access to the

services, and if their complaints and the complaints of their natural advocates,

that is their parents, are to receive appropriate attention.

Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the minister as well, that Bill 46

gives no direction and is silent on the relationship between the Child and Youth

Advocate and the Office of the Citizens' Representative. The minister may wish

to address this particular issue when she closes debate at second reading, or

during our deliberations at the committee stage. If there is a potential, any

potential at all, for a jurisdictional issue between those two offices, it may

be appropriate to have a clearly defined protocol as soon as possible. Children

and their issues are too important, Mr. Speaker, to become victims of turfism'

or victims of a lack of protocol between two very, very good offices of this

Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, while the regulations that will eventually be adopted may

address the issues of communications and regional access, the bill as it now

stands is silent. Will the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate function only

from Confederation Building, or is there is a commitment to having a number of

offices in other parts of the Province? How will a family of a child in

Labrador, for example, or a family or a child in Little St. Lawrence on the

Burin Peninsula, have access to the child advocate? How will these children and

these families find out about the services that the office fo the advocate might

offer in the first place?

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I note that the proposed legislation does not guarantee

unfettered and unmonitored communications between a child or a youth and the

advocate. While I have great respect for those persons who operate foster homes,

group homes, and those who care for youth in custody, I must share with the

select committee some of the comments made to the select committee by children

and youth who avail of these services.

The committee held three sessions in private with children who were then

living in foster homes or in group homes. They were the most heart-wrenching

sessions that I have ever witnessed in my many years as a teacher, as an

administrator, or as a member of this House. Mr. Speaker, they shared their

concerns, especially of intimidation, if they spoke up. They told us that they

were mistrusted even by their social workers. They feared that if they stood up

and spoke up, they would be moved yet another time to another foster home, et

cetera.

Mr. Speaker, I draw the minister's attention to

section 9 of the British

Columbia legislation in which there is guaranteed communication between the

advocate and any child or any youth in the Province. I will quote that

particular

section of the British Columbia act, sections 9.(1) and 9.(2).

Section 9.(1) reads, "If a child or youth in a foster home, group home,

facility or other place in which designated services are provided asks to

communicate with the advocate, the person in charge of that place must

immediately forward the request to the advocate.

Section 9.(2), "If a child

or youth in a foster home, group home, facility or other place in which

designated services are provided writes a letter addressed to the advocate, the

person -

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. H. HODDER: By leave, for a few seconds?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. LUSH: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman (inaudible).

MADAM SPEAKER: Leave is granted.

MR. H. HODDER: I thank the Government House Leader. I will conclude in

about two minutes.

Madam Speaker,

section 9.(2) of the British Columbia legislation reads,

"If a child or youth in a foster home, group home, facility or other place

in which designated services are provided writes a letter addressed to the

advocate, the person in charge of that place must immediately forward the letter

unopened to the advocate."

Madam Speaker, this is protection for children who live in foster homes,

group homes, or any other care facility. They have an unfettered access to the

advocate. I do not see that in this legislation. I would like to recommend to

the minister, that you consider

section 9 of the British Columbia legislation as

a very good recommendation, and it does reflect some of the real concerns that

we heard from people when we attended hearings at the submission stage.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, Bill 46 is an important piece of legislation.

We have to ask the question: Is it built to serve the best interests of children

or is it built, as Bruce Rawson would say, to avoid error, to deflect criticism,

or to justify actions. If the government is seriously committed to protecting

the best interests of children and if this legislation is going to be anymore

than sounding cymbals, anything more than political window dressing, this House

must be committed to a broader scope than the mandate. The government will need

to give the advocate the legislative authority to intervene positively and

effectively before situations reach a crisis level.

Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill. It is a wonderful bill in spite of

its constraints and obvious limitations. Maybe, just maybe, Madam Speaker, the

advocate's office has been established to serve the best interests of our

children in this Province and for no other reason.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It certainly is a pleasure for me to rise today, Madam Speaker, and speak on

Bill 46,

An Act Respecting The Child And Youth Advocate. This is a very

important piece of legislation for the children and the youth of our Province,

and I am very proud today, Madam Speaker, to be part of a government that is

implementing such an important piece of legislation to protect and to advocate

on behalf of the children and the youth in our Province.

Madam Speaker, this is one of a number of initiatives that have been put

forward and undertaken by this government in recognizing and supporting children

within our Province. In the past three to four years we have had the opportunity

to embark on a number of initiatives under both the National Child Benefit and

the Early Childhood Development Program and now, today, the child advocate.

I listened with great interest to the previous speakers today when they

talked about the Select Committee on Children's Interests, and certainly that

initiative was undertaken in 1995 and it was before my time in this particular

Legislature. I have read the report and I certainly listened with great interest

to their experience in meeting with the various groups and organizations as they

traveled around this Province listening to the many groups that advocated, at

that time, on behalf of children and youth, requesting a number of initiatives

be undertaken including establishing the Office of the Child Advocate.

Certainly, in our own deliberations in establishing this particular piece of

legislation, we took the opportunity to meet, once again, through consultation

with a number of groups and organizations from across the Province. In March of

this year we held a consultation in St. John's in which we had eighty-five

represented groups and organizations participate in that particular

consultation. As well, Madam Speaker, we did do a particular consultation in

Labrador, because at the time a lot of the people in that area were unable to

participate, in which we were able to consult directly with the Aboriginal

organizations in that particular area and the health corporation. We did do some

fairly extensive work, and certainly the legislation that is presented today is

the results and the recommendations of the combined perspectives of all of these

particular organizations and groups.

Madam Speaker, in recognizing the importance of children and youth in our

Province it was certainly necessary for government to establish the Office of

the Child Advocate. This office will be broad in scope, extending beyond the

role of most offices that presently exist within the country today, because most

of the offices that are existing across the country only advocate in terms of

child welfare cases or in terms of youth corrections. This particular office

will look at much more than that. It will look at children as it relates to all

aspects of government and government systems. As well, it will look at case

advocacy in most all areas with the exception being in education, as was already

indicated. Obviously, this leaves a very broad scope within our Province to be

able to do the things that need to be done.

Madam Speaker, under the National Child Benefit , I guess, this government

has undertaken a number of initiatives and then, as I said, has followed through

under the Early Childhood Development Program. Obviously, these initiatives are

all impacting the welfare and the well-being of the children within our

Province. One of those initiatives we looked at was under the Family Resource

Center, and just this year I visited a number of these centres around the

Province, in Grand Falls, Gander Bay, down in Robert's Arm, St. Anthony,

Sheshatshiu, and West St. Modeste. Madam Speaker, what these offices are doing

is they are providing the programs and services right in communities to help

nurture our children and to help give them the kind of early development and

early learning that they so require.

We also, Madam Speaker, were able to set up youth centres across our

Province. I visited youth centres in Springdale, St. Anthony, Flowers Cove and a

number of other locations where, again, programs and services were available

right in communities for youth, to be able to help them through some difficult

transitions within their young lives, within their community, and finding a

place for them to belong.

This is the next logical step in terms of the Child and Youth Advocate. Our

children need to feel that they have the safety and the security of having a

place to turn to in some of the most difficult times in their lives. Children,

in the past, within the systems of this particular Province, have not had that

opportunity, and I am very pleased today to be a part of legislation that does

allow them to have that particular opportunity along with other advantages.

I think none of us have to look very far to find very good reasons why this

needs to be done and why the timing of it is so important. I want to not only

applaud the many people in our Province, some of whom have spoken here today,

some of whom have been a part of this from the beginning, but to applaud their

efforts, their continuous efforts, their continuous advocating on behalf of the

children of our Province to have this particular office implemented.

I think that all too often we have seen many situations and cases within our

past where children and youth have not had a place to turn in some of their most

difficult times. I think we have read many books that have documented case after

case, within our history in this Province, of children who have been part of the

systems of governments and have not had, I guess, the opportunity to be able to

have a place to turn and somewhere to go to further their cause, to help them

out of some difficult and pressing situations within their young lives. That is

what we are doing through this legislation, Madam Speaker. We are recognizing

the importance of the children and the youth of our Province, we are recognizing

that they need to have this type of support and this type of mechanism in place

to help them through those difficult times.

I think that this legislation speaks again of the extreme openness that this

government is showing. The transparency that this legislation provides is a

reflection of the dedication of this government to be able to provide this type

of advocacy on behalf of our children.

Our initiatives, Madam Speaker, support the many children and families of our

Province and allow them opportunity to have access and to be able to have a

part

in changing policy, in changing the way we do things within the government

system and also throughout the Province.

This legislation does not just affect children who may be children of our

child welfare system, or children of our youth corrections system, but affects

all children of our Province. No matter what aspect of service delivery they are

receiving, they are still able to use the services of this particular office.

There have been a number of comments made with regard to the omission of

education within the case advocacy aspect of it. I do not think that this should

be seen as a limitation of this particular bill, because really what it is, is a

recognition of the fact that there are other mechanisms in place and processes

in place to address these particular issues. The advocate will be able to

address the education issues which are systemic in nature through discussions

and through cases that will come forward and be able to do this through the

Department of Education. I do not think it should be seen as a limitation to

this particular bill. All other cases certainly will be able to be addressed

under this particular office.

Madam Speaker, my only other comment, I guess, would be, that this is

obviously a very progressive piece of legislation to be brought forward in our

Province. It is something that, I think, a lot of us have welcomed and waited

for, for a long time and, as I said, have advocated for on behalf of children.

Going back even before the Select Committee on Children's Interests, many

groups out there around the Province were making representation to governments

at that particular time, outlining the importance having of this particular

office established in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, I certainly want to compliment all of those people today and to say that,

no doubt, this office will provide a tremendous benefit to children and youth

all across our Province, and that, as we progress with the establishment of this

office and being able to deal with some of the cases and some of the situations

that will be brought forward, I am sure that the advocate will, at that time, be

able to assess further what the need will be, how we can continue to reach all

the areas of the Province in terms of the delivery of this particular service.

Those things, no doubt, will all be considered and all be looked at as we move

forward with the establishing of the office, and establishing the presence

within the Province.

Madam Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the minister, and responsible

for children, I want to compliment the many groups that represent children

across the Province who have worked with me to bring about this legislation, and

to certainly establish the scope and the mandate that it entails. I want to

certainly compliment the officials within the department who have put a great

deal of time and consideration into preparing this legislation, and did thorough

research with all legislation across the country in terms of what is available

in all the Provinces, and have been very thorough in their work in preparation

of this particular legislation.

I also want to say that I am very pleased that the children in our Province

will have such an opportunity, and I think that our priority always has to be

our children. We have to ensure that they get the level of nurturing from

governments and from society that they require, not just from their families and

from their communities. I think we have a responsibility to our children to

ensure that those mechanisms are in place. That is why we come to this House and

we take on the responsibilities that we do. This, Madam Speaker, is obviously a

great day for children in our Province as it allows them a voice, a very active

voice, and a voice that will make this government and all governments in the

future accountable to them, as children. I think that is the objective that we

are trying to achieve here, that we will achieve as we move forward.

I ask that every Member in this House support this legislation, do so very

proudly and do so with the interests of all of our children in mind, and

protecting them and their interests first.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: I thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise to speak in second reading on Bill 46,

An Act Respecting The Child And

Youth Advocate. First of all, let me say, I support the legislation and in doing

so have to, however, say that this legislation comes five years after a select

committee of this House recommended it.

The legislation is good in that it provides, for the first time, for a

special person who will act as an advocate for children in general and for

individual children or young people in particular. I will talk about some of the

things that, I think, are weaknesses in the legislation itself a little later on

in my reports.

I want to say, first of all, that when we talk about a child advocate, we are

essentially talking about a person who can respond to complaints made to him or

her in respect of a problem that a child is having with services or bureaucracy

or, presumably, with life in general that the child advocate may be able to

intervene in, make a recommendation to a department, or a minister, or a

government, do an investigation or, it seems, act in an individual advocacy

capacity on behalf of that person. I think that is a good thing. There is often

a situation where children or young people have nowhere to turn and do not know

where to go to get the kind of help they need.

I do not envisage this advocate as a kind of one-stop shopping for any child

or individual looking to get access to the government. I do not think that

should be what we want this person to do. This is a specialize individual who

will have only a certain amount of time to do the work, that important work,

that has to be done.

I hope this is not an excuse or a way of putting off requests or concerns,

where we could say: Well, we have the child advocate, so you go to that person

and see where that goes. In fact, in some other provinces the mandate of the

child advocate is not to directly have a complaint system but also to monitor

whether or not the government is effectively responding to complaints about

services or activities, and whether or not the government itself is responding

properly to the needs of children. I think that is probably more important a

role than seeing this as a sort of entry point for child services in government.

I hope that does not happen.

The second issue that I want to deal with here is: The scope of the child

advocate is really going to depend to a considerable degree on two things.

Number one, the person who is appointed may take an individual advocacy approach

as a priority or that person may have a broader systemic approach as a priority.

I think the approach that particular advocate wants to take will make a big

difference as to how effective this position is going to be.

The child advocate can act, just as it says, as an advocate, you might say as

an individual advocate, like a lawyer might act, a legal aid lawyer, or a person

speaking on behalf of someone in a board or at a hearing, the way MHAs may do,

for example, in a social assistance appeal, or going to a Workers'

Compensation review hearing or those kinds of specific advocacy roles, or the

person may see themselves as having a much broader mandate to concern him or

herself with all of the issues that are affecting children.

When I say that, I do not see and I did not hear, in the minister's remarks

today, any indication of what level of support this position might have with

respect to conducting research or doing an analysis of government policy or an

analysis of the circumstances that young people find themselves in. I think

there are always individuals who may not be serviced adequately by whatever

government services might be put in, and an advocate for that person is a

valuable tool.

To some extend, more important than that, because more people are affected by

it, is the broad range of things that act on the child and on the rights that

child has, as defined in Human Rights Codes or in international obligations that

Canada has taken on - the International Convention on the Rights of the Child -

to a safe environment, to adequate housing, adequate food and nourishment, to a

proper education, all of those things that Canada, as a country, has undertaken

obligations in international law. I propose that this advocate should be one of

the persons in the forefront of suggesting or saying, on an annual report basis,

to what extent the government is measuring up to the needs of children in this

Province, not only in terms of dealing with complaints. That is kind of like an

Ombudsman sort of role. We had a complaint; the minister did or did not deal

with it. That is the advocacy side of things. A particular person was treated

this way in the correctional service and we think that is wrong, we made

recommendations to the minister and the minister has made the changes. These are

advocacy kind of things. These are the kind of things we are going to see in the

Ombudsperson's or Parliamentary Commissioner's reports. I am sure we are

going to see them in the child advocate's report. That is an important

function.

If the child advocate limits himself or herself to that particular function,

I think that the welfare of children and young people in this Province will not

be well served. If the child advocate is not given the resources to take on the

broader advocacy role on behalf of all children, in terms of assessing whether

or not the government has measured up to the expectations and obligations to

ensure that children in this Province are adequately fed, housed, clothed,

schooled, then I think we are going to have a much less effective position and a

much less effective legislation than we have.

The situation we are facing in this Province today is that one in four

children live below the poverty line in this Province. Forty per cent of the

recipients of food from food banks in this Province are children. Time and time

again, it is said that in excess of 25 per cent of children in this Province go

to school hungry. If a child advocate cannot comment on, or deal with, the

consequences of that and the reasons for that, then I think it will be a

failure.

Let me talk for a moment about what kinds of things I am talking about here.

It is not enough just to give an annual report on statistics on poverty. We get

that from Statistics Canada. We get that from the National Council on Welfare,

who give out reports every year, but they also do some analysis as well. What is

interesting to note, Madam Speaker, is that when you talk about children being

poor, we are not talking about a whole mass of 25 per cent of our population of

young people wandering around the streets by themselves, being poor. We are

talking about children who live in families, children who live in homes and

communities throughout our Province, who, along with their parents, along with

their families, are poor. They have inadequate income, inadequate means to

provide themselves with the necessities of life.

Let's not talk about children in isolation. Children do not exist in

isolation. My three children do not exist in isolation from the home environment

and the income and the house itself. All of the things that are available to my

children are what determine, in many respects, along with their abilities and

what nurturing and attention and education they are getting, their outcome. When

you are looking at children, you cannot look at a child by itself. You have to

look at the family, you have to look at the community, and you have to look at

the social circumstances.

The National Council on Welfare says, quite rightly, there is no one single

defining portrait of child poverty. They live in two parent families and they

live in single parent families. In fact, half of poor children live in a family

where the major income earner works. One half of the poor children live in

families where the major income earner actually works, has a job, so they are

not necessarily people all on social assistance or people who do not have any

access to employment or any ability to work or any willingness to work. Fully

one half of the poor children in this country are in families where there is a

major income earner in fact working. Working poor families are struggling to

meet their needs. That is a reality, Madam Speaker, and we have to see, when we

are trying to address the needs of children, addressing the needs of child

poverty is a primary goal and one that can be measured by the effectiveness of

measures brought about by governments to bring that about.

We all know, it has been repeated again and again throughout this country,

that in 1989 a resolution in the House of Commons presented by the then Leader

of the federal New Democratic Party, Ed Broadbent was presented to the House,

asking a commitment from the House of Commons, a national commitment, to end

child poverty by the year 2000. In fact, what happened in the next ten years is

that child poverty in Canada increased by 50 per cent. It actually got worse.

Why did that happen, Madam Speaker? That happened not because the government

decided they were going to specifically, consciously, make children poor, but

they decided to tear the guts out of the programs that prevented them from

becoming poor, Madam Speaker, by reducing support to the provinces for social

assistance, by taking the guts out of the unemployment insurance program to the

point, in1989, that 88 per cent or 85 per cent of people who were unemployed

could collect unemployment insurance and now it is less than 36 percent. By

reducing the benefits, by making families poorer, they made children poorer.

That happened in this country, Madam Speaker, to the great shame of the

Governments of Canada in the last ten years. Instead of reducing child poverty,

we increased it by 50 per cent. At the same time, Madam Speaker, other countries

- because this is a about choices, we have to remember- other countries facing

the same kind of international pressures and financial pressures did not do

that. You have a country like Denmark, for example, whose child poverty rate

runs around 4 per cent. They had the same economic pressures, the same financial

pressures, but they did not do what Canada did. They did not make their children

poor or make their children pay for the deficit. That is what we did in Canada,