December

21, 2009

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 43

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start regular routine proceedings, the Chair would like to revert

to an action that happened here on Thursday afternoon with the adjournment of

the House.

The Chair would like to refer all hon. members to our Standing Orders and to

know that when a member is recognized to speak here in the Assembly, the time

limit for speaking is clearly shown in our Standing Orders. The Leader of the

Opposition has an hour every time he or she speaks. The Premier has an hour, the

minister introducing a bill, the person responding after and everybody else has

twenty minutes. When the time for adjournment for the normal daily sitting

happens at 5:30 in the afternoon, normally if the House intends to sit beyond

that, there is a motion moved that the House not rise at 5:30 p.m. and, in some

cases, not rise at 10 o'clock.

When a member has been recognized by the Speaker to have control of the

floor, that particular member should not be interrupted without a member

recognizing something unparliamentary taking place and would rise on a point of

order or a point of privilege or to point out an infraction brought forward by

that particular member.

Normally, at 5:30 p.m. when a member is speaking and has control of the

floor, that member would move a motion to adjourn the debate and the House would

rise at 5:30 p.m. to return again at a normal sitting day. If that particular

member does not move to adjourn debate, then the House automatically returns at

7 o'clock.

You cannot move an adjournment motion on a point of order or a point of

privilege. On Thursday past, the Deputy Speaker at the time asked for direction

and there was a sharing of information to provide direction, but incorrectly,

the Government House Leader moved a motion for adjournment and it was accepted

and voted on. What should have happened was the Speaker occupying the Chair

should have vacated the Chair and the House resume at 7:00 p.m.

There was an error made. I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that

your time for speaking still stands. You have, I think, twenty or twenty-one

minutes left in your speech to the amendment of the particular motion that is

before us and that time will be brought back to you and provided for in today's

sitting.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Today we welcome the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for

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

de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; the hon. the Member

for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, as a twelve-year-old, the big summer

adventure for my friends and I was to get on a city bus, go to the outskirts of

town to the Avalon Mall and get a banana split at some new store called Dairy

Queen. High times indeed!

Well, times have certainly changed, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to extend congratulations to twelve-year-old Leslie Amminson, a

resident of my District of St. John's East.

This past October Leslie travelled with her father to Portland, Oregon in the

United States to participate in the 2009 World Handball Championships. This was

a logical step as five years earlier, as a twelve-year-old, she had won the

fifteen-and-under girls championship in Winnipeg.

At the world championships, where Leslie was one of the flag bearers for the

Canadian team, she advanced to the championship game of the Girls Under-Fifteen

One Wall Division and settled for the silver. In the Girls Under-Thirteen

competition she lost in the semi-finals to a girl from California and she also

participated in semi-finals of the Girls Under-Fifteen Singles bracket. The next

world championships take place in Ireland in 2012.

Mr. Speaker, for many years, Leslie's father, Wayne, has been one of the

premier handball players in our Province. However, I want to pay particular

attention to the work he has done in conducting youth programs throughout those

years, particularly at the YMCA, which is also in St. John's East. He has

taken a lot of people in need of a high output-low cost sport and provided them

with a venue not only for competition, but for travel opportunities that

otherwise would never have been available. He is currently involved in

developing a handball program at the St. John's Boys and Girls Club.

Evidence of Wayne's work can be seen by the fact that three of his

athletes, just the past year, were recipients of a 2008 Premier's Athletic

Award which provides funding to assist with for the training and travel required

to compete at an elite level.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me today in congratulating Leslie

Amminson on her success on the world stage, and her future success at the

Canadian and world level also.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, seventy years is truly a rare and valued

milestone regardless of the occasion, and I rise in this hon. House today to

congratulate Joseph and Mabel Peddle of Spaniard's Bay on celebrating their

seventieth wedding anniversary.

On December 25, 1939, they exchanged their vows at Holy Redeemer Anglican

Church, Spaniard's Bay. The occasion was celebrated on Saturday, December 19,

at their residence, at which time I had the honour to present certificates from

both federal and provincial officials.

Throughout the event, Mr. and Ms Peddle reflected on their many memories and

experiences to family and friends who came to offer congratulations. At the ages

of ninety-one and ninety-three they enjoy good health, and an appreciation for

the many blessings that have come their way. Being very active over the years

with their church and community, they are truly an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations

to Joseph and Mabel Peddle on their seventieth anniversary, and to wish them

good health for years to come.

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, I rise in this House today to acknowledge the

accomplishments of Ms Annie Pope of Peterview, and to extend sincere condolences

to her family.

Mr. Speaker, Annie was a true hometown hero. In her early years, she was

diagnosed with Juvenile Arthritis. However, she attended university and received

a teaching degree. She went on to teach in Northern Labrador, but after seven

years her illness made it impossible to continue.

Mr. Speaker, she returned to Peterview and for the last ten years she was

confined in a wheelchair. However, she continued to be a champion for people

with disabilities. Annie served as a town councillor with the Town of Peterview,

was a board member of Central Health, and she also organized a community group

called Your Strength is Our Strength, where people with disabilities were

involved with health and wellness, and literacy programs.

Mr. Speaker, there years ago Annie had a vision for a seniors housing

complex, and in June of this year she cut the ribbon on a ten-unit senior's

complex in Peterview.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, December 16, after a short illness, Annie passed

away at sixty years of age.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to ask all members of this House to join

me in recognizing a champion for the people with disabilities and a hometown

hero, Annie Pope.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the incorporated Town of

Terrenceville and the incorporated Town of Norman's Cove-Long Cove.

This year, Mr. Speaker, Terrenceville celebrated thirty-one years as an

incorporated town, and also the Town of Norman's Cove-Long Cove celebrated its

thirtieth year as an incorporated town.

Mr. Speaker, I had the great privilege of attending these two celebrations

this past summer. A great deal has been accomplished in these towns and the

people of the towns have a lot to celebrate.

I ask the hon. Members of this House to join me in congratulating these towns

on their successful years of incorporated service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pride that I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a

very special person, an individual who so unselfishly has given his time, talent

and energy to serve his fellow citizens, and as a result was the proud recipient

of the Citizen of the Year award.

For countless hours, Mr. Carl Gillard of Springdale has used his leadership

skills and his carpentry skills to transform the former courthouse into a

first-class heritage building that is the envy of any community. He has been

instrumental in garnering, not only the support of the town council, but also on

the unwavering support from the Springdale Heritage Society of whom he was the

founding president. His passion, his vision, his tenancy and his perseverance

saw a dream come true. The history, culture and heritage of the Town of

Springdale has been greatly enhanced and preserved because of Carl's tireless,

relentless efforts.

Honourable colleagues, please join with me in congratulating Mr. Carl Gillard

on being selected Springdale's Citizen of the Year for 2009, a prestigious

award for an exceptional volunteer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, I rise in this

hon. House today to advise the public of some very positive news.

By mid January, 2010, through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, the

Stephenville area will have six brand new, and much needed affordable rental

homes for families and individuals. Last spring, Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing awarded a $783,000 contract to Whalen Enterprises Ltd. for the design

and construction of three accessible duplexes on Wyoming Drive.

We have been eagerly anticipating the completion of this new project given

that vacancy rates have been at an all-time low throughout the Province of late.

With the holiday season nearly upon us, this is a wonderful time to make this

announcement.

The six new social housing dwellings replace homes that were lost during

flooding in September of 2005. One of the six units is fully accessible with

three bedrooms, while five units are semi-accessible with thirty-six inch wide

doors, as opposed to the stand thirty-two inches. This is in keeping with the

goals of the provincial social housing plan, to increase the availability of

accessible social housing and individuals' well-being by enabling persons with

disabilities to live more independently and participate in community life.

The buildings are one-level dwellings with flushed, easy-access entrances.

The project also includes significant exterior site landscaping such as

reinstatement of sidewalks, curbs, gutters, pavement and roadways.

The two-bedroom design addresses the current rental needs in the town, and in

fact, most of our Province. This project shows the long-term interest and

commitment by the provincial government to continue revitalizing rural

communities with adequate social housing opportunities.

As members would know, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is the Province's

largest landlord with approximately 5,511 non-profit social housing dwellings

Province-wide, approximately 284 of those houses service the Stephenville

regional area which includes the communities as far south as Port aux Basques

and Ramea.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for the advance

copy of his statement.

To say that, no doubt, this is wonderful news for the Stephenville area. We

understand and agree that good strides are being made but there are still some

challenges that exist, and in particular, with regard to the wait lists for

special emergency situations.

I know in the area that I represent, as well as the hon. minister, there are

quite a few single units there but at the present time there is nothing

available to those who are looking for units and maybe something similar can be

considered by government for that particular area of the Province. It is always

persons with disabilities so that they can enjoy a good experience, and living

independently and enjoying community life.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good statement, but hopefully the minister can look at

the possibilities of similar units being made available to other areas of the

Province.

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 an advance copy of his statement. Obviously, I

am very pleased for the people in Stephenville to have this announcement made. I

would note though, it took four years to do the replacement, and we are not

talking about new units into our overall bank but units that are replacing what

was lost during the flood. I point out to the minister that with hundreds of

people on the waiting list for social housing at any given time and a six-month

to a year waiting period, six replacement units are a drop in the bucket,

especially when they are replacement units.

Mr. Speaker, the government's recently announced social housing plan was a

long awaited policy framework for doing something about affordable housing

shortages. The government has not made public, targets and timelines and amounts

of money for the housing plan and I look forward to hearing from the minister

with regard to these details.

I would also like to see as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker, this government

called for proposals under the federal-provincial affordable housing initiative.

An important goal of the social housing plan should be providing more funding

and technical support to non-profit organizations, in particular, to qualify for

this program so that we can get more affordable housing, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To no surprise to any member of this hon. House, Newfoundland and Labrador is

home to academic, cultural and business sectors characterized by high degrees of

creativity, resiliency and an entrepreneurial spirit.

What may surprise some are the inroads that these sectors are making in

international markets. Locally manufactured products and services are reaching

consumers in such markets as Asia, Africa, Europe, the United States and all

across Canada. More importantly, this success is not confined to a single

community or region but spans rural and urban communities.

As the MHA for Humber Valley indicated last week, optimism and confidence is

growing in our Province. That spirit motivates us as government and drives us to

continue to help open doors to a world of opportunities and foster a business

environment conducive for success; success that ultimately leads to stronger

more diversified communities and regions.

Mr. Speaker, in particular, we are continuing to work with our partners in

Ireland to advance mutually beneficial opportunities that strengthen our

centuries-old connection. Through outgoing and incoming trade missions,

representatives from both jurisdictions are able to develop relationships and

target new opportunities.

The significance of these initiatives has been recently highlighted by the

Marine Institute's Memorandums of Understanding with Ireland's University of

Limerick and St. Angela's College. With these agreements in hand, it is better

positioned to capitalize on the growth of the global ocean technology sector.

We are also taking steps to create the platform for our publishing, film and

music communities to excel abroad. Not only do these sectors celebrate our

culture, but they are valuable contributors to the provincial economy.

Initiatives such as this fall's IN Exchange, heighten the opportunity for

our talented professionals to increase their export potential. IN Exchange

attracted more than twenty buyers, agents and other industry professionals from

Ireland to meet directly with the Province's musicians, filmmakers and

publishers.

Building off participation on earlier trade missions, IN Exchange led to

performers such as Terry Penny and Duane Andrews securing a tour of Ireland in

2010 through Irish promoters. Local film producers and book publishers were also

able to develop business relationships and anticipate long-term success in

Ireland.

Mr. Speaker, developing new markets for local products and services takes

time. By spearheading multiple initiatives, we are creating the opportunity to

establish relationships that over the long-term will result in our greater

success.

As our companies and organizations achieve greater success, that optimism and

confidence that my hon. colleague from Humber West spoke of will continue to

collect momentum across all regions.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement, and would certainly like to congratulate the minister for his

department's efforts in courting international communities for our Province.

Ireland, as we know, is known as the Celtic Tiger because of its economic

resurgence when it became a part of the EU, and Newfoundland has always enjoyed

a great relationship with Ireland.

We know that in this past year, with the economic downturn in the global

economy, that Ireland was one of the countries that was hit hard, and so we want

to be concerned about that. Certainly, in terms of the recommendation that their

funding to the INDP be cut, would be a concern. Nevertheless, we need to

continue to grow that relationship, and I would suggest grow not only with

Ireland, but other countries that would offer and allow our companies to expand.

We have some great entrepreneurial minds in our Province very fortunate

that we have. I would think that anything that government and your department in

particular can do to help Newfoundland companies expand is a good thing. So I

would encourage this kind of thing.

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 thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

These announcements are always good announcements. Every step that we can

take in strengthening the relationship in the exchange between Ireland and

Newfoundland and Labrador is good. We do, though, have to look at the changing

economy that is going on and the fact that things are not as good in Ireland

right now as they have been and were at the time when we first signed the MOUs

and renewed them. I think it would be good for us too, and I would assume that

the minister and the government are doing an analysis of what is happening to

the Irish economy to see if we can learn from that as well, because we do not

want to go on a rise and come down the way they did. We have two different

economies I know and a different reality, but it still is something that needs

to be looked at.

Again, it is good getting this information on the different exchanges that

are going on and the new Memorandums of Understanding, but I would be interested

in the minister at some point giving us more detail on the benchmarks that maybe

his department is putting in place to help us evaluate how successful we are

being and how significant the success are that we have. I would be hoping to get

that kind of information in the future from the minister.

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.

This afternoon the House of Assembly will be asked to dismiss the Child and

Youth Advocate, even though no fair hearing has been provided to address the

allegations made against her. The minister who is bringing forth this motion of

dismissal is the same minister who recently suggested a motion allowing an

independent hearing for the former Citizens' Representative, Fraser March,

saying he deserved to be heard.

I ask the minister today: Why are you unwilling to follow your own precedent

and allow an independent hearing for Ms Neville prior to her being terminated?

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.

As I have said previously, Mr. March was not given the opportunity to be

heard. He was not given the opportunity to state his case, therefore the

independent judge was given to him. In this particular case, Ms Neville has had

a number of opportunities to state her case. Number one is when the Speaker

first suggested a workplace assessment. There was an opportunity for her to be

heard at that particular time and that was refused. There was then the

whistle-blower application, when the Citizens' Representative, Mr. Fleming,

was attempting to do an investigation; there was a chance to be heard. The third

time was with respect to when Mr. Fleming could not do it and asked government

to have someone else do it and Mr. Noseworthy was asked to do it; there was a

chance to be heard. Also, Ms Neville was invited by the Clerk of the Executive

Council, she was informed of the reasons for the dismissal and was given an

opportunity to state her case.

She has been heard, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also knows that Fraser March was invited on two, if not three

occasions, to present to the IEC as well and declined that opportunity, but

still, you felt it was necessary that he have an independent, judicial review.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the minister also knows that in the case of

the Fleming review there were allegations, or certainly concerns around conflict

of interest.

Mr. Speaker, there is currently an investigation ongoing by the Public

Service Commission into this situation and cases before the courts that are

waiting to be heard.

I ask the minister today: Out of fairness and due process, why are you

unwilling to allow these actions to take its course before voting to dismiss Ms

Neville?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it clear on Thursday why

government was putting forward and seeking the concurrence of the House to a

resolution to dismiss the child and citizens' advocate.

Mr. Speaker, the evidence that has been presented to all of us, the evidence

that was in the books that was presented to the Child and Youth Advocate, that

was presented to every Cabinet minister, that was presented to every Member of

the House of Assembly certainly shows a reasonable person that when you look at

the totality of what was available the question is: Was the mandate of the

office being moved forward or was it being impaired, and I think, unbalanced? If

you look at everything fairly, it was clear that the mandate of the Citizens'

Representative was not being advanced and was in fact being impaired and that is

the reason for the dismissal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also knows that none of these issues or cases that he cited

really allows for Ms Neville to be heard, and why an officer of the House of

Assembly who was duly appointed by your government is not being that opportunity

remains questionable.

Mr. Speaker, because this government did not allow fair process to take place

prior to the Fraser March dismissal, the taxpayers were forced to cover legal

fees and other costs for an independent review that today has added up to

$188,000.

I ask the minister: Why don't you allow due process to take place for Ms

Neville to ensure that the taxpayers of this Province once again will not be

faced with an expensive bill because you did not follow due process and give

this individual an opportunity to be heard in a fair and independent manner?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said on Thursday, Ms Neville has been

given an opportunity to be heard.

The Leader of the Opposition and the Government House Leader are of the

opinion that that has to be an oral hearing. The law certainly does not provide

for that. The law provides an opportunity to state in your case. In this

particular case, the Clerk of the Executive Council met with Ms Neville, met

with her counsel, gave them a letter outlining the reasons for dismissal and

invited them to state their case. That is an opportunity to be heard, that

opportunity has been given. It has been considered by all hon. members, it has

been considered by government. That is what led government to move this

resolution that is being debated here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, government is stating now that the reason for

dismissal is due to misconduct, specifically a breach of confidentiality. When

the original suspension took place, there was no mention of this misconduct. As

a matter of fact, the documents supporting this claim were not presented until

November; months after Ms Neville had been suspended from her job.

I ask the minister: If misconduct was the reason for her suspension, why was

she not provided with those reasons in August when the suspension date began?

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, as I said on Thursday, the reasons for dismissal were

misconduct, but it is misconduct not in the criminal sense. It is misconduct in

that the Citizens' Representative failed, while leader of the Child and Youth

Advocate's Office, to deal with the human resource issues and the personnel

issues that were happening in her office. She has not only failed to deal with

them, she failed to admit that she was even part of the problem. She simply

reacted by blaming everyone else. In addition, being leader in that office, she

refused to address the problem by seeking help outside. In fact, when help was

offered to her by the Speaker through the workplace assessment, by the Clerk of

the House in offering more resources, it was always rejected.

That is where she misconducted' herself. She misconducted' herself

in the operation of the office by failing to act and failing to accept

responsibility and blaming her staff, and blaming everyone else and refusing to

take responsibility for what was hers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in the minister's opening comments in the House

he cited very clearly the cases regarding confidentiality.

Mr. Speaker, when the former Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development went on an Open Line program and read from a Cabinet document no

disciplinary action was taken. Even though this is considered a breach of

confidentiality, the former minister received nothing only support from his

colleagues.

I ask the minister: What is the difference between a minister breaking this

confidentiality rule and an officer of the House of Assembly?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the evidence that was presented on

Thursday, evidence of refusing to act, refusing to deal with personnel matters,

refusing to recognize serious managerial problems in the office, the refusal to

seek help, the refusal to accept the assistance of others who were offering

resources and methods in which to resolve the issue once and for all, all of

these, including the breach of confidentiality, including the breach of the Oath

of Office, all of these things add to a totality of evidence which shows that

there was misconduct here, and that, as a result of that misconduct, the mandate

of the office, a very important mandate of the office, was not being moved

forward. It was, in fact, being impaired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister cites poor management in the Office of the Child and Youth

Advocate. Mr. Speaker, the executive secretary to Ms Neville, who falls under

the House of Assembly and is governed by the direction of the House of Assembly,

has been held out of service from her physician since August; even though she

was given assurances that she did nothing wrong, she had been promised another

position, however, she still remains at home.

I ask the minister, if there is poor management anywhere, it is in handling

of this particular employee under the House of Assembly. I ask you today: Why

has the executive secretary not been called back to her position or placed in

another position since August?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: I will certainly make inquiries into that, but it is

certainly my understanding that this House of Assembly and the staff of the

House of Assembly are governed by the House of Assembly Management Commission. I

understand the Leader of the Opposition is a member of that Commission; maybe

she can give us the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do sit as a part of the Management Commission. However, I was not aware and

not involved in any discussions regarding the executive secretary in that

office. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that she was terminated by the Speaker's

Office, through the House of Assembly. She has been given leave with pay and has

not been returned to work.

I ask you today: Why has this individual not been placed in another position,

because she has not done anything wrong?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the House of Assembly

Management Commission. I cannot answer that question, but obviously that is

something that the Public Service Commission could look into. If there is

anything improper here that is something that could be put on to the Public

Service Commission, it can be addressed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Amanda Duggan and her family were torn apart

over the past two years by accusations of child abuse. Even when the RCMP

dropped the case against Ms Duggan, Child Youth and Family Services refused to

disclose the information to the Duggan family or alter their safety plan for the

Duggan's two children until pressed to do so through the courts. Once the case

hit the media, the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services said that she

would ask the Toronto child protection expert, Susan Abell, to investigate and

review what was happening and the circumstances around this case. Since that

time, the minister has told the Duggan family that they will not actually do a

full investigation into their case.

I ask the minister today: If she can clarify what type of

investigation will be done and what her intentions are?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and

Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, probably most of the cases that are being dealt

with through Child, Youth and Family Services, through the social workers do not

necessarily ever result in criminal charges.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, we have asked for a

review to look at how various agencies share information. Because in this

particular case Child, Youth and Family Services also had to work with the

Janeway Child Protection Unit, as well as the RCMP. In this particular case,

information had to be shared between these three agencies. It had to be shared

in a timely fashion and it also had to be shared to be able to feed into the

court processes as well. So, Mr. Speaker, the review that we are looking at,

that will be conducted by Susan Abell, will look at that process of how each

file or each of these agencies did their work and how they shared information

because, Mr. Speaker, if there is a breakdown in the sharing of the information

there certainly becomes a breakdown in the case work as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Under Child, Youth and Family Services the legislation

stipulates that protective intervention cases must be settled within sixty days.

This is a case where the Duggan family's lives were held in limbo for sixteen

months. They had to spend $35,000 in legal fees to access information from the

Department of Child, Youth and Family Services in order to gain custody of their

children again.

I ask you today, Minister, given the fact that no information was disclosed

to this family outside of the court process, given that your department delayed

court hearings throughout the entire process and refused to follow judge's

orders to allow the Duggan's more time with their children, and given the fact

that there was no proof that any of

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the fact that there was no proof of any allegations made against them:

Does this not merit a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding this

case?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Child Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One thing I have to note, and it is an important point that was asked by the

Leader of the Opposition, is that we have time frames in our legislation that

basically we are unable to meet. The legislation came in, in 2000, certainly

stipulates time frames in which cases need to be dealt with, but because these

cases have to go to court, people have a right, I guess, to counsel, to get

information, to be able to have access to information, that we are rarely able

to meet the time frames as set out in legislation.

One thing that we are in the process of doing now, and I had indicated this

in the House of Assembly to previous questions, is that we are doing a

legislative review. Stakeholder groups are being contacted. We have heard many

concerns from the social workers across the Province, and, Mr. Speaker, before

we make any fundamental changes, we certainly have to make sure that we have

legislation that is workable, not just for the clients but for the social

workers as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A legislative review is fine, I say to the minister, but this is a very

serious case where parents were separated from their children for extended

periods of time without any just cause. Only because they went to the courts and

they spent the money are they today united with their children. That should

cause you enough concern to do a full investigation into this case and I ask

that you do just that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we are having a review conducted by Susan Abell,

who did our clinical services review and I have great confidence in her work.

Mr. Speaker, because Child, Youth and Family Services were only one of three

agencies that played a role in how this case was processed, we want to review

the lines of communication, how each file was reviewed, how the work was being

done, and how that information was shared within the agencies that need to share

this information because Child, Youth and Family Services can only work with the

information that is coming from the child protection unit at the Janeway, as

well as the RCMP who were doing an investigation at that time.

Mr. Speaker, one thing we really need to look at is how we work together,

because as I said before, the decisions on this case were not just based

primarily in information that was contained with Child, Youth and Family

Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past two years we have been asking this government for legislation

for health professionals, such as midwives and acupuncturists, and we keep being

told that it is coming, it is coming. Again, we have not seen the legislation in

the fall session of the House. However, in August we did receive a letter from

the Health Minister committing that this legislation would be introduced in this

session.

We would like to know, Mr. Speaker: Why it did not get presented and if we

can look forward to seeing it anytime in the near future?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are working on the health professions act. The act is drafted. However,

there has to be a consultation process, as pointed out by the Opposition Leader.

She has named a number of the groups that are involved in this piece of

legislation. However, there are numerous groups that are seeking to come under

this type of umbrella legislation.

There will be some consultations in the very near future, Mr. Speaker. It is

complicated in terms of some of the groups are very small and you have to have

disciplinary proceedings in there. So, it is still a work in progress. I can

tell the Opposition Leader, that we have made good progress but we are not

exactly where I want to be at this point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been receiving e-mails from communities across the Province on the

issue of broadband Internet access. The four immediate neighbouring communities

of St. Anthony do not have that access in their areas. Residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador have become impatient with the fact that they still have to rely on

dial-up access to the Internet. It leaves residents, obviously, at a severe

disadvantage in terms of access to education, Web-based employment and so on.

My question to the minister is: What can you tell these families about when

they can expect the same basic Internet services as those in the urban parts of

the Province?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member across the way would know, these services are federally

regulated. Within the provincial mandate, we do have a government Broadband

Initiative that we are working towards. We currently have over 85 per cent of

the Province connected to high-speed Internet. We hope to bring that up into the

95 per cent to 98 per cent range and we are actively working towards that, Mr.

Speaker.

We do have a number of our schools under various programs like the CDLI

program that are connected to high-speed Internet for educational purposes, but

it is something we are aware of and working towards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The broadband initiative is focused on schools, government offices, libraries

and other governmental institution users. Broadband access for individual users

is left to the communication companies who will piggyback on those

government-sponsored services to offer similar services to local residents.

My question to the minister again would be: What requirements will you place

on these communication companies to ensure that private users will have

broadband access, and not just those living immediately adjacent to the

government offices?

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the government broadband initiative that we are working toward

will bring full high-speed Internet services to a number of government offices,

non-governmental offices, community-based groups where there is a government

presence, hospitals, health care facilities, schools, depots, and courthouses.

There are all kinds of places that we will bring it. In doing that, we will make

the business case better for the private market to be able to provide Internet

services to a number of households, a number of individuals. The issue right now

is, given the geography of some of the Province, it is not, from a business case

perspective; it is not possible for these private carriers to bring that

Internet service in. What we are trying to do is make sure we move the

infrastructure closer to the people who need it, so that people are able to

access the services.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am really not certain who to direct the question to, and I guess it is

government at liberty to decide who responds.

Mr. Speaker, our office recently submitted access to information requests to

both the House of Assembly and the Public Service Commission with a simple

question: Could you please provide us a list of staff currently on political

contract within both bodies? Our request was originally refused by both bodies.

We appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner and won the appeal.

Since that time the House of Assembly has, in fact, fulfilled their obligation

and released the requested information. Government, however, is refusing.

I ask the minister, or the Premier: If government was following the ATIPP

legislation, why would the identical request, which was fulfilled by the House

of Assembly, why is it being rejected by government?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member mentioned the

Public Service Commission; if that is correct, that would be my responsibility

and I will certainly undertake, when I go back to the office today, to seek out

that information and ensure the appropriate information is released, if we are

required to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, our office is not the only one being refused information under

the access to information act recently. It was reported in The Telegram ,

for example, their office has also been refused information related to

government commissioned polling questions. Even though the Information and

Privacy Commissioner already ruled that those questions should be released,

government has again refused to release those questions.

I ask the minister: Why is government, again, refusing to release questions

that were asked of the people of this Province and paid for by their tax

dollars?

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

Board.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this question is for me,

but I will be happy to answer it. He keeps saying government refused. I want to

point out to the members of this House, and I want to point out to the people of

the Province, that under the ATIPP legislation, yes, there is a general rule

that the information is provided, but there are many exceptions to that rule.

There are certain types of information that the act says you cannot release and

it would be illegal to release it. There are other types of information that is

left to the discretion of the government whether it can be released.

You are saying it was refused to be released, well there may be a difference

of opinion here. It is normal that people will have differences of opinion. It

is normal that people of goodwill can have profound differences of opinion, and

that is why we have access to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador to

help us properly interpret this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Just so we are clear here and the minister is clear, we are not talking here

about a difference of opinion. There was already an established precedent

whereby the Privacy Commissioner ruled government was wrong, you should release

the information and government subsequently released it. I am just asking now:

Why, when we have an identical situation, you do not follow your own precedent

and release the polling questions as you did the last time? Now that is not

rocket science to figure that out, and that is not an opinion.

Mr. Speaker, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - the forensic centre for public policy recently

completed a review of every province in Canada of their health care system. In

the category related to a patient's right to information Newfoundland and

Labrador ranked last - dead last.

I ask the minister: Why is this government so far behind when it comes to

sharing information with the public? Why are you not being open and accountable

as you profess to be?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, for the Opposition House Leader to say

that this government is far behind, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is at a

minimum to inaccurately state. We are currently spending 40 per cent of our

budget, our $2.6 billion on health care, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: There has been $1 billion increase over five years, Mr.

Speaker. We are doubling the budget of over a decade ago. We are spending the

second most per capita, Mr. Speaker, in this country next to Alberta, and we are

only a little bit behind them.

Mr. Speaker, we have made great strides with our health care system. Are

there things that we have to work on? Certainly. Mr. Speaker, what we are trying

to do are address issues in the health care system, people's right to

information is certainly something that I have no problem with and if it is not

being properly provided, we can check into it.

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the big picture here. There are a lot of

positive things happening in our health care system. Those positive things, Mr.

Speaker, are the things that we will continue to emphasize as we improve our

health care system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, statutory offices of the House of Assembly are set up to be at

arm's-length from government so that they can investigate, among other things,

government departments when and as needed. So, Mr. Speaker, it was surprising

last week on December 10, when the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services

stated in the House that the minister and the Acting Child and Youth Advocate

were in correspondence over the merits of an investigation that would be dealing

with the minister's department.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Is the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate

still at arm's-length from his government?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the question from the Leader

of the NDP because I had written the Child and Youth Advocate and it had nothing

to do with the investigation or what was going on with the investigation. I

wrote because I had received correspondence from the family in Labrador - I

guess they are considered victims of the fire - and they were concerned that

there has been a public announcement about the investigation, but nobody had

spoken with them beforehand to tell them that it was being referred to the

Advocate's office or that it would be investigated.

They wrote me with their concerns. I passed the concerns onto the Advocate

because, certainly, it was from the Advocate's office not from Child, Youth

and Family Services. The Advocate responded to my letter that I wrote him that

was prompted from the family in Labrador, and in that letter he acknowledged

that there is a process of policy to follow regarding notification and he

provided his comments to me that the investigation would continue. So it was not

that I had asked him for an update of the investigation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister of what else she said when she put

this information out here on December 10. She said that the Advocate had given

an opinion with regard to the investigation that he agreed with the initial

decisions by the Director of Advocacy not to do an investigation, but he was now

going to have to do it because of the decision of the suspended Advocate.

So, I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Did she let the temporary Advocate know

that his having that discussion with her was not an acceptable thing to do?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of investigations into

the Labrador fire. There is an internal investigation, there is a fire

commissioner's investigation - the fire commissioner's office looked at it.

Mr. Speaker, he may have sent up those comments, but I, in no way, engaged in

any conversation, I did not phone him about it and I did not ask him any

questions about it. As far as I am concerned, it is arm's-length. He can have

whatever opinion he wants. He can express it all he wants, but, Mr. Speaker, it

was not for me to debate that back with him to ask any further questions.

I do not doubt, for a second, that the Child and Youth Advocate's office

will perform a very professional assessment. If there are any recommendations or

insights that will help us as a department, we will certainly be very interested

in looking at that to see how we can improve services. I, in no way, went back

or debated or engaged in any conversation or correspondence. He offered his

opinion

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: I never asked for his opinion. It was given to me and I just

accepted it for what it was.

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, it was the minister who made this information public here in

this House on December 10. It seems to me now that we have a compromised

situation because this information that the Advocate gave, this opinion to the

minister, is now public.

I want to know: How the House of Assembly and the public can be assured that

the Advocate's office will be able to carry on an unbiased investigation into

the minister's department and staff who work under her?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I had said, I do not doubt for a second that

there is very professional staff down at the Advocate's office. It is great to

see that the Advocate's office will be producing some work; I certainly

welcome it.

Mr. Speaker, we will do nothing to interfere with this investigation. My

staff any staff in the department will co-operate fully with the

investigation. If there are any concerns regarding the independence of that

office that is something that the Management Commission or the House of Assembly

can look at.

Certainly, as the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, I do not

question the fact that they will do an unbiased report, a very professional

report. We will accept that report; we will look at any recommendations that may

come forward. If there is some way that we can improve service, we will.

Mr. Speaker, what is important to remember here is this government created

the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services so we can improve services to

the children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: In compliance with the Public Tender Act, I hereby table the

Public Tender Act exceptions for the months of May, June, July, August,

September and October of 2009.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions 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.

I rise in the House today to provide some information regarding questions

asked by the hon. Member for Port de Grave in the House last week.

I guess contrary to what the hon. member stated last week, the review of the

Class 4 roads throughout the Province is not yet complete and is currently

ongoing, but we do expect to have some results later on this winter. We are

looking at the main purpose of these roads, businesses located on these roads,

fisheries infrastructure in the area, and a number of other factors as well.

I might say to the hon. member, no small feat. We have over 400 kilometres of

Class 4 roads in this Province. We want to ensure that all the best information

is collected and that takes some time. We do not maintain Class 4 roads, as you

may be aware. However, some of these classifications may change. That is the

point of the review, and we want to make sure that these roads are classified

correctly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

given?

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, Motion 1.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will rise to finish my debate on the amendment on the motion from Thursday.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, the resolution is one that has been brought forward by

the government opposite, through the Minister of Finance, and he presented his

case on Thursday as to the reasons why he felt that Ms Neville should be fired

as the Child and Youth Advocate in the Province. Mr. Speaker, I had an

opportunity to respond to most of the points that he has raised, one in which he

talks about breach of confidentiality, managing relations in her office, and the

collective lack of sound judgement.

Mr. Speaker, as I said on Thursday, what the minister failed to do in

bringing forward the resolution and his case for the termination of Ms Neville's

appointment in her very important role and capacity as the Advocate for children

and youth in this Province, he failed to back up his reasons for her dismissal

with any real factual evidence. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he did not provide good

strong arguments supplemented with examples of this from her particular office.

That is the reason I find this so unfair to Ms Neville, because she has not had

the opportunity in any real way to be able to present her case and to refute the

statements that were made.

Mr. Speaker, when Ms Neville was let go from her employment back in August,

not only was it unusual circumstances that surrounded her being dismissed at

that time but there was also a letter that outlined a number of reasons. Two of

those reasons were given in this letter, and I will read it into the record. It

says that, "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 fulfilment of its statutory mandate. Key areas

of concern include (1) your management of OCYA personnel; culminating in

(2) your inability to effectively advance the mandate of your office." There

was no talk in this letter back in August, when Ms Neville was suspended from

her job, that it had to do with misconduct. In fact, the arguments of government

surrounding misconduct did not surface until November, which was three months

after she had been terminated from her job.

So, Mr. Speaker, the issues of misconduct was not the original reason for

which she was let go. According to the letter that came from the Office of the

Clerk - no, Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which

is the Cabinet. According to the letter that came from them, misconduct was not

one of those reasons for her original dismissal nor was it to do with any issues

around confidentiality, of which today is what the minister claims is the

reason. So, what I would say is that they have failed to put together any

concrete case or any real factual evidence to justify the action that they are

about to take today because what they argued in August is very different from

what they argued in November, and both of which they have presented here in the

last few days is without substance.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about a couple of those issues, because in Question

Period I did raise a number of them. First of all, the reason why Ms Neville is

not being allowed by the government to either an independent judicial review,

like was afforded Fraser March, or why she was not given an opportunity to

present her case to the inner circles of government through the Cabinet. She was

not afforded either of those opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, what I find so ironic about this is because I sit on the

Management Commission of the House of Assembly and back in early summer it was

the Minister of Finance today, who was the Minister of Justice then, through his

colleague, the Government House Leader, brought forward a suggestion of a motion

that would appear to the Management Commission asking that Fraser March be given

an opportunity to be heard. His argument was that he felt that Mr. March was let

go without ever having a fair hearing and that he deserved to have that fair and

independent review, and that he would bring forward a motion through the

Government House Leader to the Management Commission to do just that. All that

process unfolded and it did occur. We now have the review completed and we have

seen the results of it.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, how could a minister who felt that one Officer

of the House had been so hard done by in terms of not being given a full and

independent review, go from being in that position a few months ago to where he

is today saying that Ms Neville has had an opportunity to respond because she

has had an opportunity to write a letter and table it to the Lieutenant-Governor

in Council or to provide information through the courts? Well, Mr. Speaker, that

is not acceptable, and none of these things occurred because of the actions of

government. None of these things occurred because government felt that she

deserved to have those avenues and those processes available to her. So,

government has really taken no action to have heard Ms Neville's case, none

whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, the question remains: Why are we allowing this resolution to be

tabled on the floor of the House of Assembly to be voted on and Ms Neville's

position terminated without ever giving her the opportunity to be heard in the

same way that Fraser March was? The minister said today: Well, Ms Neville has

had ample opportunity. She was invited to come to the Management Commission. She

was asked to participate in a discussion group or workshop group of some sort. I

am not really sure how all that works, Mr. Speaker. That is not any different

than what Fraser March was afforded. Through the IEC, he was invited on three

specific occasions to present his case and he refused to do so. So, Mr. Speaker,

I fail to see what the difference is in the two cases.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville currently is involved in an

investigation that is ongoing by the Public Service Commission, and has a case

before the courts that is waiting to be heard, in which people will be

subpoenaed to testify. It begs the question again: Why would government bring

forward a resolution to terminate her employment before the investigation and

the court case could be heard, so that as least some fairness and due process

would have been accomplished on those two particular fronts? Why would they want

to do that?

The question remains unanswered. Unanswered; because, if you look at the

precedent that they have already set in the Fraser March situation, you would

think that they would want to see due process and they would want to see

fairness unfolding in this particular case before they went forward with any

vote.

Let me just tell you this particular piece. The Fraser March resolution was

debated in this House of Assembly as well, just like we are debating Ms Neville's

resolution regarding her employment. At the time that we debated whether Fraser

March should be terminated from his position, guess what the Opposition was

doing on this side of the House? We were standing up and asking that Fraser

March be given an opportunity to be heard, to be given an opportunity to a fair

hearing. We were not judging whether he was right or wrong, but we did not see

the process of fairness unfolding, or him having the ability to defend the

allegations that were against him.

Guess what the government opposite did at that time? They voted down the

amendment in which we asked that fairness be shown, and that Mr. March be given

an opportunity to be heard. They voted down that amendment, and they terminated

his employment, only to come back a year later and say that it was unfair and

that he should be heard.

Well that vote, that day, when each of you voted not to allow Fraser March to

be heard, has now cost the taxpayers of this Province $188,000 so far. So, I

hope you are proud of that. I hope you are proud of the fact that you stifled an

individual from having a fair hearing. At the end of the day you saw it as the

right thing to do and allowed it, but in the course of that process you cost the

people, so far, $188,000.

Is that what you want to do in the case of Ms Neville? We are asking today,

through an amendment of the House, that she be given an opportunity to be heard,

she be given an opportunity for fairness, to refute the allegations against her,

and an opportunity to defend herself.

The minister has already said that there is no criminal activity. He said

that today in the House of Assembly, so why not give this individual an

opportunity for fairness and justice? Or, are we going to do the same thing that

we did with Fraser March? A year from now someone will come back with a

conscience and say: That was wrong; we should have allowed her an opportunity,

so we will do it now.

Meanwhile, we will cost the taxpayers another couple of hundred thousand

dollars. This is a government that constantly is having to admit to its

mistakes; and I fear, Mr. Speaker, that each of you are making a huge mistake

again today.

Mr. Speaker, there has been no explanation, no information, or no evidence,

given to support the allegations against her, or to rationalize why Ms Neville

should be suspended from her job.

One of the pieces the minister likes to play up really well is the piece

around confidentiality. Mr. Speaker, the two issues, as I spoke to only a few

days ago, one was in the case of where a document was given to the media on the

eve of an interview that Ms Neville was to do at 7:45 the next morning. The

document was not a violation of privacy, as was indicated by the minister,

because the very document that was given to the media the night before was the

same document that was released to the public the next day, so there was

absolutely no breach of privacy.

In terms of a breach of confidentiality, first of all put yourself in the

position. I bet you have all done it at one point or another, when you are about

to release a new document, and you are being interviewed and scrummed in the

media, you usually give some kind of a briefing, or you release the document to

the media for a period of time, whether that be minutes, hours, or whatever the

case may be, so that they can be better prepared to question you on your

findings, on your recommendations, and on the document in its entirety. That is

exactly what happened. Is it a breach of confidentiality? I would not think so,

Mr. Speaker; I think it is the actions of an individual who wants to have

correct and proper information when this document goes public.

Mr. Speaker, what I find ironic about it again is when a Cabinet minister in

the Williams government went on the Open Line program and read from a Cabinet

document - which was a clear breach of confidentiality and that individual,

in no way, shape, or form, had any action taken against him.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, when there were calls made and questions asked with

regard to that breach of confidentiality of a Cabinet document, it was his

colleagues on the other side of the House who actually supported him, who

actually spoke in support of him and his actions, and made light of the

situation.

What makes a breach of confidentiality by a Cabinet minister any different

than a breach of confidentiality being alleged toward Ms Neville today, or

toward any Officer of the House of Assembly? Why is it that they would be

terminated from their job but, yet, a Cabinet minister would be patted on the

back and light very light - made of the entire issue? Because that is

exactly what happened.

Mr. Speaker, the other issue is around the management within her office. If

anyone had read the information that was presented by Ms Neville, they would

have read very clear, very evident cases, very specific examples to counteract

the comments that were raised and brought forward. I do not have the time to get

into a lot of these particular incidents right now, but I do want to touch on a

few of them, Mr. Speaker.

When the minister talked about the fact that he felt the complaints of the

staff against Ms Neville had been alleged, that the office environment there had

been poisoned - I think the Speaker actually said it in his own letter, as well,

and he did. The Speaker said that the staff were demoralized, and there was a

poisoned work environment. How he got to that finding, I have absolutely no idea

- very strong statements to make with no information or examples to back them

up.

Mr. Speaker, in that particular office environment, I spoke last week to the

camaraderie that was shared, as it is in most offices. Mr. Speaker, if there was

a demoralized attitude, if there was a poisoned work environment and employees

were sick, all of those sick days should have been documented. All of those sick

days should have been documented. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they should have records

in the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate that would show factually every

single day that an employee was off work, that an employee was sick, that an

employee was not on the job because of the demoralizing work environment in

which they worked.

Mr. Speaker, according to the documents that were filed, the Office of the

Child and Youth Advocate's staff sick leave, and the utilization of that sick

leave, had been very little prior to August 20 of 2009, which was the date in

which she was terminated from her employment, and which a reason was given

because of the amount of sick leave being utilized by the staff who were

demoralized and who had been working in a poisoned environment.

Mr. Speaker, if that was the actual case, every single day that one of these

employees were off work for either stress leave or sick leave should have been

documented and all of that information should have been available prior to

August 20. However, I have seen none of it in any of the information that was

presented by the minister or by the Speaker other than blatantly broad

statements that have come unsubstantiated by any factual information.

As well, Mr. Speaker, there was a number of staff concerns that were raised

by the minister, by the Clerk and by the Speaker. Staff concerns, let me just

talk about what a couple of those staff concerns were, because I took the

opportunity to read them and I also took the opportunity to read the comments

that were provided by Ms Neville.

For example, Mr. Speaker, the staff did not approve of the system of

inventory control that the Advocate had instituted. However, Mr. Speaker, the

Advocate instituted this system of inventory control within the office because

none had previously existed. While this was not a popular move among some staff

used to doing things differently - I am sure an issue we have all experienced in

our own offices - it was necessary in order to account for the expenditures of

public monies.

Not unlike what we went through in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, we

have had tougher laws, tighter restrictions, different policies, more paperwork

and stronger accountability in terms of carrying out our job. Well, that is only

what was being attempted in the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, but yet

employees filed that as a complaint because they did not approve of the system

of accountability that had been instituted in that office. Is that a reason for

someone to be fired, because they were developing an accountability measure to

be able to record and track the expenditures of public monies?

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues like that a number of issues

like that. Mr. Speaker, I think that the reality here that we are dealing with

is we have a situation today where an officer who served in a higher level

capacity of the House of Assembly, was appointed by the government because of

her impeccable record and her ability to carry out the responsibilities of the

Child and Youth Advocate office, is today being terminated from her employment

without being given real justification and real evidence to back up the

rationale that government is providing, nor is she being given an opportunity

for a fair and full hearing and that is unfortunate. I am sure that, once again,

it will be a case of where the government will cost the taxpayers more money

down the road.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Health and Community

Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to reiterate everything that was said by the

Minister of Finance and the Minister of Natural Resources. I want to keep coming

back to the purpose and intent of this piece of legislation which is outlined in

section 3 of the act, Mr. Speaker, is to protect the children and youth of our

Province and to advocate on their behalf.

I echo the comments made by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of

Natural Resources. The one thing missing, Mr. Speaker, from the Opposition so

far, in everything I have heard, I have heard no reference to the children of

this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Child and Youth Advocate office, like the Auditor General's,

is an independent statutory office. As the Minister of Finance pointed out the

other day, we cannot confuse independence with accountability.

The Child and Youth Advocate office, Mr. Speaker, by the latest numbers I

saw, has a budget of approximately $900,000. So a significant amount of money is

going into this office and the least we can expect, that it looks after the

interests of the children as it is meant to.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular case the Child and Youth Advocate, Ms

Neville, at the time had signed a contract, which means that she could only be

dismissed with cause. It was a contract of employment - I would assume, Mr.

Speaker, it would be with the House of Assembly.

She is not an employee, Mr. Speaker, of government as such, but there are

still employment law principles that would apply in terms of some aspects of her

relationship with the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, cause for dismissal, or just cause, is outlined in

section 7 of

the act, Mr. Speaker. In this case, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council - not the

Management Commission - can remove, on a resolution the House of Assembly, can

remove a Child and Youth Advocate, because of incapacity to act, or neglect of

duty, or for misconduct.

Mr. Speaker, in this case, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, being Cabinet,

is satisfied that cause exists. So in the normal situation', Mr. Speaker,

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council will dismiss, and the employee can then take

an action for wrongful dismissal. However, in this case, as a result of the

aspect or the fact that the Child and Youth Advocate office is independent, we

have attempted, as a government, to ensure that the principles of natural

justice and procedural fairness apply.

The allegations, Mr. Speaker, are outlined in the Speaker's letter, they

were outlined in the letter from the Clerk, and, Mr. Speaker, the Child and

Youth Advocate, Ms Neville, has been given an opportunity to reply in a

ninety-two page document. So, Mr. Speaker, the test we have to look at is, as a

government, or the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, is it more likely than not

that

section 7 has been met?

Mr. Speaker, the average person, would he or she say that, based on

everything I have heard here, I am satisfied that the Child and Youth Advocate

office is not functioning as it should, that there has been misconduct not

in terms of criminal misconduct, Mr. Speaker, but misconduct as outlined by the

Minister of Finance - and that therefore it is necessary for the Child and Youth

Advocate to be removed in order for the office to fulfill its mandate? This is

the question each Member of the House of Assembly must ask themselves in voting

on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go through, briefly, the chronology of events, because

the chronology of events is striking in terms of the obstructions put forward by

the Child and Youth Advocate at the time, Ms Neville.

Mr. Speaker, on February 10, 2009, there was a meeting between Ms Neville and

the Speaker, which we have heard about from the Minister of Finance. On February

12, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville writes the Speaker and says: No, I am not going to

participate in your respectful workplace assessment. The Speaker then writes, on

February 13, to the Public Service Commission and asks them to conduct an

investigation. On February 16, Ms Neville writes the Management Commission and

alleges harassment against the Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious allegation to make. If anyone - I

would suggest that the members of this House review the letters that are

outlined. Look at the intemperate language that is used. Look at the way the

vitriolic attack on the Speaker of this House when Ms Neville feels that her

motive, her style, is being questioned.

Mr. Speaker, the Speaker then asked the Citizens' Representative, Barry

Fleming, to conduct an investigation into the harassment allegations made

against him.

On March 3, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville alleges that the Citizens' Rep, Barry

Fleming, is in a conflict of interest. So, first, it is Roger Fitzgerald is

harassment, Barry Fleming is in a conflict of interest, and during this similar

timeframe a whistle-blower complaint is made to the Citizens' Rep by the staff

of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate pursuant to

Part IV of the House

of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act.

On March 17, 2009 so now we are only a month and seven days after the

meeting with the Speaker - Mr. Fleming notifies Ms Neville of the whistle-blower

investigation. On March 24, 2009, Mr. Fleming completes his harassment

investigation. On March 27, 2009, Ms Neville files a court application asking

for two things - there are two remedies, Mr. Speaker. One, to prohibit or

prevent Mr. Fleming from conducting the whistle-blower investigation because of

the conflict of interest; and two, seeking to quash Mr. Fleming's harassment

report.

Meanwhile, as all of this is going on, Mr. Speaker, who is looking after the

children of this Province? We now have, whether there are numerous court actions

- we have numerous proceedings ongoing. Yet, every time Ms Neville comes into

conflict with someone we either end up with her questioning or impugning their

motives or taking them to court. We now have the Speaker, we have Mr. Fleming

and it does not end there, Mr. Speaker.

On June 1, 2009, Mr. Fleming steps aside from the whistle-blower

investigation and Robert Noseworthy, the former Chair of the Public Utilities

Board, is appointed. Mr. Noseworthy, as far as I know, Mr. Speaker, has an

impeccable reputation, has no reason - that I am aware of - to be personally

involved in this investigation, has no reason to be biased either for or against

the government or Ms Neville.

The Opposition says: Well, she has never had an opportunity to state her

case. Well, as pointed out by the Minister of Finance, she had the opportunity

to state her case, Mr. Speaker, with the Respectful Workplace. She had the

opportunity to state her case - and she did state her case in terms of the

harassment, as I will come to. She spoke to Mr. Noseworthy at length. So we have

the officials at the Child and Youth Advocate office, the workers there saying

that we have a lot of problems in this office. It is my understanding, Mr.

Speaker - and I could be wrong that Ms Neville spoke at length to Mr.

Noseworthy.

What happens to Mr. Noseworthy's report? Where is the one piece of evidence

that could tell us what is going on in that office? That is the report of Robert

Noseworthy. Where is it? How come we have not seen it? Mr. Speaker, it is my

understanding that and I will come to this in a second as a result of a

court application taken out by Ms Neville, we are not able to use that report.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why? Ms Neville, I understand, spoke to Mr. Noseworthy. I

understand, Mr. Speaker, that the people working in the office spoke to Mr.

Noseworthy. So who is the one person that could tell us what is going on in that

office? It is Bob Noseworthy, yet we do not have his report. Why? I will come to

that in a second, Mr. Speaker.

On June 4, 2009, Wayne Thistle of the Centre for Innovative Dispute

Resolution finds that there was no harassment. He had been appointed, Mr.

Speaker, as a result of the allegations against Mr. Fleming. He had been

appointed and he finds that there is no harassment and no intent to interfere

with the Child and Youth Advocate's ability to pursue ongoing investigations.

On June 7, 2009, what is next? There is an application to court to have Robert

Noseworthy prohibited from conducting a whistle-blower investigation, they amend

- it is not a separate court application. Excuse me, I say to the Opposition

House Leader, they have amended the Fleming application. Again, because Mr.

Noseworthy might get to the bottom of what is going on in that office, he is now

added to the court application.

On August 7, 2009, Mr. Speaker, a press release comes out of the office in

relation to the Labrador investigation publicly criticizing the staff. Now, as

outlined by the Minister of Natural Resources and as outlined by the Minister of

Child, Youth and Family Services today, in March of 2007, Ms Neville had written

the Minister of Justice at the time, said that she agreed - if I remember

correctly, Mr. Speaker, it is Tab 23 of the documents filed here indicated that

she agreed that the Child and Youth Advocate office should not be involved in

child death reviews and agreed with the recommendation of Dr. Peter Markesteyn.

This was referred to the other day, and I am not going to go through it in

detail.

So what happens in January or whenever this issue comes to the attention of

the Child and Youth Advocate office? The woman who was scandalized, Mr. Speaker,

the Director of Advocacy Services again, she stands up to Ms Neville, her

reputation is called into question. So what happens is that Ms Neville says:

Well, now they should have proceeded. Well, she has not answered that letter in

the ninety-two page document; it is there. She wrote the Minister of Justice and

said: We agree with the Markesteyn report. So how is the Director of Advocacy

Services to know if that is the position put forward by the Child and Youth

Advocate?

So, Mr. Speaker, let's continue. On August 17, 2009 the Speaker writes the

Clerk of the Executive Council. The Child and Youth Advocate reports to the

House of Assembly. As pointed out by a number of members here, there have been

extensive meetings in the Management Commission as to how to deal with this

matter. My notes of August 12, 2009 - because there is no record kept, Mr.

Speaker, of the Management Commission meetings - indicate that the Leader of the

Opposition, at that point, expressed confidence in Ms Neville. Is there any

surprise that she is here today defending Ms Neville?

Yet, Mr. Speaker, it becomes clear that the Management Commission cannot deal

with this matter. It is escalating. Who is going to deal with it? Mr. Speaker,

by August 17, the Speaker writes the Clerk of the Executive Council, outlines

very serious allegations and concludes, "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'."

Now as a government what are we supposed to do? That letter is written to us

by the Speaker. What are we supposed to do, ignore this, Mr. Speaker?

August 20, 2009 there is a letter from the Clerk to Ms Neville suspending her

with pay with pay, Mr. Speaker, and giving her the opportunity to reply. On

September 4, there is a letter from counsel for Ms Neville seeking two weeks to

reply. On September 8, you will remember we were in this House and Ms Neville

was given the opportunity to reply and we continued with the suspension with

pay.

September 30, we received a ninety-two page response that, Mr. Speaker, can

be summarized as this: Everyone is conspiring against Darlene Neville. Everyone

is lying about her. Everyone is making stories up. So the Speaker is out to get

her. Mr. Fleming is out to get her. Bob Noseworthy is a continuation of Mr.

Fleming, therefore he must be out to get her. All of the people in the Child and

Youth Advocate's office are out to get her. Now, are they all lying? Are they

all making this up? It defies common sense, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker outlines in

his letter the allegations being made.

That same day on September 30, Ms Neville files an application in court

asking to be heard in the House of Assembly. We get then to a hearing, she

alleges biased against Chief Justice David Orsborn. So now Chief Justice Orsborn

is out to get her. Chief Justice Orsborn, on December 4, dismisses her

application to appear before the House of Assembly.

What do we have as we stand here today? We have still outstanding court

matters. We have the application to quash the Fleming report re harassment. We

have the application to prohibit or prevent Barry Fleming from conducting a

whistle-blower investigation, which extends to Mr. Noseworthy. The Bob

Noseworthy report - and I say to Ms Neville: Let's see that report. That

report will answer the questions. It will tell us what is going on in that

office. Is she right, is everyone conspiring against her or, Mr. Speaker, are

the employees of that office legitimate in their concerns?

Mr. Speaker, that is the one report we do not have, and she has it within her

power for all of us to have that report here. She chose to take us to court, and

continues to take us to court, and takes everyone else to court. She has

appealed Chief Justice Orsborn's decision. Is he out to get her too?

Mr. Speaker, I am informed that it is possibly the summer of 2010

apparently they are back in January to set more court dates. I read the

transcript. I do not remember Justice Orsborn, or not in my reading of the

transcript referred to by the Opposition House Leader that Justice Thompson said

the Premier could be subpoenaed. As in any application, Mr. Speaker, they can

call evidence but the right to be heard does not mean you have the right to

stand in this Chamber, where parliamentary privilege applies, and address this

House. Who is going to cross-examine? Is everyone else does the Speaker get

up and refute the allegations? Do we bring in Mr. Noseworthy? Do we bring in Mr.

Fleming? Because that is it, Mr. Speaker, that is how impractical this is.

What do we do, Mr. Speaker, in all of this? All of the issues that are before

the court, the Opposition says: Well, let it play out. So, we will continue to

pay her salary until the summer of 2010. We will continue to pay the salary of

the Acting Child and Youth Advocate who, by the way, is a temporary appointment

who does not want to be in that job, who signed on until - as outlined in the

act - this matter was dealt with by the House.

The only report that addresses the substantive concerns is the report of Bob

Noseworthy, which I understand is completed but cannot be released to us because

of Ms Neville's application. Why doesn't she let us have it? Why doesn't

she agree for that report to be provided? By her own admission, Mr. Speaker, Ms

Neville admits, whether she uses these terms, that the office is in turmoil. So,

as a government we have an obligation to act, Mr. Speaker, to protect the

children of this Province, which seems to be lost on the Opposition here.

The two stories, Mr. Speaker, cannot be reconciled. It is not simply a he

said, she said. It is: I said, and ten people said against me. It is: I said,

and that the rest of them are out to get me. Mr. Speaker, I say to people, you

decide. I say to the members of this House, you decide if we have the grounds

that are necessary to move ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the court cases that the Liberals ask us to wait for will not

shed light on the situation in the office, because that is a primary concern to

government. How are our children being protected? The only report - again, I

repeat. The only report is the report of Mr. Noseworthy. He spoke to the members

in that office. He spoke to Ms Neville. He will reach conclusions, but we cannot

get that report.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the budget of this office is

approximately $1 million $900,000, excuse me. We are now paying an interim

Advocate. We need to get on with the business of protecting our children, Mr.

Speaker. We need to get on with hiring a new Advocate. We cannot wait until the

summer of 2010 and more appeals, and appeal after appeal because that is

what Ms Neville does. Every time there is a decision against her, she either

appeals or takes someone else to court, or complains about them to someone else.

Mr. Speaker, to the people of this Province, I say we have an obligation to

protect our children. That is the primary concern of the act. It is very

unfortunate, that is what is happening here, but I urge each member of this hon.

House to vote in support of this resolution, and if we make a decision

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: If, Mr. Speaker, we make a decision that is not right in

law, well Ms Neville certainly will take us to court.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, at the end of this, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at our children. What do

we do? What we have decided, as a Cabinet, with all of the evidence that we have

in front of us, which is irrefutable in terms of

section 7 of this act, as much

as there is politics involved in what the Liberals are putting forward, at the

end of the day, I urge every member of this House to read the booklet in front

of us. Read these tabs, Mr. Speaker, and they will see the seriousness of an

office in turmoil. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? Even if the evidence was

not as overwhelming, we know the office is in turmoil. We have to do something.

What do we do? Do we fire the ten people who are down there and say: Well, we

accept Ms Neville's versions of events? Ms Neville has outlined, she has

outlined her concerns. There has been undue political interference on the part

of the Liberals, and I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that they could stand up in

this House and put forward the positions they put forward.

What we are concerned about, and what I have not heard from the Liberal

Leader, or I have not heard from the Opposition House Leader is, what about our

children? So, Mr. Speaker, we are going to make the decision that we have to

make here to protect our children. Mr. Speaker, when we look at the comments the

other day about the management committee, these members have all been present

during these meetings. They know what took place. They know that the Management

Commission did not have the power to deal with this. When the Liberals ask: Why

not let it run its course? I have outlined in detail.

Again, I say to the people of this Province, is that we are left with a

situation where we have an office that is clearly dysfunctional, an office that

is clearly in turmoil, and that an office is primarily in its intent and in

legislation meant to protect the interests of the children of this Province. We

have to take this step unfortunately that we have to take today in order to

ensure that the office continues to run. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? I

understand that since the interim Child Advocate has been there well, I have

not heard the problems. I do not know if any other member of this House has

heard public problems since then, but I can assume from that, that things are

running smoothly.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I ask and I urge each member of this House to

vote in favour of this resolution.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am glad to get the opportunity to speak to the resolution and the amendment

of the resolution on the floor this afternoon.

I have been sitting here now since Thursday listening to everything that has

been said, both by the government side and by the Official Opposition side.

Since February, up to the time that we received the binder that we have, I have

read every word that has been sent to me with regard to this issue, and I have

reread and reread many sections. So I have put a lot of thought, as others have,

into the issue that we are dealing with today, which is the proposal from the

government to dismiss Ms Darlene Neville from the role of Child and Youth

Advocate.

Before going into my planned presentation, I do want to make a couple of

responses to the Minister of Health and Community Services, and I will go in

more detail as I go through my planned presentation. One of the flaws in his

presentation was that he started with the timeline of February, 2009. When, in

actual fact, the timeline goes back to February, 2008. I will speak more to

that, because he has left out something very significant. That before Ms Darlene

Neville was called into the Office of the Speaker, before that happened there

had been a whole year of discussions going on between members of the OCYA, staff

members of the OCYA, and staff members of the House of Assembly. So, I think to

use the word that he seems to like, that I have used before in the House, I

think it was very disingenuous of him to leave out the fact that that whole year

took place, and I will make more reference to that in my planned presentation.

We are all here because we are concerned about the children of the Province.

While I am here not ever having spoken outside of formal meetings to Ms Neville

in her role as Child and Youth Advocate and we have had formal meetings, as

budget discussions, et cetera, as the Management Commission, of which I am a

member - outside of those times of speaking with Ms Neville, I have not spoken

to her about this issue, and I am not going to speak to her performance because

that is not what we are talking about here today, from my perspective. I am

talking about process.

We have no proof that anything about Ms Darlene Neville says that she does

not care for the children of this Province, and I have to say that I am offended

by the way in which the government has been pushing the notion that, because of

her, the children of the Province are in danger. I think that is awful. If there

is anything that is disingenuous, I think it is that.

We all care about the children of this Province and I think Ms Neville, from

what I have read and from what I have learned, has a track record of showing

that she cares about children in this Province. I have to call the government on

this tact that they have taken. I think it is being done on the backs of the

children of this Province, the tact that the government has taken.

Having said those two things, I do have a planned presentation and I do want

to go through with that. The thing that we are discussing here today is whether

or not we should continue - the amendment has brought in this angle, which I

agree with - whether or not we should continue the process of suspension of Ms

Darlene Neville, allowing for a real hearing into the allegations that have been

brought against her.

As I have said, I stand here without prejudice and say that I have no idea

what would be the result of a hearing - I do not know but the one thing I am

absolutely positive about is that there should be a hearing and that due process

should be given to Ms Darlene Neville.

We are not in a hearing here today; we are not here to judge Ms Darlene

Neville's actions, because we do not have a setting for doing that. What I am

here doing today is speaking to the process that we have been involved in, for

us as a Management Commission, for the last almost a year, since February 2009,

and for the House of Assembly staff, those involved on the management level,

back to February 2008.

It is the process that I am not very happy about. It is a very disturbing

process. It has been long, it has been drawn out almost two years, and it is a

process that for a whole year was about Ms Darlene Neville but did not involve

Ms Darlene Neville.

Again, that is why I find some of the comments made by the Minister of Health

and Community Services to be disturbing today: that this woman was talked about

for a whole year - and all these documents in this binder show that - talked

about for a whole year by members of her staff and by members of the management

of the House of Assembly, but it did not come to anybody to realize, from the

first time that one of the staff from her office came and spoke to somebody in

the management of the House of Assembly, that she should have been notified;

that somebody - and in this case I think it was the Speaker - should have sat

with her and said: It looks like we have a problem, Darlene, or Ms Neville -

however they communicate with each other - it looks like we have a problem. What

do we do with this? But, for a whole year this dragged on, these meetings, these

discussions between staff at her office and management of the House.

I have to say that when, in February 2009, we were called together as a

Management Commission to have an in camera session, and we were told it was a

personnel issue and that is why it would be in camera - and every one we had was

in camera because it was a personnel issue - when we had that first meeting and

the Speaker outlined to us this long-drawn-out process, all of which is now

documented in this binder that we all have, I was horrified. I was horrified

that it did not come to anybody in management that you should have stopped this

right at the beginning.

What we were presented with was a mess, and I am really upset that the

government is refusing to acknowledge that first year, while this woman did not

even know what was going on behind her back, and then, when she gets called into

the Speaker's Office in February 2009, she does not even know what he is

calling her in for. She goes into a meeting with him and somebody from PSC to

talk about workplace assessment and having a healthy environment. She did not

even know what she was facing.

No wonder, when she did a rethink, she called and said: Let's back up for a

minute. I have to have more information. That is what she said: I need more

information. I need to find out why this workplace assessment is needed.

I really and truly get extremely upset when I hear this part being left out.

Everything that I have read, all the documentation that has been provided both

from Ms Neville's deputations as well as from the letters and all the

discussion that is going on, tell us that what has happened has been completely,

every bit of it, totally against all human relations documentation, the way

policies, the way in which human relations should be carried out.

I would like say that, as a member of the Management Commission, I feel

responsible that I did not realize how poorly equipped the House of Assembly

management staff was with regard to skills in human relations; because there is

nothing that you can read that would tell you that what went on was correct.

I stand here as a person with a lot of experience in human relations. I have

been in management myself, and I cannot understand how anybody in this House or

anybody in the public can read all of this documentation and say that the

process was alright.

We have to face that today. This process, to put it bluntly, stinks, and we

have to recognize that. There is no way that I can vote for a resolution to fire

Ms Neville when she has not had a chance to speak.

Now, the Minister of Finance says that she has had a chance. She has had a

chance, because she sent in ninety-two pages when requested. I tell you, I

marvel at the patience the woman had to put all of that down on paper. She has

had a chance, but she has not had a chance to speak to us or to anybody else

about it.

The minister says that does not matter. Well, it does matter when members of

her own office, for a whole year, had people to speak to, could say whatever

they had to say, could be listened to, but she is not allowed to have that

interaction.

Listen, colleagues, there is something wrong here and I cannot understand

that you do not see it. You know what? I think some of you do see it. There is

something wrong when this woman, for a whole year, had people talking about her

behind her back, but all she can do is put it on paper and not make any

presentations, not answer any questions, not explain anything. This is

absolutely unbelievable and unacceptable. So, of course, I cannot possibly vote

for her being released before she has a chance to do that.

I agree with the Official Opposition on this one: if we do not give her a

chance now, well then this government or a government after you, somewhere down

the line, somebody is going to be forced to hear her, just like they were forced

to hear Fraser March.

I do not know why this government has not learned from that experience.

Darlene Neville deserves a full hearing, either with the Management Commission

which, by the way, is the place where it should have come, and I want to

talk to that now. I want to talk to the August 12 meeting that has been referred

to both by the Opposition House Leader as well as by the Minister of Health and

Community Services.

I was at the August 12 meeting, and I know what we decided in the August 12

meeting. We did not talk about dismissal and we did not say it was not the role

of the Management Commission to get involved in that. As a matter of fact, what

I kept saying at every meeting we had, that the Management Commission was not

the place to be talking about human relations, because it is isn't. We are a

policy body. We make policy, and the human relation issues were not issues that

we should be dealing with in the Management Commission.

What we did talk about and what we did decide - and the decision is

documented in sub-tab 19 of Tab 10. I have the sub-tabs because we have all of

these tabs under Tab 10, so I have done my sub-tabs. I am talking about the

August 13 letter from the Clerk of the House to Ms Darlene Neville. That letter

from the Clerk of the House to Ms Darlene Neville outlines that the Management

Commission at a meeting of August 12 requested a report on the status of the

other reviews and investigations previously announced by her office.

The reason we did that letter, the reason we asked the Clerk to write that

letter - that was our only decision at the August 12 meeting -was because

somebody in the Management Commission raised an issue: Has she really been doing

the work that she was supposed to be doing? I do not know if I was the one who

said it, it does not matter. I certainly agreed with it and I think I was the

one who said: Well, there is one way to find out. Why don't we ask her for an

interim report, a status report on where things are? My purpose being, and my

reason for agreeing with that, was that if she is doing her work, you cannot use

that as something against her, if she is doing her work.

That letter of August 13 went out to Ms Neville. Then the tab after that

indicates, as all of us know, that on August 18, Mr. MacKenzie received a letter

from her responding to us. When you read the letter responding to us, to the

Management Commission, you have twelve pages well thought out of a response to

us about the work that she was doing and the work that the office was doing. All

of which, to me, seemed really plausible, not only plausible, honest and a full

answer.

That was what we did on August 12. We, as a Management Commission, did not

say to members of Cabinet who are on the Management Commission: You go off and

take care of this now. We did not say to the Speaker: You do something. We said:

It looks like we need a bit more information. The information we needed, we

asked for and we got. That was August 12. Then, on August 17, I hear publicly of

what the Speaker has done, and then we get the results of what the Speaker has

done, with the letter that he sent.

If the Speaker thought that we had gotten to a point, on the Management

Commission, and if there were members of Cabinet on the Commission who thought

the same thing, that we should not just wait for her report to come in, and we

needed to learn more, then the Speaker should have made a recommendation to the

Management Commission that he was interested in moving further with this and

wanted a meeting with the Management Commission, just like it was the Internal

Economy Commission who was the body that dealt with Fraser March when that issue

was here in this House of Assembly. But no, the Speaker went straight to

Executive Council, which leads me to another point, and that is the point that

all statutory officers are accountable to the House of Assembly. The Executive

Council is government, it is not the House of Assembly. So that is was the

Management Commission, if the discussion was going to get to the point of

whether or not Ms Neville was going to be suspended, if that was the point at

which the discussion had come, then the Speaker should have brought it to the

Management Commission, not to the Executive Council. The recommendation should

have been dealt with by the Management Commission, and if the Management

Commission then needed decisions from the House of Assembly, that is how the

process goes.

So we seem to have forgotten that a statutory officer is accountable to the

whole House, not just accountable to the government. The Management Commission

is the body that the whole House uses to take care of management issues.

I want to deal with, as well, Mr. Speaker, some of the points under there

were four points that were given by the minister with regard to misconduct. I

want to look at the points of misconduct that were named by the Minister of

Finance in his opening remarks on Thursday. I will not go into a whole lot of

detail, it has been dealt with by some people in the Official Opposition, but I

do want to deal with it, because it seems to me that the minister has cut the

cloth to fit the case. In other words, the definition of misconduct is not

defined in the relevant act with regard to the Advocate, it is not defined

anywhere in ethical statements. I have gone to statements on the federal level.

Misconduct one of these things that can move around, and it seems to me that in

the definition that the minister brought forward that we have a case of the

cloth being cut to suit the situation here, rather than the other way around.

I think because exactly of the fact that there isn't a definition, all of

the points around misconduct are all open to discussion, and that is what a

hearing is about. I think there has to be discussion just on the points of

misconduct themselves.

Inability to manage human resource issues, that is an issue and it is a

management issue, but is an inability and I am using the words now that came

from the minister. Is that inability, in and of itself, does that constitute

misconduct? The things that I see outlined here, I might say poor judgement

sometimes. I might say: Well, maybe she could have handled that a bit better,

but is it misconduct? I am not sure. Certainly, a hearing would help us get at

that because in a hearing - for example, a Management Commission hearing, we

could call in experts to meet with us and talk to us about what real misconduct

is. I know we are not a court, but we should be sure of what we are talking

about.

The same thing with the whole thing around inability to properly manage

relations with individuals outside the house of the Child and Youth Advocate. I

do not think the code of conduct that the minister spoke about was extended to

Ms Neville by the Speaker when he ambushed her at the first meeting. When she

walks in and here was somebody from the healthy workplace, from PSC, sitting in

his office and she does not even know what the meeting is about. Do you think

that was proper code of conduct by the Speaker? I do not think so. I do not

think that the code of conduct was extended to Ms Neville either when the

Speaker, first himself and then his staff, at different times, for a whole year,

held these meetings.

The Speaker, in his letter that he sent to Executive Council, talks about the

fear that the staff held. I am going to say right here now what I said at a

Management Commission meeting, because I can repeat my own words. That was said

to us at a Management Commission meeting, that was a reason for not going to PSC

and asking for a formal complaint - they were so afraid. I remember saying: What

were they afraid of that Ms Neville was going to bring them down to the basement

and lash them? Give me a break! What went on here is absolutely unacceptable,

unacceptable; so that was the second point.

Breach of confidentiality, I have read the two pieces that are under that. I

think they are questionable and there may be a judgement call here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS MICHAEL: If I may have leave to sum up, please, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi, by leave.

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

It is very possible that there was poor judgement used. I am not sure. Again,

we need to look at it. I only have what is written on paper here and we have not

had a discussion about it as a Management Commission. Do we call that

misconduct? I mean this is the issue. Is that misconduct? What I see here, and I

want to say it strongly because I feel it so strongly. I see a person who was

under incredible stress, more and more and more as things accumulated. All the

things that have been outlined by government and by the Minister of Health and

Community Services today, and outlined by the Minister of Finance last Thursday,

I see somebody who is cornered and I see her trying to find her way out of the

corner. Does that mean everything that she did was right? I do not know, but

when you are cornered you do things out of desperation sometimes. All I know is

that the process here is unjust. It is wrong, and I cannot believe that my

colleagues in this House are saying that it is the way that we should be going.

This woman deserves - keep her on suspension with pay. Let's keep her there

while we get the whole picture and while she has a hearing. That is the route we

have to go.

My final statement, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the Commission itself and

where I think we have to go. In our legislation, one of the things that says

about the Commission in relationship to the whole House of Assembly is that we

establish a committee of the Commission to be known as the audit committee, and

we have that committee, but one of the things of the audit committee is to

review the code of conduct applicable to the Clerk and staff of the House of

Assembly service and statutory offices and make recommendations for improvements

to the Commission.

Well, if there is one thing that I am going to be bringing to the table of

our Management Commission meetings is that we have a responsibility, no matter

what happens in the House today, we have a responsibility to make sure that this

kind of thing never, ever happens again. That somebody gets treated with the

injustice that this woman is being treated with. That we never let that happen

again. That we have a responsibility as the Management Commission, through our

audit committee, to make sure that we have recommendations put in place so that

the House of Assembly service staff and our statutory offices staff have the

skills and the knowledge and the personnel and the resources to deal with human

relations. Maybe we all need the training ourselves, because if we can vote for

this resolution today it means we have no idea what human relations is, we have

no idea what justice is, and I am ashamed to be in this House as we vote for

this resolution today, because I am not voting for it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question on the amendment?

MS BURKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment put forward by the hon.

the Opposition House Leader, say aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Are the House Leaders ready for Division?

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment as put forward by the

Opposition House Leader?

All those in favour, please rise.

CLERK: Ms Jones, Mr. Kelvin Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Dean, Ms Michael.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, please rise.

CLERK: Ms Burke, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Jackman,

Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Kelly, Mr.

Ridgley, Ms Johnson, Mr. French, Dr. King, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Hickey, Ms

Sullivan, Mr. Denine, Mr. Dinn, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Baker, Ms Perry, Mr.

Dalley, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Peach, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Young, Mr.

Harding, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Kent, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Loder, Mr. Buckingham, Mr.

Cornect, Mr. Sandy Collins.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes, five; the nays, thirty-six.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, if he

speaks now he shall close debate.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

This is indeed a very serious debate that has taken place here. One of the

things that I certainly learned here was the comments by hon. members talking

about the difficulties, the staff issues, the human resource issues in the

Office of the Child and Youth Advocate that have been going on for over a year,

with nothing happened, nothing being done by the Management Commission. That, of

course, is very concerning. As has been said here, the important people in this

debate are the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate was established with a mandate to

advance the interests of the children of this Province, to protect the interests

of the children of this Province. For that to happen, all hands have to work

together under the leadership of the Advocate. Not only is the Advocate there,

which is one person, but there are also members of the staff. They all have to

work together and direct their collective energies towards the advancement of

the mandate, which is to advance and protect the children of this Province.

Now, what we have had here is a system in the Office of the Child and Youth

Advocate that some hon. members call dysfunctional. If I understand, the Leader

of the NDP referred to it as a mess.

MS MICHAEL: No, I said the (inaudible) of a mess.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The (inaudible) of a mess. Oh, okay.

The Minister of Natural Resources felt it was dysfunctional. The Minister of

Health and Community Services, who is a member of the Management Commission,

referred to the office as dysfunctional. The Child and Youth Advocate herself,

Ms Neville, referred to the atmosphere in the office as one that was poisoned.

So, the Speaker attempted to deal with it, to bring it to an end and he

attempted to do it in a way that was not an accusatory process; it was not an

investigatory process; it was not made with a complaint. It was to get together

and to try in a collegial way to improve communications, to put an end to this

poisoned atmosphere. The response he got was he was charged with harassment. The

harassment was heard by two different people. It was referred to the Citizens'

Representative and he exonerated the Speaker. It was also referred, I believe,

by the House Management Commission to an independent person, Mr. Wayne Thistle,

who also did the investigation and exonerated the Speaker. There was an

opportunity for Ms Neville to have a hearing. There was an opportunity in a very

collegial way, in a very friendly way, to address the issues that were going on.

Just look at what the Speaker referred to: the fear; distrust; harassment;

people working in the office having to go and get medical attention, having to

get legal advice, looking to try to get transferred out of the office. The

Speaker attempted to deal with it, but Ms Neville refused to take

part in that

process. There was opportunity number one to have a hearing, and it was

squandered.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the harassment investigation, we then had a

whistle-blower investigation. The members of the Opposition talked about the

first Public Service complaints investigation, that there was no official

complaint. There was no official complaint from the staff because the staff were

fearful that they would lose their jobs. There was no protection in that

legislation for the staff. The Advocate has tenure under the legislation. It is

not, as the Opposition House Leader said, that she could be fired at will. The

Advocate cannot be fired at will. The Advocate has a term and can only be fired

for cause. Therefore, staff in the office were reluctant to go forward in the

Public Service Commission investigation of their concerns because of fear of

reprisal.

Then there was an application made under the House of Assembly, the

administration and integrity and accountability legislation, the whistle-blower

legislation. There was a complaint made there, and under that act the Citizens'

Representative is the person who does the investigation. Under that act, there

is protection to the staff from any reprisals. In this case, the Child and Youth

Advocate went to court and sought a declaration prohibiting the Citizens' Rep

to carry forward with this chance to do a hearing, to investigate into it.

The Citizens' Representative, given the allegations of conflict against

him, and not wanting to have the matter delayed, came to Executive Council and

said: I don't want to hold things up; let's get somebody else to do it.

So, the Executive Council appointed a retired civil servant, a respected

civil servant, a former deputy minister, a former chair of the public utilities

commission, to do an investigation. Once again, Ms Neville went back to court to

block the investigation

Now, the Opposition has said, let's let these court proceedings unfold; the

court proceedings will deal with everything - but they will no