June 19, 2012

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLVII No. 50

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today we have members' statements from: the Member for the District of Cape

St. Francis; the Member for the District of Bellevue; the Member for the

District of Fortune Bay Cape La Hune; the Member for the District of Baie

Verte Springdale; the Member for the District of St. John's Centre; and the

Member for the District of Lake Melville.

Before we entertain members' statements, I am prepared today to make a ruling

with respect to the Point of Privilege raised by the Government House Leader on

June 14. This ruling is a little lengthy, but I would ask you to bear with me

and, out of necessity, there is some detail that is provided in here. The

Government House Leader proposed the following resolution:

"BE IT RESOLVED THAT this Honourable House declares that the behaviour of the

Leader of the Third Party constitutes a breach of privilege, that this House

expresses its condemnation of this Member, and that this House direct the Member

to apologize in this House to the Minister whose reputation she maligned, and

that the Member be ordered to apologize."

The Member to whom this is directed is the Member for Signal Hill Quidi

Vidi and this issue arose from statements made by her outside the House when

explaining to the media her reasoning for using the unparliamentary term of

"racism" with respect to comments made by the Member for Placentia St. Mary's.

COMMENTS OUTSIDE THE CHAMBER:

The first point that I would wish to address is the implication by the Member

for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi that her comments were made with respect to another

Member outside the House Chamber and hence were not subject to privilege and the

discipline of the House.

There is a general presumption that words spoken against another Member

outside the House are not subject to a ruling by the Speaker. The House of

Commons Speaker Scheer, on February 9, 2012, (page 5094) quoting O'Brien and

Bosc p. 614 stated:

"The Speaker has no authority to rule on statements made outside the House by

one Member against another."

I caution Members that this dictum is not absolute, as some Members may

believe it is. While the Speaker would not generally insert himself into a

dispute between two Members which occurred outside the House, there are

exceptional occasions when it is appropriate for the Speaker to intervene.

If the dignity of the House or its Members collectively were to be impugned,

there are precedents for the Speaker's intervention on a serious breach of

privilege. I refer Members to O'Brien and Bosc, p. 85, footnotes #124 and #126,

as examples of prime facie cases of privilege, despite the offence

having occurred outside of the House.

Maingot, (Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, 2nd edition) states at page 256,

"misbehaviour within the precincts of the House is misbehaviour in the

presence of the House when it occurs on a day when .the House is sitting, will

be sitting or has sat. it is not the precincts that are sacred but the function

of these precincts".

Therefore, a violation of privilege, including contempt, can be found against

a Member or other persons even if the comments were made outside of the

House. At all times, the context of the statements or actions must be analyzed

to determine if the breach has occurred.

Therefore, the fact that comments were made outside of the Chamber is not, by

itself, a defence against a charge of breach of privilege or contempt. A slur on

all Members by a word or deed is a reflection upon the House. One cannot bring

the House into disrepute, regardless of where the statement is made. To

do so is a contempt upon the House.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE:

The standard definition of Parliamentary Privilege as stated by Sir Erskine

May is quoted at page 60 of O'Brien and Bosc:

"Parliamentary Privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by [the]

House collectivelyand by Members of [the] House individually, without which

they could not discharge their functions."

These rights, whether those of the House or those of individual Members, can

be enumerated and do not change. Those of the House include such things as the

right to control its own proceedings and precincts and the power to discipline

for breaches. Note that Parliamentary privileges apply to the House and to

Members with respect to their parliamentary functions. They do not apply to a

Minister with respect to Ministerial duties carried out in his or her Executive

capacity.

Members of the House however, have individual and collective rights such as

freedom of speech, freedom from arrest in civil actions, freedom from

obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation. There is a more

complete listing at pages 60-62 of O'Brien and Bosc. Any violation of these

privileges that impairs the execution of parliamentary functions is a breach of

privilege.

However, as the Government House Leader noted in his submission, "the bar for

parliamentary privilege is necessarily high". The use of improper or

unparliamentary words does not necessarily meet the test of violating one of

these parliamentary privileges.

I therefore find that there has been no breach of the enumerated Privileges,

either of this House or of the Member for Placentia St. Mary's.

CONTEMPT:

The Government House Leader further argued that, if a prime facie case of

breach of privilege was not established, the matter be viewed as one of

contempt.

Contempt of Parliament is any action which may obstruct or impede the House

in its functions or Members or Officers of the House in the discharge of their

(Parliamentary) duties or which is an offence against the authority or

dignity of the House . Disobedience of legitimate commands of or libels upon

the House, its Members or its Officers is a contempt. The House may consider any

misconduct to be contempt and may deal with it accordingly. (O'Brien and Bosc,

page 83) Contempts are not enumerated in the same way as Privileges. As was

stated by Speaker Sauve in 1980, and I quote:

"when new ways are found to interfere with our proceedings, so too will the

House, in appropriate cases, be able to find that a contempt of the House has

occurred." That is to be found in the Debates, October 29, 1980, as cited in

O'Brien and Bosc on page 83.

The resolution proposed by the Government House Leader suggests that a

contempt occurred because one Member maligned another Member. As I noted

earlier, it would take an exceptional case for the Speaker to intervene in such

a dispute outside of the Chamber between two Members.

However, this does not mean that a larger contempt has not occurred. I

have carefully reviewed the media transcripts of the statements made by the

Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi, and I have listened to the audio recordings

of both the "scrum" taking place outside the Chamber, and the CBC telephone

interview.

These remarks by the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi addressed what she

termed "systemic racism", as opposed to the actual statements made in the House

respecting one Member. However, there were comments made which are most

regrettable. The Member said, and I quote:

"what was happening for me around this House of Assembly was hearing

comments that were smacking ofan aspect of racism"

She also says, and I quote:

"...systemic racismis part of where prejudices come from. It is part of

where lack of knowledge comes from andwhen I look at what happened last night,

I think it's coming out of systemic racism, yes I do." End of quote.

In my view, these comments go beyond insulting an individual Member, such as

the Member for Placentia St. Mary's, and instead are an affront to the dignity

of the House itself. The language was so intemperate and distasteful and the

charge of racism is so serious and injurious to this House and all its Members

that I feel it cannot go unchallenged. That charge goes beyond what we might

term as "ordinary political insults" and casts a shadow over all Members.

However, I am obligated to bear in mind that, as what is stated in O'Brien

and Bosc (pages 85-87), there is a reluctance to invoke the House's authority to

reprimand for impugning the Assembly's or a Member's dignity or authority. In

some cases, actions and words may be worthy of chastisement and may well be

ill-advised, intemperate and irresponsible, but not reach the stage of being a

contempt of the House. The Speaker is also very aware of Maingot's caution, and

I quote: "the Member is entitled to receive the benefit of the doubt", found in

Maingot, 2nd edition, page 227.

While I recognize the limitations in finding the Member guilty of contempt, I

do however suggest that the Member may want to do the honourable thing and to

apologize to the House for the comments which were an affront to its dignity and

the integrity of all its Members.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do apologize to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Members' Statements.

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to congratulate Rose Auchinleck of Torbay for receiving the

Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal; a wonderful lady who has a great community

spirit. She is a friend to anyone who needs a helping hand. The last time I met

Rose was when she was driving a friend to the cancer clinic. She is always there

to help anyone get to a social event.

Rose's husband was a member of the Armed Forces and he travelled overseas.

She spent time with him assisting families and was involved in peacekeeping. In

2000, Rose returned to Torbay and has become a very active member of the

community.

Rose is eager to help at anything; if there is a need, Rose will be there.

Groups she is involved with include: the Holy Trinity Parish Hall, the Catholic

Women's League, the Holy Name Society, the Torbay Women's Institute, the Torbay

50 Plus Club, she volunteers at the seniors' home in Torbay, and is a member of

the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association.

Rose is an outstanding person and at the age of seventy-seven has no

intention of slowing down. It is people like Rose Auchinleck who make

Newfoundland and Labrador such a special place to live. I ask all members to

join with me in congratulating Rose on receiving the Queen's Diamond Jubilee.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Grade 6 class of Woodland

Elementary in the great District of Bellevue.

Graduating from their elementary school at Dildo, from Grade 6, means they

will be moving into a regional high school in September. They will be attending

intermediate classes at Crescent Collegiate High School in Blaketown. These

young men and women say they are very excited and cannot wait for September

classes to start.

Mr. Speaker, this is a transition when they were the oldest people in

Woodland Elementary and this September they will be the youngest in Crescent

Collegiate. With any change in life you will face challenges. This Grade 6 class

has prepared themselves for the future ahead as high school students.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating the Grade 6 class

on successfully graduating from Woodland Elementary and wish them all the best

in their education at Crescent Collegiate in Blaketown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Devin Benoit for his receipt of the Premier's

Athletic Award for powerlifting. We are very proud that Devin's hard work has

been recognized and appreciate our government's support of this top young

athlete.

In April of 2010, at only fifteen, he decided to take up powerlifting and

attended his first competition in June of 2010 where he set five provincial

records in his weight class. He then qualified for the Canadian National

Powerlifting Championship in PEI, all while maintaining an honours average in

school and serving as the drum leader of the traditional Mi'kmaq Paqtismji'j

Drummers.

In this test of pure brute strength, Devin has a powerlifting record of squat

247.5 kilograms, bench press 145, and dead lift 222.5 kilograms. We have no

doubt that he will achieve his highest potential at the elite level of this

sport. Dedication and perseverance will serve this young man well in all his

future pursuits and will certainly help to grow this great sport in this

Province.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating Devin and wish him the best of

luck in the provincial championships which will take place in St. John's on July

7 at the College of the North Atlantic.

Voila.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with tremendous pride that I rise in this hon. House today to wish

Happy Birthday to a very special person, Mr. Herb Pike, born in 1923 in Bishop's

Falls, grew up in Buchans and now residing in Springdale, celebrated his

eighty-ninth birthday on June 5.

He joined the Royal Air Force at the age of seventeen and was stationed in

West Africa and England where he met his late wife, Doris. Mr. Pike was a

Warrant Officer First Class during World War II. Following the war, he became

the chief chemist with the American Smelting and Refining Company in Buchans

until 1983, at which time he relocated to Springdale to manage the laboratory

for Atlantic Analytical until his retirement.

He has been a member of the Royal Canadian Legion for sixty-five years

serving many offices repeatedly. He received the Meritorious Service Award for

his loyalty and service. Over the years, he has been a member of the school

board, Lions Club, Boy Scouts, and the Boys and Girls Club.

Mr. Pike remains active today by gardening, fishing, filling snow shoes, and

accepting many speaking engagements from surrounding schools.

I ask all members to join me in wishing Mr. Herb Pike a very happy

eighty-ninth birthday and many more.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to honour the incredible work of RIAC, the Refugee Immigrant Advisory

Council, and to celebrate Refugee Week.

Newfoundland and Labrador has become home to many refugees from across the

globe, people who have fled wars, famine, torture, discrimination, and

oppression. Some came as individuals, separated from their families due to

repressive regimes, others as families, but for all, the move was difficult.

RIAC was there to help by providing programs, support groups, and one-on-one

matching to enable and empower people of diverse origins to make Newfoundland

and Labrador their home and become productive members of our community.

RIAC's vision is to create a community that is inclusive and free of

prejudice, that celebrates the diversity of its population, and that supports

the rights of all people to enjoy freedom from persecution, danger, and

oppression.

RIAC has organized a week of activities for Refugee Week including art

exhibits and storytelling. Thursday evening, four young refugees from Iraq,

Kenya, Kosovo, and Bhutan share their stories. Check out their Web site.

Thank you to the folks at RIAC for the incredible, vital work that they do,

and to the refugees who have made Newfoundland and Labrador their home, making

our community all the richer for it.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Relay for Life

organizing committee and its participants in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The annual

Relay for Life was held this past weekend over a twelve-hour period from 7:00

o'clock Friday evening until 7:00 o'clock Saturday morning. I was proud to take

part in the opening ceremonies and bring greetings on behalf of the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it was an emotional event, as a number of cancer survivors clad

in yellow tee-shirts kicked off the event with a victory lap around the track in

celebration of their winning the battle against cancer.

The hundreds of luminaries placed around the track glowed throughout the

night as a memorial to those who lost their battle with cancer.

The generosity of the people of Lake Melville is well known, and this was

evidenced once again, Mr. Speaker, by the tremendous financial success of the

event. Seventeen teams from Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Sheshatshiu, and North West

River raised a total of $60,000.

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

congratulating the organizers, the volunteers, the sponsors, and the seventeen

teams who made this year's Relay for Life another phenomenal success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to

announce that there will be new municipal infrastructure projects started in the

Province in the coming weeks as a result of an investment by our government of

$130 million in Budget 2012: People and Prosperity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, our Municipal Capital Works programs provide

for the development of cost-shared projects in a wide range of municipal

infrastructure. Since 2008, our government has invested over $500 million in

Municipal Capital Works projects, which has resulted in improved municipal

infrastructure across the Province. These projects have provided municipalities

the opportunity to secure, develop, and improve infrastructure for their

residents and support the long-term sustainability of growth and development of

communities throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as of April 1, we had over 500 municipal infrastructure projects

ongoing in various municipalities throughout the Province, and we anticipate a

further 200 new projects to start this year. So, in essence, Mr. Speaker, we

will have over 700 projects ongoing in the Province managed by Municipal Affairs

and the municipalities, which is over double the number of the municipalities in

our Province.

Some examples of significant Municipal Capital Works projects completed over

the past couple of years include: the Lifestyle Centre in Bay Bulls, the second

ice surface at the Glacier in Mount Pearl, commissioning of a water treatment

project in Belleoram, and commissioning of a potable water dispensing unit in

Leading Tickles and other communities. Work also continues on significant water

and wastewater treatment projects in Corner Brook, Happy Valley-Goose Bay,

Bishop's Falls, and the City of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to our continued investment in infrastructure

projects throughout the Province, our government is pleased to also maintain the

cost-share ratios established in 2008, which were designed to benefit

municipalities. For communities with populations below 3,000, the provincial

government will continue to invest 90 per cent of the cost of new

infrastructure, with the municipality providing 10 per cent; 80 per cent of the

cost will continue to be covered for populations between 3,000 and 7,000; and 70

per cent of the cost will continue to be covered for municipalities with

populations over 7,000. In addition, when calculating our investment, we include

the provincial portion of the HST and pay our applicable share of that cost.

Mr. Speaker, projects are funded in every district in the Province, from the

City of St. John's to the Northeast Coast of Labrador. Projects focus on water

and wastewater treatment as a priority, with other projects supporting other

infrastructure, such as local roads and municipal buildings. Further information

on specific projects will be announced in the coming weeks. Mr. Speaker, I am

sure that there will be all kinds of positive comments from my hon. colleagues

across the House in regards to this (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for half of the ministerial

statement, because that is all I received, half of it but I am being positive,

you gave me half of it. Minister, thank you very much for the part of the

statement, and I am sure there was a misunderstanding there that I did not get

it all.

I say to the minister that if we create strong towns, we will have a strong

Province. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that even in the District of

Bay of Islands, some of the infrastructure that was done over the years is very

beneficial to a lot of towns, and it helps a lot of communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: This has been ongoing for a number of years, the 200 boil

orders across the Province. We need to find some way to reduce that and do what

we can to help people to have safe drinking water throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I also urge the government all members of the government to

try to strive as quick as they can to get a fiscal arrangement with all the

municipalities in the Province so that a lot of municipalities that do have the

infrastructure can maintain it and have the ability have the finances to

maintain it, Minister. Also, Mr. Speaker, I must say the 90-10 ratio, it is very

good for a lot of municipalities that could not afford it. It is a great way to

help smaller towns to ensure that they can invest also in their own towns.

Sometimes there is a little less money than others because of a financial

crunch on the government, but anything that we can do to make our towns

stronger, I am all for it. Once again on behalf of some of the municipalities in

the Bay of Islands, I just say it is never enough, but we all have to keep

striving to make improvements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, for some time now, municipalities have been having a hard time

obtaining funding and a new fiscal arrangement with the Province. That search

for the new fiscal arrangement, of course, goes on. We wish the minister luck in

coming to a fair settlement with all municipalities in that regard.

These are all good projects, particularly the projects that involve water and

sewage, but municipalities need funding to determine what their next strategic

project will be. For government to contribute its fair share under the present

arrangement, it means money for the municipalities to make that first

determination initially.

We hope that government's number one priority will be that fiscal arrangement

so communities can practise self-determination in project priorities. We

encourage those discussions to continue. Thanks for all the work so far.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to reinforce our government's

unwavering commitment to providing quality health care services to the people of

this Province. Particularly, I would like to highlight some of the significant

investments and enhancements we have made in the provision of dialysis services

in the last few years.

Since 2004, our government has invested approximately $189 million in

dialysis services throughout this Province. This includes the establishment of

seven new dialysis sites in Burin, Carbonear, Gander, St. Anthony, Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador West, and Port aux Basques for a total of fourteen

sites Province-wide. We can now accommodate 531 patients at these sites. This is

an increase of 191 patients.

Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of years, we have invested approximately

$400,000 to expand dialysis services in St. Anthony, including funding for

staffing, operating costs, and the installation of a water treatment system.

This investment allows for the accommodation of six additional dialysis

patients, for a total of sixteen. As a result, there is no wait-list for

dialysis in St. Anthony at this time.

Mr. Speaker, residents have expressed the necessity for increased dialysis

services, and through our continued investment we are successfully meeting the

needs of those individuals. Enhancing dialysis services so that residents have

access to treatment as close to home as possible is a key priority for our

government.

In Budget 2012, we invested approximately $1.9 million to continue to improve

dialysis services in the Province. This includes $1 million to further expand

dialysis services in Harbour Breton by establishing a satellite dialysis unit to

help meet the expected increase for dialysis treatment in the area.

Our government will continue to enhance dialysis services in Newfoundland and

Labrador to ensure we have the technology and equipment available to meet the

needs of our residents now and into the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

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

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of the statement.

Investment in dialysis services is critical to the people of the Province since

the demand for dialysis service is increasing. We already know from the health

officials that we are experiencing a 12 per cent increase year over year in the

need for dialysis. This is largely due to the increase and the tsunami that many

people are calling around diabetes and other chronic diseases.

It is also important as the minister stated that we have those services as

close to home. It is important to people who live in rural and remote

populations. As the minister mentioned in St. Anthony now where we have some

extra dialysis units, this is so important because the nearest possible place

would be in Corner Brook. So the cost of transportation, Mr. Speaker, adds a

tremendous strain on families.

We are pleased to see this investment. Keeping people closer to home and the

support that they have from the communities, families, and friends is very

important. We will also encourage, though, the government to continue to monitor

demand in those areas, and to add the capacity where it is required.

We cannot forget the great work that our many foundations and our volunteers

are doing in those communities, in often as we are seeing cost-shared

fundraising events to support the purchase of dialysis equipment. We want to

thank our foundations and volunteers for the great work they have done.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I commend

the government for expanding dialysis services around the Province. Every

wait-list that is eliminated, as in the case of St. Anthony at the moment, means

that families can have their loved ones nearby again. Their lives go back to

normal, and patients are no longer alone in a strange town.

Unfortunately, the need for dialysis services is continuing to increase as a

result of our rising rates of diabetes in this Province. I encourage government,

Mr. Speaker, to provide more resources to prevention, screening, and management

programs across the Province so we can keep more people from needing dialysis in

the first place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This afternoon, the Minister Responsible for Labour Relations Agency outlined

changes to the Labour Relations Act. One of the key amendments is allowing

multiple projects to occur on special project sites.

I ask the Premier: With the mix of projects, with some being special projects

and others not, what is your act going to do to guarantee labour stability on

special projects?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we did today was all about just that, labour stability.

That is something we have strived for and is something we have worked very hard

at. This is a process that has been ongoing for several years. It is three

things that are fed into today's bill that we are very excited about, Mr.

Speaker. It is all about balance and all about labour stability.

When it comes to having two projects on one site, it makes total sense. In a

place like Bull Arm, for example, we could have multiple SPOs happening at the

same time. It only makes sense, Mr. Speaker, that we utilize the facility we

have in Bull Arm, a world-class facility, and give it the ability to operate two

SPOs during the same time frame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question was more about having a special project and one that is not. That

is where I was going with that. The minister can probably because I do have

another question for him.

Mr. Speaker,

section 25(4) is a new addition to the Labour Relations Act and

permits employers to express his or her views to employees as long as the

employer does not use coercion, intimidation, threats, promises, or undue

influences.

I ask the minister: Can you clarify the extent to which employers will be

permitted to express their views to employees without being deemed to undermine

the certified bargaining agent for the employees?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had checked with the Labour Relations Board,

for example, that currently kind of exists. The Labour Relations Board has made

decisions on that in the past and allowed employers to go out during a

certification process to give them the ability to go out and hold a meeting. He

is absolutely right there can be no coercion or intimation, and that sort of

thing, Mr. Speaker.

It was something many of the employers in the Province were looking for. I

had discussed with them and they have discussed through the various places where

they could have input in through this lengthy process. It was something that

they were looking for, Mr. Speaker, and it gives the employer the ability to go

out and talk to the people who work for them and lay it on the line what they

have to offer. It was something that they wanted, Mr. Speaker, and something

that we were glad to bring forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, under

section 83.1 an employer can trigger the

labour board to take a secret vote of employees on an offer without the union

being given a full and fair opportunity to consider, accept or reject the offer.

I ask the minister: Why are you introducing this very special amendment that

could cause both unions and employers difficulty and leaves the board without

discretion?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure of the first part of the I

am sorry, I apologize to the member opposite, I missed the first part of the

equation. I am not sure if he is talking about the classification piece or the

declassification of unions coming and going. That is clearly stated in the

legislation. So I am not sure if that is what he is referring to but I would

certainly have no trouble answering the question if I could catch it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: The question, Mr. Speaker, was in

section 83.1. An employer can

trigger the labour board to take a secret vote of employees on an offer without

the union being given full and a fair opportunity to consider, accept or reject

the offer before the union gets an opportunity to actually disclose it with

their members.

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

MR. FRENCH: I apologize, I am not familiar. I am not sure what you are

saying there at this time. During a strike offer, yes, absolutely. They do get

the ability to ask for a vote. A vote on offer is what we have called it. I

assume that is what you are talking about.

What that is, Mr. Speaker, is when you have a vote on offer what will happen,

it will give the employer one chance. So the employer, whether it be the public

service or the private sector, will have the ability to go out and ask for a

vote on offer. They will have that ability only once. It is another tool that we

have put in the toolbox to help negotiations between employers and labour, Mr.

Speaker. Our goal in this, of course, is all about having as much in that

toolbox as possible to make sure we do not have labour unrest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, the provincial budget is based on Brent Crude

trading at over $124 a barrel. At no point since the Budget was announced has

the price been close to that. It is currently trading around $96 today.

For every dollar that oil goes down, how much will the deficit go up?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to know that the Leader of the Opposition was

listening to my remarks this morning to NOIA and the scrum after.

Mr. Speaker, yes, our forecast is based on the PIRA forecasting of $124 a

barrel. Mr. Speaker, as we have talked about in this House many times, that is

the best that you can do: take the best forecasting information that is

available to you to use in your budget. We have been accused by some members

opposite of misleading the people of the Province very deliberately in terms of

the price that we put in our Budget for oil, given the tremendous revenues that

we have received on oil over and above what we have predicted.

We will not know until the end of the year the real impact on the Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, this year's Budget was the first year that the

government forecast oil prices at more than the actual on the day that the

Budget was announced. On the day that the Budget was announced, it was $118, and

the Budget was $124.

The question is: What price will oil have to be to make up for those three

months of losses?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we do not do that kind of daily auditing in the Department of

Finance. Mr. Speaker, yes, our Budget is not prepared the day before the day we

present it here in the House of Assembly. It is a process that goes on for

months and months. As we get very, very close to the finalization of the Budget

we use the most recent forecasting. In this year's Budget it was $124 a barrel.

That is the same method we have used in the last nine years in the preparation

of our Budget, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are closely monitoring what is happening with oil forecasting

and oil prices. Right now, our deficit is increasing, if this continues. We are

being very responsible in monitoring this on a daily basis, monitoring our

spending on a daily basis, Mr. Speaker, and being very, very conservative in

terms of the fiscal management of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As part of the monitoring, and as prices continue to fall, there will be less

money, as we know, for government coffers.

My question is: What impact will this have, for instance, on government work

right now, including public sector jobs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are not going to be any cuts as a result of certainly

not contemplated at this point in time, but we continue to monitor very closely.

The one thing that this government has proven over the last nine years is that

we are good fiscal managers, Mr. Speaker. That is going to continue over this

fiscal year as well. We are early into the Budget. This is not a new

circumstance; this has occurred before, and we have made up as the year has gone

on and prices continued to rise or rebound, Mr. Speaker. That may happen again,

but it behooves us to be very conservative and very prudent in our spending.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said there would not be any cuts, but we are already

seeing cuts in Eastern Health, and now we are seeing cuts in the Regional

Economic Development Boards in the Province. Mr. Speaker, the Harper government

cut these boards to become effective in 2013; now the provincial government has

followed suit and they are cutting these boards, effective next month.

I ask the Premier: Do you not feel any commitment to rural communities in

this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Considerably more, Mr. Speaker, than the member opposite felt when she sat on

this side of the House, especially in terms of economic development. As I

pointed out many times before, when we came to government in 2003, there was

approximately $2.6 million a year being invested in economic development in

rural parts of this Province. Today, we have almost $200 million, or over

approximately $200 million available for economic development in this Province,

Mr. Speaker. Of all our funding programs, the vast majority of that money is

invested outside the Northeast Avalon. That alone speaks to this government's

commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the Premier that it was the Liberal Government who started the Rural

Economic Development Boards in this Province, and, Mr. Speaker, they were

started at a time when rural Newfoundland and Labrador was not in the crisis

that it is in, in many cases, today, where we are seeing transitions in the

fishing industry again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I ask the Premier: How do you expect to fill the void that is

being left in rural regions of this Province when you are eliminating all the

resources that they have been accustomed to in regional economic development?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is the contradiction we see on a daily basis from members

opposite; we have the Leader of the Opposition getting up and talking about

fiscal management, the impact that lower oil prices are going to have on the

Budget of the Province, the implications of that concerning cuts. Then we have

on his right hand, his House Leader, the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au

Clair, getting up with an expectation that we backfill every space that is

created when services are withdrawn by the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot do both. We have responsibilities that are clearly

ours to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Part of that is economic

development in rural parts of the Province, Mr. Speaker. We did not rely solely

on the federal government to do that. That is done very well by the Department

of Innovation, Business and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier had a 25 per cent commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador,

and now she has eliminated that 25 per cent of funding.

Mr. Speaker, the total government investment is a little over $1.2 million to

keep Regional Economic Development Boards going in rural areas of this Province.

These are the people who do the grass works and the ground-up building of rural

economies, Premier.

Why are you not prepared to support them in their work?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can only ask the Opposition House Leader to confer with the

Leader of the Third Party and perhaps the two of them could get the story right.

One day they are in here moaning and complaining that rural Newfoundland has

gone to rack and ruin and that there is nothing positive happening in the

Province at all, Mr. Speaker.

We are the envy of Canada, Mr. Speaker, in this Province. This Province is

booming. Opportunities are everywhere for people in this Province. You would

never know it if you were to listen to the members in this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, did REDBs drive the economy? Do we have a booming rural

Newfoundland and Labrador or don't we? I wish they would make up their minds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows we have an infrastructure deficit

in many rural areas, we have the highest unemployment rate of anywhere else in

the country, Mr. Speaker, and we have an industry in the fishery that is

changing. We have rural communities today that need the support of Economic

Development Boards and the resources that go with them in order to diversify

rural regions.

Premier, where is your commitment to the rural economy in this Province? Are

you going to let them go bust, or are you going to step in and do something?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oh, Mr. Speaker, you can play with statistics. There is a well-known saying I

will not repeat here today about statistics.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a high unemployment rate in Newfoundland and

Labrador. It has to do with the seasonal nature of our fishery for one thing,

and tourism for a second thing plays a very large

part in that, Mr. Speaker. We

continue to step up to build shoulders on the tourism industry and to make a

positive impact on the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, there was over $8 billion investment in infrastructure

in the last nine years and $1 billion this year alone, most

of it in rural parts of the Province. You would have to look no further than

Fortune Bay to see this Province's commitment to rural Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, there are currently 740 children with autism

in our schools. Occupational therapy consultants are provided to children who

are completing academics but not to those doing life skills. Experts in our

Province say that if this therapy was offered to children in the life skills

stream, they could potentially do functional academics.

I ask the minister: Will he commit to funding occupational therapists for all

children with autism in our school system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, over the past three years we have put in $1

million from the Department of Education just to support autism in our schools.

The ABA program this year is being extended to Grade 3's as of September, Mr.

Speaker.

We are continually meeting with the Autism Society. As a matter of fact when

this House closes down, I am going to be meeting with the Autism Society myself

to see what it is that we can further do to support autistic children within our

system, Mr. Speaker. Both the Minister of Health and myself worked very closely

on addressing those needs and we will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the minister is

meeting with them because when I met with them they say they have been waiting

months to have that sit-down. There is a general lack of understanding about

autism and its spectrum of disabilities. The high incidence in the Province

makes this information more critical than ever before. A greater understanding

of autism could help reduce the stress experienced by these individuals and

their families.

I would ask the minister: Is she prepared to commit to a public awareness

campaign for autism spectrum disorder?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me address the first part of the comments. I met with the

Autism Society not very long ago, not more than a month ago. That meeting has

happened and I committed to continuous meetings with the Autism Society.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, autism is a disorder that we are very, very

concerned about. That is why we have invested $10.5 million in the last little

bit of time; $2.9 million in the ABA program. Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, we

have also seen to it that there are increases in the number of physiotherapists

who are available.

We have seen that there is a 30 per cent increase in the number of

occupational therapists who are available. We have seen also an increase of 29

per cent in the number of SLPs who are available. We continue to buy seats at

Dalhousie University, Mr. Speaker, for physiotherapists and for occupational

therapists.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile, for a very quick question.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, there needs to be a carefully developed

comprehensive plan to support these people with autism. Autism does not just

stop at the age of eighteen.

MR. SPEAKER: A quick question, please.

MR. A. PARSONS: Will the Premier commit to an autism strategy that deals

with the lifespan needs for people with autism, as other provinces have already

done?

MR. SPEAKER: Time for a very quick answer.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we are very committed to working with the

association, and working forward and finding a way forward for all people with

autism, for children with autism, for adults with autism, and I will continue to

have those meetings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

It is our understanding that the issue of giving government the ability to

force public sector employees to vote during collective bargaining was not

discussed with shareholders in the broad review of provincial labour laws. Mr.

Speaker, clause 2 of Bill 38 came out of the blue.

I ask the Premier, if consultations were held with public sector unions

regarding the changes to the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation has had so much consultation. In the

case of the SPO, for example, we had consultations before the recommendations.

We had consultations when we received the recommendations before we came to an

agreement of what we would move forward.

When it comes to the ERC, Mr. Speaker, the ERC is where this one came from,

is a tripartite committee made up of labour, made up of employers, and made up

of government. Mr. Speaker, these are committees that have been ongoing since

2009. You can imagine the number of issues that have been talked about at those

tables, Mr. Speaker, over that length of time. Mr. Speaker, we can be blamed for

a lot of things here today, consultation not being one of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Clause 2 of Bill 38 allows a vote forced by the employer in the midst of

collective bargaining. With everything government has in its negotiation

toolbox, such as deeming labour essential and even legislating workers back to

work, I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Why does this government feel the need to

be able to go around public sector union bargaining teams and impose a forced

vote on the union members?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier today, it is very easy

to cherry-pick either one of these recommendations. I can assure you, Mr.

Speaker, that depending on which side of debate you are on, you will get two

totally different answers and reasons for this to happen or not to happen. That

is why we had to balance, and balance is the key to this, Mr. Speaker. That is

why, for example, now we have certification.

Mr. Speaker, we did not see any problem with employers being able to use that

as a tool again, but we have to be I am sure employers in this Province are

not behind the door, Mr. Speaker, if you will. This is a tool, and you have to

be very careful when you play it. Anybody else that the research I have done

around the country, Mr. Speaker, they certainly are very careful when they play

it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out to the minister, the employers we are talking about in

section

26.1 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act is the government.

The government has been saying for years that it is reviewing and researching

the issue of legislating the use of scab labour in this Province out of

existence once and for all. One-third of the population of Canada is currently

protected by anti-scab legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why do we not see a ban on the use of scab

labour in the amendments to the Labour Relations Act that were tabled in this

House yesterday?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, replacement worker legislation is probably one of the most

divisive pieces of labour legislation in the country; two very polarized views,

Mr. Speaker, again, deciding which side of the debate you are on. There are

currently two provinces in the country that have this legislation, Mr. Speaker,

Quebec and BC. Ontario did have it for some time; however, they threw it out

once they threw out the government, much the same as the Third Party, because it

is inconclusive, Mr. Speaker, whether that is any good or not.

I can take you back to studies, Mr. Speaker, a number of studies that I have

had a look at. One in particular that I looked at compared Quebec and Ontario

over three different decades for three or four years. I will give you the

results of that in a minute, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am afraid the minister will not get a chance right now.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health and Community Services said she is

monitoring and discussing federal plans to cut medical care to refugees at the

end of June. Refugees arrive here having experienced deprivation and injury and

need medical service to regain their health to start a new life.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Is she taking any real action to oppose this

move by the Harper government to download yet another federal responsibility on

to the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that we have been discussing right across the

country and we have been, as health ministers, deputy ministers and officials,

discussing across the country. We are very much engaged in that process. It is

very much a concern for us here in Newfoundland and Labrador, as it is right

across the country. At this point in time I have committed, through my

officials, to continue to follow what is happening and to continue meeting with

other officials across the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in the House, the Premier was too cute by half in her response to

my question on her response to the amendments to the Province's Access to

Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Centre for Law and Democracy says

her remarks are not an accurate representation of their study

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - which they say is a work in progress. They also say our

fall to second place in Canada represents a giant leap backwards.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will she explain how slipping back to second

place is an improvement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Leader of the Third Party should have talked to the

Privacy Commissioner before she went to the Centre for Law and Democracy. She

would have heard him say to her earlier on as all of the Province heard him

say that we have a robust piece of legislation that allows the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador access to information from their government as they

should, Mr. Speaker, as they absolutely should. Cut it how you like, and the

Centre for Law and Democracy can cut it how they like, but we are the

second-best Province in this country in terms of access to information by its

people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the regulations dealing with disabled angler designations say

that a disabled person has to be within 100 metres of the person doing the

angling for that person. The guiding principle for disabilities, however, under

present laws, runs under reasonable accommodation.

I ask the minister: Will he revisit the legislation governing present salmon

fishing laws to include those with disabilities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in actual fact, we are reviewing the current legislation and the

current rules, but I want to be clear about something. Our whole idea of

disability angling and disability hunting, Mr. Speaker, is about inclusion and

about getting people involved. It is about getting people out in our fresh air

and out in our country. Obviously, there are limitations, Mr. Speaker; this is

why this was designed. It is heralded right across the country. We are the only

one in the country currently who has a disabled angling program, Mr. Speaker,

something that we are very, very proud of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: We will continue, Mr. Speaker, to work with people with

disabilities and do whatever we can to include them in everything possible in

our outdoors in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Province of Nova Scotia also has

rules when it comes to disabled fishing.

Part of being an inclusive society for everyone is the removal of barriers

where possible. The federal government does not have the 100-metre designation

for the recreational food fishery; why does the provincial government even have

these designations in place in the first place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will repeat for the hon. member. Mr. Speaker, our fishery is not about

our angling and salmon fishing is not a food fishery. This is about inclusion.

The food fishery, I believe, is what the federal government has; you get the

ability to go out and catch cod for your table, Mr. Speaker. This is about

inclusion and this is about recreation. Those are the principles that it was

based on. We have worked with the disability office, Mr. Speaker, we have worked

with persons with disabilities, and we will continue to do that into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier: When was she or officials from the related Department of

Innovation, Business and Rural Development made aware of ACOA's cut to funding

for the rural economic development boards in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have to carry quite a bit of information in my head. The exact

date that I was made aware of that, Mr. Speaker, I could not possibly answer

here in the House today. I was made aware of it before the public announcement

was made.

We certainly made our views known to the federal government as we have done

with regard to all of these cuts, Mr. Speaker. Our main response to rural

economic development is to make sure that we have a robust economic development

department in this government, and we certainly do in Innovation, Business and

Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, ACOA has indicated that they will provide

75 per cent of their funding to Regional Economic Development Boards for one

more year. This would allow these boards the time to look at other sources of

funding. Unfortunately, these boards are now learning that the Province will not

commit their 25 per cent

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: which they need to leverage ACOA funding. Holding back

this funding, which your government budgeted for this year, spells doom to most

of these boards.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why isn't government helping these Regional

Economic Development Boards in their bid to survive?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not sure of specifically what he is referring to when he says that the

RED Boards need money to leverage ACOA money. We have a $5 million

diversification fund that is available to communities and economic development

organizations to lever money from the federal government, Mr. Speaker.

When you never had a cent before nobody ever wanted a RED Board or any

other economic development agency at the table, Mr. Speaker, before 2003,

because they brought nothing to the table other than good ideas. This government

has given them tools in the fact that they have money that they can bring. That

will leverage federal funding, Mr. Speaker, something we are very proud of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The member has time for one quick question without

preamble.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the government tell this House if the Department of Fisheries has taken

any measures to ensure food safety and security in light of the federal cuts to

the office

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced

Education and Skills, to call Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that we go to Orders of the

Day.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, pursuant

to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June

19, 2012.

I further move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education

and Skills, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 10:00

p.m. on Tuesday, June 19, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House not adjourn

at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 19, 2012. It has been further moved and seconded

that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 19, 2012.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 2, Committee

of the Whole on a bill,

An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act, Bill

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair

for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the said

bill.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole will be debating Bill 33,

An Act To Amend The

Fatalities Investigations Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act". (Bill 33)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to speak to this particular bill, Bill 33. This bill,

An Act To Amend

The Fatalities Investigations Act, is really an amendment that is being made to

the act to include a child death review to occur in the Province. Mr. Chair, we

have not had any authority that has spoken to that in terms of actually having a

child death review conducted before in Newfoundland and Labrador, while it has

been done in some provinces across Canada through legislation and has been done

in others through policies that have been implemented by government.

Mr. Chair, we are pleased to see the legislation that is coming forward here.

We think that it probably could have been done much sooner, but realize that

there is also a process that goes along with developing legislation and ensuring

that it is done appropriately and properly.

Mr. Chair, what a child death review actually is, is it will be a Committee,

first of all, that will be set up; the Committee will be made up of expertise in

the Province. Some of this expertise may be called to do the review of certain

cases in which a child has died. They may not be called to do the review of all

cases; it depends on what their area of expertise is and what the particular

case is that they are dealing with.

After the review is completed, Mr. Chair, a report, as we understand it, will

then be made to the minister. The minister in turn will make a report to the

Child and Youth Advocate in the Province. In that report there will be a number

of recommendations. Those recommendations will be made in that report to the

minister. They can be as narrow or as broad as the Committee sees fit in doing

this review.

The scope of what they recommend could range from a change in policy,

legislation, or regulation, to holding a full inquiry into the death of a child.

Anytime, Mr. Chair, that they feel there is need for recommendations or change

to protect the children in the Province, or in the best interests of the public

safety of the Province, then they will move forward to make those particular

recommendations to the government.

Mr. Chair, for people who do not really understand this act in its entirety,

I will try my best to point out what this actually means and what kind of cases

this Child Death Review Committee would undertake in the Province. Right now, in

Newfoundland and Labrador, we have situations where if a child dies, it is then

looked at by the medical examiner. The medical examiner does have the authority

to call an inquiry; however, the scope of the work that he can call an inquiry

into is very narrow. It does not always get at what some of the real causes

might have been that contributed to the death of a child, especially if it is a

cause that includes probably the wrongful diagnosis; if it stuff that includes

systematic issues, especially around suicides in a contained region; or it is to

do with other things that could occur on a regular basis within society.

So, the scope of what the medical examiner can do is very narrow; it is not

all-encompassing in terms of looking at the death of a child. That is the reason

the government is obviously bringing in this legislation to allow for a full

child death review to occur in the Province.

So, how does it get triggered? How does a child death review get launched in

the Province? Mr. Chair, I guess the purpose is to understand why and how

children die, and to use the results of the review to prevent other children

from dying, as well as improve the health and safety of all the children in our

Province. It is important to understand the circumstances that are surrounding a

child's death, for a number of reasons. One, I think this is necessary in order

to bring closure to the family and to their friends. I think it is necessary in

order to answer any outstanding questions and concerns that they might have, and

I also think it potentially helps prevent the death of other children in the

Province.

There are different types of child death, including the natural death of a

child, a child that dies by fire, by drowning, through child abuse and neglect,

through accidents such as a motor vehicle accident, through a suicide, or

through choking. The reviews are done in a significant number of other areas, as

I have just outlined, and, Mr. Chair, up until now we did not have any

provisions or requirements in this Province upon the death of a child to ensure

that it be investigated and reported upon.

The first-ever death review was done in this Province during the

investigation into the death of Zachary Turner, and this was done, announced in

2003; the report itself was filed and made public in 2006. It determined that

the system which should have protected Zachary Turner did not do its job. They

concluded that the baby's death was preventable had the proper supports been in

place. In response to this review, the government did set up a Child Death

Review Committee to examine the circumstances under which children under the age

of two die as a result of questionable circumstances. They did do that; that was

immediately after the results of the Turner Inquiry.

Mr. Chair, in 1999 the only provinces that did not do any form of a child

death review were Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Yukon. The other

provinces had a process in place now for years in Canada and child death has

been investigated by different agencies with varying mandates across the

country. Each province, Mr. Chair, defers, they all recognize the value of this

type of work in improving the lives of our children.

Mr. Chair, when the Chief Medical Examiner is involved in the death of an

individual they will try to answer several key questions, such as identifying

the person, the child who has died, the date, the time and the place of the

death. They will look at the cause of the death and the manner of the death but

that is the limited scope, as I said, in which the medical examiner can review

this. A child death review looks at a broader scope, looks at more comprehensive

questions around it. It looks at the full examination of the life of the child

in the hope of prevention. No matter how the death occurred, there is now a

mechanism to investigate that particular death.

The new bill, Mr. Chair, will allow not only for the investigation of

individual cases, but aggregated cases as well. I will use the example that I

used yesterday of the 101 deaths in Northern Labrador over a nineteen-year

period, all suicides. This bill will now allow the review committee to

investigate this and to look at trends and systemic issues as well as to allow

them to make recommendations to prevent similar deaths in the future.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, it will only get triggered if there is another child

who commits suicide. That is unfortunate. We feel, Mr. Chair, as an Opposition,

that the child death review, once it is proclaimed, should allow the medical

examiner to bring forward any cases as they see fit to be reviewed as part of

the child death review in order to make recommendations that will be in the best

interest and the safety of the public.

I am going to use this one as an example. This is a case already in Northern

Labrador where we have 101 cases of suicide over a nineteen year period. Mr.

Chair, we should not have to wait for one more child to commit suicide in order

to move ahead with a child death review into some of these cases and the

systemic issues of that region. Most of these cases are confined to one

particular region. A large portion of these cases apply to children and youth

under the age of twenty-five. A lot of these cases have been repetitively

occurring in the same community. A lot of these cases, Mr. Chair, are also

connected to issues of substance abuse, poverty, and other issues within the

community.

I would say to the minister, if we are going to bring in this legislation, do

not wait for another child to commit suicide in Northern Labrador. Give the

medical examiner the authority he needs today to now go before the commission

when it is set up and say: Listen, we have had all of these cases occur. In the

last two years there have been twenty suicides alone in Northern Labrador, in

the last two years. I think there is every bit of reason to look at the systemic

issues that are contributing to this. We should not have to wait for another

child to die in order to look at it, Mr. Chair, another child to commit suicide.

Mr. Chair, I want to use another example as well. I am going to use the

example everyone has been familiar with in this Province because it was a public

issue. It was the example of the mother who lost her child through substance

abuse. The child, she claims through medical records, died as a result of an

overdose of methadone, Mr. Chair. She does not know how the child got access to

the methadone or how it got on the street. She has asked for an investigation

into the death of her child. She has been waiting, Mr. Chair, for well over a

year for a reply.

The government under this new legislation, if that death was occurring after

the act was proclaimed there would be a child death review into that child's

death. Because the death has occurred prior to the act, this child will not now

be entitled to the child death review. I have a problem with that because,

again, are the issues around this child directly connected to systemic issues

that are occurring in our Province, or in our city, or in the area where this

child lives, that are contributing to this? Is it something within their

environment that is contributing to this? I think, Mr. Chair, if you were to do

an investigation into what happened to this child as a result of substance

abuse, then you would also be able to make clearer recommendations and changes

to protect other children in the Province. So why do we have to wait until there

is another child who gets access to methadone in this Province, another child

who overdoses on methadone in this Province, another child who dies as a result

of an overdose of methadone in this Province? Why do we have to now wait for

that to happen before it will trigger a child death review to look at what

contributed to this, what needs to change, and what additional protections need

to be put in there for the children in this Province?

Mr. Chair, I cannot say it any clearer than what I am saying it. I am not

saying that every single case of where a child has died, going back the last

fifty years, should go through a child death review. I am not saying that. I am

saying that there are particular cases in this Province that could influence

change, it could protect lives, it could save children, and it could provide,

Mr. Chair, for stronger legislation in this Province, or regulations, or policy,

or governance whatever you want to call it and it should be done. The

medical examiner should have the authority he is a professional, he is in

charge, Mr. Chair, of doing

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will conclude my comments shortly.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

From the debate in the past two days, we have all supported the intent and

focus of the bill: the prevention of the death of a child. As I have said

yesterday, we all know that the death of a child is one of the most tragic

things that can occur in our society, and perhaps a parent's greatest fear.

I fully support the intent of having a Child Death Review Committee with a

certain amount of flexibility and fluidity, adapting according to the type of

deaths or death that is to be reviewed. The flexibility will ensure a more

comprehensive analysis and understanding of aggregate deaths as well, thereby

increasing the likelihood of coming up with recommendations that could possibly

help in the prevention of future deaths of children. To bring this level of

expertise to the table and to draw on the knowledge base of a multidisciplinary

approach is a good way to go.

The purpose of the Child Death Review Committee is to make recommendations

that enable government to amend, to adapt, to create policy

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: to develop services to address systemic issues that

contribute to problems, and to do whatever is possible to introduce corrective

measures to prevent further deaths.

Mr. Chair, this process is only helpful if in fact ministers follow and

implement recommendations that are developed, that the recommendations have to

be considered seriously for implementation. Too often we have seen where panels

and committees, inquires and reviews, have made solid recommendations that were

either not acted on or not acted on in a timely manner.

A case in point would be the recommendation from the Turner inquiry to

establish the Child Death Review Committee. That recommendation, as we all know,

was made in 2006 and here we are today, almost six years later, debating that

issue. Although there are not large numbers of child deaths in our Province that

require a full review or a full investigation, there have been, in the past six

years, a number of aggregates that deserve attention and should be reviewed, and

might even justify a full inquiry. The suicide deaths of youth in Labrador, the

deaths of a number of youth due to substance abuse or addictions, and the death

of a number of youths through suicide who were either members of the lesbian,

gay, bisexual, transgendered or queer community, or perceived to be members of

that community who were bullied mercilessly those are issues that need to be

addressed, those are deaths that still need to be addressed, that need to be

investigated to see where the systemic problems are, to see what we can do as a

society, as a community, to take corrective measures to implement change and,

thereby, to possibly save the life of another child.

If the recommendations of the Turner inquiry had been followed in a timely

manner, a Child Death Review Committee would have been in place and it is likely

that these deaths would have been reviewed. Who knows, there even may have been

an inquiry by this point. Who knows what we would have learned from these panels

of experts. Who knows what their recommendations might have been.

Is it possible that safeguards, programs, or policies that might have been

put in place in fact might have helped some of these youth? Perhaps a life could

have been spared; who knows? We do not know. We do know how important it is that

after a panel review, after a committee review, after a full inquiry, solid

recommendations coming out of that process, if they are taken seriously and if

they are implemented, perhaps a difference could have been made. However, unless

there is a stipulation that requires ministers to implement recommendations made

by the Child Death Review Committee, then perhaps the work of those committees

is rendered powerless and futile.

One more note on the composition of a committee. It is imperative to ensure

that representation on the committee includes not only employees of government

departments, agencies, or services of the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, but also independent experts as well, particularly if the death of a

child is connected in some way with the care or services by a government agency,

service, or department.

I would also like to stress one more time my concern about the release of

information from the review process. Again, I say that I understand that we all

understand the nature of the need for privacy protection for the families

involved and for the deliberations within the review committee. However, other

jurisdictions have found ways to release information beyond simply the concrete

recommendations that go forward, information that would shed light on the issues

yet still protect the privacy issues that we have mentioned, to safeguard the

workings of the committee and safeguard the privacy of the family.

I have no doubt that this can be done. We see that Ontario releases their

reports, again, keeping in mind the need for privacy of information and

safeguarding the workings of a committee, particularly when there are peer

reviews involved. All those safeguards are protected, but still more than just

the recommendations can be publicized; they are publicized on their Web site for

the protection of the community, for the information for the right to know of

the community. Families again, families where there has been a review in the

death of their child have a right to know more than just the recommendations.

Again, I support the focus and the intent of this bill. I would look forward

to the government and the minister seriously considering some of the issues that

have been raised in this House in the past two days issues that, in fact, do

not weaken the bill, do not challenge the bill, do not change the bill, but

issues and recommendations that, in fact, strengthen the bill and move the bill

forward in terms of its mandate to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

and to serve the agencies, departments, and services that care for the children

and for the youth of our Province.

Again, Mr. Chair, I thank you for this opportunity to speak one more time to

this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: You can go ahead.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to clue up the comments that I was making. I do want to propose

an amendment to this section.

Mr. Chair, I was talking

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair would ask the Opposition House Leader I understand you have

amendments to clause 3, so we would need to vote clauses 1 and 2 first before

you bring in the amendment in clause 3.

Do you have some comments you wanted to continue to make before then? We can

vote clause 1 and 2 and then you can bring in the amendment.

MS JONES: Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was talking about the role that I felt that the medical examiner should

have in this new legislation. There are only a couple of things here that I feel

very strongly about. The rest of it I am very comfortable with and I think it is

a good piece of legislation. I think in ensuring that the medical examiner has

the power to be able to recommend a child death review as they see fit, even if

that death occurred prior to the legislation being proclaimed, I think is

fitting for this bill, because the intent of the bill, Mr. Chair, is really to

provide for the protection of children in this Province. If that is the real

intent, to look at what went wrong and how we can improve it, then I do not see

any issue with looking at cases where children may have died prior to this.

I cited two cases already. One with regard to the systemic issues around the

suicide cases in Northern Labrador, where we have seen twenty cases in the last

two years, and, Mr. Chair, a large percentage of them being children and youth

in a concentrated area or region. The other case I cited was the child who died

as a result of overdosing on methadone and the mother was asking for an

investigation.

Another case that I want to point out, Mr. Chair, and this has not been a

public case, but it is a case that I dealt with. It is a case that I know the

Minister of Health and Community Services is familiar with now as well, but this

is a case that goes back a couple of years where a child died. A child who was

in the health care system from the age of fifteen, died at the age of eighteen,

was in the parent's opinion wrongfully diagnosed and wrongfully treated, and

therefore was not properly diagnosed until a very short time before he had died.

It was too late for them to get the proper treatments that would have allowed

them to save his life.

Now whether it would have saved his life or not, I do not know that. I cannot

say that to be a fact, but I know there were treatments that would have been

available had it been diagnosed earlier. Now it was no longer an option for this

child. Within a short period of time after that the child died. The parents

requested an investigation into the death through the minister's office, the

Minister of Health and Community Services. I had meetings with the minister at

that time. I provided letters and information from the family from that request.

I know there were discussions that occurred between the minister, or his staff

and the family; however, Mr. Chair, there was never any investigation.

What went wrong? What happened in our system? Was there a problem? Is there

something that could be fixed? If there is, don't we have a responsibility to

look at that? If there was not anything, if there is nothing there, if there is

nothing to fix then we will find that out as well, but right now there is no

way, one, for the family to get the answers that they need, and two, for us to

provide for the protection of the next child who goes into a system under

similar circumstances or similar events. That is the reason why I think it is

very important that the medical examiner have the authority under this

legislation to refer those cases for a child death review, if, in his opinion,

he feels that it would be in the best interest of the protection of children

under the act in this Province.

Mr. Chair, another issue might be the circumstances around the death of

Burton Winters and what happened in that particular tragedy. If this legislation

had to have been proclaimed at that time, there would have automatically been a

child death review of the Burton Winters case, but because the legislation did

not exist in this Province that did not happen. However, if it had to have been

in another province that this same event, same circumstances had to have

occurred, there would have automatically been a child death review in many

cases.

Mr. Chair, I could name probably at least another three or four examples that

I am familiar with, which I feel would back up my argument for what I am asking.

I think it is a fair request. I think it is not being done for any other reason,

Mr. Chair, other than to allow for these families to seek a child death review

who have lost children in this Province, and only that it be done because we

know it is in the best interest of all children in this Province to look at all

of these cases and to make the appropriate recommendations and corrections that

need to be made.

So, Mr. Chair, those are the comments that I want to make. I am sure there

are other speakers, and I will be proposing amendment under

section 3, once we

get there.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I am glad to get an opportunity to speak to Bill 33 in Committee of the

Whole. I would have spoken earlier but the way things went I think it is fine

that this is when I am getting to speak. I will want to listen to what the

Opposition House Leader has in the form of amendments as we go on. I am sure

that I will want to speak again, knowing what the content is going to be. I do

know what the content of some of her amendments are going to be, so I do know

that I will want to speak again, but right now there are some points that I want

to make prior to going into the next clause.

As we have all said, this legislation is long overdue. I will not continue

talking about the Turner report, and the fact that it came out in 2006. We know

that we are literally five-and-a-half years down the road from when that report

was made public. What I want to refer to is the fact that on April 30, 2007,

there was in-depth news release from the government, from Health and Community

Services. In that news release we were told that "a Child Death Review Committee

has been created to examine the circumstances under which children under the age

of two die as a result of questionable causes." When I read that, Mr. Chair, I

wanted to find out what happened. It did not say we will set up a committee. On

April 30, 2007, the government said that a committee was actually created.

I did some investigation of that, some questioning, some digging around; and,

in actual fact, there was a committee and it was under the auspices of the Child

and Youth Advocate. Of course the committee did not have any legislation; the

committee did not have anything necessarily to protect it. One of the things

that it did not have was the presence of the chief forensic examiner on the

committee. An attempt definitely was made.

What I have learned is that the committee that was struck in 2007 basically

continually failed as it came up against roadblocks. There were potential

members of the committee who were identifying conflict of interest, which they

were being identified under the Child and Youth Advocate. People they were

coming up with potentially could have conflict of interest. There seemed to be

difficulty in getting Aboriginal representation on the committee. We know that

would have been absolutely essential, especially because of something that the

Opposition House Leader has referred to a number of times, and that is the high

rate of death in the Aboriginal community of children due to suicide. There are

other deaths as well in that community a high number of deaths of children in

that community. Aboriginal representation on the committee would have been

absolutely essential.

Then there was also the instability with regard to a consistency to the

person in the role of the Child and Youth Advocate. That was another barrier, a

roadblock, which kept the committee from functioning well, or even getting

started from what I understand. Then, there was also a privacy issue. Medical

professionals were concerned about speaking frankly, is what I am told, and

honestly, because they were fearful that their comments could be accessed by

ATIPP. There was nothing to protect them as they could see, so they were very,

very concerned about that. The committee basically did not get started. That was

five-and-one-half years ago. I do not know how long it went on before it was

realized that legislation was the only way for the committee to work, that there

had to be a role absolutely legislated. The concerns that were coming out

probably could be dealt with under legislation, especially the concern around

privacy, which was a key one.

One of the things I would like to raise, one of the things that is in the

bill that I am very pleased with, I know it comes in under a particular clause,

but I am, in general, going to mention it here, and that is the need for a

review of maternal death in this Province. People I have spoken to have

indicated that in the medical profession, and even in the legal profession,

there has been a concern about the fact that we have never really had a review

of maternal death in this Province. This review, which is a potential thing

under the new legislation, would let us know better what factor, if any, that we

need to work on to get our deaths closer to zero, the deaths of children who are

being born. Whether the deaths are happening at the moment of birth, or whether

they are happening prior to birth, still births and that kind of thing, we do

need to find out why our numbers are where they are. This legislation certainly

is going to give the committee what it needs to be able to do that kind of

systemic review. I think that is extremely important.

I would also like to note that there is the clause that deals with how long

the minister has before releasing a report is really important. First of all,

within sixty day of the minister receiving a report from the Child Death Review

Committee, the minister will have to make public the recommendations of the

report. It is important to note what the minister will be reporting: the

relevant protocols, policies and procedures related to the review that was done;

standards and legislation; linkages and co-ordination of services, which is

really important, that the minister receiving a report will have to bring out

how all the different services under government work together with regard to

whatever death issue was being dealt with in a given review; and the minister

will also have to make public recommendations dealing with improvements to

services affecting children and pregnant women.

The issue is: Are there other things that could be released as well? I

understand the report that will be made to the minister by the committee will

certainly be a report with no holds barred. The report to the minister obviously

has to report fully on everything that was found, and that will include people

who were witnesses, documentation, et cetera.

We have to find a way to make sure that people who are concerned about a

death, family members in particular, will get adequate information to help them

feel at peace with what has been found. It could well be that just releasing the

recommendations covering what I just spoke about might not bring them peace. I

think we have to make sure that parts of the report that would not infringe on

privacy of third parties could be released to the public as well. We will need

to be watching the Child Death Review Committee and make sure that the

information being released is adequate for the public to get a real sense of

what happened in a death or in a series of deaths, depending on what it is we

are dealing with.

Mr. Chair, I will leave my comments at that for now because I am almost at

the end. What I want to talk about next would come under the amendment anyway.

Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: Shall clause 3 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is the

section of the act that I had some concerns with. Mr. Chair, the

act is amended by adding immediately after

section 13 in the original act the

original act, of course, is the Fatalities Investigations Act. This here is

actually the amendments. In the act now under

section 13 there will be a

section

13.1. Under

section 13.1 it is basically laying out how this committee will

work, how things will be done. Basically it says, Mr. Chair, that, "The

Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall establish a Child Death Review Committee to

review the facts and circumstances of deaths referred to in" the other

subsection "for the purpose of (

a) discovering and monitoring trends in those

deaths; and (

b) determining whether further evaluation of those deaths is

necessary or desirable in the public interest."

I want to read that, Mr. Chair -

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the Opposition House Leader speaking to the amendment that she is

proposing?

MS JONES: No, I have not proposed it yet.

CHAIR: Okay.

Go ahead; sorry.

MS JONES: I am going to propose it. I am leading up to where I am going

to propose it, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: I am trying to hurry as much as I can.

Mr. Chair, there are actually two amendments. The first amendment that I want

to propose Mr. Chair, I will get to in just one second, but I am reading the

section 13 which is clause 3, and what is going to be now added to the bill. I

am trying to make a point and the point is, Mr. Chair, that under this

section

of the bill it says that the purpose of doing a child death review is to

discover and monitor trends in those deaths and determining whether further

evaluation of those deaths are necessary or desirable in the public interest,

that is one thing.

Mr. Chair, what I am talking about, the cases that I have cited, the suicide

cases, the cases of substance abuse where children have died, the cases in the

medical system where a child has died, all of these things will accomplish this

as well. Investigating those cases and doing a child death review into them will

also allow you to discover and monitor as to whether there is a trend in those

deaths. It will also allow you to determine whether further evaluation is

necessary or desired in the public interest. I want to point that out, Mr.

Chair.

Then you look at

section 13.2. In

section 13.2 it tells you what the

committee should do. It says that the committee shall review the facts and

circumstances of a child's death; and deaths referred to and that is in

another paragraph as I explained earlier, through drowning accidents and so on.

"The committee may review one or more deaths during a review." Let me explain

that: a committee may review one or more deaths during a review. Basically, Mr.

Chair, if a child tomorrow in Northern Labrador God forbid if this should

happen commits suicide that will then trigger a child death review if the act

is proclaimed. When that happens, they can then go back and look at previous

suicides of children in that area. All I am saying is: Do not wait for another

child to die; do it now. What is the difference? Do it now. If it is going to

serve a purpose, if we are going to learn something from this, Mr. Chair, why

not do it now?

Mr. Chair, "For the purpose of conducting a review, the committee may use any

information acquired by a medical examiner or investigator in the course of an

investigation under this Act." Basically, Mr. Chair, what that is saying

is that any work that the medical examiner has done, in already reviewing the

death of this child, can also be used in the child death review. What we are

saying then, Mr. Chair, is this in the other piece it says, "A review shall

only begin after a medical examiner has completed his or her duties under

section 10" of the act.

Under

section 10, Mr. Chair, of the act, I can cite that for you just so that

we have consistency. I will do that really quickly. Under

section 10 of the act,

Mr. Chair, this is the

part in which once there is a notification of a death, a

medical examiner is satisfied that the death occurred and the medical examiner

shall investigate the death, and where possible establish the things I already

outlined identify the person; the date, time and place of

death; the cause of death; and the manner of death; and they shall keep a record

and so on.

Mr. Chair, what we are also saying is that we are asking that the medical

examiner have the ability to refer any cases that they see is in the best

interests of the public for a review, regardless of when that death occurred.

So, what I am proposing is that subsection 13.2(3), in clause 3 of the bill, is

amended by deleting the period and substituting the words and commas "unless,

where a death occurred before the coming into force of this section," and by

adding immediately after those words and commas the following paragraph: (

a) a

medical examiner is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to conduct

a review.

Mr. Chair, that is the amendment I am proposing. I strongly feel that it is

important.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS JONES: I think it is in compliance with the act

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would just ask the Opposition House Leader to take her seat for a minute

while we consider whether the amendment is in order.

The House will take a brief recess.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has considered the amendment as put forward by the Opposition House

Leader. The amendment is not in order as written.

I would recognize the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will withdraw that amendment and propose this amendment, which it seems,

according to the Law Clerk, is more appropriate. It reads: The proposed

subsection 13.2(3) in clause 3 of the bill is amended by deleting the period and

substituting the words and commas "unless, where a death occurred before the

coming into force of this section,"a medical examiner is of the opinion that it

is in the public interest to conduct a review.

I think just a little clearer language there, Mr. Chair, and I will await

your ruling on that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It is moved by the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, an amendment to

clause 3, and the proposed subsection 13.2(3) in clause 3 of the bill is

amended.

Shall I dispense with the reading of the remaining text of the amendment?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The amendment is in order, and I recognize the Opposition House

Leader to speak to the amendment.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I put forward this amendment based on the examples that I have given

previously in my debate in committee and also in second reading. I feel very

strongly, Mr. Chair, that the medical examiner in the Province under this act

should have authority to refer any cases of where a child has died, regardless

of the time of that death or the date of that death, to the Child Death Review

Committee for review if he feels that it is in the best interests of the public.

The bill itself, the whole intent of this legislation, is to protect children in

this Province; it is to ensure that we have appropriate regulations in place for

the protection of children. The whole intent here is to review the death of

every child to ensure that we know what went wrong and how we can better provide

for remedies in cases like this.

What I am asking to be done is no diversion or exception from the bill in any

way. It is basically just giving the medical examiner the authority, as he or

she sees fit, that any time there are cases that they feel are of public

interest that should be reviewed, then they can certainly make that request

through the Child Death Review Committee and have a review done into that

particular case.

I will not reiterate anything that I have already said. I have cited a number

of examples which I think are very applicable in this case, and I think are

certainly well within the intent of what the bill is. I would ask hon. members

to consider the amendment and to support it.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to fully support this amendment as submitted. I believe there is

a moral imperative here in terms of looking at as many of us have mentioned

here the number of aggregate cases that we have seen over the last while in

terms of youth suicides and youth deaths because of addictions issues and

substance abuse.

The moral imperative I believe is for us as legislators, the moral imperative

I believe is on behalf of the needs of the families and on behalf of the needs

of the community in which these children and these youths lived. The particular

cases that were highlighted today, the very high number of youth suicides in the

Labrador region. The children recently only in the past year we know of in this

region alone, two young people who have died that we know of because of

substance abuses, the suicides that have been clustered in some areas in the

Province due to bullying.

Some members across the floor have called out, but now you want us to

investigate every death. Well, Mr. Chair, that is not the case. I do believe

that common sense would prevail here, not only common sense in terms of the

Chief Medical Examiner and also the committee, but expertise would prevail here

because nobody can call a review willy-nilly. The safeguards are in this

legislation to ensure that this does not happen. There would not be a frivolous

call of a review; in fact, it would be based on very concrete evidence. It would

be based on the substance of the deaths that we know have been documented that

have occurred. As we know, it is the Chief Medical Examiner who can call a

review. It is not just willy-nilly, every death is now going to have to be

reviewed that has happened in the past. The intent of this bill is for the

protection of our children. The honourable intent of this bill is to prevent

death.

It would be in the public interest to review any cases that the medical

examiner would like to reach back to. It is not applying legislation

retroactively, but it enables and empowers the medical examiner and then the

Child Death Review Committee to actually do their work. Rather than wait for a

catastrophe to trigger their work, it empowers them to do their work in a

comprehensive way, in a way that is informed, that is informed by their

expertise. Again, this is about protecting the children and the youth of this

Province and it is about preventing death.

There is much that, in fact, we can learn from the deaths of the aggregates

that we have highlighted here. Who knows, there may be other aggregates or other

individual deaths that the medical examiner and the review committee, in fact,

in fulfilling their mandate and in fulfilling their jurisdiction would like to

review because they know it would be for the public good, they know that it

would be for the public interest. Then, the other moral imperative is the need

of parents to know, the need for families to know, the need for communities to

know. We know one of the most tragic events that can happen in our community is

the death of a child, and to be able to reach beyond that tragic incident and

perhaps pull something good out of it by taking information that might shed

light on the potential of preventing some of these deaths so that they are not

all in vain.

I would like to think that we, in this House today, may be able to pass an

amendment that does not detract from the main bill but actually supports its

main focus and its main intent, but that we would be actually able to support

this amendment that could speak to the tragedies of the many families who have

lost children in some of these particular ways. That could only be a positive

thing. That could only be a good thing for our communities, for our Province as

a whole.

We strongly support this amendment and we encourage government members as

well to do so in light of the overarching intent and purpose of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Chair, I am not sure of procedure here, but I have

been looking for some direction. It would be our wish that we have some time to

consider this amendment. It is a very serious amendment and we recognize the

serious pretence of putting the amendment. We would certainly like to have more

time to consider it, but I do not know what procedure we can follow. I rely on

our Government House Leader to help me out.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do move, Mr, Chair, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and

Skills, that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask

leave to sit again.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

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

again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the

matters to them referred and are reporting progress on Bill 33. We ask leave to

sit again.

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

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

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received? Now?

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MR. KENNEDY: Presently, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again

presently, by leave.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, second reading of

Bill 37,

An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, usually I do not get into bills this deep, and usually I use

quite a bit less copious notes, we will say, but today, because this bill is so

broad and so detailed, I thought I should get into it fairly heavy.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the minister want to move it and second it before he

starts making his remarks?

MR. FRENCH: I move the bill be seconded, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded

MR. FRENCH: Seconded by the Minister of Education.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 37,

An Act To Amend

The Labour Relations Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act".

(Bill 37)

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

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundland and Labrador has a robust labour relations regime which has

served us well. Provincial government's role in labour relations generally is to

establish and maintain a flexible and appropriate framework which promotes good

employer-employee relations, provides effective and timely dispute-resolution

mechanisms, and by virtue of these attributes, sends the clear message that the

Province is a good place to invest and do business.

Some would argue that government should be more interventionist, that it

should become more involved in both preventing and ending labour disputes for

the benefit of workers, employers, and the economy, or all of these sectors.

However, our government's view is that the overriding principle of labour

relations should be that the parties directly involved workers and employers

should be left to resolve their differences themselves, working within a

regulatory framework which provides them with the tools to do so, tools which it

is government's responsibility to provide.

Mr. Speaker, there may well be labour disputes and situations that arise from

time to time which do require government intervention in a manner which departs

from this principle. It is important to acknowledge this and that all parties

understand that this too is part of government's role. It is, after all,

government's responsibility to govern, and we will not shrink from that

responsibility. Such action is the exception and not the rule. Employers and

employees have responsibilities as well. If they exercise those responsibilities

appropriately in the collective bargaining process with the tools provided by

government, exceptional action on government's part will seldom be required.

For the last several months the provincial government has been assessing the

results of three initiatives with significant implications for labour relations

legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador. First, my colleagues will recall the

appointment in the fall of 2010, of an Industrial Inquiry Commission into the

strike at Voisey's Bay and the subsequent report of that commission in May of

2011. The Voisey's Bay strike lasted for approximately seventeen months and

affected the lives of many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We have looked

carefully at that report and consulted with stakeholders on its recommendations.

The legislative amendments before this House and the policy measures we will

implement present a balanced response, which will aid in preventing lengthy

strikes like this from occurring in the future.

Secondly, coinciding with the approval of the Special Project Order or SPO,

for the Hebron Project in late 2011, we announced the review of the SPO

provision of the Labour Relations Act. An SPO is a valuable tool which allows

government to sanction a unique labour relations environment for a major

construction project and help ensure labour stability, no strikes or lockouts,

for the construction period. SPOs create a separate labour relations regime for

special projects outside the normal bargaining environment for the industrial

commercial construction sector, something this government, Mr. Speaker, is

certainly very proud of. SPOs have been effective in the construction of special

projects including the Upper Churchill development, Hibernia, Terra Nova,

Voisey's Bay, Long Harbour, and Hebron. The review completed by Mr. James

Oakley, in February of 2012, was initiated to ensure that the act provides the

flexibility to respond to upcoming major projects and continues to achieve the

intended effect of labour stability, while being responsive to the needs of

stakeholders.

Finally, under the auspices of the Employment Relations Committee of the

Strategic Partnership Council representing labour, employers, and government, a

review of collective bargaining legislation, the Labour Relations Act, and the

Public Service Collective Bargaining Act has been in process since 2007. Initial

amendments to the Labour Relations Act resulting from this process were

implemented in May of 2011. The Labour Relations Act, in particular, has not

seen significant changes in approximately thirty years. This review process with

the full participation of stakeholders should position us well into the future.

The results of these three reviews are the two bills before the House today,

proposing to amend the Labour Relations Act, and the Public Service Collective

Bargaining Act. The common thread linking these amendments is an effort to

modernize and improve collective bargaining legislation, to contribute to an

environment conducive to positive and constructive labour relations, Mr.

Speaker. I will address the proposed amendments arising from each of these

initiatives.

The Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry Commission the commission's report

noted that some of the processes and the lack of remedial powers of the Labour

Relations Board may have contributed to some of the delays experienced during

the Voisey's Bay strike. Two amendments to the Labour Relations Act are proposed

to address this. First, the board will have the authority to limit the scope of

a hearing. That is, it will be able to clearly enforce the boundaries of

discussion and the nature of matters that may be brought before it, keeping

delays to a minimum. Second, the board will be provided with specific remedial

powers beyond its current ability to order the parties to cease and desist, to

address unfair labour practice complaints when a party fails to bargain in good

faith.

Government is introducing enhanced remedial options to encourage the parties

to take these types of complaints seriously, meet their respective obligations

to bargain in good faith, and to ensure that the board can take appropriate and

reasonable action when needed. This new general authority will provide the board

with discretion to consider remedies beyond its current powers of cease and

desist, and permit the board to intervene more directly in the context of the

dispute to provide a solution which addresses the unfair labour practice and its

consequences.

We are leaving it to the board's discretion to determine the types of

remedies that may be needed to address individual complaints. The point of this

new power is to permit the board to tailor its remedy to the unique

circumstances of a matter. The board remedial authority is not unlimited;

rather, the board will use it to issue remedies that are fair, effective, and

responsive to the facts of the specific case. This is an appropriate approach,

giving the board remedial powers like boards in other provinces.

Most collective agreements concluded in Newfoundland and Labrador today make

provisions for the establishment of a Labour Management Committee, or LMC, where

workplace issues may be discussed by the parties. LMCs now exist in a majority

of private sector workplaces, about 69 per cent, Mr. Speaker. Some agreements,

however, do not contain such provisions. In the case of the Voisey's Bay strike,

such a committee may have contributed to better relations between the employer

and the unions. We are proposing an amendment to the Labour Relations Act

whereby labour management committees will be required when at least one

workplace party requests it. Parties will have six months to design their own

model process or adopt a deemed model requiring them to meet every two months.

Finally, to allow government to respond quickly and flexibly to long and

contentious labour disputes, an amendment is proposed to the Labour Relations

Act which will provide government with the ability to make specific regulations

in response to future industrial inquiries. In addition to these legislative

amendments, government will implement policy measures in response to the

commission's report. In consultation with stakeholders, we will be developing

and encouraging the adoption of a corporate, social responsibility policy

focused on labour relations. This would be a voluntary measure that business

could adopt and use to profile their investments and practices in labour

relations. We will also continue to assess the use of consolidation boards in

workplace disputes.

These measures respond to all of the commission's recommendations directed to

government with the exception of the recommendation to implement third party

binding arbitration. Only one other Canadian jurisdiction, Manitoba, has such a

legislative mechanism. Since its conception in 2000, it has been rarely used.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, it has been used twice. Our government is not prepared to

adopt such a mechanism at this time, preferring to support the right of

employers and employees to resolve their differences through established

processes without outside intervention. These amendments emphasizes the parties

overall responsibility for labour relations in the workplace, the importance of

proactive measures to enhance workplace dialogue and provide an appropriate mix

of legislative and policy measures, to support a stable labour relations

framework.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, is a review of the Special Project Order provisions of

the Labour Relations Act. Mr. James Oakley's review of the Special Project Order

provisions of the Labour Relations Act included extensive consultation with

stakeholders and careful consideration of practices in other provinces. Overall,

Mr. Oakley concluded that the current SPO provisions of the act accomplished the

objective of labour stability but could be enhanced in several areas.

As a result of government's review of Mr. Oakley's report, a number of

amendments were proposed to the act. Currently, the act defines a special

project as one with minimum construction duration of three years. An amendment

is proposed which will redefine a special project as one with a minimum

construction period of two years. This will open up the benefits of SPOs to a

broader range of construction projects, support labour stability, and promote an

attractive labour relations climate. This redefinition will also remove the

requirement of a geographic site from the definition.

A further amendment, will allow the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to

prescribe either the geographic site or the scope of work to be included or

excluded from the SPO. This amendment gives proponents the added flexibility of

describing a project by the scope of work involved where geography may not be

appropriate.

The Labour Relations Act will be amended to clarify that Special Project

Orders may overlap in both time and geography. The legislation currently does

not contemplate a situation where SPOs could overlap and an amendment is

required to allow for such situations into the future.

The act will also be amended to remove the authority of the Labour Relations

Board to issue SPOs. The only SPO issued by the board was the Upper Churchill

Project. Since then, SPOs have been issued by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

and the board has not been involved in this process.

A further amendment, will allow the Minister Responsible for the Labour

Relations Agency to refer questions to the board both before and after an SPO

has been declared. Such questions could relate to whether a person is an

employer or employee, whether an employee's organization is in compliance with

the act, whether a union or council of unions is in compliance with the act, and

whether a valid collective agreement has been entered into.

I should note that of Mr. Oakley's twenty recommendations, our government is

accepting eightee