The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to recognize an employee of the House of Assembly who retired this past summer, Ms Irene Tapper, Manager of Hansard. Ms Tapper worked with the Hansard office beginning in 1973 and served in the positions of transcriber, supervisor and manager.

I know that all hon. members will join with me in wishing Ms Tapper a healthy and happy retirement, and I thank her for her faithful and diligent service for the past thirty-six years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will hear the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's South; the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; and the hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Tuesday, September 1, 2009 I had the pleasure to join the Bay Roberts Sea Lions Swim Team for their annual banquet and presentation of awards.

The event was held at the Bay Roberts Lions Club following a parade through the various communities.

This is the fifteenth year in succession that the Sea Lions have returned home from Gander as provincial champs, an accomplishment to be very proud of.

The top achievers were: female, Alyson Thomas, and Marc LeGresley in the male category. Marc also broke the provincial record in the backstroke in a time of 38.99 for the eleven to twelve age group. Provincial best awards were presented to eighty-eight individual swimmers.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Bay Roberts Sea Lions on becoming the 2009 provincial summer swim team champs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate the individuals who have built the Peter Barry Duff Memorial Park in the Town of Paradise.

Mr. Speaker, the Peter Barry Duff Memorial Park is one of ten proud recipients in Canada to win a $25,000 prize from the Kraft Celebration Tour to upgrade and improve their park.

To help the park celebrate their win, the TSN Sports Centre, on August 31 of this year, hosted a live broadcast from the Town of Paradise. Mr. Speaker, we were there to help them celebrate.

Mr. Speaker, the Peter Barry Duff Memorial Park was established twenty-five years ago when Peter and Patricia Duff generously donated twenty-five acres of land in the memory of their son Peter who tragically drowned while attending a baseball tournament in Placentia.

The park has been developed solely for the use by the youth in the area and now includes a soccer field, a baseball field, a playground, a skateboard park, a basketball court, a beach area, and five kilometres of walking trails.

The $25,000 grant, Mr. Speaker, will be used to complete a new baseball field for the younger players in the area.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to acknowledge the contribution to the community by Peter and Patricia Duff in memory of their son, and the volunteers who give their time so freely to make the Peter Barry Duff Memorial Park an outstanding facility.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to congratulate Bradley Rumbolt from Mary's Harbour on receiving the provincial volunteer recognition award and the community Volunteer of the Year Award for his hometown of Mary's Harbour.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial volunteer recognition award is given to volunteers who have shown to be valuable in improving the quality of life of others through lasting contributions to the advancement of recreation and has helped to improve the quality of life among individuals within their community.

Mr. Rumbolt started volunteering in recreation in 1991, when he was sixteen years old, and has served on the Mary's Harbour Recreation Committee every year since that time. He was involved in sports and decided to join to be a voice for the youth and to create more opportunities for young people to participate in various sports. He was also instrumental in constructing an outdoor ice hockey rink for the community, which was also used as a softball field during the summer. Most recently, he was the driving force in getting a junior Canadian Ranger squad in the communities of Mary's Harbour, St. Lewis and Lodge Bay, providing activity for more than sixty young people in those communities. This has definitely been a career highlight for him as a volunteer.

I ask all members in this House to join with me in congratulating Bradley Rumbolt, who is also my youngest brother, on receiving the recognition award for volunteering in recreation and the Volunteer of the Year Award for his home community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to recognize the Canadian Peacekeepers of Newfoundland and Labrador. In addition to performing their duties as peacekeepers, these men and women ensure the important work of Canadian peacekeepers is remembered and celebrated by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. In particular, they ensure we remember the men and women who paid the supreme sacrifice in carrying out their duties. They also bring to other places throughout the world, the democracy and freedom that we in Canada take for granted.

I was honoured to be a part of this year's peacekeepers ceremony in August, where we paid special tribute to the fallen peacekeepers, and we unveiled a storyboard in recognition of the work they do. I encourage all to take the time to visit this plaque located at the Canadian Peacekeeping Memorial, Veterans Square on Church Hill.

Our Canadian Peacekeepers are well respected throughout the world, and it is only fitting that they be recognized at home as well for the valuable work that they do throughout the world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise here today to tell you of the most recent accomplishment of the Avalon North Wolverines Ground Search and Rescue Organization. On the week of April 28 to May 11, eight Wolverine members travelled to Ireland to compete in the first Year of the Trans-Atlantic Games.

The Wolverine members who participated were: Perry Bowering, Clyde Mercer, Matti Foley, George Higdon, Darrell Somerton, David Noseworthy, Neal Mongford, and Ron Delaney.

All members were divided into separate teams and were mixed among their newly found friends from Ireland and Northern Ireland. Four of the Wolverines were on the first and second place winning teams. In addition, earlier this year the Wolverines took first place in the National Search and Rescue Competition held here in Newfoundland.

The Wolverines Ground Search and Rescue are a volunteer organization based in Bay Roberts. They are currently fifty-five members strong and cover the area from Salmonier Line to Norman's Cove. Founded in 1985, today they are one of the largest groups out of twenty-seven Search and Rescue teams in the Province. Wolverines are experienced in forest and ground searches and provide support for the RCMP when requested.

Wolverines conduct ground searches with the aid of maps, compass, GPS, VHF radio, et cetera. The team also conducts Transport Canada boating safety, and a number of team members are trained in cold water and helicopter rescue. They are a well trained group of rescue volunteers.

All members receive initial training and certification in map reading, compass use, first aid, CPR, night searches and other SAR techniques through their in-house training.

In an additional note, just recently I experienced firsthand the work of the Wolverines when they recovered a man from Norman's Cove a couple of weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues of this House, I would like for you to join in giving the Avalon North Wolverines a thank you and the recognition that they deserve.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the National Junior Fast Pitch Softball championships were held in Owen Sound, Ontario, from August 2 to August 9, 2009.

Newfoundland and Labrador was represented by Kelly's Pub Junior Canadians Team. Kelly's Pub came up against some tough competition during the week. They beat Saskatchewan Chiefs to advance to the championships against Nova Scotia.

The championship game proved to be a real nail biter but Newfoundland and Labrador came out on top with a 4-2 win. Three of our players were named to the All-Star Team: Mark Lewis, first base, Shane Boland, second base, Justin Gill, shortstop.

First baseman, Mark Lewis was named the top batter of the tournament and pitcher, Mike Noftall, was named MVP of the playoffs. The players of our team were: Wayne Bruce, Brad Ezekiel, Tyler McDonald, Shane O'Brien, Mike Gregory, Shane Boland, Kyle Ezekiel, Mike Noftall, Craig Edmunds, Ryan Boland, Sheldon Keough, Mark Lewis, Justin Gill and Liam Myers.

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

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of our funding commitment that will enable the Cupids 400 Legacy Centre to have a green legacy to complement its historical significance.

More than $160,000 in funding from the Newfoundland and Labrador Green Fund will help implement energy efficient measures for the interpretation centre which will be built to commemorate the 400^th anniversary of Cupids, the first English colony established in what is today Canada.

The project involves the development of an energy efficient design for the centre that focuses on lowering greenhouse gas emissions through reductions in energy consumption. The measures include an air source heat pump, upgraded wall and ceiling insulation and energy efficient windows. Mr. Speaker, these upgrades have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 132 tonnes per year. The proposed interpretation centre will be composed of two components, an adaptive reuse of an existing structure on Seaforest Drive in Cupids, and the expansion of the current structure through a new addition.

Implementing energy efficient measures into the design and construction of buildings is a key component in our efforts to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and realize substantial annual energy cost savings. This project represents a combination of both historical and environmental importance, and it is evident, Mr. Speaker, that Cupids 400 Inc. is committed to sustainable development from both an economic and environmental perspective.

It is also evident, Mr. Speaker, that this government is committed to projects that have considerable cultural and environmental value for our Province. This funding complements the additional $1.8 million recently announced to help fund the construction of the Cupids400 Legacy Centre, bringing the Province's total commitment to the Cupids celebration and related infrastructure to almost $4 million.

Mr. Speaker, the commemoration of the establishment of the first English settlement in Canada by John Guy is very significant to the area, and to the Province as a whole, and making it a green experience is also very significant. This money will help us focus on environmental considerations as we explore our history.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement and to say hopefully that the monies that are flowing from the Green Fund will continue into other projects that we hear about in the media that are not so environmentally friendly.

To get back to this particular Cupids400 Legacy celebration, Mr. Speaker, this is truly a big year for Newfoundland and Labrador, in 2010, to know what is going to happen on our very doorsteps; and I believe, and I have every reason to believe, that Cupids400 will become the same as Fort Louisbourg in Nova Scotia, because this is just the beginning.

The work that has been done there in Cupids by the archeologist Mr. Bill Gilbert, I think, over the last number of years, the work that has been done by the community and the committee, it is just tremendous to see what is happening. The interpretation centre, as we speak today, is already beginning to take form, and hopefully all of us will be able to take part in this celebration next year.

Mr. Speaker, not only Cupids but Newfoundland and Labrador will benefit from this project, and hopefully the committee and the community, even though they have had problems down through the years about different issues that are taking part, hopefully they will come together and resolve those issues.

Thank you.

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

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

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

I am delighted to see the Green Fund being used by government for something like this sustainable heritage tourism attraction. As my colleague has just said, what is happening in Cupids, I think, is long overdue, and it is really wonderful that we are going to be celebrating the founding of that community.

Obviously, this is what our Green Fund is meant for. What I would, though, encourage the minister about is the fact that we do have, from this government, a Climate Change Action Plan, and what I would like to see the minister bring to this House eventually would be a full plan for the retrofitting of the many public buildings scattered around our Province, which is what the Climate Change Action Plan is all about: small health care buildings, our schools, municipal buildings and other government buildings. So, I look forward to when the minister comes with such a total plan for our Province, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in his hon. House to report on a commitment that dates back to our early days as a government that is strengthening Newfoundland and Labrador's position on the international stage.

When this government was first elected, the Province's communications infrastructure was severely lagging behind that of other jurisdictions. Access to high speed Internet was limited, and in some areas of the Province customers were paying higher rates and receiving less in return than their counterparts across Canada.

Our mandate was clear, Mr. Speaker. Improved access was seen as being fundamental to Newfoundland and Labrador's economic growth and an integral component of supporting our emerging advanced technology sectors. Steps had to be taken to open doors to the world for our academic and business communities and our residents, along with enhancing government operations and government services.

With stringent guidelines in place overseeing Canada's communications sector, this Administration had to work strategically and we had to invest wisely.

The fall 2007 completion of the Province's second trans-gulf fibre optic network enabled – for the first time ever – full competition in the provincial communications industry. The provincial government's $15 million investment enabled greater access for carriers to deliver service to the Province.

It was an investment, Mr. Speaker, that the Office of the Auditor General acknowledged as providing good value. It is infrastructure that will serve as the backbone as we continue to proceed with improving broadband access.

In six short years, our work, in collaboration with our partners, has seen broadband access increase from 114 communities in the Province to close to 450 communities today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, that is an increase of more than 250 per cent. What was once viewed as a weakness is now viewed internationally as our strength.

Last summer, Tele Greenland opted to use this Province as a gateway into North America's communication industry. Why did they do that? Because of the quality of our communications network that was enhanced by government's investments.

Today, Mr. Speaker, a delegation from Greenland, led by the country's deputy premier, will officially open Tele Greenland's subsea cable station in Milton. The advanced communications facility is part of their $140 million strategy to improve services in Greenland and meet their country's growing bandwidth requirements.

Mr. Speaker, our advanced communications capacity has led to Newfoundland and Labrador emerging as an attractive venue for foreign investment, and it positions us as a gateway between North America and Europe.

I am confident that Tele Greenland's decision to establish operations in our Province will lead to mutually beneficial economic development opportunities for both jurisdictions and will strengthen our collective communications infrastructure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

Any improvements, of course, that we have in the telecommunications industry are beneficial. Obviously we still have a lot of issues to resolve in this Province: 911, cell phone coverage and so on, and any time, of course, we improve the communications we allow better opportunities. Our business opportunities and business climates and circumstances are changing all the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, there have been several issues throughout this fibre optic deal - several issues - and they have not been done, of course, without controversy, but what was wrong with this, of course, as everyone knows in this Province, is the process.

Mr. Speaker, there was no public tendering when this $15 million was spent in companies run by the Premier's buddies. We have been three years, Mr. Speaker, three years in the waiting to get a contract to see who is going to do this. We are still years away, Mr. Speaker, still years away, from having many, many communities in this Province, and government agencies -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - hooked on to this system. Mr. Speaker, why do we have discrimination in the delivery of these services?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

They do not like to hear the truth.

This fibre comes ashore in Burgeo, but Burgeo cannot access it for high speed internet; yet, it comes ashore again in Harbour Breton and you can. Why do different communities get discriminated against in the application of this fibre throughout this Province?

Mr. Speaker, the minister may blow his horn today on this topic but it was not done without controversy. It was not done appropriately. It still does not accomplish what we need to accomplish with it for the people of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, the true story, the proper story and the true success remains to be told about this deal.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

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

Obviously what the statement tells us about, what is going on with Tele Greenland, and they are coming into our Province to use us as a cable station for sending their communications network further into North America, is obviously good.

Yes, the Auditor General did say, with regard to the fibre optic, that the original investment of $15 million was a good investment, but the Auditor General also wondered about the total cost that would be going up to almost $200 million over ten years. What I would like to see from the minister is a cost-benefit analysis that was done, to show that we are going to get our money back from the investment of the $200 million. So I put that to the minister, and hope that might come to the House at some point.

As well, the minister himself has said that 20 per cent of communities still remain unconnected. I would like to have an update on when the rest of the communities in our Province are going to be able to benefit from the fibre optic.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions today to follow up on the Lower Churchill piece that we were asking about and debating yesterday in the House. Government has touted the State of Rhode Island as a potential market for Lower Churchill power. In fact, they announced and signed an MOU with them June 27, 2007, with a great deal of fanfare at that time.

I have a copy of the MOU, and I actually accessed it through the State of Rhode Island government, not through the open, accountable government they claim to be in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago they agreed to conduct a joint assessment for a long-term sale and purchase agreement of Lower Churchill power. I ask the minister today: Has this ever been completed and, if so, can you table it in the House of Assembly?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In June 2007 we did, indeed, enter an MOU with Rhode Island, and during that time it was agreed that we would study the possibility of us wheeling power and selling power to the State of Rhode Island. We did the work, Mr. Speaker; Rhode Island did the work. They found out that they did not have the capacity to negotiate a long-term power purchase agreement with Nalcor on behalf of the Province. Nor were they able, in their Legislature, to do the regulatory changes that were required in order to wheel electricity into the state. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we learned a lot through that discussion but it was not possible and we have moved on because other customers are in a position to be able to do business with Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When they signed the MOU with the State of Rhode Island, there was a big press conference and there was a whole lot of fanfare, but it took us two years to find out that it came to nothing, absolutely nothing.

Maybe the minister can stand and tell me today what markets or what customers are you looking to secure power purchase agreements with, that have the capacity to be able to negotiate with Nalcor on Lower Churchill power.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Potential markets exist for us in Labrador, on the Island of Newfoundland, in Ontario, through the New England States, and New York.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely possible to wheel power through and sell power. Mr. Speaker, we are doing it today. For the first time in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, we are wheeling power through Quebec from border to border, and we are able to do that because of the Open Access Transmission Tariff. We are selling power into the United States, so it is possible. That is why we have OATT. Provinces are doing it through the country; utilities are doing it through the country. It is entirely possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the Open Access Transmission Tariff to the market only works if there is capacity on the line.

When I met with officials from the Quebec government back in July of this year on the Romaine project, we were given assurances from them at that time that they would have completed the first phase by 2014, putting more power into the grid by that time from the Romaine River, all together to complete four stages at 1,550 megawatts of power.

I ask the minister today: In light of the fact that power project is coming on stream, in light of the fact that Prince Edward Island is now producing 500 megawatts of wind power to go into the North American market –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I ask her: Where are the power purchase agreements on the Lower Churchill? Even if 1,000 megawatts stays in Newfoundland and Labrador, where are the markets for the other 2,000 megawatts of power?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, this is a complicated question and it requires a detailed answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: First of all, she is completed wrong when saying that the OATT only works when there is capacity. That is not true. The system operator determines whether there is capacity on the line, and if there is not capacity on the lines they tell you what infrastructure is required in order to create that capacity. You can build it yourself, you can build it with partners, or you can have somebody else build it for you. That is the answer to number one.

Number two, Mr. Speaker, in the New England States alone they require now, with all of the clean energy requirements, seventy-five terawatts of energy. If we developed every project that is in the works in Atlantic Canada at the present time, Mr. Speaker, we can only provide twenty-five terawatts of that requirement. Mr. Speaker, we have an energy hungry world, and thank God in Newfoundland and Labrador we have the energy to feed it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about access through building transmission lines. So maybe she can tell me today, because they were late off the mark in applying for access in New Brunswick to the grid a year ago, and all the excess capacities went to Quebec, maybe she can tell me what the action plan is for the north-south grid. Is it to build a transmission line through Atlantic Canada, minister? Is that what you are getting at?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last year there was a tendering process out of New Brunswick that put capacity to wheel 300 megawatts of electricity through New Brunswick. It was immediate. Anybody that bid, tendered on that process, had to accept that capacity and pay the rates for that capacity immediately. We looked at it, and we were not ready to make that kind of a commitment. We do not know which route we will wheel our capacity through. We did a more appropriate application to the system operator in New Brunswick for 740 megawatts, border to border, to have a study done on it so that we understand what the requirement is going to be in infrastructure and how much it is going to cost.

So it was not a missed opportunity, Mr. Speaker. We do not need that wheeling capacity until 2015, 2016. When we are looking out to 2050, Mr. Speaker, we are going to make sure that the options work for us and they work for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: So they have no market and no access, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I questioned the Minister of Health regarding a decision to remove lab and X-ray services in Lewisporte and Flower's Cove. I also raised the concerns of local doctors who say that they are considering leaving without having these necessary services available. The minister responded in a very cavalier manner saying that they can recruit more physicians.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today: Why are you unwilling to listen to recommendations of these doctors who have worked for more than two decades in rural medicine in this Province and why are you inciting them to leave rural communities and practice elsewhere?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You know, I do get a kick out of what the Leader of the Opposition always tries to put a spin on everything that she wants to put a spin on.

The fact of the matter here is very, very simple, Mr. Speaker. We looked at a project in Lewisporte that was going to be some-$43 million. It started off at about $20 million. We realized right off the mark that we needed to make changes in order to be able to accommodate a particular project that could still work for the people of Lewisporte and area. We are now committing $34 million, I say, Mr. Speaker, to a project in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, I find it appalling that the Leader of the Opposition would talk about things such as our non commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The fact is that we are putting more money in health care in rural Newfoundland and Labrador than any other government that this Province has ever seen, Mr. Speaker. We stand on that record and we will continue to do what we are doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, he does not answer the questions but it is the same attitude, if we give you one thing it entitles us to take something else away.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the minister about his visit to Lewisporte a couple of weeks ago and whether at that time if he knew that the lab and X-ray services would be removed. We know he told the MHA but the MHA did not understand.

We ask the minister again today: When you met with the local committee and toured the facilities did you know at that time that the lab and the X-ray services in Lewisporte would close, or did you just find that out when you got back to your office here in St. John's?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleague from Transportation and Works saying that she is too cute by half, and I guess that is exactly what is happening again now.

The fact is that this decision was made during discussions, Mr. Speaker, with Central Health and Community Services, also with discussions that we had ongoing with the community. The fact of the matter is, we went out to Lewisporte, and we told them very clearly that this facility would not be built or put inside of the new facility. We would not have X-ray and lab inside of the new facility. That is exactly what we told them, Mr. Speaker. They understood where we were coming from and we moved forward on that basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Isn't it true that you told the people in Lewisporte at that time that there would not be a one-roof concept for lab and X-ray services, but you did not tell them you were prepared to gut their service within two weeks, did you?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, I said exactly what I said, and that was that there would be no laboratory and X-ray services under the one roof in the new facility that we were building in Lewisporte. In terms of –

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. ORAM: - if she would let me answer. In terms of a discussion around what was happening with closing out the lab and X-ray part of what we were doing in Lewisporte, that discussion was had but there was no final decision made on that when I was out in Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister talks about streamlining services in an ongoing review to identify which X-ray and lab services would be removed throughout the Province, meanwhile we are being told by doctors and radiologists that they have not been consulted.

I ask the minister: If you are not consulting doctors and radiologists who are providing the frontline medical services in these communities, who are you talking with and where are you getting these recommendations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, this is an ongoing process. We are looking and assessing all laboratory and X-ray services throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. We will be talking to physicians. We will talk to whoever we need to talk to, to gain information as to what needs to be done in terms of looking at the way that we deal with X-ray services and lab services in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The fact, however, remains, Mr. Speaker. That if you look at the Cameron report and you look at recommendations such as number fourteen and number sixteen, you will see very clearly that the Cameron report talks about laboratory services and how we have to look at ways to enhance and change the way we are doing laboratory work, and laboratory work and diagnostic imaging usually go together. So we have to look at both of those particular services as we go through the Province and look at it. This assessment is ongoing and we will continue to assess it. In fact, the assessment of any type of service within health care is an ongoing process that continues forever, I say, Mr. Speaker. So we will continue to assess the services and make a decision based on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members for their co-operation. The Chair is having difficultly listening to the questions asked and the answers given.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I always find it somewhat offensive every time I hear the minister use the Cameron report as an excuse to be closing down these lab and X-ray services, because nowhere in the report does it recommend closure of these services. What it, indeed, recommends is that there be investments and upgrades in labs that are around the Province –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - to bring them to a certain standard of accreditation and that is what the recommendation says.

I ask the minister today: Is he using that recommendation to bring all of these labs and services to accreditation in that Cameron report as the excuse to close these services all around the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, I do not need an excuse to look at improving services in Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not need an excuse to look at providing services for people in Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not need an excuse, I say, Mr. Speaker, to spend $34 million in a community such as Lewisporte. I do not need an excuse to spend $10 million or $11 million in a community like Flower's Cove. I do not need an excuse to spend $68.5 million in Corner Brook to provide a long-term care facility for those people, and on and on and on the list goes. I certainly do not need an excuse to see the advantages and need for an MRI machine in Gander, I say, Mr. Speaker.

We are doing things that will give people a proper health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to streamline, we have to find ways to measure what it is going to cost us because there is a cost involved in everything, I say, Mr. Speaker. We have pressures coming from every side. We have physicians that need more money right now. We are looking at everything that we can look at to be able to give people an enhanced health care system in this Province, and that is exactly what I intend to do. That is exactly what this government intends to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Now, Mr. Speaker, that was a whole lot about nothing. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the minister does need to do is to justify his actions to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, what the minister does need to do is justify his decisions to the people of this Province when he goes out and cuts their services. When he is threatening and putting their lives in jeopardy to access medical care in this Province, then, Mr. Speaker, he has a responsibility to answer for those kinds of decisions.

I ask the minister today, Mr. Speaker, we already know that there could be other services cut in regions around the Province. We have already heard a rumour in Central Newfoundland that services at Botwood and St. Alban's are next in line to close. Maybe the minister can stand today and dispel those rumours so that people in those communities can have some comfort?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing, I am very, very pleased that this government has invested a whole lot of money in health care, because if the Leader of the Opposition keeps going the way she is going she may have a heart attack and she will need to have some of those services provided to her, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker.

The fact here, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. You cannot go on rumours, by the way. We do not go on rumours over here, I would suggest you not go on rumours as well. We have made no decisions as to where we are going to be going next. We have said very clearly we are doing a complete assessment of all laboratory and X-ray services throughout this Province. We will continue to do that. When the time is right, when we see fit, and when we see that there is a savings or we see that there is a quality of service that can be enhanced, then we will make that announcement at that point in time. We will not be making announcements in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, just based on a whim.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government has also indicated that preparations are being made to address concerns related to the H1N1 virus. Mr. Speaker, this Province has been without a permanent infectious disease specialist for adults since March of this year, and should a serious outbreak of the H1N1 virus occur, we understand that the expertise of such a specialist would be critically important.

So I ask the minister today: Why have your efforts failed to recruit a new infectious disease specialist for the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador realize today that H1N1 is certainly an issue that we face right now as a Province, certainly as a country and as a world.

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, is prepared for H1N1. We have put in place working groups. In fact, we have identified areas where we needed to do some work in terms of what was happening with H1N1. We put a working group in place. Each and every issue will be dealt with and have been dealt with, Mr. Speaker. We continue to move forward. When it comes to an infectious disease officer, I can tell you now, Mr. Speaker, we have been out there, we have been looking and we are trying to recruit a particular individual, and when that day comes we will certainly be able to announce it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We asked questions on this all last session of the House and we were assured that there would be some strong efforts to recruit a specialist over the summer and apparently that still has not happened.

Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 80,000 students going back to school this week in our Province and we only have one pediatrician at the Janeway who specializes in infectious diseases among children.

I ask the minister: Is the government not concerned that this one specialist may not be able to handle the numbers of people that could be affected, and are additional specialists being recruited to assist if in the case of a pandemic?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, I can only reiterate what I just said a moment ago. The fact of the matter is Newfoundland and Labrador is ready for H1N1. We are ready. If this pandemic should hit this Province we are ready to deal with it, whether it be in terms of children, whether it be in terms of schools, whether it be in terms of anything that happens in this Province, we are ready to deal with it. I am very, very confident that our regional health authorities have stepped forward and put this as a priority, understand that we need to be ready, and we are ready, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are at the beginning of another school year and already there are two schools that will be delayed in opening due to the discovery of mould. St. Mathew's Elementary in St. John's, Peacock Elementary in Happy Valley-Goose Bay are prime examples of why an improved inspection process is necessary in our school system. We have continuously asked government to conduct air quality inspections in all schools throughout the Province and for inspection reports to be made public. The Auditor General's Report in2008 verified this, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister, as I have for the past few years: Will you finally admit that mandatory air quality inspections in all schools are needed to avoid this pattern of continuous disruptions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question, and I probably ought to say for the record that we have completed in excess of 400 projects on air quality in 279 schools. As we speak, Mr. Speaker, there are less than a handful of schools where there is any significant trouble.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that is a testament to the kind of commitment our government has made in working with school boards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, let me also say it is very important for the public to understand that members opposite stand and they ask the kind of questions that tend to suggest there is some degree of truth in what he is saying when, in actual fact, Mr. Speaker, those who do air quality testing will tell you that air quality tests will only give you a certain degree of information about detecting mould in schools.

Mr. Speaker, in particular, the two schools we are dealing with now, air quality tests would never have detected mould. It is the fact that we were in those schools doing maintenance and repair work to improve the facilities that we found it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Education, those facts are not lies and if what he is saying is true –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: They are not lies what I am repeating here. He is trying to say that I am spreading rumours and lying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave. I ask members for their co-operation.

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

MR. BUTLER: Ask the parents what they think about it.

I will say this to the minister: He already made the comment that with reference to the inspections that were done they only found out recently. Well, I say they should do the inspections earlier in the summer, rather than the schools having to be closed, Mr. Speaker, so parents, teachers and students have the most up-to-date information available regarding air quality in the schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: I ask the minister: Will he commit to posting inspection reports on-line so that everyone will know the last date of inspections and the results of those reports?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to suggest that the hon. member's facts are lies. I do not think I used any of that language, but I will say that some of the language being used in this House and some of the language being used in these press releases when they call government's infrastrucute plan failing is certainly misleading to the public.

The public needs to understand very clearly that it is like renovating a house or a building. When we engage in renovation projects in schools, we are going to run into problems that we did not foresee. It is because we are doing the work that we are finding the problems, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I need not remind the member opposite, but I do not mind going through it because I am sure sometimes they have a little trouble understanding this, given from 1997 to 2003 $5.5 million only was invested in school maintenance; this year $121 million alone from this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BUTLER: I say, Mr. Speaker, with all of the money that is flowing –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For the final time the Chair is going to ask for co-operation; the final time for members to my left. The Chair will have no other choice but identify members who are causing a disturbance in the House.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will say it again, in case it was not recorded: With all the money they do have, they still cannot fix the problems.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of an inspection report by CBC, the Minister of Government Services became aware in late August that numerous school buses in the Province do not meet the CSA standards. Upon being aware of this, the minister said that he had no prior knowledge of the standards in question.

Mr. Speaker, the minister should have known this information, as his department is represented on the CSA committee regulating school buses.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why were you unaware of the non-compliance, and what actions are you taking to fix this problem?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: I say, Mr. Speaker, with 270 schools and 400 projects, we are fixing something in the public education system, I guarantee you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon. member's question on busing, we are certainly fully focused on that issue and we are fully committed to the safety of our students. I am reiterating that from my previous message around the infrastructure investments we are making in education. It is a priority for our government and, Mr. Speaker, we are committed so that we have had meetings with the school bus operators in this Province - myself and the Minister of Government Services - and we have made a joint commitment to move forward in addressing the deficiencies that exist in the system, and we are committed, Mr. Speaker –

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member for the District of Lake Melville, the hon. Minister of Labrador Affairs, for the final time, for his co-operation today. That is the final warning.

The hon. the Minister of Education, to complete his answer.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, we have certainly given this our full attention and we have engaged in a discussion with school bus operators, and clearly the government's focus is zero tolerance for safety regulations.

The D250 standards, Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, in case he is not aware, contain hundreds of regulations for school buses, many of which are not related to safety, but we are, Mr. Speaker, focused very clearly on safety issues.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and Community Services continues to talk about the review of laboratory and X-ray services in the Province. He says that his department is doing this review. He has also said that Health and Community Services has a plan, and that the changes in Flower's Cove and Lewisporte were based on this review and plan.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Would he please present the House with an update of that review and with the plan?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Mr. Speaker, it is a job to give the hon. member a copy of the plan when we have not completed the plan yet. I just said a few minutes ago that we are working through this; this is an ongoing process.

When we looked at the Towns of Lewisporte and Flower's Cove, we looked at those particular communities right now because we are building new health care facilities in those communities. We had to determine what type of program would go into those particular facilities and, very simply, we are still working on this plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, very respectfully: Is there anything on paper that can tell us what they are basing all their decision-making on, no matter what we call it, a briefing note or a file?

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

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are all sorts of information and discussions that go on with the Department of Health and Community Services every day. There have been many discussions that have been had with regional health authorities, with different people, and we have been discussing what needs to done in terms of laboratory and X-ray service throughout the Province. We have not finished that assessment yet; we are working on that. When we do finish it we will certainly be able to report our findings to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to suggest to the minister that he may want to get a full plan in place before they do decision-making.

Anyway, I will go on, Mr. Speaker. One of the doctors in Lewisporte has said that she is going to quit due to the reduced services. She is one of our own, trained here and stayed here to practice. She is an example of what our medical school and our Department of Health say they need.

Knowing that we do not have enough rural doctors, and are struggling to recruit physicians and specialists, I am sure we were all surprised to hear the Minister of Health and Community Services say flippantly in the news that we can recruit more physicians.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health: Where does he expect to find more rural physicians? Is he going to pluck them off the trees?

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

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to say that we certainly appreciate our physicians in Newfoundland and Labrador. They do a justice to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: I would suggest that every member in this House has, at some time, had to go and see a physician, and we appreciate what they do.

I can tell you today, Mr. Speaker, that we have been very, very pleased with our recruiting efforts. In fact, today this Province has more practicing physicians than every before in its history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: I know, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition never want to hear the good news that we give out.

The other fact, Mr. Speaker, is that when it comes to the doctors in Lewisporte or any other place in Newfoundland and Labrador, as I said before, we want to retain these particular physicians, we want them to stay in the communities that they are in, but I can also tell you that we have been very, very successful in attracting physicians to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, I say, Mr. Speaker, we have had right now three applications for physicians that actually want to come into Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with section 9(5) paragraph (a) of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I hereby table the minutes of the House of Assembly Management Committee meetings, the meetings of May 6 and May 13, 2009.

Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

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

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

We have so many over here we just do not know who is going to start with them, I guess.

I appreciate an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to deliver I believe it is my fifty-fourth petition concerning dialysis services to the southwest corner of the Province.

Now, we have just heard from the Minister of Health about all the difficulties there are trying to meet the demand for services with the bank book that you have, and the ability to pay for all of these things. When, of course, you stand in the House to deliver such a petition you feel almost like you are swimming against the tide because you do not know if there is ever any chance of getting such a request fulfilled given the bleeding heart story that the Minister of Health will give you.

We have a few stories of our own to tell from Southwestern Newfoundland when it comes to dialysis. We have ten or twelve people out there at any given time who have to truck over the highway from Port aux Basques, get past the Wreckhouse in all kinds of weather, and they do not do this, as the minister was talking about in his X-ray thing: Well, I have only ever had three or four in my life, or my dad has only ever had three or four. Well, in this case, these people have it three times a week. They leave home Monday, Wednesday and Friday, every day of their life, to go to Corner Brook for dialysis. Now, there is no need of it. We have a facility in Port aux Basques that can accommodate it physically. We have staff there who are prepared to train to do it. The people want to have it done there. We have agreed, as a community, that we will provide the money through fundraising to buy the equipment. Now, what is the hang-up with getting that provided? You know, we cannot even get a decent answer.

The former Minister of Health, who knows - me and him had a chat here once outside the House. We had a meeting in Corner Brook; he met with the council back when. Now he has gone on; he has moved on to other pastures. Never did get anything done, and you talk about what a government is supposed to do.

We are asking here for some of the basics. We are asking government to just make a decision that we are even prepared to talk about it. We know we have these people every day of their life who live with this and we need to have somebody even talk about it to see what the options are. Is it possible to do this?

If I am suggesting anything that is not possible, tell me. If it is not possible, if it comes down to the fact that: No, you do not have the trained personnel, or they cannot be trained; no, it costs x numbers of dollars that you are not even taking into consideration, Parsons - if there is something like that, tell us why it cannot be done. When you, day after day, pound your head in here and ask for some kind of simple answers like that and never get them, that is more frustrating sometimes than the problem itself.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my submissions in this House all the time, but hopefully we can even get a response and somebody say: Let's have a chat about this and see what we can or cannot do.

That would be a good start, to show that you are listening enough to even be concerned. That is the first start, I suggest to this new minister who is on the job here, and hopefully we will get some of that from him that we did not get before.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of residents in the Lewisporte area and the surrounding area, the 9,000 people in this Province, in that region, who are impacted by government's decision to close X-ray and laboratory services in their communities.

Mr. Speaker, communities on the Northern Peninsula, in the Flower's Cove area, are also impacted but this petition is directly from the people in the Lewisporte region.

Mr. Speaker, people fail to understand government's rationale to actually cut this service. It is a service they have enjoyed for more than fifty years. In fact, it was only two years ago that the X-ray equipment in this community was replaced, so the equipment is actually new. They fail to understand why the minister, today, is taking such a hard line in closing this particular service. It makes no sense to them.

Those, Mr. Speaker, who have spoken out, like the physicians in the area, like Dr. Penney and like her colleagues, were absolutely astounded by the response they got from the Minister of Health when he said: If they do not want to work in a community that does not have these services they can leave.

We have spent half our lives in this Province trying to recruit physicians in rural communities around Newfoundland and Labrador. It has never been an easy challenge. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in the last three years as the Opposition critic in Health, I have probably asked dozens and dozens of questions around physician recruitment. It is only a year ago, when in places like Gander, there were thousands of people on the wait list to see a doctor, that were lining up to get in to see doctors.

There were places like in Labrador West, where they could not recruit physicians, where people moving into the community did not even have a family physician that they could go and visit. When you have people that have been prepared to live and work in some of the smaller rural areas in this Province for more than two decades in medical practice, serving the community and the people, they do it because of the love they have for their job and for the regions that they are in. I think it is absolutely appalling that they were not consulted by government before this decision was made. They were not listened to after the decision was made. In fact, they were very abruptly dismissed and they were told that if you want to leave, you go and leave. What kind of thanks is that for the service that these people have given our Province? I think it is absolutely appalling!

What is even worse, Mr. Speaker, is that the people in the Lewisporte area, whether through their MHA or through someone else, had their hopes built up. They had their hopes built up that at some point they could have a one-roof medical concept in their community where they could have all their lab and X-ray, their clinical operations and their long-term care facility all under one roof. Well, Mr. Speaker, that expectation was shattered two weeks ago when the minister went out there. He said we cannot have a one-roof concept. We do not have the money to put the infrastructure in place. We are going to build the long-term care but lab and X-ray will stay separately. Mr. Speaker, people accepted that. They accepted that. They did not make an issue out of it, and then less than two weeks later they found out, Mr. Speaker, that not only –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her remarks.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They found out that not only were they going to not have a one-roof concept, they were not going to have the services at all; that their lab and X-ray was going to be taken all together.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further petitions?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate another opportunity to have a few words again about the lack of medical services, particularly nursing services in the community of Ramea. It is not only Ramea, of course, that gets served by the personnel when we do have somebody there. It is also the communities of Grey River and François, because there are clinics down the coast from time to time to service those people as well.

Of course, we have a situation where it is supposed to have two nurse practitioners. We have never, to my knowledge, ever had two. The best we have ever been able to do is have one nurse practitioner. That lady has resigned effective September 14, this month. A few days from now we will have no nurse practitioner in the community of Ramea and servicing these other communities.

Now, thankfully, we have a short-term band-aid solution. They are going to put two RNs there on a two-week on, two-week off basis, but that is only a band-aid. That is not intended to be permanent. The permanent solution is, of course, to have the residents who live there, are part of the community and provide the services on a full-time basis.

The problems we encounter is when we go to the Department of Health and Western Health to ask for some assistance in how we might recruit these people, it seems that there is different criteria around the Province. For example, you can pay a nurse or a nurse practitioner who goes to Labrador, you can pay that person a retention bonus, or an attraction bonus, recruitment bonus and a retention bonus, but you cannot do the same thing in Ramea because that is not considered to have the same classification. That is not considered rural. Now I do not know what is different between rural Ramea and rural somewhere on the Coast of Labrador. I see little distinction, but yet, somewhere the powers that be make that distinction. So you cannot use those vehicles to attract personnel; totally discriminatory again. One group gets it, the other does not, and they are treated like second-class citizens.

They also have the issue, of course, of where they stay when they come there. A resident of the community called the Minister of Health a few days ago, had a conversation with him. The minister, of course - probably because he never had a briefing note, he does not get those - he was not clued into the circumstances. He was not aware that there are even facilities in Ramea where they can live, and there is. There are two facilities in Ramea where nursing staff can live there.

MR. ORAM: What are you talking about? (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I say to the minister, maybe if he listened he would know what I am talking about instead of talking to his colleague next to him. Don't spout off at me: What are you talking about? The first thing you have to do is listen if you want to hear.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is they get treated differently. There are all kinds of incentives given to anyone else who might want to go anywhere else to work, but they are not prepared to give those incentives in Ramea. That is discriminatory.

So, again, will the Minister of Health get his head around this issue and at least tell us again why we cannot have the same attraction bonuses, the same retention bonuses, the same living arrangements for personnel who might be prepared to go live and work in rural South Western Newfoundland that we can get elsewhere in this Province? It is a pretty simple question, and hopefully, there should be an answer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of constituents in my District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. Mr. Speaker, they are asking government to look at paving the highway from Red Bay to Cartwright as part of the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Mr. Speaker, they obviously feel that with the opening of the highway into Goose Bay and the other sections of the road in Labrador being scheduled for paving, that this needs to be done, and I totally support them. If we are going to open up all of Labrador to the highway connection, we need to ensure that these roads are going to be paved. Not just built and left for another twenty years before they are actually dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, people in the district were not at all pleased when they heard the response from government, that it could be up to 2015 or longer before there would even be anything earmarked for paving in that part of Labrador. We think that the provincial government should be negotiating with the federal government now on agreements to pave the entire Trans-Labrador Highway. We think that should be one of the priorities that is on their agenda. We know that the relationship, Mr. Speaker, is not a good one. We know that other provinces across Canada are securing major amounts of money for infrastructure, especially for road infrastructure and for paving and for bridges and so on. We think that if the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was to go forward and start the negotiation, that maybe we could see pavement a whole lot earlier in that area of Labrador as well.

Mr. Speaker, if there is no effort, if there is no effort going to be made than people are going to be waiting an awful long time. It is just like the people in Northern Labrador, Mr. Speaker, that are looking to get a study done into building a highway into their communities. Something like $300,000 they are looking for, and they cannot even get that money out of the provincial government. I think that people in the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and I certainly agree and share with them that this is a major issue; that we need to have some negotiation around the paving of those particular sections of road, and the only way it is going to happen is if the provincial government goes forward with a proposal to the federal government in which they are prepared as a Province to put up a certain amount of money. Everywhere else in the Province we have paved roads. It should be no different in Labrador. It should be absolutely no different in Labrador, and it should not be a case of where: we built you a road, now take it and leave it. It should be a case, Mr. Speaker, of where we have built you a road and now we are going to go out and we are going to find the money to pave it as soon as we possibly can, but that is not the response that we are getting. It is nowhere near the response we are getting.

In fact, there are gravel roads in Labrador today that have not had a single bit of gravel placed on them in the last seven or eight years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude her remarks.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So it just goes to show what the priority is to those roads, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I know we are building the highway. We were the government that secured the money for it in the first place, Mr. Speaker, and we are building a lot of it with federal money and everybody knows that. But where is the commitment to the provincial roads? We have not seen that either in the last year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From the Order Paper we will call Order 3 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, from the Order Paper we will call Order 3, which is the Committee on An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador Water Rights Act.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador Water Rights Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is properly made and seconded that this House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 37 and that I do now leave the Chair.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

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

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

Bill 37, An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador Water Rights Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador Water Rights Act." (Bill 37)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly want to have a few comments in Committee and, of course, I have some questions that I would like to have answered, specifically around the Lower Churchill Project itself.

As you know, the bill that we are debating, Bill 37, is really amending the Energy Corporation Act of Newfoundland and Labrador which was debated and passed in the House of Assembly last spring. The amendment is necessary, according to government, in order for negotiations to continue between CF(L)Co and Nalcor. They need to further define the catchment areas on the Churchill River for the sake of the development of the Lower Churchill Project. Mr. Chairman, as a result of that, that is the reason we are here to debate the bill, but as you know the bill is relative to the Energy Corporation Act and relative to the entire Lower Churchill Project.

Mr. Chairman, we have a number of concerns with regard to this project, especially with regard to the information that has been out there in the public. The information has been very confusing. Even for those who make an honest attempt to follow what has been happening with this government through this process, it is very difficult to be able to pin down what an actual deal could look like, simply because they have been indecisive and inconclusive and not providing information in the way that it should be.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, we were led on for about four months in this Province by the government opposite and by the Premier in talking about running a transmission line through Gros Morne Park. Mr. Chairman, it was after four months of defensive actions of running that line for the Lower Churchill down through the park, defending it and giving every reason why it should be done, that just last week he came out and said he was joking and he was only kidding about doing this.

MS DUNDERDALE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Premier on a point of order.

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Chairman, I really have to question the relevance of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. We are here to discuss an amendment to the Water Rights Act and it is the definition of the catchment area, Mr. Chairman, that is precisely the amendment that we are here to discuss. The larger issue of the development of the Lower Churchill is not at issue here. This is a water management issue that needs to be resolved between Nalcor and CF(L)Co and that is the scope of the debate. Everything outside of that, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, is outside the scope of this amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on the point of order?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, we have seen attempts by this government in the last number of times since we have been in this session to muzzle the Opposition from having commentary. Now the Government House Leader and now the Minister of Natural Resources are taking this definition of relevance to a whole new extreme. They would prefer if we, as Opposition members, stand up here and do nothing but mention only –

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, maybe you can protect me from the vociferous announcements and pronouncements of the Minister of Transportation and Works over there who, again, tries to muzzle everything that we might try to say here by constantly interjecting. Is there anyway possible that we could have him be silenced for awhile, while I can make my point?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Opposition House Leader speaking to the point of order.

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

Again, we are dealing here with the issue of relevance. We have already had a ruling from this Chair and this Speaker on what was relevant. We have had it and we had it earlier in this session because the minister constantly, and the Government House Leader, constantly tried to muzzle what we say.

Now, we are dealing here with a special sitting of the House of Assembly in September of 2009. We did not come here under normal circumstances. I do not know if the House of Assembly is ever, ever sat in September. We are back here because the government says we have a matter of urgency. Forget about relevancy, we have a matter of extreme urgency to the future of this Province.

Now, it so happens that it is one bill, but that one bill, that one section of that bill which describes the boundaries of what we are going to call the Lower Churchill River entails every single piece of what is going on with the history of the Lower Churchill. How can we talk about saying we have a GSP measurement here and we have a GSP measurement here, now restrict yourself to that. I mean how restrictive are we going to get here when you cannot stand up here and pose questions to the minister about the concerns that rest within this piece of legislation and with these changes?

We already have had lots of commentary from over here as to what the motivations were. It all relates to what the motivations of the government are in doing this. If the Minister of Natural Resources is not prepared to listen to the questions and get up and give some answers to the questions, what is it all about? What is the purpose of a Legislature if the Minister of Natural Resources, who is probably carrying the most important file or could be one of the most important files in the history of this Province, will not let the Leader of the Opposition ask questions, and she be prepared to answer them? Are we supposed to conduct everything here under a microscope and only ask the questions that they want asked? We see what happens in Question Period. Are we going to subject this House of Assembly now, which is supposed to be a place of freedom of speech, are we going to restrict that so it is such a constrictive and restrictive ruling on relevance that the Leader of the Opposition and opposition members cannot ask questions about it? They were the ones who decided this was a priority. They were the ones who decided this was urgent. We all know it is important. And if it so important, to get in here and then ‘frivolize' what we are trying to do by saying it is not relevant.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on the point of order.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chairman, the point of order was put forward by the Minister of Natural Resources, and I just want to draw to your attention the fact that in our Standing Orders 60.(2), it says, "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

So, Mr. Chairman, we have certainly had second reading of this particular debate. We also debate openly in Question Period in this House, but what we are saying is that at this particular part of the debate, at this stage of the debate here in the House of Assembly for this particular amendment to this legislation, it does indicate that the debate has to be strictly relevant.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The point of order raised by the hon. the Deputy Premier is correct. In our Standing Orders, under section 60.(2) it does state that, "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

I will point out as well, in Beauchesne §459.(1) "Relevance is not easy to define. In borderline cases the Member should be given the benefit of the doubt, although the Speaker has frequently admonished Members who have strayed in debate."

I will ask all members of the House to provide co-operation during debate. We are at Committee stage –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

We are at Committee stage in debate, and according to the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly, I would ask members to stay, and maintain some relevance, within debate.

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

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

I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to the amendment that is on the floor. When looking further at the bill that we are looking at, Bill 37, I wanted to make sure that I was as clear as possible with regard to the details. The bill makes reference, of course, to an act. The act is The Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation Limited (Lease) Act, 1961. The act that this bill is amending also makes reference to the Lower Churchill Development Act.

So I went through the different references to make sure that, as I said, I understood everything, and I actually was concerned with something that looked like a discrepancy to me. Now I did call legal counsel and spoke with him today, and he may have reported that to the minister. So I wanted to put on record the issue that I raised today to make sure that it is on record and to hope that I have it straight, and I think people should know that I did this.

It has to do with the coordinates in the bill in section 2.(c)(i), the coordinates sixty degrees and forty-five minutes west of Greenwich. What we have there is the definition, of course, the actual definition of the Lower Churchill River. We now have specifics in here – well, these were in the other, but specifics defining the Lower Churchill River. However, when I went to the Lower Churchill Development Act, which is an act that is related to the amendment, the act that is being amended, I noticed that in, I think it is in the appendix, in this act - I do not think I have to give the exact section. In this act there is a definition of the Lower Churchill basin, and in the definition of the Lower Churchill basin, coordinates are also used, and the coordinate sixty-three degrees, forty minutes west of Greenwich is the same as that in the bill that we are looking at, but the second coordinate is the intersection of the Churchill River with the meridian of sixty degrees, forty-six minutes west of Greenwich.

In one act it says forty-six and in the other act, and in the amendment to the act in the bill that we are looking at today, it says forty-five. So I wanted to know if that was a discrepancy that could cause problems, because it looks like a discrepancy to me. What has been explained to be by counsel is that in the act itself, the Energy Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador Water Rights Act that we are amending today, there is an extinguishment of rights clause and that extinguishment of rights clause - which is written in quite convoluted legal language. So I am not going to read it out because I think it would sound very complicated. The bottom line is the clause means that any rights to the use and flow of water previously conferred and any property in the use and flow of water previously conferred by a grant, a lease or a license, or anything else that government may use that has happened prior to this act, that right is not a right of the Energy Corporation. That is the extinguishment.

Now, counsel tells me that the fact that in one act that refers to the work of the Energy Corporation, the fact that one act has one coordinate and the act with the water rights has another will be irrelevant because of the clause of extinguishment of rights. I still have a concern, and my concern is, what about if the grant, or the lease, or the license, or the statute of the Province used this clause in a reference rather than the clause in – when I say this clause, I mean the clause in the Lower Churchill Development Act which says sixty degrees, forty-six minutes and not the reference which is sixty degrees, forty-five minutes. I am taking counsels word for it, but I still want to put it on the table and the minister, I think, may have a fully clear answer of why she has no concerns about what looks like a discrepancy between the two coordinates that are used. I think this is the one question that I have.

There is nothing else complicated about this. I mean, we did ask for a rationale for why we are here in the House today and we were given a rationale for why we are here in the House today. At this point in time I think it is irrelevant whether the rationale is totally accurate or not, but I do appreciate the importance of Nalcor being able to continue it's negotiations with CF(L)Co with regard to water management, and if our being here in the House today is going to help that process move more quickly than I was happy to come in and I am happy to be here, but I did want to put this concern on the table and I would like to have the minister's response to that, I think, on record with regard to what I see as a discrepancy.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, as the Leader of the NDP has rightly said, there is an extinguishment clause in the water rights bill, and rights of third parties were extinguished; those that were defined and undefined. So, in terms of our counsel, all third party rights have been extinguished and the rights that are asserted in the bill are clearly those of the Upper Churchill and the Lower Churchill.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Just to take up in that vein, actually, and I had a similar question based upon what I had read. I did not get it from counsel, but I had read it from someone who was having a commentary with respect to this bill, the whole Nalcor piece going back to last year and so on, and it seems to tie in with the same thing.

This person asserted that the whole piece we are dealing with here now about the exclusionary clause, the very last piece of it, but excludes, is being done and this comes back to my question of motivation again. We are here today, this person says, because what happened in 2008 is that government inadvertently extinguished rights, including the rights that CF(L)Co had under the old bill.

So there is an acknowledgement that inadvertently there was a mistake made last year and we may have impacted the rights of someone else, for example, CF(L)Co. We basically did the same thing last year, in 2008, as I understand it, and if this person is correct, once he explained it, is that we did in 2008 basically what we tried to do back in 1980 with the Water Rights Reversion Act, which the Supreme Court of Canada said we could not do. So we found ourselves in a situation that we amended a bill in 2008, CF(L)Co got a hold of it and said whoa - or hydro got a hold of it and said - just a minute; you have made a change that basically writes out all of my rights under the lease.

So we are here; that is another reason for being here. I used the word motivation; the Minister of Natural Resources does not like me using that word. I asked the reason we are here in such urgency. We are saying it is because everybody is telling us we need to change this, get a definition. We are talking about the Public Utilities Board makes an agreement if we cannot decide amongst ourselves, so let's go into the House and do this.

That is the reason we were given for being here first; but now, obviously, there is another very good reason why we are here. The reason we are here is because we made a mistake back in 2008. Now, that is a reason for being here but that was never explained to anybody. That was never explained to anybody.

The government says we are going to do this, but that is not explained. People should not have to go figure this stuff out. Government should be assisting the people and explaining these things to them; but, instead of that, it is like prying information out.

It makes it so simple and so much more open when you simply tell people, yes, that is why we have this exclusion piece here in this clause on the back. I would think that is very relevant. I think we are right into the guts of this thing right here now, and again that is why I raise the questions. People sometimes want to know why you are doing it, and that was another example of: We did not catch it. Nobody told us in here. We did not get it in the briefing.

We had a briefing from the Deputy Minister of Justice and the person with Nalcor who is responsible for the Lower Churchill. That is relevant. We should at least inform people of these things, and that is probably why it was here. That is probably why we are here, but that piece was not told to anyone.

All I am saying is, if we are going to change things and you can give a full picture of why you do it, give the full picture; because, when you don't, people question your motives after. People question your motives after.

Now, the other piece I would like to ask the minister for, and this is some information again, I ask for clarification because I was told about this and I am not sure if I got it correct or not from the briefing and that is why I ask the minister again. In the course of the briefing there was an exchange back and forth as to what is Upper Churchill, what is Lower Churchill, and the fact that we are now trying to make sure we have our ducks lined up and everybody knows who is who. Anybody involved in the Upper have their definitions, their boundary lines, their meridians and so on, and people involved in the Lower have theirs.

There was a comment made in the course of that explanation that there is still a piece excluded on what we would normally call Upper Churchill waters. There is still, apparently, a significant piece that was excluded as early as 1961. I believe the comment was made that if somebody with some foresight, or maybe it was even accidental, back in 1961 when the first lease was done, if that certain chunk of waterways in the Upper Churchill was not excluded at that time we would not even be talking about a Lower Churchill today; because, apparently, based on the water flows and so on that you need, if that had not been excluded back then we would not be here today with the capability from an engineering point of view to be able to do the Lower Churchill.

I am not sure if I got that right, because I made a comment at the time when it was said to me and I said: Well, as much as we might berate those persons who did the Upper Churchill deal back in the 1960s, maybe somebody was on the ball. Somebody was obviously on the ball, if that is the case, enough to have excluded that section of water from that original contract.

I am just curious, if I make sure I had it right, because that seemed to be what I got from the gentleman who gave us the explanation, but it would certainly be nice to know if that is indeed a fact.

Anyway, that is my comment at this time.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Resources.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, we have been quite clear publicly and in this House as to why we are back here doing this. We brought a piece of legislation into this House last year concerning the issuance of water rights and water management of river systems within our Province.

When CF(L)Co lawyers - not Hydro-Quebec's lawyers, CF(L)Co's lawyers - took a look at that legislation and the clause that defined the Lower Churchill, they interpreted it to read that, in fact, we have extinguished all of their rights to the drainage basin coming into the Churchill River and we have extinguished rights that they had in the lease.

We have never tried to cover that up, Mr. Chairman. That is exactly the motivation that has brought us to this place yesterday and today. That is the only motivation. We do not necessarily agree with the interpretation to CF(L)Co's lawyers, but to facilitate the negotiation between Nalcor and CF(L)Co we thought the most prudent action for us to take was to bring the House back together for a couple of days to put absolutely clarifying language into this, to amend this bill, so that there would be no doubt at all as to what the intent of the bill is.

There is no other motivation, Mr. Chair. We do not want to lose two to three months of time in terms of negotiation of this water management agreement between Nalcor and CF(L)Co two to three months, so we decided to come back here for a day or two. It is our job as MHAs to be available here in the House of Assembly. That is one of the things we get paid for; it is what we are required to do. It should not be an onerous responsibility. I mean, we have heard quite a bit of wincing from the other side over the last couple of days about having to be here. That is our job, to be here, Mr. Chair, so we did not think there would be any great strain put on the Members of the House of Assembly to come back to do this piece of work that has clearly been explained. The media understand it; they got the same briefing as the Opposition parties. The Members of the House of Assembly were given the exact same briefing that the Opposition parties and media were given. It seems to have been clear to everybody else, Mr. Chair. I am sorry if the members opposite do not get it; I cannot explain it any clearer than what it is.

CF(L)Co interpret the legislation to mean that we extinguish their rights for drainage basins on the Upper Churchill. That was not our intent. We do not necessarily agree with the interpretation, but to put an end to any confusion, any misinterpretation, any ambiguity, we are back here. Whether that is going to end up in a water management agreement between Nalcor and CF(L)Co, Mr. Chair, we can only hope that they are able to conclude a successful agreement.

In terms of the other piece, what the Opposition House Leader, I believe, is referring to is the part of the river above 63˚ 40'. The drainage basin for the Lower Churchill, all of that is described in the act and it is a little bit complicated, Mr. Chair, but it is described between 63˚ 40' west of Greenwich, downstream to the intersection of the Churchill River with the meridian of 60˚ 45' west of Greenwich.

That is one part of the Churchill River, the Lower Churchill, one part of the definition of the Lower Churchill. The second part of the Lower Churchill that we are talking about is the intersection of the Churchill River with the meridian of 60˚ 40' west of Greenwich that lies below the 425 foot contour line or below elevation 425 feet.

That is the section I think he is talking about, the 425 foot contour coming from - it is just beyond the tailrace of the Lower Churchill down to 63˚ 40'. It is that piece of river that was exempted out of the Upper Churchill lease, and it is that 425 foot contour, that drop in the river, that gives us the capacity to develop Gull Island and Muskrat.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador Water Rights Act." (Bill 37)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador Water Rights Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 37.

CHAIR: It is moved that the Committee rise and report Bill 37.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise and report Bill 37, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for St. John's South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill 37 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 37 carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said Bill 37 be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted; bill ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, from our Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 37.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 37 be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 37 be now read a third time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador Water Rights Act. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 37 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Energy Corporation Of Newfoundland And Labrador Water Rights Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 37)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, a motion put forward by the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take this opportunity now to speak to the resolution that was presented yesterday dealing with the continuation of the suspension of the Child and Youth Advocate by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council until the next ensuing session of the House.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, as members of this hon. House are aware, on August 20 of this year the Child and Youth Advocate was suspended, with pay, pending an opportunity for her to reply, and a retired Provincial Court judge, John Rorke, was appointed as the interim advocate.

Mr. Speaker, the suspension initially took place under section 8 of the Child and Youth Advocate Act, which deals with a situation when the House of Assembly is not sitting. When the House of Assembly is not in session, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or Cabinet may - being the discretionary may - suspend the advocate for reasons outlined in the act, but that suspension shall not continue in force beyond the next ensuing session of the House of Assembly.

Although the word session is used, Mr. Speaker, we felt it prudent to interpret that as a sitting of the House, and we are in a sitting of the House right now.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we have to move to section 7 of the act which gives the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or Cabinet, on a resolution of the House of Assembly carried by a majority of votes, the power to remove the advocate or – again, the word may, the discretionary may - may remove the advocate from office or suspend him or her. Again, because of incapacity to act, neglect of duty or for misconduct.

So, Mr. Speaker, we felt it prudent in these circumstances to bring this matter before the House at this point, but what we are essentially asking is that the suspension be continued until such time as the advocate is given an opportunity to reply. I understand from a letter of her counsel that she has requested an extra couple of weeks, and we feel that that is a reasonable time frame in these circumstances.

However, Mr. Speaker, it is also necessary to satisfy the House that the continuation of the suspension is necessary. So, for that reason I will take a couple of moments to review some of the chronological history that has transpired in this case. However, Mr. Speaker, I will also take pains to ensure that I do not comment in any way on the – or try to figure out what the advocate is going to say in her reply, because I do not want to be seen in any way as prejudging the final outcome.

The suspension with pay, Mr. Speaker, is something that occurs. For example, in police officers we will see it regularly. If a police officer is charged with a criminal offence he or she can be suspended with pay. What the suspension with pay is, Mr. Speaker, is a lesser or more onerous form of suspension, that if you suspend someone with pay than you have created significant problems.

Mr. Speaker, it is important then to look at the purpose of Child and Youth Advocate Act. Why was this piece of legislation enacted? It was enacted in 2001, or assented to in 2001, and it has been amended on a number of occasions.

Section 3 of the Child and Youth Advocate Act, Mr. Speaker, states that: The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is established (a) to ensure that the rights and interests of children and youth are protected and advanced and that their views are heard and considered; (b) to ensure there is access to services and to ensure complaints receive attention; (c) to provide information and advice to government; (c.1) to review and investigate matters affecting the rights and interests of children and youth; and (d) generally, to act as an advocate of the rights and interests of children and youth.

The purpose and intent of this act is clear, Mr. Speaker. It is to protect and advance the rights and interests of youth and children in this Province. So in that respect, Mr. Speaker, this office is a very significant one. The child is defined in the act as being a person under the age of sixteen years. Youth means a person who is sixteen years of age but under nineteen years of age and includes a person in care or custody under the Child Youth and Family Services Act on remand under the criminal code. So essentially, Mr. Speaker, we have situations that can be a child as defined in the act or youth as defined in the act also. So, the purpose of this act is to allow for the protection and advancement of those rights.

Mr. Speaker, we are all aware, a number of years ago from the situation outlined in the Turner report of the seriousness of the situations that exist in this Province. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that there are situations that have to be investigated and reports that have to be provided to government in order to allow government to improve the services, to identify issues, and to rectify situations as best as possible.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate can deal with systemic issues and identify problems in government that need to be addressed. I would suggest that this is especially important now, having regard to our recent establishment of the Office of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, because the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, they can provide reports or identify deficiencies in the system which this new department can then implement. So, again, I want to emphasize that this government is committed to the protection and advancement of the rights of children and youth. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that our commitment is especially highlighted by the creation of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.

Mr. Speaker, one point that also must be emphasized, and it is clearly evident in the Turner report, is the impact on numerous people in our society when these investigations go astray or when investigations are not carried out. So, Mr. Speaker, it was felt from what I can see in reviewing the act, if you look at section 15 of the act, the advocate is given wide powers. It was felt that this act is necessary, this office is necessary to operate at arm's-length from government. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, it is identified as one of the independent statutory offices that exist.

The other independent statutory offices, Mr. Speaker, that I am aware of, include the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the Office of the Citizens' Representative, the Office of the Auditor General. So, Mr. Speaker, all of these offices operate at length from government in terms of the ability to carry out investigations without interference from government or bureaucrats. I say that in terms of –and pressure can be implied or it can be expressed, but sometimes an office may feel that in order to please their masters they have to conduct certain investigations. Mr. Speaker, the powers of the advocate, as outlined in section 15, are very wide.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I did notice though, under section 16 of the act, is that, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council or a minister may refer to the advocate, for review, investigation and report by him or her, a matter relating to the interests and well-being of children and youth and the advocate shall, (a) subject to a special direction of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, investigate or review the matter." So, there is a process whereby the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or Cabinet can direct an investigation if it deems necessary. Now I am not aware, in my short tenure in government, of that having taken place.

So, Mr. Speaker, these offices or these independent statutory offices of the Legislature exist so that important societal goals may be achieved with minimal potential for political interaction and interference. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, these independent offices, of which the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is one, are protected from interference or interaction from government, the House of Assembly, MHAs, bureaucrats - cannot tell the Child and Youth Advocate or other independent statutory offices what investigations to conduct, or how they should be conducted, other than I just referred to you in section 16.

So it is much like an independent judiciary, in that these statutory offices are given significant investigative and operational autonomy. However, Mr. Speaker, autonomy should not be confused with accountability. There has to be accountability, and it is my understanding of the way that this act is structured and the reporting relationship, that these independent statutory offices, or at least the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, report to the House of Assembly. So in that respect the role of the Speaker is engaged, and the House management committee is engaged. This is new legislation which we are - especially as outlined in the Green report and the subsequent legislation, which is going to require examination as we move along and determination, whether or not the acts need to be changed or amended, whether or not there are rules and regulations that have to be enacted.

The one point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, and make it very clearly, is that government recognizes the important role of the Child and Youth Advocate office, and we recognize that there is an independence required but there also has to be a level of accountability, especially when we have an office like the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. I think - I could be wrong, I was looking at some documents - it could have a budget anywhere from $700,000 to $900,000. So that what we have is a situation where it is not a matter of interfering, but it is a matter of someone, in government, has to look at what is going on.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, that someone under section 7 and section 8 of the act is the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Again, highlighting the seriousness of a situation where there is a decision to suspend. Section 7 of the act refers to it being proved to the satisfaction of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which requires evidence.

Mr. Speaker, under section 5 of the Child and Youth Advocate Act, the advocate is described as an officer of the House of Assembly. Under section 28 of the Child and Youth Advocate Act, the advocate shall report annually to the House of Assembly. I think, or if I remember correctly, those particular reports will be available to the general public or at least that they are filed with the Speaker's office. Under section 30 of the Child and Youth Advocate Act, the House of Assembly Management Commission may make regulations. Also, under section 11, there is reference to the appointment of the advocate staff.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been on the House of Assembly Management Commission since approximately May. I think my first meeting might have been May 6. When I arrived in the House management committee there were certainly issues that existed at that point in relation to the Child and Youth Advocate office, but the question became: Who can deal with this? It is my understanding that although the budget was administered by the House of Assembly, there were no directions given ever as to what kind of investigation could be conducted, nor did the House management committee, at least in my limited knowledge, deal with that kind of thing. So I know that this matter was discussed during House management committee meetings, and the question becomes: Why would there be discussions of the House management committee in camera, or without the public being present, without a full record being kept?

Now, Mr. Speaker, the reason for that is twofold, that I can see. Chief Justice Green, in the Green report, in recommendation number 14, dealt with the issue of the House management committee and when meetings should be held in public. If one takes the opportunity to review the Green report, you will see in detail that Chief Justice Green dealt with the issues of secrecy of the former IEC. He criticized the way things were conducted but even then, Chief Justice Green recognized and recommended that there are certain issues that have to be dealt with in the absence of the public.

He stated in his Recommendation No.14 (1) "With limited exceptions, all proceedings of the House of Assembly Management Commission should be open to the public…" I think, Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House agrees with that. None of us want to be tarred with the brush of holding secret meetings, having regard to the comments made by Chief Justice Green in relation to the way things were done in the past. The Green report is one which allows us, as a government, to implement policies as best we can to comply with Chief Justice Green's recommendation.

However, Mr. Speaker, he states in his recommendation No.14(3) "Exceptions to public meetings of the Commission should include: (a) legal matters involving actual or impending litigation; (b) personnel issues relating to officers of the House; and (c) matters protected by privacy and data protection laws." Now, Mr. Speaker, the issues revolving around the Child and Youth Advocate Office all appear, all either involve or appear to involve those three criteria.

Then, Mr. Speaker, under section 20 of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, I think it is section 20; section 19 actually legislates that recommendation. In fact, when I make a comparison it appears to add then the budget deliberations other than the three matters I just referred to. So, we have a situation where there are meetings to be held in the absence of the public.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been some discomfort expressed in relation to holding meetings in-camera or in the absence of the public or without a full record. I would suggest that there are a number of ways that can be dealt with, and certainly as a government we would entertain any suggestions or commentary in relation to that, but one is to amend the act where all meetings be held in public. It is something that would have to be discussed in further House Management Committee meetings.

Mr. Speaker, if that cannot be accomplished in terms of it is agreeable, we cannot have the in camera - we need in camera meetings - then at a minimum, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that all proceedings should be recorded in Hansard. That way there is a full record of everything that is said and what we have, Mr. Speaker, is not a situation where two or three years down the road someone is wondering: Did I say that or did I not say that?

Essentially, that issue can be addressed and it is one, I think, that we will have to look at, but it is important to emphasize to members of the public that these meetings were held in the absence of the public because that is what the legislation requires. There is nothing nefarious as to what is going on; there are no conspiracies at play. It is simply the way that matters have been done to this point in time and that all three parties have been involved in.

Mr. Speaker, there have been, and there is no question that there have been, discussions in the absence of the public in relation to personnel issues and litigation issues.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that as we get to August 20 there is quite a background. As I have indicated, I was not aware of the full background, having come into the Management Committee approximately in May, but to the best of my knowledge the situation commences around late 2008 or 2009; there were some complaints that came out of the office.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go through all of the dates here today, but on February 10, 2009, it is my understanding that there was a meeting between yourself and the Child and Youth Advocate. I am not going to make any comments, Mr. Speaker, on what took place in these meetings, other than to say that it resulted in numerous actions, investigations, counteractions and legal matters that are currently before the court.

Arising from that meeting, Mr. Speaker, we had involvement of the Public Service Commission; we have had Conflict of Interest allegations against the Citizens' Representative; we have had a whistleblower investigation initiated by staff at the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate; we have had actions to ensure that reports are not released; and, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, we now have a Mr. Bob Noseworthy, or a former Chair of the Public Utilities Board, who has been appointed to conduct the whistleblower investigation. Mr. Speaker, this is not a situation where government simply, one day in August, decided: Let's suspend the Child and Youth Advocate.

There is quite a history to this matter, Mr. Speaker, and one where, when you look at it over a period of time and what has evolved, it led to our decision, that was proved to the satisfaction of the Cabinet, that there were problems in this office which needed to be addressed.

So, Mr. Speaker, between February and March – for example, on March 3, 2009, the Child and Youth Advocate alleged that the Citizens' Rep was in a conflict of interest. Mr. Speaker, then there were whistleblower complaints, and the whistleblower complaint, Mr. Speaker, I just want to touch upon that very briefly, because that is also an important part of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act, and one that, as a government, we have indicated a number of times we are looking at to be applied government-wide. Mr. Speaker, section 59, or I think it is Part VI of the act, deals with the whistleblowers.

What is a whistleblower? A whistleblower, Mr. Speaker, is someone who, if he or she believes that they have information that could show that a wrongdoing has been committed or is about to be committed, they may make a disclosure. That disclosure may be orally or in writing, Mr. Speaker. Then, under section 56, "the identity of a person making a disclosure shall be kept confidential to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the need to conduct a proper investigation."

So essentially, Mr. Speaker, it allows an individual who is working in an office or in a government setting to address a complaint. It does not mean a complaint is true; it is simply they have reasonable information that a wrongdoing has been or is about to be committed.

Under section 59 of the act, Mr. Speaker, the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act, it states that, "A person shall not take a reprisal against an employee or direct that a reprisal be taken against an employee because the employee has, in good faith, (a) sought advice…" or "(b) made a disclosure…".

So Mr. Speaker, if there is a reprisal, or if a person believes or alleges that there has been a reprisal, under section 59(2) of the act, he or she may file a written complaint with the Labour Relations Board.

So, Mr. Speaker, this allows for the making of this complaint, it is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, without commenting on the validity of the complaint, because the investigation is still ongoing, that a complaint has been made.

So what do we have by the time we get to late July 2009, what is going on in the Child and Youth Advocate Office, Mr. Speaker? There have been complaints of harassment against yourself which were dismissed by an investigator, Wayne Thistle, of the Centre for Innovative Dispute Resolution, on June 4, 2009. Mr. Thistle found that there was no harassment, and no intention to interfere with the Child and Youth Advocate's ability to pursue ongoing investigations. Because that was one of the allegations that was made, Mr. Speaker, that this could be seen as an attempt to interfere with ongoing investigations. As have indicated, Mr. Speaker, we want these investigations; as a government we want to see the results.

Approximately fifteen months ago, Mr. Speaker, we brought in, or in the May sitting, the spring sitting of the House in 2008, we brought in legislation to allow for subpoena powers that were requested by the Child and Youth Advocate because it appeared that there was not as much co-operation as she had sought. So as a government, Mr. Speaker, we are committed to receiving these investigations and we can assure the public that we want these investigations and we want to know what is going on, especially when you are dealing with the most vulnerable of our society, such as children and youth who are either in care or in situations where they need help. I want to be clear on that. Again, we are back to the protection and advancement of the rights and interests of children and youth.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in that time frame between February 10 and Mr. Thistle's decision, as I have indicated, we had a harassment complaint made. We had a conflict of interest complaint made by the Child and Youth Advocate against the Citizen's Rep, alleging he was in a conflict of interest. Because the Citizen's Rep chose not to act, we have Mr. Noseworthy conducting a whistleblower investigation under Part VI of the act. We have, Mr. Speaker, ongoing court actions - to the best of my knowledge there are at least three - in terms of the review of Mr. Thistle's decision on harassment, an attempt to stop the Robert Noseworthy investigation, if I understand correctly, and there is an action in relation to the Citizen's Rep being in a conflict of interest.

So, Mr. Speaker, we currently have a number of court actions, we have a number of investigations that are ongoing, and we have court dates scheduled for December 2 to December 4, 2009 in relation to some of those actions.

So the question we have to ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, as a government or as a Cabinet in the midst of all this: Are the children and youth of this Province receiving the full protection that they are entitled to under the act?

Now, Mr. Speaker, the next practical question then became: Well, how do we get this before the Lieutenant-Governor in Council? There is no minister that the Child and Youth Advocate reports to. The Child and Youth Advocate, in some of her letters, clearly said to the Speaker that you cannot tell me what investigations to conduct - and no one has ever tried to tell her what investigations to conduct, but in terms of who can bring this to the Cabinet's attention was a real issue.

The House Management Commission, Mr. Speaker, had a limited role to play, so there was no minister as such, and every time there was an attempt to get into the office and determine what was going on, the Child and Youth Advocate, there were a number of investigations that were either stopped or court actions were taken.

Mr. Speaker, we have the cost of these various applications to the court by the Child and Youth Advocate, and the investigations which are, at a minimum, $50,000 to date, not including the cost of the Robert Noseworthy investigation which is estimated to be up to $44,000, the cost of paying for interim Child and Youth Advocate Judge Rorke, or defending the court actions.

Mr. Speaker, by early August 2009 there were a lot of problems. I think, to put it politely, there are a lot of problems in this office. Then, Mr. Speaker, on August 7, 2009, we had a situation where there was a press release in relation to a Labrador investigation where the advocate publicly criticized her staff.

Mr. Speaker, that investigation, apparently the Leader of the Opposition brought that to the attention of the advocate, and the advocate agreed that this is an investigation that has to be conducted. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the public that all of the investigations will be conducted as Judge Rorke deems fit, and he will be provided with whatever resources are required.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I clearly remember that the Child and Youth Advocate had come to the Management Committee looking for resources to hire, in case she needed extra help to conduct the Labrador investigation, and to the best of my knowledge she was told that these resources would be available.

Mr. Speaker, when it gets to conducting investigations again, that is where it is a bit difficult because we know there are a number of investigations out there. We know there are investigations that some are of a systemic nature, some are an individual nature, but some of them, Mr. Speaker, involve systemic issues. By systemic issues, Mr. Speaker, I refer to issues that are prevalent or permeate the system as a whole. In other words, they could relate to lack of policies or protocols; they could relate to the failure, the continuous failure of certain individuals in the system to take certain steps; they could relate to failures to investigate that occur on a regular basis.

Mr. Speaker, these investigations are very important and Judge Rorke - however, government will not tell Judge Rorke how to conduct or what investigations to conduct. However, it is my understanding that this Labrador investigation is still a priority and will be given priority.

So, Mr. Speaker, we get the press release, then, August 7, 2009, which was certainly an unusual if not an extraordinary step. Then the Management Commission says: Well, what can happen here? Who has the power to deal with this matter if, in fact, there is a problem? How does it even get to Cabinet, for Cabinet to consider? Because, under section 7 and section 8 of the act, it refers to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, one in a situation where the House is not sitting and one in a situation where the House is sitting.

On August 17, 2009, a letter was written by the Speaker to the Clerk of the Executive Council. It now comes to the attention of Cabinet. It is my understanding that letter, which was sent to Cabinet, was hand delivered to each member of the House Management Committee and provided with a copy. Again, Mr. Speaker, not necessarily because it was required to do so but because, it is my understanding, the House Management Committee had been involved, to some extent, in the ongoing discussions revolving around the Child and Youth Advocate office, it was felt that each member should be provided with a copy.

It was after that, then, that things started to move a little bit faster, and the letter is one piece of information that was provided to Cabinet. In fact, it may be the triggering event, I can say that, which brings it to the attention of Cabinet that these problems that people are hearing about in the news - because that is all we are doing; we are hearing about things in the news and reading about it in newspapers - are issues now that Cabinet may have to deal with.

Mr. Speaker, that letter indicated that there were problems in the office and that concerns were expressed as to whether the advocate was still in an effective position to protect and advance the rights of children and youth.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we are back to the issue of the protection and advancement of the rights of children and youth. Again, without casting any aspersions or determining who is at fault, for at least six or seven months now that office is in turmoil. I think it is a reasonable question for the public to ask, with all these ongoing legal actions, all these ongoing complaints and investigations: Who is looking after the rights of the children?

Mr. Speaker, on August 20, 2009, a letter was sent from the Clerk of the Executive Council notifying the Child and Youth Advocate of her suspension and giving her a right to reply.

Mr. Speaker, Cabinet made the decision under section 8 of the act, and it was felt by Cabinet that it was proved to the satisfaction of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council that this suspension was necessary. There is no reference in this section of the act to suspension with or without pay. However, it was felt at this point, that suspension with pay would be the fairer course of action.

Mr. Speaker, the materials that Cabinet had before them included numerous letters to and from the Child and Youth Advocate. There was quite a record. From February 10, I think by my count, there were at least, and I am not even professing here to be looking at every document, but in February alone there had to be at least six or seven pieces of correspondence. There were a couple of reports. In fact, if I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot be totally certain of this, but I think that Barry Fleming, the Citizens' Rep, had actually prepared a report on harassment. Although I do not know if it was ever filed or what happened with that, and there were a number of court actions that had been filed.

So, Mr. Speaker, all of this was part of the record. This is not simply Cabinet saying: well, I accept, or we accept everything that the Speaker has to say. There was a record, a written record in place. That written record was gathered, and there were numerous letters, Mr. Speaker, numerous letters from the Child and Youth Advocate outlining her position in relation to the various allegations made against her by her staff.

So, by August 17, or August 20, Mr. Speaker, there was no question that the views of the Child and Youth Advocate were known to Cabinet when the decision was made. In fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties here was that every time an attempt was made to determine what was going on in that office, then the Child and Youth Advocate would take a court action or try to block an investigation. So, by the time it came to August 17, with your letter as the event which brings it to the attention of Cabinet, there can be no question that there was a significant body of evidence before Cabinet, and I can say, Mr. Speaker, before each Cabinet member in terms of assisting them in making their decision.

As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, under section 8 of the act, when a suspension is announced then there has to be, under section 8.(2) "…the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall appoint an acting advocate..." So it is not a matter, Mr. Speaker, that the Child and Youth Advocate could be suspended without a replacement. There had to be a replacement ready to be put in place. In that respect, provincial court Judge John Rorke, a retired provincial court judge, was willing to accept this daunting task and he commenced work, if I remember correctly, the next day.

Now, the sections of the act on section 8 have been complied with. On August 20 the Clerk notifies the Child and Youth Advocate of suspension and provides her with an opportunity to reply. Now in between, Mr. Speaker, and I have to tell you, when we looked at this situation at that time in August, it looked like the next ensuing session of the House would be the fall session, which is normally - it is my understanding in November, and would continue until some time in December. At least that is what I remember took place last year, Mr. Speaker.

So, we looked upon again the suspension with pay as being a fairer way to deal with this matter while we are waiting for these various reports and investigations to be conducted. So, in terms of giving the Child and Youth Advocate an opportunity to reply, Mr. Speaker, we thought there would be plenty of time in the intervening time frame but what happened is this session of the House is called to deal with the matter that we have been dealing with in the last couple of days. So then it felt that we are now in section 7 of the act, which says, "The Lieutenant-Governor in Council, on a resolution of the House of Assembly carried by a majority vote of the members of the House of Assembly actually voting, may remove the advocate from office or suspend him or her because of an incapacity to act, or for neglect of duty, or for misconduct."

Now, Mr. Speaker, at this point we could, technically I suppose, move to a resolution to remove the Child and Youth Advocate from office or to - but that is not what we are doing here today. The counsel for the Child and Youth Advocate wrote, I think it was either the Clerk of the Executive Council or the Deputy Minister of Justice, indicating that counsel had been outside of the Province for a period of time and requesting some time to reply. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the counsel requested two weeks to reply and we suggested, or we accepted two weeks is more than reasonable in these circumstances.

What we have to do, Mr. Speaker, so that the members of this House who will be voting on this resolution, they have to be aware that if we did not bring this matter before the court then the suspension - or excuse me, before the remnant of my yesteryear, Mr. Speaker. If we did not bring this matter before the House then the suspension could be automatically lifted. So we felt the more prudent course was by way of resolution, to come before this House and ask to have the suspension continued until such time as the Child and Youth Advocate has an opportunity to reply, and that has been requested.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize though, and I wish to make this clear to members of this House and to members of the public, that we have not prejudged this issue. It is my position, Mr. Speaker, that the grounds which led Cabinet to suspend with pay, and which I reviewed in some detail today while attempting not to comment on the merits of the situation, that they are sufficient for the House of Assembly to continue the suspension until the advocate has an opportunity to reply.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, we are not prejudging this issue or making a final determination. However, there appears to be, or at least in my reading of section 7, we have to put sufficient evidence before this House, sufficient information before this House to allow the House to make a decision because it is no longer now in the hands of Cabinet. It is now in the hands of the House of Assembly, and Cabinet can on a resolution of the House of Assembly.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are here today not to argue the merits of this case, not to say one way or the other what the final outcome will be, because we do not know that, but simply to give sufficient information to this House to make the determination that is required. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that by doing this we are in effect protecting the rights of the advocate in terms of giving her the reasonable time frame required to make her reply.

Mr. Speaker, those are some of the comments that I wanted to make here, and I wanted to give some background for the purpose of this resolution, but also the necessity of the resolution and simply indicate that from this point a number of things could happen. The Child and Youth Advocate could provide a reply, and Cabinet could be satisfied with that reply and reinstate the advocate. Government can then bring the matter to a resolution of the House of Assembly in the next session of the House, or if it was not brought, Mr. Speaker, then argument could be made: well, the suspension is lifted, so we feel that, in these circumstances, this is the fairest way to deal with the matter in order to allow the applicant an opportunity to reply, but most significantly, Mr. Speaker, again I must emphasize to the members of this House and to the members of the public that we are doing this as a Cabinet to protect and further, to advance the rights and interests of youth and children as outlined in section 3 of the act. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask hon. members to vote in favour of this resolution when it is put to a vote.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I will be very brief in my comments, more for being on the record, I guess, than anything else. I sit, of course, in the House not as an MHA only but as Opposition House Leader, and by virtue of that position I also sit on the Management Commission, which we have had a lot of reference to today.

I thought, when I read this resolution that was being put forward, and certainly if one gives a clear reading to the whereas clauses, that we were here for one simple reason. I thought that reason was because we have an ambiguity in the act, as it currently exists, between the use of the word: session versus the use of the word sitting. It might not have been an issue if this special sitting of the House had not taken place. For example, if we had gone into a November or December opening, as usual, this might not have come up; but, because we find ourselves here in a special sitting dealing with the Lower Churchill issue, obviously this issue had to be dealt with some way or other.

Now, I thought it was a simple matter of doing one of two things. We could have, in a very timely fashion, if we had wished, amended the act to deal with the ambiguity of sitting versus session, which government chose not to do. We could have dealt with it that way, or we simply could have said the Child and Youth Advocate, Ms Neville, has requested some more time anyway, so let's set it over until December.

I assume, from reading this, that it is pretty clear. She asked for extra time to make her case. She asked for that on September 4, and she has asked to have, I understand, until September 17 to do that. I thought we were simply here to say yes or no to that request. I do not think there is anybody here in this House or anybody in this country who wants to deny anybody their rights to justice, natural or otherwise. I thought that is simply what we were here for, not to get into substantive issues, not to talk about what a Management Commission did or did not do, not to talk about what a Cabinet did or did not do, not to talk about what investigations are on the go, and who said what - he said, she said. That is why I think, Mr. Speaker, I intentionally restrict my comments here to say that I will be voting for this resolution for the purpose of allowing the Child and Youth officer to have the time that she has requested to prepare her response. I think that is the only thing it is appropriate to be commenting on at this time.

This matter will come back to this House again, to be debated in full. We will have a right, if we wish, and any of us choose at that time, to make our comments known. I think that is the right and proper and appropriate time to do it, rather than now, in the course of this debate on this simple resolution which is basically saying: allow that person the time that she has requested. I think that is the appropriate time to have any commentary.

So I say yes, I am voting for the resolution, because I believe she has made a reasonable request for an extension. She has only asked until September 17 to have it. Because we have the ambiguity, we dealt with it. Yes, give her the extension as requested; it is the right and proper thing to do.

Now, as far as to where we stand or disagree or whatever on what has happened, that is for another day, and we will all have our opportunity to have our say at that time. I certainly would not want to be getting into the substantive issues, putting information out here today that might influence anybody to think one way or another.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further commentary or closing remarks?

If the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now he will close debate on the resolution.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, all I would like to do is to indicate, as I have stated on numerous occasions today, that I felt there had to be sufficient information put before this House to allow the House to make a decision as opposed to simply rubber-stamping that decision.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I emphasized on a number of occasions that I was trying to make these comments without commenting on the merits of the case. I would simply ask the members of this House to support the resolution that thereby complies with the act and gives the Child and Youth Advocate an opportunity to reply.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

MS BURKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that this House of Assembly, under the authority granted it by section 7 of the Child And Youth Advocate Act, concur in the continuation of the suspension of the Child and Youth Advocate by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council until the next ensuing session of this House.

All those in favour of the resolution, "aye".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution carried.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is moved and seconded that when this House adjourns today, it stands adjourned to the call of the Chair. The Speaker, or in his absence from the Province the Deputy Speaker, may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time and date stated by the notice of the proposed sitting, and it is moved that this House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

This House now stands adjourned until the call of the Chair.

On motion, the House adjourned to the call of the Chair.