December

17, 2009

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 42

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today the Chair welcomes the following members' statements:

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

Member for the District of St. John's West; the hon. the Member for the District

of Port au Port; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

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

MR. HICKEY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs, on a point of

order.

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of order regarding Standing Order 90.

Standing Order 90 is, and I will just read it for the record, Mr. Speaker, "A

petition to the House shall be presented by a Member in his or her place who

shall be answerable that it does not contain impertinent or improper matter; and

every Member offering a petition to the House shall sign it with his or her own

hand."

Mr. Speaker, I wish to read into the statement of the House here today a

letter I received today, December 17, 2009, to: Hon. John Hickey, MHA, Minister

of Labrador Affairs, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador.

Dear Hon. Hickey; Yesterday I was made aware of the petition that was

presented to the House of Assembly on behalf of Labrador. My father, John

Chiasson, is one that started the petition after his grandson, my son, got sick

in September. Since then, my father wanted to start a petition to request the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to station a medevac team and plane here

in Labrador.

Since then we have gathered over 3,000 signatures for our petition, which we

are very proud to have accomplished. We have put countless hours, telephone

calls, e-mails, messages, personal conversations from far and wide.

We were so proud as the petition was presented in the House of Assembly.

Words could not have described how happy we were. Until yesterday, it was

brought to our attention what the petition had stated.

Hon. Hickey, the petition that was presented was not the petition that we

were working so hard for. I am very saddened, hurt, mad and upset on how our

petition was not our petition at all. As a matter of fact, it looked like to me

that it was a total different petition all together.

In our petition we clearly stated: We the undersigned residents of Labrador,

call on the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial government to establish a

medevac response team and aircraft in Labrador. Labradorians experience

extraordinary wait times for medevac services which is simply unacceptable;

proving there is an overwhelming need to have a medevac stationed in Labrador,

to serve all of the people of Labrador and its communities.

The petition that was presented had absolutely nothing to do with our

petition whatsoever. Actually, the wait time on the petition was false. Also, we

had to wait close to twenty-four hours, not twelve; and we are not petitioning

to get the system upgraded or more efficient, but we are trying to get what we

had originally asked for, a team and a plane station in Labrador.

After all the hard work, sweat and tears that we have put into our petition,

we are left feeling cheated and still asking questions. My family and I were

unaware of the "formatted" petition that was presented and not asked for any

input on the revised one that was presented.

I hope that the petition that was presented on Labrador's behalf can be

cleared or fixed as it was not presented on what we had thought, hoped and

prayed that it would have been. Words cannot describe the hurt that we are

feeling as the petition that we have worked so hard to do was presented in the

way that it did.

Thank you for your time in reading my letter Hon. Hickey. I hope with all of

my might that you are able to fix this error, well error would indeed be an

understatement, but I hope that you are able to fix it on our, and when I say

our, I mean all of Labrador's behalf. Sincerely, Tracey Best, Happy Valley-Goose

Bay, Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, because individuals who were involved in the process did not

feel their petition was properly presented to the House of Assembly, I feel that

Standing Order 90, Mr. Speaker, has been violated.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader to the point of order?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to respond to the comments by the Member for Lake

Melville.

Yes, we have had an opportunity to read Standing Order 90. Mr. Speaker, it is

standard practice whenever anyone sends in a petition that it has to be okayed

by the Table Officers of the House, and as a routine, we always take what the

person submits, our staff takes it to someone who works at the Table to see if

it is in the proper form. What happened here is it did not meet the proper form

as we would normally have in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, maybe if the Member for Lake Melville -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to continue with his response.

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

What happened here, Mr. Speaker, it did not meet the form. We changed it

merely the form, not the content of what was said in the prayer. This petition

came from 3,000 people, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the petition came from 3,000 people in

Labrador. If the gentleman in question has concerns about what he said and what

was said in his petition, we feel the content was absolutely the same, there is

certainly no intent here, no content was changed; the purpose of the petition

was never changed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we feel there is no point of order here.

No one has misled anyone. The petition meets the form of this House; it was

okayed and sanctioned. If there is anybody that has a problem, it is probably

the Member for Lake Melville. In terms of the Standing Orders, they have been

complied with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There have been rulings made in the past here regarding what is acceptable as

a petition. What the hon. the Opposition House Leader referred to is correct,

that all petitions should be vetted through the Table to make sure that the

petition is in the proper format, and directed to the House of Assembly and not

to a government department or to a member.

The other thing that we have failed to do here is and I think from here on

in that myself, as Speaker, will impose is that the prayer of all petitions be

read, because the prayer of this petition was not read into the record. The

petition was presented as a petition and the commentary was made by the Leader

of the Opposition. At no time was the prayer of the petition read into the

record of what the petition contained.

There is a point of order here, and the Chair will state specifically from

here on in when petitions are presented here to the House, number one, they be

vetted through the Table, which a ruling has already been made in the past. From

today forward, the Speaker will insist that the prayer of the petition be read

into the record as well before members start making commentary to use up their

three minutes.

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

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

It gives me great pleasure today to stand in the House and recognize a unique

visual arts program in my district.

Healing Expressions is a peer-mentored studio designed to help people with

addictions and mental health issues gain confidence and skills through painting

and drawing. This free art program operates out of St. Andrew's Presbyterian

Church on Queen's Road under the direction of artist, Karen Hanlon, in

partnership with Eastern Health's Community Connections and the Recovering

Addicts Fellowship Team.

Since it opened in September, Healing Expressions has given about twenty

people access to workspace, supplies and instruction in a supportive

environment. The experience has changed their lives, helping them reintegrate

into the community and build their own personal art portfolios. The studio held

a public art sale in November that was huge success. Healing expressions is now

forming partnerships with other non-profit arts groups to give their

participants an opportunity to try out new visual art media.

I ask the members of this House to join me today in congratulating Healing

Expressions on their successful first four months of operation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am delighted to rise today to recognize the accomplishment of a constituent

of mine, Kyle Dingle.

Kyle was in the top twenty-four finalists out of over 1,500 who recently

entered an essay contest sponsored by Habitat for Humanity and Genworth

Financial. The students were asked to write essays on the topic: What Home Means

To Me. Kyle's essay is the only one from the Province to reach the stage of

finalist.

From the twenty-four finalists, one winner will be chosen and the prize will

be $60,000 to donate to his or her community for a Habitat for Humanity home.

Mr. Speaker, the selection process is through on-line voting. I would like to

give the site here: www.genworth.ca/contest/home.html - and you can vote up to

fourteen times. I encourage everyone to get involved and support this young man

in his efforts to bring the dream of a new home for a family to reality.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House of Assembly to congratulate

Erica Noonan, winner of three silver medals at the 2009 Canada Summer Games held

in Prince Edward Island.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the fact that this athlete from my

District of Port au Port had the honour of representing Team Newfoundland and

Labrador as flag bearer for the closing ceremonies, along with her hard-earned

achievement of winning three silver medals in the Women's Swimmer with a

Disability division. Erica received silver medals for the 100-metre

breaststroke, 100-metre butterfly and 200-metre individual medley.

I would like to congratulate Erica for her dedication, hard work and

endurance in athletics. As everyone knows, it takes commitment to become a

highly trained athlete and excel in a sport. Erica has demonstrated all of these

qualities as well as being involved in her school, community and Province as a

volunteer. She is certainly an inspiration to us all.

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

with me in congratulating Erica Noonan for her athletic accomplishments at the

2009 Canada Summer Games in Prince Edward Island.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to stand in

this House to recognize the contribution of the Pastoral Caregivers. At our

Central Newfoundland Regional Health Centre, Pastoral Caregivers are very

special and are committed to minister to people with serious illnesses and

recovering from trauma and crisis.

Mr. Speaker, Pastoral Caregivers are dedicated to providing a service to the

sick and are to be commended for the work that they do. In their ministry, they

emphasize on the spiritual aspect and minister to the sick in a supportive

presence. These caregivers represent many denominations from the faith

communities and make themselves available day or night to minister to people

requiring these services.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in recognizing the contribution

provided by the Pastoral Caregivers.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, I just wonder, Mr. Speaker, in response to or

reaction to the point of order raised by the Member for Lake Melville if he

might be so gracious as to provide a copy of the letter that he had so that the

Leader of the Opposition could indeed follow-up on the concerns with that

individual.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

MR. HICKEY: It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to table this

particular document here today.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to speak about Newfoundland and Labrador's

tourism marketing efforts, and the impact they are having in this Province and,

indeed, throughout the country.

Since 2006, the year our current tourism marketing campaign was initiated,

there have been sixty-two awards presented to various aspects of the campaign -

apparently, we discovered eleven more since last week, Mr. Speaker. This

includes television, radio, print ads, billboards and awards that recognize pure

innovation and creativity in our approach to marketing Newfoundland and Labrador

as a world-class destination.

In 2007, Newfoundland and Labrador's marketing campaign, developed in

partnership with Target Marketing and Communications won the Tourism Industry

Association of Canada's Marketing Campaign of the Year Award, and we were a

finalist again in 2009 in this same category.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot rest on our laurels. This is why our tourism marketing

campaign has evolved over the years, with added layers and elements designed to

break into new markets, increase our presence in traditional markets, and to

as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

We must be doing something right, Mr. Speaker, because other jurisdictions

continue to see us as national leaders in tourism marketing, and seek to

replicate our success in the marketplace.

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Mr. Speaker, we should be

quite flattered. There are national and international destinations which are

taking our advertisements and campaign slogans and adopting remarkable similar

marketing tactics in their own campaigns, but they can never have what we have,

Mr. Speaker, a beautiful, and truly unique travel experience to offer visitors

from around the world.

Mr. Speaker, we will stay on the cutting edge of tourism marketing in this

Province. We will continue to offer superior tourism experiences for our

visitors, and we will achieve our goal, as stated in our tourism vision,

Uncommon Potential, to double the economic contribution to the tourism industry

to $1.6 billion by 2020.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Sixty-two awards

and sixty-two ministerial statements we have had. It must be the polling period

again.

Mr. Speaker, you get what you

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I struck a sore point again, I guess, Mr. Speaker.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, you get what you pay for.

Again, I appreciate getting the statement in advance. One comment in regard

to the tourism, Mr. Speaker, and, of course, we have a great tourist

destination, in fact, the best in the world, there is no question about it in

this Province. It is great to see that the government has injected the money to

advertise that we are as such and to attract people here. Probably, one of the

greatest weak points right now though is the Marine Atlantic industry and how it

impacts our tourism. After many, many years it has been greatly, deeply

suspected that Marine Atlantic operates solely as a freight service and not as a

proper tourist vehicle for people to come here.

I think the Auditor General has made some comments recently to the federal

government which might address that, and I am sure this minister will follow-up

in meetings with Marine Atlantic the same as the former minister did, because I

think that is an important piece of the puzzles as well, both through the Port

aux Basques route and through Argentia to make sure that people have a second

alternate route to get here. Most people, especially summertime with their

families and so on, a lot of people do like to do that.

I thank the minister for his statement. Hopefully the awards will keep

coming. Hopefully the people will keep coming and that is all for the betterment

of our Province, the people here who live in the industry and the Province as a

whole.

Thank you.

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

Vidi.

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am glad

he noted that they found eleven more awards because the other day, and it is not

that long ago since he talked about the awards, there were fifty-one. So, keep

up the good work. That I can say to you.

I notice that the minister does make reference to the different ways in which

his department is taking advantage of today's opportunities, and he mentions the

listening to the broadcast, the Fisheries Broadcast last night, but they were

talking about Facebooks out there that are calling Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians barbarians who steal from food banks and drink all the time and

kill baby seals. I do not know if your department is monitoring those Facebooks,

Mr. Minister, but I think it would be useful for your department to see what is

happening out there in a negative way.

There was a young sixteen-year-old who called into the Fisheries Broadcast to

say that he had seen this stuff on Facebook and he was quite disturbed by what

people are saying on Facebook about who we are. That is an infrastructure that

we do not have a lot of control over but I still think it needs to be monitored.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in a few weeks we will be starting a new year and once again

public service pensioners will see no improvement to their pensions.

I ask the minister today: With the rising cost of living, will your budget

recognize the struggles of these former public servants in the next year?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, pensions is certainly a big issue in the

public discourse of our nation today. Finance ministers and ministers

responsible for pensions are meeting in Whitehorse today, as we speak,

concerning issues that are affecting pensioners right across the country.

I know the Minister of Government Services is in Whitehorse today taking

part

in those discussions, and he is doing that in his capacity as a minister

responsible for the Pension Benefits Act, which is the legislation which

administers all pensions in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this government has concerns for all public pensioners but we

have to help everyone, not just those who have a public pension, but also people

who do not have pensions and others who may have worked in the private sector

who also do not have indexed pensions. So all our efforts will be broad based

and will help our pre-retirees and our seniors who need help and we will provide

that help.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a government that certainly expects the federal government to help

bail out pensioners at a time when they need it, but obviously they are not

stepping up to the plate to look after our own public service pensioners. They

submitted a proposal to your government and offered suggestions on how to help

many of those who are on public service pensions but living below the poverty

line.

I ask the minister: Have you even considered this proposal that could help

thousands of these low-income pensioners who live in our own Province?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the pensioners are former employees of the

provincial government. They are getting the pension that was promised to them.

In these tough and uncertain economic times, because of major investments of in

excess of $3 billion invested in these pension plans, our pensioners are in fact

receiving what they paid for and what was promised to them. Unlike pensioners in

other pension plans who are running the risk that their pensions will be reduced

by up to 30 per cent.

Our government will continue to make broad based initiatives that will help

all low-income citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we have to help

everybody and we have to help especially those who need it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The proposal that they have presented to the minister would help those who

most needed it in the Province. There was a cut-off point, obviously,

established to ensure that those who were at the higher public service pension

limits would not receive the same increases.

I ask the minister: Has that offer been given consideration, and is

government looking at implementing something to that standard for these

pensioners?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I have met, in my capacity as Minister of

Finance, on a previous occasion with the pensioners association and I will meet

with them again. As a matter of fact, we set up a situation where they would

meet with officials in the Department of Finance from time to time to exchange

information. I have considered all the requests, and anything we do will be

dealt with in the budget and it will be done in accordance with good fiscal

policy and that is fair to all citizens in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These public sector pensioners are also seeing clawbacks to their pensions

once they reach the age of sixty-five as a result of the Canada Pension

entitlements.

I ask the minister: If he thinks that this is fair, and if he has had any

discussions with his federal-provincial counterparts on this issue so that it

can be addressed and these individuals can have a little more money in their

pockets?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, it is not a claw back. When the pension

plan was designed, it was designed to be reduced at the age of sixty-five when

the Canada Pension Plan would kick in at that date.

Government has, of course, looked at the requests from the pensioners dealing

with claw back and as to the cost that that would have on the Treasury of the

Province. Government will continue to consider all reasonable proposals from

people as we consider going forward in the budget process. It is very important

to ensure that all people are protected, not just those who were fortunate

enough to have a public sector pension fund backed by the taxpayers of the

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps talking about how he has

considered their proposal and considered their options.

I ask you, minister: Are you prepared to act, and what is it you are going to

do for these people, something or nothing?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this government removed thousands of those

people from the tax rolls in this Province. This government gave the people of

this Province the biggest and largest tax cut in the history of Newfoundland and

Labrador. This government has provided a Home Heating Rebate to people who heat

their homes with fuel and electricity. This government has given a benefit every

October to low-income seniors. We will help people who need help. We have to

treat everybody fairly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Tax cuts never help those who live below the poverty line, and the minister

knows that and neither does increasing electricity rates in the Province.

I ask the minister today, here we are, right now, the Public Utilities Board

has just announced an increase to customers effective January 1. That was as a

result of an application by Newfoundland and Labrador Power, where those

consumers will see their power bills increase by 3.5 per cent.

I ask the minister: What impact will this increase have on the customers of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, electricity is regulated here in this Province by

the PUB, and in terms of Newfoundland Hydro particularly, Mr. Speaker, they are

restricted to a very small return on the service that they provide to the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as costs go up, as capital, construction, renovation, repair,

new transmission lines are required, there is a requirement for new investments.

What we do as a government, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has just

spoken so eloquently to, is ensure that the people who are impacted in the most

serious way have some mitigation provided to them through programs like our Home

Heating Program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister talks about the rates being set by the Public Utilities Board,

but it was back in June that she made a submission or representation to them

asking them to earn a return and equity equal to that of Newfoundland and

Labrador Power for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. So I ask the minister today,

now that you have directed the Public Utilities Board to do just that, why don't

you tell us what that direction will cost to people that are customers of

Newfoundland Power come January.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural

Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that the people of this Province expect and have a

right to expect is a quality of service from both the utilities in this Province

who provide energy to the whole Province. Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro like Newfoundland Power needs to have the capacity to do the kind of

refurbishment to make the kind of investments that are required to ensure that

we have a top-notch energy company in the Crown corporation giving the same kind

of service, same quality of service as Newfoundland Power does. What we have in

the PUB is to ensure that the rates that are being charged, Mr. Speaker, are

fair and all of us, certainly on this side of the House, have confidence in the

PUB and the service that they are providing to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Does she think that capacity at Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro should come at further expense to the customers who rely upon this

electricity service while your government is out investing money in equity

shares in oil companies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have to provide a service here in this Province, we have to

provide energy to the people of the Province for domestic use. We have to

provide energy for industrial use and to drive business here in the Province.

Under the PUB we have set up a mechanism to ensure that that is done fairly. Mr.

Speaker, from time to time government does intervene. We intervene by providing

substantial subsidies to our isolated communities, our isolated diesel

communities here in the Province particularly under the Northern Strategic Plan

in Labrador. We work very hard at buffering high prices of energy for people who

have difficulty in paying. We use our energy resources that we have, Mr.

Speaker, to drive industrial development here in the Province to provide work

for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so they can pay their bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know that Newfoundland Power's customers will see a 3.5 per cent increase

in their electricity rates come January 1, so I ask the minister today: Based on

the fact that you have directed the Public Utilities Board that they must have a

return on equity, what will that rate increase be for the customers of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the whole process of the setting of rates here in Newfoundland

and Labrador is under the purview of the Public Utilities Board. When

appropriate, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will make application for a rate

increase, if they deem one is necessary. They will have to vigorously defend

that position at the PUB, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through

the Consumer Advocate

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: or through other mechanisms that are available to them,

Mr. Speaker, have the right to intervene and to state their case whether or not

they think what Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is asking for is fair or

appropriate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: The minister is the one who asked them to get return on equity,

and she still does not know how that is going affect people of the Province, and

how much more they are going to have to pay I think that is ridiculous, Mr.

Speaker.

Government reached a tentative agreement with private ambulance operators

back in November. While this was a good first step I think everyone recognizes

that I have had a number of calls and e-mails from small ambulance operators

in the Province, and their workers, who have outstanding concerns. They have

been unable to get a meeting with the minister, so I ask you today, minister,

are you prepared to meet with these small ambulance operators, and listen to

their concerns and try and deal with the issues that they have to face in the

coming year?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

entered into a successful tentative agreement with the private ambulance

operators, and more funds were put in to enhance the contract they had. That

enabled to pay their employees a much better salary than they were previously

paying. Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to meet the agreement. I understand that the

Department of Health has prepared the contracts, the contracts have all been

sent out. It is my understanding that twenty of twenty-eight have been returned,

and as soon as they get on the desk of the Minister of Health, they will be

signed and sent back to the private operators.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the minister realizes that there is a problem here, and the problem

is in the classification of these ambulance operators. The smaller operators are

unable to pay their employees based on the contract amounts that were granted to

them. They were under the impression that could give wage increases to their

staff, which now they cannot, and they want an opportunity to discuss this with

you, minister, and with your department to see if they can sort this out, and I

ask you if you are prepared to do that.

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

negotiated with the ambulance operators through their association. A tentative

deal was reached; then the contracts were prepared and sent out to the

operators.

If some of the members of the association are having difficulty with the

agreement that their executive and their association met with government; that

is an internal matter involving the private ambulance association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue here is that a number of these smaller operators feel that they are

not being granted the provisions that were originally negotiated in the

contract. As a result of it, they are falling short in being able to offer up

the kind of increases they should to their employees.

I ask you again minister: Are you prepared to meet with them and discuss this

issue?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, government met with the private ambulance

operators and negotiated a contract; a contract which they agreed to and

government agreed to. The money has been made available to meet the agreement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Government's obligation is to pay the agreement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Now, what is happening is that the hon. the Leader of

the Opposition is now attempting to re-negotiate the contract here on the floor

of the House of Assembly.

MS JONES: (Inaudible). Are you going to meet with them?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Health and, I as

Minister of Finance, would be very happy to meet with any citizen of this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, government has committed to developing a new

fiscal arrangement with municipalities to ensure they can provide services to

their residents and maintain infrastructure. This new fiscal arrangement was

supposed to be put in place by March of this year.

I ask the minister today: Could you please provide an update as to when this

arrangement with municipalities will be in place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we are always attempting to ensure that we

are moving forward in our relationship with municipalities. I am not exactly

sure what the member is asking about the particular fiscal arrangement. All I

can say is that we do grant to our municipalities on capital works and so on

with a ratio of 90-10, 80-20, 70-30, right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: As well, we lobbied hard for the federal government and

allow them now to use their gas tax for water quality and waste management, so I

am not sure where the member is coming from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The department has stated a goal that they were developing a fiscal framework by March, 2009. That is what the question was, but nevertheless, Mr.

Speaker, many communities are finding it more difficult to provide services to

their residents, and municipal operating grants often help subsidize services

such as snow clearing, garbage collection, street lighting and so on.

Again, I ask the minister today: Has your department reviewed the Municipal

Operating Grant program and are there any plans to increase the monies provided

to towns throughout the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, we have a working relationship, a very

strong relationship to Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, and we work

very closely with that organization to try to continue to build on the

assistance that we give to our municipalities. We understand the challenges that

they are under, but again, I would say to the hon. member: we, as a government,

understand those challenges, we are working with the municipalities and we are

achieving tremendous results.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we know the people of Buchans have been through

a lot over the past few months and there are more concerns there today with the

potential of contaminate dust from the tailings pond. A consultant determined

that the dam which maintains the integrity of the tailings pond is in serious

disrepair and the water levels should be reduced by two metres to take care of

the pressure.

This past weekend, residents of Buchans were reeling as the reduction of

water levels exposed them to more contaminate dust. I ask the minister: What

actions are you taking to mitigate against people being exposed to those

potential harmful chemicals?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have an excellent working relationship with the Town of

Buchans, in particular the mayor there. We have consulted him every step of the

way on this. The issue of the dam is a safety issue. Through the Department of

Natural Resources they hired a consultant. We acted immediately on the

recommendations, the final report is expected to come in within the next week or

so, but we have already acted to lower the water levels, close off the gate in

terms of safety and add some of the coarse sand and gravel that is required

there for the structural integrity, Mr. Speaker.

We went above and beyond that because the mayor did raise the issue of dust.

We went above and beyond and applied a dust suppressant. That has already been

taken care of and my understanding is the mayor is absolutely more than pleased,

and I suggest you talk to him yourself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in other jurisdictions where a mining company

leaves or goes bankrupt the local government often finds itself with

responsibilities for the maintenance and monitoring of tailing dumps. According

to the same municipal leaders that the minister just mentioned we know that the

tailings pond dam will eventually need to be replaced.

I ask the minister: Will government commit to replacing the dam and if so,

when will this happen?

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the years, mining companies have come to this Province,

they have exploited our resources, and they have left with money in their pocket

and left a big mess behind. Currently, we are dealing with Buchans. This

government has been dealing with Baie Verte; we have spent over $10 million

there in the last three years trying to begin the remediation work that is

required. Mr. Speaker, we will do everything we can to clean up and we will over

time, clean up all of the messes that these companies have left behind them.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, we have legislation in place that anybody who is going

to operate a mine in this Province has to have fiscal tools and guarantees in

place for remediation when the mine closes so we never, ever get left in this

position again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we have learned today that the lone Constable

for the RCMP in Buchans and I understand that his wife and children have already

left the community and he will be transferred out as well due to the level of

lead contaminants. We know that there are serious concerns in the community that

will not be solved overnight, however, I ask the minister what police services

will be made available to the people of that community after April and sense it

is a concern to the RCMP what assurance can they give the residents that this

town is safe?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Yes we are aware of the fact that the lone RCMP officer in Buchans has moved

his family out. The officer himself is still stationed in Buchans and intends to

stay in Buchans until such time as he is transferred and our understanding is

that the staff in Buchans will remain, the detachment will continue to be

staffed. There is no issue there, Mr. Speaker, with the member being moved out

because of contaminants. He has moved his family but the staffing remains the

same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in October I requested under the Access to

Information Act a breakdown of the $500,000 allocated for design and planning

work for the proposed long-term care facility in Carbonear. I still have not

received a response from the Department of Health on that request. I ask the

minister can you provide an update to the people of the Conception Bay North

area on the status of the long-term care facility and whether the design and

planning work has been completed.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to announce that the planning and design is proceeding. In

fact, it was not too long ago, if the hon. member had watched Ed Swain on NTV

News he would have seen Ed there at the facility in Carbonear showing where we

were going to put the long-term care. The consultants were there with us that

day, the mayor of the town was there and everyone was very happy. It is going to

be a state-of-the-art facility, Mr. Speaker, and it is going to be one that the

people of the Carbonear-Harbour Grace area will be very proud of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his response, but I

hope there is more to it than just a photo op.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Transportation and Works, I asked the

Minister of Transportation and Works in the Estimates, this past year, if the

department will be once again looking at maintaining Class 4 roads to a certain

degree. The minister's response at the time was that a review was being done,

and that they would take a look at this in the near future. So I ask the

minister, has the review been completed, and if so, what are the results of that

review?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the review is underway, and when it is

completed, obviously I could release the considerations, if indeed a review has

been undertaken. I will have to go back and review to see where we are on that

particular one. I will review the review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I have to say, that is almost like opening and

closing the roads at the same time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the minister, I was

hoping that he would be able to stand in his place today, because I know a

review was done. That was from both former ministers, the hon. Minister Whelan,

and hon. Minister Taylor. Enough time has gone by that there should have been

something, and I am just wondering, can the minister confirm today that

definitely, they will be doing work on Class 4 roads?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I say to the hon. member opposite again, that we will

review the review, and get back to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions that

I would like to put to the Minister of Health and Community Services with regard

to the private and community ambulance operators.

As has been pointed out, their retroactive cheques, which have been agreed

to, are ready and they are with the regional health authorities. They are

printed and they are being held until the government officially signs off. I

would like to know from the minister, what is the holdup on releasing the

retroactive cheques, especially for those who have signed the contracts if

they have signed, why cannot they be signed off for them?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that this deal that was reached, was reached with an

ambulance operators association that includes twenty-eight or more contracts. We

have a number of contracts that are either in my office or on their way.

I have received ten today from the Western Health authority which I was ready

to sign; however, having regard to the fact that the Liberals wish to

re-negotiate the contract on behalf of the ambulance operators; I cannot tell

them when they will be signed now.

I am going to want to hear from the ambulance operators, saying that they are

happy with this contract, that they accept the contract and that it is a

contract that they will live with before I sign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding from the ambulance operators that I have been speaking

to, they have signed their contracts. That means they have accepted them; they

want their cheques.

These ambulance operators have been working at the end of their ropes for the

past year, some with banks breathing down their necks because they were waiting

for a negotiated agreement. They did not have adequate money; they have had to

take out loans to operate.

I ask the minister: Can you tell them that those who have signed their

contracts are going to be able to get these cheques before Christmas?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is my understanding that this agreement was reached by the Ambulance

Operators Association and that they had a team which met with the Treasury Board

negotiating team. These contracts were not reached on the basis of well if four

or five of you agree, then the rest of you can choose whether or not to agree.

What I am hearing today from the Liberals, they do not appear to be agreement is

what I say to the Leader of the NDP. If these ambulance operators are not all in

agreement; well, I am sorry but we cannot reach an agreement with half a group

and leave the other half of the group to come back later. That is not the way

negotiation works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish the Minister had just responded to my questions, not in relationship

to anybody else's questions. He spoke to an issue I did not raise.

Mr. Speaker, other provinces have streamlined

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for the District of Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The hon. member.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Others provinces have streamlined the provision of ambulance services by

putting them under one public umbrella, and this has been very successful in the

provinces where it has happened.

Mr. Speaker, in November, the Minister of Health and Community Services said

in the media, and it was reported in the media, we may have to start looking at

moving towards-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - the type of ambulance service that they offer in other

provinces where there is not as much reliance on the private operators.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When will this government begin to publicly

manage as well as fund all ambulance services in this Province so that the same

standards of operations and services are provided to everyone, the same, in the

Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am not aware of the final details but my understanding is there was at

least an $8.5 million raise in the contract, the operating, which amounted to

over 20 per cent, and in the forefront of the negotiations was the desire that

this money get down to the people who were working. Whether or not that has

happened, Mr. Speaker, I do not know.

I have indicated, and I did indicate during the H1N1 that if the private

ambulance operators could not see fit to reach an agreement, or were going to go

on strike in the middle of a pandemic then we would have to look at the issue of

a private ambulance system. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, it is an issue of the

underfunding of the system; it is a question of which system is most efficient

and most effective.

We are pleased to reach a deal with the ambulance operators, but all we are

hearing from the Opposition is that they do not seem to like the deal. If they

wish to get back to us today, and I hear from the Ambulance Operators

Association, then I will sign the contracts.

It seems to be ambulance week for the Liberal member over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister was relating to something that he

said in the media some weeks ago when negotiations were going on, so I will put

it more clearly to him. What did you mean when you said that we may have to

start looking at moving toward the type of ambulance service that they offer in

other provinces where there is not as much reliance on the private operators?

Please answer my question, that is what I am asking, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding during this negotiation there was a

significant raise given to these ambulance operators in their operating costs.

It was very generous and I think it came within the template of 20 to 21 per

cent. It might have been higher. The cost, Mr. Speaker, and I forget the actual

numbers, and my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board would be able to outline that but there has been a significant increase in

the operating costs and to provide to these ambulance operators over a period of

time. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if they want the money that they have

agreed upon it is simply a matter of sending e-mail from the President of the

Ambulance Operators Association to the President of Treasury Board and myself,

and we will certainly get the money.

I hope that answers the question for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Question for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is in response to the questions from the Leader of the NDP in Question

Period yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

To begin, it is about the 911, and, of course, from our perspective the

safety and well-being of the people in our Province is a priority for this

government. We continue to work with municipalities to ensure that appropriate

services are in place, lives are protected in the event of a fire or emergency

situation.

With regard to 911 and enhanced 911 service, 911 is the basic universally

recognized phone number to call for help in emergencies. In this Province this

service is currently available in Northeast Avalon area, and that is operated by

the St. John's Regional Fire Department. The Corner Brook-Bay of Islands area

and that is operated by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and Labrador West,

which is again operated by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

The issue currently under discussion is an Enhanced 911 service referred to

E911, whereby the system automatically identifies the precise location from

where an emergency call originates and an E911 system may further identify and

address specific information for emergency responders. For example, whether an

occupant in the household uses oxygen is visually or physically impaired,

etcetera, and other information such as road or access impediments and the

nearest water supply for firefighting.

Now a committee of deputy ministers were established in February of 2009 to

oversee the review of the Enhanced 911 service. They have brought forth the many

challenges that are associated with E911 including, but not limited to, the

geographic makeup of the Province, the technological incompatibility amongst

emergency response providers, lack of or inaccurate civic addressing in rural

and urban areas and different levels of emergency response that exist throughout

the Province to an emergency situation depending on proximity to police, fire or

ambulance services.

Fire and emergency services will be moving forward to investigate the

feasibility of a 911 system. Now this will likely occur, because we do not

believe that we have the internal ability to do it, so we will look to contract

with some sort of a private consultant. The findings of the feasibility study

will be presented to government for consideration. So fire and emergency

services is currently developing Terms of Reference for the proposed study and

expect to be in a position to issue a Request for Proposal, an RFP, early in the

new year. The findings of the feasibility study will then be presented to

government for consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further answers to questions for which notice has been

given.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to stand with this petition and

I can assure you I will read it into the record on your ruling today, even

though it has been read in before.

WHEREAS unregulated or gravel pit camping has been a long-standing

recreational tradition for families in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS residents of our Province have engaged in gravel pit camping for up

to forty years; and

WHEREAS government has not typically targeted gravel pit campers for

contravening the Province's Lands Act due to the cultural uniqueness and

historical meaning of the practice for the people involved; and

WHEREAS government has now rapidly moved forward to enforce its own

legislation in gravel pit camping sites in a relatively haphazard fashion

without consideration of the impacting costs of their actions; and

WHEREAS many gravel pit campers are seniors that lack the resources to haul

their campers and trailers out of the gravel pit sites before the sixty-day

removal order currently being imposed by officials within the Department of

Environment;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the

House of Assembly to re-evaluate government's heavy-handed approach to gravel

pit campers and consult with them to work out a long-term solution to problems

with the practice that government finds unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, this is duly signed by people from Foxtrap, St. John's, Flower's

Cove and throughout the Province of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that those people do have a legitimate concern. I

do not think it is good enough to just go into a site, whether you place

stickers on their trailers or nail signs on their cottages or wherever, and just

leave it at that, Mr. Speaker.

I think those people should have been consulted with, given a timeframe where

maybe they could come to a long-term solution to an issue that they take very

strongly. They figure that consideration should be given on the impact upon them

to remove them from those sites.

Mr. Speaker, this has been done in other areas. It has come to a successful

conclusion where the campers themselves and government have reached an

agreement. I think nothing less should be done for all those people throughout

the Province in whatever areas there seems to be concern for the department.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today and present this petition on behalf of those

residents. Hopefully, government will reconsider and be able to, in some format,

get in contact with the people in the various sites, and do something for the

long-term solution so that this issue can be resolved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will go to - on the Order Paper - Order 7, a bill that has been referred

to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider Bill 57.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House now resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills and that I do now leave the

Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

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

Speaker, left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 57,

An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act". (Bill 57)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand yesterday while I was out of the city, there were a number of

questions asked during debate on second reading, and I would like to give those

answers.

I understand that one of the questions was: How many teachers elected to buy

back service for past periods related to a legal work stoppage? The answer to

that question is that 152 teachers have made the election. The other question

was: Do other bargaining units have similar buyout provisions? I can answer, Mr.

Chair, by saying that under the Public Service Pension Plan, service is credited

by months. A person working one day in a month receives a pension credit for

that month. Consequently, unless a work stoppage exceeds a full calendar month,

there is no service lost.

I can also advise that members of the Uniformed Services Pension Plan do not

have the right to strike.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in

Legislative Session convened as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

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

carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 57.

CHAIR: It is moved that the Committee now rise and I report Bill 57

carried without amendment.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for the District of St.

John's South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Chair of Committee of the Whole has

considered the matters referred to them and have directed me to report Bill 57

carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports the

Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to

report Bill 57 carried without amendment.

When shall this report be received? Now?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted, Bill 57 ordered read a third time

presently, by leave.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to address, under the Order Paper, third readings this

afternoon.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of

Transportation and Works, that Bill 49,

An Act Respecting Public Accountants, be

now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 49,

An Act Respecting Public Accountants, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting Public Accountants. (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 49 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Public Accountants", read a third time,

ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 49)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will continue on with third readings. I move, seconded by the hon.

Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 50,

An Act To Amend The

Petroleum Products Act, is now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 50,

An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 50 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act", read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 50)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill

54,

An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And

Administration Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 54,

An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And

Administration Act be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity And Administration Act. (Bill 54)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 54 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity And Administration Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its

title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 54)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of

Transportation and Works, that Bill 58,

An Act To Amend The Order Of

Newfoundland And Labrador Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 58,

An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act, be now read

a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador

Act. (Bill 58)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 58 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador

Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

(Bill 58)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 57,

An Act To Amend The Teachers'

Pensions Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 57,

An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 57)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 57 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that Bill 57 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act", read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 57)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Motion

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is one of great

importance to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. The mandate of the

Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is set forth in

section 3 of the Child

And Youth Advocate Act. In

summary, the Office is responsible for advocating on

behalf of children and the youth of this Province, for ensuring that their

rights and interests are protected and advanced, and that their views are heard

and considered.

It is certainly the position of this government that no greater priority

exists than to ensure that our children are protected. All other issues should

be secondary to ensuring that this mandate is fulfilled. In addition to ensuring

the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is focused on this, the Premier also

took the unprecedented step of establishing a department that is solely

dedicated to children and youth of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the powers and duties of the Child and Youth Advocate are

outlined in

section 15 of the act. The Advocate wields significant authority in

the exercise of the duties of her office, including the authority to receive,

review and investigate matters relating to children or youth, and to Advocate

and to mediate or use another dispute resolution process on behalf of children

or youth.

The powers and duties of the Child and Youth Advocate also include: the

ability to "(

f) inform the public about the needs and rights of children and

youthand (

g) make recommendations to the government, an agency of the

government or communities about legislation, policies and practices respecting

services to or the rights of children and youth." It is the children of this

Province, Mr. Speaker, our most vulnerable who are the clients, if you will, of

the Advocate. As I have already said, we must never lose sight of this important

fact.

Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the Advocate is one to which this government is

firmly committed. As an example of this commitment, in May of 2008, the

government granted subpoena powers to the Child and Youth Advocate at her

request, thereby empowering the Advocate to compel testimony from participants

in an investigation. This power was written into the Child and Youth Advocate

Act to enable the office to work toward ensuring the best possible care and

conditions for the children and youth in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, neither the House of Assembly nor the House of Assembly

Management Commission have authority to direct the undertakings of the statutory

offices of the House. Instead, the direction comes from the enabling legislation

that created the office. It is from this special relationship that the statutory

Office of the Child and Youth Advocate derives its independence; having said

that, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical that we not confuse independence

with accountability. Although the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is an

independent statutory office, it is nevertheless accountable to the House of

Assembly. The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate reports directly to the

Legislature, via the Speaker of this House, and through this House to the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that being accountable means being

subject to the obligation to report, the obligation to explain and the

obligation to justify one's actions. Being accountable means being responsible,

it means being answerable. At the end of the day, even those of us with the

greatest independence to act must be accountable. Without accountability, these

statutory officers would answer to no one. The Office of the Child and Youth

Advocate is truly independent but it is at the same time accountable to the

people of this Province through this House.

Mr. Speaker, it would be I think useful for this debate, prior to engaging in

the debate on the resolution, for me to provide hon. members with an overview of

the process which has brought us here today. Apart from the merits of the

resolution, hon. members will want assurances that the Child and Youth Advocate

has been accorded procedural fairness. It will be apparent that the Child and

Youth Advocate has been made aware of the specific allegations concerning her

conduct and has been given ample opportunity to respond. Further, so as to fully

inform this debate, on Tuesday we officially tabled in this House a copy of

those documents relevant to the resolution that was provided to members on

Monday, all of which are in the possession of or have previously been provided

to the Advocate.

Mr. Speaker, at this juncture I would like to clarify what appears to be a

misunderstanding by some of the hon. members of the Opposition. The principles

of natural justice include that one has a right to be heard. Unfortunately, some

members opposite appear to have erroneously concluded that this right to be

heard entitles one to an oral hearing. This is not the case. The right to be

heard may be in writing. It may be oral or it may be a combination of the two.

The Child and Youth Advocate was afforded the opportunity to be heard via her

written submissions. This is an entirely acceptable practice. She was advised of

the concerns respecting her conduct and no limits were placed on her written

response. She could, and she did, make her case in a very fulsome ninety-two

page written submission.

Mr. Speaker, while there are those who have advocated for Ms Neville's

appearance in this House, including the Advocate herself, it is important to

understand that this House is not a court of law. In a court of law, Mr.

Speaker, there are procedures and procedural rules which govern things like the

admissibility of evidence. There are rules governing the integrity of the

process. Witnesses are questioned, cross-examined, evidence of others is called

in reply and they are cross-examined. The whole process is overseen by a judge

trained in the rules. This House is not a court of law, and these evidentiary

safeguards do not exist here. Under the circumstances, it would be thoroughly

irresponsible to admit Ms Neville into this Chamber. It is not surprising then,

on December 4, 2009, that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland

and Labrador Trial Division dismissed Ms Neville's application seeking a

declaration by the court that she is entitled to an oral hearing with costs

awarded to the Speaker.

Chief Justice Orsborn said, and I quote: The law is clear, that the conduct

of proceedings and of debate in a legislative chamber is a sphere of activity

protected by parliamentary privilege and beyond the jurisdiction and scrutiny of

the court.

Prior to this decision, the Advocate brought an application claiming that the

Chief Justice displayed the appearance of bias. This application, too, was

dismissed. While Ms Neville has now appealed, this House is not equipped to

received oral evidence.

Mr. Speaker, the dedicated staff of the Office of the Child and Youth

Advocate are members of the public service of the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Beginning in 2008, reports from the staff of the Office of the Child

and Youth Advocate began to raise concerns about the leadership and the

direction being provided by Ms Neville as Child and Youth Advocate. On February

10, 2009, the Speaker, together with a representative from the Public Service

Commission, met with Ms Neville to discuss with her the possibility of a

workplace assessment under the Respectful Workplace Program. This is a

non-intrusive collaborative process, during which managers and their staff are

coached to improve communications and to improve co-operation in the work

environment. It is not an investigation; it is not an accusatory process.

While originally Ms Neville agreed to this process, unfortunately, by the

following day, she changed her mind. This is particularly unfortunate, because

this would have been yet another opportunity for her to be heard, as she claims

she has not been afforded the chance to do. As a result, the Speaker of this

House asked the Public Service Commission to investigate the administration of

the Child and Youth Advocate office. Ms Neville's response was to accuse the

Speaker of interfering with the conduct of her office and to file a formal

complaint of harassment against the Speaker. We have, at the outset, Mr.

Speaker, a confusion by the Advocate between her independence and her

accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the Leader of the NDP was quoted in the media

yesterday, as saying that the Speaker should sit down with Ms Neville and talk

it out first to see what is going on here. Well, that is precisely what the

Speaker tried to do on February 10. What did he get for his troubles? A

complaint for harassment.

As a result of the investigation into Ms Neville's own conduct, the Public

Service Commission was enabled to investigate Ms Neville's allegations against

the Speaker. So, the matter was referred to the Citizens' Representative, Barry

Fleming. Mr. Fleming dismissed the complaint, but Ms Neville accused him of

conflict and has brought a court application to quash his report. The Management

Commission then appointed Wayne Thistle, a well-respected and independent

consultant to conduct yet another investigation of Ms Neville's complaint. The

appointment of an independent consultant was at the request of the Advocate.

Like, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Thistle concluded that there was no harassment. Mr.

Speaker, the report of Mr. Thistle is at Tab 10 of the binder tabled before this

House.

In the meantime, employees of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate

lodged a whistleblower complaint with the Citizens' Representative, Barry

Fleming. Ms Neville brought a court application alleging that Mr. Fleming was in

conflict. Rather than allow his investigation to be delayed, Mr. Fleming asked

government to appoint somebody in his place. Mr. Robert Noseworthy was then

appointed, and Ms Neville has now added him to the court application alleging

that his investigation will be tainted because it follows the same parameters as

Mr. Fleming's investigation.

On August 17, 2009, the Speaker wrote to the Clerk of the Executive Council

expressing what could only be described as grave concerns over the conduct of

the Child and Youth Advocate. In his letter the Speaker writes, and I quote here

various passages, in paragraph 3, "The concerns expressed by staff centered on

important advocacy projects being left uncompleted by the Advocate and

inappropriate management practices."

In paragraph 4, "The inappropriate management concerns reported by OCYA staff

included intimidation and harassment which resulted in a demoralized staff and a

poisoned work environment."

Paragraph 7, "Given the apparent fear and mistrust of Ms Neville, I sought

advice from the PSC" that is the Public Service Commission "...on other

means of the House of Assembly providing assistance to improve the situation

within that Office."

Paragraph 12, "Public confidence in the ability of the Office to fulfill its

mandate has similarly been eroded. During all these events, counseling services

under the Employee Assistance Program of the Public Service Commission were

utilized by many staff to deal with the daily stress experienced within the OCYA

environment. These services are provided by various private counsellors and are

normally subject to a maximum limit of $500 per person. In light of the

significant needs of the OCYA staff, the PSC has agreed that, in this case, it

will not cap EAP services at that level and staff are continuing to avail of

these services. The House of Assembly has also contracted a conflict-management

firm to provide ongoing counseling to staff."

Paragraph 19, "Many staff are now seeking medical help in response to their

work situation. I understand that at least 4 of the 7 professional staff in that

Office have received or are seeking medical advice which will allow the PSC to

assign them to vacant positions within the public service, without competition,

on medical grounds. Others are simply arranging their personal affairs to plan

their resignation."

In his concluding paragraph, the Speaker wrote, "Had Ms. Neville simply

cooperated with the Workplace Assessment process, the necessary improvements in

the operations of her Office might well have been effected in a collegial

manner. Her resistance to any outside assistance or scrutiny and her refusal to

cooperate in any of the measures initiated by the House of Assembly cause me

grave concern. In my view, the current situation is such that the Advocate is no

longer in an effective position to protect and advance the rights of children

and youth'."

Mr. Speaker, the situation could not be more serious. The gravity of the

matter was such that three days later, this letter was brought to the

consideration of Cabinet. In addition, other information had come to

government's attention which lent credence to the concerns expressed by the

Speaker. This information was also placed before Cabinet and is a Tab 10 of the

binder tabled in the House on Tuesday. I will speak further about this

information in a moment.

After careful consideration, the concern was such that the Cabinet decided to

suspend the Child and Youth Advocate with pay. At the same time, retired Judge

John Rorke was appointed as Acting Child and Youth Advocate. Mr. Speaker, while

serious, suspending the Advocate with pay was seen as the least intrusive action

at the time, as the Child and Youth Advocate had not yet been heard in reply.

On the August 20, the Clerk of the Executive Council wrote to the Child and

Youth Advocate and also met with the Advocate at which time the Advocate was

advised of Cabinet's decision and the reasons for that decision. This letter is

at Tab 8 of materials tabled on Tuesday. In this letter the Clerk wrote, "Recent

events at the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate have caused the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council to lose confidence in your ability to guide your

office to fulfillment of its statutory mandate. Key areas of concern include

(1) your management of the OCYA personnel; culminating in (2) your inability to

effectively advance the mandate of your office." This letter concluded with a

request for a written reply from the Advocate.

Mr. Speaker, legal counsel for the Child and Youth Advocate sent an e-mail

requesting a copy of the material that Cabinet had before it when it made its

decision, as well as any related documentation that had since become available.

In addition, counsel requested that Ms Neville's original 2009 Daytimer calendar

be sent to her. Mr. Speaker, this request by the Child and Youth Advocate was

quite appropriate, and on August 31 a copy of the information considered by

Cabinet was provided to the Advocate's legal counsel along with the 2009

Daytimer calendar.

What followed then, Mr. Speaker, was a series of requests by the Advocate for

additional time to prepare her response. The requests were reasonable, and as

hon. members will recall, a resolution was passed in this House on September 8

continuing the suspension of the Child and Youth Advocate with pay until the

next session of the House. The resolution was passed to give the Child and Youth

Advocate the time requested to respond.

Mr. Speaker, the written response of the Child and Youth Advocate was

eventually delivered to the Clerk of the Executive Council on September 30. The

response is quite lengthy, ninety-two pages in all. In addition, attached to

this submission is a copy of Ms Neville's harassment complaint directed to the

Speaker. On the same day, the Child and Youth Advocate filed an application in

the Supreme Court of Newfoundland requesting a declaration that she be afforded

the opportunity to be heard in this House. The application has since been

dismissed. The Child and Youth Advocate's response to the Clerk of the Executive

Council was also attached as an exhibit to that application and therefore became

a public document. It is important for all members to understand, that Ms

Neville was given all the time she wanted to reply and that there were no

restrictions placed on the substance of her response. Indeed, there was nothing

to prevent Ms Neville from supplementing her reply with additional information

should she wish to do so.

Mr. Speaker, on December 7 the Clerk of this House wrote to the Clerk of the

Executive Council enclosing certain e-mails from the Office of the Child and

Youth Advocate while under Ms Neville's direction, and expressing concern

regarding compliance with the confidentiality in that office. The correspondence

was brought to the attention of Cabinet, and Cabinet directed that it be

provided to the Child and Youth Advocate for comment. Later that same day, these

e-mails were provided to Counsel for the Child and Youth Advocate. These e-mails

disclosed that the Child and Youth Advocate had gone outside the office and

enlisted the assistance of a third party outside the Office of the Child and

Youth Advocate, in the writing of the report entitled: Lost in Transition. The

report was released to the public on June 2 of this year.

The Child and Youth Advocate responded in a two-page letter on December 9

admitting that she had obtained third party assistance from outside her office,

but stating that the assistance was justified because the third party had good

editorial skills. The Advocate further stated that as the material provided was

aggregate data, the confidentially of her office had not been breached. Mr.

Speaker, the Advocate here is confusing privacy with confidentially. I will

speak further to this in a moment.

On Friday of last week, December 11, the material tabled in the House on

Monday was distributed to all ministers with direction to review it prior to a

meeting of Cabinet on Monday.

On Monday, Cabinet met to consider the submission of the Child and Youth

Advocate, and after careful consideration the Cabinet concluded that while the

Child and Youth Advocate replied to the concerns raised, and we have provided

responses to each of them, her responses failed to lay to rest the serious

concerns regarding her conduct of her office. The decision was made to introduce

this resolution calling for the Child and Youth Advocate's removal.

Mr. Speaker, I have taken some time to outline the process leading to today

because it is important for all hon. members to understand that while the Child

and Youth Advocate has not been invited into this Chamber, she has been made

aware of the allegations against her and has been provided with ample

opportunity to respond. Further, her response has been carefully considered.

Having invested tremendous time, energy and resources to hearing all sides of

the various disputes in which the Child and Youth Advocate has recently become

embroiled, it is today my duty to rise before the House on the resolution to

remove the Child and Youth Advocate from office.

Mr. Speaker, let me now turn to the grounds for removal of the Child and

Youth Advocate. At the onset, let me be clear, that I do not intend to delve

into each and every detail of the volumes of material that have been filed in

the House.

Mr. Speaker, the Child and Youth Advocate Act is clear.

Section 7 states that

the Child and Youth Advocate may be removed from office for incapacity to act,

or neglect of duty, or misconduct. Having now fully considered her response, the

resolution states that Ms Neville should be removed from the Office of Child and

Youth Advocate because of misconduct. I know that in the minds of some, this

term conjures up images of deliberate wrongdoing or even illegal behaviour. So

let me explain what I mean.

The Child and Youth Advocate Act does not contain a definition of misconduct.

Therefore, it is important for hon. members to understand that in law misconduct

may incur in the absence of deliberate wrongdoing. The term misconduct

encompasses more than deliberate wrongdoing. For example, improper behaviour or

misbehaviour may constitute misconduct. In addition, behaviour which reflects

unfavourably on the public office holder or on the office itself may also

constitute misconduct.

Mr. Speaker, a violation of an ethical rule may constitute misconduct and one

such example is a failure to adhere to the Code of Conduct for officers and

staff of the House of Assembly. A breach of confidentiality or a breach of an

oath of office may also constitute misconduct. Mr. Speaker, with this in mind,

allow me to provide my hon. colleagues with a

summary of the misconduct upon

which the resolution to remove Ms Neville as Child and Youth Advocate is based.

In

summary, it has become apparent that the Child and Youth Advocate does not

possess the managerial and human resource skills that are necessary to

effectively operate the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate and to properly

discharge its mandate. What is perhaps equally unfortunate is that the Child and

Youth Advocate's repeated failure to recognize this weakness and to seek out or

even to accept the assistance that was offered to her to improve the situation

within her office. The Child and Youth Advocate erroneously views any such

opportunities for assistance as a challenge to the independence of her office.

Further, in the disclosure of her draft report, Lost in Transition, the Child

and Youth Advocate breached the confidentiality provisions of her governing

legislation and in so doing, her oath of office.

We had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that in the Child and Youth Advocate's lengthy

submissions we would see some recognition of her own role and responsibility in

the many conflicts in which she is embroiled. We had hoped for a willingness to

seek or at least to accept assistance. Regrettably, no such acceptance of

responsibility or recognition was forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, the children of Newfoundland and Labrador depend on that office.

As a government, we cannot allow it to languish, our children deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to elaborate. The Advocate's misconduct lies principally

in the following: First, in her inability to properly manage the human resource

issues arising within the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, coupled with

her inability to recognize and seek assistance in dealing with these issues. The

second is an inability to properly manage relations with individuals outside the

Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, including individuals of the House of

Assembly to whom her office is accountable and with other statutory offices. The

third area of misconduct is the Advocate's breach of confidentiality and breach

of her Oath of Office. The fourth area of misconduct is what I would describe as

Ms Neville's collective lack of sound judgement.

Mr. Speaker, I will now address each of the identified four categories of

misconduct in turn. As I have already indicated, not ever instance of misconduct

will be stated here, to do so is unnecessary given that the threshold of

unacceptable behaviour has been crossed, and therefore warrants the Advocate's

removal from office.

Number one, the first category of misconduct is an inability to properly

manage the human resource issues arising within the Office of the Child and

Youth Advocate, coupled with her inability to recognize and seek assistance in

dealing with her failed management. Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville's conduct and her

response to concerns raised about her conduct demonstrate a lack of recognition

about the failings of her own conduct. In her ninety-two page submission, Ms

Neville repeatedly acknowledges the existence of a poisoned work environment at

the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate; however, she accepts no

responsibility whatsoever for the problem. Rather, her submission is replete

with examples of the alleged failings of others. Nowhere does Ms Neville

acknowledge that her own conduct may have been lacking in any respect at any

time.

Mr. Speaker, human resource issues are complex, yet Ms Neville is the one in

charge of that office. For her to adopt the position that the poisoned

atmosphere - to use her own words - is everyone else's fault but not hers is

completely untenable. According to Ms Neville then, it is the entire regiment

that is out of step and not her.

To make matters worse, Ms Neville has been unwilling to accept any scrutiny

arising from her staff complaints of her human resource and management

practices. At no time does Ms Neville acknowledge that the concerns raised by

the staff of the OCYA could be in any way legitimate, even to acknowledge that

there perception might legitimately differ from her own.

Mr. Speaker, I will now provide a couple of examples. The Advocate's response

to allegations that employees in her office are demoralized is to say, quite

simply, that these allegations are false. As evidence, the advocate points to

flexible work hours, to an informal atmosphere, to casual conversation, the

celebration of birthdays and other special occasions. While undoubtedly true, it

is a quantum leap to thereby conclude that allegations of demoralized staff are

false.

Further, it is impossible to reconcile this with the fact that staff of the

office filed a whistleblower complaint against the Advocate. Indeed, in her

ninety-two page submission, Ms Neville goes on to respond to a multitude of

staff complaints in the whistleblower matter. It is not possible to reconcile

the very existence of these complaints with Ms Neville's early assertion that

all is well in her office, nor is it possible to reconcile with Ms Neville's

admission of a poisoned atmosphere in the office.

Mr. Speaker, the hallmark of good leadership is the acceptance of

responsibility. Regrettably, Ms Neville's failed staff relations is most

publicly apparent in her press release dated August 7, 2009 in which she is

critical of certain staff' for not initiating the Labrador investigation.

Rather than taking responsibility for the conduct of her office, Ms Neville

chose to hide behind and publicly criticize those who work for her.

Unfortunately, in her written submission, Ms Neville has offered no recognition

of the impropriety of publicly criticizing OCYA staff, particularly regarding

the Labrador fire referral. This, Mr. Speaker, is not leadership.

Mr. Speaker, the second area of misconduct is respecting Ms Neville's

inability to properly manage relations with individuals outside the Office of

the Child and Youth Advocate, including individuals of the House of Assembly to

whom her office is accountable and including relations with other Statutory

Officers. Two examples, which are not exhaustive, serve to illustrate my point.

On the August 7, 2009, when the Advocate issued a news release announcing her

intention to investigate the Labrador fire tragedy, she also sent a letter to

the Clerk of the House of Assembly in his capacity as Chief Administrative and

Financial Officer of the House of Assembly. In her letter to the Speaker, Ms

Neville seeks his assistance with the conduct of the investigation of the Office

of the Child and Youth Advocate, and I refer to the letter of August 20 at Tab 8

of the binder.

Ms Neville says, quote: In order for the Office of the Child and Youth

Advocate to conduct this investigation in-house, I will require the active

involvement of my most senior staff, the Director of Advocacy Services. It is

not possible for the current Director of Advocacy Services to conduct this

investigation, nor is it appropriate for her to remain within the employ of the

Office of the Child and Youth Advocate as the director.

I am therefore seeking her assistance in vacating the position of Director of

Advocacy Services. I further request that you seek on my behalf, pursuant to

section 11.(1) of the Child and Youth Advocate Act, the necessary approval from

the House of Assembly Management Commission for the appointment of a new

Director of Advocacy Services in the manner provided by the Public Service

Commission Act, unquote.

Ms Neville then goes on to describe her version of the events that

precipitated her August 7, 2009 news release in her letter of the same date

requesting the removal of the Director of Advocacy Services. The Clerk in the

House replied to Ms Neville by letter of August 11, 2009, which the letter is

also included in Tab 8 of the white binder.

In his response the Clerk stated, "It is not clear to me from your

correspondence why it is necessary that" she "be removed from her position

as Director of Advocacy Services within the OCYA and a replacement be hired

before you can proceed with the Labrador investigation. This requirement will

only delay matters, as I will discuss below. As your priority is the Labrador

investigation, I believe you should proceed with the investigation as soon as

possible and without such delays."

The Speaker went on to outline appropriate human resource policies applicable

to Ms Neville's concerns about the Director of Advocacy Services and to point

out the no reprisal sections of the whistleblower legislation should be taken

into consideration by Ms Neville respecting her proposed course of action.

Ms Neville replied to the Clerk by letter, dated August 14, 2009, also

included in Tab 8 of the white binder, and confirms that her earlier letter, "I

simply asked that the Clerk of the House of Assembly remove" her "from the

position of Director of Advocacy Services within the OCYA, and that the Clerk

obtain Management Commission approval for me to hire a new Director. Once a new

Director has been hired, I am confident the Labrador investigation can be

completed with the existing complement of OCYA staff.."

Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept the Advocate's assertion that the refusal of

the Clerk of the House to approve Ms Neville's plan to remove the Director of

Advocacy Services from office, constitutes an interference in the independence

of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. Ms Neville was aware that two

whistleblower complaints respecting her office had been made. Ms Neville was

also aware that there are anti-reprisal provisions in the whistleblower

legislation which is the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and

Administration Act which prohibit any form of a reprisal against a complainant,

including a transfer or a termination of the complainant employees.

The Advocate's assertion that she cannot continue with the Labrador

investigation with the director in office is not credible because even if - and

I emphasize if - an error were made by the director not initiating an

investigation arising from the referral, this would not preclude the director

from acting if the Advocate decided that the Labrador fire would be

investigated. Whether or not the Advocate decided to assign the director to the

Labrador fire investigation could have been decided taking into consideration

the resources available to the office.

Simply put, the Management Commission was prepared to assist Ms Neville by

providing additional resources if they were needed in order to undertake the

Labrador fire investigation. Ms Neville would settle for nothing less than the

removal of the Director of Advocacy Services for reasons that were neither

logical nor sound.

Mr. Speaker, a second example of Ms Neville's misconduct in the second

category identified above, being the inability to properly manage relations with

individuals outside the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate follows: On March

13, 2009, the Clerk of the House wrote on behalf of the Management Commission

asking for an update on work completed to date and quoting the goal of the

office from its business plan as follows, "By April 1, 2008, the Office of the

Child and Youth Advocate will have completed the four Reviews of government

programs and services currently being conducted by the office."

The Advocate in her submission replied that no such goal exists. She then

went on to variously accuse the Clerk of falsification of intending to mislead

the Management Commission, making deliberate and blatantly inaccurate

statements, inventing a goal, a boldface fabrication, a falsehood and so forth.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the statement that was quoted by the Clerk came from the

Advocate's own Web site. It is still there today. It is troubling that Ms

Neville was not familiar with the information on her own Web site, but equally

troubling that she would be so quick to judge the character of the Clerk of this

House. I would remind hon. members that the code of conduct governing the

Advocate's office obliges her to treat colleagues with courtesy and respect.'

Mr. Speaker, the third area of misconduct arises from Ms Neville's breach of

confidentiality and her Oath of Office.

Section 13.(1) of the Child And Youth

Advocate Act is clear and unambiguous. It reads, "Confidentiality of information

(1) The advocate and every person employed under him or her shall keep

confidential all matters that come to their knowledge in the exercise of their

duties or functions under this Act."

Mr. Speaker, confidentiality is tremendously important, a tremendously

important aspect of the duties of the Advocate and the staff of the Office of

the Child and Youth Advocate. The disclosure by Ms Neville to persons outside

her office of information in her possession as Advocate is a serious breach of

section 13, and a breach of her Oath of Office. If Ms Neville wished to transmit

the information in her possession as Advocate to a third party, she could have

done so by executing a confidentiality agreement between herself, as Advocate,

and the third party to whom she provided the confidential information. No such

confidentiality agreement was in place.

On June 2, 2009, the Advocate released the report of her office entitled:

Lost in Transition; a review of the transitioning of children and youth in care.

This, Mr. Speaker, is the first and only investigation completed by Ms Neville.

The report involved a review of all Child, Youth and Family Services files for

the calendar year 2006, of children who had experienced transitions while in

foster care during that year. It involved 277 children and 400 transitions.

There can be no doubt of the confidentiality of the material in this report.

Mr. Speaker, in one such e-mail written on May 4, 2009, the third party

writes: "Darlene, well here it is. Please start reviewing this

section for

content. In particular: look at the qualitative

section of your main report to

see if you want to add more balance or comment from that

section into this

chapter. For example, you may want to single out the Aboriginal issue in

Labrador for a table of its own; compare my list of findings and recommendations

with the original list to be sure we have not missed any. I tried to keep track

of it but a second/third set of eyes is a good thing. Social workers had

concerns about the amount and the type of documentation required and suggested

that more documentation requirements would further strain their resources - do

you want to address that in your closing comments - in

Chapter 7?

"Also you need to add a comment in the top

section of the tables on Social

Workers and on Care givers - some background around agreed upon standard ratios

of caregivers and social workers per child/youth in care if you have them it

would be nice for example.

"While you are doing this I will take one more night to add in the

percentages in the body of the report and fix a few minor edits and then it is

back to you and Shirley to shine it up and get it out."

Mr. Speaker, the party here is doing a lot more than connecting typos and

checking grammar. The individual is actively involved in the writing of the

report. Ms Neville, when given the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised

by her disclosure of confidential information made no apologizes for such

disclosure. Instead, consistent with her overall approach, she maintained the

appropriateness of the conduct on the grounds that the third party was a good

editor and that confidentiality was not breached as the report contained

aggregate data.

Mr. Speaker, this confuses privacy with confidentiality. The act is clear

that all information is to be kept confidential. The involvement of a third

party outside the office in the drafting of this report is a serious breach.

Number four; failure to exercise sound judgement. Mr. Speaker, the totality

of the events and the actions that I have outlined today evidences a serious

error in judgement and an overwhelming failure to exercise sound judgement.

One example of Ms Neville's failure to exercise sound judgement lies in her

refusal to avail of the resources offered to her by the House of Assembly

Management Commission. This occurred following Ms Neville's identification of

issues arising from her August, 2009 news release announcing that she had

decided to initiate an investigation into the Labrador fire tragedy. When the

Clerk of the House did not agree to Ms Neville's demand that the Director of

Advocacy Services be either terminated or transferred, Ms Neville refused the

alternative offer of support that was made to assist her with that

investigation.

In short, the Management Commission agreed to provide additional resources to

assist the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate with the Labrador fire

investigation. Ms Neville responded by declining the offer of additional

resources.

Of great concern to government was Ms Neville's inability to act in a manner

synonymous with the best interest of her mandate rather than choosing to act in

a manner that best exemplified her personal dissatisfaction with the refusal of

the Clerk to act in the manner she demanded. Her personal dissatisfaction arose

from the Clerk of the House refusal to terminate or transfer the Director of

Advocacy Services while her whistleblower investigation was outstanding.

Accepting the offer to provide additional resources required for the conduct of

the Labrador fire investigation would undoubtedly been in the best interest and

the advancement of the mandate of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate,

but Ms Neville refused.

Mr. Speaker, similarly, Ms Neville's course of conduct of having embroiled

the office in controversy and confrontation over a protracted period of time has

diminished confidence of the government and of the public in the Office of the

Child and Youth Advocate, and it is therefore not in the best interest of

advancement of that office's mandate.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville's recent conduct evidences her failure or

her inability to properly respond to human resource and personal issues within

the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. In

summary, Mr. Speaker, Ms

Neville's recent conduct evidences a failure or an inability to resolve disputes

or to act co-operatively to resolve disputes. This inability or failure makes it

clear that Ms Neville is incapable of fulfilling the legislative mediation and

dispute resolution aspects of her statutory office.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville's recent conduct evidences a failure or

an inability to work co-operatively with any external entities attempting to

identify and resolve personnel issues within the Office of the Child and Youth

Advocate. This inability or failure creates a serious doubt about whether Ms

Neville is capable of fulfilling the legislative requirement for working with

departments, agencies and organizations outside of her office to advance the

rights and interests of children and youth of this Province.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville's recent conduct evidences an

unapologetic breach of her confidentiality obligations and her Oath of Office.

More alarming than the breach of confidentiality and her own breach of Oath of

Office, however, is Ms Neville's unabashed certainty that her conduct was

appropriate. In

summary, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville's recent conduct in its

totality exemplifies a failure to act in the best interest of the Office of the

Child and Youth Advocate.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Assembly must have confidence in the abilities of

the Child and Youth Advocate. The role of the Child and Youth Advocate is one

that is too important to be lost in controversy surrounding personalities.

Members of this House must have confidence that the Advocate is an individual

who possesses the abilities and the talents necessary to best advance the

mandate of the office.

The Child and Youth Advocate must exemplify sound and tempered judgement,

superior dispute resolution skills and the ability to motivate and lead the team

of dedicated staff in order to achieve the best possible results for the

children and youth of our Province.

For all of the reasons I canvassed today and after giving serious

consideration and thorough consideration of the concerns raised and Ms Neville's

written response to those concerns, regrettably, government has lost confidence

in her ability to advance the mandate of her office.

I will go back to some of my opening comments, Mr. Speaker. There is no

greater priority exists than the protection of our children. In this debate, we

simply can never, ever lose sight of this. The role that this office plays is

absolutely critical, and any and all decisions we make should put the needs of

children first.

It is therefore my duty to move this resolution for the removal of Ms Darlene

Neville as Child and Youth Advocate.

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to respond to the minister's written speech. Mine

will not be as succinct, I guess, or written at least, because I feel it

probably can be better dealt with by actually delving into some of the facts.

The minister, in my view - and I do not disagree with much of what he said,

but I disagree with the process absolutely. I disagree with the fact that there

are all kinds of facts that the minister did not allude to, which are very

relevant to this case. If you are going to tell a story, particularly when we

are talking about an issue that is so important, not only to the person known as

Darlene Neville, but to the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, we need to

know the full story. We just do not read documentation and pick from that

documentation what we wish.

I would like to use my time to address some of those issues that I feel the

minister has not alluded to which shows another side to this issue and shows

some things that I feel government have not looked at and do not, for whatever

reasons, want to look at.

Of course, the people of the Province will judge at the end of the day - we

will get a vote here; there will be a vote. I do not think anybody is foolish

enough to think that we do not know the outcome of the vote at the end of the

day.

The purpose of debating the resolution is so that all the facts - or what the

members of this House feel are all the facts and all the information and

interpretations of it - can be given, and let the people decide what they feel

is appropriate. The decision will be made here. What the public think of the

ultimate decision is another matter. That is why there is an old phrase when it

comes to the justice system and whether that is a criminal justice system or a

civil justice system, it says: Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to

be done.

Now, I will preface my remarks by saying a couple of things first. First of

all, I do not stand in this House today as an advocate for Darlene Neville. I do

not stand in this House today as an advocate for any of the staff who work with

the House of Assembly who work for the Child and Youth Advocate's office. I do

not necessarily agree with the position that Darlene Neville has put forward. In

fact, from what I have read in some of the documents, I disagree with some of

the things. So do not mistake where my comments are coming from here today. I am

not a defence counsel for Darlene Neville.

I am here because I think the process that we are dealing with is seriously

flawed. I do not think, and I am certainly not here to question the truthfulness

or the seriousness of the employees who had concerns about Darlene Neville's

managerial skills. I am not here to test their truthfulness. I am not the

person, nor is anyone else in this House, to test the allegations that have been

put forward by those staff members. There is a process to do that, there ought

to be and there is an existing process to test that, but it has not been done -

and I will come back to that because that is very relevant to everything that

has happened here. It has not been done.

I am not here to question the motivations of the House and the management

committee. I am a member of the management committee, as the Opposition House

Leader; I sit on it. I sat on it and dealt with much of this issue up until

mid-August of this year. So I have some insight as to what transpired up to that

point.

I do question the process, and it needs to be questioned, because it is not

only this particular incident today we deal with, and Ms Neville, the

individual, the person, it is about how this impacts upon the Office of the

Child and Youth Advocate, which is an independent office of the House of

Assembly, independent from government. It also has ramifications in the future

for how we deal with any issue that might arise for any of the other independent

offices of this House, whether it be the Auditor General, the Privacy

Commissioner, the Commissioner of Members' Interests or the Citizens'

Representative.

I strongly believe that the process being utilized to remove Ms Neville from

the office, if it is continued to allow without the proper safeguards being put

in place to allow the process of natural justice and procedural fairness to take

place, we have a serious problem in future as to how those offices may be dealt

with. We did not set them up as legislative bodies that were independent so that

they could be removed at will and without a proper process. They are supposed to

be intended to be independent.

For those who took the time to read the materials here, make a very clear

distinction between what Ms Neville says that she did as Ms Neville and what Ms

Neville says she did as the Child and Youth Advocate in representing what the

office is suppose to stand for. I think, to some extent, there may be some

confusion in that regard. Conclusions have been reached based upon her stand on

things to suggest that she is uncooperative, she is obstinate, she does not want

to take any advice from anyone and she acts on her own. That is because she took

a stand on where she believed the independence of the office should be. So do

not confuse protection of the independence of the office and attribute that to

be somebody's obstinate personality. That is what happened here, I believe, in

some instances.

At the end of the examination that we will go through, in my time, I think

you will be left with several issues outstanding and there will be several

conclusions. There will still be many, many unanswered questions. It is not

going to be as clear and succinct as the minister outlined; it will not be

there. Those questions will need to be answered before a final decision is made,

because otherwise if the decision is made today to remove without those answers,

this House and this body has not done its job properly.

You will also ask yourselves why certain individuals did certain things. What

were their motivations? I do not know. It is not for me to question what their

motivations are, but you will ask yourself or you ought to ask yourself why

somebody did that. What was behind that? You will also ask yourself: Why are the

actions of Ms Neville, and Ms Neville alone, being questioned here? Because it

is all part and parcel, this is not all about her the person, this is about

other people who have made allegations.

Just put yourselves in the position of being chair of a body and some

employees make allegations against you. Would you want to know who made them?

Would you think it is fair to know what it is about? Do you think you should be

entitled to an opportunity to respond to those allegations? Do you think it

would be fair to ask that person why are you saying this? Where are you coming

from? Prove to us why you say this. Wouldn't that be fair in any process? I

believe that happens in our society today in any arbitration case. Anybody who

has dealt with any kind of basic problem that we have had in employment, there

are all kinds of arbitration processes to go through, to test what one party is

saying against another. Well folks, believe it or not, that did not happen here.

I am going to lay out some facts that the minister did not allude to, to show

that.

Why did Ms Neville feel it was necessary to take court action? We heard

comments from the now Minister of Health who, when he was Minister of Finance -

I believe at the time back in August when the suspension letter came out on

August 20 - said: Numerous court actions. Folks, there are two court actions

that Ms Neville was involved in and one of those came about after the December 4

decision by Justice Orsborn. Before that, there was only one court action. Do

not get confused about numerous court actions, as if this woman did nothing but

throw writs around. There was one court action, not dozens and numerous. Ask

yourself: Why did she feel it necessary to resort to the court? We will get into

some of the facts to show why she probably felt that.

Ask yourself: Why was Ms Neville not given an opportunity to personally

appear before the Management Commission? The Management Commission first heard

about this issue starting back in February of this year. I sit on the Management

Commission, as do another number of people in this House. We saw all kinds of

letters and correspondence, never was there an incident where Ms Neville was

offered an opportunity to appear before the management committee and state her

case never. Why was that? You talk about giving a hearing.

Mr. March was given an opportunity years ago when the IEC dealt with his

issue. He was asked if he wanted to come before the committee - at that time

called the IEC - and talk to them. No, he did not want to; declined it. Ms

Neville was never afforded that opportunity.

Ask yourself: Why was the issue taken out of the management committee in

August of this year and flipped upstairs to the Executive Council and the

members of the management committee did not know anything about it? That is just

a question you might need to know; I did not know. I was in here, came in here

for meetings in mid-August to deal with correspondence involving this issue,

only to find out later, when I am travelling across the Province, that the

minister is out having a public scrum saying that the Speaker wrote a letter to

us and the Cabinet and we have had to suspend her. That is what happene