PDF Version

December 3, 2013

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLVII No. 39

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today, before we start the proceedings, I want to acknowledge four Memorial

University students who are in our galleries: Stephanie Hayward, Brendan

O'Keefe, Tony Granville, and Philip Cave. They are all going to be a part of a

program that will be the subject of a Ministerial Statement in a few moments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today, we will have members' statements from the Member for

the District of St. John's South; the Member for the District of Burgeo La

Poile; the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis; the Member for the

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

and the Member for the District of Baie Verte Springdale.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I attended the Making Room in the Boom housing affordability

forum held on November 28 in St. John's. The forum brought community

stakeholders together to talk about how we can help those who need affordable

housing.

We talked about issues such as development policies, transforming NIMBY into

new homes, engaging landlords, improving affordability in new construction, home

share, creating a central housing registry, and other ideas.

I would like to thank the City of St. John's for hosting this forum and for

taking a proactive approach to bringing discussion and ideas to an issue that

affects so many people.

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

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

I rise to recognize and congratulate Horace Crocker and Neville Gosse of

Channel-Port aux Basques, who received 2012 Occupational Health and Safety

Awards in Ottawa on November 5. The medals were presented by the hon. Dr. Kellie

Leitch, Minister of Labour.

On September 21, 2012, the two Newfoundland Power employees used first aid

skills to help a young man who was involved in a vehicle collision in the Codroy

Valley area. The young man was riding a dirt bike when he pulled out to pass

their truck and collided with an oncoming vehicle.

The pair immediately pulled their line truck across the road to block

oncoming traffic and then proceeded to administer first aid. The young man was

face down in his own blood; they adjusted him so he could breathe and tried to

keep him calm until the ambulance arrived. The young man was in critical

condition, but has now fully recovered. Mr. Crocker and Mr. Gosse credit ongoing

safety training with Newfoundland Power with helping them keep their composure

during this incident.

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

congratulations to Horace Crocker and Neville Gosse for receiving this

prestigious award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a wonderful lady, Jean Hudson,

an outstanding individual who was chosen for the Melvin Jones Fellowship Award.

This is the highest form of recognition to an individual lion in a Lions Club.

This recipient of this prestigious award becomes a model because of their

outstanding service to one's club and the community in which she serves.

Mr. Speaker, Jean and her husband Ken are both charter members for the Pouch

Cove Lions Club, and I might add that Ken also was selected for the Melvin Jones

Fellowship Award. Jean, along with her husband, are both huge contributing

members who generously offer their time and service to Pouch Cove for its

overall betterment and the surrounding area.

Jean Hudson is a two-term President of the Pouch Cove Lions Club and she is

also very active in her church and her community. I best know Jean for her

dedication as a public health nurse. She and my mother both served closely

together as public health nurses for the Pouch Cove and surrounding areas, in

which they were very well respected by all residents.

I ask all hon. members to join with me to thank Jean Hudson for her years of

commitment to making the lives of others in her community better.

Thank you very much, 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.

On November 23, I had the great privilege of attending the fortieth Annual

Fireman's Ball at Arnold's Cove. Today, I want to recognize the great work that

the fire department does and to commend the Arnold's Cove Fire Department on

forty years of providing service to the many residents of Arnold's Cove and

area.

Mr. Speaker, the highlight for the night was the long-term service awards,

and the most outstanding member was Melvin Peach who has been a member of the

Arnold's Cove Fire Department for the full forty years.

I want today to recognize firefighters with over ten years' service: Trevor

Hoskins, Mark White, Geoff Reid, Dion Piercey, Rodney Hynes, Melvin Lockyer,

Boyd Guy, Kurt Goodwin, Baxter Berkshire, John Pevie, Gordon Pevie, and Gordon

Warren.

Those with over twenty-five years of service: Dwayne Best, Allan George,

Harold Guy, Merlin Meade, David Peach, Glenn Hynes, Basil Daley, and Melvin

Peach.

I would also like to say thank you to all the other firefighters who make up

the thirty-two membership and the honourary members of twenty-two.

I ask all members of this House to join me in thanking the Arnold's Cove

firefighters and congratulate them on their forty years of service.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House to recognize the outstanding career achievement of

Ms Juanita Organ, Development Officer with the CBDC South Coast. Juanita

received a service award for twenty-five years of dedicated service from the

Atlantic Association of Community Business Development Corporations.

Ms Organ has made outstanding contributions to our region's economic and

social development. From business counselling to applications for government

assistance for economic development projects, and much more, Juanita has used

her remarkable skills, talents, and keen intelligence to shape the viability and

strength of this region for more than thirty years.

With the Bay d' Espoir Development Association, she was instrumental in the

development of the aquaculture sector in the area and construction of the

region's very first salmon hatchery back in the 1980s. She is a dedicated

volunteer who serves on the Central Library Board for the St. Alban's Library,

Treasurer with the local Catholic Women's League, Secretary of the St. Ignatius

Parish Committee, and many, many more.

I ask that all members join me in delivering accolades to Juanita Organ for

being a true pillar of strength for our rural region.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Saturday, November 23 was an exciting day for Springdale. I rise in this hon.

House to congratulate the Springdale Volunteer Fire Department not only for

dedicating a memorial monument to deceased firefighters, but also upon

celebrating its fiftieth anniversary.

The thirty-plus firefighters gathered at Indian River High School as over 200

people, including honourary firefighters, and invited guests crowded the

beautifully decorated gymnasium to enjoy a tasty hot beef dinner.

I commend Fire Chief Rennie Normore for his dedicated leadership, resulting

in an excellent, well-trained fire department.

Premier Dunderdale, who was our guest speaker, and I were delighted to

present numerous training certificates and service pins.

Fifty years as a department is a tremendous feat. Springdale and area have

reaped the benefits of a lot of hard work and sacrifices made by firefighters

and their spouses.

Congratulations to Chief Rennie Normore for being named the Roy Manuel

Memorial Firefighter of the Year, and to Andre Saunders for capturing the Ford

Rolf Memorial Award as the most dedicated.

Honourable colleagues, please join with me in offering congratulations to

Springdale volunteer firefighters upon the celebration of their fiftieth

anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize today, December 3, as

the United Nations International Day of Persons with Disabilities.

Disability is something that touches all of us, through our own personal

experience or that of family, friends, colleagues, or neighbours. This year's

theme is Break Barriers, Open Doors: for an inclusive society and development

for all. Over one billion people or 15 per cent of the world's population live

with some form of a disability. This day is an opportunity to mobilize action to

achieve the goal of full inclusion in our Province, where individuals with

disabilities have full access to the benefits and opportunities available.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government released Access. Inclusion. Equality.

in April 2012, a strategy for the inclusion of persons with disabilities. The

strategy is designed to bring about change within policies, services, programs

and attitudes. Substantial work is ongoing to foster inclusion, resulting in the

removal and prevention of barriers.

Budget 2013 included over $12 million in funding for the Labour Market

Agreement for Persons with Disabilities to help individuals successfully prepare

for, enter, or remain in the workforce. The provincial Inclusive Education

Initiative has been introduced in most of our public schools with further

ramps, doors and walkways, washrooms, and the addition of assisted living

listening devices and parking lot enhancements, are continuing at Confederation

Building and Arts and Culture Centres province-wide.

This morning, I had the opportunity to mark this important day at the

Independent Living Resource Centre in St. John's. As Minister Responsible for

the Status of Persons with Disabilities this was a great opportunity to

celebrate the progress that is being made, while recognizing challenges remain

as we work towards our goal of an inclusive society.

I ask all hon. members to join me today in recognizing the United Nations

International Day of Persons with Disabilities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright L'Anse

au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. The establishment

of the UN's International Day of Persons with Disabilities was another milestone

for civil rights. Persons with disabilities have and continue to face

considerable obstacles in full participation in today's society. Lumped together

under the term persons with disabilities, we see the uniqueness of the

individual, their wants and needs, and they are often obscured by the phrase.

When government released a Strategy for the Inclusion of Persons with

Disabilities last spring, advocates were pleased to see that their language was

reflected in this document. I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not mention

the cuts to the Coalition of Persons with Disabilities Newfoundland and Labrador

last year. This government, along with their federal cousins, cut funding to

this organization which almost forced them to close up. Luckily, the community

came together and found a solution to keep this important organization open.

Despite changes to blue zone requirements, certain big box developments in

the city are still not following those requirements and government is not

enforcing these regulations. Words are just words without actions. Government

needs to not only release strategies that they say all the right things, but

they need to put the words into action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Government's theme for the Day of Persons with Disabilities this year is

relevant. There are still many barriers to break so that people with

disabilities have the same rights to services and opportunities that

non-disabled people do. Too many who could work are not being hired and are

living in poverty.

If government is truly committed, it should restore cuts to employment and

training programs for people with disabilities so they can become employed and

full members of society as they want to be, and to the organizations as well

that help people access programs, again, that had cuts made to them, Mr.

Speaker.

The government should fix the Opening Doors Program. We heard in Estimates

from the former Finance Minister that the Opening Doors Program is not resulting

in long-term positions for participants. In fact, the number of departments and

agencies hiring people under this program is

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Member for St. John's North have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

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

MR. KIRBY: Thanks to the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Over six years ago, Mr. Speaker, the ISSP/Pathways Commission recommended the

creation of teacher assistant positions to help students with special needs. Our

Province is the only province in Canada that does not have these positions.

Parents and teachers in one report after another have been calling for them.

It is time to catch up with the rest of the country, Mr. Speaker it is time

to catch up.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister Responsible for the Office of

Public Engagement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a program that is

successfully promoting careers in entrepreneurship among young Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians while introducing them to the many innovative career

opportunities that exist here in our Province.

For over twenty years, the Getting the Message Out program or GMO has

been sharing the stories of successful Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with

high school students, and continues to encourage our greatest resource, our

young people, to consider careers as entrepreneurs. This year, the GMO program

will reach 100 schools in Newfoundland and Labrador, and between 3,000 and 4,000

students.

Mr. Speaker, this is an exciting time to be living and working in

Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that small and medium-sized businesses play a

vital role in sustaining and growing our economy, with the sector employing

almost 40 per cent of the Province's workforce in rural and urban areas. It is

important that our young people know what opportunities exist, and that we

prepare them to play a role in our Province's future growth and prosperity.

Through GMO, Memorial University students deliver interactive presentations

to high school students as part of the Career Development and Entrepreneurship

curriculum. Mr. Speaker, this peer-to-peer model has proven to be highly

effective as it provides high school students in this Province with presenters

they can relate to, which makes information sharing fun, engaging and memorable.

It also provides post-secondary students with an enriching and rewarding

work-term experience, and many have gone on to pursue successful careers.

Four Memorial University students are currently working as field coordinators

with the GMO program: Stephanie Hayward, Brendan O'Keefe, Tony Grandville and

Philip Cave. These university students have not only generated a great deal of

interest in the GMO program in schools this semester, but they have also been

the Office of Public Engagement Twitter page.

Mr. Speaker, the GMO program is part of the ongoing work of the Office of

Public Engagement to inform, educate and engage the young people of this

Province. People can learn more about the important work we are doing through

GMO, and all of the great programs and services available to young people of

this Province, through our new youth Web site, NLYouth.ca.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, any program that promotes and nurtures a career in

entrepreneurship in our Province is certainly a worthy endeavour. I commend the

students who are gaining experience and knowledge through this program and the

peer-to-peer model. That is certainly helpful in this respect, but

entrepreneurship cannot be about just getting the message out. There has to be

concrete actions to create solid business climate throughout all the regions of

our Province.

Mr. Speaker, while St. John's and the surrounding area is enjoying a boom

time right now, the same cannot be said of rural areas. There are many great

challenges to setting up and sustaining businesses in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. Our RED Boards were an example. They were doing wonderful work. They

were a major force of expertise in our communities that facilitated and

co-ordinated business development. They helped businesses prepare to respond to

megaprojects like Muskrat Falls but government, in their infinite wisdom,

decided to axe them, Mr. Speaker.

The minister mentions this program has been ongoing for two decades. I would

be interested in seeing what the stats are or evidence-based data to see if the

youth exposed to the GMO model actually go on and do start businesses in their

own communities.

Finally, on the matter of promoting confidence in our

Province's economic future, this government has failed

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that her time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

congratulations to the four field workers here with us today. Entrepreneurship

can be a scary and uncertain way to live. I know I have been an entrepreneur

for over thirty years but, it can also offer incredible opportunities for

creativity and innovation. One has to have a dream, and then the courage, the

plan, and then the fortitude to take the next step.

To be an entrepreneur and an owner of a small or medium business is a social

responsibility, as they provide at least 40 per cent of the jobs in the

Province. We know it is there, these businesses; they reinvest in our Province.

RED Boards have played a very crucial role in this area.

Government needs to do more to support entrepreneurs and small businesses

through the reduction of taxes, and also through increasing the opportunities

for young people for internship and mentorship opportunities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that her time has expired.

Does the Member for The Straits White Bay North have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

work term of my Memorial University Bachelor of Commerce program was actually

with the GMO program under the leadership of the current Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MITCHELMORE: GMO certainly spreads the good news of entrepreneurship,

education, and employment opportunities. I certainly encourage more youth to

take on entrepreneurship and capitalize on these opportunities, but government

must reduce red tape, cut small business tax, and also make capital more

available to youth.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, the Child and Youth Advocate released a report today of a

sixteen-year-old in the care of the Province who, in her words, was crying for

help. His voice was not heard; his rights were not respected. The report

actually encompasses the Departments of CYFS, Health and Community Services,

Justice, as well as the RNC and Eastern Health.

In this instance, a man died and a child's life has been changed forever. So

I ask the Premier: Will you take action to implement all thirty recommendations

of the Child and Youth Advocate?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The report released by the Child and Youth Advocate today does outline a

series of events that led up to a very tragic day in the fall of 2011, a tragic

day that ended with the loss of life. Over the last two years, the Child and

Youth Advocate has carried out an intensive investigation which has resulted in

a comprehensive report being released today.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for us to do a full and comprehensive

review of the contents of the report, and the recommendations that are contained

within the report, and take the time to fully evaluate the recommendations from

the advocate and have a full understanding of what those recommendations are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of Justice said in a press release that nothing is

more important than the safety of our children and our youth. Yet, this report

today reveals that the government has failed this sixteen-year-old child and

denied the rights under

Article 16 of the United Nations Convention in the

rights of a child.

I ask the Premier, the report reveals that a lack of collaboration and

communication across all departments is a real issue so I ask the question:

Why have you denied adequate resources to ensure child safety?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The events, as I mentioned, in 2011 were tragic in many, many ways. I can

tell you this government places a very high priority on the health and safety

and well-being of children and youth in Newfoundland and Labrador, so much so

that we have created a new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services to

focus completely on the best interests of children, youth and families

throughout the Province.

As well, we brought through new legislation, the Children and Youth Care and

Protection Act. A very progressive piece of legislation that has made great

advancements, and great advancements for youth age sixteen to eighteen.

Mr. Speaker, we have developed new programs, new service availabilities for

youth of those ages as well. We are taking great steps to improve the safety of

children and youth in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The advocate, in her report, asked why sufficient time was not given to even

input critical information on the care of this child, putting that information

into the child's file so that that information could be shared with managers in

other departments. Such details on this person's care was not added to the

system, some of it, not even until after the tragic fire. There were months when

there was no information put into the file at all.

I ask the Premier: Why wasn't priority given to ensure details on the care of

this child was made available so that a complete picture rather than a

fragmented story was told?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the benefits of having a single department for children, youth, and

families in Newfoundland and Labrador is to centralize the services that are

most needed for our most vulnerable citizens and our most vulnerable children

and youth in the Province. We have taken many steps to improve on those services

and to deliver a better product.

One of the things that we have done, in referring to the hon. member's

question about documentation, currently we have a new documentation protocol and

procedure in place. When new social workers, supervisors, and managers come into

the department, they are required to undergo a training program that includes a

requirement to grasp an understanding and training in the documentation and

record-keeping protocols that are now required in the new department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the problems, of course, with the department and having a single

department was, in fact, communication and collaboration was not happening. The

report goes on to say that the system responsible for taking care of the

sixteen-year-old child was in utter fragmentation, functioned in a

crisis-oriented approach, and there was a lack of communication and

co-ordination around the sharing of information.

I ask the minister: Why are children in the care of government not being

heard and, in many cases, denied their own say in how they are cared for?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just referenced the new Children and Youth Care and Protection Act that

came into force in 2011 for Newfoundland and Labrador, the same year that these

tragic events had taken place. Very clearly in that act, and a new bill on

adoptions that is coming here this afternoon to this floor of the House of

Assembly, is the input from the child and youth.

It is important that we receive the information and have input from the child

who is involved and the youth who is involved, and that is covered in

legislation, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The report from the advocate says a last-minute approach of removing the

child from the care excluded the sixteen-year-old in the decision-making

process. It says that he did not understand the decision and there was a lack of

support services to him to help him make an informed decision.

I ask the minister: Sadly, that this is not an isolated incident and there

are many similar cases existing today, why haven't you acted to ensure that the

issues with transitioning children into care are addressed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

I think I just explained that we have taken action to ensure that those

protections are in place. When it comes to young people who are transitioning,

we have a pilot project that is underway this year to support youth in

transitions. We have five life skills workers who have been put in place around

the Province this is very new, Mr. Speaker, a new pilot project that has just

been put in place in recent months. We have a contract with a local service

provider here in the St. John's metropolitan area and those people are there to

provide individual supports to youth who are in transition.

It is a very important time in young people's lives. We see that and we

understand that. We are providing those benefits to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The advocate says that the voice of John was not heard. In that report, it

states that just before the fire on Springdale Street, John was brought to the

Janeway. He told them he wanted to harm himself and that he was going to burn

his house down. He was assessed for twelve minutes. He ended up burning down his

house and a man died.

I ask the minister: How can this happen?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very important topic. This is a very important matter for the

people of the Province, and I can tell you it is very important for us as a

government. Recommendations from the Child and Youth Advocate and having a

relationship with the Child and Youth Advocate is important to us. I have had a

meeting with her since I came in the department just a month or so ago, and had

an opportunity to discuss how she operates and how we operate.

The collaboration of and work between interdepartmental is an important

aspect for us. I have had discussions with my colleagues from both the

Department of Health and Community Services and the Department of Justice. It is

an important piece of work that we need to make sure we get right, and we are

doing that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the sad truth is that not only were

departments and agencies not talking to each other, internal policy discussions

within CYFS were misinterpreted at multiple levels. John was told he had to

leave his alternative living arrangement on his sixteenth birthday, yet the

advocate was unable to find a policy that required him to leave.

I ask the minister: How is it that your own staff said that John could not

stay in care when there was no policy or legislation that said he could not?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to understand the timeline of events

that we are discussing here today. The young person who the hon. member is

referencing turned sixteen early in 2011. We had a new act, a new piece of

legislation that came in after that occurred as well. We are through the process

of implementing that piece of legislation.

That new legislation allows for young people when they reach their sixteenth

birthday to stay in care, to stay in the process, to stay in the living

circumstances that they were living in when they reach their sixteenth birthday.

Then we are building supports around that, from sixteen until they reach their

nineteenth birthday.

Mr. Speaker, all of this is part of that new piece of legislation that we as

a government brought forward to ensure the safety of children and youth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, John was removed from care on his sixteenth

birthday, literally before he was even able to have his birthday cake.

I ask the minister again: Was this the policy of your government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, what is important to reflect on today are the

steps that we have taken as a government to bring us to where we are in

providing services and supports to children and youth in the Province today.

What I am saying is today in Newfoundland and Labrador when a young person

reaches the age of sixteen, they can continue to stay in the care that they are

in prior to their sixteenth birthday, the same type of circumstance the hon.

member is talking about.

What I am saying here and explaining to the House here today, Mr. Speaker, is

that our current legislation and our current support structures are there for

that age group. We have done that. We have taken the steps and we have done

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister is talking about

today, but I am talking about on the day of John's sixteenth birthday he was

removed from that house and there was no policy or legislation that said he had

to. There was a mistake made.

Again, was this the policy at the time? What happened here?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things we have done as a government and pertaining to children and

youth is we have undertaken a number of studies and reviews. There was a study

done through Susan Abell back in 2008-2009. It was very much a guiding document

that helped the formation of the current department. What we focus on is how we

can improve the services to children and youth in the Province. That is what we

work towards, making the best services to the most children and youth that we

possibly can in this Province.

There is an evolution of study in social work. There is an evolution of best

practices. There are new methods that are learned and new practices. There is

new technology that becomes available. We are reviewing all of that so we can

provide the best services we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, on John's sixteenth birthday he was taken

from a stable, alternative living arrangement where he was thriving and moved to

a shelter, which was the beginning of his demise. They moved him because he was

sixteen, not because he had the life skills to thrive on his own, not because he

wanted to leave, but because a manager in Child, Youth and Family Services said

he had to go.

I ask the minister: Why are you forcing children out of care because they

have reached the age of sixteen when they clearly do not have the skills or

support?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will try again to explain it to the hon. member. We have made changes for

those very reasons the hon. member is referencing. We have also established a

new model for how the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services operates.

We now have fifty-two supervisors who supervise teams of social workers

throughout the Province. We have increased our zone managers from five to

thirteen to work with those supervisors throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

I can tell you today, that the supervisors supervising those teams of social

workers throughout Newfoundland and Labrador have full authority to ensure that

good quality and safe accommodations for youth are provided. They have that

clear authority to make those decisions, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, in the spring session we asked about a

sixteen-year-old youth signing youth service agreements. The then minister said

that government was providing tremendous support for children and youth.

However, the advocate does not feel that supports are in place to help these

transitioning youth.

I ask the minister: Who was right, the advocate or the former minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is a variety of programs and opportunities available to youth

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I have touched on some of them here during

Question Period this afternoon. Some of the new ones we have put in place, such

as Supporting Youth with Transitions. It is a really good pilot project which in

a very short term we have received a very positive feedback on.

In that case, in that type of a program, they are services we are providing

to young people in Newfoundland and Labrador that have not been provided before.

Very basic life skills, how to open a bank account, how to manage a budget,

assist them and walk through the process of how you do your grocery shopping,

how you care for your living space, how you clean your laundry and when you do

that; those very types of skills that young people need quite often in our

communities.

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, in her report the advocate says there were

many missed opportunities for John. One key recommendation of the report is to

review the feasibility of creating a provincial youth services co-ordinator

position to meet with youth who are transitioning.

Now, minister, you have had the report for days now. It is an important piece

of the puzzle in helping youth transition to live independently.

I ask the minister: Are you going to implement the co-ordinator position?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the recommendations that the advocate has included in her report, there

are a variety of topics that the advocate touches on. Some of these

recommendations are inclusive of work and programs and policies that have

already been developed in our department. There are others there as well besides

that.

I think it is very important for us to have a full understanding, full

comprehension and understanding of what her recommendations are. Part of the

process we are going to follow as we do this development and understanding of

her recommendations is I am going to make contact with the advocate once

again. I am going to request an opportunity to meet with her so we can have a

full, comprehensive discussion about what she envisions as part of the

recommendations that she made in this report. I think it is an important piece

of work for us to do, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, speaking of reports, recommendation 7.9 of

the 2006 Turner report recommended that when it is discovered that a child or

family are involved with one or more professional agencies there should be a

case conference involving all parties.

I ask the minister: Did this happen in the case of John?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, case conferencing and discussions, larger

discussions outside of the primary social worker involved in the case, are a

regular course of business in the Department of Child, Youth and Family

Services. Quite often, those conferences will include people with expertise,

knowledge and skills in areas outside of the direct department.

Those types of conferences do take place, those meetings take place, and I

would say it is a very important part of providing casework to the clients in

the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I repeat the question: Did the case

conference happen in the case of John?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. member, case conferences

are a very important piece of work. What the advocate has compiled here is a

very in-depth and a very comprehensive report. It is important that we undertake

a full and complete review of the report and the recommendations as well.

As I have said, when we have done that, our intention at this point in time

is to meet with the advocate so we can have a full discussion on the report and

the contents of the recommendations. Again, as I said, we intend to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, case conferences are important no doubt,

they are - but they do not work if you do not have them.

I ask the minister: Was there a case conference in the case of John?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

Case conferences, as I said to the hon. member, are very important to us. I

have to be honest, Mr. Speaker, while the advocate has disclosed information

pertaining to this particular case, I am not willing to go down a road of

discussing the specific nuances of this young person and the details of the

services that were provided to him. I am not willing to do that, but I will have

those discussions with the Child and Youth Advocate.

We will have those discussions as we move forward in looking at the

recommendations so we can grasp a full understanding of the recommendations, so

that we can look at what we have done as a department, and what we have done as

a government, and how that matches with the recommendations that are contained

in that report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I take from that response that there was no

case conference.

Recommendation 7.6 of the Turner report says that the Province will deliver

mandatory multidisciplinary education and training from a wide spectrum of

agencies and individuals. This was in 2006 and the Province adopted this.

I ask the minister: Why did your department ignore this recommendation in

John's case?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in response to his first comment there, I will

try to take the time to make myself very, very clear. I do not feel it is

appropriate for me to engage in a public discussion regarding any client in the

Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. I am not willing to do that, Mr.

Speaker.

We will discuss all of the nuances and recommendations of the report from the

Child and Youth Advocate with the Child Advocate so we can have a full

understanding of her intentions and her vision. Then we can have that discussion

in relation to the work that we have been doing, we are doing, or should be

doing in the department.

As far as training goes, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the Department of

Child, Youth and Family Services has a new training unit that is part of the new

department that has been developed. It works through providing training programs

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador for all of our social work staff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was very clear as well. I asked

if there was a case conference here, which was a clear recommendation from the

Turner report. In this case, there was not or certainly, I have asked a number

of questions and I cannot get a straight answer. Recommendation 7.6 talks about

a multidisciplinary plan when it comes to co-ordination amongst a wide variety

of groups.

My question again is: Why did your department ignore this recommendation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot speak for how the hon. member opposite wants to operate, but I can

tell you how I am going to operate. As the Minister of Child, Youth and Family

Services I am going to respect every individual client that we have in the

department, every child, every youth, and every family.

I will not make it a practice and I will not make an exception to that

practice to speak to an individual case specifically in a public forum. I do not

think it is proper to do that, Mr. Speaker. I do not think it is proper to

discuss those cases at level in a public forum and I am not going to go down

that road.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we here also respect every single

case. That is why we are here asking the questions that led to this report that

was put forward today by the Child and Youth Advocate, which I would note

provides a lot of specifics and is available so we can see this and try to avoid

this from happening in the future. We are asking the questions because we need

the answers and we need the answers so we avoid this from happening again.

John and his family were very open to the report. They co-operated and they

worked with the advocate. It states in the report that he took part to make sure

no one will ever go through what he did again.

I ask the minister: Given the glaring communications issues, misinterpreted

policy, workload issues, how confident are you that this will not happen again?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, as a government, have taken great steps to ensure the safety, well-being,

and best interests of children and youth in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we have set up a new department, we have brought through

new legislation, the new Children and Youth Care and Protection Act, a

progressive piece of legislation. This afternoon we are going to debate a new

piece of legislation on adoptions, another progressive piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we have implemented new programs. We have implemented a new

training unit. We have a new audit process that requires supervisors of social

workers to audit files of every social worker every month.

Mr. Speaker, we take this stuff very seriously as well and we are taking the

steps to ensure the safety of

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile, for a very quick question without

any

preamble.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we went through this with the Turner report.

Obviously, we are still facing these issues.

MR. SPEAKER: A quick question, please.

MR. A. PARSONS: I ask the minister: Do you intend to accept all of the

recommendations; and, if so, when?

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

for a quick response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: We are going to do a comprehensive review of the

recommendations in the report. We are going to have discussions with the Child

and Youth Advocate. We will make our decisions once we have completed that

process, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Labatt Breweries is using its forty-five workers in the Province to try to

set a baseline for negotiations worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How can she, in all good conscience, allow

our workers to be made an example by a multinational corporation as a warning to

unionized workers around the world?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are certainly fully aware of the ongoing dispute with Labatt Breweries.

Government, through the Labour Relations Agency, has been engaged extensively in

that process, providing services and the use of mediators through the Labour

Relations Agency.

Unfortunately, at times, we have come to a point in the negotiation where

there is a breakdown. We recognize that it is a challenge, but we also recognize

that any settlement that can be attained ought to be attained through a

collective bargaining process where both parties arrive at a resolution, not one

that is dictated by a government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister and the Premier: Don't they recognize anti-scab

legislation is part of collective bargaining?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, probably the greatest consistency with anti-scab

legislation is that it is a part of the dictionary of questions of the NDP. Only

two governments in Canada have adopted anti-scab legislation. Fourteen times it

has gone before the House of Commons and it has been rejected every time. It was

adopted in Ontario and, subsequently, repealed because it did not work.

I understand anti-scab legislation as well as any member of this House. I

have said very clearly, and I repeat it today, that this government has no

intention of bringing forward anti-scab legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out to the minister that it works in those two provinces really well.

I ask the Premier: Will she give workers in this Province a level playing

field when striking against powerful multinational companies, by ensuring their

collective bargaining rights are protected through anti-scab legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years our government has

stepped up to the plate in so many ways that less than a minute does not give me

an opportunity to speak to what we have done to support workers in this

Province.

I can talk about everything from the infusion of cash to retrain workers to

help them attain better jobs, to investment in apprenticeships to help them gain

further education and move forward in their field of work. I can talk about when

I was Minister of Labour the first time going around in this Province when we

did the Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry, because we recognized the challenges

that are out there.

I say to the member opposite, we do not believe, and many people do not

believe, that her version of what the solution is with anti-scab legislation is

the solution, so we will not be bringing that forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the Voisey's Bay Industrial Inquiry Commission, which made six specific

recommendations, one of which was that government needs to ensure multinationals

who want to do business in Canada respect Canadian collective bargaining and

labour relations values.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why won't government follow the advice of its

own commission?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to take advice on dealing with

multinationals from the leader of a party who said that she would raise taxes

and throw multinationals out of this Province if she ever became leader of the

government. So I am not intending to take advice from her, but what I will say

is to continue with what I said a few moments ago: that it is our government

that has taken a leadership role every opportunity that we have been able to do

so to support workers in this Province, to advance workers' causes and support

them and their families.

Just yesterday we had a debate on this House of Assembly floor about

providing guaranteed, protected leave for members and families in a number of

specific cases that would dovetail into the federal legislation. So we take no

backseats from the NDP or anybody else in this Province when it comes to

bringing forward policies, practices, and legislation to support workers in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Therefore, I ask the Premier: Will she take the advice then from the

Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour which passed a resolution today

asking this government for anti-scab legislation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, all advice is welcome. We will gladly take any

advice that the member opposite or the Federation of Labour with all due

respect, I will take any advice whatsoever.

Let me be clear, because many times in this House of Assembly ministers are

accused of not answering questions. I am going to say it, maybe for about the

fifth time in the last three days, we will not introduce anti-scab legislation

in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

More and more people are suffering sticker shock lately with the advent of

the new electronic recycling fees. A $42.50 recycling fee on a new TV is one

example. As a service it is non-refundable and consumers get nailed as well with

HST. Government regulation has allowed a private non-profit to set and collect

these electronic recycling fees.

I ask the Minister of Environment and Conservation: What is she doing to

address the concerns surrounding this non-refundable deposit?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Mr. Speaker, the additional charge on the purchase of

electronics is to cover the cost of the disposal of the electronics so they do

not end up in landfills or waste, and that they are disposed of appropriately.

So it is not like there is a profit that is being made from that. This is being

done by a non-profit agency and there is a variety of different costs, depending

on the item that you buy. This is all about ensuring that our Province has an

effective waste management policy, and electronic waste is part of that.

There is no refund. It goes to a non-profit, Mr. Speaker. They make sure the

disposal of the electronic waste is done in the most sustainable manner

possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is easy for the minister to say that, but for some areas of this Province

they simply do not have any depots to take the recycling back to. For example,

Grand Bank, St. Anthony, and coastal Labrador are forced to pay this

non-refundable fee, yet they have no realistic opportunity to get their old

electronics to an official electronics depot, so again I will ask the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Environment and Conservation: Why are

people being forced to pay a fee for a service they cannot access?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SHEA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The intention is to have a disposal site across Newfoundland and Labrador so

people from one end of the Province can have it. I know when we started the

program there were eighteen. There is another thirteen coming on. Mr. Speaker,

as it rolls out, and in the very near future, there will be access for people

across Newfoundland and Labrador to bring their electronic waste to the

appropriate site.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am pleased today to table the report by the Office of the Chief Electoral

Officer on the by-election held in Cartwright L'Anse au Clair on June 25,

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice under Standing Order 11 I shall move that this

House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 5, 2013.

Further, I give notice under Standing Order 11 I shall move that this House

not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Thursday, December 5, 2013.

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

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS violent workplace incidents involving convenience store clerks and

gas station attendants are a serious health and safety issue; and

WHEREAS many public and private sector employees are being left in vulnerable

situations, especially in the opening and closing of their buildings and

establishments; and

WHEREAS all workers deserve protection from danger and harm; and

WHEREAS current government regulations are woefully inadequate in providing

even basic protection for these vulnerable workers; and

WHEREAS it is the responsibility of employers to keep workers safe, and the

responsibility of government to ensure that employers adhere to regulations.

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to

immediately enact legislation and regulations to protect workers in hazardous

workplaces including late night shifts in convenience stores and gas stations.

This legislation must direct employers to have a minimum of two workers on site

after 10:00 p.m. and before 6:00 a.m., and to have a barrier between the worker

and customer in place between these hours.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition I drafted about a year and a half ago,

actually a little bit more recent than that, just prior to the last fall

sitting, so just about over a year ago. I worked on this with various labour

unions in the Province, the Canadian Union of Public Employees. I spoke to

individuals who contacted my office who work in the service industry and work

late hours, and a variety of other individuals in putting this together.

I do understand after speaking to a member opposite and some others in the

community that there are already some regulations in place, but the one thing

about this petition is not only are we looking for different regulations, we are

looking for enforcement as well. As with a variety of government policies that

we have on the books, we can have legislation, we can have policy directives, we

can have regulations but unless there is some enforcement mechanism and unless

there are suitable numbers of personnel for suitable numbers of hours in place

doing that work, the work does not get done.

I know the hours between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 in the morning are not hours

that most people keep in their workplace. There are certainly lots of people who

in their professions work those hours, but by and large members of the public

service who are doing inspections and so on do not work during that period of

the day. I think that is really what we need to do. We need to ensure that

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that his time has expired.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS government has a responsibility to ensure that Internet access is

broadly available so people have the right to be able to access the Internet in

order to exercise and enjoy their rights to freedom of expression and opinion

and other fundamental human rights; and

WHEREAS St. Carols still remains without broadband services; and

WHEREAS residents rely on Internet services for education, business,

communication and social activity; and

WHEREAS wireless and wired technologies exist to provide broadband service to

rural communities to replace slower dial-up service;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to

assist providers to ensure St. Carols is in receipt of broadband Internet

services in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by a number of residents in the region

from St. Carols, and St. Anthony Bight. They are asking for broadband Internet

service as a means to enhance their overall economy in the region.

Just a couple of years ago the giant Petermann iceberg had drifted ashore

just off Goose Cove, and a lot of icebergs came into St. Carols. There were tons

of tourists flocking into this tiny community and taking photos. Can you imagine

the potential that it could have had if there was broadband Internet, if the

Wi-Fi was there; if there was cellular coverage in this community? The

opportunity to use this wireless coverage so that you could tweet, use Facebook

Peninsula, so that we can get to Vision 2020, so that $1.6 billion in tourism

revenue can be generated.

These are opportunities but until we put the basic infrastructure, using

either wireless or cellular or wired technologies, we are limiting the real

opportunity here in Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to promoting

everything that we have to offer, developing our business, our rural economies,

and making sure that we are bridging the gaps when it comes to education and

other services. I really do think this is an excellent opportunity with the

Rural Broadband Initiative to look at a community like St. Carols so that they

do receive broadband Internet.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS strikes and lockouts are rare, and on average 97 per cent of

collective agreements are negotiated without work disruption; and

WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement workers laws have existed in Quebec since

1978; in British Columbia since 1993; and successive governments in those

provinces have never repealed those laws; and

WHEREAS anti-temporary replacement workers legislation has reduced the length

and divisiveness of labour disputes; and

WHEREAS the use of temporary replacement workers during a strike or lockout

is damaging to the social fabric of a community, the local economy, and the

well-being of its residents, as evident by the use of temporary replacement

workers currently by Labatt and in past years by both Ocean Choice International

and Vale in Voisey's Bay;

WHEREUPON we the undersigned petition the House of Assembly to urge

government to enact legislation banning the use of temporary replacement workers

during a strike or lockout.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand on behalf of the petitioners to raise

this issue today. In this Province over the last, about six years, we have had

historically long strikes. By historically long I mean, first of all, the strike

that took place with members of the Steelworkers Union who work in Voisey's Bay

at the mine there. That strike was eighteen months long, Mr. Speaker, and during

that time Vale Inco was able to use scab labour, or replacement workers,

non-stop throughout the whole of the strike.

Then we had the strike at the St. John's Airport Authority, an eight month

strike, Mr. Speaker. Members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, this time

not a multinational corporation but one of our own local bodies, the Airport

Authority, able to keep those workers out, again, because they were able to use

workers to replace and to do the work of the workers who were on strike.

Now we have another strike going on here in the City of St. John's as well.

The workers who are striking against Labatt Breweries, Mr. Speaker, members of

the Newfoundland Association of Public and Private Employees. They are now

finishing their eighth month of being on the picket line without any sign of

things easing up for them.

Again, Labatt Breweries, now owned by a multinational corporation, is using

scab labour, and not even from this Province, Mr. Speaker. They are from not

only other places in Canada, but even from the United States, in here replacing

our workers while they stand on a picket line with a company that wants to

reduce their wages. Wages of people who are only earning $13 an hour, and this

company wants them to back down.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to have been able to bring

this petition forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Family Violence Intervention Court provided a comprehensive

approach to domestic violence in a court setting that fully understood and dealt

with the complex issues of domestic violence; and

WHEREAS domestic violence continues to be one of the most serious issues

facing our Province today, and the cost of the impact of domestic violence is

great both economically and in human suffering; and

WHEREAS the Family Violence Intervention Court was welcomed and endorsed by

all aspects of the justice system including the police, the courts, prosecutors,

defence counsel, Child, Youth and Family Services, as well as victims,

offenders, community agencies and women's groups; and

WHEREAS the recidivism rate for offenders going through the court was 10 per

cent compared to 40 per cent for those who did not; and

WHEREAS the budget for the court was only 0.2 per cent of the entire budget

of the Department of Justice;

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

House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the Family Violence

Intervention Court.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, again I stand in the House to talk about this very important

program that was axed. Again, we cannot open a paper without seeing the whole

issue of domestic violence on the pages. We know there is a heightened

awareness.

In a release the government put out November 20, the Minister Responsible for

the Status of Women said, "The Provincial Government remains firmly committed to

preventing violence against those most at risk of experiencing violence,

including women, children and families. Over the last six years, through the

Violence Prevention Initiative, significant progress has been made in raising

awareness and changing attitudes and behaviours about the impacts of violence

and abuse."

Mr. Speaker, raising awareness is simply not enough. We know that. We know

that the full force of the law must be behind this horrible crime that affects

so many women and children in our Province. This Province, this government, had

a fantastic program that did that, that did that effectively. For the government

to say they are so committed to this area and then to cut one of the most

effective programs that was available and working in this area is absolutely

mindboggling.

As well, the minister said that one of the reasons the program was closed was

because of declining enrolment. That is not factual. As a matter of fact, the

numbers were going up. I do not understand how the minister can say that. If he

feels the internal review reflected that then I ask him to table that review so

we can see exactly what was happening in that court.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the

undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there is no cellphone service in the Town of Trout River, which is an

enclave community in Gros Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually,

expect to communicate by cellphone when they visit the park; and

WHEREAS cellphone service has become a very important aspect of everyday

living for residents; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is an essential safety tool for visitors and

residents; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is essential for business development;

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

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

with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage throughout Gros Morne

National Park, and the enclave community of Trout River.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, it is a simple plea. It is a simple request. It is not even a

request for government to spend money. So I will call on government: What are

the other enclave communities in Gros Morne National Park where there is little

to no cellphone service? Well, travelling from Trout River into the Woody Point

area, all that area Woody Point, Glenburnie-Birchy Head-Shoal Brook, very poor

cellphone service.

North of the Rocky Harbour area, Sally's Cove, no cellphone service; St.

Paul's, no cellphone service; Cow Head, very poor cellphone service. All of

these communities within Gros Morne National Park, surely government should be

able to get together enough initiative to be able to work with the private

sector, and maybe even with Parks Canada and maybe even with the federal

government, and put together an initiative and have a Request for Proposals as

to what would it take to extend cellphone service throughout all of the park

communities.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, while government is doing that why not have

an initiative for a Request for Proposals for all cellphone carriers what can

you do for us as a package deal so we extend cellphone coverage throughout all

of the communities of our Province?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS until 2013, calcium was applied to provincially owned gravel roads in

and around communities to suppress dust; and

WHEREAS dust suppression is very helpful for residents experiencing health

conditions like asthma and allergies; and

WHEREAS the cost of administrating the calcium program is very affordable to

government; and

WHEREAS dust suppression is an effective way of improving safety for the

travelling public;

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

House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, beginning

in 2014, to reinstate the calcium application program on provincially owned

gravel roads and around communities.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the calcium a number of times, and I will

continue to do so. I think it was my third day in the House of Assembly when the

Member for Terra Nova said every time the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au

Clair gets up she is talking doom and gloom, doom and gloom.

I was in his district for a wedding in August, a beautiful part of the

Province, but I would love to invite him to my district where in June I was

walking on a sunny day and you could not see the next house for dust. It is very

sad, Mr. Speaker. This is why we question if we are part of the same Province

when it was very nominal, not a lot of money, but the calcium was cut this

spring and it caused a lot of heartache. It greatly reduced the quality of life

that we did have in the district, Mr. Speaker, because the calcium funding was

cut to that area.

We have seniors we have been talking about it for a couple of weeks who

have to make choices on where they spend their money. Many of them hang their

clothes on the line to save on their electricity bill and they are not able to

do that in areas where the calcium was cut, because of the heavy, heavy dust

that is in the area.

We are always talking about the wind that we have in our Province and when

you combine the wind and the dust, it is cause for the asthma and allergy

problems to escalate.

What we are asking for, Mr. Speaker, the rest of the Province watching would

probably wonder what is she talking about, calcium; because I believe probably

99 per cent of the Island already have pavement so they do not have to deal with

this issue.

Mr. Speaker, we have had close calls with children who have been walking

along the road, vehicles are coming and they cannot see them because of the

heavy dust. I think we are very fortunate in that we have not had anything

serious happen yet.

Mr. Speaker, it would be very interesting to compare the amount of money that

calcium would cost with what you are going to save in health. I mentioned in an

earlier time when I was standing that (inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member her time has expired.

The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS Route 432, Grenfell Drive, is the primary highway for residents of

the Great Northern Peninsula East; and

WHEREAS prior to 2012's repaving and patches, Route 432 had a twenty

kilometre rough road sign; and

WHEREAS without repaving on the remaining

section of Route 432, this past

investment will rapidly erode; and

WHEREAS Route 433 connects Roddickton-Bide Arm, Englee and Conche and it too

is in deplorable conditions; and

WHEREAS it is the government's obligation to provide basic infrastructure to

all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; and

WHEREAS an improved road network is needed to enhance road safety and help

with local commerce, enhance tourism, and create new business opportunities

surrounding this

section of highway;

We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to

allocate funds under the provincial roads program to pave this

section of Route

432 and 433.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition today is signed primarily by residents of Englee.

There are a number of signatures front and back and lots of lines on this a

number of people in the community have taken up the cause that they certainly

see the road, Route 433 and 432, that they have to travel on a regular basis, in

very, very poor condition.

You cannot build an economy if you do not have good infrastructure. You need

to have the basic road infrastructure to do transportation of any goods and

services and travel for people for commuting to these types of services.

Route 432 and 433 is in a very, very deplorable condition when it comes to

potholes, when it comes to the culverts that are collapsing on the road there.

As well, there are a number of crocodile marks going through the road there, the

ripples. It is in very, very poor condition.

I drive it on a regular basis, but not as regular as the residents who live

there, who have to drive over this road on a daily basis. It is completely

unacceptable.

There needs to be a clear plan showing how there will be road improvements

for the residents who live in this area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move Motion 1, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at

5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, December 3, 2013.

Further, I move Motion 2, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not

adjourn at 10:00 p.m. today, Tuesday, December 3, 2013.

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

adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 3, 2013, and it has been further moved

and seconded that the House do not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 3,

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Order 2, third reading of a bill, I move, seconded by the

Minister of Environment and Conservation, that Bill 17,

An Act To Amend The

Labour Standards Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the said bill be now

read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 17 be read a

third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act. (Bill 17)

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

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act", read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 17)

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

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call for second reading, Order 6, second reading of Bill 27,

An Act

Respecting Adoptions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice, that Bill 27 now be read a

second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 27,

An Act Respecting

Adoptions be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting Adoptions". (Bill 27)

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

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise before this hon. House today to

introduce a bill entitled The Adoption Act, 2013. Our government recognizes that

Newfoundland and Labrador's most valuable resource is our children and our

youth. That is why we have created a new department, the Department of Child,

Youth and Family Services in 2009, devoted solely to the needs of children,

youth, and families in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not take an opportunity to express to

the House the amount of work and effort that has been put into the drafting and

creation of this Bill 27, the Adoption Act, 2013. I would just like to take a

moment, if I may, to acknowledge the hard work of the staff and officials in the

Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, also those stakeholders and

partners who work with our adoption staff on a regular basis throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador, and also stakeholders in the Province and others who

have had input and have taken the time to talk to us about this new bill.

Mr. Speaker, following the creation of the Department of Child, Youth and

Family Services we had committed to the transformation of programs and service

deliveries for children, youth and their families focusing on ensuring the

safety and well-being of children and youth, as well as supporting their healthy

development. As part of the transformation process we committed to reviewing all

of our legislation, all regulations, and all policies under the purview of the

Department of Child, Youth and Family Services which impact children, youth, and

their families.

In 2011, the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services proclaimed a

progressive new piece of legislation to better safeguard our Province's most

valuable children and youth under the Children and Youth Care and Protection

Act. This new act focuses on the best interests of children throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador.

As we continue to build a stronger foundation for our department, for this

new department, we have recently undergone a full review of the Adoptions Act

which has resulted in this bill being brought to the House today. As a

government, we recognize the importance of finding permanent and stable homes

for children who cannot be safely reunited with their families. Bill 27, the

Adoptions Act, 2013 will replace the current Adoption Act which was proclaimed

in 2003.

In 2003, the new act involved fundamental change to adoptions in Newfoundland

and Labrador. We moved from what was considered to be a closed adoption system

to an open adoption system. Our Province was one of the pioneers in moving to an

open adoption system. I can tell you today, in Canada right now, including

Newfoundland and Labrador, there are five provinces in Canada that have moved to

an open adoption system.

An open adoption system allows for adopted children, birth parents, those

involved in the adoption process, in having the ability and the legal ability

and legal right to obtain information when the child reaches adulthood. A review

of the Adoption Act has been guided by the principles of the primary child

protection legislation, which is the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act,

which are to ensure the best interest of the child remaining paramount at all

times and during the decision-making process with the emphasis on risk of harm

as the grounds for protective intervention.

Mr. Speaker, both the act and the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act,

which was proclaimed in 2011 I believe it was June, 2011; yes, it was June 30,

2011 when it was actually proclaimed lays out under

section 8 the purpose, and

section 9 is the general principles. If we take a moment to review the Adoption

Act which is before the House this afternoon, we see that under

section 4 of the

bill before the House a very similar process and similar priorities as laid out

in the CYCP Act.

Section 4.(1) outlines, "The purpose of this Act is to create new and

permanent family ties through adoption." That is what adoption is. It creates a

legal relationship between a child and a parent, or parents.

Section 4.(2) reads, "This Act shall be interpreted and administered in

accordance with the principle that the overriding consideration in a decision to

be made under this Act shall be the best interests of the child." Mr. Speaker,

that is a statement that comes right from the Children and Youth Care and

Protection Act, 2010, which is in law right now. As I mentioned, the first piece

of significant legislation under the new department.

In paragraph (3) it outlines in the new bill, "In determining a child's best

interests all relevant factors shall be considered". Mr. Speaker, it is

important to clarify and to point out that these factors are not in order of

importance. They are not in order of a priority. All of these factors shall be

equally considered when making decisions in relation to adoptions of children.

The first one laid out is, "(

a) the child's safety, health and well-being" as

the first factor that shall be considered, a child's safety, health and

well-being. That is very similar, the same as what is contained in the CYCP Act;

"(

b) the child's physical, emotional and developmental needs". Again, it is

consistent with the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act; "(

c) the quality

of the relationship the child has with a birth parent or other person

significant to the child and the effect of maintaining that relationship".

If we go to the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act under 9(e), we

will see very similar language I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, just a moment. We will

see very similar language used under

Section 9 of the act where it lays out

under (2)(c), "the child or youth's relationship with family or a person

significant to the child or youth".

Under "(

d) the child's identity and cultural and community connections"

again, it is similar to CYCP; "(

e) the child's views and wishes regarding his or

her adoption, where possible". Mr. Speaker, this is a very important section,

the child's views and wishes regarding his or adoption where possible. When a

child reaches the age of twelve it is compulsory that those views be considered,

but the overriding principle of the act, the overriding factors that have to be

considered include the child's views and wishes regarding his or her adoption,

where possible, has to be considered as a relevant factor.

Also, "(

f) the importance of stability and permanency in the context of the

child's care" is also contained in the Children and Youth Care and Protection

Act.

The next one here is "(

g) the importance to the child's development of having

a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a

family". That is unique to this particular piece of legislation because it

speaks directly to what an adoption is, the process of adoption, and the results

of an adoption.

Lastly, what is listed here as a factor to be considered is "(

h) the effect

on the child where there is delay in the making of a decision with respect to

the child." The effect on the child where there is delay in the making of a

decision with respect to the child, because it is very important that the

process of adoption be undertaken in a manner that is without unnecessary delay.

It is not in the best interests of children to delay those processes. It is in

their best interests that we do this effectively, efficiently, and in the best

interests of the child as possible.

Mr. Speaker, the present legislation and policy review began early in 2011.

Consultations were held with departmental staff as well as representatives from

a variety of departments, including the Department of Justice, Service

Newfoundland and Labrador, the former Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs

Secretariat, and the Registrar of Vital Statistics, who plays a key role in

adoptions.

Consultation was held with Memorial University School of Social Work, who

assisted with a research project related to the review. Also, a consultation

took place with the Child and Youth Advocate for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Ongoing discussions with Aboriginal governments and organizations provided input

for consideration as well.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I think I may have said the review initiated in

April 2013 or earlier this year. It was actually 2011 that those reviews first

began. Then this year, the department commenced a public consultation process,

which provided interested individuals with an opportunity to share their

thoughts, views, and perspectives on the current adoption legislation, as well

as an opportunity to discuss proposed changes in the act.

A discussion guide was posted on the department's Web site. It was also made

available at local offices throughout the Province. The guide provided an

overview of the adoption process, the types of adoptions available in the

Province, and also a series of questions intended to inform the written

submissions. Discussion guides are quite often posted as a method to encourage

and stimulate thought for the reader and to encourage responses on the topics

that are contained within the discussion guide.

Also, officials in the department were available upon request for people who

are interested in having further discussions or meetings. Feedback was received

in a number of ways, through written submissions and through e-mails, on the

review process. As well, there were in-person meetings carried out with people

who were interested, interested stakeholders.

I have to point out the importance of confidentiality around children was a

matter that came up earlier today in Question Period. Going through a process

like this, of course this was done before I came into the department, but in

discussions with officials this is a matter and topic we have had discussions

with since I came in the department. When it involves adoptions, it is not

everybody who wants to have a public discussion or an open discussion about

their experiences with the adoption process if they are an adoptive parent, or

if they are an adoptive child, or a family member who has some other connection

with the adoption process.

Going through an opportunity for consultation in a piece of legislation like

this, it was interesting to hear from the staff and officials who carried out

the consultation that there always has to be that assurance of confidentiality

for individuals and people who have had prior experience with the adoption

process. As I said it is not a topic that a lot of people want to discuss

publicly. It is very private and personal for individuals and families. I fully

respect those wishes and those views.

Over the last year our post adoption services have contact with individuals

who are making inquiries and requests through post adoption services. It is a

busy piece of work that this particular branch carries out on a regular basis.

They have discussions with people who have had experience with adoptions either

as adopted people, or adopted parents, or birth parents, or family members of

adopted persons, birth parents or adopted parents.

During that process as well our staff took the opportunity to have

discussions with people inquiring about post adoption services. During the last

several months I know there has been considerable discussion and opportunity

given to those people to provide their views as well directly to the department.

We use that opportunity as well to capture that information.

The theme of the best interests of the child is highly evident as a result of

this consultation. The theme of the best interests of the child, which is our

philosophy, was highly evident. Information was received that highlights the

importance of permanency for children and consideration to the connections and

existing relationships in a child's life.

As I went through the principles and the factors that had to be considered,

these are outlined in the factors that have to be considered when making a

decision on the best interests of a child that is contained in our bill. Also,

considering a child's views and wishes when planning for adoption and ensuring

the child's well-being in the adoption process. I have outlined that as well

that the views of a child is a very important factor that has to be considered

and must be part of the adoption process.

Overall, Mr. Speaker, there is very strong support from those who

participated in the consultation process for each of the proposed changes to the

adoption legislation. As a result of this process, and due to our continued

commitment to meet the adoption needs in Newfoundland and Labrador, we are

pleased to introduce this new legislation which will, as I have said, continue

to ensure the best interests of children being as the paramount consideration in

the adoption process.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a few minutes now of my time to take an

overview of some of the updates which are contained in this legislation, which

will help streamline and expedite the adoption process, while maintaining the

assurance of the safety and well-being of children involved in that process.

The new legislation will, as I said, ensure that the adoption process is

progressive. It will clarify and modernize the laws respecting adoption, as the

previous legislation was proclaimed in 2003. The results of the work that we

have done and brought forward today is a new bill, a new act to replace the 2003

act.

As I previously took the time to outline, it will align the principles of the

Adoption Act with the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act, where

appropriate. Mr. Speaker, the proposed new legislation will help streamline

processes with adoption and this will, in turn, result in an increased number of

families able to proceed directly to court to finalize an adoption.

So, just to take a minute to explain. To go through a domestic adoption

process, the normal process for most people is to file an application and a

request with the department. There is a significant amount of work, which I am

going to outline shortly and process to go through, but there is also a

definition of relative in the current act.

Under the current act the definition of a relative is contained within the

act and it outlines that a relative means a parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle or

sibling of a child by birth or adoption. The important relevance to the

definition of a relative in this act is that a person who is deemed to be a

relative under the act can file an application and proceed directly to court to

finalize an adoption. So in a case of a relative, they are not required to go

through the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services; they can actually go

directly to the court to file the adoption.

We have had a look at relative, we have had a good look and some

consideration given to a relative and we are going to expand the definition of a

relative to now include: a parent, grandparent, sibling, aunt uncle or first

cousin of a birth parent or a child by birth or adoption. I am going to explain

that a little bit more.

Currently, I can tell you that the definition of relative in comparison to

other jurisdictions, we have one of the most restrictive

definitions in Canada.

To expand that definition by adding first cousin of the child and adding aunt,

uncle or first cousin of a birth parent is going to significantly broaden that

definition of a relative.

For example, birth parent, or the parent of a child will now be able a

birth parent's aunt, as an example, will now be able to proceed directly to

court to adopt her great niece or a great nephew. If we all think about our own

family circumstances or some other family that we know, what the current

legislation allows for is that an aunt or uncle of the child can go directly to

the court. We are expanding that to an aunt or uncle of the birth parent.

If you have a niece or a nephew who gave birth to a child and for whatever

circumstances are happening in that new parent's life at the time, they are not

able to care for that child. You being an aunt, or in my case an uncle, of that

niece or nephew, through an agreement with the family will begin to look after

that child. Down the road if we decide we want to adopt that child, we can go

directly to the court. We are not required to go through the full process of

Child, Youth and Family Services.

As a relative now defined under the act, great aunt or great uncle of the

child, which would be an aunt or an uncle of the birth parent, can now go

directly to the court. That is one example. The first cousin of a birth parent

is a similar circumstance. Aunt, uncle, first cousin of the birth parent and the

first cousin of the child can now go directly to court and not have to go

through Child, Youth and Family Services.

Mr. Speaker, there are circumstances that arise throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador where these people adopt their relatives. Because the current

legislation is so restrictive, they are required to go through the full Child,

Youth and Family Services and adoption requirements, the current act

requirements under current legislation. Under this new adoption legislation,

they will be able to go directly to court to carry out with the adoption

process.

Mr. Speaker, in this case what would happen is the adoptive parent, be it a

great aunt or great uncle, would complete a self-help kit. On the Child, Youth

and Family Services Web site if you go to adoptions you will find the self-help

kit, which is available also through department offices throughout the Province.

The prospective adoptive parent would now complete the self-help kit. That is a

guide that helps them complete all the necessary documentation, have all the

necessary records to bring the matter directly to court without having to go

through the full process through the Department of Child, Youth and Family

Services.

The court requirements still will require the consents of the birth parents,

parent or parents as the case may be; consent of the person who may have custody

of the child; the child, if the child is twelve years of age or older. This is a

very important factor which I spoke about earlier, that in the case when a child

reaches twelve years old, the consent of that child is also required. The views

of that child are a very important aspect of the process. Criminal records check

and also Child, Youth and Family Services checks would also be required, and the

completion of the Family Self-Assessment form will be required to go directly to

the court.

We feel this expanded definition of a relative is deemed to have no increase

in risk to children or youth or people who are being considered for adoption. In

other words, there is not more risk to the child if they are adopted by their

great aunt or great uncle versus their aunt or uncle which they can currently

do.

We also have another section, another

part in this new legislation that

refers to significant others. Now significant other in this regard is not a

partner, a spouse or a partner. A significant other in this regard refers to a

person who has had custody of a child for at least two years. Either under a

temporary or permanent custody order, or it could be a combination of temporary

or permanent custody but who currently has permanent custody of a child.

Mr. Speaker, in a case where a person has permanent custody of a child and

they have had that child in their care for two years that is a circumstance

which has already been approved by the court. That is a relationship where that

has already taken place. Someone may ask: What is the purpose of a temporary or

permanent custody order?

As an example, if a family comes to an agreement to place a child with

someone who is known to them or someone who is close to the family, it could be

a neighbour, it could be an extended family member, it could be an in-law as an

example. You find a family who wants to care for this child and the child is

placed in that care. One of the options open to that circumstance is for the

people who are taking care of that child, with the consent of the parents, is to

go to court and seek either a temporary or permanent court order. That will

allow the person who has care of that child to make all legal decisions for that

child.

If there is a circumstance where the child needs health care, medical, needs

to go through the normal inoculations provided by health care by your doctor, in

a case like that, then this person, aunt, uncle, significant other is the way

it is being termed in the legislation if they have a court order in place,

they now have the legal right to make those decisions for the child. In a case

where a person has had the child in care for two years, either through a

temporary or permanent custody order and now has permanent custody, they can

also go directly to court.

As outlined a few minutes ago, when a person goes directly to court there are

still a number of things that are required. For example, the consent of the

birth parent or birth parents as the case may be. If the child is twelve years

of age or older, the child has to consent. You still have to do the regular

criminal record checks and Child, Youth and Family Services checks. You would

have to complete the self-help kit that is online.

All of that will still be in play to ensure the safety of the child, but

again bear in mind that the court has already issued a temporary or permanent

custody order to the person. They have already engaged in the process and they

have had that child in their custody for two years. Mr. Speaker, this is another

way to streamline, to improve the adoption process for people who find

themselves in this particular circumstance.

If I could just go back to this, under current legislation in the

circumstances I just provided you, currently the department would require that

the applicant complete the PRIDE program. The PRIDE program is an educational

training program for prospective adoptive parents and foster parents as well. I

believe it is twenty-four or forty hours, as I glance up to my left shoulder,

that prospective adoptive parents or foster parents have to complete the PRIDE

program.

It is sometimes carried out throughout the Province. Sometimes it can be done

over a matter of a couple of days, or sometimes depending on the scheduling it

could be a couple of hours a night for a series of nights. It is a requirement

that this program be carried out and be completed by the prospective adoptive

parents or the prospective foster parents.

In a case of a relative or significant other, what we are saying in the

significant other case, the person has already had care of the child for two

years. They have already been able to demonstrate their ability and willingness

to care for the child. To move to an adoption makes that process permanent for

the child. It creates that legal relationship of a parent and child relationship

between the adoptive parent and the child.

Mr. Speaker, under our current legislation there is a requirement that before

a person can apply in Newfoundland and Labrador to apply for adoption to be

adoptive parents they have to be a resident of the Province for a six-month

period. We are, in this new legislation, removing the six-month residency

required.

A person interested in applying to the department to adopt a child or apply

to the court to have an adoption order granted will no longer need to be in

residence for that six-month period prior to applying. The prospective adoptive

parent will still be required to be a resident of the Province, and the child

must have lived with them for at least six months before the adoption order is

granted.

In order for the adoption order to be granted, the child has to be living

with the parent for six months. It negates the reason for a delay in filing the

application or finalizing the adoption. Mr. Speaker, if you think of today

versus ten years ago, we have a mobile workforce now. Families are more mobile

today than they ever were before. There are people who transfer from place to

place throughout Canada because of work.

As an example, I will use RCMP. An RCMP officer living in another Province

may be close to finalizing an adoption in that Province when they are

transferred to Newfoundland and Labrador. In a case like that, under current

legislation, they would have to wait six months before that adoption can be

completed. What we are proposing is that we remove that six months. They have

gone through all the processes in another Province. The only that has happened

is they have now transferred to Newfoundland and Labrador.

We feel it is in the best interests of the child and we feel it is in the

best interests of the process that the six-month residency requirement be

removed from new legislation. Newfoundland and Labrador, I should point out, by

the way, is the only current province in Canada that has a six-month residency

requirement prior to applying to adopt or prior to granting an adoption order.

Mr. Speaker, a new

section in this legislation, which I think is a very

important and is one that I expect there will be considerable discussion on, is

adult adoptions. I think the first response whenever I have mentioned adult

adoptions and someone is not familiar with it is they would say: What is that?

What does that mean? Adult adoption refers to the ability to adopt a person who

is nineteen years of age or older.

The department has had inquiries from persons in the Province about the

ability to complete adult adoptions. All other provinces in Canada currently

have allowances for adult adoptions. Newfoundland and Labrador is the only

Province without it.

Mr. Speaker, adult adoptions exist for a number of reasons. Sometimes it is

because a parent and a child want to legally formalize their relationship. It

can be as simple as that. A young person may have been involved in this adult's

life for many, many years in some form of relationship. Now the young person has

become an adult and they have that parent-child relationship, but from a legal

perspective they never legally became a parent and child. Sometimes it is as

simple as that.

There are times with step-parents and we know that is more common today

than ever before, a step-parent and stepchild relationship, and the stepchild

and step-parent want to legalize that relationship so that the step-parent

becomes the actual parent for that child and vice versa, the child becomes the

legal child of that step-parent.

As well, Mr. Speaker, there are cases where the legal parent-child

relationship is necessary so that a person can avail of benefits, insurance

benefits, or to be a beneficiary of benefits. For an example, an adult person

may have some medical circumstances which require supports, medications, and

medical services. The adult may have insurance coverage which applies to an

adult child with these types of medical circumstances.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, on the passing and proclamation of this act, if

it becomes proclaimed and I suspect it will and we hope it will that

adoption will now be able to take place, where an adoptive parent would be able

to adopt a child and it may make a very big and important difference to someone

who has disability benefits or medical benefits that they need or would like to

avail of.

Of course, the other aspect that comes up from time to time is to clarify

inheritances. People want to clarify that, look, here is what I want to happen

to my estate and I want to make it clear and equal that this person is a child

and to be treated as all my other children and I want to make that legal

connection.

It is an important piece of legislation, an important aspect of the

legislation, Mr. Speaker, and one that we know of is needed in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

I spoke to a lady just recently who told me how she went to Nova Scotia to

finalize an adult adoption because we did not allow for it here. We know that

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want it and they want it for a good reason. In

the case of an adult adoption, a person can apply directly to the court. Child,

Youth and Family Services will not be involved. A person can apply to the court

and stipulate the reason why they want to complete the adult adoption and then

the court has the discretion to complete that adult adoption.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to some of the outlines I have already provided, we

are also making improvements to post-adoption services in a number of areas, one

of those is where birth parents or adopted persons currently are unable to

provide consent to obtain documents from Vital Statistics.

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Director of Adoptions works closely with the

Registrar of Vital Statistics; they have to work very closely together in

providing official records to assist the Director of Adoptions and the work that

they do in reunification efforts and requests that come in on a regular basis.

The registrar uses the authority provided under the Adoption Act to perform

duties and functions related to post-adoption services. Under current

legislation, only a birth parent or adopted person is able to apply to Vital

Statistics to obtain a copy of the adopted person's original birth registration.

So, under current legislation, a birth parent can apply to get the original

birth registration or the adopted person can. They can also get the adoption

order and the adopted person's birth registration following the adoption. A

birth parent can go in and say I want to obtain birth registration of an adopted

person and I also want to see the amended birth registration as well, so it is

the adopted person's birth registration after the adoption has taken place.

Information related to the adoptive parent is removed when an adoption order

is provided to a birth parent. That confidentiality continues. In the case of

adoptions that were finalized prior to 2003 so that is prior to our adoption

legislation moving from a closed system to an open system. So prior to 2003, we

had a closed adoption system. For adoptions that were finalized prior to us

moving an open system, the Registrar of Vital Statistics can release these

documents if there is no disclosure veto or no-contact declaration on file.

I want to just touch on those for a minute because prior to 2003 when we had

a closed system, birth parents could file a disclosure veto or a no-contact

clause on their file. What that would mean was that when the adopted person,

years down the road, decides I want to go through a search process now to

identify my birth parents and if the birth parents have signed a disclosure

veto, then the files are closed because the birth parent had a right to do that

prior to 2003; or they can also have a no-contact declaration on their file,

which means you can be provided with the information but you have to sign an

undertaking that you will not contact the person. That was the choice prior to

us moving to an open system.

In 2003, Mr. Speaker, all of that changed. All of that changed to the current

open system that we have in Newfoundland and Labrador. As I mentioned earlier,

including Newfoundland and Labrador, there are only five provinces in the

country that have that open system.

As we are discussing here, the ability to file these documents remains with

the birth parents and the adopted person involved in an adoption prior to 2003,

but a person may still receive information where a no contact declaration has

been filed and I mentioned this but they also have to sign an undertaking

not to contact the person.

The proposed legislation, what we are proposing here today, will allow the

court to authorize a person other than an adopted person or birth parent to

apply for these records, where the adopted person or birth parent is not capable

of applying. There are circumstances that exist whereby a birth parent or

adopted person may be in a circumstance, may be in a medical circumstance, where

they are not able to apply themselves. So, what we are proposing in this

legislation is that a person will be able to go to court to seek authorization

to apply for these records on behalf of the person who is not capable of doing

so.

Mr. Speaker, also under post-adoption services we have circumstances where

persons who were born in Newfoundland and Labrador are adopted in other

provinces. Our current legislation creates challenges under those circumstances.

Under the current legislation, in a circumstance where a birth parent has placed

their child for adoption in Newfoundland and Labrador, and for one of a variety

reasons the adoption may have been finalized in another province I used a

scenario a few minutes ago where I used an example of an RCMP officer who moves

to Newfoundland and when they move to Newfoundland and Labrador they are now

eligible to finalize their adoption.

So, let us change that around a little bit, and we will use a scenario where

an RCMP officer adopts a child and the child is placed with that RCMP officer

for adoption. Remember that the adoption cannot be finalized until the adopted

child has been with the family for a six-month period. If we use a circumstance

where that RCMP officer is transferred out of Newfoundland and Labrador and

transferred to another province, and then the adoption becomes finalized in that

other province.

Well, the problem we have is our current legislation is restrictive in how we

can share information through post-adoption services. So when a birth parent

comes forward to search for that child, that is a child now who was placed for

adoption maybe many years ago, the registrar, under the current legislation, the

Registrar of Vital Statistics is unable to release any information and the

department is unable to assist that person with the search. It is a circumstance

that happens from time to time, Mr. Speaker. It is a circumstance that our staff

has to deal with because the legislation does not give the authority to assist

them.

An adopted person may be able to obtain their original birth registration,

but when you trying to find a person outside the Province, we have these lapses

in the current legislation that are creating barriers for people trying to

assist in reunification or in tracking down their own family backgrounds.

Under the new legislation, the registrar will now be able to work with the

Province where the adoption was finalized to determine if it is possible to

release that birth registration following an adoption. Mr. Speaker, I think this

is going to go a long ways to help many people who are adopted in Newfoundland

and Labrador, but the adoption was finalized in another province.

Also, Mr. Speaker, and further to that, the new legislation will allow for

information-sharing agreements. In provinces such as Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba,

Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador, which are the provinces that now

have open adoption systems we need to share information with those other

provinces. Although each of them has slightly different criteria in their

open-adoption systems, it means that when an adopted person becomes an adult,

they are entitled to their original birth certificate. That is what an

open-adoption system means.

When you become an adult, you are entitled to receive your own original birth

regulation; however, without the ability of the Registrar of Vital Statistics

and the Director of Adoptions to share information, without having the

legislative ability to share information with other provinces, it creates a

barrier for providing that information.

So, Mr. Speaker, this new piece of legislation will allow for the creation of

sharing agreements by the Registrar of Vital Statistics and the Director of

Adoption with their counterparts in other provinces. They will still be required

to follow the requirements of the legislation in both provinces, because

different provinces have different legislation, but it will now allow for

agreements to enter into sharing agreements with other provinces. Again, this

will enhance the reunification post-adoption services that we can provide to

people who have been adopted or people who have birth parents of adopted persons

and family members as well.

Mr. Speaker, another change that is coming in this act is a change with

regard to search services after the death of a birth parent. Currently, the

legislation allows the department, after the death of an adopted person, to

search on behalf of the adopted person's adult child; the current legislation

allows that. So an adopted person's adult child wants to find their biological

grandparent; the adopted person is deceased. The department will confirm the

death and confirm whether or not the person or persons who are eligible if a

disclosure veto or no-contact declaration has been filed in a case prior to

2003. If no documents are filed, then the department will conduct a search.

Again, this is disclosure vetoes and no-contact declarations that existed prior

to 2003.

The proposed legislation will allow a search on behalf of an adult child.

That is an adopted person's sibling, as an example, of a birth parent once the

birth parent of both the sibling and the adopted person are deceased. What

commonly happens is that a person is adopted. Then the birth parent may give

birth to other children who stay in the family home and continue to be with the

birth parent.

If there is a disclosure veto or no-contact declaration and the adopted

person is trying to find their parent, if there is a disclosure veto on file,

then that person is not able to find their birth family. Once both parents are

deceased, it allows for an adopted person to find their siblings. This will

increase options for birth siblings to be reunited, as I said, when both are in

agreement.

Currently, the legislation only allows the search for that direct

relationship to your birth parent. In the death of a birth parent, what we are

proposing in this new legislation is you can now find your birth siblings.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we are improving search services on behalf of an

adopted person in that currently we can only search on behalf of an adopted

person who has obtained the required documents from Vital Statistics, which is

the original birth certificate and their adoption order. There are times when an

adopted person may not be able to obtain these documents, such as the case when

the mother has filed the disclosure veto.

The filing of that disclosure veto by a birth mother would prevent the

adopted person from searching for a birth father not named on the birth

registration. An adopted person would also be prevented for searching for an

adopted sibling, as I just outlined once again. We are opening up those doors as

well to provide better services to persons who have been adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I have talked about the information sharing and allowing the

provincial Director of Adoptions to enter into sharing agreements, as well as

the Registrar of Vital Statistics. We are also making a change on court

requirements, Mr. Speaker. This deals with intercountry adoptions. Citizenship

and Immigration Canada is the federal department that is responsible for

intercountry adoptions. Citizenship and Immigration Canada requires that a child

being adopted in another province obtain residency or citizenship in Canada

prior to coming to Canada. We are making our legislation to be consistent with

that requirement under federal legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is wearing down. We are changing the

structure of this act, and this is more of a housekeeping administrative way. We

are now structuring the act so it is in sections that are easier to find,

different parts of the act so that we are coupling things, sections of the act

that are relevant to each other. For example, all duties and functions related

to the registrar will now be in a separate section. Post-adoption services will

now be in a separate

section as well.

Also, Mr. Speaker, part of this resolution that is before the House would be

to repeal the Adoption Regulations and the Adoption Agency Fees Regulations, and

as well replace them with the Adoption Act regulations, 2013, and the adoption

agency fees, 2013. We will be doing that on the movement of this.

Mr. Speaker, there is one other aspect I want to talk about before I finish

up this afternoon. This deals with the adoption of Aboriginal children. Given

the importance of addressing issues related to adoptions of Aboriginal children,

the department has already begun working with Aboriginal governments and

organizations to develop policies and procedures in relation to the adoption of

Aboriginal children.

This forum in which this work and discussions are taking place is through the

planning circles. The planning circles which form part of the Memorandum of

Understanding that have been entered into with the Nunatsiavut Government,

Sheshatshiu Innu First Nations, and also the Mushuau