June

10, 2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 36

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today before we start the proceedings of the House to make a point of

privilege. I rise on a point of privilege regarding remarks that the Leader of

the Opposition made in an interview yesterday that aired on NTV News last

evening, and subsequently.

The Opposition Leader was being interviewed about an incident that happened

in the House on Wednesday during Question Period.

We all recall that incident, Mr. Speaker. You rose during Question Period to

state:

"I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for her co-operation. The Chair

continually rises here and asks for co-operation. The Chair is going to have no

other choice but to start naming members who continue to shout while answers are

given or for members to continue to shout while questions are being asked.

"I will give fair warning right now that the Chair will not be standing any

more and giving four or five warnings, but will ask the hon. members who are

causing disorder to immediately apologize or the Chair will not recognize the

hon. members who are causing the disorder until they apologize to the House.

Gone are the days that the Speaker is going to ask people to leave the Chamber.

It is playing into the political hands of the people who are causing the

disorder, but the people who are causing disorder will remain invisible to the

Chair until there is an apology issued."

Moments later, Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition continued to

heckle a minister while she was responding to another member's question, you

stated:

"Order, please! The Chair is reluctant to do this. The Chair just rose and

asked the hon. member for her co-operation. The hon. member continues to shout

disorder.

"I ask the hon. member to immediately apologize to the Chair for causing

disorder in the House, and I ask the hon. member to do it now."

The Leader of the Opposition stood and said, "Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

apologize for any disorder I may have caused in the House."

But in her remarks in an interview away from the House yesterday afternoon,

as aired on NTV News last evening and subsequently, the Leader of the

Opposition said something very different from that; and what she said reflects

very negatively, not just on the Speaker's actions yesterday, but on the

Speaker's actions generally, and consequently, on all members and on the

integrity of this House.

We all ought to listen very carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition

said in her interview on NTV last evening. This is what she said, word-for-word:

"Well I've been unfairly singled out on several occasions in my opinion, you

know. I'd like to uphold the Parliamentary orders in the House, but oftentimes

it's hard to do and sometimes I feel that the Speaker is not really balanced in

terms of how he makes those rulings, you know. I apologized simply because, you

know, I don't want to cause any undue chaos in the House of Assembly. It doesn't

help me in getting my work done, nor does it help anyone else that is there. But

at the same time, I think the Speaker has been very unbalanced in a lot of his

rulings."

Further to this, the Leader of the Opposition is quoted in The Telegram

today, Thursday, June 10, 2010, page A-5, saying, "I will not be muzzled by the

Speaker in the House of Assembly...".

Mr. Speaker, subsection 71.(1) of Beauchesne states clearly and

unequivocally that, "The Speaker should be protected against reflections on his

or her actions."

Subsequent, subsection 168.(1) of Beauchesne begins by stating, "The

chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons

are authority and impartiality."

Those are the two chief characteristics that must be associated with the

Office of the Speaker - authority and impartiality.

What does the word "impartial" mean? Merriam-Webster defines "impartial" as

"treating or affecting all equally".

What does the word "unbalanced" mean? Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

defines "unbalanced" as "not fair or equal".

According to the dictionaries, the two words are opposites. By stating the

Speaker is "unbalanced", the Leader of the Opposition was stating that the

Speaker is not "impartial".

In fact, she used the phrase "very unbalanced" to drive home the point "I

think the Speaker has been very unbalanced in a lot of his rulings."

When she used the phrase "in a lot of his rulings" she was stating her belief

that the Speaker has a pattern of behaviour of making rulings that are "very

unbalanced" - a pattern of behaviour of making rulings that are not "impartial".

Quite clearly, she was publicly proclaiming to the people of the Province not

only her lack of confidence in the Speaker's impartiality. She was in fact

denying the Speaker's impartiality - not only in his ruling on Wednesday, which

would have been bad enough - but in "a lot of his rulings".

Also, when the Leader of the Opposition says she "will not be muzzled by the

Speaker", she is also defying the Speaker's authority and casting aspersions on

his character by describing your rulings as "muzzling".

This is no trivial matter. It goes to the very heart of the integrity of the

House.

In fact, impartiality is so central to the Office of the Speaker that

subsection 168.(2) of Beauchesne states, "In order to ensure complete

impartiality the Speaker has usually relinquished all affiliation with any

parliamentary party. The Speaker does not attend any party caucus nor take

part

in any outside partisan political activity."

Those are significant political sacrifices requested of a Speaker to ensure

complete impartiality. That is how important impartiality is to the integrity

and proper functioning of the House.

To state so directly that a Speaker brings unfairness and inequality to this

office is no trivial matter at all. It maligns the Speaker's character and it

undermines the integrity of the House.

That is why subsection 168.(1) of Beauchesne states clearly and

unequivocally that, "Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker

may be punished as breaches of privilege."

If the integrity of the Speaker's character and actions were not so critical

to the proper functioning of the House, Beauchesne would not have

associated them with privilege.

But subsection 168.(1) uses very strong terms to make it abundantly clear,

"Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of

the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as

their object, not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also, to

ensure that there is a general recognition of the Speaker's impartiality."

The Speaker's impartiality must be recognized, acknowledged, affirmed.

Statements to the contrary must be exposed, challenged, censured.

Further to this, O'Brien and Bosc's, House of Commons Procedure and

Practice (2 nd edition) states on page 116: "the intimidation or

attempted intimidation of the Speaker or any other Chair Occupant is viewed very

seriously by the House".

O'Brien and Bosc's, House of Commons Procedure and Practice further

states on page 313: "The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate

or by any means except by way of a substantive motion."

The Leader of the Opposition has clearly breached these established rules or

procedure and practice.

Mr. Speaker, an issue similar, but not identical, to this one arose in

November of 2008 when the Leader of the Opposition asserted that you were

biased.

At the time, Mr. Speaker, you concluded that these statements were made with

respect to your role as Chair of the Commission and not your role as Speaker of

the House.

In your ruling on November 27, 2008, you stated: "The comments made against

the Chair of the Commission are certainly inappropriate and not conducive to the

proper conducting of the business of the Commission, but they are not comments

affecting the duties of the Speaker and the proceedings and works of this House

of Assembly. Commission members should refrain from commenting on the

motivations of the Commission Chair in carrying out his duties, and should treat

the Chair with respect. However, the comments are not in themselves a violation

of the privileges of the House and no prima facie case of privilege exists."

In this case, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely clear that the remarks of the

Leader of the Opposition were indeed with respect to your role and duties as

Speaker in this Chamber, and she has left no doubt whatsoever about her meaning

by stating: "I think the Speaker has been very unbalanced in a lot of his

rulings".

As I said in November of 2008 - and it is even more pertinent to say it

today, Mr. Speaker - that "certainly it is the responsibility of all members to

ensure that the confidence in the Chair or the Speaker of the House is

maintained at all times. Confidence in the Speaker keeps the parliamentary

process ongoing. Any time we question or reflect upon the actions of the Speaker

we certainly impede or certainly attack the whole parliamentary process and what

we stand for in the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, the role that you play as

Speaker certainly represents the dignity of the House of Assembly. An attack

that is attached to the Speaker certainly attacks all members of this most

Honourable House."

Section 167 of Beauchesne states: "The Presiding Officer, while but a

servant of the House, is entitled on all occasions to be treated with the

greatest attention and respect by individual members because the office embodies

the power, dignity and honour of the House itself."

A public attack on the Speaker's impartially is an attack on the power,

dignity and honour of the people's House - the very House that is the embodiment

of the most fundamental democratic rights of the people - rights that are

precious and rare in the context of history, and not to be trivialized.

When a breach has occurred, it is incumbent on all of us to take the steps

necessary to acknowledge the breach and to repair the breach; and this is one of

those rare occasions when it falls on our shoulders to hold the line.

Mr. Speaker, Subsection 118 of Beauchesne states that: "A complaint of

a breach of privilege must conclude with a motion providing the House an

opportunity to take some action."

One of those actions, according to this Section, may be "a statement of

condemnation for a breach of privilege".

Mr. Speaker, having raised this matter at the earliest opportunity, I ask you

to rule that a prima facie case of breach of privilege can indeed be established

based on the offensive remarks the Leader of the Opposition made about your

office over the airwaves last evening.

And if you so rule that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege,

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the necessary motion, which I will now

present; and I ask that the House then be directed to debate this motion

regarding the breach of privilege:

The Breach of Privilege motion reads as follows:

"WHEREAS the Leader of the Opposition made the following remarks in an

interview with the press on June 9, 2010 which aired on NTV News that

same evening" "sometimes I feel that the Speaker is not really balanced in

terms of how he makes those rulings" and "I think the Speaker has been very

unbalanced in a lot of his rulings"; and

WHEREAS the Leader of the Opposition is quoted in The Telegram today,

Thursday, June 10, 2010, saying: "I will not be muzzled by the Speaker in the

House of Assembly"; and

WHEREAS Subsection 71.(1) of Beauchesne states: "The Speaker should be

protected against reflections on his or her actions."; and

WHEREAS

Section 167 of Beauchesne states, in part: "The Presiding

Officer, while but a servant of the House, is entitled on all occasions to be

treated with the greatest attention and respect by individual members because

the office embodies the power, dignity and honour of the House itself."; and

WHEREAS Subsection 168.(1) of Beauchesne states, in part: "The chief

characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are

authority and impartiality."; and this Subsection also states, in part:

"Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as

breaches of privilege."; and

WHEREAS O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2 nd

edition) states on page 116: "the intimidation or attempted intimidation of the

Speaker or any other Chair Occupant is viewed very seriously by the House", and

states on page 313: "The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate

or by any means except by way of a substantive motion."; and

WHEREAS the Leader of the Opposition, through her remarks, has violated

Sections 71, 167 and 168 of Beauchesne and the provisions of O'Brien and

Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice by publicly denying the

impartiality of the Speaker and the impartiality of his decisions; and

WHEREAS Subsection 168.(1) of Beauchesne also states, in part:

"Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of

the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as

their object, not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also, to

ensure that there is a general recognition of the Speaker's impartiality."; and

WHEREAS Subsection 118 of Beauchesne states that "A complaint of a

breach of privilege must conclude with a motion providing the House an

opportunity to take some action.", and one of those actions may be "a statement

of condemnation for a breach of privilege";

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House finds that the remarks of the

Leader of the Opposition made in an interview on June 9, 2010 that aired on June

9 and subsequently on NTV News and her remarks as quoted in The

Telegram on June 10, 2010 constitute a breach of privilege; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House condemns the Leader of the Opposition

for breaching the privileges of the Speaker and all members by making those

remarks; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Leader of the Opposition shall be directed to

withdraw those offensive remarks immediately and unequivocally and to apologize

to the Speaker, and to all other members of this House and to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador for making them."

Mr. Speaker, this motion is moved by myself, as Government House Leader, and

seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Commentary?

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a few comments, and maybe there will be more coming

later, but to begin with, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware and I guess every member

in this hon. House, our Opposition House Leader usually deals with such

technical challenges that we have placed before us here today. I guess we

thought that maybe something might be coming but I can assure you we were not

prepared to the point of the presentation that was just made, a very lengthy and

detailed presentation.

I want to ask the Speaker, if it is in order, if he would consider that this

motion put forward would be delayed until our next sitting day when our

Opposition House Leader would be available to review the documentation?

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, or the commentary by the hon. Member

for the District of Port de Grave, our Standing Orders are clear. "Whenever any

matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately." -

and this point of privilege will be taken into consideration immediately here

today.

Any further commentary?

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I would like to take a few moments to respond to the comments by the

Government House Leader. I will be referencing different sections of

Beauchesne and I hope it is okay to read from the book, as I do not have it

typed off like my hon. colleague does.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take you to

chapter 2 under Privilege, page 12 of that

documentation. To begin with, I am very serious and I am sure all of my comments

will be based around this, "A genuine question of privilege is a most serious

matter and should be taken seriously by the House." My comments will be totally

based around that.

Mr. Speaker, also under

section 26, number (3), "It follows that though the

Speaker can rule on a question of order, the Speaker cannot rule on a question

of privilege. When a question of privilege is raised the Speaker's function is

limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the

motion, which the Member who has raised the question desires to move" - and I

will have other comments in relation to that, Mr. Speaker.

Also, under

section 31, it says, "A dispute arising between two Members"

and I know they are referencing two members here and not a member in your title

as Speaker "as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of

parliamentary privilege."

It goes on to say, under 31.(3), "Statements made outside the House by a

Member may not be used as the basis for a question of privilege." In my

commentary, Mr. Speaker, outside the confines of the inside part of this

Chamber, I believe, is the outside of the House in reference to number (3).

I continue on, Mr. Speaker, to page 20,

section 61. It is talking about

reflection on the House as a whole, and they are talking about traditional

articles in the press reflecting badly on the character of the House have been

treated as contempt. Under 61, Mr. Speaker, "More recently, notice has

occasionally been taken of such articles, but the House has not taken any

action."

Under 62, "in the context of contempt, it seems to me" this is what the

Speaker is stating here "it seems to me that to amount to contempt,

representations or statements about our proceedings or of the participation of

members should not only be erroneous or incorrect, but, rather, should be

purposely untrue and improper and import a ring of deceit."

Mr. Speaker, I know, and I reference, as the House Leader did yesterday, the

comments that you made here in the hon. House, but I want to take us back to

what prompted the outburst here in this House. Each and every day, Mr. Speaker,

whether we like it or not, I know from time to time we get carried away, the way

we, I guess, heckle back and forth to each other. It is very difficult in the

best of times to stand and present questions on behalf of the people we

represent; but, Mr. Speaker, when you have two or three strong hecklers across

the floor, as well as people sitting directly behind you, it is what causes this

from time to time. Mr. Speaker, I believe that is what prompted the outburst

yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take you page 21,

section 71.(1) "The Speaker should

be protected against reflections" as the Government House Leader just read

"on his or her actions." That continues on by saying, (2) "In 1956, Mr. Colin

Cameron submitted to the House two letters in a local newspaper reflecting on

the actions of the Speaker. After a brief debate, the Speaker on the following

day ruled that because of the unprecedented circumstances surrounding this

pipeline debate and because of the remarks that were made in this House by

Members themselves, it was and it is impossible, if we are to consider freedom

of the press, as we should, to take these two articles as being breaches of our

privileges.' He continued to describe them as comments which do not go beyond

the bounds of unfairness'."

Mr. Speaker, it is with those comments that I put forward that I know there

are things from time to time that we are challenged with, but, Mr. Speaker, I

believe, and I put forward on behalf of the Leader of the Official Opposition, I

do not think there is a point of privilege as outlined by the Government House

Leader, and I guess one of the strongest comments that I will stand on: I

believe those comments were on the outside of the precincts of this hon. House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further commentary?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments on what the

hon. member had just referred to in Beauchesne ,

section 26.(3). It reads,

"It follows that though the Speaker can rule on a question of order, the Speaker

cannot rule on a question of privilege. When a question of privilege is raised

the Speaker's function is limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a

character as to entitle the motion, which the Member who has raised the question

desires to move, to priority over the Orders of the Day."

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we did here today. We asked you to rule on

this, and we certainly laid down a motion in relation to that.

Mr. Speaker, the only other comment I want to make is that when we asked for

the apology here today, and the condemnation of what is going on and we can

certainly debate that in the motion we certainly expect that members accept

responsibility for their behaviour, as we would for anybody else in society, as

opposed to putting forward excuses that they could not help it or somebody else

provoked it. Mr. Speaker, we all stand here, after the warning that you gave in

the House; we certainly are responsible for our own behaviour.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further commentary?

The Chair has listened carefully to the submissions made by the hon. the

Government House Leader, but, having read the newspaper

article and heard the

television reports and the comments attributed to the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition with respect to the ruling of yesterday, and having consulted with

the authorities and giving due consideration to the matter, the Speaker finds

that this is a clear prima facie case of a breach of privilege.

The Chair would like to refer hon. members to the Government House Leader in

March 2002 when a breach of privilege was raised by the then hon. Government

House Leader, Mr. Lush, against the present Premier of the day. At that time Mr.

Lush indicated, while comments were made outside the Chamber, they were breaches

of privilege and certainly it was a prima facie breach of privilege of the

reflection on the Speaker, and the rulings of the Speaker of the House.

The Chair clearly states that there is a breach of privilege here. The Chair

will now entertain the motion as put forward by the hon. the Government House

Leader, and the Chair will hear debate on that particular motion.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I feel that we have laid out our case today, regarding why we felt

that there was a breach of privilege, and obviously, Mr. Speaker, your ruling

indicates that we go into the motion to have this debate today.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that, as Members of the House of Assembly,

despite the times when emotions may run high or there is heckling in the House,

that when there is a direct order given by the Speaker, that we certainly

respect that order and we go by that order, and we obey it, and we certainly

conduct ourselves in a most appropriate manner in this House.

Mr. Speaker, what is fundamentally wrong, sometimes, or when we see something

like this, is that, whether it is in the precincts of the House or not in the

precincts of the House, but as Members of this House of Assembly, the integrity

of the Speaker or the office, or what we do in this House, is somewhat

undermined or maliciously attacked. Mr. Speaker, that is what this is about

today.

I feel that we have outlined our reasons, and why we felt the comments were

inappropriate. We have certainly relayed it back to what we felt were the

appropriate sections of the books or the rules that govern the House of Assembly

and all Parliaments or Legislatures in Canada.

With that, Mr. Speaker, we certainly feel that we have outlined our case and

we would certainly welcome further debate if there is debate on this particular

motion.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a brief comment that I stand by your ruling - I am not here to challenge

the Chair, Mr. Speaker but I was just wondering if a copy of the presentation

that was made by the Government House Leader could be made available to us.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair sees no reason why the hon. member it is public

information. It will be recorded in Hansard. If there is a copy, there is no

reason why the hon. cannot have it and have it immediately.

Further commentary?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do want to speak to the motion, although we did not receive a copy of the

motion that was

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the Chair recognizes the hon. member, and not to take away from any

time, the Chair asks that the debate on this particular issue and it has up

until now remain relevant to the situation that is at hand - on the motion

that is put forward by the hon. the Government House Leader.

The Chair will recognize normal rules for debate here. The Leader of the

Opposition will get an hour. Anybody else who wants to take part will have

twenty minutes.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do want to speak to the motion that has been put forward by the government

opposite and by the Government House Leader, just to say we did not receive a

copy of the motion but we did hear what was read into Hansard, so I can only

assume that we have it correctly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the motion for a number of reasons. First of

all, the motion deals with me as a member and the accusation that I have

violated the privileges of the House of Assembly. Well, Mr. Speaker, I could

stand and say that my privileges as a member have been violated in this House,

and I certainly can say that just judging from the amount of heckling that I

deal with on a daily basis just in Question Period alone in trying to pose my

questions.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem respecting the positions that any person holds

in this House of Assembly. I have no problem in being able to uphold all of the

principles of the House. I have spent fifteen years in this Legislature and,

until recently, I have never encountered difficulty or problems in how I have

conducted or presented my cases in this Legislature. This is something that has

happened most recently in the last session of the House of Assembly when, almost

on a weekly basis, I have been singled out in this House as an individual member

by my position while other members in this House of Assembly have continued to

banter back and forth during Question Period, have continued to heckle through

debate, yet they have not been personally identified.

Mr. Speaker, I went back and I listened to the recordings yesterday. When I

was asking questions in the House of Assembly, there were actually points when I

was raising my voice so high that it was strained because of the amount of

heckling that was going on, and you could hear it in the background. In one

question alone, Mr. Speaker, you, yourself, stood in this House and asked for

order three times before I got that question posed, yet not one member on the

other side of the House was indicated, singled out or asked, Mr. Speaker, by

title, or name, to observe the parliamentary procedures.

That was not the only question that I asked yesterday in which that occurred.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, in nearly every question I have asked, in recent days, I

have been interrupted. When I am interrupted, Mr. Speaker, in Question Period,

it does affect my ability as a member to do my job as well. When I am constantly

being interrupted because order is being called because government members are

heckling, causing a disturbance in the House, it does interrupt me in doing my

job.

When you interrupt, Mr. Speaker, and stand up and call for order and I sit

down, it is, most times, right in the middle of a question that I am about to

pose and it does disrupt me. It causes me to lose concentration sometimes in

doing my job. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, because I have a little bit of

experience here, I have learned to deal with that, overcome that and it has not

been a great impediment to the point that I have raised it at any particular

juncture.

Mr. Speaker, my comments that I made outside of the House of Assembly, if it

means I have to apologize for that in order for parliamentary procedure to

continue, I will certainly do that, but it certainly does not change the way in

which I feel that oftentimes debate is done in this House or decisions are made

and I certainly, Mr. Speaker, will maintain that particular statement.

Mr. Speaker, what is often forgotten here is that you have four members in

the Official Opposition; you have forty-two members in the government side. When

you get even half of those forty-two members heckling at one time, even if it is

from a quiet discussion perspective, Mr. Speaker, cumulatively it does raise the

level of noise in the House of Assembly. When you have four people on a bench

and not one person in this House is heckling except the one member, in most

cases, the Leader of the Opposition, well then obviously it is heard. It is

heard. I understand sometimes that while there are twenty or thirty government

members doing the same thing in cohesion that you do not always indicate who

that individual is or it is harder to point them out. I understand that, and I

have been tolerant of that, but I certainly feel that has to be considered.

I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, and I would encourage the Table Officers

to go back and start listening to the House of Assembly proceedings, and listen

to the days when questions are asked in this House, when very few occasions I

can actually even hear what I am saying myself because of the noise level. I

would ask that you do that, Mr. Speaker, to get an understanding of how this

works both ways.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is reluctant to interrupt, but I say to the hon. Leader of the

Opposition the Chair is not going to sit here and continue to hear accusations

of the actions of the Chair here in this House. The motion is quite clear. The

motion is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition apologize to the people of

the House and to the Speaker for the remarks that she made outside the

Legislature yesterday.

While the hon. member has an hour to respond, I can assure the hon. member

that the Chair is not going to allow the hon. member to stand for one hour and

clearly pass other aspersions on the Chair and the activities of Chair here in

this House.

I ask the hon. member to confine her remarks to the motion and the Chair will

allow the hon. member to use up her period of time. Other than that, the Chair

will have to interrupt and bring the member again to the motion.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not be taking an hour, I can assure you that, but I certainly would

appreciate the opportunity to say what I have to say.

I think that any time a motion is posed in this House, and especially when it

is one that is posed directly affecting a particular member, that I should

indeed have the opportunity to speak to that motion, to make my case, and to

certainly lay out, Mr. Speaker, the reasons and the rationale behind the

comments that I have made.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention on any given day in this Legislature to

disrupt any of the proceedings. As I said, in the fifteen years I have been here

I have taken my job very seriously. I have done it to the best of my ability.

Mr. Speaker, each and every day I have stood to contribute to debate in a fair

and hon. manner.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the political process. I have no problem with

heckling of members in the House of Assembly. That is all part of the procedure.

It happens every day. It has been happening for years in this House of Assembly,

but I do have a problem, Mr. Speaker, when one member is constantly being

singled out, constantly being named in the House of Assembly, and that

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take her seat.

For the final time, I will ask her again to respond to the motion as put

forward and to respond to the constitute and the breach of privilege that has

been put forward here and accepted by the Chair as a breach of privilege and to

confine her remarks to that, or the Chair will have no other choice but not to

recognize the hon. member to continue with putting aspersions on the Chair and

other activities in this House.

I call on, for the final time, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that I do not have the ability to state my case. I would

just say that in regard to the motion, Mr. Speaker, that if the motion is

directing and it is passed that I would withdraw the comments and apologize,

that is certainly what I will do, so we may carry on with the business of the

Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is there further commentary on the motion put forward by the hon. the

Government House Leader?

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard here in the House, as you have commented

on, is a continuation of what we heard yesterday and why we arrived at this

place.

Mr. Speaker, we know very well on this side of the House, and agree, that in

a long session of the House, long days, contentious issues, Mr. Speaker, people

do get tired and proceedings can get contentious. Mr. Speaker, it is one of the

reasons why we need a Speaker in this House and why we need rules in which to

operate, and we all have an understanding of what those rules are, Mr. Speaker.

It is required of us; it is incumbent on us to understand the rules that govern

this House of Assembly.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you clearly rose, spoke to all of us in a very strong

way, reminding us of the rules of this House, the authority that is vested in

you. You gave fair warning, not to one of us, Mr. Speaker, but to every one of

us, hecklers on all sides of the House, to cease and desist and to pay attention

to your ruling. Mr. Speaker, the majority of the people in this House of

Assembly did that yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition did not. She was

defiant in the face of your ruling, thus our motion today.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the apology that is being sought by Members of this

House of Assembly today, in that apology we have to have an understanding that

the Leader of the Opposition has an appreciation for the rules of this House and

respect for those rules, Mr. Speaker. We are not looking for a qualified

apology, Mr. Speaker. She is going to apologize so that we can get on with the

work of the House of Assembly, rather than apologizing because she knows that

she has offended the rules of this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, your

authority, her colleagues here in the House of Assembly and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I just want to say without going on and on about the

matter, Mr. Speaker, that a qualified apology is not an acceptable apology.

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to respond to the

hon. minister.

I think the Leader of the Opposition yesterday stood in her place and

apologized for the outbreak that was here in the hon. House. A motion has been

put forward and the hon. member said that she will apologize as per the motion

that was put forward. I do not why we are still debating it. She apologized

yesterday. She is prepared to apologize as outlined in your motion. As far as I

am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that should resolve it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is there any further commentary?

Normally, when a member gets up to apologize - our standing rules are clear.

The apology is unequivocal, without explanation. The member stands and

apologizes for the actions and the disruptions that are caused in the House. So

if the hon. Leader of the Opposition stood to apologize, it certainly was not

done in that fashion and that is not the way the Chair understood it.

If there is no further commentary made, is the House ready for the question?

The question is that the Leader of the Opposition shall be directed to

withdraw her offensive remarks immediately and unequivocally and to apologize to

the Speaker, to all other members of the House, and the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador for making them.

All those in favour of the motion, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

I call on the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to apologize.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw the offensive remarks and I apologize to those as outlined in the

motion.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for her

apology.

I say to members again, that the Speaker is here and tries to maintain

decorum in the House and to recognize people as they stand. The Chair has given

fair warning to all members of the Opposition. The Chair has called members and

asked for their co-operation. The Chair has tried calling members and the

members have not called the Chair back in order to bring them to the

understanding that the Chair is not going to continue with the disorder that has

been brought forward here in this House.

I ask all members to be guided by the remarks made by the Chair yesterday.

The Chair fully intends to uphold the direction that was provided here yesterday

and will treat all members in a fair and equitable manner that he has tried to

do while he has been occupying the Chair.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon.

the Member for the District of Port au Port, the hon. the Member for the

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

Bellevue.

The hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House of Assembly to

congratulate Shriel Syan, a Level III student at Stephenville High School on

being selected to the International Air Cadet Exchange program, and she was also

chosen to take

part in the People to People Student Ambassador Leadership Summit

this summer.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Air Cadet program gives our youth the

opportunity to acquire lifelong skills such as working co-operatively with team

members and developing the attributes needed to be an effective leader. Shriel

has been an active cadet for six years. She has been awarded the Royal Canadian

Legion Cadet Medal of Excellence and has risen to the highest rank a cadet can

attain, Warrant Officer First Class. This program, Mr. Speaker, will take place

in Paris, France.

The People to People Ambassador Program offers life-changing educational

leadership travel opportunities for students intentionally. This program will

take place over two weeks at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts,

U.S.A.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of the House of Assembly to join with me

in congratulating Shriel Syan for her dedication, discipline and hard work with

708 Stephenville Air Cadets. Her selection to participate in the International

Air Cadet Exchange program and to the People to People Leadership Summit are

wonderful ways to recognize her for her efforts and commitment, and we wish her

much success in her future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Bishop Field

Elementary School in my district on receiving the Chapters Indigo Love of

Reading Grant for 2010 valued at a remarkable $80,000.

The Love of Reading schools receive money in instalments over three years to

purchase books and to support literacy projects. Mr. Speaker, Bishop Field

Elementary has big plans for their award and will be upgrading the learning

resource centre by purchasing more books and resource material. They also plan

to use a portion of the money to run a preschool library and literacy program at

the school.

This award could not have come at a better time, Mr. Speaker, as Bishop Field

Elementary is celebrating its 165 anniversary this year. During its 165 years in

St. John's, Bishop Field Elementary has seen some notable graduates including

our first Premier Joseph R. Smallwood, Lieutenant-Governor John Crosbie, and

Victoria Cross recipient, Tommy Ricketts, just to name a few. Of course,

initially, the school was an all male school.

Bishop Field Elementary continues to be a wonderful community school with a

population of 273 students. The school is very active in the community and

partners with a number of community groups including the Salvation Army who run

a breakfast snack program, the School Lunch program, the RNC who run the DARE

program, and the Roots of Empathy program.

Mr. Speaker, Bishop Field Elementary's goal is to help children grow into

active learners and this boost, courtesy of the Chapters Indigo Love of Reading

Grant, will certainly go a long way to continue that goal.

I look forward to June 15 when I will join the students for a tree planting

ceremony prior to their outing to Chapters where each student will pick a book

for the school's library. I am sure they will have a great time shopping with

their award money.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Bishop Field Elementary

on receiving the Chapters Indigo Love of Reading Grant and their 165

anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Chief Warrant Officer Daphne

Germain. Daphne Germain was raised in Chance Cove and left home at the age of

eighteen years to join the military.

Since then, she has served at many posts around the world. Among some of

those posts were places such as Germany, the Gulf War and the Golden Heights.

Chief Warrant Officer Germain has served as a member of the Canadian Military

for thirty years and has just recently been promoted to Chief Warrant Officer

Position at 22 Wing at CFB North Bay.

Chief Warrant Officer Daphne Germain is the first female to hold this

position at the CFB North Bay. She is also one of three women to hold this

position of Chief Warrant Officer in the Canadian Military.

Daphne Germain is married and the proud mother of two young ladies. She says

she is coming home this summer to meet with her family, where will she be joined

by her mother, Massie Smith, and her extended family in celebrations of her new

position.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Chief

Warrant Officer Daphne Germain on a well-deserved appointment and an

overwhelming accomplishment for the female sector, and wish her all the best in

her future military career.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that effective training and investments in

workforce development can be a key driver in sustaining an organization's

competitive advantage and encouraging greater productivity.

Despite its value, employers across Canada have traditionally made low levels

of investment in workforce training, with less than three out of ten workers

ever receiving any training. This trend has a negative impact on productivity,

competitiveness and business retention and expansion.

To help bridge this gap, the provincial government, in collaboration with

industry and labour organizations, community groups, and the business community,

has launched its Workplace Skills Enhancement Program. It is a program that

helps address labour market conditions and provides support tools for local

businesses as they explore avenues to maximize productivity, improve workforce

training options, and attract new employees.

Companies and organizations have found the new program beneficial for

staffing hard to fill positions, as well as increasing the skills of employees

through professional development exercises. In addition to the almost thirty

companies that have availed of the new program since its recent launch, industry

associations are using it to coordinate industry-wide training initiatives.

The Newfoundland Aquaculture Industry Association, for example, recently held

training seminars for its member companies and their combined staff of 110

people in Green Bay and the Coast of Bays. The seminars included such topics as

marine maintenance, emergency first aid and other related training which

contributes to their Technical Certificate in Agriculture from the Fisheries and

Marine Institute of Memorial University.

St. Alban's-based Newfoundland Aqua Services is also hosting a series of

training sessions for its forty-one employees with a contribution of $79,000

under the Workplace Skills Enhancement Program. Additionally, Breakwater Books

has received a wage subsidy totalling $20,000 to engage a digital publishing

expert to service the rising demand for digital books and reach a wider

international market.

In today's knowledge-driven economy, success is contingent on innovation,

which in turn, depends on highly-skilled people. It is people who will drive the

economy in the future as their knowledge, skills and creativity lead to greater

innovation.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we are going to continue to introduce

initiatives like the Workplace Skills Enhancement Program. By investing in

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we are advancing our objective of providing

new employment and business opportunities in communities across this Province.

We will continue to invest in infrastructure and programming that helps create

business and academic opportunities for people in all regions of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

statement.

Lifelong learning is recognized internationally as a key to competitive

advantage, increasing productivity and improved quality of life. Rather than

formal training and education for our workforce, this Province has traditionally

relied on information and techniques that really are passed on from older

workers to on-the-job training, so to speak.

As our traditional occupations become more professionalized, we will have to

encourage more formal training and organized training and so on for our workers

before and after they are hired. There are fewer and fewer unskilled jobs

available today, and yet we still have too many unskilled persons in the

workforce. When we look at our stubbornly high unemployment rate, even though we

are a have Province, certainly it would indicate a great need of being able to

train that pool of workers to obtain the skills that they lack today.

So these initiatives announced by the minister are good, but I would suggest

that we still have a long ways to go, obviously. We have heard too many stories

of employers who receive dozens or more of applications from ads they have

placed in newspapers and so on. If any of the applicants actually have education

or certification in skills, sometimes it is hard to find.

One solution is to ensure that all of our young people have the skills before

leaving school, and certainly the other solution is to target those already in

the workforce for skills upgrading. So, we have to do both and more.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

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

It is very good to hear about this program, the Workplace Skills Enhancement

Program, which I think was announced first in October 2009. It would be good,

and I am sure the minister will do this as I ask him, to have a full report on

the uptake. I know it is too early to know with regard to the thirty businesses

that have been interested in the program and have taken advantage of the wage

subsidy. It is too early to find out if people are being retained because they

are probably still in the early stages of having received the subsidy and are

still in those positions.

One of the things that will be good to see is how many employees end up being

retained in the workplaces where they start under the wages subsidy. That will

be one of the things that will give us the proof of the value of this program,

which I do believe in. I think increasing skills and helping companies fill hard

to fill positions in their companies is extremely important.

It is also important that the government promote the program far and wide

because, especially with smaller companies, they are so busy in trying to keep

themselves going that they cannot always become aware of the kinds of programs

such as this that they can apply for. So wide advertising is very important so

that more and more companies will take

part in this and more individuals will be

helped.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government currently operates five contracted

ferry services serving isolated communities along the South Coast of the Island

and one on the South Coast of Labrador.

Given the age of the vessels currently in operation, it is clear that the

time has come to upgrade these essential services for what can truly be

considered some of our most rural communities. In this year's Budget Speech, our

government announced that it was proceeding with the construction of six new

ferries to replace the aging vessels currently serving these communities and

that these vessels would be built right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to inform this hon. House that in the coming days

my department will be issuing a request for expressions of interest from

qualified firms for the provision of a detailed design for these new vessels.

We are seeking a standard design that can be used on all six runs and which

will provide an enhanced travel experience for both residents and visitors.

These new vessels will be designed to provide improved passenger amenities and

for Persons with Disabilities.

Expressions of interest must be received by the department by July 15, 2010

at which time we will begin the process of selecting a firm to complete the

detailed design. Once a firm has been selected, we expect the design process to

take approximately one year. Over the coming months, Mr. Speaker, we will

determine the method by which shipyards will be selected to undertake

construction of these vessels after the final design has been completed.

The construction of these ferries will mean a better and more reliable

service for those who use them and provide opportunities for our Province's

shipbuilding and marine service industries.

With this latest step, our government is now engaged in various stages of

work towards the completion of ten new vessels for the provincial service. In

addition to seeking a design for these six smaller ferries, we have two

medium-size vessels currently under construction, the propulsion system for a

third medium-size ferry has been purchased and a consultant is currently

designing a fourth larger ferry to replace the MV Captain Earl W. Winsor

for the Fogo Island-Change Islands run.

Mr. Speaker, our government has, time and again, demonstrated its commitment

to rural Newfoundland and Labrador and to the replacement of our aging ferry

fleet and this is yet another great example of that commitment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, and to say

I guess that people in those communities, that those six ferries will be

representing, it is great news for them.

Mr. Speaker, I have to go back to a release that the minister put out on June

4 when we were in debate about the service to Bell Island. He said that we only

pay lip service to rural Newfoundland when it is politically convenient for us.

Well, I say, Mr. Speaker, how everything comes full circle. Here we are, we

remember back last year, those are the same six ferries that were going to

tender but they were not going to be built here in this Province. They probably

would have been under construction now down in the States somewhere. Mr.

Speaker, I have to say, that this is where this government is coming from.

The minister also stated in his statement that as far as he is concerned we

were trying to get Bell Island to get a ferry before the other communities in

this Province. Nothing could be further from the truth. All we are asking is

that Bell Island would be on a list on par with everybody else, not eight to ten

years down the road. Those people have so many people who commute back and

forth.

Mr. Speaker, this is good news, no doubt about it. We are proud that those

people will be able to get new ferries, but we are also equally pleased that it

took a by-election to have it turned around that those ferries would be built

here in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Vidi.

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Obviously, it is

good news for the long suffering people of the South Coast of this Island and

the South Coast of Labrador that steps are finally being taken with regard to

the new ferries. It is such a long process that even now it is going to be a

whole year before anything can even get started. This is long overdue, and I

speak to both sides of this House when I say that. It is long overdue.

One of the things that concern me is that with this plan around the ferries,

why this government could not have put in something to deal with the situation

on Bell Island to make that situation better. It would have been one more piece

to go into the plan. So, I will continue, along with the people of Bell Island,

to wait and see what is going to be done to solve their problems.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday the Premier bitterly complained about the way we

were being treated at the hands of Quebec. Yet, in tender after tender this

Province is awarding major construction contracts to Quebec companies. This

government is feeding Quebec with one hand and beating them over the head with

the other hand, I say to you, Premier. Quebec contractors are able to operate

freely in this Province while restrictive labour practices effectively bar our

own contractors from doing work in that Province.

I ask the Premier: Why are you awarding contracts to Quebec companies when

our own contractors are restricted in competing for contracts in Quebec?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the message that I delivered yesterday to

Ottawa is that when we play in the Canadian Federation we play fair. We play by

the rules and we expect to be treated equally, and we laid out our case before

the people of Ottawa yesterday. We indicated that we have gone through the

proper procedures with groups like the Rgie; that we had attempted to negotiate

fairly. We asked for redress for the great inequity that was done under the

Upper Churchill. We expect Quebec, that when they make international statements

on climate change and reduction of greenhouse gases that they do not on the

other hand then turn around and try, and basically prevent what is possibly the

best greenhouse gas project and clean energy project in all of North America.

When I spoke yesterday in Quebec I also spoke about our Labrador boundary,

which has been not publicly disputed by the Province of Quebec but in maps have

been presented inaccurately so that they can improperly portray that they

actually have ownership of the Labrador area, which is very, very important to

us.

When it comes to contracts, there are certain rules. There are certainly

agreements with regard to internal trade and we follow those rules and we

respect those rules and we expect to be treated fairly when we go to the

Province of Quebec. The fact that one province acts improperly, it does not mean

that we have to turn around and do the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, just a week ago, as the Premier was staging

another lashing for Quebec, his government awarded a $31 million contract for

the RNC headquarters in St. John's to a Quebec company. The second lowest

bidder, a Newfoundland company was at $33 million, a difference of less than 5

per cent of the total cost of the contract.

I ask the Premier: Why is it that you can lash out at Quebec, like you did in

your speech yesterday and say that Quebec has, and I quote: Demonstrated the

Province's bias, arrogance and discriminatory business practices towards our

Province, yet you are handing out taxpayers' money in Newfoundland and Labrador

to Quebec companies?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: As usual, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should

check her facts. Basically, a tender has been put out, proponents have put in

their bids and it has not been awarded yet, as simple as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the tender is not awarded but those are the notes. Let me tell you the

tenders that are awarded, because I just got it off the tendering list, it did

not say, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell you the ones that were, a Quebec company was

awarded a $12 million contract for a school in L'Anse-au-Loup while the

Newfoundland company was less than 2 per cent shy of the lowest bidder. A Quebec

company was awarded a $50 million contract for a long-term care centre in Corner

Brook and the next lowest bidder, a Newfoundland company, was less than 5 per

cent. A highway contract in Labrador was awarded to a Quebec company, when the

Newfoundland and Labrador company was $25,000 over what the $12 million bid was.

I ask the Premier today: Why is it that you are not looking after our own

construction and trades industries in Newfoundland and Labrador, and keeping

that money right here at home?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, is the Leader of the Opposition alleging

that we should break the Public Tender Act? Is that basically what she wants the

government to do?

Those rules and those regulations are there for a very, very good reason, and

that is that people play by the rules. Two wrongs do not make a right. The fact

that Quebec is operating in the manner in which they are operating, the fact

that they are being greedy, and they are being arrogant, and they are being

discriminate, trying to protect their market dominance, that does not mean that

it is right. It does not mean that we should treat the other members of the

federation the same way, if we are going to have respect and we are going to

have credibility when we go to Ottawa to make the case. It certainly seems that

her colleagues certainly agree.

Yesterday, I remember standing, at the end of the speech that I gave, and

looking up at the people who were standing in the room, which happened to be

everybody, and it included: Judy Foote, Scott Simms, Siobhan Coady, Todd

Russell, and Gerry Byrne. They seemed to agree with what the government is doing

in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say on

the one hand we are being milked by Quebec, and on the other hand we are writing

cheques for taxpayers' money and giving it to Quebec companies.

I say to government opposite, you talk about the Agreement on Internal Trade,

but it is perfectly acceptable if the government wants to put exemption clauses

into ferry contracts or in fibre optic contracts, which we have seen happen in

the Province, Mr. Speaker. So, if there is a will, there is a way.

I would say to the Premier today, in asking this question, Mr. Speaker, I

would ask: When are we going to stop the practice of giving contracts outside of

the Province, to the Province of Quebec, while they are shafting us, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The Leader of the Opposition has finally acknowledged

that Quebec are shafting us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It took a long while for this government to get this

through to the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps it was some of the facts that

we laid out yesterday. Perhaps it was the fact that in 2008 the Government of

Quebec took $2.3 billion from this Province, and we received $50 million.

Perhaps it was the fact that the equivalent of what we were losing on the Upper

Churchill, a contract that was entered into by a Liberal government at the time,

the amount that we are loosing on a per capita basis in Newfoundland and

Labrador, if that was in Ontario, would be the equivalent of $38 billion a year.

That is the magnitude of the inequity that is happening.

What we have done now is, we have gone to New York, we have gone to Calgary,

we gone to the Nation's Capital in Ottawa, and we will not stop there because we

are going to state our case that is based on fairness, equity, and justice. The

way to handle that is not to turn around and do the improper actions that are

being alleged by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but it is really hard to understand why

a government who is so convinced they are being shafted by Quebec, that the

people of the Province are being milked for all we are worth, but yet they have

given out hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to Quebec companies.

Mr. Speaker, Nalcor confirmed yesterday that it will appeal the recent Rgie

decision in Quebec. We know that the Premier has been criticizing the Rgie,

calling them biased, and a kangaroo court.

I ask the Premier: How will your critical comments help the Province's case

before the Rgie during this appeal process?

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

Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker, you should practice what you preach. Mr. Speaker, just last week

we had a private member's bill in this House with regard to the Rgie ruling.

translation.

Mr. Speaker, during that time you would have thought that the Leader of the

Opposition would have made herself familiar with the rules, with the law around

the Open Access Transmission Tariff. She did not, Mr. Speaker. What we heard in

this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, was a spirited defence of the Rgie

decision against Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I say to the minister, I just state the facts. I do not write

the cheques for the Quebec companies. That is your job, Minister.

Mr. Speaker, Hydro-Quebec and the State of Vermont have announced a

twenty-six-year power agreement that will be finalized by the end of June. The

Rgie decision stated that our Province had not identified any firm markets or

customers for Lower Churchill power. Meanwhile, Quebec is moving forward, Mr.

Speaker, with long-term agreements in the United States.

I ask the Premier: Why hasn't your government been able to clearly identify

any long-term customers for the Lower Churchill power, and did you initiate any

negotiations to secure a power deal with Vermont?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have, as I have indicated, spoken in

New York. We have been in constant discussions with the various governors of the

New England States. An MOU was signed with Governor Carcieri. We have spoken to

Governor Douglas, we have spoken to Governor Baldacci, but the simple thing is

that if you do not have power to sell you cannot sign a power contract. That is

pretty simple, as far as I am concerned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the gravel

section of the Trans-Labrador Highway between Red Bay

and Mary's Harbour is in deplorable condition. Parents in the community of Lodge

Bay today have said they will no longer allow their children to attend school

until the road is deemed fit for the bus to travel over.

I ask the minister today: Are you willing to commit some funding to put a

layer of crushed stone on this

section of road, that will allow these children

to be able to commute back and forth to school?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to that

section of road, it is one of the more heavily graded

sections of the highway and it has been done over the last couple of weeks. In

my conversation with the Leader of the Opposition a day or so ago, I certainly

indicated that we would be sending a grader back, that we would be providing

some crushed stone and hopefully take care of any of the problems that are

situated around that particular section.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

section of highway between the Shadow Pond area and Mary's Harbour, Mr.

Speaker, is a really heavily used

section of highway. It has not had any crushed

stone on it for over ten years, from what I understand. Mr. Speaker, this

section of the Trans-Labrador Highway is used to transport children to school,

to transport patients to hospital, and it is also one of the main sections of

the Trans-Labrador Highway. Today there are contractors in the area crushing

stone, and I understand from highways that there is no significant stockpile of

stone in that area.

I ask the minister: Will he commit to addressing this problem and having some

stone crushed and stockpiled and put on the road? You cannot put there what is

not there.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, I think there

are 1,500 kilometres of Trans-Labrador Highway and we are doing our best with

the resources that we have to keep that 1,500 kilometres of highway open to the

travelling public. Certainly, we are going to address the problem, as I have

indicated in my previous answer, and we will continue to do our best to keep the

road in the shape that we would like it to be in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Assembly has been open for almost three months and

we have yet to see the government's promised animal welfare legislation. The

Department of Natural Resources stated in The Telegram that the new act

was expected to be tabled before the May 24 weekend. Mr. Speaker, we are still

waiting to see the piece of legislation.

I ask the minister: Is this legislation coming forward during this session?

If so, when will it be tabled in the House?

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I did say that we were going to introduce the legislation in

this session of the House of Assembly; I did not give a timeline. Now, I can

file the notice of motion right here now, Mr. Speaker, or we can wait until the

proper time in the Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: That is the way it is supposed to be, Mr. Speaker, responding

to the Opposition immediately.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, now that the minister is ready to table the motion so,

hopefully, we will see the legislation in the next few days - maybe she can tell

me today, because under our current Animal Protection Act an individual who has

committed a first or second offence will not be charged less than $50 or more

than $200, and if it is a third offence the fine will not be less than $200 or

more than $500. We know that in other provinces, like New Brunswick, animal

abusers face up to

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said in my earlier answer, we will be introducing the legislation. We

will be providing copies of the legislation next week. Mr. Speaker, we have done

a broad consultation with a number of interest groups across this Province. The

legislation, I believe, is a very good piece of legislation.

I am not going to get into the details of it here in Question Period today,

but I ask the Leader of the Opposition to stay tuned I think she will be very

pleased with what we are bringing forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sat down because it was so much noise and I was not going to yell, so I did

not even ask the minister a question.

I will ask the minister the question: Will the new legislation increase the

punishments and fines for the abuse and neglect of animals?

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

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the other concerns that were outlined was dogs that are kept on

chains. The legislation currently says that they can be chained for twenty-four

hours a day up to 365 days a year, and this is one of the points that have been

brought forward by the SPCA.

I ask the minister: Will this issue be addressed in the new legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we did a broad consultation in the

Province and one of the major consultations we did was with the SPCA who made a

number of recommendations to us, most of those recommendations have been

incorporated into the legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I will be happy to debate

with the Leader of the Opposition all of those provisions next week here on the

floor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, every day we hear of more moose-vehicle

collisions taking place on our Province's highways, yet besides putting up a few

signs, paying for some advertising or cutting some extra brush government is

doing very little to address this problem.

Earlier this year, the government announced that 2,154 extra moose licences

would be issued. Of that number, the Save Our People Action Committee estimated

that 1,500 were dormant licences from last year. So the actual increase is very

small.

I ask the minister: Is government willing to increase the number of moose

licences each year in an effort to control the moose population?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member for his question. It is a very serious matter, and it is

one that we do not want to see, of course, anybody get into accidents, and

certainly our deepest apologies go out to those who have been involved in fatal

accidents.

Mr. Speaker, back in February, we did announce some changes. There were 2,154

additional licences available to residents, was the wording. So, he is correct,

1,514 of those came from unused licences from the outfitters, but there is an

additional they were not being used, so the moose were not having an

opportunity to be hunted, so we wanted to see that would be hunted.

There is also fifty additional to the charities, bringing that up to 200,

which is a fantastic initiative that we did in this government, and it is

receiving a lot of praise from the charitable organizations. There are also

additional licences as part of our regular surveys. At that time, we also

announced a five-year moose management plan, extensions to the season and some

other (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we know there is an estimate between 120,000 to

150,000 moose in the Province, and each year we are told that 30,000 more calves

are being born. Mr. Speaker, we understand there are 28,000 licences issued with

a 70 per cent success rate. So, Mr. Speaker, we are hardly keeping up with the

birth rate.

Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that the Province of New Brunswick will be

installing more moose fencing along their major highways. Clearly, they believe

that moose fencing saves lives and are taking action to address the problem. The

Save Our People Action Committee has been encouraging government to look at

putting fences in problem areas where statistics show a higher number of

accidents.

I ask the minister: Is fencing certain sections of the highway in this

Province something government is willing to consider?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, naturally, we will consider any kind of a

strategy that can help improve the safety on our highways. Fencing is one of

those. Obviously, there is a great different between this Province and New

Brunswick. They have controlled highways, and that is where they are fencing, as

opposed to the type of highways, our geography, and so on.

Again, we have it under consideration, and obviously, not only that, but

other strategies as well. If it can be proven, I guess, that we can incorporate

them, it is a possibility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for his response.

Maybe a couple of the areas where something could be done similar to that

would be in our Parks Canada where they estimate that there are 5,000 moose in

Gros Morne and 1,000 moose in Terra Nova.

Mr. Speaker, the committee has also suggested establishing a 1-800 number so

that nuisance moose can be reported and removed from the area by wildlife

officers.

I ask the minister: Why has government not looked at establishing this type

of reporting mechanism to prevent accidents before they occur?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have had several proposals from SOPAC. The Minister of

Natural Resources, the Minister of Transportation and Works and myself, we have

met with the committee on several occasions and we are going to meet with them

again in the future, so we are certainly open to all of the proposals that they

put forward.

What people need to remember though is that the majority of moose accidents

happen at night. Of course, reporting these at night and having people come out

and shoot the moose at night is something that has safety issues from another

perspective, Mr. Speaker. A lot of the accidents certainly happen you are

seeing more moose sightings lately on the Outer Ring Road and within cities and,

of course, it is against the law to shoot across the highway and it is against

the law to shoot within cities.

So, there are some issues that I have with their proposal, but it is not to

say we are not considering it. We are considering all of the proposals that they

have before us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the minister's comments that they are trying to deal with the

various issues.

Some of the reports that we get back, people are saying that government is

looking at nuisance moose as if it is an endangered species. Mr. Speaker, that

is a tongue twister, no doubt about it.

Mr. Speaker, my next question to the minister is that the Save Our People

Action Committee has asked government to evaluate a number of options to address

the growing number of accidents in our Province. To date, there is

disappointment being expressed that more concrete action is not being taken.

I ask the minister: Do you have any concrete plan in place to address the

growing problem of moose-vehicle collisions in our Province, or are you willing

at the present time to accept the status quo?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, between the Department of Transportation and Works and the

Department of Environment and Conservation, we are constantly consulting with

our counterparts in other jurisdictions to see if there are measures there that

would work here. We did a thorough review of where the moose licences are. We

did increased surveys to see if we can increase the licences, which we did in

some areas.

Mr. Speaker, specifically to the 1,500 unused outfitter licences, more than

half of those were right along the Trans-Canada and particularly in the Central

Region. Mr. Speaker, I think by allowing the residents to hunt those licences

you are going to see a dramatic decrease in the number of moose along the

highways, but that is not to tell people that there still are not going to be

moose around the highways. The highways intersect their habitat and I would not

want to give anybody a false assurance out there that there are not going to be

any moose because there is certainly going to be moose. So we ask people to be

cautious

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, during Estimate we were assured that any legal

business or tourist signs on the Province's highways would be left untouched.

However, there are reports that signs are being removed and discarded while the

owner has a legal permit.

I ask the minister: Can you explain to us today and to business owners around

the Province why legal signs are being removed from the highways?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the TODS program was something we explored simply because one of

the major complaints we were getting from our tourists coming into the Province

was signage. We took that very, very seriously.

What the member has asked: Is there illegal signs being taken down? Of

course, there are illegal signs being taken down. Mr. Speaker, if you have a

permit for a sign today there is nobody going to take that sign. Now, if that

happened in error, certainly it can be replaced without a problem, Mr Speaker,

but I can assure you that anybody that has a permit for a sign, a legal sign,

can leave it up today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

will not be a problem for the tourist any more because they are all sawed down.

Mr. Speaker, we are getting closer to the tourist season which is a crucial

time for many local business owners. The signs that they put on the highway to

promote their businesses generate a great source of income for them and their

families. Yet, there are business owners who are seeing their legal signs being

sawed down and discarded off by burning or burying them.

I ask the minister: If this continues to happen, will government offer these

legal sign owners compensation for such unlawful activities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, it if is an illegal sign it is taken down. If it

is a legal sign it is left up. It is as simple as that. I do not know what else

to say to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. member would stay tuned, Mr. Speaker, soon signage will be a way

of the past. He will be listening to the eight track radio, Mr. Speaker, and we

will be dealing with GPSs. So I say to him to get on board, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: I would say, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what I am listening

to but I assure the minister he should listen to the Minister of Government

Services and the Minister of Transportation because they know what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, there are many small communities around our Province that depend

on unique signage to attract tourists and locals to what they have to offer.

This is the lifeblood of many people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the minister: Why are signs being removed before the TODS program is

really ready for full implementation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, there was a law made, I guess in this House, a

long, long time ago, a number of years ago, and I guess a year ago or a

year-and-a-half ago we started enforcing that law and removing illegal signs. I

cannot make it any simpler than that. The law always existed and illegal signs

are now coming down.

We are in the process, Mr. Speaker, about to roll out a TODS program. We are

consulting with people in various areas across this Province. Mr. Speaker, we

are going to do it and we are going to do it right, so that not only do the

tourism operators benefit, Mr. Speaker, but also the people who visit us here on

a regular basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill 1,

An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children

And Youth, reduces the number of permitted temporary orders from three to two

and the maximum time a child will spend in a temporary order process from two

years to eighteen months. Mr. Speaker, the act can impose deadlines but there

will have to be resources and supports earmarked within the justice system to

ensure these deadlines are met.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, how will

she ensure that these new timelines will be met by the court system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out by the Minister of Child,

Youth and Family Services in her debate in the last few days, that this act will

be a year before it is proclaimed and during that time, Mr. Speaker, the

intricacies and any service problems or interactions between the act and the

courts will be worked out in that length of time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder, could I ask the minister to give us some detail about what they are

identifying as the problems within the court system at the moment because even

now timelines are not being met?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the basic tenets of the act, having to do

with the court system, is not radically changed from the old act. There are

situations in the court system all the time where time deadlines are extended.

The opportunity here for the presentation is ten days. That will be in effect.

The thirty-day date for a hearing is in effect. At the presentation hearing

there may be some reasons, all kinds of reasons why the date of the thirty days

may not be effective. So this is nothing radically different from any court

procedure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is not getting the point. There are times when it is not working

and he did not answer the question, but I guess I will just have to wait and

see.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services says that she

held consultations and I know she did with social workers and community and

not-for-profit groups and that people are pleased with the new act. Front line

social workers are continuing to tell me their concerns about not having enough

resources for this act to be implemented. They also told me that they also felt

reluctant when they were at consultations themselves to voice their concerns.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the minister, what she is planning

to ensure the involvement of the experienced voice of front-line workers in the

development of the regulations that will make the new legislation operational?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader and the Minister of

Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One thing I can talk about is the consultation process I did with front-line

social workers. Mr. Speaker, I visited fifty out of the fifty-two offices last

summer. I held meetings with all staff when I went to those offices. Then I

specifically met with the social workers alone with no other people in the room

other than the front-line social workers. Once we did those consultations with

the front-line social workers, we also gave them the contact information - if

there were any further comments, anything they needed to say, anything they

forgot to say - of the Deputy Minister, and we have heard from the front-line

social workers.

In addition to that, there are a number of roles that we are taking on,

whether it is redesigning the organizational chart or the legislation or our

strategic plan, and for every step of the major work we are doing, we have a

focus group of front-line social workers. I have engaged the front-line social

workers in every single way possible to make sure their voices are heard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that front-line workers are saying to me is

that there are an insufficient number of people on the front line in order for

them to do their work in the way it needs to be done. Now I know the minister

has said publicly that she does not have a problem, that there are no vacancies,

or if there are in the front-line workers, they are being filled and the

complement of workers is there. What the concern is is that the number of

workers is insufficient.

I am asking the minister: Is she going to be doing an analysis to look at the

need for increasing the number of front-line workers so that they can do both

the administrative work that they have to do as well as the work of protecting

children and youth?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Child,

Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, up to this point we have done an extensive

analysis of what resources we need to deliver the services of this department to

the families and to the children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

What we have seen, Mr. Speaker, is in the last few years an investment of

over $24 million in Child, Youth and Family Services, 200 new positions, but

very little progress made in how we do our work. We have announced in this

Budget that there be an additional twenty-seven positions put in Child, Youth

and Family Services.

What is alarming, Mr. Speaker, is that we have 312 social workers employed

with Child, Youth and Family Services and, for some reason, we are unable to

provide services effectively to the 5,974 children that need it. If we run the

statistics for every social worker we have with Child, Youth and Family

Services, we would have a caseload of less than twenty. What I can say, Mr.

Speaker, is there is room for change, there is commitment for change and this

government will use the resources that we have to deliver the best possible

service that we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table the

2009-2010 annual report of the Board of Commissioners and Public Utilities in

accordance with

section 56.(1) of the Automobile Insurance Act,

Chapter A-22,

RSNL 1990.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today in accordance with

the requirements of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act and the

Transparency and Accountability Act to table the Workplace Heath, Safety and

Compensation Commission's 2009 annual report which covers the activities of the

Commission from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

As the Chair of the House of Assembly Management Commission, I am pleased to

table the minutes of the House of Assembly Management Commission meeting for

March 24, 2010. These minutes will also be displayed on the House of Assembly

Web site.

Notices of motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 27).

Further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3. (Bill 28).

Further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of

Animals. (Bill 30).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act

Respecting Human Rights. (Bill 31)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not

adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 14, 2010.

I further give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this

House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m., Monday, June 14, 2010.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

Answer to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we adjourned the House on our last legislative day, we adjourned in

committee

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked if we could return to petitions.

The Chair did not recognize the hon. member standing.

Does the hon. member have leave to revert to petitions?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can see they were eager to hear those petitions on behalf of the people of

the Province.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, this petition is with regard to the highway in Labrador.

I will read it into the record as per the rules of the House.

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 the residents of Red Bay to Goose Bay use a

section of the

Trans-Labrador Highway that is unpaved and in poor condition; and

WHEREAS this road is no longer suitable for the traffic volumes that travel

this route; and

WHEREAS government will not commit to provide funding to even begin paving

for Phase II and Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway; and

WHEREAS the residents of the region deserve a similar standard of road as the

Island portion of the Province;

WHEREUPON the petitioners call upon the House of Assembly to ask the

government to provide funding to pave the road from Red Bay to Goose Bay.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, these petitions, of course, is circulating all over Labrador. As

they come in, I have been presenting them in the House of Assembly. The one I am

presenting today actually has signatures from the Mary's Harbour, Lodge Bay

area.

Mr. Speaker, today in the community of Lodge Bay a community that was

forced to have their school closed by a board of the Western School Board and

supported by the Department of Education and the government, Mr. Speaker. When

their school closed, they were told by the government and by the Western School

Board that because their children were going to be bused to Mary's Harbour that

the road would be maintained.

Realizing it is a gravel road, gravel roads can only be maintained by gravel,

and because there has been no gravel or crushed stone put on this

section of

road, the operator in the area continues to make all attempts possible to grade

the sections of the road. When there is nothing left to grade on the road, it

becomes a problem. So, whenever you have a gravel road that is filled with

potholes, and you have no crushed stone, you can run the grader back and forth

those roads, Mr. Speaker, it is not going to change anything when there is no

crushed stone to fill up the holes.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Lodge Bay are very upset. This is not the first

time they have had to take their children out of the buses and out of the

schools because of the condition of the road. They have been constantly calling

my office, I have been calling the department, Mr. Speaker, and they have been

calling the department themselves. Over the last two years, in particular, it

has become a tremendous problem. I do not think any children in this Province,

today, Mr. Speaker, should be taken out of school because we cannot maintain ten

or fifteen kilometres of road in order to get them to the school that we are

sending them to. To me, that is unacceptable and it is not good enough.

There are very few areas left in this Province today where kids are even

bused over gravel roads. I know in my district, there are two schools that have

closed, where children are bused over gravel roads, and the commitments were

made that those sections of roads would be maintained and they should be

maintained.

Mr. Speaker, the entire highway

section from Chateau Pond, or where the

middle depot is, right up to the community of Mary's Harbour, Mr. Speaker. We

are not talking 1,500 kilometres here, we are probably talking about fifty

kilometres, if that, to cover the entire section. This piece of road, Mr.

Speaker, has not been resurfaced. That

section of the Red Bay, Lodge Bay road

has not been resurfaced in the ten years that it has been there.

Mr. Speaker, I am told today, that while there is a stockpile of stone on the

Coast of Labrador in different areas, that in that particular area, for that

section of road, there is not even any stockpile of crushed stone right now, but

there is a private contractor who is setting up to do crushed stone for another

contract that he is doing.

I would ask the government to, at the very least, if you are not going to

submit a proposal to put forward to the federal government to try to pave this,

which is what we are asking you to do, but in the immediate future to at least

put some crushed stone on it so that these people can use the road.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present another petition. This one, Mr. Speaker, is on

behalf of residents in my district who rely on the air ambulance service. Mr.

Speaker, I will read it into the record as per the rules of the House.

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 the majority of residents of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair rely on the

air ambulance service that is currently stationed in St. Anthony; and this was

done May 13, Mr. Speaker, so it has been moved since then. What a difference,

Mr. Speaker, three weeks can make.

WHEREAS the removal of this integral service in St. Anthony will certainly

diminish the quality of service that is currently being provided to residents in

Southern Labrador; and

WHEREAS government has a duty to optimize the air ambulance service by

putting a third air ambulance service in Labrador as opposed to relocating one

that has been working for many decades;

WHEREUPON the petitioners of Newfoundland and Labrador call upon the House of

Assembly to ask government to maintain the air ambulance service in St. Anthony

area and provide a third air ambulance service to Labrador to ensure residents

of the whole Province are provided with adequate and essential health services.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, although the plane has been moved since these petitions have

obviously circulated in the district and again, as they come in I present them

to the House of Assembly, but, Mr. Speaker, we are finding out very quickly that

government's rational or irrational behaviour in ironing out air ambulance

services in this Province is causing tremendous chaos in the lives of people.

Mr. Speaker, when they moved the aircraft to Goose Bay on Friday they did so

knowing full well that they did not even have a medevac team in place in Goose

Bay. It is really unfair to expect that this particular plane, the only plane in

operation in the Province right now, because the second air medevac that would

be in St. John's is actually broken down, Mr. Speaker. This plane is in Goose

Bay, it is on the ground, and it has to come to St. John's every time there is a

medevac call to pick up the medevac team.

Now, it is all right, Mr. Speaker, to move all the pilots and all of the

people associated with the aircraft to Goose Bay and put them all up in a hotel

because the minister wants to do this within thirty days, but why aren't we

moving medevac people in there until we have trained some? Why do we have

medevac teams standing by in St. John's and we do not even have an aircraft here

to use? It makes absolutely no sense.

Mr. Speaker, in my district this weekend, in fact, there was an air medevac

call into Mary's Harbour at 8:00 o'clock in the morning that got responded to at

6:30 in the afternoon. Aircraft had to fly five or six hours all around the

Province and then had to drop a team to go on a Twin Otter to go to the Coast of

Labrador. This is where the people in Labrador have been hoodwinked, because

they have been convinced, Mr. Speaker, that this will be a better service when

they are finding out already that it is causing them even more delays in getting

medevacs out of their communities. A lot of people thought that the air

ambulance plane could actually land on runways in Postville, Rigolet, Nain,

Cartwright and Mary's Harbour, when the plane cannot land on any of those

runaways, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I had indicated when you previously called Orders of the Day, we adjourned

debate on our last legislative day on Tuesday in Committee and we would like to

return to Committee.

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

that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 1,

4, 7, 8, 11 and 16.

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

Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider

certain bills.

All those in favour of the motion, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

On the previous sitting day, we were debating a proposed amendment to clause

62. I presume that is where we are going to resume. I will seek direction from

the House Leaders.

MS BURKE: Yes, Mr. Chair.

When we concluded, it happened to be 5:30 p.m. so we concluded debate on Bill

1, clause 62. So we will continue with that particular clause.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am standing to speak of course to Bill 1, to subclause 62.(3). When we

finished up on Tuesday, Mr. Chair, I had proposed an amendment to

section 62. I

would like to again, Mr. Chair, take the opportunity to go through that

section

of the act and to read into the record again the amendment that we are proposing

and to give some rationale as to the reason why we think this particular

amendment is required within the bill.

First of all, Mr. Chair, Bill 1, Children and Youth Care and Protection Act,

is a very important piece of legislation. As we have already said, Mr. Chair, it

is a bill that we will support as an Opposition because it provides for greater

protection for children in our Province than any legislation that we have in

place today. Mr. Chair, we can only hope, in bringing forward some of the

amendments that we have, that government will be receptive to adopting them and

to strengthening the legislation to allow for greater protection of the children

who are entrusted to the responsibility of the State.

Mr. Chair, I can only hope as well that the bill will be proclaimed at some

date because as we know there are twelve bills right now that this government

has debated and passed in the House of Assembly since 2006 that they have yet to

proclaim. So I am always a little bit wary when a bill comes in for debate,

especially a bill like this one, and they say they are not going to be ready to

proclaim it for a year because we have heard those things before and bills have

gone un-proclaimed now for up to three-and-a-half years in the House of

Assembly.

Under the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act, Mr. Chair, we are

proposing an amendment to

section 62. Mr. Chair, let me read what this is,

section 62 talks about the placement of children and youth. It says that under

62.(1) "The placement of a child or youth shall be conducted in a manner which

is least disruptive to the child or youth and recognizes the importance of

placement with siblings and contact with his or her family or other persons who

are significant to the child or youth."

Mr. Chair, 62.(2) says, "A manager or social worker shall first consider

placement of a child or youth with the child or youth's family or a person with

whom the child or youth has a significant relationship."

Mr. Chair, that is the standard, I think, that has always been used and we

certainly have no problem with that. We think that any time a child who is in

need of protection can be given that safety and security in the presence of

someone who they know and that they love and who loves them in return, Mr.

Chair, who is associated and familiar with the child in a loving and comforting

manner, we certainly feel that is the primary option that needs to be

considered.

In the case, Mr. Chair, where that option is not available, then 62.(3) says,

"Where a manager or social worker is satisfied that a child or youth cannot be

placed in accordance with subsection (2), the child or youth shall be placed

with a foster parent or in a residential placement."

What that means, Mr. Chair, is that the child would be put into a foster

home, and we do have guidelines in this Province for foster homes. We do have

some regulations that are in place. There is a screening that takes place with

foster parents and so on.

Mr. Chair, the other option is residential placement. This is one that you

would have heard about because we have raised it in the House of Assembly on a

number of occasions in the last couple of years. What residential placement

actually means, Mr. Chair, is that when there is no family member, when there is

no sibling, when there is no one that is known to the child where they can seek

safety and protection, and when there is no available foster parent or family,

then other options have to be sought for that child. We have seen cases in the

Province, because of the number of children who are in care and the lack of

foster homes that are available, children have been put up in hotels, they have

been put up into rental units and into other residential placements.

One of the issues that we have is that many of those residential placements

are not regulated. They do not come under any particular licensing practice or

any particular guidelines. There are no regulations that are available and so

on. So, Mr. Chair, we have asked that there be an amendment, and the amendment

would read, after the word "placement" where it says "the child or youth shall

be placed with a foster parent or in a residential placement", that after the

word "placement" it would read: provided that the residential placement had been

permitted and are regulated in accordance with guidelines developed by the

department.

Now, Mr. Chair, we feel that is necessary. We think that should happen

because right now, today, the situation in the Province - in fact, we have an

agency in the name of CareGivers, who have provided that protection and safety

from a residential perspective for many children in this Province over the last

couple of years. CareGivers is not licensed to do that by the Province, because

we have no regulations that requires them to do that. They are not regulated in

any way because we have no provisions in the Province to regulate them. We are

fortunate because they are an agency, Mr. Chair, who has taken it upon

themselves to go out and reach the accreditation standards in Canada for

providing for these services. So, Mr. Chair, because they are a proactive agency

and they care about their clients and the work that they do, they have taken it

upon themselves to go out and be able to reach certain levels of accreditation

on a national basis.

However, Mr. Chair, it does not prohibit other agencies from starting up and

wanting to do the same kind of work in this Province. They are able to do that.

Without being licensed, without being regulated, I can go out and start an

agency tomorrow. I could probably go to an area of the Province where the

services are not being provided and I know there is a need. What happens in a

case when there is no protective services for the child is, as a last resort, my

agency would get used.

Mr. Chair, I am not casting aspersions on any of the people who deliver that

service or provide for residential placements in the Province. Only to say that

in carrying out our responsibilities in protecting children in the Province, one

of those responsibilities should be to ensure that those residential placements

are licensed, that they are regulated, and that they are screened and assessed

under a certain procedural guideline, which does not happen right now in the

Province, Mr. Chair. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Now, the government will say: What do we do in cases like we could be in

Labrador in a remote area, we have to remove a child from a home and we do not

have a residential placement there that is licensed or is regulated. Well, Mr.

Chair, right now they go to temporary hotels on a temporary basis and none of

them are regulated. I do not understand why residential placements for a longer

period of time would have anything to do with a social worker who has to spend a

night with a child in a hotel room until they can get them out of a community or

into other arrangements or other accommodations.

Mr. Chair, I live on the Coast of Labrador. I have lived on the Coast of

Labrador all my life. I know the resources and the limitations in resources

oftentimes in responding to things like this, but providing for the protection

of children under this legislation is not an impediment to doing your work in a

remote area of the Province. It just means that the government will have to be

more diligent in providing the services that are required in all areas of the

Province. If it means that they have to use clinics in remote areas or they have

to use group home facilities or they have to use hotelier facilities well,

there are always ways, Mr. Chair, to ensure that those facilities are

appropriate, that they meet the guidelines that are established within the

department. We are, in this amendment, giving these departments, giving the

minister and her government the flexibility to be able to development those

particular guidelines. So we are not standing here today and asking them to do

this as an impediment to carrying out their work. We are asking them to do it

and we are giving them the flexibility to do it properly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 62.(3) carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 62 carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 62 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 63 to 79 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 63 to 79 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 63 through 79 carried.

CLERK: Clause 80.

CHAIR: Shall clause 80 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to speak to clause 80 in the bill. Mr. Chair, clause 80 talks about

the statutory review of Bill 1. Mr. Chair, that is a very important

section of

this bill because when you are talking about providing for the legislation for

the protection of children in this Province, there should always be a process of

reviewing that legislation through a period of time to look at best practices,

to look at what might work better, to look at the conduct and the role of the

individuals that are being played by those individuals who provide the service,

and so on.

Mr. Chair, what the act says right now is, under the statutory review it

says, "The minister shall, every 5 years, conduct a review of this Act and the

principles on which it is based and consider the areas which may be improved."

There is nothing wrong with that, Mr. Chair, except we want to ensure that

the review is not going to be a statutory review that just occurs internally

within the department every five years as a means of meeting the criteria within

the act. Mr. Chair, we want to ensure that the review is open for public

consultation so that people out there who work on the front lines in delivering

services to children in the Province are consulted. That would mean social

workers, it would mean foster care workers, and it would mean foster parents. It

would be people such as the courts and the justice system. All of these

individuals - the health care system - should be consulted, Mr. Chairman, in

doing any statutory review that pertains to the protection of children in the

Province.

Mr. Chair, what we are proposing today is that clause 80 of Bill 1, which as

I said, is the statutory review and it falls under the accountability

provisions, clause 80 states that, "The minister shall, every 5 years, conduct a

review of this Act and the principles on which it is based and consider the

areas which may be improved." We want to amend it, Mr. Chair, to add clause

80.(

b) which would say "include public consultations when conducting a review

under paragraph (a)."

So, Mr. Chair, the only amendment to the statutory review process is to

ensure that it is a public consultation that would consult with all the

stakeholders who provide for the delivery of services to children in the

Province just like was done in devising the bill. In preparing the bill, there

was a consultation document done, there was a number of professionals in the

Province consulted, both individually and in group settings, Mr. Chair, and

others were invited to submit their views and opinions. I know that I was one of

the ones, being the critic for Child, Youth and Family Services, and I did take

advantage of the opportunity to submit a paper to the consultation process to

outline my views with regard to the act and to hopefully see it incorporated

into the bill.

Mr. Chair, that is basically what the amendment is. It is basically to take

it a little step further to what the act is already implying and that is to say

that it would be open to public consultations, and we hope that the government

is receptive to that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Child, Youth

and Family Services.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have no problem with the amendment except for the wording. As I go

through, I will lay down what I feel would be more appropriate wording for the

amendment; however, it does achieve the same purpose.

Mr. Chair, we certainly have full intentions with this act and this clause

that there would be a public consultation, but I just want to take a minute and

explain what is meant by a public consultation. Sometimes you think a public

consultation means you have a room and you invite people in and they get in and

the cameras are rolling and the media is there and you start talking. As we look

at public consultation for this particular process, I just want to take a second

to inform the public, what a public consultation could actually mean.

As the Leader of the Opposition noted, that is exactly what we did, was a

public consultation when we reviewed this bill in order to bring it into the

House of Assembly. I had the opportunity to list out all of the stakeholders and

all the groups that we were able to consult, whether it was through a telephone

call, whether it was through written submissions, whether it was through

meetings that we had, and then there were also times when we had what were

called focus groups where we would bring in youth or consumers of the service

who had the ability to come in, sit down and discuss what we could do and what

we could do to make changes.

What is important when we look at a public consultation when we are dealing

with such sensitive issues, as we deal with when we are talking about the care

and protection of youth and children, is the fact that you cannot open a public

consultation that you go across the Province and you have your meetings in the

different areas of the Province, you invite people in to talk and you have it as

a public document and then it is in the local newspapers, broadcasted on the

radio and TV cameras are in their face, because a lot of times, Mr. Chair, what

people have is suggestions. In particular, people who are consumers of this

particular system are very humbling stories, very personal, very private stories

that they had to go through. It means sometimes they have to discuss their own

personal situations, which is something they are probably not proud of, probably

something that they felt there was an injustice, whether there was or not that

is how they feel. It could be something that they talk about from years ago when

a child was taken from their custody, what happened and the circumstances that

the child was taken.

So, we cannot expect that we are going to have a full public consultation in

the traditional way that we have town hall meetings, invite people to come in

and speak and talk about the issues that they face. There is another way to do

public consultation and it is to be able to work with our stakeholder groups,

whether it is the Provincial Advisory Council for the Status of Women or

different councils across Newfoundland and Labrador for the Status of Women.

They sometimes know consumers of the service. They sometimes know people who

have used the services who can provide us with valuable input, and sometimes

they set up meeting for us, which we call focus groups. They are groups where

there is not just an opportunity to talk but there is safety in a focus group as

well because there is an invitation to come in and they are probably invited by

other workers, supportive workers, who have worked with them and who helped them

through any particular process.

I just want to make sure we are clear that although we are going to put in

the amendment we support public consultations that I need to des