December 21, 2009          HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS        Vol. XLVI   No. 43


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start regular routine proceedings, the Chair would like to revert to an action that happened here on Thursday afternoon with the adjournment of the House.

The Chair would like to refer all hon. members to our Standing Orders and to know that when a member is recognized to speak here in the Assembly, the time limit for speaking is clearly shown in our Standing Orders. The Leader of the Opposition has an hour every time he or she speaks. The Premier has an hour, the minister introducing a bill, the person responding after and everybody else has twenty minutes. When the time for adjournment for the normal daily sitting happens at 5:30 in the afternoon, normally if the House intends to sit beyond that, there is a motion moved that the House not rise at 5:30 p.m. and, in some cases, not rise at 10 o'clock.

When a member has been recognized by the Speaker to have control of the floor, that particular member should not be interrupted without a member recognizing something unparliamentary taking place and would rise on a point of order or a point of privilege or to point out an infraction brought forward by that particular member.

Normally, at 5:30 p.m. when a member is speaking and has control of the floor, that member would move a motion to adjourn the debate and the House would rise at 5:30 p.m. to return again at a normal sitting day. If that particular member does not move to adjourn debate, then the House automatically returns at 7 o'clock.

You cannot move an adjournment motion on a point of order or a point of privilege. On Thursday past, the Deputy Speaker at the time asked for direction and there was a sharing of information to provide direction, but incorrectly, the Government House Leader moved a motion for adjournment and it was accepted and voted on. What should have happened was the Speaker occupying the Chair should have vacated the Chair and the House resume at 7:00 p.m.

There was an error made. I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that your time for speaking still stands. You have, I think, twenty or twenty-one minutes left in your speech to the amendment of the particular motion that is before us and that time will be brought back to you and provided for in today's sitting.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Today we welcome the following members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; the hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Mr. Speaker, as a twelve-year-old, the big summer adventure for my friends and I was to get on a city bus, go to the outskirts of town to the Avalon Mall and get a banana split at some new store called Dairy Queen. High times indeed!

Well, times have certainly changed, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to extend congratulations to twelve-year-old Leslie Amminson, a resident of my District of St. John's East.

This past October Leslie travelled with her father to Portland, Oregon in the United States to participate in the 2009 World Handball Championships. This was a logical step as five years earlier, as a twelve-year-old, she had won the fifteen-and-under girls championship in Winnipeg.

At the world championships, where Leslie was one of the flag bearers for the Canadian team, she advanced to the championship game of the Girls Under-Fifteen One Wall Division and settled for the silver. In the Girls Under-Thirteen competition she lost in the semi-finals to a girl from California and she also participated in semi-finals of the Girls Under-Fifteen Singles bracket. The next world championships take place in Ireland in 2012.

Mr. Speaker, for many years, Leslie's father, Wayne, has been one of the premier handball players in our Province. However, I want to pay particular attention to the work he has done in conducting youth programs throughout those years, particularly at the YMCA, which is also in St. John's East. He has taken a lot of people in need of a high output-low cost sport and provided them with a venue not only for competition, but for travel – opportunities that otherwise would never have been available. He is currently involved in developing a handball program at the St. John's Boys and Girls Club.

Evidence of Wayne's work can be seen by the fact that three of his athletes, just the past year, were recipients of a 2008 Premier's Athletic Award which provides funding to assist with for the training and travel required to compete at an elite level.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me today in congratulating Leslie Amminson on her success on the world stage, and her future success at the Canadian and world level also.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, seventy years is truly a rare and valued milestone regardless of the occasion, and I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Joseph and Mabel Peddle of Spaniard's Bay on celebrating their seventieth wedding anniversary.

On December 25, 1939, they exchanged their vows at Holy Redeemer Anglican Church, Spaniard's Bay. The occasion was celebrated on Saturday, December 19, at their residence, at which time I had the honour to present certificates from both federal and provincial officials.

Throughout the event, Mr. and Ms Peddle reflected on their many memories and experiences to family and friends who came to offer congratulations. At the ages of ninety-one and ninety-three they enjoy good health, and an appreciation for the many blessings that have come their way. Being very active over the years with their church and community, they are truly an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in extending congratulations to Joseph and Mabel Peddle on their seventieth anniversary, and to wish them good health for years to come.

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, I rise in this House today to acknowledge the accomplishments of Ms Annie Pope of Peterview, and to extend sincere condolences to her family.

Mr. Speaker, Annie was a true hometown hero. In her early years, she was diagnosed with Juvenile Arthritis. However, she attended university and received a teaching degree. She went on to teach in Northern Labrador, but after seven years her illness made it impossible to continue.

Mr. Speaker, she returned to Peterview and for the last ten years she was confined in a wheelchair. However, she continued to be a champion for people with disabilities. Annie served as a town councillor with the Town of Peterview, was a board member of Central Health, and she also organized a community group called Your Strength is Our Strength, where people with disabilities were involved with health and wellness, and literacy programs.

Mr. Speaker, there years ago Annie had a vision for a seniors housing complex, and in June of this year she cut the ribbon on a ten-unit senior's complex in Peterview.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, December 16, after a short illness, Annie passed away at sixty years of age.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing a champion for the people with disabilities and a hometown hero, Annie Pope.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the incorporated Town of Terrenceville and the incorporated Town of Norman's Cove-Long Cove.

This year, Mr. Speaker, Terrenceville celebrated thirty-one years as an incorporated town, and also the Town of Norman's Cove-Long Cove celebrated its thirtieth year as an incorporated town.

Mr. Speaker, I had the great privilege of attending these two celebrations this past summer. A great deal has been accomplished in these towns and the people of the towns have a lot to celebrate.

I ask the hon. Members of this House to join me in congratulating these towns on their successful years of incorporated service.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pride that I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a very special person, an individual who so unselfishly has given his time, talent and energy to serve his fellow citizens, and as a result was the proud recipient of the Citizen of the Year award.

For countless hours, Mr. Carl Gillard of Springdale has used his leadership skills and his carpentry skills to transform the former courthouse into a first-class heritage building that is the envy of any community. He has been instrumental in garnering, not only the support of the town council, but also on the unwavering support from the Springdale Heritage Society of whom he was the founding president. His passion, his vision, his tenancy and his perseverance saw a dream come true. The history, culture and heritage of the Town of Springdale has been greatly enhanced and preserved because of Carl's tireless, relentless efforts.

Honourable colleagues, please join with me in congratulating Mr. Carl Gillard on being selected Springdale's Citizen of the Year for 2009, a prestigious award for an exceptional volunteer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As Minister Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, I rise in this hon. House today to advise the public of some very positive news.

By mid January, 2010, through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, the Stephenville area will have six brand new, and much needed affordable rental homes for families and individuals. Last spring, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing awarded a $783,000 contract to Whalen Enterprises Ltd. for the design and construction of three accessible duplexes on Wyoming Drive.

We have been eagerly anticipating the completion of this new project given that vacancy rates have been at an all-time low throughout the Province of late. With the holiday season nearly upon us, this is a wonderful time to make this announcement.

The six new social housing dwellings replace homes that were lost during flooding in September of 2005. One of the six units is fully accessible with three bedrooms, while five units are semi-accessible with thirty-six inch wide doors, as opposed to the stand thirty-two inches. This is in keeping with the goals of the provincial social housing plan, to increase the availability of accessible social housing and individuals' well-being by enabling persons with disabilities to live more independently and participate in community life.

The buildings are one-level dwellings with flushed, easy-access entrances. The project also includes significant exterior site landscaping such as reinstatement of sidewalks, curbs, gutters, pavement and roadways.

The two-bedroom design addresses the current rental needs in the town, and in fact, most of our Province. This project shows the long-term interest and commitment by the provincial government to continue revitalizing rural communities with adequate social housing opportunities.

As members would know, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing is the Province's largest landlord with approximately 5,511 non-profit social housing dwellings Province-wide, approximately 284 of those houses service the Stephenville regional area which includes the communities as far south as Port aux Basques and Ramea.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

To say that, no doubt, this is wonderful news for the Stephenville area. We understand and agree that good strides are being made but there are still some challenges that exist, and in particular, with regard to the wait lists for special emergency situations.

I know in the area that I represent, as well as the hon. minister, there are quite a few single units there but at the present time there is nothing available to those who are looking for units and maybe something similar can be considered by government for that particular area of the Province. It is always good, Mr. Speaker, and it is a positive step in advancing accessibility for persons with disabilities so that they can enjoy a good experience, and living independently and enjoying community life.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good statement, but hopefully the minister can look at the possibilities of similar units being made available to other areas of the Province.

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 an advance copy of his statement. Obviously, I am very pleased for the people in Stephenville to have this announcement made. I would note though, it took four years to do the replacement, and we are not talking about new units into our overall bank but units that are replacing what was lost during the flood. I point out to the minister that with hundreds of people on the waiting list for social housing at any given time and a six-month to a year waiting period, six replacement units are a drop in the bucket, especially when they are replacement units.

Mr. Speaker, the government's recently announced social housing plan was a long awaited policy framework for doing something about affordable housing shortages. The government has not made public, targets and timelines and amounts of money for the housing plan and I look forward to hearing from the minister with regard to these details.

I would also like to see as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker, this government called for proposals under the federal-provincial affordable housing initiative. An important goal of the social housing plan should be providing more funding and technical support to non-profit organizations, in particular, to qualify for this program so that we can get more affordable housing, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To no surprise to any member of this hon. House, Newfoundland and Labrador is home to academic, cultural and business sectors characterized by high degrees of creativity, resiliency and an entrepreneurial spirit.

What may surprise some are the inroads that these sectors are making in international markets. Locally manufactured products and services are reaching consumers in such markets as Asia, Africa, Europe, the United States and all across Canada. More importantly, this success is not confined to a single community or region but spans rural and urban communities.

As the MHA for Humber Valley indicated last week, optimism and confidence is growing in our Province. That spirit motivates us as government and drives us to continue to help open doors to a world of opportunities and foster a business environment conducive for success; success that ultimately leads to stronger more diversified communities and regions.

Mr. Speaker, in particular, we are continuing to work with our partners in Ireland to advance mutually beneficial opportunities that strengthen our centuries-old connection. Through outgoing and incoming trade missions, representatives from both jurisdictions are able to develop relationships and target new opportunities.

The significance of these initiatives has been recently highlighted by the Marine Institute's Memorandums of Understanding with Ireland's University of Limerick and St. Angela's College. With these agreements in hand, it is better positioned to capitalize on the growth of the global ocean technology sector.

We are also taking steps to create the platform for our publishing, film and music communities to excel abroad. Not only do these sectors celebrate our culture, but they are valuable contributors to the provincial economy.

Initiatives such as this fall's IN Exchange, heighten the opportunity for our talented professionals to increase their export potential. IN Exchange attracted more than twenty buyers, agents and other industry professionals from Ireland to meet directly with the Province's musicians, filmmakers and publishers.

Building off participation on earlier trade missions, IN Exchange led to performers such as Terry Penny and Duane Andrews securing a tour of Ireland in 2010 through Irish promoters. Local film producers and book publishers were also able to develop business relationships and anticipate long-term success in Ireland.

Mr. Speaker, developing new markets for local products and services takes time. By spearheading multiple initiatives, we are creating the opportunity to establish relationships that over the long-term will result in our greater success.

As our companies and organizations achieve greater success, that optimism and confidence that my hon. colleague from Humber West spoke of will continue to collect momentum across all regions.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, and would certainly like to congratulate the minister for his department's efforts in courting international communities for our Province. Ireland, as we know, is known as the Celtic Tiger because of its economic resurgence when it became a part of the EU, and Newfoundland has always enjoyed a great relationship with Ireland.

We know that in this past year, with the economic downturn in the global economy, that Ireland was one of the countries that was hit hard, and so we want to be concerned about that. Certainly, in terms of the recommendation that their funding to the INDP be cut, would be a concern. Nevertheless, we need to continue to grow that relationship, and I would suggest grow not only with Ireland, but other countries that would offer and allow our companies to expand.

We have some great entrepreneurial minds in our Province – very fortunate that we have. I would think that anything that government and your department in particular can do to help Newfoundland companies expand is a good thing. So I would encourage this kind of thing.

Thank you.

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

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

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

These announcements are always good announcements. Every step that we can take in strengthening the relationship in the exchange between Ireland and Newfoundland and Labrador is good. We do, though, have to look at the changing economy that is going on and the fact that things are not as good in Ireland right now as they have been and were at the time when we first signed the MOUs and renewed them. I think it would be good for us too, and I would assume that the minister and the government are doing an analysis of what is happening to the Irish economy to see if we can learn from that as well, because we do not want to go on a rise and come down the way they did. We have two different economies I know and a different reality, but it still is something that needs to be looked at.

Again, it is good getting this information on the different exchanges that are going on and the new Memorandums of Understanding, but I would be interested in the minister at some point giving us more detail on the benchmarks that maybe his department is putting in place to help us evaluate how successful we are being and how significant the success are that we have. I would be hoping to get that kind of information in the future from the minister.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This afternoon the House of Assembly will be asked to dismiss the Child and Youth Advocate, even though no fair hearing has been provided to address the allegations made against her. The minister who is bringing forth this motion of dismissal is the same minister who recently suggested a motion allowing an independent hearing for the former Citizens' Representative, Fraser March, saying he deserved to be heard.

I ask the minister today: Why are you unwilling to follow your own precedent and allow an independent hearing for Ms Neville prior to her being terminated?

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.

As I have said previously, Mr. March was not given the opportunity to be heard. He was not given the opportunity to state his case, therefore the independent judge was given to him. In this particular case, Ms Neville has had a number of opportunities to state her case. Number one is when the Speaker first suggested a workplace assessment. There was an opportunity for her to be heard at that particular time and that was refused. There was then the whistle-blower application, when the Citizens' Representative, Mr. Fleming, was attempting to do an investigation; there was a chance to be heard. The third time was with respect to when Mr. Fleming could not do it and asked government to have someone else do it and Mr. Noseworthy was asked to do it; there was a chance to be heard. Also, Ms Neville was invited by the Clerk of the Executive Council, she was informed of the reasons for the dismissal and was given an opportunity to state her case.

She has been heard, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also knows that Fraser March was invited on two, if not three occasions, to present to the IEC as well and declined that opportunity, but still, you felt it was necessary that he have an independent, judicial review. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the minister also knows that in the case of the Fleming review there were allegations, or certainly concerns around conflict of interest.

Mr. Speaker, there is currently an investigation ongoing by the Public Service Commission into this situation and cases before the courts that are waiting to be heard.

I ask the minister today: Out of fairness and due process, why are you unwilling to allow these actions to take its course before voting to dismiss Ms Neville?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it clear on Thursday why government was putting forward and seeking the concurrence of the House to a resolution to dismiss the child and citizens' advocate.

Mr. Speaker, the evidence that has been presented to all of us, the evidence that was in the books that was presented to the Child and Youth Advocate, that was presented to every Cabinet minister, that was presented to every Member of the House of Assembly certainly shows a reasonable person that when you look at the totality of what was available the question is: Was the mandate of the office being moved forward or was it being impaired, and I think, unbalanced? If you look at everything fairly, it was clear that the mandate of the Citizens' Representative was not being advanced and was in fact being impaired and that is the reason for the dismissal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister also knows that none of these issues or cases that he cited really allows for Ms Neville to be heard, and why an officer of the House of Assembly who was duly appointed by your government is not being that opportunity remains questionable.

Mr. Speaker, because this government did not allow fair process to take place prior to the Fraser March dismissal, the taxpayers were forced to cover legal fees and other costs for an independent review that today has added up to $188,000.

I ask the minister: Why don't you allow due process to take place for Ms Neville to ensure that the taxpayers of this Province once again will not be faced with an expensive bill because you did not follow due process and give this individual an opportunity to be heard in a fair and independent manner?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said on Thursday, Ms Neville has been given an opportunity to be heard.

The Leader of the Opposition and the Government House Leader are of the opinion that that has to be an oral hearing. The law certainly does not provide for that. The law provides an opportunity to state in your case. In this particular case, the Clerk of the Executive Council met with Ms Neville, met with her counsel, gave them a letter outlining the reasons for dismissal and invited them to state their case. That is an opportunity to be heard, that opportunity has been given. It has been considered by all hon. members, it has been considered by government. That is what led government to move this resolution that is being debated here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, government is stating now that the reason for dismissal is due to misconduct, specifically a breach of confidentiality. When the original suspension took place, there was no mention of this misconduct. As a matter of fact, the documents supporting this claim were not presented until November; months after Ms Neville had been suspended from her job.

I ask the minister: If misconduct was the reason for her suspension, why was she not provided with those reasons in August when the suspension date began?

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, as I said on Thursday, the reasons for dismissal were misconduct, but it is misconduct not in the criminal sense. It is misconduct in that the Citizens' Representative failed, while leader of the Child and Youth Advocate's Office, to deal with the human resource issues and the personnel issues that were happening in her office. She has not only failed to deal with them, she failed to admit that she was even part of the problem. She simply reacted by blaming everyone else. In addition, being leader in that office, she refused to address the problem by seeking help outside. In fact, when help was offered to her by the Speaker through the workplace assessment, by the Clerk of the House in offering more resources, it was always rejected.

That is where she ‘misconducted' herself. She ‘misconducted' herself in the operation of the office by failing to act and failing to accept responsibility and blaming her staff, and blaming everyone else and refusing to take responsibility for what was hers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in the minister's opening comments in the House he cited very clearly the cases regarding confidentiality.

Mr. Speaker, when the former Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development went on an Open Line program and read from a Cabinet document no disciplinary action was taken. Even though this is considered a breach of confidentiality, the former minister received nothing only support from his colleagues.

I ask the minister: What is the difference between a minister breaking this confidentiality rule and an officer of the House of Assembly?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the evidence that was presented on Thursday, evidence of refusing to act, refusing to deal with personnel matters, refusing to recognize serious managerial problems in the office, the refusal to seek help, the refusal to accept the assistance of others who were offering resources and methods in which to resolve the issue once and for all, all of these, including the breach of confidentiality, including the breach of the Oath of Office, all of these things add to a totality of evidence which shows that there was misconduct here, and that, as a result of that misconduct, the mandate of the office, a very important mandate of the office, was not being moved forward. It was, in fact, being impaired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister cites poor management in the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. Mr. Speaker, the executive secretary to Ms Neville, who falls under the House of Assembly and is governed by the direction of the House of Assembly, has been held out of service from her physician since August; even though she was given assurances that she did nothing wrong, she had been promised another position, however, she still remains at home.

I ask the minister, if there is poor management anywhere, it is in handling of this particular employee under the House of Assembly. I ask you today: Why has the executive secretary not been called back to her position or placed in another position since August?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: I will certainly make inquiries into that, but it is certainly my understanding that this House of Assembly and the staff of the House of Assembly are governed by the House of Assembly Management Commission. I understand the Leader of the Opposition is a member of that Commission; maybe she can give us the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do sit as a part of the Management Commission. However, I was not aware and not involved in any discussions regarding the executive secretary in that office. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that she was terminated by the Speaker's Office, through the House of Assembly. She has been given leave with pay and has not been returned to work.

I ask you today: Why has this individual not been placed in another position, because she has not done anything wrong?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the House of Assembly Management Commission. I cannot answer that question, but obviously that is something that the Public Service Commission could look into. If there is anything improper here that is something that could be put on to the Public Service Commission, it can be addressed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Amanda Duggan and her family were torn apart over the past two years by accusations of child abuse. Even when the RCMP dropped the case against Ms Duggan, Child Youth and Family Services refused to disclose the information to the Duggan family or alter their safety plan for the Duggan's two children until pressed to do so through the courts. Once the case hit the media, the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services said that she would ask the Toronto child protection expert, Susan Abell, to investigate and review what was happening and the circumstances around this case. Since that time, the minister has told the Duggan family that they will not actually do a full investigation into their case.

 

I ask the minister today: If she can clarify what type of investigation will be done and what her intentions are?

 

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

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Mr. Speaker, probably most of the cases that are being dealt with through Child, Youth and Family Services, through the social workers do not necessarily ever result in criminal charges.

 

Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, we have asked for a review to look at how various agencies share information. Because in this particular case Child, Youth and Family Services also had to work with the Janeway Child Protection Unit, as well as the RCMP. In this particular case, information had to be shared between these three agencies. It had to be shared in a timely fashion and it also had to be shared to be able to feed into the court processes as well. So, Mr. Speaker, the review that we are looking at, that will be conducted by Susan Abell, will look at that process of how each file or each of these agencies did their work and how they shared information because, Mr. Speaker, if there is a breakdown in the sharing of the information there certainly becomes a breakdown in the case work as well.

 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

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

 

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Under Child, Youth and Family Services the legislation stipulates that protective intervention cases must be settled within sixty days. This is a case where the Duggan family's lives were held in limbo for sixteen months. They had to spend $35,000 in legal fees to access information from the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services in order to gain custody of their children again.

 

I ask you today, Minister, given the fact that no information was disclosed to this family outside of the court process, given that your department delayed court hearings throughout the entire process and refused to follow judge's orders to allow the Duggan's more time with their children, and given the fact that there was no proof that any of –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the fact that there was no proof of any allegations made against them: Does this not merit a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding this case?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Child Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One thing I have to note, and it is an important point that was asked by the Leader of the Opposition, is that we have time frames in our legislation that basically we are unable to meet. The legislation came in, in 2000, certainly stipulates time frames in which cases need to be dealt with, but because these cases have to go to court, people have a right, I guess, to counsel, to get information, to be able to have access to information, that we are rarely able to meet the time frames as set out in legislation.

One thing that we are in the process of doing now, and I had indicated this in the House of Assembly to previous questions, is that we are doing a legislative review. Stakeholder groups are being contacted. We have heard many concerns from the social workers across the Province, and, Mr. Speaker, before we make any fundamental changes, we certainly have to make sure that we have legislation that is workable, not just for the clients but for the social workers as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A legislative review is fine, I say to the minister, but this is a very serious case where parents were separated from their children for extended periods of time without any just cause. Only because they went to the courts and they spent the money are they today united with their children. That should cause you enough concern to do a full investigation into this case and I ask that you do just that.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we are having a review conducted by Susan Abell, who did our clinical services review and I have great confidence in her work. Mr. Speaker, because Child, Youth and Family Services were only one of three agencies that played a role in how this case was processed, we want to review the lines of communication, how each file was reviewed, how the work was being done, and how that information was shared within the agencies that need to share this information because Child, Youth and Family Services can only work with the information that is coming from the child protection unit at the Janeway, as well as the RCMP who were doing an investigation at that time.

Mr. Speaker, one thing we really need to look at is how we work together, because as I said before, the decisions on this case were not just based primarily in information that was contained with Child, Youth and Family Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past two years we have been asking this government for legislation for health professionals, such as midwives and acupuncturists, and we keep being told that it is coming, it is coming. Again, we have not seen the legislation in the fall session of the House. However, in August we did receive a letter from the Health Minister committing that this legislation would be introduced in this session.

We would like to know, Mr. Speaker: Why it did not get presented and if we can look forward to seeing it anytime in the near future?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are working on the health professions act. The act is drafted. However, there has to be a consultation process, as pointed out by the Opposition Leader. She has named a number of the groups that are involved in this piece of legislation. However, there are numerous groups that are seeking to come under this type of umbrella legislation.

There will be some consultations in the very near future, Mr. Speaker. It is complicated in terms of some of the groups are very small and you have to have disciplinary proceedings in there. So, it is still a work in progress. I can tell the Opposition Leader, that we have made good progress but we are not exactly where I want to be at this point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been receiving e-mails from communities across the Province on the issue of broadband Internet access. The four immediate neighbouring communities of St. Anthony do not have that access in their areas. Residents of Newfoundland and Labrador have become impatient with the fact that they still have to rely on dial-up access to the Internet. It leaves residents, obviously, at a severe disadvantage in terms of access to education, Web-based employment and so on.

My question to the minister is: What can you tell these families about when they can expect the same basic Internet services as those in the urban parts of the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. member across the way would know, these services are federally regulated. Within the provincial mandate, we do have a government Broadband Initiative that we are working towards. We currently have over 85 per cent of the Province connected to high-speed Internet. We hope to bring that up into the 95 per cent to 98 per cent range and we are actively working towards that, Mr. Speaker.

We do have a number of our schools under various programs like the CDLI program that are connected to high-speed Internet for educational purposes, but it is something we are aware of and working towards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The broadband initiative is focused on schools, government offices, libraries and other governmental institution users. Broadband access for individual users is left to the communication companies who will piggyback on those government-sponsored services to offer similar services to local residents.

My question to the minister again would be: What requirements will you place on these communication companies to ensure that private users will have broadband access, and not just those living immediately adjacent to the government offices?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the government broadband initiative that we are working toward will bring full high-speed Internet services to a number of government offices, non-governmental offices, community-based groups where there is a government presence, hospitals, health care facilities, schools, depots, and courthouses. There are all kinds of places that we will bring it. In doing that, we will make the business case better for the private market to be able to provide Internet services to a number of households, a number of individuals. The issue right now is, given the geography of some of the Province, it is not, from a business case perspective; it is not possible for these private carriers to bring that Internet service in. What we are trying to do is make sure we move the infrastructure closer to the people who need it, so that people are able to access the services.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am really not certain who to direct the question to, and I guess it is government at liberty to decide who responds.

Mr. Speaker, our office recently submitted access to information requests to both the House of Assembly and the Public Service Commission with a simple question: Could you please provide us a list of staff currently on political contract within both bodies? Our request was originally refused by both bodies. We appealed to the Information and Privacy Commissioner and won the appeal. Since that time the House of Assembly has, in fact, fulfilled their obligation and released the requested information. Government, however, is refusing.

I ask the minister, or the Premier: If government was following the ATIPP legislation, why would the identical request, which was fulfilled by the House of Assembly, why is it being rejected by government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member mentioned the Public Service Commission; if that is correct, that would be my responsibility and I will certainly undertake, when I go back to the office today, to seek out that information and ensure the appropriate information is released, if we are required to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, our office is not the only one being refused information under the access to information act recently. It was reported in The Telegram, for example, their office has also been refused information related to government commissioned polling questions. Even though the Information and Privacy Commissioner already ruled that those questions should be released, government has again refused to release those questions.

I ask the minister: Why is government, again, refusing to release questions that were asked of the people of this Province and paid for by their tax dollars?

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this question is for me, but I will be happy to answer it. He keeps saying government refused. I want to point out to the members of this House, and I want to point out to the people of the Province, that under the ATIPP legislation, yes, there is a general rule that the information is provided, but there are many exceptions to that rule. There are certain types of information that the act says you cannot release and it would be illegal to release it. There are other types of information that is left to the discretion of the government whether it can be released.

You are saying it was refused to be released, well there may be a difference of opinion here. It is normal that people will have differences of opinion. It is normal that people of goodwill can have profound differences of opinion, and that is why we have access to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador to help us properly interpret this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Just so we are clear here and the minister is clear, we are not talking here about a difference of opinion. There was already an established precedent whereby the Privacy Commissioner ruled government was wrong, you should release the information and government subsequently released it. I am just asking now: Why, when we have an identical situation, you do not follow your own precedent and release the polling questions as you did the last time? Now that is not rocket science to figure that out, and that is not an opinion.

Mr. Speaker, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: - the forensic centre for public policy recently completed a review of every province in Canada of their health care system. In the category related to a patient's right to information Newfoundland and Labrador ranked last - dead last.

I ask the minister: Why is this government so far behind when it comes to sharing information with the public? Why are you not being open and accountable as you profess to be?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, for the Opposition House Leader to say that this government is far behind, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is at a minimum to inaccurately state. We are currently spending 40 per cent of our budget, our $2.6 billion on health care, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: There has been $1 billion increase over five years, Mr. Speaker. We are doubling the budget of over a decade ago. We are spending the second most per capita, Mr. Speaker, in this country next to Alberta, and we are only a little bit behind them.

Mr. Speaker, we have made great strides with our health care system. Are there things that we have to work on? Certainly. Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do are address issues in the health care system, people's right to information is certainly something that I have no problem with and if it is not being properly provided, we can check into it.

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the big picture here. There are a lot of positive things happening in our health care system. Those positive things, Mr. Speaker, are the things that we will continue to emphasize as we improve our health care system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, statutory offices of the House of Assembly are set up to be at arm's-length from government so that they can investigate, among other things, government departments when and as needed. So, Mr. Speaker, it was surprising last week on December 10, when the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services stated in the House that the minister and the Acting Child and Youth Advocate were in correspondence over the merits of an investigation that would be dealing with the minister's department.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Is the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate still at arm's-length from his government?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the question from the Leader of the NDP because I had written the Child and Youth Advocate and it had nothing to do with the investigation or what was going on with the investigation. I wrote because I had received correspondence from the family in Labrador - I guess they are considered victims of the fire - and they were concerned that there has been a public announcement about the investigation, but nobody had spoken with them beforehand to tell them that it was being referred to the Advocate's office or that it would be investigated.

They wrote me with their concerns. I passed the concerns onto the Advocate because, certainly, it was from the Advocate's office not from Child, Youth and Family Services. The Advocate responded to my letter that I wrote him that was prompted from the family in Labrador, and in that letter he acknowledged that there is a process of policy to follow regarding notification and he provided his comments to me that the investigation would continue. So it was not that I had asked him for an update of the investigation.

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, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister of what else she said when she put this information out here on December 10. She said that the Advocate had given an opinion with regard to the investigation that he agreed with the initial decisions by the Director of Advocacy not to do an investigation, but he was now going to have to do it because of the decision of the suspended Advocate.

So, I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Did she let the temporary Advocate know that his having that discussion with her was not an acceptable thing to do?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of investigations into the Labrador fire. There is an internal investigation, there is a fire commissioner's investigation - the fire commissioner's office looked at it.

Mr. Speaker, he may have sent up those comments, but I, in no way, engaged in any conversation, I did not phone him about it and I did not ask him any questions about it. As far as I am concerned, it is arm's-length. He can have whatever opinion he wants. He can express it all he wants, but, Mr. Speaker, it was not for me to debate that back with him to ask any further questions.

I do not doubt, for a second, that the Child and Youth Advocate's office will perform a very professional assessment. If there are any recommendations or insights that will help us as a department, we will certainly be very interested in looking at that to see how we can improve services. I, in no way, went back or debated or engaged in any conversation or correspondence. He offered his opinion –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: I never asked for his opinion. It was given to me and I just accepted it for what it was.

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, it was the minister who made this information public here in this House on December 10. It seems to me now that we have a compromised situation because this information that the Advocate gave, this opinion to the minister, is now public.

I want to know: How the House of Assembly and the public can be assured that the Advocate's office will be able to carry on an unbiased investigation into the minister's department and staff who work under her?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I had said, I do not doubt for a second that there is very professional staff down at the Advocate's office. It is great to see that the Advocate's office will be producing some work; I certainly welcome it.

Mr. Speaker, we will do nothing to interfere with this investigation. My staff – any staff in the department will co-operate fully with the investigation. If there are any concerns regarding the independence of that office that is something that the Management Commission or the House of Assembly can look at.

Certainly, as the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, I do not question the fact that they will do an unbiased report, a very professional report. We will accept that report; we will look at any recommendations that may come forward. If there is some way that we can improve service, we will.

Mr. Speaker, what is important to remember here is this government created the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services so we can improve services to the children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: In compliance with the Public Tender Act, I hereby table the Public Tender Act exceptions for the months of May, June, July, August, September and October of 2009.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to provide some information regarding questions asked by the hon. Member for Port de Grave in the House last week.

I guess contrary to what the hon. member stated last week, the review of the Class 4 roads throughout the Province is not yet complete and is currently ongoing, but we do expect to have some results later on this winter. We are looking at the main purpose of these roads, businesses located on these roads, fisheries infrastructure in the area, and a number of other factors as well.

I might say to the hon. member, no small feat. We have over 400 kilometres of Class 4 roads in this Province. We want to ensure that all the best information is collected and that takes some time. We do not maintain Class 4 roads, as you may be aware. However, some of these classifications may change. That is the point of the review, and we want to make sure that these roads are classified correctly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, Motion 1.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will rise to finish my debate on the amendment on the motion from Thursday. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the resolution is one that has been brought forward by the government opposite, through the Minister of Finance, and he presented his case on Thursday as to the reasons why he felt that Ms Neville should be fired as the Child and Youth Advocate in the Province. Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to respond to most of the points that he has raised, one in which he talks about breach of confidentiality, managing relations in her office, and the collective lack of sound judgement.

Mr. Speaker, as I said on Thursday, what the minister failed to do in bringing forward the resolution and his case for the termination of Ms Neville's appointment in her very important role and capacity as the Advocate for children and youth in this Province, he failed to back up his reasons for her dismissal with any real factual evidence. In fact, Mr. Speaker, he did not provide good strong arguments supplemented with examples of this from her particular office. That is the reason I find this so unfair to Ms Neville, because she has not had the opportunity in any real way to be able to present her case and to refute the statements that were made.

Mr. Speaker, when Ms Neville was let go from her employment back in August, not only was it unusual circumstances that surrounded her being dismissed at that time but there was also a letter that outlined a number of reasons. Two of those reasons were given in this letter, and I will read it into the record. It says that, "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 fulfilment of its statutory mandate. Key areas of concern include (1) your management of OCYA personnel; culminating in (2) your inability to effectively advance the mandate of your office." There was no talk in this letter back in August, when Ms Neville was suspended from her job, that it had to do with misconduct. In fact, the arguments of government surrounding misconduct did not surface until November, which was three months after she had been terminated from her job.

So, Mr. Speaker, the issues of misconduct was not the original reason for which she was let go. According to the letter that came from the Office of the Clerk - no, Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, which is the Cabinet. According to the letter that came from them, misconduct was not one of those reasons for her original dismissal nor was it to do with any issues around confidentiality, of which today is what the minister claims is the reason. So, what I would say is that they have failed to put together any concrete case or any real factual evidence to justify the action that they are about to take today because what they argued in August is very different from what they argued in November, and both of which they have presented here in the last few days is without substance.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about a couple of those issues, because in Question Period I did raise a number of them. First of all, the reason why Ms Neville is not being allowed by the government to either an independent judicial review, like was afforded Fraser March, or why she was not given an opportunity to present her case to the inner circles of government through the Cabinet. She was not afforded either of those opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, what I find so ironic about this is because I sit on the Management Commission of the House of Assembly and back in early summer it was the Minister of Finance today, who was the Minister of Justice then, through his colleague, the Government House Leader, brought forward a suggestion of a motion that would appear to the Management Commission asking that Fraser March be given an opportunity to be heard. His argument was that he felt that Mr. March was let go without ever having a fair hearing and that he deserved to have that fair and independent review, and that he would bring forward a motion through the Government House Leader to the Management Commission to do just that. All that process unfolded and it did occur. We now have the review completed and we have seen the results of it.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, how could a minister who felt that one Officer of the House had been so hard done by in terms of not being given a full and independent review, go from being in that position a few months ago to where he is today saying that Ms Neville has had an opportunity to respond because she has had an opportunity to write a letter and table it to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or to provide information through the courts? Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not acceptable, and none of these things occurred because of the actions of government. None of these things occurred because government felt that she deserved to have those avenues and those processes available to her. So, government has really taken no action to have heard Ms Neville's case, none whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, the question remains: Why are we allowing this resolution to be tabled on the floor of the House of Assembly to be voted on and Ms Neville's position terminated without ever giving her the opportunity to be heard in the same way that Fraser March was? The minister said today: Well, Ms Neville has had ample opportunity. She was invited to come to the Management Commission. She was asked to participate in a discussion group or workshop group of some sort. I am not really sure how all that works, Mr. Speaker. That is not any different than what Fraser March was afforded. Through the IEC, he was invited on three specific occasions to present his case and he refused to do so. So, Mr. Speaker, I fail to see what the difference is in the two cases.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville currently is involved in an investigation that is ongoing by the Public Service Commission, and has a case before the courts that is waiting to be heard, in which people will be subpoenaed to testify. It begs the question again: Why would government bring forward a resolution to terminate her employment before the investigation and the court case could be heard, so that as least some fairness and due process would have been accomplished on those two particular fronts? Why would they want to do that?

The question remains unanswered. Unanswered; because, if you look at the precedent that they have already set in the Fraser March situation, you would think that they would want to see due process and they would want to see fairness unfolding in this particular case before they went forward with any vote.

Let me just tell you this particular piece. The Fraser March resolution was debated in this House of Assembly as well, just like we are debating Ms Neville's resolution regarding her employment. At the time that we debated whether Fraser March should be terminated from his position, guess what the Opposition was doing on this side of the House? We were standing up and asking that Fraser March be given an opportunity to be heard, to be given an opportunity to a fair hearing. We were not judging whether he was right or wrong, but we did not see the process of fairness unfolding, or him having the ability to defend the allegations that were against him.

Guess what the government opposite did at that time? They voted down the amendment in which we asked that fairness be shown, and that Mr. March be given an opportunity to be heard. They voted down that amendment, and they terminated his employment, only to come back a year later and say that it was unfair and that he should be heard.

Well that vote, that day, when each of you voted not to allow Fraser March to be heard, has now cost the taxpayers of this Province $188,000 so far. So, I hope you are proud of that. I hope you are proud of the fact that you stifled an individual from having a fair hearing. At the end of the day you saw it as the right thing to do and allowed it, but in the course of that process you cost the people, so far, $188,000.

Is that what you want to do in the case of Ms Neville? We are asking today, through an amendment of the House, that she be given an opportunity to be heard, she be given an opportunity for fairness, to refute the allegations against her, and an opportunity to defend herself.

The minister has already said that there is no criminal activity. He said that today in the House of Assembly, so why not give this individual an opportunity for fairness and justice? Or, are we going to do the same thing that we did with Fraser March? A year from now someone will come back with a conscience and say: That was wrong; we should have allowed her an opportunity, so we will do it now.

Meanwhile, we will cost the taxpayers another couple of hundred thousand dollars. This is a government that constantly is having to admit to its mistakes; and I fear, Mr. Speaker, that each of you are making a huge mistake again today.

Mr. Speaker, there has been no explanation, no information, or no evidence, given to support the allegations against her, or to rationalize why Ms Neville should be suspended from her job.

One of the pieces the minister likes to play up really well is the piece around confidentiality. Mr. Speaker, the two issues, as I spoke to only a few days ago, one was in the case of where a document was given to the media on the eve of an interview that Ms Neville was to do at 7:45 the next morning. The document was not a violation of privacy, as was indicated by the minister, because the very document that was given to the media the night before was the same document that was released to the public the next day, so there was absolutely no breach of privacy.

In terms of a breach of confidentiality, first of all put yourself in the position. I bet you have all done it at one point or another, when you are about to release a new document, and you are being interviewed and scrummed in the media, you usually give some kind of a briefing, or you release the document to the media for a period of time, whether that be minutes, hours, or whatever the case may be, so that they can be better prepared to question you on your findings, on your recommendations, and on the document in its entirety. That is exactly what happened. Is it a breach of confidentiality? I would not think so, Mr. Speaker; I think it is the actions of an individual who wants to have correct and proper information when this document goes public.

Mr. Speaker, what I find ironic about it again is when a Cabinet minister in the Williams government went on the Open Line program and read from a Cabinet document - which was a clear breach of confidentiality – and that individual, in no way, shape, or form, had any action taken against him.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, when there were calls made and questions asked with regard to that breach of confidentiality of a Cabinet document, it was his colleagues on the other side of the House who actually supported him, who actually spoke in support of him and his actions, and made light of the situation.

What makes a breach of confidentiality by a Cabinet minister any different than a breach of confidentiality being alleged toward Ms Neville today, or toward any Officer of the House of Assembly? Why is it that they would be terminated from their job but, yet, a Cabinet minister would be patted on the back and light – very light - made of the entire issue? Because that is exactly what happened.

Mr. Speaker, the other issue is around the management within her office. If anyone had read the information that was presented by Ms Neville, they would have read very clear, very evident cases, very specific examples to counteract the comments that were raised and brought forward. I do not have the time to get into a lot of these particular incidents right now, but I do want to touch on a few of them, Mr. Speaker.

When the minister talked about the fact that he felt the complaints of the staff against Ms Neville had been alleged, that the office environment there had been poisoned - I think the Speaker actually said it in his own letter, as well, and he did. The Speaker said that the staff were demoralized, and there was a poisoned work environment. How he got to that finding, I have absolutely no idea - very strong statements to make with no information or examples to back them up.

Mr. Speaker, in that particular office environment, I spoke last week to the camaraderie that was shared, as it is in most offices. Mr. Speaker, if there was a demoralized attitude, if there was a poisoned work environment and employees were sick, all of those sick days should have been documented. All of those sick days should have been documented. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they should have records in the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate that would show factually every single day that an employee was off work, that an employee was sick, that an employee was not on the job because of the demoralizing work environment in which they worked.

Mr. Speaker, according to the documents that were filed, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate's staff sick leave, and the utilization of that sick leave, had been very little prior to August 20 of 2009, which was the date in which she was terminated from her employment, and which a reason was given because of the amount of sick leave being utilized by the staff who were demoralized and who had been working in a poisoned environment.

Mr. Speaker, if that was the actual case, every single day that one of these employees were off work for either stress leave or sick leave should have been documented and all of that information should have been available prior to August 20. However, I have seen none of it in any of the information that was presented by the minister or by the Speaker other than blatantly broad statements that have come unsubstantiated by any factual information.

As well, Mr. Speaker, there was a number of staff concerns that were raised by the minister, by the Clerk and by the Speaker. Staff concerns, let me just talk about what a couple of those staff concerns were, because I took the opportunity to read them and I also took the opportunity to read the comments that were provided by Ms Neville.

For example, Mr. Speaker, the staff did not approve of the system of inventory control that the Advocate had instituted. However, Mr. Speaker, the Advocate instituted this system of inventory control within the office because none had previously existed. While this was not a popular move among some staff used to doing things differently - I am sure an issue we have all experienced in our own offices - it was necessary in order to account for the expenditures of public monies.

Not unlike what we went through in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, we have had tougher laws, tighter restrictions, different policies, more paperwork and stronger accountability in terms of carrying out our job. Well, that is only what was being attempted in the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, but yet employees filed that as a complaint because they did not approve of the system of accountability that had been instituted in that office. Is that a reason for someone to be fired, because they were developing an accountability measure to be able to record and track the expenditures of public monies?

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues like that – a number of issues like that. Mr. Speaker, I think that the reality here that we are dealing with is we have a situation today where an officer who served in a higher level capacity of the House of Assembly, was appointed by the government because of her impeccable record and her ability to carry out the responsibilities of the Child and Youth Advocate office, is today being terminated from her employment without being given real justification and real evidence to back up the rationale that government is providing, nor is she being given an opportunity for a fair and full hearing and that is unfortunate. I am sure that, once again, it will be a case of where the government will cost the taxpayers more money down the road.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to reiterate everything that was said by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Natural Resources. I want to keep coming back to the purpose and intent of this piece of legislation which is outlined in section 3 of the act, Mr. Speaker, is to protect the children and youth of our Province and to advocate on their behalf.

I echo the comments made by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Natural Resources. The one thing missing, Mr. Speaker, from the Opposition so far, in everything I have heard, I have heard no reference to the children of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Child and Youth Advocate office, like the Auditor General's, is an independent statutory office. As the Minister of Finance pointed out the other day, we cannot confuse independence with accountability.

The Child and Youth Advocate office, Mr. Speaker, by the latest numbers I saw, has a budget of approximately $900,000. So a significant amount of money is going into this office and the least we can expect, that it looks after the interests of the children as it is meant to.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular case the Child and Youth Advocate, Ms Neville, at the time had signed a contract, which means that she could only be dismissed with cause. It was a contract of employment - I would assume, Mr. Speaker, it would be with the House of Assembly.

She is not an employee, Mr. Speaker, of government as such, but there are still employment law principles that would apply in terms of some aspects of her relationship with the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, cause for dismissal, or just cause, is outlined in section 7 of the act, Mr. Speaker. In this case, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council - not the Management Commission - can remove, on a resolution the House of Assembly, can remove a Child and Youth Advocate, because of incapacity to act, or neglect of duty, or for misconduct.

Mr. Speaker, in this case, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, being Cabinet, is satisfied that cause exists. So in the ‘normal situation', Mr. Speaker, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council will dismiss, and the employee can then take an action for wrongful dismissal. However, in this case, as a result of the aspect or the fact that the Child and Youth Advocate office is independent, we have attempted, as a government, to ensure that the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness apply.

The allegations, Mr. Speaker, are outlined in the Speaker's letter, they were outlined in the letter from the Clerk, and, Mr. Speaker, the Child and Youth Advocate, Ms Neville, has been given an opportunity to reply in a ninety-two page document. So, Mr. Speaker, the test we have to look at is, as a government, or the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, is it more likely than not that section 7 has been met?

Mr. Speaker, the average person, would he or she say that, based on everything I have heard here, I am satisfied that the Child and Youth Advocate office is not functioning as it should, that there has been misconduct – not in terms of criminal misconduct, Mr. Speaker, but misconduct as outlined by the Minister of Finance - and that therefore it is necessary for the Child and Youth Advocate to be removed in order for the office to fulfill its mandate? This is the question each Member of the House of Assembly must ask themselves in voting on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go through, briefly, the chronology of events, because the chronology of events is striking in terms of the obstructions put forward by the Child and Youth Advocate at the time, Ms Neville.

Mr. Speaker, on February 10, 2009, there was a meeting between Ms Neville and the Speaker, which we have heard about from the Minister of Finance. On February 12, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville writes the Speaker and says: No, I am not going to participate in your respectful workplace assessment. The Speaker then writes, on February 13, to the Public Service Commission and asks them to conduct an investigation. On February 16, Ms Neville writes the Management Commission and alleges harassment against the Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious allegation to make. If anyone - I would suggest that the members of this House review the letters that are outlined. Look at the intemperate language that is used. Look at the way the vitriolic attack on the Speaker of this House when Ms Neville feels that her motive, her style, is being questioned.

Mr. Speaker, the Speaker then asked the Citizens' Representative, Barry Fleming, to conduct an investigation into the harassment allegations made against him.

On March 3, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville alleges that the Citizens' Rep, Barry Fleming, is in a conflict of interest. So, first, it is Roger Fitzgerald is harassment, Barry Fleming is in a conflict of interest, and during this similar timeframe a whistle-blower complaint is made to the Citizens' Rep by the staff of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate pursuant to Part IV of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act.

On March 17, 2009 – so now we are only a month and seven days after the meeting with the Speaker - Mr. Fleming notifies Ms Neville of the whistle-blower investigation. On March 24, 2009, Mr. Fleming completes his harassment investigation. On March 27, 2009, Ms Neville files a court application asking for two things - there are two remedies, Mr. Speaker. One, to prohibit or prevent Mr. Fleming from conducting the whistle-blower investigation because of the conflict of interest; and two, seeking to quash Mr. Fleming's harassment report.

Meanwhile, as all of this is going on, Mr. Speaker, who is looking after the children of this Province? We now have, whether there are numerous court actions - we have numerous proceedings ongoing. Yet, every time Ms Neville comes into conflict with someone we either end up with her questioning or impugning their motives or taking them to court. We now have the Speaker, we have Mr. Fleming and it does not end there, Mr. Speaker.

On June 1, 2009, Mr. Fleming steps aside from the whistle-blower investigation and Robert Noseworthy, the former Chair of the Public Utilities Board, is appointed. Mr. Noseworthy, as far as I know, Mr. Speaker, has an impeccable reputation, has no reason - that I am aware of - to be personally involved in this investigation, has no reason to be biased either for or against the government or Ms Neville.

The Opposition says: Well, she has never had an opportunity to state her case. Well, as pointed out by the Minister of Finance, she had the opportunity to state her case, Mr. Speaker, with the Respectful Workplace. She had the opportunity to state her case - and she did state her case in terms of the harassment, as I will come to. She spoke to Mr. Noseworthy at length. So we have the officials at the Child and Youth Advocate office, the workers there saying that we have a lot of problems in this office. It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker - and I could be wrong – that Ms Neville spoke at length to Mr. Noseworthy.

What happens to Mr. Noseworthy's report? Where is the one piece of evidence that could tell us what is going on in that office? That is the report of Robert Noseworthy. Where is it? How come we have not seen it? Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that – and I will come to this in a second – as a result of a court application taken out by Ms Neville, we are not able to use that report. Now, Mr. Speaker, why? Ms Neville, I understand, spoke to Mr. Noseworthy. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the people working in the office spoke to Mr. Noseworthy. So who is the one person that could tell us what is going on in that office? It is Bob Noseworthy, yet we do not have his report. Why? I will come to that in a second, Mr. Speaker.

On June 4, 2009, Wayne Thistle of the Centre for Innovative Dispute Resolution finds that there was no harassment. He had been appointed, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the allegations against Mr. Fleming. He had been appointed and he finds that there is no harassment and no intent to interfere with the Child and Youth Advocate's ability to pursue ongoing investigations. On June 7, 2009, what is next? There is an application to court to have Robert Noseworthy prohibited from conducting a whistle-blower investigation, they amend - it is not a separate court application. Excuse me, I say to the Opposition House Leader, they have amended the Fleming application. Again, because Mr. Noseworthy might get to the bottom of what is going on in that office, he is now added to the court application.

On August 7, 2009, Mr. Speaker, a press release comes out of the office in relation to the Labrador investigation publicly criticizing the staff. Now, as outlined by the Minister of Natural Resources and as outlined by the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services today, in March of 2007, Ms Neville had written the Minister of Justice at the time, said that she agreed - if I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, it is Tab 23 of the documents filed here indicated that she agreed that the Child and Youth Advocate office should not be involved in child death reviews and agreed with the recommendation of Dr. Peter Markesteyn. This was referred to the other day, and I am not going to go through it in detail.

So what happens in January or whenever this issue comes to the attention of the Child and Youth Advocate office? The woman who was scandalized, Mr. Speaker, the Director of Advocacy Services again, she stands up to Ms Neville, her reputation is called into question. So what happens is that Ms Neville says: Well, now they should have proceeded. Well, she has not answered that letter in the ninety-two page document; it is there. She wrote the Minister of Justice and said: We agree with the Markesteyn report. So how is the Director of Advocacy Services to know if that is the position put forward by the Child and Youth Advocate?

So, Mr. Speaker, let's continue. On August 17, 2009 the Speaker writes the Clerk of the Executive Council. The Child and Youth Advocate reports to the House of Assembly. As pointed out by a number of members here, there have been extensive meetings in the Management Commission as to how to deal with this matter. My notes of August 12, 2009 - because there is no record kept, Mr. Speaker, of the Management Commission meetings - indicate that the Leader of the Opposition, at that point, expressed confidence in Ms Neville. Is there any surprise that she is here today defending Ms Neville?

Yet, Mr. Speaker, it becomes clear that the Management Commission cannot deal with this matter. It is escalating. Who is going to deal with it? Mr. Speaker, by August 17, the Speaker writes the Clerk of the Executive Council, outlines very serious allegations and concludes, "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'."

Now as a government what are we supposed to do? That letter is written to us by the Speaker. What are we supposed to do, ignore this, Mr. Speaker?

August 20, 2009 there is a letter from the Clerk to Ms Neville suspending her with pay – with pay, Mr. Speaker, and giving her the opportunity to reply. On September 4, there is a letter from counsel for Ms Neville seeking two weeks to reply. On September 8, you will remember we were in this House and Ms Neville was given the opportunity to reply and we continued with the suspension with pay.

September 30, we received a ninety-two page response that, Mr. Speaker, can be summarized as this: Everyone is conspiring against Darlene Neville. Everyone is lying about her. Everyone is making stories up. So the Speaker is out to get her. Mr. Fleming is out to get her. Bob Noseworthy is a continuation of Mr. Fleming, therefore he must be out to get her. All of the people in the Child and Youth Advocate's office are out to get her. Now, are they all lying? Are they all making this up? It defies common sense, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker outlines in his letter the allegations being made.

That same day on September 30, Ms Neville files an application in court asking to be heard in the House of Assembly. We get then to a hearing, she alleges biased against Chief Justice David Orsborn. So now Chief Justice Orsborn is out to get her. Chief Justice Orsborn, on December 4, dismisses her application to appear before the House of Assembly.

What do we have as we stand here today? We have still outstanding court matters. We have the application to quash the Fleming report re harassment. We have the application to prohibit or prevent Barry Fleming from conducting a whistle-blower investigation, which extends to Mr. Noseworthy. The Bob Noseworthy report - and I say to Ms Neville: Let's see that report. That report will answer the questions. It will tell us what is going on in that office. Is she right, is everyone conspiring against her or, Mr. Speaker, are the employees of that office legitimate in their concerns?

Mr. Speaker, that is the one report we do not have, and she has it within her power for all of us to have that report here. She chose to take us to court, and continues to take us to court, and takes everyone else to court. She has appealed Chief Justice Orsborn's decision. Is he out to get her too?

Mr. Speaker, I am informed that it is possibly the summer of 2010 – apparently they are back in January to set more court dates. I read the transcript. I do not remember Justice Orsborn, or not in my reading of the transcript referred to by the Opposition House Leader that Justice Thompson said the Premier could be subpoenaed. As in any application, Mr. Speaker, they can call evidence but the right to be heard does not mean you have the right to stand in this Chamber, where parliamentary privilege applies, and address this House. Who is going to cross-examine? Is everyone else – does the Speaker get up and refute the allegations? Do we bring in Mr. Noseworthy? Do we bring in Mr. Fleming? Because that is it, Mr. Speaker, that is how impractical this is.

What do we do, Mr. Speaker, in all of this? All of the issues that are before the court, the Opposition says: Well, let it play out. So, we will continue to pay her salary until the summer of 2010. We will continue to pay the salary of the Acting Child and Youth Advocate who, by the way, is a temporary appointment who does not want to be in that job, who signed on until - as outlined in the act - this matter was dealt with by the House.

The only report that addresses the substantive concerns is the report of Bob Noseworthy, which I understand is completed but cannot be released to us because of Ms Neville's application. Why doesn't she let us have it? Why doesn't she agree for that report to be provided? By her own admission, Mr. Speaker, Ms Neville admits, whether she uses these terms, that the office is in turmoil. So, as a government we have an obligation to act, Mr. Speaker, to protect the children of this Province, which seems to be lost on the Opposition here.

The two stories, Mr. Speaker, cannot be reconciled. It is not simply a he said, she said. It is: I said, and ten people said against me. It is: I said, and that the rest of them are out to get me. Mr. Speaker, I say to people, you decide. I say to the members of this House, you decide if we have the grounds that are necessary to move ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the court cases that the Liberals ask us to wait for will not shed light on the situation in the office, because that is a primary concern to government. How are our children being protected? The only report - again, I repeat. The only report is the report of Mr. Noseworthy. He spoke to the members in that office. He spoke to Ms Neville. He will reach conclusions, but we cannot get that report.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the budget of this office is approximately $1 million – $900,000, excuse me. We are now paying an interim Advocate. We need to get on with the business of protecting our children, Mr. Speaker. We need to get on with hiring a new Advocate. We cannot wait until the summer of 2010 and more appeals, and appeal after appeal – because that is what Ms Neville does. Every time there is a decision against her, she either appeals or takes someone else to court, or complains about them to someone else.

Mr. Speaker, to the people of this Province, I say we have an obligation to protect our children. That is the primary concern of the act. It is very unfortunate, that is what is happening here, but I urge each member of this hon. House to vote in support of this resolution, and if we make a decision –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: If, Mr. Speaker, we make a decision that is not right in law, well Ms Neville certainly will take us to court.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, at the end of this, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at our children. What do we do? What we have decided, as a Cabinet, with all of the evidence that we have in front of us, which is irrefutable in terms of section 7 of this act, as much as there is politics involved in what the Liberals are putting forward, at the end of the day, I urge every member of this House to read the booklet in front of us. Read these tabs, Mr. Speaker, and they will see the seriousness of an office in turmoil. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? Even if the evidence was not as overwhelming, we know the office is in turmoil. We have to do something. What do we do? Do we fire the ten people who are down there and say: Well, we accept Ms Neville's versions of events? Ms Neville has outlined, she has outlined her concerns. There has been undue political interference on the part of the Liberals, and I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that they could stand up in this House and put forward the positions they put forward.

What we are concerned about, and what I have not heard from the Liberal Leader, or I have not heard from the Opposition House Leader is, what about our children? So, Mr. Speaker, we are going to make the decision that we have to make here to protect our children. Mr. Speaker, when we look at the comments the other day about the management committee, these members have all been present during these meetings. They know what took place. They know that the Management Commission did not have the power to deal with this. When the Liberals ask: Why not let it run its course? I have outlined in detail.

Again, I say to the people of this Province, is that we are left with a situation where we have an office that is clearly dysfunctional, an office that is clearly in turmoil, and that an office is primarily in its intent and in legislation meant to protect the interests of the children of this Province. We have to take this step unfortunately that we have to take today in order to ensure that the office continues to run. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? I understand that since the interim Child Advocate has been there – well, I have not heard the problems. I do not know if any other member of this House has heard public problems since then, but I can assume from that, that things are running smoothly.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I ask and I urge each member of this House to vote in favour of this resolution.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am glad to get the opportunity to speak to the resolution and the amendment of the resolution on the floor this afternoon.

I have been sitting here now since Thursday listening to everything that has been said, both by the government side and by the Official Opposition side. Since February, up to the time that we received the binder that we have, I have read every word that has been sent to me with regard to this issue, and I have reread and reread many sections. So I have put a lot of thought, as others have, into the issue that we are dealing with today, which is the proposal from the government to dismiss Ms Darlene Neville from the role of Child and Youth Advocate.

Before going into my planned presentation, I do want to make a couple of responses to the Minister of Health and Community Services, and I will go in more detail as I go through my planned presentation. One of the flaws in his presentation was that he started with the timeline of February, 2009. When, in actual fact, the timeline goes back to February, 2008. I will speak more to that, because he has left out something very significant. That before Ms Darlene Neville was called into the Office of the Speaker, before that happened there had been a whole year of discussions going on between members of the OCYA, staff members of the OCYA, and staff members of the House of Assembly. So, I think to use the word that he seems to like, that I have used before in the House, I think it was very disingenuous of him to leave out the fact that that whole year took place, and I will make more reference to that in my planned presentation.

We are all here because we are concerned about the children of the Province. While I am here not ever having spoken outside of formal meetings to Ms Neville in her role as Child and Youth Advocate – and we have had formal meetings, as budget discussions, et cetera, as the Management Commission, of which I am a member - outside of those times of speaking with Ms Neville, I have not spoken to her about this issue, and I am not going to speak to her performance because that is not what we are talking about here today, from my perspective. I am talking about process.

We have no proof that anything about Ms Darlene Neville says that she does not care for the children of this Province, and I have to say that I am offended by the way in which the government has been pushing the notion that, because of her, the children of the Province are in danger. I think that is awful. If there is anything that is disingenuous, I think it is that.

We all care about the children of this Province and I think Ms Neville, from what I have read and from what I have learned, has a track record of showing that she cares about children in this Province. I have to call the government on this tact that they have taken. I think it is being done on the backs of the children of this Province, the tact that the government has taken.

Having said those two things, I do have a planned presentation and I do want to go through with that. The thing that we are discussing here today is whether or not we should continue - the amendment has brought in this angle, which I agree with - whether or not we should continue the process of suspension of Ms Darlene Neville, allowing for a real hearing into the allegations that have been brought against her.

As I have said, I stand here without prejudice and say that I have no idea what would be the result of a hearing - I do not know – but the one thing I am absolutely positive about is that there should be a hearing and that due process should be given to Ms Darlene Neville.

We are not in a hearing here today; we are not here to judge Ms Darlene Neville's actions, because we do not have a setting for doing that. What I am here doing today is speaking to the process that we have been involved in, for us as a Management Commission, for the last almost a year, since February 2009, and for the House of Assembly staff, those involved on the management level, back to February 2008.

It is the process that I am not very happy about. It is a very disturbing process. It has been long, it has been drawn out almost two years, and it is a process that for a whole year was about Ms Darlene Neville but did not involve Ms Darlene Neville.

Again, that is why I find some of the comments made by the Minister of Health and Community Services to be disturbing today: that this woman was talked about for a whole year - and all these documents in this binder show that - talked about for a whole year by members of her staff and by members of the management of the House of Assembly, but it did not come to anybody to realize, from the first time that one of the staff from her office came and spoke to somebody in the management of the House of Assembly, that she should have been notified; that somebody - and in this case I think it was the Speaker - should have sat with her and said: It looks like we have a problem, Darlene, or Ms Neville - however they communicate with each other - it looks like we have a problem. What do we do with this? But, for a whole year this dragged on, these meetings, these discussions between staff at her office and management of the House.

I have to say that when, in February 2009, we were called together as a Management Commission to have an in camera session, and we were told it was a personnel issue and that is why it would be in camera - and every one we had was in camera because it was a personnel issue - when we had that first meeting and the Speaker outlined to us this long-drawn-out process, all of which is now documented in this binder that we all have, I was horrified. I was horrified that it did not come to anybody in management that you should have stopped this right at the beginning.

What we were presented with was a mess, and I am really upset that the government is refusing to acknowledge that first year, while this woman did not even know what was going on behind her back, and then, when she gets called into the Speaker's Office in February 2009, she does not even know what he is calling her in for. She goes into a meeting with him and somebody from PSC to talk about workplace assessment and having a healthy environment. She did not even know what she was facing.

No wonder, when she did a rethink, she called and said: Let's back up for a minute. I have to have more information. That is what she said: I need more information. I need to find out why this workplace assessment is needed.

I really and truly get extremely upset when I hear this part being left out. Everything that I have read, all the documentation that has been provided both from Ms Neville's deputations as well as from the letters and all the discussion that is going on, tell us that what has happened has been completely, every bit of it, totally against all human relations documentation, the way policies, the way in which human relations should be carried out.

I would like say that, as a member of the Management Commission, I feel responsible that I did not realize how poorly equipped the House of Assembly management staff was with regard to skills in human relations; because there is nothing that you can read that would tell you that what went on was correct.

I stand here as a person with a lot of experience in human relations. I have been in management myself, and I cannot understand how anybody in this House or anybody in the public can read all of this documentation and say that the process was alright.

We have to face that today. This process, to put it bluntly, stinks, and we have to recognize that. There is no way that I can vote for a resolution to fire Ms Neville when she has not had a chance to speak.

Now, the Minister of Finance says that she has had a chance. She has had a chance, because she sent in ninety-two pages when requested. I tell you, I marvel at the patience the woman had to put all of that down on paper. She has had a chance, but she has not had a chance to speak to us or to anybody else about it.

The minister says that does not matter. Well, it does matter when members of her own office, for a whole year, had people to speak to, could say whatever they had to say, could be listened to, but she is not allowed to have that interaction.

Listen, colleagues, there is something wrong here and I cannot understand that you do not see it. You know what? I think some of you do see it. There is something wrong when this woman, for a whole year, had people talking about her behind her back, but all she can do is put it on paper and not make any presentations, not answer any questions, not explain anything. This is absolutely unbelievable and unacceptable. So, of course, I cannot possibly vote for her being released before she has a chance to do that.

I agree with the Official Opposition on this one: if we do not give her a chance now, well then this government or a government after you, somewhere down the line, somebody is going to be forced to hear her, just like they were forced to hear Fraser March.

I do not know why this government has not learned from that experience. Darlene Neville deserves a full hearing, either with the Management Commission – which, by the way, is the place where it should have come, and I want to talk to that now. I want to talk to the August 12 meeting that has been referred to both by the Opposition House Leader as well as by the Minister of Health and Community Services.

I was at the August 12 meeting, and I know what we decided in the August 12 meeting. We did not talk about dismissal and we did not say it was not the role of the Management Commission to get involved in that. As a matter of fact, what I kept saying at every meeting we had, that the Management Commission was not the place to be talking about human relations, because it is isn't. We are a policy body. We make policy, and the human relation issues were not issues that we should be dealing with in the Management Commission.

What we did talk about and what we did decide - and the decision is documented in sub-tab 19 of Tab 10. I have the sub-tabs because we have all of these tabs under Tab 10, so I have done my sub-tabs. I am talking about the August 13 letter from the Clerk of the House to Ms Darlene Neville. That letter from the Clerk of the House to Ms Darlene Neville outlines that the Management Commission at a meeting of August 12 requested a report on the status of the other reviews and investigations previously announced by her office.

The reason we did that letter, the reason we asked the Clerk to write that letter - that was our only decision at the August 12 meeting -was because somebody in the Management Commission raised an issue: Has she really been doing the work that she was supposed to be doing? I do not know if I was the one who said it, it does not matter. I certainly agreed with it and I think I was the one who said: Well, there is one way to find out. Why don't we ask her for an interim report, a status report on where things are? My purpose being, and my reason for agreeing with that, was that if she is doing her work, you cannot use that as something against her, if she is doing her work.

That letter of August 13 went out to Ms Neville. Then the tab after that indicates, as all of us know, that on August 18, Mr. MacKenzie received a letter from her responding to us. When you read the letter responding to us, to the Management Commission, you have twelve pages well thought out of a response to us about the work that she was doing and the work that the office was doing. All of which, to me, seemed really plausible, not only plausible, honest and a full answer.

That was what we did on August 12. We, as a Management Commission, did not say to members of Cabinet who are on the Management Commission: You go off and take care of this now. We did not say to the Speaker: You do something. We said: It looks like we need a bit more information. The information we needed, we asked for and we got. That was August 12. Then, on August 17, I hear publicly of what the Speaker has done, and then we get the results of what the Speaker has done, with the letter that he sent.

If the Speaker thought that we had gotten to a point, on the Management Commission, and if there were members of Cabinet on the Commission who thought the same thing, that we should not just wait for her report to come in, and we needed to learn more, then the Speaker should have made a recommendation to the Management Commission that he was interested in moving further with this and wanted a meeting with the Management Commission, just like it was the Internal Economy Commission who was the body that dealt with Fraser March when that issue was here in this House of Assembly. But no, the Speaker went straight to Executive Council, which leads me to another point, and that is the point that all statutory officers are accountable to the House of Assembly. The Executive Council is government, it is not the House of Assembly. So that is was the Management Commission, if the discussion was going to get to the point of whether or not Ms Neville was going to be suspended, if that was the point at which the discussion had come, then the Speaker should have brought it to the Management Commission, not to the Executive Council. The recommendation should have been dealt with by the Management Commission, and if the Management Commission then needed decisions from the House of Assembly, that is how the process goes.

So we seem to have forgotten that a statutory officer is accountable to the whole House, not just accountable to the government. The Management Commission is the body that the whole House uses to take care of management issues.

I want to deal with, as well, Mr. Speaker, some of the points under – there were four points that were given by the minister with regard to misconduct. I want to look at the points of misconduct that were named by the Minister of Finance in his opening remarks on Thursday. I will not go into a whole lot of detail, it has been dealt with by some people in the Official Opposition, but I do want to deal with it, because it seems to me that the minister has cut the cloth to fit the case. In other words, the definition of misconduct is not defined in the relevant act with regard to the Advocate, it is not defined anywhere in ethical statements. I have gone to statements on the federal level. Misconduct one of these things that can move around, and it seems to me that in the definition that the minister brought forward that we have a case of the cloth being cut to suit the situation here, rather than the other way around.

I think because exactly of the fact that there isn't a definition, all of the points around misconduct are all open to discussion, and that is what a hearing is about. I think there has to be discussion just on the points of misconduct themselves.

Inability to manage human resource issues, that is an issue and it is a management issue, but is an inability – and I am using the words now that came from the minister. Is that inability, in and of itself, does that constitute misconduct? The things that I see outlined here, I might say poor judgement sometimes. I might say: Well, maybe she could have handled that a bit better, but is it misconduct? I am not sure. Certainly, a hearing would help us get at that because in a hearing - for example, a Management Commission hearing, we could call in experts to meet with us and talk to us about what real misconduct is. I know we are not a court, but we should be sure of what we are talking about.

The same thing with the whole thing around inability to properly manage relations with individuals outside the house of the Child and Youth Advocate. I do not think the code of conduct that the minister spoke about was extended to Ms Neville by the Speaker when he ambushed her at the first meeting. When she walks in and here was somebody from the healthy workplace, from PSC, sitting in his office and she does not even know what the meeting is about. Do you think that was proper code of conduct by the Speaker? I do not think so. I do not think that the code of conduct was extended to Ms Neville either when the Speaker, first himself and then his staff, at different times, for a whole year, held these meetings.

The Speaker, in his letter that he sent to Executive Council, talks about the fear that the staff held. I am going to say right here now what I said at a Management Commission meeting, because I can repeat my own words. That was said to us at a Management Commission meeting, that was a reason for not going to PSC and asking for a formal complaint - they were so afraid. I remember saying: What were they afraid of that Ms Neville was going to bring them down to the basement and lash them? Give me a break! What went on here is absolutely unacceptable, unacceptable; so that was the second point.

Breach of confidentiality, I have read the two pieces that are under that. I think they are questionable and there may be a judgement call here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS MICHAEL: If I may have leave to sum up, please, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi, by leave.

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

It is very possible that there was poor judgement used. I am not sure. Again, we need to look at it. I only have what is written on paper here and we have not had a discussion about it as a Management Commission. Do we call that misconduct? I mean this is the issue. Is that misconduct? What I see here, and I want to say it strongly because I feel it so strongly. I see a person who was under incredible stress, more and more and more as things accumulated. All the things that have been outlined by government and by the Minister of Health and Community Services today, and outlined by the Minister of Finance last Thursday, I see somebody who is cornered and I see her trying to find her way out of the corner. Does that mean everything that she did was right? I do not know, but when you are cornered you do things out of desperation sometimes. All I know is that the process here is unjust. It is wrong, and I cannot believe that my colleagues in this House are saying that it is the way that we should be going. This woman deserves - keep her on suspension with pay. Let's keep her there while we get the whole picture and while she has a hearing. That is the route we have to go.

My final statement, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the Commission itself and where I think we have to go. In our legislation, one of the things that says about the Commission in relationship to the whole House of Assembly is that we establish a committee of the Commission to be known as the audit committee, and we have that committee, but one of the things of the audit committee is to review the code of conduct applicable to the Clerk and staff of the House of Assembly service and statutory offices and make recommendations for improvements to the Commission.

Well, if there is one thing that I am going to be bringing to the table of our Management Commission meetings is that we have a responsibility, no matter what happens in the House today, we have a responsibility to make sure that this kind of thing never, ever happens again. That somebody gets treated with the injustice that this woman is being treated with. That we never let that happen again. That we have a responsibility as the Management Commission, through our audit committee, to make sure that we have recommendations put in place so that the House of Assembly service staff and our statutory offices staff have the skills and the knowledge and the personnel and the resources to deal with human relations. Maybe we all need the training ourselves, because if we can vote for this resolution today it means we have no idea what human relations is, we have no idea what justice is, and I am ashamed to be in this House as we vote for this resolution today, because I am not voting for it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question on the amendment?

MS BURKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment put forward by the hon. the Opposition House Leader, say ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Are the House Leaders ready for Division?

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment as put forward by the Opposition House Leader?

All those in favour, please rise.

CLERK: Ms Jones, Mr. Kelvin Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Dean, Ms Michael.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, please rise.

CLERK: Ms Burke, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Ridgley, Ms Johnson, Mr. French, Dr. King, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Hickey, Ms Sullivan, Mr. Denine, Mr. Dinn, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Baker, Ms Perry, Mr. Dalley, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Pollard, Mr. Peach, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Young, Mr. Harding, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Kent, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Loder, Mr. Buckingham, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Sandy Collins.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes, five; the nays, thirty-six.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, if he speaks now he shall close debate.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

This is indeed a very serious debate that has taken place here. One of the things that I certainly learned here was the comments by hon. members talking about the difficulties, the staff issues, the human resource issues in the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate that have been going on for over a year, with nothing happened, nothing being done by the Management Commission. That, of course, is very concerning. As has been said here, the important people in this debate are the children of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Office of the Child and Youth Advocate was established with a mandate to advance the interests of the children of this Province, to protect the interests of the children of this Province. For that to happen, all hands have to work together under the leadership of the Advocate. Not only is the Advocate there, which is one person, but there are also members of the staff. They all have to work together and direct their collective energies towards the advancement of the mandate, which is to advance and protect the children of this Province.

Now, what we have had here is a system in the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate that some hon. members call dysfunctional. If I understand, the Leader of the NDP referred to it as a mess.

MS MICHAEL: No, I said the (inaudible) of a mess.

MR. T. MARSHALL: The (inaudible) of a mess. Oh, okay.

The Minister of Natural Resources felt it was dysfunctional. The Minister of Health and Community Services, who is a member of the Management Commission, referred to the office as dysfunctional. The Child and Youth Advocate herself, Ms Neville, referred to the atmosphere in the office as one that was poisoned. So, the Speaker attempted to deal with it, to bring it to an end and he attempted to do it in a way that was not an accusatory process; it was not an investigatory process; it was not made with a complaint. It was to get together and to try in a collegial way to improve communications, to put an end to this poisoned atmosphere. The response he got was he was charged with harassment. The harassment was heard by two different people. It was referred to the Citizens' Representative and he exonerated the Speaker. It was also referred, I believe, by the House Management Commission to an independent person, Mr. Wayne Thistle, who also did the investigation and exonerated the Speaker. There was an opportunity for Ms Neville to have a hearing. There was an opportunity in a very collegial way, in a very friendly way, to address the issues that were going on.

Just look at what the Speaker referred to: the fear; distrust; harassment; people working in the office having to go and get medical attention, having to get legal advice, looking to try to get transferred out of the office. The Speaker attempted to deal with it, but Ms Neville refused to take part in that process. There was opportunity number one to have a hearing, and it was squandered.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the harassment investigation, we then had a whistle-blower investigation. The members of the Opposition talked about the first Public Service complaints investigation, that there was no official complaint. There was no official complaint from the staff because the staff were fearful that they would lose their jobs. There was no protection in that legislation for the staff. The Advocate has tenure under the legislation. It is not, as the Opposition House Leader said, that she could be fired at will. The Advocate cannot be fired at will. The Advocate has a term and can only be fired for cause. Therefore, staff in the office were reluctant to go forward in the Public Service Commission investigation of their concerns because of fear of reprisal.

Then there was an application made under the House of Assembly, the administration and integrity and accountability legislation, the whistle-blower legislation. There was a complaint made there, and under that act the Citizens' Representative is the person who does the investigation. Under that act, there is protection to the staff from any reprisals. In this case, the Child and Youth Advocate went to court and sought a declaration prohibiting the Citizens' Rep to carry forward with this chance to do a hearing, to investigate into it.

The Citizens' Representative, given the allegations of conflict against him, and not wanting to have the matter delayed, came to Executive Council and said: I don't want to hold things up; let's get somebody else to do it.

So, the Executive Council appointed a retired civil servant, a respected civil servant, a former deputy minister, a former chair of the public utilities commission, to do an investigation. Once again, Ms Neville went back to court to block the investigation

Now, the Opposition has said, let's let these court proceedings unfold; the court proceedings will deal with everything - but they will not; because what the court proceedings are is to block the investigation so that it cannot happen. So there is another hearing that is not being followed up on.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular case I have said in this House, and the Minister of Health has said it as well, that there is no necessity for an oral hearing. This is not a court. This is not a criminal allegation that is being dealt with in a court of law. In a court of law you have the right to be cross-examined. Well, who would do that if it took place in this House? Who would do the cross-examination? Certainly the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, they do not have the training to deal with that. What about the rules of evidence? Courts have rules of procedure, rules that will exclude evidence that is considered hearsay. The Speaker is not in a position to deal with that.

We have parliamentary privilege in this House. Well, is that to be afforded to someone who comes into the House as well? What if they impugn the reputation of somebody in the general public? Are they then allowed to come in here with their lawyers and cross-examine again? We are not set up for that particular situation. That has been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, and that has been recognized by the Supreme Court of this particular Province.

I refer to a case Callaghan versus Newfoundland, in which a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was quoted. I will also refer to Canadian Encyclopedic Digest dealing with procedural fairness, dealing with the issue of oral or in-person hearings or written submissions, and it says that the audi alteram partem rule has no absolute requirement of according persons entitled to its benefit an oral or in-person hearing before the ultimate decision-maker. Frequently, the requirement to give a hearing is satisfied by providing an opportunity to make written submissions.

That is what happened here. The information that the Cabinet made its decision to ‘dispend' on was provided to Ms Neville and her counsel. The reasons for the dismissal, or for the suspension, was given to her and she was invited an opportunity to respond, which she did in a major way: ninety-two pages. Mr. Speaker, the issue of procedural fairness has been accorded here.

Mr. Speaker, again I said at the beginning of my remarks that all hands in that office had to work together to advance the mandate of the office. I said, on Thursday, that Ms Neville had failed to do that by her lack of managerial ability, by her lack of human resource ability. There was a mess in her office. There was an atmosphere which she admitted and acknowledged in her brief, in her ninety-two page brief, there was a poisoned atmosphere, and she failed to deal with it. She did blame other people, but she failed to take responsibility. She failed to deal with the issue herself.

Secondly, Ms Neville failed to take advantage of the opportunity to seek help and to seek assistance. The Speaker came and offered assistance, and that was met with a complaint of harassment. The Clerk of the House offered assistance in additional resources, and that was rejected as well.

I am not going to repeat everything I said on Thursday, because obviously I do not want to go on for an hour, but all of the evidence that we have heard, all of the evidence contained in the binders, any information available to the Members of the House of Assembly, if those members had an opportunity to look at it and to watch the proceedings in this House, would a reasonable person think that what was going on in the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, was that advancing the mandate of the office? Was that protecting the children of Newfoundland and Labrador, or was, in fact, the mandate being impaired? If it was - and I would submit to you that the evidence shows that there was no advancement, that there was an impairment of the office, there was a poisoned atmosphere, there was work not being done, the interests of the children were not advanced, and therefore there has to be a dismissal.

We are not attacking Ms Neville's ability as a lawyer, or as a social worker, not at all, but we are saying that the management skills, that the personnel skills that are necessary to run that office and to protect the children of this Province and to advance the interest of the mandate were not being met. Accordingly, the recommendation of the Cabinet, after considering all the evidence it had before it, after considering carefully Ms Neville's brief, is that in the interest of the office there has to be a dismissal here.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend the moving and the passage of the resolution.

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

All those in favour of the main motion, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Shall we call in the members, or are the House Leaders ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, call in the members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Are the House Leaders ready for the question?

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

All those in favour, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Williams; Ms Burke; Ms Dunderdale; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Skinner; Mr. Jackman; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Kennedy; Mr. Felix Collins; Mr. Tom Marshall; Mr. Kelly; Mr. Ridgley; Ms Johnson; Mr. French; Dr. King; Mr. O'Brien; Mr. Hickey; Ms Sullivan; Mr. Denine; Mr. Dinn; Ms Elizabeth Marshall; Mr. Baker; Ms Perry; Mr. Dalley; Mr. Kevin Parsons; Mr. Pollard; Mr. Peach; Mr. Hunter; Mr. Verge; Mr. Young; Mr. Harding; Mr. Hutchings; Mr. Kent; Mr. Forsey; Mr. Loder; Mr. Buckingham; Mr. Cornect; Mr. Sandy Collins.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Ms Jones; Mr. Kelvin Parsons; Mr. Butler; Mr. Dean; Ms Michael.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes: thirty-eight; the nays: five.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As is customary at this time of the year, I wanted to take this opportunity to wish all hon. members of this House a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year - I am a bit old-fashioned, Happy Holidays sounds nice, but I would like to wish everybody a Merry Christmas.

I do want to thank all hon. members. First of all, I want to thank my Cabinet and all the members of caucus for your diligence, for you tolerance, for your debate, for your participation. I know that this recent resolution that we have just gone through has been difficult for everybody, but I think there has been a proper airing of the House, of the issues, and I think people have not voted just with their hearts, but with their conscience and with their minds and have come to a conclusion – but that is what this process is all about. Sometimes in this hon. House we have to make some difficult decisions, and we certainly respect everybody's opinions and thank you all for your input and also for your support throughout the year.

I also want to extend thanks on behalf of the government and the caucus to the Opposition, to the Leader of the Opposition, to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who get up and ask the tough questions everyday that we are actually in the House. We appreciate those questions, and we learn from those questions. You are conducting your research. Certainly, your hearts are in the right place. I think the very bitter, partisan politics has been removed from this House. I do not think that is occurring in this House anymore. Good, tough debate and tough questions are the way it should be. I think we all grow as a result of that and we all learn from it and we conduct better government. Now that does not mean we do not have a few words from time to time.

Having said that, we would like to welcome the two new members to the House. I am sure it has been experience for you. You have both hit the ground running and I certainly commend you for that. The hon. Member for The Straits, of course, had to get up and get into Question Period immediately, and that is not easy. I remember sitting on that other side of the House, you have to get in and you hold yourself in little awe in this place and it takes a while to get adjusted, but you have certainly conducted yourself admirably. Of course our Member for Terra Nova came in late in the game, but has had an opportunity to experience what goes on in this House.

It is a very proud place to be; it is a place where we all should be honoured to be here. It is difficult from time to time, we all have difficult jobs to do, we have our constituency work to do and we have a significant responsibility to the people of this Province. There is nobody in this hon. House that takes their duties lightly under any circumstances. I think, as you get to spend some time in this House, you will realize the weighty burden that is placed on all of us as we pass legislation, some of it very routine legislation and some of it very significant legislation, some resolutions, as we have had here today, with some significant consequences. We do accept our responsibilities and we conduct our responsibilities to the best of our ability.

Besides thanking all hon. members opposite, I want to thank the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and, of course, the Chair of Committees for having conducted this hon. Chamber in a very fair and an impartial manner. It is sometimes very difficult. You have to show great patience from time to time as you manage to conduct some of the rabble-rousing, I guess, from all members in this House in a proper manner. That again is part of the parliamentary process that takes place, but decorum was met at the end of the day. I can certainly say on behalf of all members of this hon. House, that the people who hold the Chair: the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the Chair of Committees, have the utmost respect of everybody who sits in this hon. House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: As well, the rest of the staff, I certainly want to wish you Merry Christmas and thank the Clerk, and the Clerks at the Table, who again have to conduct the business of the House; our Sergeant-at-Arms; the members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary who fill in from time to time; our Commissioners are the unsung heroes, the unseen staff - the staff at Hansard; the staff in the Broadcast Centre; the staff in the library and everybody else who conducts themselves in a manner which makes sure that this House is most efficient in everything that it does.

Of course, we are in the eyes of the public, this is televised and as a result the public, which is a good thing, have an opportunity to see what goes on in this hon. House. It is also important that we put our best foot forward. This does not happen just because forty-eight of us just happen to show up here and speak our piece. This happens because of the hard work that goes from everybody, including, of course, our Pages who have an opportunity to get the political experience, which I think is worthwhile. I remember as a very young man sitting at that Table as a law clerk some time ago during the Moores' Administration, I can tell you my eyes were opened up during that period of time and it probably set me on this path that I am on now, but the experience of being in the House and having an opportunity to be exposed to the parliamentary process is certainly a good thing. I want to thank you for your efforts, and obviously, you have conducted yourselves extremely well here and we are very proud to have you aboard.

Mr. Speaker, if I can, in conclusion, I just want to extend to everybody in this House, to everybody who supports us behind the scenes, to the members of the political parties, who support their political parties that elect representatives to this hon. House, but most importantly to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who we all work so tirelessly for, who we have the utmost respect for, who, I guess, are the very being for, the very reason for our existence here in this House. Every thing we do we try to do to make this a better place, to try and make Newfoundland and Labrador the best place in all of Canada because we know in our hearts and souls that it is. We just need to prove it to the rest of Canada and I think we are certainly doing that.

I think I can certainly feel, and I know as I walk the streets, as I talk to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as I am sure all members do, there is a renewed pride in this place, there is a renewed sense of self-confidence, there is a new sense of the fact that we are, in fact, masters of our own destiny and we are doing things that we should have done a long time ago, but now we have come of age. I think that respect is not extending right across this great country of ours. People are standing up and taking notice of what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are doing. They are listening to us. They are watching what we are doing.

As I am talking to people, people in senior positions across the country, people with the economic board, people in senior administrative positions across the country, they are looking to Newfoundland and Labrador as setting an example and leading this country.

So, I am very proud and very honoured to be part of that, as my government and my caucus are. I want to thank all Members of the House, including all Opposition members and thank them for their contribution and, once again, wish everybody a Merry Christmas and a very, very Happy New Year.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER(Fitzgerald): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly thank the Premier for his greetings and well wishes to all of our caucus, and indeed to all of the people in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we want to use the opportunity as well to acknowledge the people who work everyday to make the process of democracy work here in our Legislature and in the House of Assembly. To you, as the Speaker, and to your officers at the Table, the Pages in the House of Assembly, our Sergeant-at-Arms, Ms Gallagher, and to all of the people who work in the precincts of the House of Assembly. It is the work that you do every day that allows us to be able to come here and to debate in the fashion that we do and ensure that it is communicated to the public through the people who work in Hansard and work in our media relations department of the House of Assembly. So I want to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas. Thank you for the great service that you do for us everyday and I hope the season with your family will be one of joy and celebration.

To all my colleagues in the House of Assembly, I must say, every time I leave this place I look around because an old colleague once told me: Yvonne, everyday you walk out the door have a good look at the people who are walking out with you because they will not always all walk back in, and we certainly have seen that in the last few months.

I welcome our two newest colleagues to the House of Assembly, the Member for The Straits &White Bay North, who we are so very pleased to have join us in the Opposition benches, and also to the newly elected Member for the District of Terra Nova. I think all of us have been given a great privilege to sit in the House of Assembly to represent the fine people of Newfoundland and Labrador and I think we all come here with the same intent, to do the best possible job we can to put all of their interests first and foremost every single day. I have to say, in all the years I have been here and all the people I have worked with over that period of time, I think it has always been the ultimate objective. We often defer on the way we get there sometimes, the process that we sometimes use, but I think at the end of the day it is always a judgement call and the judgement call is always looked at being in the best interest of the people that we serve.

I want to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas and certainly an enjoyable Christmas with your family. Oftentimes, people think that as MHAs when the House of Assembly is closed, that our responsibilities end. I think there is no statement further from the truth, especially those of us who serve in many different capacities along with representing our constituents. I think for most of us, a lot of our work really begins when the House is not in session in many cases. I know that this is a well-deserved break that all of you certainly need. You might not think you need it, but I think we need it. A well-deserved break and one I hope you will find that you will have some relaxation and some joy so that in the New Year we all come back rejuvenated to take on the tremendous responsibility that we have been entrusted with.

I want to specifically thank the Premier for his co-operation over this session in the House of Assembly. I know some days I do not always get the answers that I want but I hope in continuing to ask the questions I will influence you in changing that. That is the job that we have, and I certainly want to thank and acknowledge the Leader of the NDP for the support and the contribution that she makes on behalf of her party as well.

So, I hope you all have a joyous Christmas, a safe trip home, and I also want to acknowledge the media. Because if there is one group that we often have differences with as politicians, even if there is one time we always come together, it is usually because of the media. I want to thank them and acknowledge them because they certainly do their job in reporting the information that comes out of the House of Assembly, bringing the issues to the people of the Province. I know that sometimes they often take some abuse that may be well-deserved or not deserved, but I certainly want to acknowledge the role that they play in this process as well and wish them all a very Merry Christmas.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My fourth time, I guess, at this season of the year having the opportunity to stand as Leader of the Third Party and join with the Premier and the Leader of the Official Opposition in bringing greetings to everybody in the House, and to everybody in my own district, and all the people in the Province, in saying a Merry Christmas. I will not say Happy Hanukkah, because Hanukkah is over. I think it began on the eleventh and is over, but to assure our members of the Jewish community that we are aware of their holiday as well, and I hope Hanukkah went well for all of them.

It is an honour to stand in this House. My colleague from the Official Opposition just mentioned the media, and I noticed last week that after a particularly tough day that we had here on Thursday, or Wednesday, the comment was that then we all went out and went to a Christmas party together. Some of us made it, some of us did not, but the notion was that they fight in the House and then they go and shake hands with each other and say Merry Christmas. I think that is a positive thing.

There is no group on earth, not even a group where everybody thinks they are completely united in values on every level, that gets along without having differences of opinion and have to work things out together. I think it is the strength of the democratic process that we can be here. I mean, we all know we are not in agreement on what we voted on today in this House, and we are all passionate about our positions and that is why we are where we are. If we did not feel passion we would not put ourselves forward and ask to be elected so that we could come and represent the position that we believe in. I think what we can promise, what I can promise, and I think all of us promise together to the people of this Province, that we will continue working out from our passion. We will continue speaking to what we believe in. The beauty of it is that in this process and with the way we now run our Legislature, people can see that. They can watch it for themselves and they can hear what we have to say. So, it is a privilege to have this platform as the place from which we work out from our values and our passions. Then, we leave it to the people to judge us. We leave it to them to have their hearing with us and to see where we come from as a people.

So, it is an honour to be here. I get asked all the time: Are you sorry you did it? I said no, I am not sorry I did it. I believe in what I am doing and I think we all do believe in what we are doing. I think we do have to continue respecting one another and being able to shake hands and say Merry Christmas, even though there are things that we disagree on, but that is what life is all about. That is what the human community is all about being able to live together in spite of differences. If we cannot do that, then we will be in chaos all the time.

There you go, that is my sermon. I get told I make sermons here. So, that is my sermon today. I wish Merry Christmas to everybody in this House. I do thank the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, all the staff behind the scenes in the service of the House of Assembly, the Pages, our Sergeant-at-Arms, and all of our staff in our offices who make us look so good; who do the research, who help us get our questions together, who bite their nails while we are here in the House wondering: What are we going go to say, are we going to goof up? They do not get seen but we all know how much work they do. I would like to especially mention anybody in the House who is not present today a very Merry Christmas to our absent members as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of the House of Assembly staff and the people who do not get to speak here in this Chamber - I will not read out all the positions, but in order to make this place work there are a lot of things that happen. We just do not show up here at 1:30 p.m. and leave at 5:30 p.m.

On behalf of everybody who has input into the House of Assembly and on behalf of people who come here everyday and make sure that what we do here works right, I say a sincere thank you to all members. I say that in thanks for your co-operation. In order for this place to work, we all have to co-operate, and somebody has to be in place to put forward rules and regulations to be abided by. I guess I am the person to do that, but they are your rules and regulations. So I only enforce them.

I would like to wish all Members of the House of Assembly, on both sides of the House, a very Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year and wish each and everyone a safe journey back to your respective constituents.

Thank you.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

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

It is moved that this House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House do now adjourn until the call of the Chair.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried and this House now stands adjourned.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned to the call of the Chair.