The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Today the Chair welcomes the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's West; the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs, on a point of order.

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of order regarding Standing Order 90. Standing Order 90 is, and I will just read it for the record, Mr. Speaker, "A petition to the House shall be presented by a Member in his or her place who shall be answerable that it does not contain impertinent or improper matter; and every Member offering a petition to the House shall sign it with his or her own hand."

Mr. Speaker, I wish to read into the statement of the House here today a letter I received today, December 17, 2009, to: Hon. John Hickey, MHA, Minister of Labrador Affairs, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador.

Dear Hon. Hickey; Yesterday I was made aware of the petition that was presented to the House of Assembly on behalf of Labrador. My father, John Chiasson, is one that started the petition after his grandson, my son, got sick in September. Since then, my father wanted to start a petition to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to station a medevac team and plane here in Labrador.

Since then we have gathered over 3,000 signatures for our petition, which we are very proud to have accomplished. We have put countless hours, telephone calls, e-mails, messages, personal conversations from far and wide.

We were so proud as the petition was presented in the House of Assembly. Words could not have described how happy we were. Until yesterday, it was brought to our attention what the petition had stated.

Hon. Hickey, the petition that was presented was not the petition that we were working so hard for. I am very saddened, hurt, mad and upset on how our petition was not our petition at all. As a matter of fact, it looked like to me that it was a total different petition all together.

In our petition we clearly stated: We the undersigned residents of Labrador, call on the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial government to establish a medevac response team and aircraft in Labrador. Labradorians experience extraordinary wait times for medevac services which is simply unacceptable; proving there is an overwhelming need to have a medevac stationed in Labrador, to serve all of the people of Labrador and its communities.

The petition that was presented had absolutely nothing to do with our petition whatsoever. Actually, the wait time on the petition was false. Also, we had to wait close to twenty-four hours, not twelve; and we are not petitioning to get the system upgraded or more efficient, but we are trying to get what we had originally asked for, a team and a plane station in Labrador.

After all the hard work, sweat and tears that we have put into our petition, we are left feeling cheated and still asking questions. My family and I were unaware of the "formatted" petition that was presented and not asked for any input on the revised one that was presented.

I hope that the petition that was presented on Labrador's behalf can be cleared or fixed as it was not presented on what we had thought, hoped and prayed that it would have been. Words cannot describe the hurt that we are feeling as the petition that we have worked so hard to do was presented in the way that it did.

Thank you for your time in reading my letter Hon. Hickey. I hope with all of my might that you are able to fix this error, well error would indeed be an understatement, but I hope that you are able to fix it on our, and when I say our, I mean all of Labrador's behalf. Sincerely, Tracey Best, Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, because individuals who were involved in the process did not feel their petition was properly presented to the House of Assembly, I feel that Standing Order 90, Mr. Speaker, has been violated.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader to the point of order?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I appreciate an opportunity to respond to the comments by the Member for Lake Melville.

Yes, we have had an opportunity to read Standing Order 90. Mr. Speaker, it is standard practice whenever anyone sends in a petition that it has to be okayed by the Table Officers of the House, and as a routine, we always take what the person submits, our staff takes it to someone who works at the Table to see if it is in the proper form. What happened here is it did not meet the proper form as we would normally have in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, maybe if the Member for Lake Melville -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to continue with his response.

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

What happened here, Mr. Speaker, it did not meet the form. We changed it – merely the form, not the content of what was said in the prayer. This petition came from 3,000 people, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the petition came from 3,000 people in Labrador. If the gentleman in question has concerns about what he said and what was said in his petition, we feel the content was absolutely the same, there is certainly no intent here, no content was changed; the purpose of the petition was never changed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we feel there is no point of order here. No one has misled anyone. The petition meets the form of this House; it was okayed and sanctioned. If there is anybody that has a problem, it is probably the Member for Lake Melville. In terms of the Standing Orders, they have been complied with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There have been rulings made in the past here regarding what is acceptable as a petition. What the hon. the Opposition House Leader referred to is correct, that all petitions should be vetted through the Table to make sure that the petition is in the proper format, and directed to the House of Assembly and not to a government department or to a member.

The other thing that we have failed to do here is – and I think from here on in that myself, as Speaker, will impose is that the prayer of all petitions be read, because the prayer of this petition was not read into the record. The petition was presented as a petition and the commentary was made by the Leader of the Opposition. At no time was the prayer of the petition read into the record of what the petition contained.

There is a point of order here, and the Chair will state specifically from here on in when petitions are presented here to the House, number one, they be vetted through the Table, which a ruling has already been made in the past. From today forward, the Speaker will insist that the prayer of the petition be read into the record as well before members start making commentary to use up their three minutes.

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

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

It gives me great pleasure today to stand in the House and recognize a unique visual arts program in my district.

Healing Expressions is a peer-mentored studio designed to help people with addictions and mental health issues gain confidence and skills through painting and drawing. This free art program operates out of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church on Queen's Road under the direction of artist, Karen Hanlon, in partnership with Eastern Health's Community Connections and the Recovering Addicts Fellowship Team.

Since it opened in September, Healing Expressions has given about twenty people access to workspace, supplies and instruction in a supportive environment. The experience has changed their lives, helping them reintegrate into the community and build their own personal art portfolios. The studio held a public art sale in November that was huge success. Healing expressions is now forming partnerships with other non-profit arts groups to give their participants an opportunity to try out new visual art media.

I ask the members of this House to join me today in congratulating Healing Expressions on their successful first four months of operation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to rise today to recognize the accomplishment of a constituent of mine, Kyle Dingle.

Kyle was in the top twenty-four finalists out of over 1,500 who recently entered an essay contest sponsored by Habitat for Humanity and Genworth Financial. The students were asked to write essays on the topic: What Home Means To Me. Kyle's essay is the only one from the Province to reach the stage of finalist.

From the twenty-four finalists, one winner will be chosen and the prize will be $60,000 to donate to his or her community for a Habitat for Humanity home.

Mr. Speaker, the selection process is through on-line voting. I would like to give the site here: www.genworth.ca/contest/home.html - and you can vote up to fourteen times. I encourage everyone to get involved and support this young man in his efforts to bring the dream of a new home for a family to reality.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House of Assembly to congratulate Erica Noonan, winner of three silver medals at the 2009 Canada Summer Games held in Prince Edward Island.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the fact that this athlete from my District of Port au Port had the honour of representing Team Newfoundland and Labrador as flag bearer for the closing ceremonies, along with her hard-earned achievement of winning three silver medals in the Women's Swimmer with a Disability division. Erica received silver medals for the 100-metre breaststroke, 100-metre butterfly and 200-metre individual medley.

I would like to congratulate Erica for her dedication, hard work and endurance in athletics. As everyone knows, it takes commitment to become a highly trained athlete and excel in a sport. Erica has demonstrated all of these qualities as well as being involved in her school, community and Province as a volunteer. She is certainly an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this hon. House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating Erica Noonan for her athletic accomplishments at the 2009 Canada Summer Games in Prince Edward Island.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to stand in this House to recognize the contribution of the Pastoral Caregivers. At our Central Newfoundland Regional Health Centre, Pastoral Caregivers are very special and are committed to minister to people with serious illnesses and recovering from trauma and crisis.

Mr. Speaker, Pastoral Caregivers are dedicated to providing a service to the sick and are to be commended for the work that they do. In their ministry, they emphasize on the spiritual aspect and minister to the sick in a supportive presence. These caregivers represent many denominations from the faith communities and make themselves available day or night to minister to people requiring these services.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in recognizing the contribution provided by the Pastoral Caregivers.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, I just wonder, Mr. Speaker, in response to or reaction to the point of order raised by the Member for Lake Melville if he might be so gracious as to provide a copy of the letter that he had so that the Leader of the Opposition could indeed follow-up on the concerns with that individual.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

MR. HICKEY: It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to table this particular document here today.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to speak about Newfoundland and Labrador's tourism marketing efforts, and the impact they are having in this Province and, indeed, throughout the country.

Since 2006, the year our current tourism marketing campaign was initiated, there have been sixty-two awards presented to various aspects of the campaign - apparently, we discovered eleven more since last week, Mr. Speaker. This includes television, radio, print ads, billboards and awards that recognize pure innovation and creativity in our approach to marketing Newfoundland and Labrador as a world-class destination.

In 2007, Newfoundland and Labrador's marketing campaign, developed in partnership with Target Marketing and Communications won the Tourism Industry Association of Canada's Marketing Campaign of the Year Award, and we were a finalist again in 2009 in this same category.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot rest on our laurels. This is why our tourism marketing campaign has evolved over the years, with added layers and elements designed to break into new markets, increase our presence in traditional markets, and to take advantage of new opportunities throughout our social media networking, such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

We must be doing something right, Mr. Speaker, because other jurisdictions continue to see us as national leaders in tourism marketing, and seek to replicate our success in the marketplace.

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Mr. Speaker, we should be quite flattered. There are national and international destinations which are taking our advertisements and campaign slogans and adopting remarkable similar marketing tactics in their own campaigns, but they can never have what we have, Mr. Speaker, a beautiful, and truly unique travel experience to offer visitors from around the world.

Mr. Speaker, we will stay on the cutting edge of tourism marketing in this Province. We will continue to offer superior tourism experiences for our visitors, and we will achieve our goal, as stated in our tourism vision, Uncommon Potential, to double the economic contribution to the tourism industry to $1.6 billion by 2020.

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. Sixty-two awards and sixty-two ministerial statements we have had. It must be the polling period again.

Mr. Speaker, you get what you –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I struck a sore point again, I guess, Mr. Speaker.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, you get what you pay for.

Again, I appreciate getting the statement in advance. One comment in regard to the tourism, Mr. Speaker, and, of course, we have a great tourist destination, in fact, the best in the world, there is no question about it in this Province. It is great to see that the government has injected the money to advertise that we are as such and to attract people here. Probably, one of the greatest weak points right now though is the Marine Atlantic industry and how it impacts our tourism. After many, many years it has been greatly, deeply suspected that Marine Atlantic operates solely as a freight service and not as a proper tourist vehicle for people to come here.

I think the Auditor General has made some comments recently to the federal government which might address that, and I am sure this minister will follow-up in meetings with Marine Atlantic the same as the former minister did, because I think that is an important piece of the puzzles as well, both through the Port aux Basques route and through Argentia to make sure that people have a second alternate route to get here. Most people, especially summertime with their families and so on, a lot of people do like to do that.

I thank the minister for his statement. Hopefully the awards will keep coming. Hopefully the people will keep coming and that is all for the betterment of our Province, the people here who live in the industry and the Province as a whole.

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, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I am glad he noted that they found eleven more awards because the other day, and it is not that long ago since he talked about the awards, there were fifty-one. So, keep up the good work. That I can say to you.

I notice that the minister does make reference to the different ways in which his department is taking advantage of today's opportunities, and he mentions the social media. I do not know if the Ministers of Tourism and of Fisheries were listening to the broadcast, the Fisheries Broadcast last night, but they were talking about Facebooks out there that are calling Newfoundlanders and Labradorians barbarians who steal from food banks and drink all the time and kill baby seals. I do not know if your department is monitoring those Facebooks, Mr. Minister, but I think it would be useful for your department to see what is happening out there in a negative way.

There was a young sixteen-year-old who called into the Fisheries Broadcast to say that he had seen this stuff on Facebook and he was quite disturbed by what people are saying on Facebook about who we are. That is an infrastructure that we do not have a lot of control over but I still think it needs to be monitored.

Thank you very much, 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, in a few weeks we will be starting a new year and once again public service pensioners will see no improvement to their pensions.

I ask the minister today: With the rising cost of living, will your budget recognize the struggles of these former public servants in the next year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, pensions is certainly a big issue in the public discourse of our nation today. Finance ministers and ministers responsible for pensions are meeting in Whitehorse today, as we speak, concerning issues that are affecting pensioners right across the country.

I know the Minister of Government Services is in Whitehorse today taking part in those discussions, and he is doing that in his capacity as a minister responsible for the Pension Benefits Act, which is the legislation which administers all pensions in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this government has concerns for all public pensioners but we have to help everyone, not just those who have a public pension, but also people who do not have pensions and others who may have worked in the private sector who also do not have indexed pensions. So all our efforts will be broad based and will help our pre-retirees and our seniors who need help and we will provide that help.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a government that certainly expects the federal government to help bail out pensioners at a time when they need it, but obviously they are not stepping up to the plate to look after our own public service pensioners. They submitted a proposal to your government and offered suggestions on how to help many of those who are on public service pensions but living below the poverty line.

I ask the minister: Have you even considered this proposal that could help thousands of these low-income pensioners who live in our own Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the pensioners are former employees of the provincial government. They are getting the pension that was promised to them. In these tough and uncertain economic times, because of major investments of in excess of $3 billion invested in these pension plans, our pensioners are in fact receiving what they paid for and what was promised to them. Unlike pensioners in other pension plans who are running the risk that their pensions will be reduced by up to 30 per cent.

Our government will continue to make broad based initiatives that will help all low-income citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we have to help everybody and we have to help especially those who need it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The proposal that they have presented to the minister would help those who most needed it in the Province. There was a cut-off point, obviously, established to ensure that those who were at the higher public service pension limits would not receive the same increases.

I ask the minister: Has that offer been given consideration, and is government looking at implementing something to that standard for these pensioners?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I have met, in my capacity as Minister of Finance, on a previous occasion with the pensioners association and I will meet with them again. As a matter of fact, we set up a situation where they would meet with officials in the Department of Finance from time to time to exchange information. I have considered all the requests, and anything we do will be dealt with in the budget and it will be done in accordance with good fiscal policy and that is fair to all citizens in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These public sector pensioners are also seeing clawbacks to their pensions once they reach the age of sixty-five as a result of the Canada Pension entitlements.

I ask the minister: If he thinks that this is fair, and if he has had any discussions with his federal-provincial counterparts on this issue so that it can be addressed and these individuals can have a little more money in their pockets?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, it is not a claw back. When the pension plan was designed, it was designed to be reduced at the age of sixty-five when the Canada Pension Plan would kick in at that date.

Government has, of course, looked at the requests from the pensioners dealing with claw back and as to the cost that that would have on the Treasury of the Province. Government will continue to consider all reasonable proposals from people as we consider going forward in the budget process. It is very important to ensure that all people are protected, not just those who were fortunate enough to have a public sector pension fund backed by the taxpayers of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps talking about how he has considered their proposal and considered their options.

I ask you, minister: Are you prepared to act, and what is it you are going to do for these people, something or nothing?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this government removed thousands of those people from the tax rolls in this Province. This government gave the people of this Province the biggest and largest tax cut in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. This government has provided a Home Heating Rebate to people who heat their homes with fuel and electricity. This government has given a benefit every October to low-income seniors. We will help people who need help. We have to treat everybody fairly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Tax cuts never help those who live below the poverty line, and the minister knows that – and neither does increasing electricity rates in the Province.

I ask the minister today, here we are, right now, the Public Utilities Board has just announced an increase to customers effective January 1. That was as a result of an application by Newfoundland and Labrador Power, where those consumers will see their power bills increase by 3.5 per cent.

I ask the minister: What impact will this increase have on the customers of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, electricity is regulated here in this Province by the PUB, and in terms of Newfoundland Hydro particularly, Mr. Speaker, they are restricted to a very small return on the service that they provide to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as costs go up, as capital, construction, renovation, repair, new transmission lines are required, there is a requirement for new investments. What we do as a government, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has just spoken so eloquently to, is ensure that the people who are impacted in the most serious way have some mitigation provided to them through programs like our Home Heating Program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister talks about the rates being set by the Public Utilities Board, but it was back in June that she made a submission or representation to them asking them to earn a return and equity equal to that of Newfoundland and Labrador Power for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. So I ask the minister today, now that you have directed the Public Utilities Board to do just that, why don't you tell us what that direction will cost to people that are customers of Newfoundland Power come January.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that the people of this Province expect and have a right to expect is a quality of service from both the utilities in this Province who provide energy to the whole Province. Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro like Newfoundland Power needs to have the capacity to do the kind of refurbishment to make the kind of investments that are required to ensure that we have a top-notch energy company in the Crown corporation giving the same kind of service, same quality of service as Newfoundland Power does. What we have in the PUB is to ensure that the rates that are being charged, Mr. Speaker, are fair and all of us, certainly on this side of the House, have confidence in the PUB and the service that they are providing to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Does she think that capacity at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro should come at further expense to the customers who rely upon this electricity service while your government is out investing money in equity shares in oil companies?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have to provide a service here in this Province, we have to provide energy to the people of the Province for domestic use. We have to provide energy for industrial use and to drive business here in the Province. Under the PUB we have set up a mechanism to ensure that that is done fairly. Mr. Speaker, from time to time government does intervene. We intervene by providing substantial subsidies to our isolated communities, our isolated diesel communities here in the Province particularly under the Northern Strategic Plan in Labrador. We work very hard at buffering high prices of energy for people who have difficulty in paying. We use our energy resources that we have, Mr. Speaker, to drive industrial development here in the Province to provide work for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so they can pay their bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know that Newfoundland Power's customers will see a 3.5 per cent increase in their electricity rates come January 1, so I ask the minister today: Based on the fact that you have directed the Public Utilities Board that they must have a return on equity, what will that rate increase be for the customers of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the whole process of the setting of rates here in Newfoundland and Labrador is under the purview of the Public Utilities Board. When appropriate, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will make application for a rate increase, if they deem one is necessary. They will have to vigorously defend that position at the PUB, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador through the Consumer Advocate –

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

MS DUNDERDALE: – or through other mechanisms that are available to them, Mr. Speaker, have the right to intervene and to state their case whether or not they think what Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is asking for is fair or appropriate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: The minister is the one who asked them to get return on equity, and she still does not know how that is going affect people of the Province, and how much more they are going to have to pay – I think that is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker.

Government reached a tentative agreement with private ambulance operators back in November. While this was a good first step – I think everyone recognizes that – I have had a number of calls and e-mails from small ambulance operators in the Province, and their workers, who have outstanding concerns. They have been unable to get a meeting with the minister, so I ask you today, minister, are you prepared to meet with these small ambulance operators, and listen to their concerns and try and deal with the issues that they have to face in the coming year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador entered into a successful tentative agreement with the private ambulance operators, and more funds were put in to enhance the contract they had. That enabled to pay their employees a much better salary than they were previously paying. Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to meet the agreement. I understand that the Department of Health has prepared the contracts, the contracts have all been sent out. It is my understanding that twenty of twenty-eight have been returned, and as soon as they get on the desk of the Minister of Health, they will be signed and sent back to the private operators.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the minister realizes that there is a problem here, and the problem is in the classification of these ambulance operators. The smaller operators are unable to pay their employees based on the contract amounts that were granted to them. They were under the impression that could give wage increases to their staff, which now they cannot, and they want an opportunity to discuss this with you, minister, and with your department to see if they can sort this out, and I ask you if you are prepared to do that.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador negotiated with the ambulance operators through their association. A tentative deal was reached; then the contracts were prepared and sent out to the operators.

If some of the members of the association are having difficulty with the agreement that their executive and their association met with government; that is an internal matter involving the private ambulance association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue here is that a number of these smaller operators feel that they are not being granted the provisions that were originally negotiated in the contract. As a result of it, they are falling short in being able to offer up the kind of increases they should to their employees.

I ask you again minister: Are you prepared to meet with them and discuss this issue?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, government met with the private ambulance operators and negotiated a contract; a contract which they agreed to and government agreed to. The money has been made available to meet the agreement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Government's obligation is to pay the agreement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Now, what is happening is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now attempting to re-negotiate the contract here on the floor of the House of Assembly.

MS JONES: (Inaudible). Are you going to meet with them?

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Health and, I as Minister of Finance, would be very happy to meet with any citizen of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, government has committed to developing a new fiscal arrangement with municipalities to ensure they can provide services to their residents and maintain infrastructure. This new fiscal arrangement was supposed to be put in place by March of this year.

I ask the minister today: Could you please provide an update as to when this arrangement with municipalities will be in place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we are always attempting to ensure that we are moving forward in our relationship with municipalities. I am not exactly sure what the member is asking about the particular fiscal arrangement. All I can say is that we do grant to our municipalities on capital works and so on with a ratio of 90-10, 80-20, 70-30, right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: As well, we lobbied hard for the federal government and allow them now to use their gas tax for water quality and waste management, so I am not sure where the member is coming from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The department has stated a goal that they were developing a fiscal framework by March, 2009. That is what the question was, but nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, many communities are finding it more difficult to provide services to their residents, and municipal operating grants often help subsidize services such as snow clearing, garbage collection, street lighting and so on.

Again, I ask the minister today: Has your department reviewed the Municipal Operating Grant program and are there any plans to increase the monies provided to towns throughout the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, we have a working relationship, a very strong relationship to Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, and we work very closely with that organization to try to continue to build on the assistance that we give to our municipalities. We understand the challenges that they are under, but again, I would say to the hon. member: we, as a government, understand those challenges, we are working with the municipalities and we are achieving tremendous results.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we know the people of Buchans have been through a lot over the past few months and there are more concerns there today with the potential of contaminate dust from the tailings pond. A consultant determined that the dam which maintains the integrity of the tailings pond is in serious disrepair and the water levels should be reduced by two metres to take care of the pressure.

This past weekend, residents of Buchans were reeling as the reduction of water levels exposed them to more contaminate dust. I ask the minister: What actions are you taking to mitigate against people being exposed to those potential harmful chemicals?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have an excellent working relationship with the Town of Buchans, in particular the mayor there. We have consulted him every step of the way on this. The issue of the dam is a safety issue. Through the Department of Natural Resources they hired a consultant. We acted immediately on the recommendations, the final report is expected to come in within the next week or so, but we have already acted to lower the water levels, close off the gate in terms of safety and add some of the coarse sand and gravel that is required there for the structural integrity, Mr. Speaker.

We went above and beyond that because the mayor did raise the issue of dust. We went above and beyond and applied a dust suppressant. That has already been taken care of and my understanding is the mayor is absolutely more than pleased, and I suggest you talk to him yourself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in other jurisdictions where a mining company leaves or goes bankrupt the local government often finds itself with responsibilities for the maintenance and monitoring of tailing dumps. According to the same municipal leaders that the minister just mentioned we know that the tailings pond dam will eventually need to be replaced.

I ask the minister: Will government commit to replacing the dam and if so, when will this happen?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the years, mining companies have come to this Province, they have exploited our resources, and they have left with money in their pocket and left a big mess behind. Currently, we are dealing with Buchans. This government has been dealing with Baie Verte; we have spent over $10 million there in the last three years trying to begin the remediation work that is required. Mr. Speaker, we will do everything we can to clean up and we will over time, clean up all of the messes that these companies have left behind them. Right now, Mr. Speaker, we have legislation in place that anybody who is going to operate a mine in this Province has to have fiscal tools and guarantees in place for remediation when the mine closes so we never, ever get left in this position again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we have learned today that the lone Constable for the RCMP in Buchans and I understand that his wife and children have already left the community and he will be transferred out as well due to the level of lead contaminants. We know that there are serious concerns in the community that will not be solved overnight, however, I ask the minister what police services will be made available to the people of that community after April and sense it is a concern to the RCMP what assurance can they give the residents that this town is safe?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Yes we are aware of the fact that the lone RCMP officer in Buchans has moved his family out. The officer himself is still stationed in Buchans and intends to stay in Buchans until such time as he is transferred and our understanding is that the staff in Buchans will remain, the detachment will continue to be staffed. There is no issue there, Mr. Speaker, with the member being moved out because of contaminants. He has moved his family but the staffing remains the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, in October I requested under the Access to Information Act a breakdown of the $500,000 allocated for design and planning work for the proposed long-term care facility in Carbonear. I still have not received a response from the Department of Health on that request. I ask the minister can you provide an update to the people of the Conception Bay North area on the status of the long-term care facility and whether the design and planning work has been completed.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to announce that the planning and design is proceeding. In fact, it was not too long ago, if the hon. member had watched Ed Swain on NTV News he would have seen Ed there at the facility in Carbonear showing where we were going to put the long-term care. The consultants were there with us that day, the mayor of the town was there and everyone was very happy. It is going to be a state-of-the-art facility, Mr. Speaker, and it is going to be one that the people of the Carbonear-Harbour Grace area will be very proud of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his response, but I hope there is more to it than just a photo op.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Transportation and Works, I asked the Minister of Transportation and Works in the Estimates, this past year, if the department will be once again looking at maintaining Class 4 roads to a certain degree. The minister's response at the time was that a review was being done, and that they would take a look at this in the near future. So I ask the minister, has the review been completed, and if so, what are the results of that review?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the review is underway, and when it is completed, obviously I could release the considerations, if indeed a review has been undertaken. I will have to go back and review to see where we are on that particular one. I will review the review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I have to say, that is almost like opening and closing the roads at the same time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the minister, I was hoping that he would be able to stand in his place today, because I know a review was done. That was from both former ministers, the hon. Minister Whelan, and hon. Minister Taylor. Enough time has gone by that there should have been something, and I am just wondering, can the minister confirm today that definitely, they will be doing work on Class 4 roads?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I say to the hon. member opposite again, that we will review the review, and get back to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions that I would like to put to the Minister of Health and Community Services with regard to the private and community ambulance operators.

As has been pointed out, their retroactive cheques, which have been agreed to, are ready and they are with the regional health authorities. They are printed and they are being held until the government officially signs off. I would like to know from the minister, what is the holdup on releasing the retroactive cheques, especially for those who have signed the contracts – if they have signed, why cannot they be signed off for them?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my understanding that this deal that was reached, was reached with an ambulance operators association that includes twenty-eight or more contracts. We have a number of contracts that are either in my office or on their way.

I have received ten today from the Western Health authority which I was ready to sign; however, having regard to the fact that the Liberals wish to re-negotiate the contract on behalf of the ambulance operators; I cannot tell them when they will be signed now.

I am going to want to hear from the ambulance operators, saying that they are happy with this contract, that they accept the contract and that it is a contract that they will live with before I sign.

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.

It is my understanding from the ambulance operators that I have been speaking to, they have signed their contracts. That means they have accepted them; they want their cheques.

These ambulance operators have been working at the end of their ropes for the past year, some with banks breathing down their necks because they were waiting for a negotiated agreement. They did not have adequate money; they have had to take out loans to operate.

I ask the minister: Can you tell them that those who have signed their contracts are going to be able to get these cheques before Christmas?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is my understanding that this agreement was reached by the Ambulance Operators Association and that they had a team which met with the Treasury Board negotiating team. These contracts were not reached on the basis of well if four or five of you agree, then the rest of you can choose whether or not to agree.

What I am hearing today from the Liberals, they do not appear to be agreement is what I say to the Leader of the NDP. If these ambulance operators are not all in agreement; well, I am sorry but we cannot reach an agreement with half a group and leave the other half of the group to come back later. That is not the way negotiation works.

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 wish the Minister had just responded to my questions, not in relationship to anybody else's questions. He spoke to an issue I did not raise.

Mr. Speaker, other provinces have streamlined –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

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

The hon. member.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Others provinces have streamlined the provision of ambulance services by putting them under one public umbrella, and this has been very successful in the provinces where it has happened.

Mr. Speaker, in November, the Minister of Health and Community Services said in the media, and it was reported in the media, we may have to start looking at moving towards-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - the type of ambulance service that they offer in other provinces where there is not as much reliance on the private operators.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: When will this government begin to publicly manage as well as fund all ambulance services in this Province so that the same standards of operations and services are provided to everyone, the same, in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am not aware of the final details but my understanding is there was at least an $8.5 million raise in the contract, the operating, which amounted to over 20 per cent, and in the forefront of the negotiations was the desire that this money get down to the people who were working. Whether or not that has happened, Mr. Speaker, I do not know.

I have indicated, and I did indicate during the H1N1 that if the private ambulance operators could not see fit to reach an agreement, or were going to go on strike in the middle of a pandemic then we would have to look at the issue of a private ambulance system. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, it is an issue of the underfunding of the system; it is a question of which system is most efficient and most effective.

We are pleased to reach a deal with the ambulance operators, but all we are hearing from the Opposition is that they do not seem to like the deal. If they wish to get back to us today, and I hear from the Ambulance Operators Association, then I will sign the contracts.

It seems to be ambulance week for the Liberal member over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister was relating to something that he said in the media some weeks ago when negotiations were going on, so I will put it more clearly to him. What did you mean when you said that we may have to start looking at moving toward the type of ambulance service that they offer in other provinces where there is not as much reliance on the private operators? Please answer my question, that is what I am asking, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding during this negotiation there was a significant raise given to these ambulance operators in their operating costs. It was very generous and I think it came within the template of 20 to 21 per cent. It might have been higher. The cost, Mr. Speaker, and I forget the actual numbers, and my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board would be able to outline that but there has been a significant increase in the operating costs and to provide to these ambulance operators over a period of time. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if they want the money that they have agreed upon it is simply a matter of sending e-mail from the President of the Ambulance Operators Association to the President of Treasury Board and myself, and we will certainly get the money.

I hope that answers the question for the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Question for which Notice has been Given.

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is in response to the questions from the Leader of the NDP in Question Period yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

To begin, it is about the 911, and, of course, from our perspective the safety and well-being of the people in our Province is a priority for this government. We continue to work with municipalities to ensure that appropriate services are in place, lives are protected in the event of a fire or emergency situation.

With regard to 911 and enhanced 911 service, 911 is the basic universally recognized phone number to call for help in emergencies. In this Province this service is currently available in Northeast Avalon area, and that is operated by the St. John's Regional Fire Department. The Corner Brook-Bay of Islands area and that is operated by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and Labrador West, which is again operated by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

The issue currently under discussion is an Enhanced 911 service referred to E911, whereby the system automatically identifies the precise location from where an emergency call originates and an E911 system may further identify and address specific information for emergency responders. For example, whether an occupant in the household uses oxygen is visually or physically impaired, etcetera, and other information such as road or access impediments and the nearest water supply for firefighting.

Now a committee of deputy ministers were established in February of 2009 to oversee the review of the Enhanced 911 service. They have brought forth the many challenges that are associated with E911 including, but not limited to, the geographic makeup of the Province, the technological incompatibility amongst emergency response providers, lack of or inaccurate civic addressing in rural and urban areas and different levels of emergency response that exist throughout the Province to an emergency situation depending on proximity to police, fire or ambulance services.

Fire and emergency services will be moving forward to investigate the feasibility of a 911 system. Now this will likely occur, because we do not believe that we have the internal ability to do it, so we will look to contract with some sort of a private consultant. The findings of the feasibility study will be presented to government for consideration. So fire and emergency services is currently developing Terms of Reference for the proposed study and expect to be in a position to issue a Request for Proposal, an RFP, early in the new year. The findings of the feasibility study will then be presented to government for consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further answers to questions for which notice has been given.

Petitions.

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to stand with this petition and I can assure you I will read it into the record on your ruling today, even though it has been read in before.

WHEREAS unregulated or gravel pit camping has been a long-standing recreational tradition for families in Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS residents of our Province have engaged in gravel pit camping for up to forty years; and

WHEREAS government has not typically targeted gravel pit campers for contravening the Province's Lands Act due to the cultural uniqueness and historical meaning of the practice for the people involved; and

WHEREAS government has now rapidly moved forward to enforce its own legislation in gravel pit camping sites in a relatively haphazard fashion without consideration of the impacting costs of their actions; and

WHEREAS many gravel pit campers are seniors that lack the resources to haul their campers and trailers out of the gravel pit sites before the sixty-day removal order currently being imposed by officials within the Department of Environment;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to re-evaluate government's heavy-handed approach to gravel pit campers and consult with them to work out a long-term solution to problems with the practice that government finds unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, this is duly signed by people from Foxtrap, St. John's, Flower's Cove and throughout the Province of Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that those people do have a legitimate concern. I do not think it is good enough to just go into a site, whether you place stickers on their trailers or nail signs on their cottages or wherever, and just leave it at that, Mr. Speaker.

I think those people should have been consulted with, given a timeframe where maybe they could come to a long-term solution to an issue that they take very strongly. They figure that consideration should be given on the impact upon them to remove them from those sites.

Mr. Speaker, this has been done in other areas. It has come to a successful conclusion where the campers themselves and government have reached an agreement. I think nothing less should be done for all those people throughout the Province in whatever areas there seems to be concern for the department.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today and present this petition on behalf of those residents. Hopefully, government will reconsider and be able to, in some format, get in contact with the people in the various sites, and do something for the long-term solution so that this issue can be resolved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will go to - on the Order Paper - Order 7, a bill that has been referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 57.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House now resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills and that I do now leave the Chair.

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!

We are now debating Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act". (Bill 57)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand yesterday while I was out of the city, there were a number of questions asked during debate on second reading, and I would like to give those answers.

I understand that one of the questions was: How many teachers elected to buy back service for past periods related to a legal work stoppage? The answer to that question is that 152 teachers have made the election. The other question was: Do other bargaining units have similar buyout provisions? I can answer, Mr. Chair, by saying that under the Public Service Pension Plan, service is credited by months. A person working one day in a month receives a pension credit for that month. Consequently, unless a work stoppage exceeds a full calendar month, there is no service lost.

I can also advise that members of the Uniformed Services Pension Plan do not have the right to strike.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: 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 Teachers' Pensions 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: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bill 57.

CHAIR: It is moved that the Committee now rise and I report Bill 57 carried without amendment.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, the Chair of Committee of the Whole has considered the matters referred to them and have directed me to report Bill 57 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 57 carried without amendment.

When shall this report be received? Now?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted, Bill 57 ordered read a third time presently, by leave.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to address, under the Order Paper, third readings this afternoon.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 49, An Act Respecting Public Accountants, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 49, An Act Respecting Public Accountants, 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 Respecting Public Accountants. (Bill 49)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 49 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 Respecting Public Accountants", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 49)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will continue on with third readings. I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act, is now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 50, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act, 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 Petroleum Products Act. (Bill 50)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 50 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 Petroleum Products Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 50)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 54, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 54, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act 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 To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act. (Bill 54)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 54 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 To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 54)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 58, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 58, An Act To Amend The Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act, 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 Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act. (Bill 58)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 58 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 Order Of Newfoundland And Labrador Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 58)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 57, An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act, 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 Teachers' Pensions Act. (Bill 57)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 57 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that Bill 57 do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Teachers' Pensions Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 57)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call from the Order Paper, Motion 1.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is one of great importance to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador. The mandate of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is set forth in section 3 of the Child And Youth Advocate Act. In summary, the Office is responsible for advocating on behalf of children and the youth of this Province, for ensuring that their rights and interests are protected and advanced, and that their views are heard and considered.

It is certainly the position of this government that no greater priority exists than to ensure that our children are protected. All other issues should be secondary to ensuring that this mandate is fulfilled. In addition to ensuring the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is focused on this, the Premier also took the unprecedented step of establishing a department that is solely dedicated to children and youth of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the powers and duties of the Child and Youth Advocate are outlined in section 15 of the act. The Advocate wields significant authority in the exercise of the duties of her office, including the authority to receive, review and investigate matters relating to children or youth, and to Advocate and to mediate or use another dispute resolution process on behalf of children or youth.

The powers and duties of the Child and Youth Advocate also include: the ability to "(f) inform the public about the needs and rights of children and youth…and (g) make recommendations to the government, an agency of the government or communities about legislation, policies and practices respecting services to or the rights of children and youth." It is the children of this Province, Mr. Speaker, our most vulnerable who are the clients, if you will, of the Advocate. As I have already said, we must never lose sight of this important fact.

Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the Advocate is one to which this government is firmly committed. As an example of this commitment, in May of 2008, the government granted subpoena powers to the Child and Youth Advocate at her request, thereby empowering the Advocate to compel testimony from participants in an investigation. This power was written into the Child and Youth Advocate Act to enable the office to work toward ensuring the best possible care and conditions for the children and youth in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, neither the House of Assembly nor the House of Assembly Management Commission have authority to direct the undertakings of the statutory offices of the House. Instead, the direction comes from the enabling legislation that created the office. It is from this special relationship that the statutory Office of the Child and Youth Advocate derives its independence; having said that, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical that we not confuse independence with accountability. Although the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is an independent statutory office, it is nevertheless accountable to the House of Assembly. The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate reports directly to the Legislature, via the Speaker of this House, and through this House to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that being accountable means being subject to the obligation to report, the obligation to explain and the obligation to justify one's actions. Being accountable means being responsible, it means being answerable. At the end of the day, even those of us with the greatest independence to act must be accountable. Without accountability, these statutory officers would answer to no one. The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is truly independent but it is at the same time accountable to the people of this Province through this House.

Mr. Speaker, it would be I think useful for this debate, prior to engaging in the debate on the resolution, for me to provide hon. members with an overview of the process which has brought us here today. Apart from the merits of the resolution, hon. members will want assurances that the Child and Youth Advocate has been accorded procedural fairness. It will be apparent that the Child and Youth Advocate has been made aware of the specific allegations concerning her conduct and has been given ample opportunity to respond. Further, so as to fully inform this debate, on Tuesday we officially tabled in this House a copy of those documents relevant to the resolution that was provided to members on Monday, all of which are in the possession of or have previously been provided to the Advocate.

Mr. Speaker, at this juncture I would like to clarify what appears to be a misunderstanding by some of the hon. members of the Opposition. The principles of natural justice include that one has a right to be heard. Unfortunately, some members opposite appear to have erroneously concluded that this right to be heard entitles one to an oral hearing. This is not the case. The right to be heard may be in writing. It may be oral or it may be a combination of the two. The Child and Youth Advocate was afforded the opportunity to be heard via her written submissions. This is an entirely acceptable practice. She was advised of the concerns respecting her conduct and no limits were placed on her written response. She could, and she did, make her case in a very fulsome ninety-two page written submission.

Mr. Speaker, while there are those who have advocated for Ms Neville's appearance in this House, including the Advocate herself, it is important to understand that this House is not a court of law. In a court of law, Mr. Speaker, there are procedures and procedural rules which govern things like the admissibility of evidence. There are rules governing the integrity of the process. Witnesses are questioned, cross-examined, evidence of others is called in reply and they are cross-examined. The whole process is overseen by a judge trained in the rules. This House is not a court of law, and these evidentiary safeguards do not exist here. Under the circumstances, it would be thoroughly irresponsible to admit Ms Neville into this Chamber. It is not surprising then, on December 4, 2009, that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division dismissed Ms Neville's application seeking a declaration by the court that she is entitled to an oral hearing with costs awarded to the Speaker.

Chief Justice Orsborn said, and I quote: The law is clear, that the conduct of proceedings and of debate in a legislative chamber is a sphere of activity protected by parliamentary privilege and beyond the jurisdiction and scrutiny of the court.

Prior to this decision, the Advocate brought an application claiming that the Chief Justice displayed the appearance of bias. This application, too, was dismissed. While Ms Neville has now appealed, this House is not equipped to received oral evidence.

Mr. Speaker, the dedicated staff of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate are members of the public service of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Beginning in 2008, reports from the staff of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate began to raise concerns about the leadership and the direction being provided by Ms Neville as Child and Youth Advocate. On February 10, 2009, the Speaker, together with a representative from the Public Service Commission, met with Ms Neville to discuss with her the possibility of a workplace assessment under the Respectful Workplace Program. This is a non-intrusive collaborative process, during which managers and their staff are coached to improve communications and to improve co-operation in the work environment. It is not an investigation; it is not an accusatory process.

While originally Ms Neville agreed to this process, unfortunately, by the following day, she changed her mind. This is particularly unfortunate, because this would have been yet another opportunity for her to be heard, as she claims she has not been afforded the chance to do. As a result, the Speaker of this House asked the Public Service Commission to investigate the administration of the Child and Youth Advocate office. Ms Neville's response was to accuse the Speaker of interfering with the conduct of her office and to file a formal complaint of harassment against the Speaker. We have, at the outset, Mr. Speaker, a confusion by the Advocate between her independence and her accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the Leader of the NDP was quoted in the media yesterday, as saying that the Speaker should sit down with Ms Neville and talk it out first to see what is going on here. Well, that is precisely what the Speaker tried to do on February 10. What did he get for his troubles? A complaint for harassment.

As a result of the investigation into Ms Neville's own conduct, the Public Service Commission was enabled to investigate Ms Neville's allegations against the Speaker. So, the matter was referred to the Citizens' Representative, Barry Fleming. Mr. Fleming dismissed the complaint, but Ms Neville accused him of conflict and has brought a court application to quash his report. The Management Commission then appointed Wayne Thistle, a well-respected and independent consultant to conduct yet another investigation of Ms Neville's complaint. The appointment of an independent consultant was at the request of the Advocate. Like, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Thistle concluded that there was no harassment. Mr. Speaker, the report of Mr. Thistle is at Tab 10 of the binder tabled before this House.

In the meantime, employees of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate lodged a whistleblower complaint with the Citizens' Representative, Barry Fleming. Ms Neville brought a court application alleging that Mr. Fleming was in conflict. Rather than allow his investigation to be delayed, Mr. Fleming asked government to appoint somebody in his place. Mr. Robert Noseworthy was then appointed, and Ms Neville has now added him to the court application alleging that his investigation will be tainted because it follows the same parameters as Mr. Fleming's investigation.

On August 17, 2009, the Speaker wrote to the Clerk of the Executive Council expressing what could only be described as grave concerns over the conduct of the Child and Youth Advocate. In his letter the Speaker writes, and I quote here various passages, in paragraph 3, "The concerns expressed by staff centered on important advocacy projects being left uncompleted by the Advocate and inappropriate management practices."

In paragraph 4, "The inappropriate management concerns reported by OCYA staff included intimidation and harassment which resulted in a demoralized staff and a poisoned work environment."

Paragraph 7, "Given the apparent fear and mistrust of Ms Neville, I sought advice from the PSC…" – that is the Public Service Commission – "...on other means of the House of Assembly providing assistance to improve the situation within that Office."

Paragraph 12, "Public confidence in the ability of the Office to fulfill its mandate has similarly been eroded. During all these events, counseling services under the Employee Assistance Program of the Public Service Commission were utilized by many staff to deal with the daily stress experienced within the OCYA environment. These services are provided by various private counsellors and are normally subject to a maximum limit of $500 per person. In light of the significant needs of the OCYA staff, the PSC has agreed that, in this case, it will not cap EAP services at that level and staff are continuing to avail of these services. The House of Assembly has also contracted a conflict-management firm to provide ongoing counseling to staff."

Paragraph 19, "Many staff are now seeking medical help in response to their work situation. I understand that at least 4 of the 7 professional staff in that Office have received or are seeking medical advice which will allow the PSC to assign them to vacant positions within the public service, without competition, on medical grounds. Others are simply arranging their personal affairs to plan their resignation."

In his concluding paragraph, the Speaker wrote, "Had Ms. Neville simply cooperated with the Workplace Assessment process, the necessary improvements in the operations of her Office might well have been effected in a collegial manner. Her resistance to any outside assistance or scrutiny and her refusal to cooperate in any of the measures initiated by the House of Assembly cause me grave concern. In my view, the current situation is such that the Advocate is no longer in an effective position ‘to protect and advance the rights of children and youth'."

Mr. Speaker, the situation could not be more serious. The gravity of the matter was such that three days later, this letter was brought to the consideration of Cabinet. In addition, other information had come to government's attention which lent credence to the concerns expressed by the Speaker. This information was also placed before Cabinet and is a Tab 10 of the binder tabled in the House on Tuesday. I will speak further about this information in a moment.

After careful consideration, the concern was such that the Cabinet decided to suspend the Child and Youth Advocate with pay. At the same time, retired Judge John Rorke was appointed as Acting Child and Youth Advocate. Mr. Speaker, while serious, suspending the Advocate with pay was seen as the least intrusive action at the time, as the Child and Youth Advocate had not yet been heard in reply.

On the August 20, the Clerk of the Executive Council wrote to the Child and Youth Advocate and also met with the Advocate at which time the Advocate was advised of Cabinet's decision and the reasons for that decision. This letter is at Tab 8 of materials tabled on Tuesday. In this letter the Clerk wrote, "Recent events at the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate have caused the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to lose confidence in your ability to guide your office to fulfillment of its statutory mandate. Key areas of concern include (1) your management of the OCYA personnel; culminating in (2) your inability to effectively advance the mandate of your office." This letter concluded with a request for a written reply from the Advocate.

Mr. Speaker, legal counsel for the Child and Youth Advocate sent an e-mail requesting a copy of the material that Cabinet had before it when it made its decision, as well as any related documentation that had since become available. In addition, counsel requested that Ms Neville's original 2009 Daytimer calendar be sent to her. Mr. Speaker, this request by the Child and Youth Advocate was quite appropriate, and on August 31 a copy of the information considered by Cabinet was provided to the Advocate's legal counsel along with the 2009 Daytimer calendar.

What followed then, Mr. Speaker, was a series of requests by the Advocate for additional time to prepare her response. The requests were reasonable, and as hon. members will recall, a resolution was passed in this House on September 8 continuing the suspension of the Child and Youth Advocate with pay until the next session of the House. The resolution was passed to give the Child and Youth Advocate the time requested to respond.

Mr. Speaker, the written response of the Child and Youth Advocate was eventually delivered to the Clerk of the Executive Council on September 30. The response is quite lengthy, ninety-two pages in all. In addition, attached to this submission is a copy of Ms Neville's harassment complaint directed to the Speaker. On the same day, the Child and Youth Advocate filed an application in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland requesting a declaration that she be afforded the opportunity to be heard in this House. The application has since been dismissed. The Child and Youth Advocate's response to the Clerk of the Executive Council was also attached as an exhibit to that application and therefore became a public document. It is important for all members to understand, that Ms Neville was given all the time she wanted to reply and that there were no restrictions placed on the substance of her response. Indeed, there was nothing to prevent Ms Neville from supplementing her reply with additional information should she wish to do so.

Mr. Speaker, on December 7 the Clerk of this House wrote to the Clerk of the Executive Council enclosing certain e-mails from the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate while under Ms Neville's direction, and expressing concern regarding compliance with the confidentiality in that office. The correspondence was brought to the attention of Cabinet, and Cabinet directed that it be provided to the Child and Youth Advocate for comment. Later that same day, these e-mails were provided to Counsel for the Child and Youth Advocate. These e-mails disclosed that the Child and Youth Advocate had gone outside the office and enlisted the assistance of a third party outside the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, in the writing of the report entitled: Lost in Transition. The report was released to the public on June 2 of this year.

The Child and Youth Advocate responded in a two-page letter on December 9 admitting that she had obtained third party assistance from outside her office, but stating that the assistance was justified because the third party had good editorial skills. The Advocate further stated that as the material provided was aggregate data, the confidentially of her office had not been breached. Mr. Speaker, the Advocate here is confusing privacy with confidentially. I will speak further to this in a moment.

On Friday of last week, December 11, the material tabled in the House on Monday was distributed to all ministers with direction to review it prior to a meeting of Cabinet on Monday.

On Monday, Cabinet met to consider the submission of the Child and Youth Advocate, and after careful consideration the Cabinet concluded that while the Child and Youth Advocate replied to the concerns raised, and we have provided responses to each of them, her responses failed to lay to rest the serious concerns regarding her conduct of her office. The decision was made to introduce this resolution calling for the Child and Youth Advocate's removal.

Mr. Speaker, I have taken some time to outline the process leading to today because it is important for all hon. members to understand that while the Child and Youth Advocate has not been invited into this Chamber, she has been made aware of the allegations against her and has been provided with ample opportunity to respond. Further, her response has been carefully considered. Having invested tremendous time, energy and resources to hearing all sides of the various disputes in which the Child and Youth Advocate has recently become embroiled, it is today my duty to rise before the House on the resolution to remove the Child and Youth Advocate from office.

Mr. Speaker, let me now turn to the grounds for removal of the Child and Youth Advocate. At the onset, let me be clear, that I do not intend to delve into each and every detail of the volumes of material that have been filed in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the Child and Youth Advocate Act is clear. Section 7 states that the Child and Youth Advocate may be removed from office for incapacity to act, or neglect of duty, or misconduct. Having now fully considered her response, the resolution states that Ms Neville should be removed from the Office of Child and Youth Advocate because of misconduct. I know that in the minds of some, this term conjures up images of deliberate wrongdoing or even illegal behaviour. So let me explain what I mean.

The Child and Youth Advocate Act does not contain a definition of misconduct. Therefore, it is important for hon. members to understand that in law misconduct may incur in the absence of deliberate wrongdoing. The term misconduct encompasses more than deliberate wrongdoing. For example, improper behaviour or misbehaviour may constitute misconduct. In addition, behaviour which reflects unfavourably on the public office holder or on the office itself may also constitute misconduct.

Mr. Speaker, a violation of an ethical rule may constitute misconduct and one such example is a failure to adhere to the Code of Conduct for officers and staff of the House of Assembly. A breach of confidentiality or a breach of an oath of office may also constitute misconduct. Mr. Speaker, with this in mind, allow me to provide my hon. colleagues with a summary of the misconduct upon which the resolution to remove Ms Neville as Child and Youth Advocate is based.

In summary, it has become apparent that the Child and Youth Advocate does not possess the managerial and human resource skills that are necessary to effectively operate the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate and to properly discharge its mandate. What is perhaps equally unfortunate is that the Child and Youth Advocate's repeated failure to recognize this weakness and to seek out or even to accept the assistance that was offered to her to improve the situation within her office. The Child and Youth Advocate erroneously views any such opportunities for assistance as a challenge to the independence of her office. Further, in the disclosure of her draft report, Lost in Transition, the Child and Youth Advocate breached the confidentiality provisions of her governing legislation and in so doing, her oath of office.

We had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that in the Child and Youth Advocate's lengthy submissions we would see some recognition of her own role and responsibility in the many conflicts in which she is embroiled. We had hoped for a willingness to seek or at least to accept assistance. Regrettably, no such acceptance of responsibility or recognition was forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, the children of Newfoundland and Labrador depend on that office. As a government, we cannot allow it to languish, our children deserve better. Mr. Speaker, allow me to elaborate. The Advocate's misconduct lies principally in the following: First, in her inability to properly manage the human resource issues arising within the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, coupled with her inability to recognize and seek assistance in dealing with these issues. The second is an inability to properly manage relations with individuals outside the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, including individuals of the House of Assembly to whom her office is accountable and with other statutory offices. The third area of misconduct is the Advocate's breach of confidentiality and breach of her Oath of Office. The fourth area of misconduct is what I would describe as Ms Neville's collective lack of sound judgement.

Mr. Speaker, I will now address each of the identified four categories of misconduct in turn. As I have already indicated, not ever instance of misconduct will be stated here, to do so is unnecessary given that the threshold of unacceptable behaviour has been crossed, and therefore warrants the Advocate's removal from office.

Number one, the first category of misconduct is an inability to properly manage the human resource issues arising within the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, coupled with her inability to recognize and seek assistance in dealing with her failed management. Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville's conduct and her response to concerns raised about her conduct demonstrate a lack of recognition about the failings of her own conduct. In her ninety-two page submission, Ms Neville repeatedly acknowledges the existence of a poisoned work environment at the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate; however, she accepts no responsibility whatsoever for the problem. Rather, her submission is replete with examples of the alleged failings of others. Nowhere does Ms Neville acknowledge that her own conduct may have been lacking in any respect at any time.

Mr. Speaker, human resource issues are complex, yet Ms Neville is the one in charge of that office. For her to adopt the position that the poisoned atmosphere - to use her own words - is everyone else's fault but not hers is completely untenable. According to Ms Neville then, it is the entire regiment that is out of step and not her.

To make matters worse, Ms Neville has been unwilling to accept any scrutiny arising from her staff complaints of her human resource and management practices. At no time does Ms Neville acknowledge that the concerns raised by the staff of the OCYA could be in any way legitimate, even to acknowledge that there perception might legitimately differ from her own.

Mr. Speaker, I will now provide a couple of examples. The Advocate's response to allegations that employees in her office are demoralized is to say, quite simply, that these allegations are false. As evidence, the advocate points to flexible work hours, to an informal atmosphere, to casual conversation, the celebration of birthdays and other special occasions. While undoubtedly true, it is a quantum leap to thereby conclude that allegations of demoralized staff are false.

Further, it is impossible to reconcile this with the fact that staff of the office filed a whistleblower complaint against the Advocate. Indeed, in her ninety-two page submission, Ms Neville goes on to respond to a multitude of staff complaints in the whistleblower matter. It is not possible to reconcile the very existence of these complaints with Ms Neville's early assertion that all is well in her office, nor is it possible to reconcile with Ms Neville's admission of a poisoned atmosphere in the office.

Mr. Speaker, the hallmark of good leadership is the acceptance of responsibility. Regrettably, Ms Neville's failed staff relations is most publicly apparent in her press release dated August 7, 2009 in which she is critical of ‘certain staff' for not initiating the Labrador investigation. Rather than taking responsibility for the conduct of her office, Ms Neville chose to hide behind and publicly criticize those who work for her. Unfortunately, in her written submission, Ms Neville has offered no recognition of the impropriety of publicly criticizing OCYA staff, particularly regarding the Labrador fire referral. This, Mr. Speaker, is not leadership.

Mr. Speaker, the second area of misconduct is respecting Ms Neville's inability to properly manage relations with individuals outside the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, including individuals of the House of Assembly to whom her office is accountable and including relations with other Statutory Officers. Two examples, which are not exhaustive, serve to illustrate my point.

On the August 7, 2009, when the Advocate issued a news release announcing her intention to investigate the Labrador fire tragedy, she also sent a letter to the Clerk of the House of Assembly in his capacity as Chief Administrative and Financial Officer of the House of Assembly. In her letter to the Speaker, Ms Neville seeks his assistance with the conduct of the investigation of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, and I refer to the letter of August 20 at Tab 8 of the binder.

Ms Neville says, quote: In order for the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate to conduct this investigation in-house, I will require the active involvement of my most senior staff, the Director of Advocacy Services. It is not possible for the current Director of Advocacy Services to conduct this investigation, nor is it appropriate for her to remain within the employ of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate as the director.

I am therefore seeking her assistance in vacating the position of Director of Advocacy Services. I further request that you seek on my behalf, pursuant to section 11.(1) of the Child and Youth Advocate Act, the necessary approval from the House of Assembly Management Commission for the appointment of a new Director of Advocacy Services in the manner provided by the Public Service Commission Act, unquote.

Ms Neville then goes on to describe her version of the events that precipitated her August 7, 2009 news release in her letter of the same date requesting the removal of the Director of Advocacy Services. The Clerk in the House replied to Ms Neville by letter of August 11, 2009, which the letter is also included in Tab 8 of the white binder.

In his response the Clerk stated, "It is not clear to me from your correspondence why it is necessary that…" – she – "…be removed from her position as Director of Advocacy Services within the OCYA and a replacement be hired before you can proceed with the Labrador investigation. This requirement will only delay matters, as I will discuss below. As your priority is the Labrador investigation, I believe you should proceed with the investigation as soon as possible and without such delays."

The Speaker went on to outline appropriate human resource policies applicable to Ms Neville's concerns about the Director of Advocacy Services and to point out the no reprisal sections of the whistleblower legislation should be taken into consideration by Ms Neville respecting her proposed course of action.

Ms Neville replied to the Clerk by letter, dated August 14, 2009, also included in Tab 8 of the white binder, and confirms that her earlier letter, "I simply asked that the Clerk of the House of Assembly remove…" – her – "…from the position of Director of Advocacy Services within the OCYA, and that the Clerk obtain Management Commission approval for me to hire a new Director. Once a new Director has been hired, I am confident the Labrador investigation can be completed with the existing complement of OCYA staff.."

Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept the Advocate's assertion that the refusal of the Clerk of the House to approve Ms Neville's plan to remove the Director of Advocacy Services from office, constitutes an interference in the independence of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. Ms Neville was aware that two whistleblower complaints respecting her office had been made. Ms Neville was also aware that there are anti-reprisal provisions in the whistleblower legislation which is the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act which prohibit any form of a reprisal against a complainant, including a transfer or a termination of the complainant employees.

The Advocate's assertion that she cannot continue with the Labrador investigation with the director in office is not credible because even if - and I emphasize if - an error were made by the director not initiating an investigation arising from the referral, this would not preclude the director from acting if the Advocate decided that the Labrador fire would be investigated. Whether or not the Advocate decided to assign the director to the Labrador fire investigation could have been decided taking into consideration the resources available to the office.

Simply put, the Management Commission was prepared to assist Ms Neville by providing additional resources if they were needed in order to undertake the Labrador fire investigation. Ms Neville would settle for nothing less than the removal of the Director of Advocacy Services for reasons that were neither logical nor sound.

Mr. Speaker, a second example of Ms Neville's misconduct in the second category identified above, being the inability to properly manage relations with individuals outside the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate follows: On March 13, 2009, the Clerk of the House wrote on behalf of the Management Commission asking for an update on work completed to date and quoting the goal of the office from its business plan as follows, "By April 1, 2008, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate will have completed the four Reviews of government programs and services currently being conducted by the office."

The Advocate in her submission replied that no such goal exists. She then went on to variously accuse the Clerk of falsification of intending to mislead the Management Commission, making deliberate and blatantly inaccurate statements, inventing a goal, a boldface fabrication, a falsehood and so forth. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the statement that was quoted by the Clerk came from the Advocate's own Web site. It is still there today. It is troubling that Ms Neville was not familiar with the information on her own Web site, but equally troubling that she would be so quick to judge the character of the Clerk of this House. I would remind hon. members that the code of conduct governing the Advocate's office obliges her to ‘treat colleagues with courtesy and respect.'

Mr. Speaker, the third area of misconduct arises from Ms Neville's breach of confidentiality and her Oath of Office. Section 13.(1) of the Child And Youth Advocate Act is clear and unambiguous. It reads, "Confidentiality of information 13.(1) The advocate and every person employed under him or her shall keep confidential all matters that come to their knowledge in the exercise of their duties or functions under this Act."

Mr. Speaker, confidentiality is tremendously important, a tremendously important aspect of the duties of the Advocate and the staff of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. The disclosure by Ms Neville to persons outside her office of information in her possession as Advocate is a serious breach of section 13, and a breach of her Oath of Office. If Ms Neville wished to transmit the information in her possession as Advocate to a third party, she could have done so by executing a confidentiality agreement between herself, as Advocate, and the third party to whom she provided the confidential information. No such confidentiality agreement was in place.

On June 2, 2009, the Advocate released the report of her office entitled: Lost in Transition; a review of the transitioning of children and youth in care. This, Mr. Speaker, is the first and only investigation completed by Ms Neville. The report involved a review of all Child, Youth and Family Services files for the calendar year 2006, of children who had experienced transitions while in foster care during that year. It involved 277 children and 400 transitions. There can be no doubt of the confidentiality of the material in this report.

Mr. Speaker, in one such e-mail written on May 4, 2009, the third party writes: "Darlene, well here it is. Please start reviewing this section for content. In particular: look at the qualitative section of your main report to see if you want to add more balance or comment from that section into this chapter. For example, you may want to single out the Aboriginal issue in Labrador for a table of its own; compare my list of findings and recommendations with the original list to be sure we have not missed any. I tried to keep track of it but a second/third set of eyes is a good thing. Social workers had concerns about the amount and the type of documentation required and suggested that more documentation requirements would further strain their resources - do you want to address that in your closing comments - in Chapter 7?

"Also you need to add a comment in the top section of the tables on Social Workers and on Care givers - some background around agreed upon standard ratios of caregivers and social workers per child/youth in care if you have them it would be nice for example.

"While you are doing this I will take one more night to add in the percentages in the body of the report and fix a few minor edits and then it is back to you and Shirley to shine it up and get it out."

Mr. Speaker, the party here is doing a lot more than connecting typos and checking grammar. The individual is actively involved in the writing of the report. Ms Neville, when given the opportunity to respond to the concerns raised by her disclosure of confidential information made no apologizes for such disclosure. Instead, consistent with her overall approach, she maintained the appropriateness of the conduct on the grounds that the third party was a good editor and that confidentiality was not breached as the report contained aggregate data.

Mr. Speaker, this confuses privacy with confidentiality. The act is clear that all information is to be kept confidential. The involvement of a third party outside the office in the drafting of this report is a serious breach.

Number four; failure to exercise sound judgement. Mr. Speaker, the totality of the events and the actions that I have outlined today evidences a serious error in judgement and an overwhelming failure to exercise sound judgement.

One example of Ms Neville's failure to exercise sound judgement lies in her refusal to avail of the resources offered to her by the House of Assembly Management Commission. This occurred following Ms Neville's identification of issues arising from her August, 2009 news release announcing that she had decided to initiate an investigation into the Labrador fire tragedy. When the Clerk of the House did not agree to Ms Neville's demand that the Director of Advocacy Services be either terminated or transferred, Ms Neville refused the alternative offer of support that was made to assist her with that investigation.

In short, the Management Commission agreed to provide additional resources to assist the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate with the Labrador fire investigation. Ms Neville responded by declining the offer of additional resources.

Of great concern to government was Ms Neville's inability to act in a manner synonymous with the best interest of her mandate rather than choosing to act in a manner that best exemplified her personal dissatisfaction with the refusal of the Clerk to act in the manner she demanded. Her personal dissatisfaction arose from the Clerk of the House refusal to terminate or transfer the Director of Advocacy Services while her whistleblower investigation was outstanding. Accepting the offer to provide additional resources required for the conduct of the Labrador fire investigation would undoubtedly been in the best interest and the advancement of the mandate of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, but Ms Neville refused.

Mr. Speaker, similarly, Ms Neville's course of conduct of having embroiled the office in controversy and confrontation over a protracted period of time has diminished confidence of the government and of the public in the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, and it is therefore not in the best interest of advancement of that office's mandate.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville's recent conduct evidences her failure or her inability to properly respond to human resource and personal issues within the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. In summary, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville's recent conduct evidences a failure or an inability to resolve disputes or to act co-operatively to resolve disputes. This inability or failure makes it clear that Ms Neville is incapable of fulfilling the legislative mediation and dispute resolution aspects of her statutory office.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville's recent conduct evidences a failure or an inability to work co-operatively with any external entities attempting to identify and resolve personnel issues within the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. This inability or failure creates a serious doubt about whether Ms Neville is capable of fulfilling the legislative requirement for working with departments, agencies and organizations outside of her office to advance the rights and interests of children and youth of this Province.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville's recent conduct evidences an unapologetic breach of her confidentiality obligations and her Oath of Office. More alarming than the breach of confidentiality and her own breach of Oath of Office, however, is Ms Neville's unabashed certainty that her conduct was appropriate. In summary, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville's recent conduct in its totality exemplifies a failure to act in the best interest of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Assembly must have confidence in the abilities of the Child and Youth Advocate. The role of the Child and Youth Advocate is one that is too important to be lost in controversy surrounding personalities. Members of this House must have confidence that the Advocate is an individual who possesses the abilities and the talents necessary to best advance the mandate of the office.

The Child and Youth Advocate must exemplify sound and tempered judgement, superior dispute resolution skills and the ability to motivate and lead the team of dedicated staff in order to achieve the best possible results for the children and youth of our Province.

For all of the reasons I canvassed today and after giving serious consideration and thorough consideration of the concerns raised and Ms Neville's written response to those concerns, regrettably, government has lost confidence in her ability to advance the mandate of her office.

I will go back to some of my opening comments, Mr. Speaker. There is no greater priority exists than the protection of our children. In this debate, we simply can never, ever lose sight of this. The role that this office plays is absolutely critical, and any and all decisions we make should put the needs of children first.

It is therefore my duty to move this resolution for the removal of Ms Darlene Neville as Child and Youth Advocate.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I appreciate an opportunity to respond to the minister's written speech. Mine will not be as succinct, I guess, or written at least, because I feel it probably can be better dealt with by actually delving into some of the facts.

The minister, in my view - and I do not disagree with much of what he said, but I disagree with the process absolutely. I disagree with the fact that there are all kinds of facts that the minister did not allude to, which are very relevant to this case. If you are going to tell a story, particularly when we are talking about an issue that is so important, not only to the person known as Darlene Neville, but to the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, we need to know the full story. We just do not read documentation and pick from that documentation what we wish.

I would like to use my time to address some of those issues that I feel the minister has not alluded to which shows another side to this issue and shows some things that I feel government have not looked at and do not, for whatever reasons, want to look at.

Of course, the people of the Province will judge at the end of the day - we will get a vote here; there will be a vote. I do not think anybody is foolish enough to think that we do not know the outcome of the vote at the end of the day.

The purpose of debating the resolution is so that all the facts - or what the members of this House feel are all the facts and all the information and interpretations of it - can be given, and let the people decide what they feel is appropriate. The decision will be made here. What the public think of the ultimate decision is another matter. That is why there is an old phrase when it comes to the justice system and whether that is a criminal justice system or a civil justice system, it says: Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

Now, I will preface my remarks by saying a couple of things first. First of all, I do not stand in this House today as an advocate for Darlene Neville. I do not stand in this House today as an advocate for any of the staff who work with the House of Assembly who work for the Child and Youth Advocate's office. I do not necessarily agree with the position that Darlene Neville has put forward. In fact, from what I have read in some of the documents, I disagree with some of the things. So do not mistake where my comments are coming from here today. I am not a defence counsel for Darlene Neville.

I am here because I think the process that we are dealing with is seriously flawed. I do not think, and I am certainly not here to question the truthfulness or the seriousness of the employees who had concerns about Darlene Neville's managerial skills. I am not here to test their truthfulness. I am not the person, nor is anyone else in this House, to test the allegations that have been put forward by those staff members. There is a process to do that, there ought to be and there is an existing process to test that, but it has not been done - and I will come back to that because that is very relevant to everything that has happened here. It has not been done.

I am not here to question the motivations of the House and the management committee. I am a member of the management committee, as the Opposition House Leader; I sit on it. I sat on it and dealt with much of this issue up until mid-August of this year. So I have some insight as to what transpired up to that point.

I do question the process, and it needs to be questioned, because it is not only this particular incident today we deal with, and Ms Neville, the individual, the person, it is about how this impacts upon the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, which is an independent office of the House of Assembly, independent from government. It also has ramifications in the future for how we deal with any issue that might arise for any of the other independent offices of this House, whether it be the Auditor General, the Privacy Commissioner, the Commissioner of Members' Interests or the Citizens' Representative.

I strongly believe that the process being utilized to remove Ms Neville from the office, if it is continued to allow without the proper safeguards being put in place to allow the process of natural justice and procedural fairness to take place, we have a serious problem in future as to how those offices may be dealt with. We did not set them up as legislative bodies that were independent so that they could be removed at will and without a proper process. They are supposed to be intended to be independent.

For those who took the time to read the materials here, make a very clear distinction between what Ms Neville says that she did as Ms Neville and what Ms Neville says she did as the Child and Youth Advocate in representing what the office is suppose to stand for. I think, to some extent, there may be some confusion in that regard. Conclusions have been reached based upon her stand on things to suggest that she is uncooperative, she is obstinate, she does not want to take any advice from anyone and she acts on her own. That is because she took a stand on where she believed the independence of the office should be. So do not confuse protection of the independence of the office and attribute that to be somebody's obstinate personality. That is what happened here, I believe, in some instances.

At the end of the examination that we will go through, in my time, I think you will be left with several issues outstanding and there will be several conclusions. There will still be many, many unanswered questions. It is not going to be as clear and succinct as the minister outlined; it will not be there. Those questions will need to be answered before a final decision is made, because otherwise if the decision is made today to remove without those answers, this House and this body has not done its job properly.

You will also ask yourselves why certain individuals did certain things. What were their motivations? I do not know. It is not for me to question what their motivations are, but you will ask yourself or you ought to ask yourself why somebody did that. What was behind that? You will also ask yourself: Why are the actions of Ms Neville, and Ms Neville alone, being questioned here? Because it is all part and parcel, this is not all about her the person, this is about other people who have made allegations.

Just put yourselves in the position of being chair of a body and some employees make allegations against you. Would you want to know who made them? Would you think it is fair to know what it is about? Do you think you should be entitled to an opportunity to respond to those allegations? Do you think it would be fair to ask that person why are you saying this? Where are you coming from? Prove to us why you say this. Wouldn't that be fair in any process? I believe that happens in our society today in any arbitration case. Anybody who has dealt with any kind of basic problem that we have had in employment, there are all kinds of arbitration processes to go through, to test what one party is saying against another. Well folks, believe it or not, that did not happen here. I am going to lay out some facts that the minister did not allude to, to show that.

Why did Ms Neville feel it was necessary to take court action? We heard comments from the now Minister of Health who, when he was Minister of Finance - I believe at the time back in August when the suspension letter came out on August 20 - said: Numerous court actions. Folks, there are two court actions that Ms Neville was involved in and one of those came about after the December 4 decision by Justice Orsborn. Before that, there was only one court action. Do not get confused about numerous court actions, as if this woman did nothing but throw writs around. There was one court action, not dozens and numerous. Ask yourself: Why did she feel it necessary to resort to the court? We will get into some of the facts to show why she probably felt that.

Ask yourself: Why was Ms Neville not given an opportunity to personally appear before the Management Commission? The Management Commission first heard about this issue starting back in February of this year. I sit on the Management Commission, as do another number of people in this House. We saw all kinds of letters and correspondence, never was there an incident where Ms Neville was offered an opportunity to appear before the management committee and state her case – never. Why was that? You talk about giving a hearing.

Mr. March was given an opportunity years ago when the IEC dealt with his issue. He was asked if he wanted to come before the committee - at that time called the IEC - and talk to them. No, he did not want to; declined it. Ms Neville was never afforded that opportunity.

Ask yourself: Why was the issue taken out of the management committee in August of this year and flipped upstairs to the Executive Council and the members of the management committee did not know anything about it? That is just a question you might need to know; I did not know. I was in here, came in here for meetings in mid-August to deal with correspondence involving this issue, only to find out later, when I am travelling across the Province, that the minister is out having a public scrum saying that the Speaker wrote a letter to us and the Cabinet and we have had to suspend her. That is what happened. The Leader of the NDP can vouch for that; she sits on the committee. I am saying: What is going on? We have been dealing with this for five months in the management committee and all of a sudden it disappears from the management committee, upstairs to the Executive Council. What is going on, folks?

I came back in here and said: Mr. Speaker, can we have a copy of your letter that you sent to the Executive Council? We did not even get a copy of his letter. Why? Is that fair? There was a process unfolding. All of a sudden, the process went dead at the management committee level, flipped upstairs, nobody even knew what the Speaker had done, who chairs the management committee. Those are facts, folks.

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

MR. SPEAER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services on a point of order.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The comments being put forward by the Opposition House Leader are inaccurate. He knows what took place in the Management Commission meetings. There were discussions there as to how this matter should be dealt with and there was a conclusion reached that the Management Commission could not deal with this matter. During a conversation, in which he was present, and I know that the Leader of the NDP was present, as was the Government House Leader and myself, it was discussed as to if the matter was going to be dealt with, how could it be dealt with.

I think, to use the Leader of the NDP's term, disingenuous, at best, to put forward that position. There is no record. If he is going to raise this, Mr. Speaker, the point of order, we should go back to the notes of that meeting and see what was said in that meeting that day, because one of the problems is there is no transcript. So, if facts are going to be put before this court, they should be put forward accurately, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader to the point of order.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to rule on the point of order because I do not believe myself it is a point of order. I have not interrupted anyone here when they were speaking. This issue is too important for that.

MR. KENNEDY: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I will not be distracted by the distractions put forward by the Minister of Health. This is either a point of order or it is not. This issue is too serious to be clouded by innuendo. Let's get on with the case. Is it a point of order or is it not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I recognize the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I would appreciate it if the minister could hold his comments until he gets a chance to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The issue raised by the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services – there is a disagreement between two hon. members. To base it as a point of order, you would have to refer to the Orders of the House of Assembly, one of the Standing Orders, or the rules or procedures of the House of Assembly.

I view it as a disagreement between two hon. members.

I recognize the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I would appreciate it if I did not lose any more of my speaking time because of these interruptions. The members will get time next round.

Mr. Speaker, back to where I was.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: You will be left with a question as well. You will be left with the further question. Why did the Executive Council – that is another one of the questions you will be left asking yourself, I would submit. Why did Executive Council suspend Ms Neville on August 20 - and their letter is in the material - and they only cite two grounds? They felt, at that time, she had managerial issues and they felt that maybe she was not running the office properly from a mandate point of view. That was the two reasons outlined in that letter.

There was absolutely no mention - in the letter that suspended her on August 20 - of misconduct. There was no mention, none whatsoever. Ask yourself: Why do we find ourselves, four months after she was suspended – she was suspended in August, just about four months we are now in December. Tuesday, this week, we get a resolution saying remove her for misconduct.

Now, you heard the minister talking about all the submissions she made and she did in fact, make a submission on September 30, to what she had been suspended for, folks. It is not difficult to follow; you are told you are suspended for reasons one and two. She responded to reasons one and two. The resolution says she is being removed for misconduct.

The Minister of Finance stands outside this House in a scrum on Tuesday. He is asked by the media: What do you mean by misconduct? Because nobody had seen that before by the way. That is one of the grounds of dismissal under the child advocate's act in section 7. There is no doubt about it, it is the grounds. Nobody heard of it until Monday when the resolution came in and he was scrummed outside the House. He answer was: I will tell you Thursday. I will lay it out for you Thursday as to where the misconduct came from; you will know then.

Folks, where does Ms Neville ever get an opportunity to respond to that? If she only heard about the misconduct allegations on Monday, Tuesday, this week, if we are being told about them here now and we are going to vote on them today, where does Ms Neville ever get an opportunity to address and respond to, in writing or otherwise, to the allegations of misconduct? She was never ever told there was misconduct. There are only three grounds to remove her under the act. She can be removed if there is an incapacity. Sometimes someone might have a mental illness, a physical illness and cannot physically do the job. You are incapacitated; you are out. That is good grounds. Neglect of duty - she was not told that. If anything, that was a hint, neglect of duty probably on the reasons of suspension in August, but misconduct, never was it mentioned. So ask yourselves: When was she ever given an opportunity to respond to that accusation?

The minister raises the question of what misconduct can be and he cited some examples - broad ranging. Yes, it certainly is broad ranging and you have to use a bit of common sense. If you take a pen home from your employment, is that misconduct? Is anybody going to suggest that you should be fired for it? If you take home the company bank account, would that be misconduct? That just goes to show how extreme it can be when you are talking about what is conduct - that extreme.

There is a case in the Supreme Court of Canada, for example, that deals with a judge in New Brunswick who was suspended because she used the term: All Acadians are thieves. She actually said it; it is in the transcript. The Supreme Court of Canada said that was not misconduct, folks. So that will give you an idea of the type of evidence, the type of statements, the type of actions you have to look at to decide if there is misconduct. It is not going to be just based on anything frivolous.

Now, let's review some of the details of the facts we have here. The minister talked about the Speaker who asked Ms Neville to come in, in February of this year, because he wanted to have a workplace assessment with her. She refused to have it. The minister is absolutely correct in that, folks. He is absolutely right.

Guess what he did not tell you? He did not tell you that the allegations of workplace concerns being raised by these employees had been on the go, had been discussed, talked about by the staff in her office and by staff here in the House of Assembly for one full year, and it had never been brought to the attention of Ms Neville, never.

Do you know when Ms Neville received the first inkling of what the nature of the disgruntlement was by her staff? Guess. It was not even in February, folks. She found out in July. Do you know how she found out what the complaint was and who said it? She found out because she took a court action, and in the course of being in the courtroom, the lawyers for the government were down there, and it came out – here are some papers, by the way, that we have.

Sure enough, lo and behold, in those papers were the indications, the evidence of who said what, when. So here we are, we go from February 2008 to February 2009, and the person is not even told what the accusations are, not even told there is anything wrong. Yet, senior staff in the House of Assembly - and those complaints were being dealt with and talked about and she was not given any inkling.

Now put yourself in that case, what would you think? You go into Speaker's office, like she did - he called her in and said: Come in, we are going to have a chat about this. He tried to handle it - no doubt, there are two things. There is called workplace assessment and there is a thing called a workplace investigation. I do believe the Speaker took the right approach, he called her in and said: Look, let's see if we can resolve this. I think he wanted to see if there was something we could sort out. I do not doubt that; I do not doubt his good intentions. Guess what? He did not tell her, when she showed up, there was going to be somebody from the Public Service Commission sitting in the same meeting. She was call in to have a chat. I do not even know if she was told what it was about. She certainly was not told then what any of the allegations were.

So Ms Neville was asked to have an assessment. By the way, you can have an assessment without any formal complaint under our public service system. She was asked to have an assessment. She said: Yes, no problem. She went home and she thought about it: What is going on here? What is this that the Speaker is telling me about stories – people have stories going around about me? What are the stories and who is telling him the stories? She said: This is not right; I should know more than this. So she went back to him and said: No, I am not satisfied with that. I am not satisfied with that; you have to tell me more.

What did the Speaker do? The Speaker said: If you are not satisfied with an assessment, I am going to call the Public Service Commission and we are going to get an investigation done. That is exactly what happened. The same day that she said no to the assessment, an investigation was ordered by the Public Service Commission. Guess what, folks? The public service investigation of Ms Neville going right back to then is not over. It is not concluded; it is not finished. That is where all this started. It has not been done.

Guess what, folks? If you are going to have an investigation, under the Public Service Commission piece, there must be an official complaint. You can do an assessment without an official complaint, but you cannot do an investigation without an official complaint. At that time, when that investigation was launched, there was no official complaint by any staff in her office against her to justify the grounding of that Public Service Commission investigation.

Shedding a little bit more light here now, put yourself in her position. She has been talked about for a year. She is told now that if you do not agree to an assessment - order an investigation. She has no control over it. We know this day that there was no official complaint at that time launching it. Anyway, she felt harassed. She said: What is going on here? He is telling me I have to do this or else, and he did it, caused an investigation. So, what does she do? She got upset and said: He's harassing me, not only me, he is harassing the office. I am an independent officer of this House. He has harassed me. So, she says: I want an investigation of what the Speaker did. This is harassment. She asks the Public Service Commission to do that investigation of her harassment complaint. They came back a little while later and said we cannot do it because we are in a conflict. We are doing the investigation that the Speaker asked us to do and now you are asking us to do one on the Speaker, so we cannot do it.

So, they farmed it out. Who farmed it out? The Speaker farmed it out to the Citizens' Rep., Mr. Fleming. He did not ask Ms Neville: Do you agree with it? It was not under the Public Service Commission anymore. He farmed it out to Mr. Fleming, the Citizens' Rep. and said we are going to do an investigation under Part 6 of the House of Assembly Accountability Act because the PSC cannot do it. Never did he consult with Ms Neville and say: Do you agree with this process? No.

That is where the court action started, by the way, because Ms Neville, in her capacity as the Child and Youth Advocate, had some concerns about other individuals in the picture. She was investigating Janeway issues, Eastern Health issues, which Mr. Fleming's wife was involved in, which she was for months and months looking for subpoena powers to get at, which we subsequently gave her subpoena powers because she could not get the stuff done she wanted done with Eastern Health. All of this is meshing. She said: Here I am now, I am not told anything about this. The Public Service Commission cannot help me because it is a conflict for them. He gives it to somebody who I am already suggesting is in a conflict for me because of the rows that I am having. I am left with no choice.

So, what does she do? She launches the court action in March of 2009, this year, and says that is not right. Mr. Fleming, of course, he had gone off anyway. He did not care about conflicts. He said as far as I am concerned there is no conflict. I can do this job. He went off and he submitted his report. Anyway, Ms Neville felt pressure to the point where she said this has just gone too far. So she went off and got a lawyer. Her lawyer took an action in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and said: Look, it is wrong what happened here. It never should have been a part 6 investigation. Fleming never should have been doing it and the report that he submitted should be quashed because of that. That case has not been heard; something else that is not finished.

The Public Service Commission investigation is not finished. Her court case against Fleming is not finished. That court case later on - Mr. Fleming, by the way, he got out of it. There was to and fro between the lawyers and whatever else, and Mr. Fleming got out of it. Cabinet appointed another individual to deal with it; an individual by the name of Mr. Noseworthy. That is why he had to be added into that court action, for the same conflict. If it should not have been under section 6 or a part 6 for Mr. Fleming, it should not be under a part 6 with Mr. Noseworthy.

The process was wrong, and that has not been decided. In fact, the case is due to be called to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland again. The justice is Justice Thompson. It is going to be called; coming up in January. The last stage what we are at, what happened in court, they were in court on December 2, 3 and 4 everybody heard. Well, on that day Ms Neville's counsel said to the justice: I would like to subpoena some people. I would like to subpoena some people, including the Premier. Guess what? Justice Thompson is giving them permission to do that and he is going to subpoena whoever he feels in the senior management to get to the bottom of this. That is going to happen, because that case is not over.

Now, ask yourself: Are we going to fire her today when all of that is going on down in the court and not finished? Are we going to fire her today, and the Public Service Commission thing is not done? Just ask yourself, we have a lot of people here who have been involved with NLTAs and arbitrations and workplace arbitrations. Just ask yourself, now you are in the midst of all this and this is happening to you: What would you do? Is there any disadvantage to waiting? What is the harm? We have appointed, on the same day you suspended Ms Neville, the Cabinet suspended her, we appointed an acting Child and Youth Advocate. We appointed retired Judge Rorke. He is there; he has been running the show since August.

Is there any problem with having him continue in an acting capacity until due justice, until process is serviced, the Supreme Court has dealt with their issues that she had, until such time as the Public Service Commission finishes the issues they had? What is wrong with that? Can anybody answer that? If she is out of it, if she is suspended, what is the problem with letting those processes unfold and then once it is done, we decide as the House: okay, you've had your day in court. This is what came out of it. Okay, you are through it now. You have had your hearings and any kind you wanted. You have had it in writing; you have had it oral, now you are done.

No, this House is not losing any of its power, any of its prerogatives to remove her. It is all about when you remove her, and we are suggesting that you remove her when the process is done. Don't remove her before it is incomplete and we are halfway there. What is to be lost by this government if she is left suspended? Are you worried about the few bucks you are going to pay her? Is that what the principle of this thing is so serious about, because she has to be left on pay until we get justice done? Justice does not have a price tag as far as I know.

So, that was what happened. That is just some of the processes that are there right now. Now let's flip ahead to what happened in August, because this thing was ongoing. There were meetings galore between management committees, the Clerk of the House and everybody else trying to deal with the issues as they came up. Well, guess what? They were not all public. Did anybody in the public know anything about what was going on to the extent that you know today because you have all these documents made public? I do not think anybody did. We might have known because we were on the Management Commission. I do not think the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador said: Oh my God, that place is in turmoil over there because of what is going on. I do not think the residents of this Province had any concept that there was anything wrong until all of a sudden they are told this lady is suspended for all these reasons, or the two reasons. Not all these reasons, just the two reasons, in August.

Guess what, folks? I am going to look at some of the things that happened in September. There was a meeting around September 12, September 13, of the Management Commission. The issue again was this had not been resolved. What do we do? There was a meeting held here in the confines of Confederation Building. At that time the Management Commission directed the Clerk of the House: Look, we know this is going on from a labour relations point of view and there are different actions being taken here and there and so on, is this compromising what is happening over there at the child youth office? Are any of the investigations that she is supposed to be doing - what is the score on them? What is the status on them? Is the work getting done? That was the question.

Mr. Mackenzie was directed, and he did, on August 13 write to Ms Neville and said: What is the score on these studies you are doing, these investigations you are doing? Give us an update. Ms Neville received her letter and she responded in a twelve-page document on August 18, five days later, saying here is the score on the four investigations. Here is where they all are.

There does not seem to be any indication there that the office is falling apart or that she is not doing her job. She gave very logical reasons, for anyone who cared to read her letter, twelve pages of it, why everything was working. There still might have been staff issues, but no reflection on the workings of the office.

Meanwhile, you notice I said she came back with her answer on August 18 – too late. On August 17, she was suspended. So her letter must have been in the mail somewhere. Government never even waited for her letter. Talk about due process, they never even waited to get her answer, or find out - or the Speaker never waited to get her answer, because he wrote on the seventeenth to Cabinet and said: I have all these concerns. Meanwhile, her letter must have been in the mail, because it is dated the eighteenth that she sends the letter saying here is your answer.

Now, talking about those letters on the seventeenth, the Speaker sends his letter – just ask yourself this question, because I get bothered sometimes when I cannot figure out the reasoning for things that should be so simple; maybe it is just me. The Speaker writes a letter to the Executive Council on the seventeenth and said: I have all these concerns. Now the Clerk of the House is the same as the Deputy Minister to the Speaker. While that letter of the seventeenth was going from the Speaker to the Executive Council, which led to her suspension that was happening on the seventeenth, the Clerk of the House was writing a letter to Ms Neville saying, and I quote – he wrote a letter to Ms Neville on the same day, seventeenth, same day the Speaker sent his letter up to the Cabinet. He said on page 4, paragraph 2, "Given the above, I do not feel I can undertake to have Ms. Pottle removed from her position." This is where Ms Neville had said: Look, because of what happened with the director and the Labrador piece, I think that lady should be gone. She should be out of here.

Anyway, Mr. MacKenzie has gone back to her now and he said: I do not think we can do that. He goes on to say, "If Ms. Pottle voluntarily agrees to a transfer or secondment, I would of course do all that I can to assist." It seems like two people trying to reasonably work stuff out. So the same that one, the Speaker, is suggesting or giving reasons to somebody to suspend her, the very man in the same office is sending a letter to her saying: We will see if she is voluntarily going to do that. I will assist you in finding a spot for her.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: For Ms Pottle.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ms Pottle?

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, find a spot for Ms Pottle, if she is agreeable to it. That is what it was all about. That was the latest issue that had arisen. Guess what, folks - and this is very curious. The letter that I just referred to about the Clerk writing to Ms Neville to say that if Ms Pottle was prepared to move, I will help you – that letter is stamped with a stamp of the Executive Council dated August 17. The letter is dated August 17, and it is sent up to Executive Council on August 17, the same day the Speaker's letter went to the Executive Council.

Now, I am not one for conspiracy theories, but ask yourself, here is the Speaker saying: I have big issues with her. Here is the Clerk saying: If we can get Ms Pottle to agree, I will help you move her. But at the same time, the Clerk sends his letter up to the Executive Council, who is considering the Speaker's letter, which leads to her suspension. Does anybody have questions or concerns about the fairness in the process here? Who is doing what, where at what time spans?

Does nobody have any questions or concerns that maybe something has gone amuck here? All of these things about numerous court cases, you know now that is not true, there is one. The other court case by the way - and I have to explain this because the minister alluded to it. He said: She went to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador and asked to have a hearing before the House of Assembly; she absolutely did. She asked the court to order the House to hear her; that is what she asked the court. After she got suspended, not before she was suspended now - September 30, I think it was. The court number - I checked it out - was number 4481. She went to the court and said: I have been suspended, I have been given an opportunity to submit my stuff in writing, but I would like the opportunity to be heard in the House. Can you order the House to hear me?

Chief Justice Orsborn heard the case, came back on December 4, and said: I have no authority to order the House to hear you because that is the thing called parliamentary privilege, so I cannot order them to hear you. By the way, he made the same ruling back in Fraser March's day when he tried to get a hearing before the House. Judge Orsborn relied upon his own judgment, because he had written a judgment in Fraser March's case too, so it is pretty simple, he just said I did that on Fraser March. He took it basically, same ruling, and said: I cannot order the House because of parliamentary privilege. That does not take away the right of this House to ask her for a hearing or give her a hearing; that is the court saying I cannot order one. There is a difference between a body allowing someone to be heard and trying to order this House to hear them.

By the way, the law is not clear and finished on that one yet, because the decision came down on Friday, December 4. On Monday, December 7, that was appealed – that was appealed. Again, the reason was we do not have an answer to this. We have had one judge who ruled in two cases - the same judge. It is not clear and she is looking for some clarity on that issue.

Now that is not resolved. So, do we say: We do not care about that? That is just lawyers and court cases and whatever; let that go. We are going to fire her anyway today; it does not matter. Aren't you just a little inkling interested to see what happens at the end of the day with all this stuff, just to find out that it might be somehow relevant?

The minister talked about the type of hearing. The minister said - and very convenient, by the way, for him to say this - a hearing can be done, depending on what you agree to, or what you expect, a hearing could be in writing. Well, folks, come on, whose natural common sense meaning of a hearing is that you write me a letter or you give me a submission whether it is one page or a 100 pages and that is okay, we have had a hearing - come on. Does anybody in this Province believe that it is hearing? Where is the opportunity to question your accuser?

Remember, like I told you, the allegations put forward by the employees in the office have never been questioned. It is not even an official complaint before the Public Service Commission back then when it started. So we are going to say here today that does not matter. She submitted it in writing; forget about that whether they told the truth or what. Let's not test their credibility. Let's not worry if it is factual what they said or not. They said they were upset with her. They did not like her management style. She is not capable and does not the skills to manage in an office, manage people. Her human relations skills are ditto. We are just going to accept all of that.

I would think anybody in here - we have lots of fellows in here, people in here who were former teachers and ladies who were teachers. If somebody told you that all of a sudden you were not good at human resources, you just accepted that without question, you could not question who said it about you.

You notice we use the words: procedural fairness. There is no process here to decide that and deal with that. We talk about a hearing. The minister says: Okay, give it in writing and that is okay. Does anybody else know where that is okay? A hearing is acceptable if you put it in writing.

He went on to say - and I will deal with this now - the House is not equipped to have a hearing. Well, I think that is a pretty good cop-out. That is a pretty good reason why we will not have a hearing in the House of Assembly because he thinks we are not equipped to have a hearing. Now, what does that do for your justice? We do not have any way to hear you. We do not have any way to hear your compliant or deal with it up here, folks, and give you fairness to hear you out, so we cannot do it for you.

I think that is a pretty turn your back type of opinion. Why don't we create the process if we need to? People have appeared before the House of Commons and this House before. If we can invite Brian Mulroney to come in here and talk about the Atlantic Accords of the world and Meech Lakes of the world, we can surely have a system where we can bring our own citizens in here to defend themselves. That is what we are all here ultimately for. Yet, to say: Oh, we are not equipped for that, what a cop-out. We are not equipped for that.

Just take it a step further, even if we are not equipped for it, are there other options? Well, I can tell you a few options. We do not have the way to examine her here and whatever else. Why can't we let the option she has already chosen play out in dealing with the merits of it, the Supreme Court case? Why couldn't we let that play out? Why couldn't we sit back on the sidelines and say: Let's not fire her right away? Just let that process fall out and see where it goes. It is one way of at least not doing anything to hurt anyone, to jeopardize people. Nope, we are not going to do that, we are going to fire her. What about if we said: Before we fire her, why don't we do like we did in the case of Mr. March? Why don't we ask a retired Supreme Court Justice to look into this and come back with a ruling? That is an option. We thought it was an option.

The minister today, who stands in this House and calls for the firing of Ms Neville, is the same minister who stood in this House and asked that we show natural justice to Fraser March by appointing a Supreme Court Justice. By God, now if that is not hypercritical! We can ask to give Mr. March, who had allegations against him by the Auditor General, a fair hearing and appoint a justice but we cannot ask a Supreme Court retired justice to do likewise for Ms Neville? Where have we gone? I do not mean to minimize it, but I always thought what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

By the way, Mr. March was given that option after he was given an opportunity to come to the management committee and declined, an opportunity which has never been afforded to Ms Neville. Mr. March was given that opportunity after he was fired. We are just asking you to be prudent. Let's not fire her until we let her do it. Don't do like we did in a case in this House, in the case of Mr. March, fire him and then let him have natural justice. We are just saying: Why don't we let her go through the process and then we make a decision? Under that process that judge might decide that: Look, this is what I think of the employees, this is what I think of Ms Neville, blah, blah, blah. It all (inaudible) down, and just like Mr. March he will come back with a decision that says: fire her! They may well do that, but at least it would have been in a forum, a hearing, properly structured whereby the individuals making the accusations make come, the individuals impacted can question about it, and somebody, an independent arbitrator can say who is right and who is wrong.

I do not think that is unfair. I do not think that is too much to ask for, but no, the same minister, he cannot say we are going to do that for her. I do not know why. I do not see any suggestion in any of this documentation that is in this big binder we have here, tabled by the government, to suggest that Ms Neville did anything whatsoever that was an impropriety such as was suggested by the Auditor General in the case of Mr. March, none. We are talking human resource issues; we are talking management issues. Where does any of that lead us to misconduct? Because she was determined, she was obstinate, and said: I am not going to get pushed around as a person and I am certainly not going to have this independent office pushed around by somebody. She said I am not going to get pushed around. She uses the avenues that are available to her but we are going to short-circuit all of those. Even though it does not impact us one bit in terms of, she is out of the job for now. It does not impact the carriage of that office one bit right now. That office is not going to be any better off tomorrow when you fire her than it is today, but the system of justice will be a lot worse off if we do not allow her to have a hearing.

I will give you an example. I will deal, first of all - because my time is cutting down here. I will deal with the issues. The minister talked about the improprieties and breach of confidence, and confidentiality and privacy. All in the context of what happened in August; the Labrador investigation and so on and how she, quote: slammed an employee in the media. Well, guess what, folks? Go back and check out the news release that Ms Neville put out when she said: we are going to do a Labrador investigation. Yes, there were problems in this office and it should have been done. We acknowledged that we had problems and that is why it did not get done - an employee, no names, no names. An employee got sidetracked, did the wrong thing here but we are putting it back on track. That went out in a news release from Ms Neville.

All of a sudden, the media comes out – the quote is in here in the book, by the way, very convenient: Ms Neville slams employee. Well, Ms Neville never, ever slammed any employee. Read it. Guess what? If Ms Neville had not given the reasons why the Labrador investigation did not take place when it was first reported months ago, and she did not acknowledge that there was a problem in that release, what do you think the media would have done to her if they later found out that the first request for the investigation was made back in February and here she was only getting around to it in August? Don't you think somebody, this House and the media, would have torn strips off her if she did not acknowledge that: Look, this is why we are delayed; there was a screw up here in our system. That is what happened here. We are going to fire her for that?

The other thing about the e-mails, by the way, when the government suspended - they are talking about e-mails where she sent this out to someone outside and did not get a confidentiality agreement. Listen to this, she sent it out to two people at least that I am aware of. She sent it out to her sister, okay. Harvard trained educated person, and guess what she asked her? Guess what she said? Keep it in confidence, number one –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Just a second now. Keep it in confidence because this is embargoed until tomorrow morning and it was for editorializing. Now, guess what? Oh, and the other one by the way, the other one was a CBC reporter who the government, despite their attempts at privacy issues the minister referred to, check out your own documents you submitted. You tried to hide who the reporter was at one point or where he lived, but on the very next page you forgot to black it out, by the way. That is in here. So you did not do the privacy piece yourself too well in that case. So do not go pointing the figure at someone else. You have said who the reporter is right here in this document. In any case, that does not take away from and detract from where we are going here.

How often have ministers - answer yourself truthfully. How often have ministers of this government sent information to the media and said: We are having a press conference tomorrow morning. We are having a briefing, here are the documents, get yourself up to speed. It is embargoed until it goes and we will talk about it tomorrow. That is exactly what happened. She sent it to a reporter in confidence and said: you are doing this interview tomorrow morning. We want to make sure you know what you are talking about because we know what we are talking about. Read it up; ask your questions in the morning. Now you can ask intelligent questions. That is what happened here. This is this breach of confidence and breach of privacy that we have. Guess what? Guess what, folks? The reporter and the editor kept it in confidence, absolutely! Now the government, after they suspend her, digs out these e-mails, digs them out and says: this is going to help us in our grounds for misconduct. They did not know about it when they suspended her on August 20, but they knew about it after.

I cannot put my finger on it right now, but guess who sent them up to the Executive Council? It was sent up by the Clerk. The Clerk, somebody in the Clerk's office found them. They were found after the fact by the Chief Financial Officer of the House. She came across these e-mails. She gave them to the Clerk of the House and said: look what I found. Because meanwhile, you have to remember, the day they suspended her they kicked her out of her office. She had no access to her computers, nothing. They closed her down. They called her upstairs for a meeting on the twentieth and they said: Poof, you are out of here. She went over to her office to pick up her stuff and could not get in - escorted, you are out. Then, somebody, obviously, raided through her computer. You talk about privacy breaches, somebody went through her records over there in that office, found these e-mails and are now using them against her. They dug them out, the Chief Financial Officer of this House gave them to the Clerk of this House and he shipped them up to Executive Council; it is here in these books. Then they turn around and on December 4 they give them to their lawyer who sends them to Ms Neville's lawyer and says: Whoop-de-do. We have something here that you might want to see. We think this is misconduct. That is what happened, folks.

Now, you call that due process. You call that due diligence. You call that fair. There are lots of incidents here. I will use an example. You talk about how we have an obligation to have a hearing so that we know it is done right. The Minister of Health and Community Services would certainly appreciate this issue, and the Premier would certainly appreciate this issue, as would the Minister of Justice, as would the Minister of Finance, being from the legal profession.

Mr. Speaker, we had an issue in this Province going back to the Mount Cashel piece. For years we worried in this Province about the system not working, things being covered up, not done right - and I am not suggesting that anything was covered up here, but we had to have a process in Mount Cashel to see that it was right and that we tried to fix it. What did we do? There was a very serious issue involving our Child Welfare systems, who knew what, when, certain religious organizations in the Province - a masterful inquiry here. We did it because we were not comfortable with what had happened. We let it be investigated and properly heard.

What did we do, Mr. Speaker, when it came to the wrongful conviction piece? All kinds of issues about wrongful convictions, individuals in this Province who we felt for years and years had been wrongfully done by, calls for investigations, calls to check out the criminal justice system, was the prosecutorial system right, was the policing system right, and what did we decide? We decided we had to look at it. We could not hide from looking under the rocks if we thought the system was wrong. We got Justice Lamer to come in and do a full inquiry on it. What did we get as a result of it? We got a better system, I think, and this Administration deserves a lot of credit for it. They expanded even what we had originally instructed Justice Lamer to look at. This Administration improved on that. He came back with a great report which helped the system so that there would not be problems in the future.

Here we are now, when we know we have a problem here in our system in that we have people in the bureaucracy who feel certain things - and I am sure they are justified in what they think. We have employees who feel they are hard done by, and they have their legitimacies in their complaints, and we have Ms Neville who also feels she has been hard done by. All we are saying is: Why would you fire someone, at this point in the game, when they have not had, fully, an opportunity to due diligence to see who is right and who is wrong? If we had taken that approach back ten years ago, we never would have had a Lamer Inquiry, we never would have had a Mount Cashel Inquiry.

I say that because that is where it comes to the point that this is not only about the Neville case. Your decision today will have impact on all the independent offices of the House of Assembly in the future. If we can do this today, to this particular individual, without the process having being unfolded as it should – being open, being transparent, with every stone being left unturned to see that justice is done for all parties, her, the employees, and everyone - how are we ever going to have any sense of comfort with any other office in the future? What yardstick do we have in deciding when we get rid of somebody? That is not to say you should not. As I say, once the process is done, if an independent person comes back and she has her day in court, as they say, or due diligence, if the evidence says fire her, fire her – absolutely. Absolutely, if that is what the conclusion is when the facts are all on the table, fire her. I have no problem with that at all.

Folks, we do not have all the facts on the table right now. We have not let the process unfold. The lawyers in this House of Assembly know for sure - deep in all of our consciences, to allow somebody to be fired without letting them have an opportunity to test what somebody said about you. We can call her stubborn, we can call her obstinate, we can call her desperate and we can call her whatever you wish – determined. The bottom line is allegations against her have not been tested. She might be, for example, we might decide at the end of the day that she is the worst manager in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That might be the conclusion when all of the facts are on the table. If that is the case, the government can say: Now we have the proof: the proof is in the pudding, right there, right now. It is not only bureaucrats who gave this information or unsubstantiated and untested allegations from employees. We know now, this has been through the process, the courts have dealt with it and we feel comfortable now firing her. That is no problem.

As I say, we have not done anything to harm or injure the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. Mr. Rorke is there doing quite well and he can certainly hold the fort. It is not only a case of holding the fort, he is doing due diligence over there until the facts come in. God forbid that we should fire her today - because, folks, these processes are going to unfold. We are not stopping today, the Supreme Court action; we are not going to stop that.

Her counsel, as I say in the action that is coming up in January, he has already been given the right to subpoena whoever he wants. If he wants to subpoena the Premier or the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, they are going to do that. Why do we need to aggravate a situation by firing her today? It does not stop that. What happens at the end of the day when that process unfolds, we find ourselves saying: Oh my god, we voted on that – we voted on that. Now that we saw more documentation, now that we have heard from all these people, now that the facts have been truly known, we made a mistake.

All I am saying is why rush to judgment if we do not need to – why rush to judgment? The office is safe; the facts are not all in. She has not - despite what the minister says, a written submission is not sufficient for due justice. That is not human rights. Why the hurry?

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion – I am going to conclude here, the last two minutes that I have, by proposing an amendment. It is geared to what I have been saying basically. My amendment here is simply - and I will read it - that we replace the resolution that is there by saying: Now Therefore Be It Resolved that this House of Assembly shall not consider recommending the removal of Darlene Neville from the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate until she has been given a hearing as contemplated by the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice, including a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations, in person, against her and her office. It is simply saying the status quo - the same as we did back in September by the way, that is what we did in September. The government were not ready at the time in September to proceed and therefore they did not proceed.

I move this, seconded by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, Mr. Speaker. My other comment about the minister's comments there about what has happened over in the office and whether the office was compromised or not. The Acting Child and Youth Advocate, retired Justice Judge Rorke, he filed with the House of Assembly public documents. On September 30, this year, after Ms Neville was removed, he filed the report of the Child and Youth Advocate's office - performance report for the year 2008 and 2009. It takes you up to March 31 of this year. Guess what? He, the Acting Child and Youth Advocate, has stated quite clearly in here that all the indicators of a good performance as an office, as what you are supposed to do as a Child and Youth Advocate, are done. This is after she is suspended. He says that. We have government now suggesting through the minister's statement today that there was not functioning. Now, who do we accept? It is the whole point, we have a conflict again.

The person who we put there to replace her says she performed, at least for all that period from March of 2008 to March of 2009 when staff were talking about her behind her back. It never, ever came - she was never, ever told for a full year by anyone that there were conversations between her staff and the staff of the House of Assembly about management problems. She was never told for a year. If he thought it was okay, where is the evidence of misconduct because the office was not working right?

So, I have addressed the e-mail piece. I do believe we have - well, do you want another example of where we use that format of embargoing stuff? I think we do it every year in a budget preparation. I think ministers do it today. If they are going to brief the media, before we did Hebron there were briefings: Look, you are here; look at this; keep it embargoed. If you want to ask some sensible questions when we go down and have our press conference, that is it; keep it under your hat.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time has expired.

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

Just a moment to clue up here?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, contrary to what the minister said, I do not think all the facts are on the table. They are not on the table and I have shown that by pointing out the documents here in this booklet today, their own booklet. We have not let the processes unfold. Natural justice is not fulfilled. Procedural justice is not done, and I think we are putting our foot on a very slippery slope if we are going to vote today as a House of Assembly where we are supposed to be here to not only make legislation but to uphold legislation and to uphold ethics and principles that we live by.

We are on a very slippery slope if we are not going to allow the current Child and Youth Advocate, who has been suspended, to have a hearing, a proper hearing before we make the decision to fire her. It is a very slippery slope and I do not think any of us here in this House want to find a day when we have to look back because some court says she did not get her day, this happened, that happened. There is no need of it. We are here today. All we need to do is say let this process unfold. Let it unfold and then fire her if the facts show that, but to fire her based on the circumstances we have here today, which I have pointed out, totally unjust, totally inappropriate and does a disservice to this House and everybody else in this Province, and it puts all the other so-called independent officers of the House of Assembly in a very precarious position. If her, today, based upon what I suggest is a very flimsy piece of evidence here, if we are going to allow that today, in the case of Darlene Neville, the other officers – is it tomorrow it is going to be the Auditor General, or someone else? I do not think we need to get into that. We do not need to go there as a House of Assembly. There is a way around it, and a proper way around it, and that is by allowing the hearing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There has been an amendment put before this hon. House. We will take a brief recess to consider that amendment.

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): Order, please!

The Chair has had the opportunity to review the amendment and the amendment is deemed to be in order.

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, these are very serious circumstances that are under consideration by Members of the House of Assembly here today. I am sure I am correct in saying that none of us would want to be here doing this if we had another choice. This is not an easy thing to do. Mr. Speaker, we are very cognizant of the fact that we are dealing with human beings here and that we are dealing with people's reputations, and we are trying to bring the most sensitivity we can to that.

I listened with great interest to everything the Opposition House Leader had to say in the last hour as he talked about the motion, the resolution that we have before us today. He talked about Ms Neville; he talked about the Speaker; he talked about the people in her office, in Ms Neville's office; he talked about her legal counsel; he talked about Executive Council; he talked about Cabinet; he talked about the House of Assembly. The one group that he never mentioned in his one hour-plus dissertation was the children of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are principles in what we are talking about here today and why we arrive at the place we are today. He posed the question: What harm to allow this to go on and on and on? The harm, Mr. Speaker, is to the children of this Province. That is the harm.

Mr. Speaker, back in 1994, this House of Assembly created a Select Committee on Children's Interests. They did that, Mr. Speaker, because of what happened at Mount Cashel. Most of us, growing up with Mount Cashel, looked on it as a very benign and benevolent place that gave shelter to young boys who found themselves in need of protection and support. The horror stories that came out of that inquiry cut into the souls of all of us.

Mr. Speaker, in more recent history we had the Zachary Turner case. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more precious to us, as a people, as human beings, than our children. Our hearts were broken. Who in this Province, who in this country couldn't have been touched by the fate of that little boy? Who couldn't have had a broken heart when you heard the words and the grief of his loving grandparents?

This government, upon the receipt of Dr. Markesteyn's report, struck the Turner review committee to look at the recommendations of Dr. Markesteyn. The Premier appointed me to that committee, and I tell you I had great reservation about engaging in that piece of work. When I received Dr. Markesteyn's report and saw the face of that beautiful little boy staring back up at me, I thought how am I going to do this work? How can I cut through the grief and the pain? As a mother, as a grandmother, the pain that every one of us in this Province felt, how can I set all of that to one side and do what is right for this little boy, and through him, do what is right for the children of this Province who we have responsibility for, as communities, as friends and neighbours and relatives, and particularly as a government?

Mr. Speaker, I took keen interest in the replacement of Mr. Wicks as Child and Youth Advocate. I was very concerned about who the next Child and Youth Advocate was going to be, and I knew that the work of the Child and Youth Advocate was going to be critical to the work that we did in Turner. As we worked through the recommendations of the Turner report, I had occasion to have meetings with Ms Neville as part of the Turner committee. On two occasions Ms Neville came to Cabinet. While reviewing Turner, we became aware of other cases that needed to be reviewed here in the Province. They needed to be reviewed as we worked our way through Markesteyn's report and recommendations and tried to find a way forward, in understanding what had gone wrong. It was not a lack of resources for the Turner family that ended up in the tragic result we had. So what went wrong? Where did we fail Zachary Turner?

The Child and Youth Advocate, her advice, not only in terms of the Turner recommendations but also in terms of other cases that were under review by her office and one case in particular, Mr. Speaker, that I will refer to as the Clarke's Beach case, where we had a family with children who were suffering from abuse by their mother. Mr. Speaker, children who were beaten, who were starved, who had broken bones, who were taken at night and stripped, taped with duct tape, had tape across their mouths, had their mattresses removed from their room, were put on a cold floor with the windows of the room open and the heat turned off. Torture that if it had happened in Afghanistan, the world would be in an uproar, was going on in a house in a tiny little village here in the Province.

The family was not being ignored, Mr. Speaker. There were social workers, a number of them, there were home care workers, there were counsellors, there were psychiatrists, there were teachers, there were supervisors, there were some of the best child protection experts in the world giving advice on this case, and the mother was being used as a role model to the people in the Province and to the rest of the world to say: Look, it can be changed. While she was out being promoted at conferences, this horrific activity was happening in her home. We needed to know, how did that happen? How did that happen? One of the people we had review – do some work around that case, we talked to her around the case, and she said it was like somebody took a picture puzzle and jumbled it all up and threw it up in the air, and it fell on the ground and none of those people knew how to come and put those pieces back together again in such a way that we could understand and see what was going on in that family.

We need that capacity, we have to have that capacity, and so as we were working our way through, trying to see what it was that we needed to do as a government to ensure that those kind of things were not happening in other homes in the Province, and at the same time, making sure that we had everything we needed in place to ensure that it would never happen again, while we were moving ahead, Mr. Speaker, we understood that the Child and Youth Advocate was moving ahead on her review of the case. In fact, she came to us and one of the two appearances she made at Cabinet was to say: I need subpoena powers so I can do this properly. She was granted subpoena powers right away once she made that appearance at Cabinet and made her case.

Mr. Speaker, we move ahead on the Turner committee, assuming that the other work is ongoing, we come forward and say, we have discovered enough, as we work through this process, to understand that we need a complete, new department. Again, the Opposition House Leader talks about money. This is not about money, Mr. Speaker. If it were about money, we would never be doing the things that we have done. We would never have taken on a new department. We would never have put $23 million into new social workers, IT and all kinds of other things that were required. Still, much more is required and we are committed to doing that. We take this responsibility so seriously. It is the reason why we have the Child and Youth Advocate's office so that we have that arm's-length lens on what we are doing here in the Province and particularly in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services that the children of Newfoundland and Labrador have the services they require, that they have the protection they require and they have the supports they require.

I certainly did not have any grudge or know of any conspiracy against Ms Neville. Ms Neville was fully supported by the five ministers sitting on the Turner committee in terms of her representations to us. She was certainly supported at the Cabinet table. We got to a place where we knew we had to form a new department, that we had to develop new policies and new programs and we were anxiously awaiting for the report from the Child and Youth Advocate on the Clarke's Beach case, and others, to inform the development of this new policy and the programs for this new department.

Mr. Speaker, it was startling to me to read in the newspaper that Ms Neville was going to do the investigation in Labrador and that she was upset by the fact that the case had not been taken on by her staff when they were asked some months earlier. Mr. Speaker, when I was given that information I was also given a copy of a letter that Ms Neville wrote to the then Minister of Justice, March 12, and had come as a result of one Dr. Markesteyn's recommendations, because, Dr. Markesteyn had recommended that the Chief Medical Examiner do child death reviews.

Ms Neville wrote to the Minister of Justice and said: The act concerning the Child and Youth Advocate does not authorize the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate to conduct child death reviews, despite the fact the former Advocate undertook to do so in the Turner case, which eventually was contracted to Dr. Peter Markesteyn to complete. In my view, the OCYA is not the appropriate office to conduct child death reviews and I wish to clearly state that a legislative amendment to authorize the OCYA to conduct such reviews is neither supported, nor requested. So I am puzzled!

This is her stated position. She does not have the authority to do it, nor does she want the authority to do it. When her director, Ms Pottle, responds in the context of the position of Ms Neville, she is publicly chastised and marginalized in the media and in the Child and Youth Advocate's office.

As more and more information becomes available, Mr. Speaker, there are allegations, there are counter-allegations, the office appears to be in chaos. We have accusations that work cannot be done because communication has completely deteriorated, that there is a fortress mentality with the Child and Youth Advocate and that people in her office are receiving counselling and medical support. By Ms Neville's own admission, there is a poisoned atmosphere in the office. I do not know how you do not know that there are any kinds of problems, and you come in the next day and there is a poisoned atmosphere.

You have got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine people, ten people who are upset, are getting professional services. We have people who are being, as I said, chastised publicly. At the same time you are looking around and you are saying okay, so we are a year almost now into the process of the new department. We have had a number of conversations about cases that are under review, and we have given her the ability to subpoena testimony that she needs to finish her cases. Do we have one whit of information coming out of any of that to help us in the development of the new Child, Youth and Family Services department? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no, not a bit.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue and all of us are particularly concerned. I certainly am not here, nor is anyone else here, to do any harm in any kind from bad intention to Ms Neville. As painful as this process is, and I do find it painful, Mr. Speaker. I do not like doing this. I cannot imagine that anyone would, but we have a responsibility.

I used to be a social worker, Mr. Speaker, with the Department of Social Services, and I remember one day standing - the first child protection case I ever went on. I remember being in the parking lot of the hospital down in Burin and I had to go in because a little boy was being abused. There is no doubt about it; he was being abused. His mother had disclosed. I knew I had to go in there and deal with it. I lay across my car, Mr. Speaker, because I thought I was going to throw up. I did not want to do it. But I knew if I did not do it, who would? That is the responsibility of every one of us here. We have to give Ms Neville a fair hearing. I have gone over every word of this very, very carefully. I believe that we have done that. I believe the office was dysfunctional. I believe it was dysfunctional for a very long time, long before it became to the attention of the Speaker in any kind of a formal way.

I do not see any evidence that there was any real action taken to do anything about it, even though Ms Neville was aware that there was a poisoned atmosphere in that office. I think the proof of the poisoned atmosphere is the lack of result that we had. We cannot afford for that to continue. That is what we cannot afford, Mr. Speaker, and this needs to be drawn to a close so that we can get that office back on its feet functioning again, providing the service to the children of this Province who need our protection, deserve our protection. Mr. Speaker, from this side of the House, even though sometimes it requires doing things that are not pleasant, they are going to get that protection.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to rise and speak to the debate that is occurring in the House today, a very unfortunate debate; unfortunate for Ms Neville, but unfortunate for the children of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

I listened very attentively to the arguments being put forward by the Deputy Premier this evening, and also by the Minister of Justice. Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised to hear the comments of the Deputy Premier when she alleged, in my opinion, that Ms Neville was being dismissed based on the fact that she was negligent in acting on behalf of the children in the Province. That was certainly not the indication that I received when the minister tabled his resolution today or in the information that was prepared.

Mr. Speaker, I have no legal background like some of the people who have spoken here today and spoken to the legal facts to this case, but I certainly feel as an individual that Ms Neville does deserve to have a fair hearing. That fair hearing, Mr. Speaker, comes not in the form of written correspondence between two parties, but in the form of being able to present your case, present it effectively, and provide the evidence to support your arguments. One which we feel she has not had an opportunity to do.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to deal with the comments with regard to acting negligently on behalf of the children of the Province in representing the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. I think the most telling piece of information that we have which supports the fact that Darlene Neville carried out her responsibilities is the actual performance report that was submitted by Justice Rorke just recently that talked about the performance of this office in 2008 and 2009. Speaking to the fact that they had met the performance targets that were outlined and that, indeed, the work that was set out had been completed and the mandate had been followed. It certainly does not speak in any way to the fact that Ms Neville did not act on behalf of the children of this Province, or certainly did not act on the request that came forward to her. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have firsthand knowledge which is contrary to that, and I will get into it as I go on in my presentation today.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville not only overseen the investigation into the Turner inquiry, which we will all agree was an investigation, an incident, a tragedy, that has shaken this entire Province. Every mother, father, grandmother and grandfather, anyone, Mr. Speaker, who has compassion for the human race was disturbed by the events, the tragedy, and the results of that particular incident. What is happening here today is in no way undermining that report or that investigation, or those findings. Let's not forget who was the individual who overseen the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate at a time in this Province when one of the greatest tragedies ever to occur to a child, an infant baby, was carried out. Who oversaw that investigation at the end of the day?

Let's talk about, Mr. Speaker, the Janeway investigation which was ongoing in Ms Neville's office under her leadership. An investigation into how young people with mental illness were being treated in the mental health system in this Province. I brought many of those incidents here to the House of Assembly. It was probably the first real disagreement that I had with Ms Neville in her capacity as the Child and Youth Advocate because very early on I did feel and made it known publicly in the media that I thought there should be a full investigation. The fact that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services or the Department of Health and Community Services at the time was not responding, nor the minister was responding in carrying out that investigation, I thought it was only appropriate that the Child and Youth Advocate would step up and do it. At the time, there were some differences of opinion in terms of whether that was the role of the office.

It was not until young people, youth with mental illness in this Province were handcuffed and taken from the Janeway and placed at the Waterford Hospital that Ms Neville got involved to carry out that investigation. An investigation that was nearing completion before she was dismissed from her job, an investigation in which she required subpoena powers in order to be able to fulfill the mandate and to carry forward with doing the investigations that were required. Is that the actions of a woman who was neglecting children in this Province? I just want to point that out because every one of you today has an opportunity to stand up and to speak to this resolution and to say why you think she should be dismissed. I am taking an opportunity to tell you why I think she has been treated unfairly. The comment, that she has failed the children of this Province, I take great exception to when there has been given no evidence to back that up.

Let's talk about the house fire in Labrador. This was an investigation that when it was initially taken to her department, I agree, that it was rejected. I think it was more about a misunderstanding, and I will not speak to those details, but there are two things that I think were assessed in that. One was whether this was a child death review and whether that should be the mandate of that office. I think it has been always felt, not just by the people who work there but by others, including Ms Neville, that that was not a mandate.

In terms of investigating the children who were involved and what their affiliation was within the child and youth welfare system, whether that was on a part-time basis, whether it was only on an interim basis or a full-time basis, warranted being investigated. That was one of the issues, right before she was terminated from her job, or suspended, that she was undertaking to investigate. One that we have since learned through the acting Child Advocate that he did not see the merits in investigating. Well, I think any time there is a child who is in care in this system, whether it is on a full-time, part-time basis, Mr. Speaker, they deserve to have the full investigation into how the system dealt with this child. At the end of the day, if everything proved to be handled appropriately, that gives us more reason to support the systems we have in place. If it tells us that there were some deficiencies and things that needed to be done differently, well then it gives us reason to act harder and with more commitment to ensure that these particular recommendations are met.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to respond to those comments that were presented by the minister in her comments. I think in Ms Neville's comments, when she was providing to the House of Assembly response in terms of how she felt about this, one of the things she did outline was the relationship that she had with government. The fact that when she met with Cabinet and outlined the cases she was working on and asked for subpoena powers, there was support for her work and that subpoena power was granted. She also, when she met with government regarding the Turner report prior to its release, she was certainly given compliments about the work that was carried out within that office. I think she really feels today, and I think she said it in one of the letters she had written, in that she felt that this was a hanging before the trial. I think those were the exact words she used.

Mr. Speaker, she feels that way because she has not had an opportunity. I just put myself in that position and I think you should all as well. You take on the responsibility of a public office in this Province, a public office that is responsible for children, one of the greatest services that you can give to society. One of the offices of the House, if not the office, that has the most important role and responsibility. I am sure that any individual that takes on that position does not do it lightly.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, when the minister today was making his comments he referred to the fact that Ms Neville - questioning her managerial skills and her ability to be able to operate the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. Well, Mr. Speaker, it was the government opposite who appointed Ms Neville to that position in 2005, and they appointed her with a great deal of confidence in her ability to do the job. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there were lots of accolades in the press release that was sent out at that time by the Premier who said that Ms Neville brings very strong and relevant experience and skills to the position, including very in-depth knowledge of systems that impact our children and our youth, mediation and negotiating skills involving individual families and systems and career experience in both rural and urban areas of the Province.

Now how could they have misjudged this woman in that manner? How could, Mr. Speaker, just a short time ago when they went out to select someone to head the office, to carry the most important responsibility in this Province, the office that would investigate the issues of children and the system under which they had to grow and nurture and foster in, that they could have misjudged the character of this woman so wrongly? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. I think the record, over the period of time, will speak to the fact that she did bring strong and relevant experience to this job. She took her job very seriously within the system.

Mr. Speaker, also when the minister spoke he talked about recognizing some of the weaknesses in her office. Before I get to that, I just want to revert to the statement that she made, and that was referring to the hanging before the trial. What I was about to say is that everyone of us in our capacities deserve the opportunity to defend ourselves when we are accused of something, especially when it is our reputation that is on the line, our entire career reputation as a professional. This was an individual, a woman, who came into a higher office in the civil service in this Province – positions that women have aspired to for many years in Newfoundland and Labrador. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, the day that Ms Neville signed on to this position, she never anticipated, ever, the fact that she would have a public hanging without ever having the opportunity to be heard. That is exactly what she speaks of in her correspondence to the government, Mr. Speaker, and that she has provided.

Mr. Speaker, I think all people deserve to be heard, and I certainly feel that in this House of Assembly every one of us, although we are politicians, and we are elected, and we are elected to often take the criticism, to take the abuse, but we also have an opportunity to defend ourselves every time, whether that be in this House or whether it be outside of this House, or whether it be in the public. When people who work for government and work for the House of Assembly are automatically let go – and I am not going to get into all of the details in the documents, my colleague did that very effectively. Obviously, there are a lot of issues around how the House of Assembly itself handled this particular issue, the comments that were put forward by the Speaker, the involvement of those in the process, both within the Speaker's office and within the other offices of the House of Assembly, and what the conflicting relationships may have been between some of those parties. If I had to get into all of that today, I would probably need another hour to get through it all.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk to a couple of the things that the minister raised when he made his comments. First of all, he talked about the fact that there was the inability to properly manage the office and the resources, and I think I effectively said what the government's position was when they appointed Ms Neville with a great deal of confidence in her ability. Mr. Speaker, one making accusations at how another administers their office needs a little bit of reflection on what they, themselves, are doing as well.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, in the documents that were filed under Tab 16, it also spoke to the fact that the House of Assembly had also, not fired, but certainly let go in one way or another the executive director, Ms Shirley Prior who was, Mr. Speaker, first of all examined under one subpoena on two separate occasions by Mr. Noseworthy during his investigation and she, in those subpoenas and in that testimony, provided written documentation that refuted the allegations that were against Ms Neville. Is it any coincidence that her comments in those investigations triggered the fact that she too was suspended from her employment?

Mr. Speaker, she was suspended and evicted from the Child and Youth Advocate office by the staff of the House of Assembly operating under the direction of the Speaker, I guess, and the Clerk. Mr. Speaker, she was told that she would go home because the people in the office felt uncomfortable with having her around because of her relationship with Darlene. How is that for a way that a government handles their employees, how the House of Assembly handles their employees, Mr. Speaker? When they send out two staff to suspend a secretary, who has done absolutely nothing, only been subpoenaed to tell her side of a story or to answer questions and she is suspended and sent home and she is told it is because she makes other people uncomfortable in that office. She is told, Mr. Speaker, that there will be another position found for her, that she has done nothing wrong, that she is not being fired. So I have to question, Minister, how is that for managing a particular office in terms of the criticisms that you have launched against Ms Neville? That was the very actions that you individuals took the day that she walked out the door.

To date, has Ms Prior regained her employment at that office? I understand the job is now being filled by someone else. Has she regained employment anywhere else simply because she was subpoenaed and asked her opinion? So that was the action that was taken by the Speaker's office with regard to that. So when you make criticism regarding the proper management of employees and the proper management of an office, you need to have a little reflection on what you yourself did immediately following the dismissal of Ms Neville.

As well, Mr. Speaker, the minister cited her inability to properly manage some of the issues within that office. Mr. Speaker, if you look at all of the reports that have been filed which he did not read into the record, but I will certainly read some of them into the record because there has been a number of them. Every single annual report had been filed since 2005. They have been all tabled here in the House of Assembly. They had been available to every member of this House to read, to look at the progress that has been made on systemic advocacy files within that office. Each annual report outlines the goals within the business plan and also reports to government on all the issues that are required.

Mr. Speaker, the Lost in Transition, which is a review of the transitioning of children and youth care. It was a report that was conducted by her office. In fact, one I quoted from yesterday in Question Period when I was asking some questions. We know, Mr. Speaker, that there have been cases that have been delayed and there was explanations provided to the employer, and within the annual reports and to the Cabinet in meetings with them as to the reason for these delays.

The review at Pouch Cove was delayed because of refusal of staff at Eastern Health to participate in the interviews; again, the reason that the subpoena powers had to be sought. The review of the Clarke's Beach case was delayed pending amendment to legislation. Again, the same issues, the subpoena powers. The investigation into the in-patient psychiatric services delivered to children and youth at the Janeway Hospital. Again, these individuals had to be interviewed and examined under subpoena.

So, Mr. Speaker, there was no reason for government to draw the conclusion they did when they knew the exact reason there were some delays in a number of these cases. Mr. Speaker, outside of the delays that were dependent upon subpoena powers, all of the remaining work was completed, was presented. There was a full systemic review of everything that was done in her office, presented in the annual reports within the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the minister made these statements today but did not give any real facts to back them up. I am wondering - it is like when the Speaker wrote the letter. It is like when the Speaker wrote the letter to the Cabinet, Mr. Speaker. When he wrote the letter, you can go through the entire letter and you can ask yourself upon which this information is founded, because it is not. When he talked about the inappropriate management concerns reported by the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate staff, including intimidation and harassment which resulted in demoralized staff and a poisoned work environment. How could he substantiate that information? Mr. Speaker, at that time there was still no formal complaint that was filed. There were still no formal complaints that were filed. The complaints were based on calls.

I remember from the Management Commission meetings, questioning where the formal complaints were in this particular case, and they did not exist. It was based on an employee down there calling an employee in the House of Assembly staff who knew each other, or once worked together, because I think some of the people who were involved in all of this from the House of Assembly had previous connections to the Child and Youth Advocate Office and probably could have been perceived to be in a conflict in one way or another. Mr. Speaker, in asking those questions it was always about who talked to who through phone calls. There were never any formal complaints at that time that we were certainly made aware of. If these complaints came in after, they certainly were not attached to any of the correspondence that I have looked at in the submission of the letter that was made by the Speaker to the Clerk of the Executive Council

Again, Mr. Speaker, he talked about the important advocacy projects that have been left uncompleted by the Advocate, that this was inappropriate management practices. Had the Speaker inquired up to that point why these projects were delayed? Had he done any investigation before making that statement, or was he just following along on the advice that was passed along to him in a phone call, or by another staff in his office who had received a phone call? Mr. Speaker, all of this is pretty loosey-goosey, I would say, in terms of the facts that would support it, because we are still looking for the formal complaints that had come to the Speaker's office to support those documents of alleged harassment and poor work performance, but, Mr. Speaker, we certainly did not get to see them.

The other issue that the minister raises is with regard to managing relations and her inability to manage relations in her office. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have all worked in offices where there has been some form of disagreement on times. There have always been many offices where there has been some competition for a promotion, but by the most part, Mr. Speaker, most offices that carry out important functions, all of the people who are there, they are there for one reason. That is to do a good job, the best job that they can do everyday, putting any personality differences aside. That is mostly the environment I have seen and known in professional life.

Mr. Speaker, in the allegation that the minister makes today, he obviously feels and says that the Child and Youth Advocate did not manage the relations within her office very well. Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe that is true. Maybe it is true, but where are the facts and the information to support it? I did not read it in the documentation in the hundreds and hundreds of pages that we were given in a binder. What I did read was a response to a very different way the question was phrased in another piece of correspondence from the Child and Youth Advocate that said that all leaves requested by the Child and Youth Advocate staff were approved by the Advocate since she had been appointed to her position in 2005, including their vacation, their paternity leave, their request of leave without pay.

Mr. Speaker, she says that very few of the staff very rarely ever worked overtime, unless they were conducting clinics that were outside of the office or in a different area of the country. She said that professional development was encouraged in her office. Something that good employers always do, and she always found the time for them to have leave to do these workshops, to do these conferences, which is very important to the practice of the Child and Youth Advocate Office, to ensure that people have the best skills and their professional development is – and it is an ongoing piece to that.

Mr. Speaker, she also talked about peer consultation, which happened within the office; that there was individual supervision; that there were always staff meetings. Employees were open to attend workplace seminars and full day stress management workshops, and they were all encouraged to participate in the Employee Assistance Program. It hardly sounds, on the surface, Mr. Speaker, like an office that is not supporting its employees or its staff. They talked about the staff sharing in camaraderie and always bringing together their pictures from their family and their children and their grandchildren and sharing them with others in the office, and talking about events in their lives and their homes and their vacations. Mr. Speaker, that is not really evidence that speaks to the fact that there is really poor relations within that office between staff and employees. Mr. Speaker, so these are the comments that were outlined by Ms Neville, but what I did not see in these hundreds of pages of my binder was the cases that would allocate that there were poor management relations within that office.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other things the minister outlined was the breach of confidentiality and the fact that the Child Advocate was bound to confidentiality clauses within her professional contract, and in order to deal with people outside of that there would have to be a confidentiality contract that was signed. Mr. Speaker, I think we all understand how those things work. It is a part of everything that we do; some in a more formalized way than others. I am sure that in the years that many of us have acted in different capacities we have taken that rule very seriously. Mr. Speaker, there has probably always been times when we have been a little further in bending a rule sometimes.

Mr. Speaker, the two cases that were cited in the information that was given, one was the submission of a document which was the document: Lost in Transition, that was submitted to a member of the media. Now, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville was about to do an interview with this media at 7:45 a.m. on June 2. It was the public release of the report. The reporter that was interviewing her, she gave them a copy the night before. She told them that it was embargoed, but they could read it to be better prepared to interview her on the report and on the findings in the morning. Now that hardly senses a breach of confidentiality.

Mr. Speaker, whether it was right or wrong, I think it was a case of an individual who felt I am doing this interview in the morning, the report is going to be publicly released at the time, it is better for the reporter to be more informed than it is for them to be asking me questions or asking me about a document that they know nothing about. Now whether that was right or wrong, I have no idea but, Mr. Speaker, it sounds innocent enough and it sounds like a misjudgement that any one of us could make in our lives in terms of assuming we are doing the right thing. I am sure that was the case.

In the other case, Mr. Speaker, in which the minister alleges that there was a breach of confidentiality, was when the document was given to another individual to edit prior to its release. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make any defence for this, but what I will say is that it was not just an individual off the street, it was an individual who had very close and confidential relations, an individual who was a Harvard University graduate, widely recognized, Mr. Speaker, for their exceptional writing ability and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, was often asked to edit documents by others.

So whether it was right or wrong, it was very much, I am sure, an innocent move that either one of us might have made in our lives, Mr. Speaker, in asking someone very, very close to you to look at something for you and to say: Give me your opinion. That is exactly what this was. It was a person not only that they were close to, that they had the confidences of, but an individual who was very well-educated with the credentials and the ability to undertake the small task that was being asked. Mr. Speaker, that was the other reason given for firing Ms Neville today.

The other piece, Mr. Speaker, was with regard to the collective lack of sound judgement, as the minister likes to put it. It really goes back, I think, to the issue again of the investigations, probably more importantly the investigation with regard to Labrador and the house fire, in which, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville did make representation to the House of Assembly to have a director in her office transferred out or removed in some capacity. The request was never for more money. I sit on the committee and I was there when the request came in, but the request was never for more money, as was allocated in the letter by the Speaker, it was for resources, but the exchange of resources in the terms of personnel.

Mr. Speaker, this was a case where a request was made. Is that a reason to make a decision that an individual is not of sound judgement? Because you work in an office with a group of people, and because of incidents that are occurring, you suddenly feel that there may be some issue with regard to one employee or one staff member - every one of you, most of you, run full government departments. I bet there are some people in your departments that you take into your confidence more than others. I bet there are some people you entrust with responsibilities and workloads more than others.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, going back a few years ago when the Premier gave huge pay raises to some of the staff in his own office. He defended it by saying they are valuable, they are competent, I need them, I trust them and they do the work I require. Well, every office is like that. There is always going to be those that you are going to entice with more responsibility, you are going to engage more, you are going to entrust more and you are going to feel much more comfortable working with.

This was a case in which the director had made a decision that there was no need for an investigation. Now I have no idea why they made that decision. It was they either did not understand the case, they were looking at it differently, or they just felt that it was not necessary so here it goes. Either way, Mr. Speaker, the decision was made.

When the issue came to the attention of the Child and Youth Advocate and she made the decision, as she should, as the person who runs the office on behalf of children in this Province, that yes, this was a case where there were children that were entrusted within the system, in one way or another, over certain periods of time and it deserved to be looked into. Not that she had any suspicion that there might be any terrible wrongdoings, but she certainly felt that it needed to be looked into. She did not feel comfortable in asking the person who had felt that this investigation did not need to happen, to now come in and work with her to do the investigation. I can understand that, and I bet if every one of you thinks about it, you can understand it.

Was she asking that this individual be fired? Was she asking for more money to do the investigation? No, she was asking that she be removed, put into a different capacity, whether in another office and that another individual be appointed as a director to work in that office to help complete the investigation on this file. Does that sound like a woman who is not of sound judgment? That is very questionable, I say to you, Minister, because that was the example that you were quoting. There were no other facts to back up the accusation that she would be fired because she lacked sound judgment, other than the fact she wanted an individual, who felt a case should not be investigated, removed from the case once she decided it should be. It does not sound like an individual that is not of sound judgment to me. In fact, it sounds like quite a sensible thing to request.

Mr. Speaker, the minister made a very good presentation today in terms of outlining reasons why Ms Neville should be dismissed. What he failed to do was back up those reasons and to back up that presentation with facts. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of facts that remain in this case that have not been looked at. I think one of the facts is that we do have a system of justice, and it is the system that Ms Neville has had to seek in order to be able to have her fair hearing. The unfortunate part is that justice for her will not come or be heard until government makes the final action of terminating her employment – and is that fair? Is that fair to her as an individual? I would think not, Mr. Speaker. There is an investigation that is ongoing into this case by the Public Service Commission that has not yet been completed. There is a court case that was filed by Ms Neville against Mr. Fleming and Mr. Noseworthy, that has not yet been completed. In fact, Mr. Speaker - it is under appeal, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Yes, it is under appeal and that case has been referred to the Supreme Court to be heard in January. Mr. Speaker, in that case, witnesses will be subpoenaed, and testimony will be given. So why government was not prepared to wait until Ms Neville had taken her case through the courts and had an opportunity to have that fair hearing, when you guys were not prepared to listen to her, not prepared to have her appear, not even before the Cabinet to have an opportunity to explain her story and to defend the allegations that were presented to her.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

It being 5:29 of the clock, I seek guidance from the House Leaders as to our procedure for the afternoon.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, considering the time limits that are left right now for the Leader of the Opposition, plus the fact that other speakers will want to speak on this most important motion, we will put forward a motion to adjourn and return here on Monday afternoon.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, given the seriousness of this issue, the Leader of the Official Opposition is not finished her speaking, she wants to finish and my understanding is that under, Standing Order 9, if she is not finished, we will adjourn to 7 o'clock and come back and finish.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we would like to put forward a motion to adjourn the House, return on Monday, but we certainly would have all intentions that any time that would be remaining for the Leader of the Opposition that time would be available on Monday.

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Government House Leader's motion is out of order. We have Standing Orders which govern this procedure. It is 5:30 p.m. She is not finished her speaking. She wants to finish her speaking. I suggest we follow the rules of this House and come back at 7:00 p.m. and finish it. Under that rule, we can stay here until 10:00 o'clock tonight and this can be finished when it should be, today.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated it is government's position, and with that, I would move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources, that the House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

The House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Monday.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.