June

18, 2012 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 49

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start today, I want to acknowledge some special guests in our

galleries this afternoon. We have fifty-five Grade 3 students from St. Matthews

Elementary in the District of St. John's West. The students are accompanied by

their teachers, Ms Nancy Ryan, Ms Danielle Bishop, and Madame Lillian Regular.

Welcome to our House. We hope you enjoy your visit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We are also very pleased to have in our gallery this

afternoon, members of the Canadian Peacekeepers Association of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Welcome to our gallery.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements for the District of

Harbour Main, by leave; the District of The Straits White Bay North; the

District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the District of St. John's East; the

District of St. John's South; and the District of Humber Valley.

The hon. the Member for the District of Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to pay

tribute to a musician, an icon, who made a huge cultural contribution to our

Province throughout his life, Mr. Wilf Doyle, who passed away Friday, June 8.

Born in 1925, Wilf began playing at barn dances at a very early age. By

nineteen he had already formed his first band, and soon after did begin to tour

the Province with a full orchestra. The ambition he showed as a musician

extended into his professional exploits, as he would study electronics and

eventually build his own recording studio where he recorded his own unique brand

of traditional Newfoundland music.

Through the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s he played regularly on VOCM, performed in

television productions, formed the St. Anne's Dancers, played nineteen different

instruments, and recorded eleven albums. Wilf's many achievements were

officially recognized by the Newfoundland and Labrador Folk Festival in 2007

through a Lifetime Achievement Award for his influence on the music of the

Province.

He was a great, generous, gregarious man, and I am very proud that this music

legend was a constituent of mine. I ask the hon. members to join me in

applauding his achievements, and extending our respects to his family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate the organizers of

this year's Iceberg Festival, which wrapped up yesterday in my district of The

Straits White Bay North.

The festival ran from June 8 through June 17 and I am happy to report there

were plenty of icebergs on hand for visitors to admire. The Iceberg Festival is

a perfect celebration of the vast beauty of the district.

Mr. Larry Daley started the festival with stories, artifacts and videos of

the Titanic . Events this year included iceberg, whale and seabird tours,

tours of jam processing facilities, geo-caching, family days, concerts and more.

From dances to concerts, from mummers to Vikings and from pottery to felt

making, each day of the festival had something for everyone.

From the opening evening to the closing celebrations this weekend at Norstead

Viking Village, the Iceberg Festival was an event to enjoy, more than worthy of

our support and marketing efforts in future years.

Thanks to the committee members: Chair Paul Alcock, Loretta Burden, Theresa

Burden, Natasha Hynes, Kerr Knudsen, Desmond McDonald Jr., Andrew Mayers, Glenda

Noble, and Cynthia Randell. Their months of hard work paid off in a spectacular

fashion.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate everyone at Virginia Park Elementary, a school

in my District of Signal Hill Quidi Vidi which is just celebrating the close

of its thirty-fifth school year.

Virginia Park Elementary is very much a neighbourhood school with an active

school council and diligent parent volunteers. The school also encourages 190

students to volunteer and they do for peer mediation, serving hot lunches,

and collecting recyclables on a regular basis.

Involvement with the community is also a priority for Principal Lorraine

Williams and her staff. There is an in-school mentoring program, operated by Big

Brothers Big Sisters in collaboration with the school district. The Grade 6

class participates in Roots of Empathy and the Grade 5's visit the

Hoyles-Escasoni Complex.

Virginia Park Elementary has a full academic program, including Intensive

Core French and band. Extra-curricular activities include a truly lovely choir

and the Virginia Vaulters, which for twenty-five years has given students the

opportunity to perfect gymnastics skills and perform a fast-paced

forty-five-minute show, coached by Mr. Tim Facey.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Virginia

Park Elementary community on thirty-five years of exemplary operations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Holy Heart Highlanders Boys'

Senior Basketball Team. While the school itself is not in St. John's East, many

of the team members live there.

The boys had an absolutely stellar year, with a win-loss record of 46 and 1.

They won every tournament that they entered: the Holy Heart Invitational, the

Hall of Fame Cup Elite 8, the O'Donel High Invitational, and the Regional

Qualifiers. The Highlanders, for the second year in a row, were the AAAA

Champions and the proud winners of the City Shield for the St. John's area

championship. They then travelled to Alberta to compete in the Notre Dame

Invitational Tournament.

The coaches of the team are: Blair White, Matt Bruce, and Sean Wickens. The

results of the time and energy that they gave to the team are obvious.

The Highlanders themselves are: Mikie Allan, Marco Brauers, Ryan Burt, Ben

Collingwood, Tyler Evans, Terry Griffin, RJ Hutchings, Jacob Hynes, Carter

Mackey, Mattie Murphy, and Eugene Walsh.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Holy Heart

Highlanders Boys' Senior Basketball Team for an outstanding year.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had the pleasure of attending the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans

Association annual banquet where several of their members were the recipients of

the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal.

The Canadian Peacekeepers from the Newfoundland and Labrador branch who were

honoured are: Jesse Wilkins Sr., who is their president; Frank Legge; Selby

Luffman; Gary Best, their past president; William Fudge; Rose Auchinleck; Harold

Pye; Charles Hapgood; and Frank Denine.

Mr. Speaker, while Peacekeepers were not sent into active combat, they often

found themselves in the middle of conflict trying to bring about a peaceful

resolution to both sides. Oftentimes Peacekeepers were put in harm's way to

promote peace.

It is this service to Canadians and to the world in their role of promoting

peace that has earned these individuals the recognition of receiving the Diamond

Jubilee Medals.

I ask all members to recognize these nine individuals and all Canadian

Peacekeepers. They are the reason Canada has such a good reputation on the

international stage as world Peacekeepers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to congratulate the Gracia Cheer Force

cheerleading team from Deer Lake on their recent provincial gold medal victory.

This team of ladies led by coaches Julia Williams and Shania Caravan travelled

to St. John's last month and walked away with the level one competition title.

Mr. Speaker, this was the very first competition for this group of ladies who

are all fourteen years old or younger. Not only did they walk away with the

prize banner, but they also received the Spirit Award for being the friendliest

and most approachable smiley team in the whole competition.

One squad member received the Most Valuable Player award. This young lady was

named Laura Janes. The remaining team members included: Chloe Alexander, Rhianna

Bennett, Kaitlyn Collier, Janica Curlew, Desirae Drake, Alyssa Gilley, Tianna

Healey, Chelsea Hiscock, Hunter Laite, Heather Legge, Abby Manuel, Shalyn

O'Keefe, Evelyn Reid, and Madison White.

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

extending congratulations to the Gracia Cheer Force from Deer Lake. It is

through athletic events such as this that lifelong memories are created for our

youth.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to acknowledge the work of

Let Them Be Kids, a volunteer non-profit organization that helps build

playgrounds, skate parks, and fitness parks in communities throughout Canada.

This initiative provides safe opportunities for children to play and increases

community participation, volunteerism, and community projects.

Since 2006, the Let Them Be Kids program has helped many communities in

Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, seven of the thirty projects awarded so far

this year are in this Province. Ian Hill, Chief Executive Officer of Let Them Be

Kids, has told us that this is a direct result of the commitment our residents

have to children and communities.

Mr. Hill is well-known for his dedication to positive change nationally and

internationally, winning numerous awards, including Humanitarian of the Year and

Child Advocate of the Year. Mr. Hill and his wife, Gina Lopez Hill, started the

Let Them Be Kids program over a decade ago after helping homeless children in

their community.

This Saturday, the Hill family will be in Twillingate to launch a documentary

that celebrates the building of playgrounds in five Canadian communities,

including Twillingate. Ms Lopez Hill was director and editor of the film that

features local musicians and residents.

Many players from both the public and private sectors are needed to sustain

the recreation and sport system in Newfoundland and Labrador. I appreciate the

work of organizations such as Let Them Be Kids that are helping create a

healthy, active population, starting with our younger generation. Their work

complements the goals of the provincial recreation and sports strategy, Active,

Healthy Newfoundland and Labrador, which includes increasing involvement and

participation in recreation, sport, and physical activity. Since the launch of

this strategy, the provincial government has committed more than $70 million to

recreational and sport infrastructure, programming, and athlete development

throughout the Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy. As you look over the reasons why

they started this program, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more worthy than

noticing that they started it because of homelessness in their own community.

What better spirit than seeing something that is needed in your own community

because of people less fortunate, starting the program, and expanding it all

throughout Canada, Mr. Speaker. It is worthwhile for Mr. Hill and his wife,

Gina. As mentioned by the minister, he won two awards, Humanitarian of the Year

and Child Advocate of the Year. It shows his dedication is being recognized all

throughout Canada, Mr. Speaker.

As we said, in a Memorial University study, one in four kids in Newfoundland

and Labrador are overweight, so anything that we can do in this Province to

promote healthy living and play activity, Mr. Speaker, I think is great for

Newfoundland and Labrador. We also must congratulate all the volunteers who keep

the program running once the facilities are built and all the community leaders

that help out in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So I just want to thank the minister. Once again, we have another opportunity

to promote Newfoundland and Labrador in Twillingate this weekend, which I am

sure is going to be a great exercise and a great promotion for all Newfoundland

and Labrador. I congratulate the government for helping in recreation throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador, because the more kids that we can help out in

Newfoundland and Labrador at a young age is going to be an investment for the

future, better individuals, and less on our health care.

So, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: I too thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Congratulations to Ian Hill and Gina Lopez Hill for their incredible work in

Let Them Be Kids, and congratulations to the volunteers in seven communities in

this Province whose projects were selected. Volunteers in small communities have

always been important for obtaining essential services. These groups have worked

so hard at organizing and fundraising to get basic playground facilities in

their communities.

The provincial recreation and sport strategy calls on volunteers to help

achieve its goals, but in many communities now, it is harder to find enough

people with the time and resources to create and maintain such services. In this

time of prosperity, we need more funding for the recreation and sport strategy

to create and upgrade facilities across the Province. Yes, let them be kids, but

also let us ensure we provide the resources needed for that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in 2006, this provincial government embarked upon an initiative

to review the regulatory environment in this Province in an effort to reduce red

tape and simplify and improve the ways in which businesses and the general

public interacts with government.

The original goal of the provincial Red Tape Reduction initiative was a 25

per cent reduction in red tape. Mr. Speaker, this goal was surpassed within a

three-year time frame, and the provincial government continues to achieve its

objective of no net growth in the new number of regulatory requirements.

In fact, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in their recent

annual report, placed Newfoundland and Labrador second only to British Columbia

in the area of red tape reduction. They noted in particular our success with the

three-year initiative and our public reporting of regulatory reform measurements

since 2006 as areas of strength.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of regulatory improvements which have been

implemented recently which have contributed to the reduction of red tape for the

people of this Province. The new Fire Protection Services Act, which was passed

into law this session, modernizes and consolidates older legislation, thereby

reducing red tape and providing for improved fire safety for the residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Also, the new Mines Safety Regulations, which have

been consolidated as part of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations,

significantly modernized the regulations and brought them in line with current

mining practices.

Mr. Speaker, in April of 2011, the Municipalities Act and the Urban and Rural

Planning Act were amended. The Department of Municipal Affairs made changes

which allow six of the larger municipalities in the Province with the ability to

enforce property-related bylaws through ticketing. This significantly reduces

the regulatory requirements on municipalities when engaged in enforcing their

municipal bylaws, and this project is still underway, Mr. Speaker.

Our government continues to strive for regulatory reform in all areas and

that is why the Regulatory Reform Office of Service NL is leading an effort to

put in place an accountability framework which no other Canadian jurisdiction

currently has in place. The framework puts additional structure around our

initiative and imposes additional requirements in terms of reporting on

activities, both internally and externally.

Mr. Speaker, while we look back at our successes in regulatory reform, we

must continue to look ahead, and ensure that we are working to make processes

and procedures simpler for the people of the Province. Regulatory reform, as

international experience shows, is a cultural shift in how governments develop

new regulations and policies. It is not something that can be successfully

implemented solely in the short term rather, it takes a long term commitment.

This commitment is what our government has clearly made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Updates on regulatory frame efforts, it seems is regular for ministerial

statements. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed commendable to reduce red tape for

businesses and people in the Province. Red tape is a burden that hurts small

business owners. They lose hours on the phone with government agencies. They

have to comply with confusing and arbitrary rules. All this makes it more time

consuming and costly to run their businesses.

In the regular updates that we get, Mr. Speaker, in red tape reduction,

government has yet to state how this red tape is measured so that its reduction

can be quantified precisely and what regulatory requirements have been abolished

along the way. With the passage of the new Bill 29 it will certainly be harder

and harder to get this sort of information.

I urge the government to continue to reduce red tape, but I also encourage

them to become more open and accountable about how this is achieved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

It is good to see the initiatives introduced, but while government has made

advances in its program of reducing red tape we would certainly like to see an

analysis of how they arrived at those conclusions. We hope that this new

accountability framework will help get rid of more red tape. We hope it is not a

case of adding more red tape to an effort to reduce it, case in point. I could

not help but notice a line in the minister's statement that says, "The framework

puts additional structure around our initiative and imposes additional

requirements in terms of reporting on activities, both internally and

externally." Mr. Speaker, their own initiative talks about adding additional

framework around their regulatory reform efforts, and that sounds like just

adding more red tape to the effort in reducing red tape.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The passage of Bill 29 through the House last week leaves many questions. One

question of course is, why? Why would government be pushing this through now?

Some people have suggested it has to do with Muskrat Falls.

I ask the Premier: Will Bill 29 be proclaimed before the special debate on

Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is no great mystery about who the some people are who are

suggesting the members of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you and

tell the members of the Opposition and the people of this Province that more

information has been disclosed on Muskrat Falls than any other development in

the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, and more to come.

We are interested in everybody knowing as much as can possibly be disclosed

around this project, Mr. Speaker. That has been our practice since day one, Mr.

Speaker, and it will continue to be so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have not seen this much government money spent on a project like this

either.

The question was, and I did not hear the answer by the way: Will Bill 29 be

proclaimed before debate on Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It most probably will, Mr. Speaker, because it is not the objective of Bill

29 to keep information that should be available to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador away from them, despite the assertions from people opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A key amendment in Bill 29 was the removal of the substantive test to

determine what constitutes a Cabinet record. This was not recommended by Mr.

Cummings.

I ask the Premier: Why did you go against your own consultant's

recommendations and extend the reach of Cabinet secrecy?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, it was considered that the previous tests

for Cabinet records being the substance of deliberations was confusing, not

clear, resulted in a lot of documentation being severed, and information severed

and redacted. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of including all the Cabinet records that

were included in the information of managements act sets a specificity to that,

it specifies the documents that are Cabinet records. It puts clarity into a

situation, Mr. Speaker, that was a little bit unclear before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: The whole idea between the substantive tests was exactly to do

that, to provide clarity.

Mr. Speaker, with Bill 29 government is making it more restrictive and

expensive to access information. For example, a request to get a number of

thirteen-week contracts in a department that would have cost just over $4,000

will now cost almost $7,000 under this new legislation.

I ask the Premier: Why are you making it more expensive for people to access

this information?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, we have made some very positive changes to

this piece of legislation with regard to fees. The $5 application fee stays in

effect. Where there were two hours of free investigation before, now that

extends to four; so, people who make application now for information have the

first four hours free. The overall cost beyond that is very much consistent with

the other provinces across Canada. Mr. Speaker, with regard to personal

requests, this government has always taken into account positions of hardship or

people who cannot afford the fees. We will continue to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: It is very easy to say that the application fee at $5 has not

changed. The fact is though that overall the cost will rise and we have that

demonstrated right here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a month ago, after a series of cuts announced by the federal

government to our Province, the Premier stated that she had requested a meeting

with the Prime Minister. This meeting between the Premier and Prime Minister is

urgent, but to date we have not heard a thing.

I ask the Premier: Has this meeting been confirmed, and if so, when will it

happen and what issues are being discussed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the date has not been set yet. Between the Prime Minister's

schedule and mine there are some challenges in doing that, but we expect to hear

something very soon as to the date. Mr. Speaker, the agenda will include items

that are important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week government announced new appointments to the Board of Nalcor,

including the Chair. This morning, CBC quoted Richard Powers, who heads the

governance program at the Rotman School of Management and is a national expert

on governance. He questioned the rationale of these appointments.

I ask the Premier: What process did you use in the search to select the

appointees at Nalcor?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the CBC and experts from Toronto,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are quite capable to determine who manages

their affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of Chairs in the

seat at Nalcor, on the board of Nalcor over the last number of years. I named

Dean MacDonald for one, Danny Dumaresque for another, John Ottenheimer, and now

we have a new appointee. These are all people who have a broad expertise in a

number of things, Mr. Speaker, a broad experience and a deep commitment to

Newfoundland and Labrador, and we were glad to have them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you.

Well, I am sure the Premier knows that Newfoundland Hydro and Nalcor are two

separate, different entities. Obviously our energy corporation right now is seen

to be a very powerful company. Besides the multi-billion-dollar Muskrat Falls

Project, Nalcor is embarking on an ambitious program of oil and gas exploration,

as well as many other initiatives, yet these appointments have no experience in

Nalcor's business lines of management or financing of multi-billion-dollar

corporations.

The question is: What possible skills and experience were you looking for

from those people so they could assist the management team at Nalcor?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that I find this line of questioning

offensive. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition aspires to be Premier of

Newfoundland and Labrador, as did his House Leader, the Member for Cartwright

L'Anse au Clair. What broad experience do they have in life to bring them to

this post?

Mr. Speaker, I lived in community. I was a social worker. I contributed, Mr.

Speaker, as did all of the people who now sit on the board of Nalcor. Why would

anybody cast aspersions on me and question my ability to be Premier, or yours,

or yours, or yours, Mr. Speaker? We are ordinary Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians and we know how to serve the people of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Premier this is not about the

individuals. What we are talking about is the experience

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: and what they can actually bring to the board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: These are good people who make contributions in their

communities, but what we need is experience at Nalcor. That is the reason why we

are asking the question.

Mr. Speaker, the contract for all ambulance services for the Province expired

on March 31. There has been a preliminary meeting with the Department of Health

but nothing with Treasury Board. Official negotiations have not yet started.

I ask the minister: When is she finally going to get around to starting a new

contract for all ambulance providers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, providing a contract for ambulance employers is certainly

something that is very important for ambulance operators. It is very important

to us. What we have been doing is some preliminary work in terms of trying to

get a handle on the issues and concerns out there. Over the last four months, my

department officials have actually been meeting with the operators to try to

have that sense and get the determination of what their concerns and issues are.

Mr. Speaker, the last time there were negotiations, they negotiated under one

umbrella. What we are learning now is that they would prefer to negotiate

individually. So we are having some discussion with them around that issue as

well, as we head into the actual negotiations themselves to see how we can best

help to facilitate that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to save almost $80 million, DFO

made cuts to services and staff, and our Province have been particularly hard

hit. Incredibly, federal Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield revealed in the media

earlier this month that he is not ruling out further cuts to his department.

Last week the minister met with his federal counterpart, and I ask him to

provide an update on his meeting. Further, will he table a list of the issues

raised, and what commitments and timelines were made by the minister to address

each of these?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We were indeed in Ottawa last week; we had multiple meetings. Unfortunately,

the face-to-face with Minister Ashfield did not go ahead because of

filibustering in the House. I can certainly report that we met through Thursday

and Friday and we raised a number of issues the DFO cuts were obviously one of

them. We talked at length in particular about the seal hunt.

As members may not be aware, there was a debate in the Senate and we

attended that on a private member's motion today by a Liberal senator to do

away with the seal hunt in Newfoundland and Labrador. We took an opportunity on

that particular item in particular to impress upon a number of senators the

importance of making sure that we defeat that motion and reminding them, as we

have done on a number of occasions, of the importance of that hunt to

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Preview Report dated January

12, 2010 estimated that the five kilometres Parsons Pond Road to the Darcy drill

site would cost $600,000; however, the final cost went into the millions.

Can the minister advise how much more it will now cost taxpayers to destroy

this road?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, first of all I will say, no, the road will not

be staying. No, we are taking the road, it has to be removed, and that is based

on decisions from lobbying from people like the member opposite who stood in

this House and said to me over and over again how concerned he was. How

concerned he was about the number of moose in the area. How concerned he was

about the number of caribou in the area, Mr. Speaker. We know from our collared

data that caribou do hang around that area of our country and it is in the name

of conservation, Mr. Speaker, is the reason that we are having that road

decommissioned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, there is a move underway to immortalize the

minister by naming the destroyed road, French's Folly.

Can the minister confirm that the closest outfitter to the road is over ten

kilometres away, that they are the only ones pressuring the minister to destroy

the road, and that they are the largest PC donor on the Great Northern

Peninsula, and that is the real reason he wants to destroy the road.

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

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure where the hon. member is

going with all this. I have no idea where the outfitter is in the area. I know

there is one in the area but how far it is from the area I have no idea how

much money he has given to any political party, none whatsoever. I have never

asked, I have never researched it, and have no idea, Mr. Speaker. This has

absolutely nothing to do with political politics or political donations or

anything of the sort, Mr. Speaker. This has everything to do with conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The RFP for long-term freight service to the North Coast of Labrador will be

reissued. The minister has indicated that proposals received were interesting

but we need to go further.

I ask the minister: What was missing in the five proposals received under the

RFP to cause the RFP to be reissued?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the hon. member on the other side, basically as a government

we are trying to make sure that what we provide for the North Coast will be more

than adequate. We looked at the five proposals and went down through them. It is

in the best interests of all if we go forward now with a more focused RFP to get

the boat, the service, that we need for that particular coast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Residents of the North Coast of Labrador have been asking for a roll-on,

roll-off freight and passenger service as a long time solution for service.

I ask the minister: Did any of the proposals received include a roll-on,

roll-off vessel, and when can we see the re-tendering process?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These proposals came in, there were five proposals that were entered in and

they were from one company. Of course the information that is contained in that

right now, Mr. Speaker, we need to set aside as we go out for the next RFP that

will perhaps address what the member has just brought to our attention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, when asked in the House last week about the

entitlement of college employees in Qatar to the end of service gratuity, the

minister stated no more giveaways, that government is protecting the people of

the Province in their fight in Qatar.

I ask the minister: Many of these employees are people of the Province who

are entitled to this money. Why are you calling this issue as employees

receiving giveaways, when in fact, government is effectively giving away money

to fight what is owed to the people of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear that we are not fighting Qatar. We

are in negotiations right now to renew a contract with the State of Qatar so we

can continue to offer advanced education services through the College of the

North Atlantic.

We have employment contracts in place now that indicate there is no end of

service gratuity, based on the contract that we have signed with the workers,

Mr. Speaker. We are seeking clarification on that, but on a go-forward basis,

Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that when we enter into a contract with Qatar

that it looks after the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is our

focus, any contract with any department, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we

certainly want to keep in mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the State of Qatar pays the College of the

North Atlantic a 25 per cent fringe benefits payment for disbursement to

employees to cover such things as CPP and EI; however, hundreds working in Qatar

are non-resident Canadians, meaning they are not paying into CPP and EI.

I ask the minister: Can you confirm the college is withholding a portion of

the fringe benefits payment meant for employees, and instead claiming this as

profit?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, what I can confirm is that based on the contracts

that we have signed with workers or the college has signed with workers we

are living up to our signed contracts, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we understand the Premier and her staff, and

not the Minister of Advanced Education, will be attending the graduation of

students at the college in Qatar in late June, which coincides with a meeting of

the college's joint oversight board.

I would ask the Premier: Will you be meeting with the joint oversight board

to address the end of service gratuity issue, as well the future of the college

in Qatar?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the joint oversight board plays a very important

role to help us regulate, work with, and have that liaison with the State of

Qatar so that we work through our contract. Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct

the hon. member, because the Premier will not be travelling to Qatar this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has been silent on one of the most regressive and

repressive pieces of legislation ever introduced to this House, but there has

been a public outcry in the Province over Bill 29.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will she withdraw the obnoxious legislation

forced through the House last week?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador was the first Province in this country

to introduce legislation on access to information. We were rated number one in

the country. The Centre for Law and Democracy does rankings of provinces that

have this legislation, Mr. Speaker. Five provinces and the federal government

have this legislation. Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador is ranked second

in the country, next to BC, on openness and access to information in this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I point out to the Premier, that the ranking is going to change once this

bill has been declared.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has recognized the Leader of the Third Party.

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

Last week, government forced a vote on their unpopular and regressive

amendments to the Province's Access to Information and Protection of Privacy

Act, which act was ranked high in this country but not with the amendments that

are being made. Government members claimed the amendments to the act made it

stronger and more accessible -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - yet, the amendments raise fees, force people into court to

get information, and allow government to claim Cabinet confidentiality for

everything, including the kitchen sink.

to those seeking information from government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the Leader of the Third Party through you is

wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Mr. Speaker, this is spin coming from the Leader

of the Third Party. She says: You have the ranking of second highest in the

country before the amendments no, after the amendments, Mr. Speaker. When your

first piece of information is wrong, you can pretty much assume, Mr. Speaker,

that the rest of it is wrong as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is telling us that a ranking has

been done since 1:30 Friday morning on the new bill wonderful.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is fond of talking about the good stewardship and

good governance her party offers the people of the Province, yet she has

appointed to Nalcor's board of directors people national experts say may not be

properly qualified. These people take their seats when Nalcor is poised to

proceed with the largest, most expensive project in our history.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Given the magnitude of the decision regarding

whether or not to sanction the Muskrat Falls Project, why did she not work

harder to find board members with direct knowledge of complex energy issues?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, might I say, like the Leader of the Third Party, who aspires to

be Premier of this Province, everyone in this House who wants to come, have

wanted to come, and stood for election to come and serve the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador; who feel qualified to stand in this House every day

and comment on energy policy; who have demanded a debate in this House so they

can talk about the pros and cons of Muskrat Falls ordinary people, I suggest,

despite your vast experience in certain areas of life, Mr. Speaker; so it is

with the Board of Nalcor. As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we all bring

something to the table. We all have something to contribute.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: We learned in the media that national experts in the field of

corporate governance questioned the qualifications of the Premier's new

appointments to Nalcor. They are concerned that the new members may not have the

qualifications to be effective in their roles.

Last week, international access to information experts decried government's

amendments to our Access to Information and Protection of Privacy legislation,

claiming the amendments to be a large leap backwards.

I ask the Premier: Why is her government continuing to fly in the face of

best practices and expert advice in their decision making?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me counter with a question of my own: Why is the Leader of

the Third Party not standing up for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: We have heard quite a few aspersions from her in the

last ten days or so about the character of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr.

Speaker, and I for one do not like it very much.

With all due respect to expertise outside of this Province, we know what we

are doing here. We got to where we are today by the knowledge, the support, and

the business experience of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, of the people who

sat in this House and made decisions on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Nalcor is a stellar company. It was devised by this government and the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador. It stands up to any company of its type, not only

in the country, but anywhere in the world, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the Harper government says that denying basic

health care to refugees will not endanger public health because they can still

be treated for infectious diseases. The doctors are saying that if government

cuts people off from medical care, we will also cut the most effective means of

screening newcomers for diseases such as tuberculosis.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minster of Health and Community Services: What is her

department going to do to ensure that refugees continue to have access to health

care in the first year of their stay in our 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, a very important question to us as well; it is something that we

are assessing and monitoring. It is also a point of discussion that happened at

an FPT recently with deputy ministers, something that we are very concerned

about and we are monitoring on a regular basis. We continue to have that

discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, despite the need for licensed practical nurses in Newfoundland

and Labrador, the College of the North Atlantic has not announced the new intake

of LPN students at the Bay St. George Campus in Stephenville.

Can the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills confirm that the LPN

program at the Bay St. George Campus has been suspended?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the College of the North Atlantic is contracted to

do the licensed practical nurse program. Based on analyses from the Department

of Health and Community Services on the labour market outlook, as well as the

location of where seats are needed, and in consultation with the College of the

North Atlantic, the College of the North Atlantic will determine the number of

seats that it can offer in any given year and the specific locations.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, it is not in

my purview or my responsibility to decide where and how many seats are offered

in each and every program. The college takes in all that information as they do

up their academic plan and they will then announce where they are going to be

offering the LPN program, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Well, Mr. Speaker, jobs will be lost as a result of this

decision. Despite government's assurances that there would be few job losses as

a result of this year's Budget, job cuts at the College of the North Atlantic

and Memorial University are mounting.

Can the minister advise this House of the number of positions at the college

and the university that will be lost this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I assume the hon. member is worried about his

position at the university to stand up and ask what is going on at the

university.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS BURKE: If he wants job security he should probably go talk to his

employer.

Mr. Speaker, the College of the North Atlantic will determine what courses

are available based on the needs of the labour market and where they need to

offer these courses. Mr. Speaker, the College of the North Atlantic needs to be

flexible. We may have had programs that were offered ten years ago, no longer

needed today, Mr. Speaker. The College of the North Atlantic needs to be able to

do their analysis and determine what programs need to be offered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is a nationally recognized

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Supreme Court endorsed harms test which is used to decide if

releasing corporate information would harm that corporation. In response to a

question on Bill 29 last week, the Minister of Justice said it was not necessary

to use that nationally recognized harms test, that government's amended

procedure was better. He noted, government's new simpler test was in the

interest of the economy and the interest of good business, and now people who

want to do business with us have better protection.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice: What about the

interests of the people who elected this government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Bill 29 does is in

our negotiations with third parties, especially business parties who we are

negotiating with for the betterment of the economy of this country, it is

necessary. Mr. Cummings recognized this, as did all the other stakeholders. It

is necessary to protect certain classes of information.

Mr. Speaker, there is a three-part harms test in the current act. That has

been reduced to a one-part harms test because it is going to improve

negotiations between this government and third party businesses. Mr. Speaker, it

is essential to safeguard that information and part of business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, last week the Canada Mortgage and Housing

Corporation issued their new numbers on housing starts and sales. In

Newfoundland and Labrador, the average price for a new single home has doubled

since 2004 to $350,000, and the price growth has accelerated faster than income

factors. The government in its Blue Book promised a home ownership assistance

program.

I ask the Premier: What has been done to establish this program, and when

will this program be available to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to housing in this Province,

obviously our main priority are those who are most vulnerable in society, those

who are without homes, those who are coming from vulnerable situations. When it

comes to purchasing of houses and that, we did make a commitment, and a

commitment that we will in this term move forward with some sort of a program.

We are seven months in and we need to do due diligence to make sure that if we

are putting money into this that we are doing what we need to do to help people

out there, not just simply throw something in just for the sake of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we proceed with the rest of the day's agenda, I want to respond to a

point of order that was raised on June 14 by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi with respect to comments made by the Member for Carbonear Harbour Grace

during Question Period on June 14. I indicated at the time I wanted to have an

opportunity to review Hansard and the video from that day's proceeding. I have

reviewed the Broadcast Centre's video of the member's point to ascertain the

exact context in which the words were spoken.

Words said and directed to the Speaker may be seen as debate and commentary,

although some words even through directed through the Speaker are clearly

unacceptable and unparliamentary. Words in and of themselves are not always

unparliamentary but must be looked at in the context in which they are stated.

Words spoken directly to a member in the House by another member are more

likely, though, to be seen as intentional slurs upon the member and, as such,

the language becomes unparliamentary.

My review of the video recording revealed that the Member for Carbonear

Harbour Grace commenced his argument by directing his remarks directly to the

Speaker. However, in completing his remarks, his argument turned to the Member

for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi and directed the comments directly to the member.

In that context, the use of the words "how nasty" she really is was directed

solely to the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi and not a part of comments

directed to the Chair.

I find this direction of comment, coupled with the words used, was an

intended slur upon the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi, and view it as

unparliamentary. I ask the Member for Carbonear Harbour Grace to withdraw his

comments.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comment.

MR. SPEAKER: Just as a further commentary to the ruling, it is a real

good example of my suggestion repeatedly, that comments in this House be made to

the Chair. It is not as personal then. If your comments are part of a debate,

debate is supposed to be directed through the Chair.

I would remind members to be guided by the ruling, because it is a real

lesson here; all comments as they are directed to the Chair have an ability to

focus the attention on the issue at hand and not let the debate become overly

personal.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

Board.

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to provide more information to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Mr. Speaker, a number of routine activities undertaken by the

Department of Finance, and in particular, the Budget Division, require tabling

in this House of Assembly from time to time. These include something called

precommitments. Precommitments are agreements for the payments of money to be

made in subsequent fiscal years.

Pursuant to

section 26 of the Financial Administration Act, these documents

have specific table requirements in the House of Assembly. The

section reads,

"Where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council" of course, that is Cabinet

"authorizes an agreement under subsection (4), all relevant documents, including

the amount involved and the reasons for the agreement, shall be (

a) tabled in

the House of Assembly within 3 days of the authorization or where the House of

Assembly is not then sitting, on 1 of the 1st 15 days that the House of Assembly

is next sitting".

The last precommitments were tabled in this House on May 31. So, Mr. Speaker,

pursuant to

section 26, subsection 5 of the Financial Administration Act, I am

tabling today three orders in council relating to funding precommitments for the

fiscal years 2013-2014 to 2015-2016.

One of these, number 150, was issued on June 14, 2012; it was the Department

of Natural Resources to facilitate the award of a contract with the Stewart

Group Inspection & Analysis Ltd., for the analysis of the Voisey's Bay

concentrate samples for the period April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2016. Another one

is the Department of Transportation and Works to facilitate the award of a

contract to Labrador Marine Inc. for the provision of freight services to the

North Coast of Labrador. The third one is the Department of Transportation and

Works to provide for the award of various service contracts such as cleaning and

snow clearing, et cetera, at public buildings throughout the Province.

So tabled, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand today in this hon. House to table the 2011 annual

business report for the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation; the 2011

annual report for the Professional Engineers and Geoscientists, Newfoundland and

Labrador; and, as well, the 2011-2014 activity plan for the Public Safety Appeal

Board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice under Standing Order 11, seconded by the Minister of Advanced

Education and Skills, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on

Tuesday, June 19, 2012 and further, I give notice under Standing Order 11, Mr.

Speaker, that I shall move this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June

19, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that the motion that was moved by the Member for St. John's

Centre last Monday for the Private Members' Day will be presented this

Wednesday, June 20.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The MHA for St. Barbe recently laid on the table, and I quote from the Order

Paper, "To ask the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to lay on the

table of the House a detailed account of the activities of the Fish Harvesting

Safety Association and the Fish Processing Safety Council over the last two

years." I rise today in response to that question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the fish harvesting industry is recognized as one of the most

dangerous in the world and is one of the most dangerous in Newfoundland and

Labrador. The fish harvesting industry captures the inshore and offshore

harvesting of sea species, including aquaculture. Currently, there are 3,800

workers in this industry. The number and the rate of injuries can be a

reasonable predictor of the level of risk for injury.

In 2011, Mr. Speaker, the lost time incident rate for the fish harvesting

sector fell from 2.8 per 100 workers in 2010 to 2.4 in 2011. Between 2007 and

2011 there had been twelve fatalities in the fish harvesting sector. This year,

there have been three fatalities in the sector.

Mr. Speaker, the fish processing industry captures the processing of seafood

products and the services incidental to fishing such as fishing protection and

inspection services. Currently, there 4,200 workers in the industry and the lost

time incident rate for the fish processing sector in 2011 was 3.6 per 100

workers, a slight decrease from 3.8 in 2010. Between 2007 and 2011 there were

three fatalities in the fish processing sector.

Since December of 2010, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation

Commission and the government have remained committed to working collaboratively

with industry leaders in the fish harvesting sector to reduce the risk of injury

of workers. This collaborative process can take time to arrive at the

established safety sector associations.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, the commission has been active in these

industries with prevention initiatives to improve education and awareness of

workplace safety. The Workplace, Health Safety and Compensation Commission

offers fish harvesters an array of workshops and educational resources to

improve safety aboard fishing vessels.

The commission also has a Priority Employer Program which enables employers

to receive intensive health and safety services to improve safety performances

in their work place. In addition, a new initiative began in 2012 on Starting the

Season Strong. It involved focusing on the fishing industry in the Burin area. A

team from the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission travelled to

the area to meet with fishers and health care providers to hold an information

gathering and planning session. This session identified how to start the fishing

season healthy, with the ultimate goal of being fewer injuries, more

productivity, and healthier people. Follow-up initiatives are underway, Mr.

Speaker.

Over the past two years the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation

Commission has worked closely with the Professional Fish Harvesters

Certification Board to improve safety certification training for fish

harvesters. The collaboration has also resulted in a focus on fire safety aboard

small fishing vessels, given the increased frequency of fires over the past

number of years.

The commission, and also the certification board, produced a fire prevention

guide for fish harvesters which was mailed to all fish harvesters earlier this

year. The commission has entered into discussions with Transport Canada, the

Occupational Health and Safety Branch of Service NL, to improve safety

compliance for small inshore vessels. The agencies are working on a safety

campaign to increase the inspection of vessels throughout the summer months,

addressing issues regarding emergency response, fire safety, and safe work

practices.

It takes time, Mr. Speaker, to engage all stakeholders and industry, and to

reach agreement on the development of credible safety sector associations. It

involves consultation with industry leaders, representing employers and workers

in the industry. Time is required to gain support and sponsorship for the sector

council. Garnering support results in a shared vision of industry leaders,

incredible goals sufficient to provide effective education -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member his time has expired. If he wants to table the report for

the members opposite, then by all means table the document.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS with the passage of Bill 29, the Access To Information and Protection

of Privacy (Amendment) Act, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has

weakened citizens' access to information and has reduced government

transparency; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has moved towards greater

secrecy and less openness; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is breaking its own

commitment for greater transparency, accountability and freedom of information

which it said at one time was the hallmark of its government;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to repeal

the passage of Bill 29.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present these petitions on behalf of the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador. At a time when a right to information is being

strengthened worldwide, we are taking a major step backwards, as has been

pointed out to us. I also have received several e-mails from people across the

Province and I would just like to read two excerpts from two different e-mails,

if I may have leave to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: Provided they are very brief, you can paraphrase.

MS ROGERS: Yes, absolutely, okay.

I am appalled at Bill 29's potential to block Freedom of Information

requests, given Stephen Harper's use of a financial budget to change over

seventy laws, especially environmental laws. I wonder why this provincial

Conservative government is moving in this direction. Why this and why now?

Perhaps this particular

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member if she wants to paraphrase, please paraphrase. Please do not

read from another document.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

This particular constituent was wondering, does it have anything to do with

the upcoming signing of the European trade agreement? She also wants to know,

are there agreements that affect our fishery, our resources, and our fresh

water? She is wondering about these issues, Mr. Speaker, and she wants to know

about the local employment practices.

Then there was another constituent who was wondering about how this will

affect freedom of the press. These are concerns that constituents are bringing

forth, Mr. Speaker, and they are worried about the effects that this bill will

have on our society as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, the other issue is that it seems that the passage of this bill

is causing political alienation and undermines

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member her time has expired.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KENNEDY: I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and

Skills, that I call Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day have been called.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order?

MR. MITCHELMORE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday evening the Minister of Health and Community Services made

comments regarding repetitive ATIPP requests for air ambulance service. Her

remarks suggested the Member for The Straits White Bay North had made fourteen

such requests.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this would be in an incorrect assumption. In fact, the

fourteen requests were not made by myself, the current member of the district,

and I am seeking a point of clarification for these remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has made reference to comments made in debate on

a previous sitting of the House. I will undertake to review Hansard of that day

before I make a comment with respect to the point of order.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Skills, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider

Bills 27, 30, 35, and 36.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for

the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 27,

30, 35, and 36.

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 the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole will be considering four bills 27, 30, 35, and

We will begin with Bill 27.

A bill, "An Act To Regulate The Personal Services Industry". (Bill 27)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 21 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 21 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 21 carried.

CLERK:

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

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Regulate The Personal Services Industry.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

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

carried.

CHAIR: We will now debate Bill 30,

An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's

Act And The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act And The City Of St.

John's Municipal Taxation Act". (Bill 30)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 24 inclusive.

CHAIR: The Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is just a matter of clarification on this particular

section of the act

of Bill 30 when we are talking about blending the two types of taxes I guess,

for the minister in this case. The information that I have as regards to

charities they will not be affected by this, is that right? I guess you can

answer that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: That is correct. The City of St. John's has agreed to treat

them no differently with the changes as they did previous to these amendments.

They give the charities that are occupying space a break or a rebate, and they

will continue to do it.

CHAIR: The Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

That was the only question I had for that, so we can carry on.

CHAIR: I ask the Clerk to call the clauses again.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 24 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 24 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 24 carried.

CLERK:

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

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act And The City Of St.

John's Municipal Taxation Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

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

carried.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs

Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act". (Bill 35)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 and 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 carried.

CLERK:

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

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

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

carried.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 36,

An Act Respecting Regional Service

Boards In The Province.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Regional Service Boards In The Province". (Bill

36)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 50 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 50 inclusive carry?

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: I just have one question for the minister.

Is there any timeline when it is going to be set up for a Western Regional

Board to be up and functional for the site itself?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: That will be very soon. I have been working on that for

awhile and will be announcing the composition of the board within the next week

or two.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 50 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 50 carried.

CLERK:

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

Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act Respecting Regional Services Boards In The Province.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

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

carried.

CHAIR: The Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Committee rise and report the

bills we just discussed report progress.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 27, 30, 35,

and 36.

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): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the

matters to them referred and have asked me to report Bills 27, 30, 35, and 36

carried without amendment.

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 Bills 27, 30, 35, and 36 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bills be read a third time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bills ordered read a third time

presently, by leave.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, Order 2, Bill 27,

An Act To Regulate The Personal

Services Industry, third reading.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community

Services, that Bill 27,

An Act To Regulate The Personal Services Industry, be

now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion and that Bill 27 be read

a third time.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Regulate The Personal Services Industry. (Bill

27)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Regulate The Personal Services Industry", read

a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 27)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, that Bill 30,

An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act And The City

Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be read a third

time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 30 be read a

third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act And The City Of

St. John's Municipal Taxation Act. (Bill 30).

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act and The City

of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its

title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 30)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, that Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act, be now read a

third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 35 be read a

third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act", read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 35)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, that Bill 36,

An Act Respecting Regional Service Boards In The

Province, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 36 be read a

third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act Respecting Regional Service Boards In The Province.

(Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Regional Service Boards In The

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

Paper. (Bill 36)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, for clarification, can you clarify if Motions 3

and 4 have been moved?

I have the clarification. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, while we are in Orders of the Day, I would like to move,

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

Monday, June 18, 2012. I also move, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House

not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, June 18, 2012.

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

adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 18, and it has been further moved that this

House do not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock p.m. on Monday, June 18.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper number 9, second

reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act, Bill 33.

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

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation, that Bill 33,

An Act To Amend the Fatalities

Investigations Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 33,

An Act To Amend The

Fatalities Investigations Act, be now read the second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fatalities

Investigations Act". (Bill 33)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in this House of Assembly to open

debate and move second reading of Bill 33,

An Act to Amend the Fatalities

Investigations Act. Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend the Fatalities

Investigations Act to provide the legislative framework for the establishment of

a Child Death Review Committee to review the facts and the circumstances of

child deaths, and in certain circumstances, neonatal and maternal deaths in this

Province.

The establishment, Mr. Speaker, of a child death review process in this

Province was recommended in the Turner Review and Investigation report.

Specifically, Mr. Speaker, recommendation 10.6 proposed "That the Medical

Examiner's Office establish and conduct Child Death Reviews, chaired by the

Chief Medical Examiner, with multi-disciplinary membership including the Child

and Youth Advocate."

Mr. Speaker, a child death review is a process that works to understand child

deaths in order to prevent harm to other children. It is a collaborative process

and it brings people together from multiple disciplines to share and discuss

comprehensive information on the circumstances leading to the death of a child

and the response to that death. These reviews, Mr. Speaker, can lead to action,

hopefully, to prevent other deaths.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, if there is a child death in this Province, the death

and the circumstances leading up to that death may be investigated by any one of

three different offices, and each one for a very specific purpose. The Office of

the Chief Medical Examiner; his mandate, Mr. Speaker, is to determine the

identity of the person, the date of the death, the time and the place of the

death, the cause of the death, and the manner of death. That is the mandate of

the Chief Medical Examiner.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services may also

conduct a review. That mandate would be to conduct an internal review, but that

is limited, Mr. Speaker, to the death or serious injury of a child that is in

the custody or manager under the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, whose

mandate is to protect and advance the rights and interests of children and youth

to ensure access to services, to provide information and advice to government,

to agencies, and communities about services to children and youth, and review

and investigate matters affecting children and youth. So, Mr. Speaker, a child

death can be reviewed by any one of those three bodies, all with different

focuses.

Child death reviews, Mr. Speaker, have not been the practice in this Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, while the Turner Review and Investigation was

conducted under the Child and Youth Advocate Act, the review itself highlighted

a gap in our legislation with respect to conducting a child death review. This

proposed legislative framework, Mr. Speaker, to establish a child death review

would fill a void and fill this gap in our legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in the past decade, child death review processes have been

established in a number of provincial and territorial jurisdictions in Canada,

and in municipalities, cities, and States in the United States as well.

Initially, these child death review processes began as an effort to better

identify child abuse. The current child death review models and processes have

expanded, Mr. Speaker, to include a focus on understanding and responding to

many other preventable deaths of children.

Mr. Speaker, when we did a jurisdictional scanning of child death review

processes and models in this country, the general overview found that there

exists no universal standard process for child death reviews. There are,

however, various models of child death review processes across the country and

they vary from province to province, jurisdiction to jurisdiction. These include

reviews, Mr. Speaker, that may be conducted by various government departments,

for example; particularly those departments that have responsibility for

protecting services and providing services to children.

Some reviews, Mr. Speaker, were conducted by the Chief Medical Examiner in

some jurisdictions, in others the coroner's office, in others by the Child and

Youth Advocate, in others by the police, and in others by external

multi-disciplinary committees. There is no one universal standard, Mr. Speaker,

but a number of different models, different process from jurisdiction to

jurisdiction.

In Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Child and Youth Advocate conduct the child

death review, but these are the only two jurisdictions in the country where that

happens. Most child death reviews, Mr. Speaker, are conducted by the coroner's

office or the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, and sometimes in

collaboration with an external multi-disciplinary committee. Mr. Speaker, they

found also that many jurisdictions have not legislated the child death review

process but rather these processes are ad hoc and they operate, in a lot of

cases, pursuant to terms of reference or pursuant to policy, or even to

membership agreements.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Fatalities Investigations Act we

are putting forth here today would create a child death review framework and

establish a multi-disciplinary Child Death Review Committee to review the facts

and circumstances of child deaths, and pregnancy and neonatal deaths as well,

that it would have been referred to this committee, Mr. Speaker, by the Chief

Medical Examiner. The purpose, Mr. Speaker, is for the purpose of discovering

and monitoring trends in those deaths and determining whether further evaluation

of these deaths is necessary or desirable in the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to know here too, that in the experience of

other Child Death Review Committees, specifically in Canada, they reveal that

the deaths of children who die of natural causes or expected deaths, these are

rarely investigated further by the death review committees. There is good reason

for that, Mr. Speaker. One can appreciate that the death of a child is difficult

enough for families and in certain circumstances further review by the Child

Death Review Committee is really unnecessary. A person who dies from natural

causes, a person who dies from death in a hospital, who has been treated for

disease and so on, there is no further need to review these deaths, Mr. Speaker.

As well, we can appreciate that difficulty enough has been experienced by the

families in these cases.

Mr. Speaker, a child death in this Province will be the death of any child

under the age of nineteen and which death has been reported to the Chief Medical

Examiner already. Deaths are reported to the Chief Medical Examiner under the

Fatalities Investigations Act, pursuant to sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of that act.

Mr. Speaker, the circumstances involving or surrounding these deaths being

reported will be as follows they are not limited to the following but would

include the following. For example, a death that has occurred as a result of

violence, or as a result of an accident, or as a result of suicide, this death

would be reported to the Chief Medical Examiner. Any unexpected death, when the

child was in good health, will be reported; any child who died who was not under

the care of a physician; any child who died where the cause of death is

undetermined, or as a result of improper or suspected negligent treatment by a

person. If a death has occurred in a health care facility and there is reason to

believe that it was the result of suspected misadventure or negligence or

accident on the part of the attending physician or staff. Any child who died

while detained in a youth correctional facility will be reported or any child

who died while in the custody of a manager under the Children and Youth Care

Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, these are specific cases, specific circumstances that would be

reported to the Chief Medical Examiner. They practically include everything, Mr.

Speaker, with the exception, as I mentioned earlier, natural deaths and deaths

that are expected. Everything else, basically, is reported to the Chief Medical

Examiner.

Mr. Speaker, the Child Death Review Committee will also have the mandate to

review maternal, stillbirth, and neonatal deaths which are reported to the Chief

Medical Examiner. They are reported under

section 6(1) of the Fatalities

Investigations Act. We are talking here, Mr. Speaker, about deaths that occur

during or following pregnancy in circumstances that might reasonably be related

to pregnancy, or child deaths that occur where maternal injury has occurred or

is suspected. These as well, Mr. Speaker, are reported to the Chief Medical

Examiner and will be reviewed by the Child Death Review Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about the membership of that Child Death Review

Committee. That membership, including the chairperson and the vice-chairperson,

and the terms of office, will be determined by the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council. The Chief Medical Examiner, by virtue of his office, Mr. Speaker, will

be a member of that Child Death Review Committee. That differs slightly from the

recommendation of the Turner recommendations, because the Turner recommendations

suggested he be the chairperson of the Committee.

The Chief Medical Examiner, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Child Death

Review Committee is not excluded or disqualified from being appointed as

chairperson or vice-chairperson by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, but it is

not mandatory; the Lieutenant-Governor will not mandate that this person, the

Chief Medical Examiner, be the chairperson of the Committee.

The other members of the Child Death Review Committee, Mr. Speaker, may

include specialists from such disciplines, for example, as pediatric medicine,

obstetrics, child protection, policing, law, forensic pathology, and Aboriginal

interests. Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see why those people might be members of

that particular Committee, depending on the depth of the review. Depending also,

Mr. Speaker, on the nature of the child death being reviewed, the Child Death

Review Committee may obtain outside expertise in the course of their review,

expertise that is not on their Committee that they may need to access. With the

approval of the minister, Mr. Speaker, they can access those expert services.

Also, you note, Mr. Speaker, that contrary to the Turner recommendations, the

Child and Youth Advocate is not a member of the Child Death Review Committee as

recommended. To put the Child and Youth Advocate on this committee, Mr. Speaker,

would essentially require that official to report to the Minister of Justice

responsible for the Fatalities Investigations Act. That would detract from his

or her power as an independent officer of this House of Assembly.

In addition, Mr. Speaker the Child and Youth Advocate may find a conflict of

interest in being part of the child death review process, because of the

circumstances leading up to and surrounding the death of a child, that could

very well have required, or should have required, the advocacy of the Child and

Youth Advocate while the child was still alive, including if that advocacy

perhaps may have prevented the death of a child. Mr. Speaker, the Office of the

Child and Youth Advocate should not investigate itself, and that is the reason

why that Turner recommendation was not followed.

Mr. Speaker, the Child Death Review Committee may review one or more deaths,

but the Committee may only commence a review after the medical examiner has

completed his or her duties under the legislation. Practically, Mr. Speaker,

once the Chief Medical Examiner has completed his investigation of the death, he

will then refer his file, or all those files, to the Child Death Review

Committee. Some or all of the members of the Child Death Review Committee can

then review a

summary of the facts and circumstances that surround a child death

and determine if a further review or investigation is warranted. There will be a

number of child deaths reported to the Committee, but not all, or if any, Mr.

Speaker, want warrant further review.

Mr. Speaker, again, not all members of the Committee may be necessary to do

that review. Some of the members it may be necessary to only have a certain

number of the complete Committee to do a particular review. The policies and

procedures that the Child Death Review Committee will use in the course of the

review will be set out also, Mr. Speaker, in the regulations that will be

approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Those regulations will be

drafted and put into place, obviously, prior to the proclamation of this act.

Such policies and procedures will set out, for example, the functions of the

chairperson, functions of the members, timelines, and the expert opinions,

confidentiality, and so on. These will be the types of policies and procedures

that will be drafted and put in place with the regulations.

Mr. Speaker, after each review, the Child Death Review Committee will report

to the minister its findings with respect to the facts and circumstances

surrounding deaths that were the subject of the review, and any recommendations

it may have respecting the prevention of similar deaths. The Committee may base

its report on an aggregate and multi-disciplinary analysis of the deaths

reviewed, and the Committee may, for example, Mr. Speaker, identify systemic

problems that need to be addressed. The Committee may want to promote prevention

of deaths through education, or through protocol development and dissemination

of information, or it may want to make recommendations respecting the health,

safety, and well-being of children and pregnant women generally. Mr. Speaker,

this bill expressly precludes the Child Death Review Committee from making a

finding of legal responsibility or expressing a conclusion of law. This is not

the role, Mr. Speaker, of the Child Death Review Committee.

Upon receipt of the report and recommendation, Mr. Speaker, of the Child

Death Review Committee, the minister shall provide a copy to the Child and Youth

Advocate. As mentioned previously, the Child and Youth Advocate is not a member

of the Child Death Review Committee; however, to support the mandate of the

Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, whose objective it is to ensure the

rights and interests of children and youth are protected in this Province,

government must facilitate reasonable access to information necessary for that

office to fulfill its mandate. Mr. Speaker, the Child and Youth Advocate can

then assess the report to determine if it satisfies the mandate of his or her

office, or for further review or investigation may be warranted respecting a

matter falling under his or her authority.

Mr. Speaker, within sixty days of receiving the report of the Child Death

Review Committee, the minister will make public the recommendations of the

report. These recommendations, as I mentioned earlier, may relate to relevant

protocols that need to be addressed or developed, to existing policies or

procedures that exist or need to be developed, to current standards and

legislation, to linkage and the co-ordination of services between difference

agencies and departments, or it might make recommendations with regard to

improvements of services affecting children and pregnant women. That report and

recommendation, Mr. Speaker, within sixty days of receiving it, the minister has

to make those recommendations public.

Mr. Speaker, similar to the ability of the Chief Medical Examiner, under

section 25 of the Fatalities Investigations Act, right now the Chief Medical

Examiner has the authority to ask the minister to conduct a review. Similar to

that authority, Mr. Speaker, at any time, either in the course of review under

this act, or on completion of a review, a Child Death Review Committee may

recommend to the minister that a public inquiry be held where it is felt

necessary for the protection of the public interest or in the interest of public

safety. Mr. Speaker, I point out again and repeat the Chief Medical Examiner has

that authority now to request the minister to conduct a public inquiry. The

Review Committee would also have that authority.

Mr. Speaker, if the minister accepts or receives a recommendation by the

Chief Medical Examiner or the Child Death Review Committee to conduct such an

inquiry and the minister is satisfied that an inquiry is necessary for the

protection of the public interest or in the interest of public safety, the

minister may order an inquiry to be conducted under

Part IV of the Provincial

Offences Act. Mr. Speaker, an inquiry established under this act, the Provincial

Offences Act, is conducted by a Provincial Court judge and is held in public.

Mr. Speaker, this also involves an amendment to

section 15.1 of the Child and

Youth Advocate Act a consequential amendment. That would restrict the Child

and Youth Advocate from investigating any matter which is the subject of a

review already by the Child Death Review Committee or subject of an ongoing

public inquiry under

section 26 of this act. The reason for that restriction is

simple and pretty reasonable: to ensure that there are not several

investigations going on at the same time by different offices. There is a good

reason for that: so as to be sensitive to families affected by such

investigations; also, Mr. Speaker, to ensure there is no overlap in

jurisdiction; and to avoid a needless use of resources to have more than one

review going on at one time.

Mr. Speaker, there is also a proposed amendment through subsection 8.1(2) of

the Evidence Act, which would protect the members of the Child Death Review

Committee from testifying in legal proceedings and would disallow any report,

statement, evaluation, recommendation, memorandum, document, or information of

or made by, for, or to the Child Death Review Committee to be disclosed in

connection with a legal proceeding. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the report

would be protected under the Evidence Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to do that, to protect the members of the Child

Death Review Committee, under this

section of the Evidence Act for two reasons.

Recruiting members to the Child Death Review Committee would be difficult if

frank discussions and minutes, evaluations, and so on involving child deaths are

subject to disclosure and committee members are compelled to be witnesses in

that regard. Two, Mr. Speaker, the quality of the child death review may suffer

because members of the Child Death Review Committee would be reluctant to

provide meaningful input for fear such information would be made aware publicly.

So the members, Mr. Speaker, and the reports are protected under the Evidence

Act.

Mr. Speaker, in reviewing child death review models in Canada, this concern

of protection was raised by a number of jurisdictions and was the impediment to

legislating a child death review framework in their province and country. A lot

of jurisdictions brought that to our attention. One of the reasons why they

could not get a child death review framework organized in their jurisdiction was

the concern over the protection afforded to members of the review committee and

to the reports, the information.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments in this bill today will be subject to

proclamation. That means a date will be set down the road some time when this

act will come into force. Mr. Speaker, that is to allow time to appoint the

members to the committee, to draft the regulations pertaining to the policy and

procedures of the Child Death Review Committee, and to ensure that appropriate

resources are put into place to implement this child death review framework.

Mr. Speaker, the establishment of a child death review framework in this

Province is a very positive initiative. It is, in a sense, an ongoing

recommendation and one of the final recommendations put into place with respect

to the Turner Review. A child death review process led by a committee of experts

will enable this Province to learn from and to help prevent the untimely deaths

of children in Newfoundland and Labrador. The care and protection of children in

Newfoundland and Labrador is a priority for this government and will be further

strengthened with these proposed amendments to the Fatalities Investigations

Act.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this act and this bill

today. I ask for the support of all hon. members in supporting this bill, and I

look forward to members in debate from both sides of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising to speak to Bill 33. Mr. Speaker, I have to say, I have been

waiting a number of years to see this legislation introduced in the House of

Assembly. I do commend the government for bringing it forward at this time. I

would like to speak to the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to also do so in

outlining a number of the concerns that I have with regard to how the

legislation is currently worded.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that Bill 33, which in this case is An

Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act, is a piece of legislation that

could have been introduced in this House of Assembly in a number of ways. It

could have been introduced here as a stand-alone piece of legislation that

probably would have fallen under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, but,

Mr. Speaker, it is fine the way that it is. Our goal was to see this process

legislated, and not just see it outlined as a policy of government.

Mr. Speaker, child death reviews have been conducted in Canada for many

years. They have been done in various cases of where a child has died. Sometimes

it only applies to children who are in the care of a province, and sometimes it

applies to all children. There are some cases across Canada where the

legislation is law binding and there are other cases where it is just policies

that have been instituted. Nevertheless, we have been one of the few provinces

across Canada that have not initiated this type of legislation and, Mr. Speaker,

I am happy, as I said, to see that it is coming forward at this particular time.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 33,

An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act,

speaks very directly to what we call a child death review. Let me tell you a

little bit about what a child death review would encompass. It would encompass

any cases where a child had died in the Province and whether that death was as a

result of an accident; was as a result of systematic issues that we were dealing

with in our Province; whether it was due to suicide or violence; whether it was

when a person was under the care of a physician. All of these things would now

apply, Mr. Speaker. Whether it is a vehicle accident or a house fire, whether it

is a suicide or it is a homicide; where there is any kind of violence at all

that is included. It could be a person who has been ill, it could be a woman who

is having a child and the child is lost during maternity. It could apply to any

number of cases. Basically, Mr. Speaker, that is the way that it works.

Where a person dies while in a health care facility or another place where

patients are received for treatment or care, and there is reason to believe that

the death occurred as the result of any kind of violence, or suicide, or

accident, no matter how long the patient had been hospitalized, whether it was

due to negligence on the part of the attending physician or staff; whether the

cause of death is undetermined; whether the death occurred during or following

pregnancy in circumstances that might reasonably be related to pregnancy;

whether it is a stillbirth, a neonatal death, that has occurred where maternal

injury has occurred or is suspected, either prior to admission or during

delivery; or the death occurred within ten days of an operative procedure or the

patient is under initial induction, under anaesthetic, or during the recovery

from anaesthetic; the person responsible for that facility shall immediately

notify a medical examiner or an investigator.

What will happen now, Mr. Speaker, is once a medical examiner has been

notified, and a medical examination takes place, then the medical examiner shall

refer this to the committee responsible for child death reviews in the Province.

Then, Mr. Speaker, that committee would undertake a review.

Let me tell you the process that will be used. First of all, they will look

to see if there were any particular trends around these deaths. I will refer you

to a specific incident that we might want to look at in Labrador, for example,

Mr. Speaker. In the last nineteen years in Labrador, we have seen 101 suicides.

I know that is an alarming, alarming number, and many of those, in fact, most of

those suicides occurred with young people between the ages of fifteen and

twenty-five. This act speaks to children under the age of nineteen; any child

under the age of nineteen that dies would fall under this child death review.

So, when the bill talks about looking at trends, they would look at cases of

where these 101 suicides have occurred in Labrador. They would look at: is it

predominantly in one community or one region, is it in one cultural group, and

is there a systematic problem occurring in this community, in this culture, or

in this region that is basically contributing to this factor. That would be

looked at as part of that particular review, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, there have been a number of times when we have seen the numbers of

suicides in Labrador, in the Northern region. My colleague for Torngat Mountains

knows this very, very well. He deals with the realities of what this tragedy

brings to communities and families every day in his job as an MHA. That is a

very tough job and a very tough responsibility.

There have been occasions, Mr. Speaker, and I will cite some of those

occasions, especially in 2009-2011, where we have seen twenty cases of suicides

in the five Inuit communities and the one Innu community in Northern Labrador.

That leads me to believe that this is a broader problem within the region that

needs to be looked at.

In doing a review of a child that may have committed suicide, under this new

legislation they would now look at these other cases. They would look at what

are the problems here, what is contributing to this; is poverty a contributing

factor? Is violence a contributing factor? Is the lack of educational or health

care providers in the area a contributor? Are drugs and alcohol addiction a

contributor? All of these things would be looked at in terms of what is

triggering this systematic statistic that we are seeing for the high rate of

suicide. It may be the death of one child that will trigger this review, but

under this current legislation, the ability is now there to look at a broader

approach to what is contributing to problems like this in cases like this.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the legislation is not retroactive; very seldom

do we see legislation retroactive. However, we do know and I know firsthand in

my own experience in representing the broader community of Labrador over the

last number of years that there have been cases that warrant a child death

review that never got reviewed. These cases are not systematic. In many cases,

Mr. Speaker, they are very individual. They pertain to particular auspices of

our government systems, whether it is justice or health care, education or

community. Therefore I feel, Mr. Speaker, they should be examined. I feel the

medical examiner should have the authority to make any referral to the Child

Death Review Committee that he or she deems necessary, whether that occurred six

months ago or in the last four or five years.

I am not saying that we go back twenty-five years. I am not saying that at

all, Mr. Speaker. I am saying that we look at, at least a period of time where

many of these cases are very individual, they still pertain to the system we

operate in, and they should be looked at. I am hoping the government, Mr.

Speaker, will give some consideration to doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, this particular legislation does provide for some exceptions. It

is like all legislation, I guess. There will be cases that will not trigger a

child death review, and that is understandable. If it is a case of a child who

is born with and diagnosed with significant illnesses, that child is under the

care of a doctor for the duration of their life, and that child dies within the

first two or three years of their life. That would not trigger a child death

review because the cause of death would have already been predetermined. It

would already be recorded within the system and it would be a different case.

However, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, if there is a case like a case that

I have dealt with in my own district, where there was a child who was at the

time they went into the health care system with medical problems, they were

seventeen years old or had just turned seventeen years old. When they entered

into that particular system in fact, Mr. Speaker, if you really want to go

back, it goes back three years. Three years was the first log of this child at

fifteen years old, going into the health care system with medical problems. This

child went in, they saw doctors, they were referred to other doctors, they were

treated for a number of different diagnosis. They underwent a number of

examinations and tests. They were referred to specialists outside of the

Province. This went on, Mr. Speaker, for a period of over two years.

It was beyond that two-year period before this child, who was then, Mr.

Speaker, at the age of seventeen, actually diagnosed with what their real

problem was. By the time they were properly diagnosed with what the real problem

was the disease had progressed too far, it could no longer be treated. There was

not an option any more for transplant, which was what would have been required,

along with other treatment. As a result, a few months later the child died.

I personally asked the minister at the time to do an inquiry into the death

of this child because it was felt by the family that their child did not get the

proper diagnosis, that the system had failed them because their child was being

diagnosed by people who they felt and this is just their

interpretation, it is

not a fact. Their

interpretation is that their child had been diagnosed by

people who probably did not have the right skill set to make the diagnosis for

the condition they had. They felt, Mr. Speaker, there had been a number of

things that had been done in what they termed to be a negligent way within the

health care system as it related to their son. They felt the medical profession

had let them down, and that the health care system had let them down. They were

seeking answers and they wanted those answers, Mr. Speaker. The only way that

those answers could be found would have been through an inquiry that would have

been launched by the department or, if the legislation had been in place,

through a child death review.

I have all the letters, Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the minister at the time and

the correspondence, the numbers of questions that I posed. Mr. Speaker, that

started in 2009. The correspondence continued into 2010 and, Mr. Speaker,

unfortunately, at the time, the government refused to do an inquiry into the

death of this child. In fact, the recommendation was that the parents should

seek a legal opinion.

A legal opinion and a child death review are two very different issues. When

a child dies in this Province, it is not always a legal case and in some

instances it will be. It is not always a legal case. I would think, Mr. Speaker,

that any time a child has died without the proper answers accruing to the

family, they should have the option to have a review. What happens in the case

of this child? To this date, these parents still question what happened to their

son. They are still questioning that. They have never received a thing that

outlines or documents why their child died, why their child was not after

three years of being in the health care system, why nobody had diagnosed their

child with the appropriate diagnosis. If he had been diagnosed properly, there

was a chance that child would be alive today. We do not know that to be a fact,

but there is a chance that child could have been alive today.

My issue in this, Mr. Speaker, is that if this was going to happen after the

legislation was proclaimed, these parents would be able to walk in to the

Medical Examiner, have the medical examination done, and that would trigger a

child death review. They would be able to look at that review and see the

recommendations being put forward for change. They would have a piece of mind

knowing that the system that failed their child was now going to undergo change;

change that would protect the lives of other children in the future. I think

that is the objective of what we want to get at with Bill 33. I think that is

the objective of the government, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that if there is

complacency, if there is wrongdoing, if there is inadequacy that can be fixed

and improved upon, then we are going to as a government ensure that happens. I

think that is their objective in this bill.

My question is this: What happens to this family? What happens to this family

whose child's life story of dealing with the system is contained in this

document? What happens to that child? How do the parents get that child death

review today? That is what I am appealing to the government on. That is my

appeal to the government. There should be an option there that allows them to

meet with the Medical Examiner, that allows the Medical Examiner, if he sees

fit, to refer a case like this for a review under the new legislation. It does

not matter that it happened two years ago, or three years ago. If it still

warrants being looked at to serve the goal of what the bill has intended, and

that is to make the appropriate changes within our system, then that needs to

happen. I see that as a very important point.

Mr. Speaker, the government has said, in response to my inquiry with regard

to this and I think they understand where I am coming from; however, they seem

to feel that the Child and Youth Advocate also has the responsibility to do this

work. I do not see it that way, Mr. Speaker, because if the Child and Youth

Advocate had the responsibility to do this, we would not be bringing in the

legislation in the first place. It would already be done in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I have a very interesting history of dealing with the Child and

Youth Advocate. I was a strong supporter of that office. In fact, I was the

Parliamentary Secretary for child and youth in this Province, Mr. Speaker, when

we did the consultations to set up the Child and Youth Advocate. I was a person

who was involved with drafting the legislation around it. I was certainly

involved in doing a lot of the groundwork with all the advocacy groups involved.

I am very proud of the legislation that we proud in and I am very proud to have

been involved, engaged, and affiliated with it at that time. Maybe, Mr. Speaker,

if I knew then what I know now I would have made sure that the act spoke to

these kinds of issues that I am talking about. I guess you learn as you go. That

was almost ten years ago, so we are ten years later and now, in the experience

that I have had in the last ten years, I see a number of things that need to

change.

I am going to talk about another example. Another example is the house fire

that occurred in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the tragedy

that was affiliated with that house fire is unimaginable. It is unimaginable.

Mr. Speaker, when that house fire occurred, in addition to the five individuals

who subsequently died in that fire, two of them would have fallen under the

child death review act that we are currently bringing in. There were two

children who were under the age of nineteen. One of those children was already

in the care of Child, Youth and Family Services. We did not see a child death

review into those cases because it did not trigger one in our Province. The

legislation did not exist. So what were the options?

I met with these families after this fire. I met with them, I talked to them.

I had research done as to what their options would be, Mr. Speaker. We looked at

different options with them through the Department of Health and child services

at the time, because this is 2008 now I am talking about, when this occurred. At

that particular time, Mr. Speaker, there was no process in place. Unless the

department was prepared to do a full inquiry into this, there would not be one.

However, Mr. Speaker, the government at the time did commit and it was out

there in the public, it was in the news to do an investigation. There was an

investigation done into this particular fire. Then, Mr. Speaker, it was also

said that although the investigation was done by the RCMP, they knew there was

no foul play. The Department of Health and Community Services looked at it, they

did not feel there was a need to trigger a full investigation based on the

review they did.

Mr. Speaker, it was then that the family decided to contact the Child and

Youth Advocate Office. They met with an intake worker at that time. The worker

went to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The worker met with the family, and they

outlined their situation. However, Mr. Speaker, they did not get anything back

from the Child and Youth Advocate. Although this family was concerned, their

child who had been in custody had died, they did not know where to go, so they

went to the Child and Youth Advocate Office and met with an intake worker. What

happened after that? They waited to get a response back. There was no response.

What did they do then? They called me and others to see if somebody would pick

up their cause and do something with it.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, writing to the Child and Youth Advocate. I remember

going down and meeting with the Child and Youth Advocate at the time. I remember

sitting in her office and telling her, Mr. Speaker, that there was a request

made for her to look into this file and nobody had responded. Guess what I

learned? She was not even aware of it. As the Child and Youth Advocate for the

Province, her staff did not even inform her that the request had been made to do

an investigation into this file.

Mr. Speaker, shortly after that there was a lot of media around this issue

because I continued to raise it