June 10, 2010                        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                  Vol. XLVI  No. 36


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today before we start the proceedings of the House to make a point of privilege. I rise on a point of privilege regarding remarks that the Leader of the Opposition made in an interview yesterday that aired on NTV News last evening, and subsequently.

The Opposition Leader was being interviewed about an incident that happened in the House on Wednesday during Question Period.

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

"I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for her co-operation. The Chair continually rises here and asks for co-operation. The Chair is going to have no other choice but to start naming members who continue to shout while answers are given or for members to continue to shout while questions are being asked.

"I will give fair warning right now that the Chair will not be standing any more and giving four or five warnings, but will ask the hon. members who are causing disorder to immediately apologize or the Chair will not recognize the hon. members who are causing the disorder until they apologize to the House. Gone are the days that the Speaker is going to ask people to leave the Chamber. It is playing into the political hands of the people who are causing the disorder, but the people who are causing disorder will remain invisible to the Chair until there is an apology issued."

Moments later, Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition continued to heckle a minister while she was responding to another member's question, you stated:

"Order, please! The Chair is reluctant to do this. The Chair just rose and asked the hon. member for her co-operation. The hon. member continues to shout disorder.

"I ask the hon. member to immediately apologize to the Chair for causing disorder in the House, and I ask the hon. member to do it now."

The Leader of the Opposition stood and said, "Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for any disorder I may have caused in the House."

But in her remarks in an interview away from the House yesterday afternoon, as aired on NTV News last evening and subsequently, the Leader of the Opposition said something very different from that; and what she said reflects very negatively, not just on the Speaker's actions yesterday, but on the Speaker's actions generally, and consequently, on all members and on the integrity of this House.

We all ought to listen very carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition said in her interview on NTV last evening. This is what she said, word-for-word:

"Well I've been unfairly singled out on several occasions in my opinion, you know. I'd like to uphold the Parliamentary orders in the House, but oftentimes it's hard to do and sometimes I feel that the Speaker is not really balanced in terms of how he makes those rulings, you know. I apologized simply because, you know, I don't want to cause any undue chaos in the House of Assembly. It doesn't help me in getting my work done, nor does it help anyone else that is there. But at the same time, I think the Speaker has been very unbalanced in a lot of his rulings."

Further to this, the Leader of the Opposition is quoted in The Telegram today, Thursday, June 10, 2010, page A-5, saying, "I will not be muzzled by the Speaker in the House of Assembly...".

Mr. Speaker, subsection 71.(1) of Beauchesne states clearly and unequivocally that, "The Speaker should be protected against reflections on his or her actions."

Subsequent, subsection 168.(1) of Beauchesne begins by stating, "The chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality."

Those are the two chief characteristics that must be associated with the Office of the Speaker - authority and impartiality.

What does the word "impartial" mean? Merriam-Webster defines "impartial" as "treating or affecting all equally".

What does the word "unbalanced" mean? Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines "unbalanced" as "not fair or equal".

According to the dictionaries, the two words are opposites. By stating the Speaker is "unbalanced", the Leader of the Opposition was stating that the Speaker is not "impartial".

In fact, she used the phrase "very unbalanced" to drive home the point – "I think the Speaker has been very unbalanced in a lot of his rulings."

When she used the phrase "in a lot of his rulings" she was stating her belief that the Speaker has a pattern of behaviour of making rulings that are "very unbalanced" - a pattern of behaviour of making rulings that are not "impartial".

Quite clearly, she was publicly proclaiming to the people of the Province not only her lack of confidence in the Speaker's impartiality. She was in fact denying the Speaker's impartiality - not only in his ruling on Wednesday, which would have been bad enough - but in "a lot of his rulings".

Also, when the Leader of the Opposition says she "will not be muzzled by the Speaker", she is also defying the Speaker's authority and casting aspersions on his character by describing your rulings as "muzzling".

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

In fact, impartiality is so central to the Office of the Speaker that subsection 168.(2) of Beauchesne states, "In order to ensure complete impartiality the Speaker has usually relinquished all affiliation with any parliamentary party. The Speaker does not attend any party caucus nor take part in any outside partisan political activity."

Those are significant political sacrifices requested of a Speaker to ensure complete impartiality. That is how important impartiality is to the integrity and proper functioning of the House.

To state so directly that a Speaker brings unfairness and inequality to this office is no trivial matter at all. It maligns the Speaker's character and it undermines the integrity of the House.

That is why subsection 168.(1) of Beauchesne states clearly and unequivocally that, "Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege."

If the integrity of the Speaker's character and actions were not so critical to the proper functioning of the House, Beauchesne would not have associated them with privilege.

But subsection 168.(1) uses very strong terms to make it abundantly clear, "Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object, not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also, to ensure that there is a general recognition of the Speaker's impartiality."

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

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

Further to this, O'Brien and Bosc's, House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2nd edition) states on page 116: "the intimidation or attempted intimidation of the Speaker or any other Chair Occupant is viewed very seriously by the House".

O'Brien and Bosc's, House of Commons Procedure and Practice further states on page 313: "The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion."

The Leader of the Opposition has clearly breached these established rules or procedure and practice.

Mr. Speaker, an issue similar, but not identical, to this one arose in November of 2008 when the Leader of the Opposition asserted that you were biased.

At the time, Mr. Speaker, you concluded that these statements were made with respect to your role as Chair of the Commission and not your role as Speaker of the House.

In your ruling on November 27, 2008, you stated: "The comments made against the Chair of the Commission are certainly inappropriate and not conducive to the proper conducting of the business of the Commission, but they are not comments affecting the duties of the Speaker and the proceedings and works of this House of Assembly. Commission members should refrain from commenting on the motivations of the Commission Chair in carrying out his duties, and should treat the Chair with respect. However, the comments are not in themselves a violation of the privileges of the House and no prima facie case of privilege exists."

In this case, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely clear that the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition were indeed with respect to your role and duties as Speaker in this Chamber, and she has left no doubt whatsoever about her meaning by stating: "I think the Speaker has been very unbalanced in a lot of his rulings".

As I said in November of 2008 - and it is even more pertinent to say it today, Mr. Speaker - that "certainly it is the responsibility of all members to ensure that the confidence in the Chair or the Speaker of the House is maintained at all times. Confidence in the Speaker keeps the parliamentary process ongoing. Any time we question or reflect upon the actions of the Speaker we certainly impede or certainly attack the whole parliamentary process and what we stand for in the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, the role that you play as Speaker certainly represents the dignity of the House of Assembly. An attack that is attached to the Speaker certainly attacks all members of this most Honourable House."

Section 167 of Beauchesne states: "The Presiding Officer, while but a servant of the House, is entitled on all occasions to be treated with the greatest attention and respect by individual members because the office embodies the power, dignity and honour of the House itself."

A public attack on the Speaker's impartially is an attack on the power, dignity and honour of the people's House - the very House that is the embodiment of the most fundamental democratic rights of the people - rights that are precious and rare in the context of history, and not to be trivialized.

When a breach has occurred, it is incumbent on all of us to take the steps necessary to acknowledge the breach and to repair the breach; and this is one of those rare occasions when it falls on our shoulders to hold the line.

Mr. Speaker, Subsection 118 of Beauchesne states that: "A complaint of a breach of privilege must conclude with a motion providing the House an opportunity to take some action."

One of those actions, according to this Section, may be "a statement of condemnation for a breach of privilege".

Mr. Speaker, having raised this matter at the earliest opportunity, I ask you to rule that a prima facie case of breach of privilege can indeed be established based on the offensive remarks the Leader of the Opposition made about your office over the airwaves last evening.

And if you so rule that there is a prima facie case of breach of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the necessary motion, which I will now present; and I ask that the House then be directed to debate this motion regarding the breach of privilege:

The Breach of Privilege motion reads as follows:

"WHEREAS the Leader of the Opposition made the following remarks in an interview with the press on June 9, 2010 which aired on NTV News that same evening" "…sometimes I feel that the Speaker is not really balanced in terms of how he makes those rulings…" and "…I think the Speaker has been very unbalanced in a lot of his rulings…"; and

WHEREAS the Leader of the Opposition is quoted in The Telegram today, Thursday, June 10, 2010, saying: "I will not be muzzled by the Speaker in the House of Assembly…"; and

WHEREAS Subsection 71.(1) of Beauchesne states: "The Speaker should be protected against reflections on his or her actions."; and

WHEREAS Section 167 of Beauchesne states, in part: "The Presiding Officer, while but a servant of the House, is entitled on all occasions to be treated with the greatest attention and respect by individual members because the office embodies the power, dignity and honour of the House itself."; and

WHEREAS Subsection 168.(1) of Beauchesne states, in part: "The chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality."; and this Subsection also states, in part: "Reflections upon the character or actions of the Speaker may be punished as breaches of privilege."; and

WHEREAS O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2nd edition) states on page 116: "the intimidation or attempted intimidation of the Speaker or any other Chair Occupant is viewed very seriously by the House", and states on page 313: "The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion."; and

WHEREAS the Leader of the Opposition, through her remarks, has violated Sections 71, 167 and 168 of Beauchesne and the provisions of O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice by publicly denying the impartiality of the Speaker and the impartiality of his decisions; and

WHEREAS Subsection 168.(1) of Beauchesne also states, in part: "Confidence in the impartiality of the Speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object, not only to ensure the impartiality of the Speaker but also, to ensure that there is a general recognition of the Speaker's impartiality."; and

WHEREAS Subsection 118 of Beauchesne states that "A complaint of a breach of privilege must conclude with a motion providing the House an opportunity to take some action.", and one of those actions may be "a statement of condemnation for a breach of privilege";

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House finds that the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition made in an interview on June 9, 2010 that aired on June 9 and subsequently on NTV News and her remarks as quoted in The Telegram on June 10, 2010 constitute a breach of privilege; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House condemns the Leader of the Opposition for breaching the privileges of the Speaker and all members by making those remarks; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Leader of the Opposition shall be directed to withdraw those offensive remarks immediately and unequivocally and to apologize to the Speaker, and to all other members of this House and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for making them."

Mr. Speaker, this motion is moved by myself, as Government House Leader, and seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Commentary?

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to make a few comments, and maybe there will be more coming later, but to begin with, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware and I guess every member in this hon. House, our Opposition House Leader usually deals with such technical challenges that we have placed before us here today. I guess we thought that maybe something might be coming but I can assure you we were not prepared to the point of the presentation that was just made, a very lengthy and detailed presentation.

I want to ask the Speaker, if it is in order, if he would consider that this motion put forward would be delayed until our next sitting day when our Opposition House Leader would be available to review the documentation?

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, or the commentary by the hon. Member for the District of Port de Grave, our Standing Orders are clear. "Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately." - and this point of privilege will be taken into consideration immediately here today.

Any further commentary?

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

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

Yes, I would like to take a few moments to respond to the comments by the Government House Leader. I will be referencing different sections of Beauchesne and I hope it is okay to read from the book, as I do not have it typed off like my hon. colleague does.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take you to chapter 2 under Privilege, page 12 of that documentation. To begin with, I am very serious and I am sure all of my comments will be based around this, "A genuine question of privilege is a most serious matter and should be taken seriously by the House." My comments will be totally based around that.

Mr. Speaker, also under section 26, number (3), "It follows that though the Speaker can rule on a question of order, the Speaker cannot rule on a question of privilege. When a question of privilege is raised the Speaker's function is limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the motion, which the Member who has raised the question desires to move…" - and I will have other comments in relation to that, Mr. Speaker.

Also, under section 31, it says, "A dispute arising between two Members…" – and I know they are referencing two members here and not a member in your title as Speaker – "…as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege."

It goes on to say, under 31.(3), "Statements made outside the House by a Member may not be used as the basis for a question of privilege." In my commentary, Mr. Speaker, outside the confines of the inside part of this Chamber, I believe, is the outside of the House in reference to number (3).

I continue on, Mr. Speaker, to page 20, section 61. It is talking about reflection on the House as a whole, and they are talking about traditional articles in the press reflecting badly on the character of the House have been treated as contempt. Under 61, Mr. Speaker, "More recently, notice has occasionally been taken of such articles, but the House has not taken any action."

Under 62, "…in the context of contempt, it seems to me…" – this is what the Speaker is stating here – "…it seems to me that to amount to contempt, representations or statements about our proceedings or of the participation of members should not only be erroneous or incorrect, but, rather, should be purposely untrue and improper and import a ring of deceit."

Mr. Speaker, I know, and I reference, as the House Leader did yesterday, the comments that you made here in the hon. House, but I want to take us back to what prompted the outburst here in this House. Each and every day, Mr. Speaker, whether we like it or not, I know from time to time we get carried away, the way we, I guess, heckle back and forth to each other. It is very difficult in the best of times to stand and present questions on behalf of the people we represent; but, Mr. Speaker, when you have two or three strong hecklers across the floor, as well as people sitting directly behind you, it is what causes this from time to time. Mr. Speaker, I believe that is what prompted the outburst yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take you page 21, section 71.(1) "The Speaker should be protected against reflections…" – as the Government House Leader just read – "…on his or her actions." That continues on by saying, (2) "In 1956, Mr. Colin Cameron submitted to the House two letters in a local newspaper reflecting on the actions of the Speaker. After a brief debate, the Speaker on the following day ruled that ‘because of the unprecedented circumstances surrounding this pipeline debate and because of the remarks that were made in this House by Members themselves, it was and it is impossible, if we are to consider freedom of the press, as we should, to take these two articles as being breaches of our privileges.' He continued to describe them as ‘comments which do not go beyond the bounds of unfairness'."

Mr. Speaker, it is with those comments that I put forward that I know there are things from time to time that we are challenged with, but, Mr. Speaker, I believe, and I put forward on behalf of the Leader of the Official Opposition, I do not think there is a point of privilege as outlined by the Government House Leader, and I guess one of the strongest comments that I will stand on: I believe those comments were on the outside of the precincts of this hon. House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further commentary?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments on what the hon. member had just referred to in Beauchesne, section 26.(3). It reads, "It follows that though the Speaker can rule on a question of order, the Speaker cannot rule on a question of privilege. When a question of privilege is raised the Speaker's function is limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a character as to entitle the motion, which the Member who has raised the question desires to move, to priority over the Orders of the Day."

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we did here today. We asked you to rule on this, and we certainly laid down a motion in relation to that.

Mr. Speaker, the only other comment I want to make is that when we asked for the apology here today, and the condemnation of what is going on – and we can certainly debate that in the motion – we certainly expect that members accept responsibility for their behaviour, as we would for anybody else in society, as opposed to putting forward excuses that they could not help it or somebody else provoked it. Mr. Speaker, we all stand here, after the warning that you gave in the House; we certainly are responsible for our own behaviour.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further commentary?

The Chair has listened carefully to the submissions made by the hon. the Government House Leader, but, having read the newspaper article and heard the television reports and the comments attributed to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the ruling of yesterday, and having consulted with the authorities and giving due consideration to the matter, the Speaker finds that this is a clear prima facie case of a breach of privilege.

The Chair would like to refer hon. members to the Government House Leader in March 2002 when a breach of privilege was raised by the then hon. Government House Leader, Mr. Lush, against the present Premier of the day. At that time Mr. Lush indicated, while comments were made outside the Chamber, they were breaches of privilege and certainly it was a prima facie breach of privilege of the reflection on the Speaker, and the rulings of the Speaker of the House.

The Chair clearly states that there is a breach of privilege here. The Chair will now entertain the motion as put forward by the hon. the Government House Leader, and the Chair will hear debate on that particular motion.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I feel that we have laid out our case today, regarding why we felt that there was a breach of privilege, and obviously, Mr. Speaker, your ruling indicates that we go into the motion to have this debate today.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that, as Members of the House of Assembly, despite the times when emotions may run high or there is heckling in the House, that when there is a direct order given by the Speaker, that we certainly respect that order and we go by that order, and we obey it, and we certainly conduct ourselves in a most appropriate manner in this House.

Mr. Speaker, what is fundamentally wrong, sometimes, or when we see something like this, is that, whether it is in the precincts of the House or not in the precincts of the House, but as Members of this House of Assembly, the integrity of the Speaker or the office, or what we do in this House, is somewhat undermined or maliciously attacked. Mr. Speaker, that is what this is about today.

I feel that we have outlined our reasons, and why we felt the comments were inappropriate. We have certainly relayed it back to what we felt were the appropriate sections of the books or the rules that govern the House of Assembly and all Parliaments or Legislatures in Canada.

With that, Mr. Speaker, we certainly feel that we have outlined our case and we would certainly welcome further debate if there is debate on this particular motion.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a brief comment that I stand by your ruling - I am not here to challenge the Chair, Mr. Speaker – but I was just wondering if a copy of the presentation that was made by the Government House Leader could be made available to us.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair sees no reason why the hon. member – it is public information. It will be recorded in Hansard. If there is a copy, there is no reason why the hon. cannot have it and have it immediately.

Further commentary?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the Chair recognizes the hon. member, and not to take away from any time, the Chair asks that the debate on this particular issue – and it has up until now – remain relevant to the situation that is at hand - on the motion that is put forward by the hon. the Government House Leader.

The Chair will recognize normal rules for debate here. The Leader of the Opposition will get an hour. Anybody else who wants to take part will have twenty minutes.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do want to speak to the motion that has been put forward by the government opposite and by the Government House Leader, just to say we did not receive a copy of the motion but we did hear what was read into Hansard, so I can only assume that we have it correctly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the motion for a number of reasons. First of all, the motion deals with me as a member and the accusation that I have violated the privileges of the House of Assembly. Well, Mr. Speaker, I could stand and say that my privileges as a member have been violated in this House, and I certainly can say that just judging from the amount of heckling that I deal with on a daily basis just in Question Period alone in trying to pose my questions.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem respecting the positions that any person holds in this House of Assembly. I have no problem in being able to uphold all of the principles of the House. I have spent fifteen years in this Legislature and, until recently, I have never encountered difficulty or problems in how I have conducted or presented my cases in this Legislature. This is something that has happened most recently in the last session of the House of Assembly when, almost on a weekly basis, I have been singled out in this House as an individual member by my position while other members in this House of Assembly have continued to banter back and forth during Question Period, have continued to heckle through debate, yet they have not been personally identified.

Mr. Speaker, I went back and I listened to the recordings yesterday. When I was asking questions in the House of Assembly, there were actually points when I was raising my voice so high that it was strained because of the amount of heckling that was going on, and you could hear it in the background. In one question alone, Mr. Speaker, you, yourself, stood in this House and asked for order three times before I got that question posed, yet not one member on the other side of the House was indicated, singled out or asked, Mr. Speaker, by title, or name, to observe the parliamentary procedures.

That was not the only question that I asked yesterday in which that occurred. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in nearly every question I have asked, in recent days, I have been interrupted. When I am interrupted, Mr. Speaker, in Question Period, it does affect my ability as a member to do my job as well. When I am constantly being interrupted because order is being called because government members are heckling, causing a disturbance in the House, it does interrupt me in doing my job.

When you interrupt, Mr. Speaker, and stand up and call for order and I sit down, it is, most times, right in the middle of a question that I am about to pose and it does disrupt me. It causes me to lose concentration sometimes in doing my job. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, because I have a little bit of experience here, I have learned to deal with that, overcome that and it has not been a great impediment to the point that I have raised it at any particular juncture.

Mr. Speaker, my comments that I made outside of the House of Assembly, if it means I have to apologize for that in order for parliamentary procedure to continue, I will certainly do that, but it certainly does not change the way in which I feel that oftentimes debate is done in this House or decisions are made and I certainly, Mr. Speaker, will maintain that particular statement.

Mr. Speaker, what is often forgotten here is that you have four members in the Official Opposition; you have forty-two members in the government side. When you get even half of those forty-two members heckling at one time, even if it is from a quiet discussion perspective, Mr. Speaker, cumulatively it does raise the level of noise in the House of Assembly. When you have four people on a bench and not one person in this House is heckling except the one member, in most cases, the Leader of the Opposition, well then obviously it is heard. It is heard. I understand sometimes that while there are twenty or thirty government members doing the same thing in cohesion that you do not always indicate who that individual is or it is harder to point them out. I understand that, and I have been tolerant of that, but I certainly feel that has to be considered.

I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, and I would encourage the Table Officers to go back and start listening to the House of Assembly proceedings, and listen to the days when questions are asked in this House, when very few occasions I can actually even hear what I am saying myself because of the noise level. I would ask that you do that, Mr. Speaker, to get an understanding of how this works both ways.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is reluctant to interrupt, but I say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition the Chair is not going to sit here and continue to hear accusations of the actions of the Chair here in this House. The motion is quite clear. The motion is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition apologize to the people of the House and to the Speaker for the remarks that she made outside the Legislature yesterday.

While the hon. member has an hour to respond, I can assure the hon. member that the Chair is not going to allow the hon. member to stand for one hour and clearly pass other aspersions on the Chair and the activities of Chair here in this House.

I ask the hon. member to confine her remarks to the motion and the Chair will allow the hon. member to use up her period of time. Other than that, the Chair will have to interrupt and bring the member again to the motion.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not be taking an hour, I can assure you that, but I certainly would appreciate the opportunity to say what I have to say.

I think that any time a motion is posed in this House, and especially when it is one that is posed directly affecting a particular member, that I should indeed have the opportunity to speak to that motion, to make my case, and to certainly lay out, Mr. Speaker, the reasons and the rationale behind the comments that I have made.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention on any given day in this Legislature to disrupt any of the proceedings. As I said, in the fifteen years I have been here I have taken my job very seriously. I have done it to the best of my ability. Mr. Speaker, each and every day I have stood to contribute to debate in a fair and hon. manner.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the political process. I have no problem with heckling of members in the House of Assembly. That is all part of the procedure. It happens every day. It has been happening for years in this House of Assembly, but I do have a problem, Mr. Speaker, when one member is constantly being singled out, constantly being named in the House of Assembly, and that –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take her seat.

For the final time, I will ask her again to respond to the motion as put forward and to respond to the constitute and the breach of privilege that has been put forward here and accepted by the Chair as a breach of privilege and to confine her remarks to that, or the Chair will have no other choice but not to recognize the hon. member to continue with putting aspersions on the Chair and other activities in this House.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that I do not have the ability to state my case. I would just say that in regard to the motion, Mr. Speaker, that if the motion is directing and it is passed that I would withdraw the comments and apologize, that is certainly what I will do, so we may carry on with the business of the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is there further commentary on the motion put forward by the hon. the Government House Leader?

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard here in the House, as you have commented on, is a continuation of what we heard yesterday and why we arrived at this place.

Mr. Speaker, we know very well on this side of the House, and agree, that in a long session of the House, long days, contentious issues, Mr. Speaker, people do get tired and proceedings can get contentious. Mr. Speaker, it is one of the reasons why we need a Speaker in this House and why we need rules in which to operate, and we all have an understanding of what those rules are, Mr. Speaker. It is required of us; it is incumbent on us to understand the rules that govern this House of Assembly.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you clearly rose, spoke to all of us in a very strong way, reminding us of the rules of this House, the authority that is vested in you. You gave fair warning, not to one of us, Mr. Speaker, but to every one of us, hecklers on all sides of the House, to cease and desist and to pay attention to your ruling. Mr. Speaker, the majority of the people in this House of Assembly did that yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition did not. She was defiant in the face of your ruling, thus our motion today.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the apology that is being sought by Members of this House of Assembly today, in that apology we have to have an understanding that the Leader of the Opposition has an appreciation for the rules of this House and respect for those rules, Mr. Speaker. We are not looking for a qualified apology, Mr. Speaker. She is going to apologize so that we can get on with the work of the House of Assembly, rather than apologizing because she knows that she has offended the rules of this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, your authority, her colleagues here in the House of Assembly and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I just want to say without going on and on about the matter, Mr. Speaker, that a qualified apology is not an acceptable apology.

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

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

I think the Leader of the Opposition yesterday stood in her place and apologized for the outbreak that was here in the hon. House. A motion has been put forward and the hon. member said that she will apologize as per the motion that was put forward. I do not why we are still debating it. She apologized yesterday. She is prepared to apologize as outlined in your motion. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that should resolve it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is there any further commentary?

Normally, when a member gets up to apologize - our standing rules are clear. The apology is unequivocal, without explanation. The member stands and apologizes for the actions and the disruptions that are caused in the House. So if the hon. Leader of the Opposition stood to apologize, it certainly was not done in that fashion and that is not the way the Chair understood it.

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

The question is that the Leader of the Opposition shall be directed to withdraw her offensive remarks immediately and unequivocally and to apologize to the Speaker, to all other members of the House, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for making them.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Thank you.

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

I say to members again, that the Speaker is here and tries to maintain decorum in the House and to recognize people as they stand. The Chair has given fair warning to all members of the Opposition. The Chair has called members and asked for their co-operation. The Chair has tried calling members and the members have not called the Chair back in order to bring them to the understanding that the Chair is not going to continue with the disorder that has been brought forward here in this House.

I ask all members to be guided by the remarks made by the Chair yesterday. The Chair fully intends to uphold the direction that was provided here yesterday and will treat all members in a fair and equitable manner that he has tried to do while he has been occupying the Chair.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port, the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CORNECT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House of Assembly to congratulate Shriel Syan, a Level III student at Stephenville High School on being selected to the International Air Cadet Exchange program, and she was also chosen to take part in the People to People Student Ambassador Leadership Summit this summer.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Air Cadet program gives our youth the opportunity to acquire lifelong skills such as working co-operatively with team members and developing the attributes needed to be an effective leader. Shriel has been an active cadet for six years. She has been awarded the Royal Canadian Legion Cadet Medal of Excellence and has risen to the highest rank a cadet can attain, Warrant Officer First Class. This program, Mr. Speaker, will take place in Paris, France.

The People to People Ambassador Program offers life-changing educational leadership travel opportunities for students intentionally. This program will take place over two weeks at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of the House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating Shriel Syan for her dedication, discipline and hard work with 708 Stephenville Air Cadets. Her selection to participate in the International Air Cadet Exchange program and to the People to People Leadership Summit are wonderful ways to recognize her for her efforts and commitment, and we wish her much success in her future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Bishop Field Elementary School in my district on receiving the Chapters Indigo Love of Reading Grant for 2010 valued at a remarkable $80,000.

The Love of Reading schools receive money in instalments over three years to purchase books and to support literacy projects. Mr. Speaker, Bishop Field Elementary has big plans for their award and will be upgrading the learning resource centre by purchasing more books and resource material. They also plan to use a portion of the money to run a preschool library and literacy program at the school.

This award could not have come at a better time, Mr. Speaker, as Bishop Field Elementary is celebrating its 165 anniversary this year. During its 165 years in St. John's, Bishop Field Elementary has seen some notable graduates including our first Premier Joseph R. Smallwood, Lieutenant-Governor John Crosbie, and Victoria Cross recipient, Tommy Ricketts, just to name a few. Of course, initially, the school was an all male school.

Bishop Field Elementary continues to be a wonderful community school with a population of 273 students. The school is very active in the community and partners with a number of community groups including the Salvation Army who run a breakfast snack program, the School Lunch program, the RNC who run the DARE program, and the Roots of Empathy program.

Mr. Speaker, Bishop Field Elementary's goal is to help children grow into active learners and this boost, courtesy of the Chapters Indigo Love of Reading Grant, will certainly go a long way to continue that goal.

I look forward to June 15 when I will join the students for a tree planting ceremony prior to their outing to Chapters where each student will pick a book for the school's library. I am sure they will have a great time shopping with their award money.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Bishop Field Elementary on receiving the Chapters Indigo Love of Reading Grant and their 165 anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Chief Warrant Officer Daphne Germain. Daphne Germain was raised in Chance Cove and left home at the age of eighteen years to join the military.

Since then, she has served at many posts around the world. Among some of those posts were places such as Germany, the Gulf War and the Golden Heights.

Chief Warrant Officer Germain has served as a member of the Canadian Military for thirty years and has just recently been promoted to Chief Warrant Officer Position at 22 Wing at CFB North Bay.

Chief Warrant Officer Daphne Germain is the first female to hold this position at the CFB North Bay. She is also one of three women to hold this position of Chief Warrant Officer in the Canadian Military.

Daphne Germain is married and the proud mother of two young ladies. She says she is coming home this summer to meet with her family, where will she be joined by her mother, Massie Smith, and her extended family in celebrations of her new position.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Chief Warrant Officer Daphne Germain on a well-deserved appointment and an overwhelming accomplishment for the female sector, and wish her all the best in her future military career.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that effective training and investments in workforce development can be a key driver in sustaining an organization's competitive advantage and encouraging greater productivity.

Despite its value, employers across Canada have traditionally made low levels of investment in workforce training, with less than three out of ten workers ever receiving any training. This trend has a negative impact on productivity, competitiveness and business retention and expansion.

To help bridge this gap, the provincial government, in collaboration with industry and labour organizations, community groups, and the business community, has launched its Workplace Skills Enhancement Program. It is a program that helps address labour market conditions and provides support tools for local businesses as they explore avenues to maximize productivity, improve workforce training options, and attract new employees.

Companies and organizations have found the new program beneficial for staffing hard to fill positions, as well as increasing the skills of employees through professional development exercises. In addition to the almost thirty companies that have availed of the new program since its recent launch, industry associations are using it to coordinate industry-wide training initiatives.

The Newfoundland Aquaculture Industry Association, for example, recently held training seminars for its member companies and their combined staff of 110 people in Green Bay and the Coast of Bays. The seminars included such topics as marine maintenance, emergency first aid and other related training which contributes to their Technical Certificate in Agriculture from the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University.

St. Alban's-based Newfoundland Aqua Services is also hosting a series of training sessions for its forty-one employees with a contribution of $79,000 under the Workplace Skills Enhancement Program. Additionally, Breakwater Books has received a wage subsidy totalling $20,000 to engage a digital publishing expert to service the rising demand for digital books and reach a wider international market.

In today's knowledge-driven economy, success is contingent on innovation, which in turn, depends on highly-skilled people. It is people who will drive the economy in the future as their knowledge, skills and creativity lead to greater innovation.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we are going to continue to introduce initiatives like the Workplace Skills Enhancement Program. By investing in Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we are advancing our objective of providing new employment and business opportunities in communities across this Province. We will continue to invest in infrastructure and programming that helps create business and academic opportunities for people in all regions of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Lifelong learning is recognized internationally as a key to competitive advantage, increasing productivity and improved quality of life. Rather than formal training and education for our workforce, this Province has traditionally relied on information and techniques that really are passed on from older workers to on-the-job training, so to speak.

As our traditional occupations become more professionalized, we will have to encourage more formal training and organized training and so on for our workers before and after they are hired. There are fewer and fewer unskilled jobs available today, and yet we still have too many unskilled persons in the workforce. When we look at our stubbornly high unemployment rate, even though we are a have Province, certainly it would indicate a great need of being able to train that pool of workers to obtain the skills that they lack today.

So these initiatives announced by the minister are good, but I would suggest that we still have a long ways to go, obviously. We have heard too many stories of employers who receive dozens or more of applications from ads they have placed in newspapers and so on. If any of the applicants actually have education or certification in skills, sometimes it is hard to find.

One solution is to ensure that all of our young people have the skills before leaving school, and certainly the other solution is to target those already in the workforce for skills upgrading. So, we have to do both and more.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

It is very good to hear about this program, the Workplace Skills Enhancement Program, which I think was announced first in October 2009. It would be good, and I am sure the minister will do this as I ask him, to have a full report on the uptake. I know it is too early to know with regard to the thirty businesses that have been interested in the program and have taken advantage of the wage subsidy. It is too early to find out if people are being retained because they are probably still in the early stages of having received the subsidy and are still in those positions.

One of the things that will be good to see is how many employees end up being retained in the workplaces where they start under the wages subsidy. That will be one of the things that will give us the proof of the value of this program, which I do believe in. I think increasing skills and helping companies fill hard to fill positions in their companies is extremely important.

It is also important that the government promote the program far and wide because, especially with smaller companies, they are so busy in trying to keep themselves going that they cannot always become aware of the kinds of programs such as this that they can apply for. So wide advertising is very important so that more and more companies will take part in this and more individuals will be helped.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government currently operates five contracted ferry services serving isolated communities along the South Coast of the Island and one on the South Coast of Labrador.

Given the age of the vessels currently in operation, it is clear that the time has come to upgrade these essential services for what can truly be considered some of our most rural communities. In this year's Budget Speech, our government announced that it was proceeding with the construction of six new ferries to replace the aging vessels currently serving these communities and that these vessels would be built right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to inform this hon. House that in the coming days my department will be issuing a request for expressions of interest from qualified firms for the provision of a detailed design for these new vessels.

We are seeking a standard design that can be used on all six runs and which will provide an enhanced travel experience for both residents and visitors. These new vessels will be designed to provide improved passenger amenities and to follow the Canadian Transportation Agency guidelines for Ferry Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities.

Expressions of interest must be received by the department by July 15, 2010 at which time we will begin the process of selecting a firm to complete the detailed design. Once a firm has been selected, we expect the design process to take approximately one year. Over the coming months, Mr. Speaker, we will determine the method by which shipyards will be selected to undertake construction of these vessels after the final design has been completed.

The construction of these ferries will mean a better and more reliable service for those who use them and provide opportunities for our Province's shipbuilding and marine service industries.

With this latest step, our government is now engaged in various stages of work towards the completion of ten new vessels for the provincial service. In addition to seeking a design for these six smaller ferries, we have two medium-size vessels currently under construction, the propulsion system for a third medium-size ferry has been purchased and a consultant is currently designing a fourth larger ferry to replace the MV Captain Earl W. Winsor for the Fogo Island-Change Islands run.

Mr. Speaker, our government has, time and again, demonstrated its commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador and to the replacement of our aging ferry fleet and this is yet another great example of that commitment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, and to say I guess that people in those communities, that those six ferries will be representing, it is great news for them.

Mr. Speaker, I have to go back to a release that the minister put out on June 4 when we were in debate about the service to Bell Island. He said that we only pay lip service to rural Newfoundland when it is politically convenient for us. Well, I say, Mr. Speaker, how everything comes full circle. Here we are, we remember back last year, those are the same six ferries that were going to tender but they were not going to be built here in this Province. They probably would have been under construction now down in the States somewhere. Mr. Speaker, I have to say, that this is where this government is coming from.

The minister also stated in his statement that as far as he is concerned we were trying to get Bell Island to get a ferry before the other communities in this Province. Nothing could be further from the truth. All we are asking is that Bell Island would be on a list on par with everybody else, not eight to ten years down the road. Those people have so many people who commute back and forth.

Mr. Speaker, this is good news, no doubt about it. We are proud that those people will be able to get new ferries, but we are also equally pleased that it took a by-election to have it turned around that those ferries would be built here in our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Obviously, it is good news for the long suffering people of the South Coast of this Island and the South Coast of Labrador that steps are finally being taken with regard to the new ferries. It is such a long process that even now it is going to be a whole year before anything can even get started. This is long overdue, and I speak to both sides of this House when I say that. It is long overdue.

One of the things that concern me is that with this plan around the ferries, why this government could not have put in something to deal with the situation on Bell Island to make that situation better. It would have been one more piece to go into the plan. So, I will continue, along with the people of Bell Island, to wait and see what is going to be done to solve their problems.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday the Premier bitterly complained about the way we were being treated at the hands of Quebec. Yet, in tender after tender this Province is awarding major construction contracts to Quebec companies. This government is feeding Quebec with one hand and beating them over the head with the other hand, I say to you, Premier. Quebec contractors are able to operate freely in this Province while restrictive labour practices effectively bar our own contractors from doing work in that Province.

I ask the Premier: Why are you awarding contracts to Quebec companies when our own contractors are restricted in competing for contracts in Quebec?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the message that I delivered yesterday to Ottawa is that when we play in the Canadian Federation we play fair. We play by the rules and we expect to be treated equally, and we laid out our case before the people of Ottawa yesterday. We indicated that we have gone through the proper procedures with groups like the Régie; that we had attempted to negotiate fairly. We asked for redress for the great inequity that was done under the Upper Churchill. We expect Quebec, that when they make international statements on climate change and reduction of greenhouse gases that they do not on the other hand then turn around and try, and basically prevent what is possibly the best greenhouse gas project and clean energy project in all of North America.

When I spoke yesterday in Quebec I also spoke about our Labrador boundary, which has been not publicly disputed by the Province of Quebec but in maps have been presented inaccurately so that they can improperly portray that they actually have ownership of the Labrador area, which is very, very important to us.

When it comes to contracts, there are certain rules. There are certainly agreements with regard to internal trade and we follow those rules and we respect those rules and we expect to be treated fairly when we go to the Province of Quebec. The fact that one province acts improperly, it does not mean that we have to turn around and do the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, just a week ago, as the Premier was staging another lashing for Quebec, his government awarded a $31 million contract for the RNC headquarters in St. John's to a Quebec company. The second lowest bidder, a Newfoundland company was at $33 million, a difference of less than 5 per cent of the total cost of the contract.

I ask the Premier: Why is it that you can lash out at Quebec, like you did in your speech yesterday and say that Quebec has, and I quote: Demonstrated the Province's bias, arrogance and discriminatory business practices towards our Province, yet you are handing out taxpayers' money in Newfoundland and Labrador to Quebec companies?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: As usual, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should check her facts. Basically, a tender has been put out, proponents have put in their bids and it has not been awarded yet, as simple as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the tender is not awarded but those are the notes. Let me tell you the tenders that are awarded, because I just got it off the tendering list, it did not say, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell you the ones that were, a Quebec company was awarded a $12 million contract for a school in L'Anse-au-Loup while the Newfoundland company was less than 2 per cent shy of the lowest bidder. A Quebec company was awarded a $50 million contract for a long-term care centre in Corner Brook and the next lowest bidder, a Newfoundland company, was less than 5 per cent. A highway contract in Labrador was awarded to a Quebec company, when the Newfoundland and Labrador company was $25,000 over what the $12 million bid was.

I ask the Premier today: Why is it that you are not looking after our own construction and trades industries in Newfoundland and Labrador, and keeping that money right here at home?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, is the Leader of the Opposition alleging that we should break the Public Tender Act? Is that basically what she wants the government to do?

Those rules and those regulations are there for a very, very good reason, and that is that people play by the rules. Two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that Quebec is operating in the manner in which they are operating, the fact that they are being greedy, and they are being arrogant, and they are being discriminate, trying to protect their market dominance, that does not mean that it is right. It does not mean that we should treat the other members of the federation the same way, if we are going to have respect and we are going to have credibility when we go to Ottawa to make the case. It certainly seems that her colleagues certainly agree.

Yesterday, I remember standing, at the end of the speech that I gave, and looking up at the people who were standing in the room, which happened to be everybody, and it included: Judy Foote, Scott Simms, Siobhan Coady, Todd Russell, and Gerry Byrne. They seemed to agree with what the government is doing in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say on the one hand we are being milked by Quebec, and on the other hand we are writing cheques for taxpayers' money and giving it to Quebec companies.

I say to government opposite, you talk about the Agreement on Internal Trade, but it is perfectly acceptable if the government wants to put exemption clauses into ferry contracts or in fibre optic contracts, which we have seen happen in the Province, Mr. Speaker. So, if there is a will, there is a way.

I would say to the Premier today, in asking this question, Mr. Speaker, I would ask: When are we going to stop the practice of giving contracts outside of the Province, to the Province of Quebec, while they are shafting us, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The Leader of the Opposition has finally acknowledged that Quebec are shafting us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It took a long while for this government to get this through to the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps it was some of the facts that we laid out yesterday. Perhaps it was the fact that in 2008 the Government of Quebec took $2.3 billion from this Province, and we received $50 million. Perhaps it was the fact that the equivalent of what we were losing on the Upper Churchill, a contract that was entered into by a Liberal government at the time, the amount that we are loosing on a per capita basis in Newfoundland and Labrador, if that was in Ontario, would be the equivalent of $38 billion a year. That is the magnitude of the inequity that is happening.

What we have done now is, we have gone to New York, we have gone to Calgary, we gone to the Nation's Capital in Ottawa, and we will not stop there because we are going to state our case that is based on fairness, equity, and justice. The way to handle that is not to turn around and do the improper actions that are being alleged by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but it is really hard to understand why a government who is so convinced they are being shafted by Quebec, that the people of the Province are being milked for all we are worth, but yet they have given out hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to Quebec companies.

Mr. Speaker, Nalcor confirmed yesterday that it will appeal the recent Régie decision in Quebec. We know that the Premier has been criticizing the Régie, calling them biased, and a kangaroo court.

I ask the Premier: How will your critical comments help the Province's case before the Régie during this appeal process?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker, you should practice what you preach. Mr. Speaker, just last week we had a private member's bill in this House with regard to the Régie ruling. There was quite ado, why the Opposition had to wait for a week for the English translation.

Mr. Speaker, during that time you would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have made herself familiar with the rules, with the law around the Open Access Transmission Tariff. She did not, Mr. Speaker. What we heard in this House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, was a spirited defence of the Régie decision against Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I say to the minister, I just state the facts. I do not write the cheques for the Quebec companies. That is your job, Minister.

Mr. Speaker, Hydro-Quebec and the State of Vermont have announced a twenty-six-year power agreement that will be finalized by the end of June. The Régie decision stated that our Province had not identified any firm markets or customers for Lower Churchill power. Meanwhile, Quebec is moving forward, Mr. Speaker, with long-term agreements in the United States.

I ask the Premier: Why hasn't your government been able to clearly identify any long-term customers for the Lower Churchill power, and did you initiate any negotiations to secure a power deal with Vermont?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we have, as I have indicated, spoken in New York. We have been in constant discussions with the various governors of the New England States. An MOU was signed with Governor Carcieri. We have spoken to Governor Douglas, we have spoken to Governor Baldacci, but the simple thing is that if you do not have power to sell you cannot sign a power contract. That is pretty simple, as far as I am concerned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the gravel section of the Trans-Labrador Highway between Red Bay and Mary's Harbour is in deplorable condition. Parents in the community of Lodge Bay today have said they will no longer allow their children to attend school until the road is deemed fit for the bus to travel over.

I ask the minister today: Are you willing to commit some funding to put a layer of crushed stone on this section of road, that will allow these children to be able to commute back and forth to school?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to that section of road, it is one of the more heavily graded sections of the highway and it has been done over the last couple of weeks. In my conversation with the Leader of the Opposition a day or so ago, I certainly indicated that we would be sending a grader back, that we would be providing some crushed stone and hopefully take care of any of the problems that are situated around that particular section.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The section of highway between the Shadow Pond area and Mary's Harbour, Mr. Speaker, is a really heavily used section of highway. It has not had any crushed stone on it for over ten years, from what I understand. Mr. Speaker, this section of the Trans-Labrador Highway is used to transport children to school, to transport patients to hospital, and it is also one of the main sections of the Trans-Labrador Highway. Today there are contractors in the area crushing stone, and I understand from highways that there is no significant stockpile of stone in that area.

I ask the minister: Will he commit to addressing this problem and having some stone crushed and stockpiled and put on the road? You cannot put there what is not there.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, I think there are 1,500 kilometres of Trans-Labrador Highway and we are doing our best with the resources that we have to keep that 1,500 kilometres of highway open to the travelling public. Certainly, we are going to address the problem, as I have indicated in my previous answer, and we will continue to do our best to keep the road in the shape that we would like it to be in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Assembly has been open for almost three months and we have yet to see the government's promised animal welfare legislation. The Department of Natural Resources stated in The Telegram that the new act was expected to be tabled before the May 24 weekend. Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting to see the piece of legislation.

I ask the minister: Is this legislation coming forward during this session? If so, when will it be tabled in the House?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I did say that we were going to introduce the legislation in this session of the House of Assembly; I did not give a timeline. Now, I can file the notice of motion right here now, Mr. Speaker, or we can wait until the proper time in the Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, now that the minister is ready to table the motion – so, hopefully, we will see the legislation in the next few days - maybe she can tell me today, because under our current Animal Protection Act an individual who has committed a first or second offence will not be charged less than $50 or more than $200, and if it is a third offence the fine will not be less than $200 or more than $500. We know that in other provinces, like New Brunswick, animal abusers face up to –

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said in my earlier answer, we will be introducing the legislation. We will be providing copies of the legislation next week. Mr. Speaker, we have done a broad consultation with a number of interest groups across this Province. The legislation, I believe, is a very good piece of legislation.

I am not going to get into the details of it here in Question Period today, but I ask the Leader of the Opposition to stay tuned I think she will be very pleased with what we are bringing forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sat down because it was so much noise and I was not going to yell, so I did not even ask the minister a question.

I will ask the minister the question: Will the new legislation increase the punishments and fines for the abuse and neglect of animals?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the other concerns that were outlined was dogs that are kept on chains. The legislation currently says that they can be chained for twenty-four hours a day up to 365 days a year, and this is one of the points that have been brought forward by the SPCA.

I ask the minister: Will this issue be addressed in the new legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we did a broad consultation in the Province and one of the major consultations we did was with the SPCA who made a number of recommendations to us, most of those recommendations have been incorporated into the legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I will be happy to debate with the Leader of the Opposition all of those provisions next week here on the floor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, every day we hear of more moose-vehicle collisions taking place on our Province's highways, yet besides putting up a few signs, paying for some advertising or cutting some extra brush government is doing very little to address this problem.

Earlier this year, the government announced that 2,154 extra moose licences would be issued. Of that number, the Save Our People Action Committee estimated that 1,500 were dormant licences from last year. So the actual increase is very small.

I ask the minister: Is government willing to increase the number of moose licences each year in an effort to control the moose population?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member for his question. It is a very serious matter, and it is one that we do not want to see, of course, anybody get into accidents, and certainly our deepest apologies go out to those who have been involved in fatal accidents.

Mr. Speaker, back in February, we did announce some changes. There were 2,154 additional licences available to residents, was the wording. So, he is correct, 1,514 of those came from unused licences from the outfitters, but there is an additional – they were not being used, so the moose were not having an opportunity to be hunted, so we wanted to see that would be hunted.

There is also fifty additional to the charities, bringing that up to 200, which is a fantastic initiative that we did in this government, and it is receiving a lot of praise from the charitable organizations. There are also additional licences as part of our regular surveys. At that time, we also announced a five-year moose management plan, extensions to the season and some other (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we know there is an estimate between 120,000 to 150,000 moose in the Province, and each year we are told that 30,000 more calves are being born. Mr. Speaker, we understand there are 28,000 licences issued with a 70 per cent success rate. So, Mr. Speaker, we are hardly keeping up with the birth rate.

Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that the Province of New Brunswick will be installing more moose fencing along their major highways. Clearly, they believe that moose fencing saves lives and are taking action to address the problem. The Save Our People Action Committee has been encouraging government to look at putting fences in problem areas where statistics show a higher number of accidents.

I ask the minister: Is fencing certain sections of the highway in this Province something government is willing to consider?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, naturally, we will consider any kind of a strategy that can help improve the safety on our highways. Fencing is one of those. Obviously, there is a great different between this Province and New Brunswick. They have controlled highways, and that is where they are fencing, as opposed to the type of highways, our geography, and so on.

Again, we have it under consideration, and obviously, not only that, but other strategies as well. If it can be proven, I guess, that we can incorporate them, it is a possibility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for his response.

Maybe a couple of the areas where something could be done similar to that would be in our Parks Canada where they estimate that there are 5,000 moose in Gros Morne and 1,000 moose in Terra Nova.

Mr. Speaker, the committee has also suggested establishing a 1-800 number so that nuisance moose can be reported and removed from the area by wildlife officers.

I ask the minister: Why has government not looked at establishing this type of reporting mechanism to prevent accidents before they occur?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have had several proposals from SOPAC. The Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Transportation and Works and myself, we have met with the committee on several occasions and we are going to meet with them again in the future, so we are certainly open to all of the proposals that they put forward.

What people need to remember though is that the majority of moose accidents happen at night. Of course, reporting these at night and having people come out and shoot the moose at night is something that has safety issues from another perspective, Mr. Speaker. A lot of the accidents certainly happen – you are seeing more moose sightings lately on the Outer Ring Road and within cities and, of course, it is against the law to shoot across the highway and it is against the law to shoot within cities.

So, there are some issues that I have with their proposal, but it is not to say we are not considering it. We are considering all of the proposals that they have before us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the minister's comments that they are trying to deal with the various issues.

Some of the reports that we get back, people are saying that government is looking at nuisance moose as if it is an endangered species. Mr. Speaker, that is a tongue twister, no doubt about it.

Mr. Speaker, my next question to the minister is that the Save Our People Action Committee has asked government to evaluate a number of options to address the growing number of accidents in our Province. To date, there is disappointment being expressed that more concrete action is not being taken.

I ask the minister: Do you have any concrete plan in place to address the growing problem of moose-vehicle collisions in our Province, or are you willing at the present time to accept the status quo?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, between the Department of Transportation and Works and the Department of Environment and Conservation, we are constantly consulting with our counterparts in other jurisdictions to see if there are measures there that would work here. We did a thorough review of where the moose licences are. We did increased surveys to see if we can increase the licences, which we did in some areas.

Mr. Speaker, specifically to the 1,500 unused outfitter licences, more than half of those were right along the Trans-Canada and particularly in the Central Region. Mr. Speaker, I think by allowing the residents to hunt those licences you are going to see a dramatic decrease in the number of moose along the highways, but that is not to tell people that there still are not going to be moose around the highways. The highways intersect their habitat and I would not want to give anybody a false assurance out there that there are not going to be any moose because there is certainly going to be moose. So we ask people to be cautious…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, during Estimate we were assured that any legal business or tourist signs on the Province's highways would be left untouched. However, there are reports that signs are being removed and discarded while the owner has a legal permit.

I ask the minister: Can you explain to us today and to business owners around the Province why legal signs are being removed from the highways?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the TODS program was something we explored simply because one of the major complaints we were getting from our tourists coming into the Province was signage. We took that very, very seriously.

What the member has asked: Is there illegal signs being taken down? Of course, there are illegal signs being taken down. Mr. Speaker, if you have a permit for a sign today there is nobody going to take that sign. Now, if that happened in error, certainly it can be replaced without a problem, Mr Speaker, but I can assure you that anybody that has a permit for a sign, a legal sign, can leave it up today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I say to the minister, it will not be a problem for the tourist any more because they are all sawed down.

Mr. Speaker, we are getting closer to the tourist season which is a crucial time for many local business owners. The signs that they put on the highway to promote their businesses generate a great source of income for them and their families. Yet, there are business owners who are seeing their legal signs being sawed down and discarded off by burning or burying them.

I ask the minister: If this continues to happen, will government offer these legal sign owners compensation for such unlawful activities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, it if is an illegal sign it is taken down. If it is a legal sign it is left up. It is as simple as that. I do not know what else to say to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. member would stay tuned, Mr. Speaker, soon signage will be a way of the past. He will be listening to the eight track radio, Mr. Speaker, and we will be dealing with GPSs. So I say to him to get on board, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: I would say, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what I am listening to but I assure the minister he should listen to the Minister of Government Services and the Minister of Transportation because they know what is going on.

Mr. Speaker, there are many small communities around our Province that depend on unique signage to attract tourists and locals to what they have to offer. This is the lifeblood of many people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I ask the minister: Why are signs being removed before the TODS program is really ready for full implementation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, there was a law made, I guess in this House, a long, long time ago, a number of years ago, and I guess a year ago or a year-and-a-half ago we started enforcing that law and removing illegal signs. I cannot make it any simpler than that. The law always existed and illegal signs are now coming down.

We are in the process, Mr. Speaker, about to roll out a TODS program. We are consulting with people in various areas across this Province. Mr. Speaker, we are going to do it and we are going to do it right, so that not only do the tourism operators benefit, Mr. Speaker, but also the people who visit us here on a regular basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill 1, An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth, reduces the number of permitted temporary orders from three to two and the maximum time a child will spend in a temporary order process from two years to eighteen months. Mr. Speaker, the act can impose deadlines but there will have to be resources and supports earmarked within the justice system to ensure these deadlines are met.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, how will she ensure that these new timelines will be met by the court system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out by the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services in her debate in the last few days, that this act will be a year before it is proclaimed and during that time, Mr. Speaker, the intricacies and any service problems or interactions between the act and the courts will be worked out in that length of time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder, could I ask the minister to give us some detail about what they are identifying as the problems within the court system at the moment because even now timelines are not being met?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the basic tenets of the act, having to do with the court system, is not radically changed from the old act. There are situations in the court system all the time where time deadlines are extended. The opportunity here for the presentation is ten days. That will be in effect. The thirty-day date for a hearing is in effect. At the presentation hearing there may be some reasons, all kinds of reasons why the date of the thirty days may not be effective. So this is nothing radically different from any court procedure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is not getting the point. There are times when it is not working and he did not answer the question, but I guess I will just have to wait and see.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services says that she held consultations – and I know she did – with social workers and community and not-for-profit groups and that people are pleased with the new act. Front line social workers are continuing to tell me their concerns about not having enough resources for this act to be implemented. They also told me that they also felt reluctant when they were at consultations themselves to voice their concerns.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the minister, what she is planning to ensure the involvement of the experienced voice of front-line workers in the development of the regulations that will make the new legislation operational?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One thing I can talk about is the consultation process I did with front-line social workers. Mr. Speaker, I visited fifty out of the fifty-two offices last summer. I held meetings with all staff when I went to those offices. Then I specifically met with the social workers alone with no other people in the room other than the front-line social workers. Once we did those consultations with the front-line social workers, we also gave them the contact information - if there were any further comments, anything they needed to say, anything they forgot to say - of the Deputy Minister, and we have heard from the front-line social workers.

In addition to that, there are a number of roles that we are taking on, whether it is redesigning the organizational chart or the legislation or our strategic plan, and for every step of the major work we are doing, we have a focus group of front-line social workers. I have engaged the front-line social workers in every single way possible to make sure their voices are heard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that front-line workers are saying to me is that there are an insufficient number of people on the front line in order for them to do their work in the way it needs to be done. Now I know the minister has said publicly that she does not have a problem, that there are no vacancies, or if there are in the front-line workers, they are being filled and the complement of workers is there. What the concern is is that the number of workers is insufficient.

I am asking the minister: Is she going to be doing an analysis to look at the need for increasing the number of front-line workers so that they can do both the administrative work that they have to do as well as the work of protecting children and youth?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, up to this point we have done an extensive analysis of what resources we need to deliver the services of this department to the families and to the children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

What we have seen, Mr. Speaker, is in the last few years an investment of over $24 million in Child, Youth and Family Services, 200 new positions, but very little progress made in how we do our work. We have announced in this Budget that there be an additional twenty-seven positions put in Child, Youth and Family Services.

What is alarming, Mr. Speaker, is that we have 312 social workers employed with Child, Youth and Family Services and, for some reason, we are unable to provide services effectively to the 5,974 children that need it. If we run the statistics for every social worker we have with Child, Youth and Family Services, we would have a caseload of less than twenty. What I can say, Mr. Speaker, is there is room for change, there is commitment for change and this government will use the resources that we have to deliver the best possible service that we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to table the 2009-2010 annual report of the Board of Commissioners and Public Utilities in accordance with section 56.(1) of the Automobile Insurance Act, Chapter A-22, RSNL 1990.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today in accordance with the requirements of the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act and the Transparency and Accountability Act to table the Workplace Heath, Safety and Compensation Commission's 2009 annual report which covers the activities of the Commission from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

As the Chair of the House of Assembly Management Commission, I am pleased to table the minutes of the House of Assembly Management Commission meeting for March 24, 2010. These minutes will also be displayed on the House of Assembly Web site.

Notices of motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 27).

Further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3. (Bill 28).

Further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

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

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The Health And Protection Of Animals. (Bill 30).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Human Rights. (Bill 31)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 14, 2010.

I further give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m., Monday, June 14, 2010.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motions?

Answer to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we adjourned the House on our last legislative day, we adjourned in committee –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked if we could return to petitions. The Chair did not recognize the hon. member standing.

Does the hon. member have leave to revert to petitions?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

Petitions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can see they were eager to hear those petitions on behalf of the people of the Province.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, this petition is with regard to the highway in Labrador. I will read it into the record as per the rules of the House.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the residents of Red Bay to Goose Bay use a section of the Trans-Labrador Highway that is unpaved and in poor condition; and

WHEREAS this road is no longer suitable for the traffic volumes that travel this route; and

WHEREAS government will not commit to provide funding to even begin paving for Phase II and Phase III of the Trans-Labrador Highway; and

WHEREAS the residents of the region deserve a similar standard of road as the Island portion of the Province;

WHEREUPON the petitioners call upon the House of Assembly to ask the government to provide funding to pave the road from Red Bay to Goose Bay.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, these petitions, of course, is circulating all over Labrador. As they come in, I have been presenting them in the House of Assembly. The one I am presenting today actually has signatures from the Mary's Harbour, Lodge Bay area.

Mr. Speaker, today in the community of Lodge Bay – a community that was forced to have their school closed by a board of the Western School Board and supported by the Department of Education and the government, Mr. Speaker. When their school closed, they were told by the government and by the Western School Board that because their children were going to be bused to Mary's Harbour that the road would be maintained.

Realizing it is a gravel road, gravel roads can only be maintained by gravel, and because there has been no gravel or crushed stone put on this section of road, the operator in the area continues to make all attempts possible to grade the sections of the road. When there is nothing left to grade on the road, it becomes a problem. So, whenever you have a gravel road that is filled with potholes, and you have no crushed stone, you can run the grader back and forth those roads, Mr. Speaker, it is not going to change anything when there is no crushed stone to fill up the holes.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Lodge Bay are very upset. This is not the first time they have had to take their children out of the buses and out of the schools because of the condition of the road. They have been constantly calling my office, I have been calling the department, Mr. Speaker, and they have been calling the department themselves. Over the last two years, in particular, it has become a tremendous problem. I do not think any children in this Province, today, Mr. Speaker, should be taken out of school because we cannot maintain ten or fifteen kilometres of road in order to get them to the school that we are sending them to. To me, that is unacceptable and it is not good enough.

There are very few areas left in this Province today where kids are even bused over gravel roads. I know in my district, there are two schools that have closed, where children are bused over gravel roads, and the commitments were made that those sections of roads would be maintained – and they should be maintained.

Mr. Speaker, the entire highway section from Chateau Pond, or where the middle depot is, right up to the community of Mary's Harbour, Mr. Speaker. We are not talking 1,500 kilometres here, we are probably talking about fifty kilometres, if that, to cover the entire section. This piece of road, Mr. Speaker, has not been resurfaced. That section of the Red Bay, Lodge Bay road has not been resurfaced in the ten years that it has been there.

Mr. Speaker, I am told today, that while there is a stockpile of stone on the Coast of Labrador in different areas, that in that particular area, for that section of road, there is not even any stockpile of crushed stone right now, but there is a private contractor who is setting up to do crushed stone for another contract that he is doing.

I would ask the government to, at the very least, if you are not going to submit a proposal to put forward to the federal government to try to pave this, which is what we are asking you to do, but in the immediate future to at least put some crushed stone on it so that these people can use the road.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present another petition. This one, Mr. Speaker, is on behalf of residents in my district who rely on the air ambulance service. Mr. Speaker, I will read it into the record as per the rules of the House.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the majority of residents of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair rely on the air ambulance service that is currently stationed in St. Anthony; and – this was done May 13, Mr. Speaker, so it has been moved since then. What a difference, Mr. Speaker, three weeks can make.

WHEREAS the removal of this integral service in St. Anthony will certainly diminish the quality of service that is currently being provided to residents in Southern Labrador; and

WHEREAS government has a duty to optimize the air ambulance service by putting a third air ambulance service in Labrador as opposed to relocating one that has been working for many decades;

WHEREUPON the petitioners of Newfoundland and Labrador call upon the House of Assembly to ask government to maintain the air ambulance service in St. Anthony area and provide a third air ambulance service to Labrador to ensure residents of the whole Province are provided with adequate and essential health services. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, although the plane has been moved since these petitions have obviously circulated in the district and again, as they come in I present them to the House of Assembly, but, Mr. Speaker, we are finding out very quickly that government's rational or irrational behaviour in ironing out air ambulance services in this Province is causing tremendous chaos in the lives of people.

Mr. Speaker, when they moved the aircraft to Goose Bay on Friday they did so knowing full well that they did not even have a medevac team in place in Goose Bay. It is really unfair to expect that this particular plane, the only plane in operation in the Province right now, because the second air medevac that would be in St. John's is actually broken down, Mr. Speaker. This plane is in Goose Bay, it is on the ground, and it has to come to St. John's every time there is a medevac call to pick up the medevac team.

Now, it is all right, Mr. Speaker, to move all the pilots and all of the people associated with the aircraft to Goose Bay and put them all up in a hotel because the minister wants to do this within thirty days, but why aren't we moving medevac people in there until we have trained some? Why do we have medevac teams standing by in St. John's and we do not even have an aircraft here to use? It makes absolutely no sense.

Mr. Speaker, in my district this weekend, in fact, there was an air medevac call into Mary's Harbour at 8:00 o'clock in the morning that got responded to at 6:30 in the afternoon. Aircraft had to fly five or six hours all around the Province and then had to drop a team to go on a Twin Otter to go to the Coast of Labrador. This is where the people in Labrador have been hoodwinked, because they have been convinced, Mr. Speaker, that this will be a better service when they are finding out already that it is causing them even more delays in getting medevacs out of their communities. A lot of people thought that the air ambulance plane could actually land on runways in Postville, Rigolet, Nain, Cartwright and Mary's Harbour, when the plane cannot land on any of those runaways, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I had indicated when you previously called Orders of the Day, we adjourned debate on our last legislative day on Tuesday in Committee and we would like to return to Committee.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Finance, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 1, 4, 7, 8, 11 and 16.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (T. Osborne): Order, please!

On the previous sitting day, we were debating a proposed amendment to clause 62. I presume that is where we are going to resume. I will seek direction from the House Leaders.

MS BURKE: Yes, Mr. Chair.

When we concluded, it happened to be 5:30 p.m. so we concluded debate on Bill 1, clause 62. So we will continue with that particular clause.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am standing to speak of course to Bill 1, to subclause 62.(3). When we finished up on Tuesday, Mr. Chair, I had proposed an amendment to section 62. I would like to again, Mr. Chair, take the opportunity to go through that section of the act and to read into the record again the amendment that we are proposing and to give some rationale as to the reason why we think this particular amendment is required within the bill.

First of all, Mr. Chair, Bill 1, Children and Youth Care and Protection Act, is a very important piece of legislation. As we have already said, Mr. Chair, it is a bill that we will support as an Opposition because it provides for greater protection for children in our Province than any legislation that we have in place today. Mr. Chair, we can only hope, in bringing forward some of the amendments that we have, that government will be receptive to adopting them and to strengthening the legislation to allow for greater protection of the children who are entrusted to the responsibility of the State.

Mr. Chair, I can only hope as well that the bill will be proclaimed at some date because as we know there are twelve bills right now that this government has debated and passed in the House of Assembly since 2006 that they have yet to proclaim. So I am always a little bit wary when a bill comes in for debate, especially a bill like this one, and they say they are not going to be ready to proclaim it for a year because we have heard those things before and bills have gone un-proclaimed now for up to three-and-a-half years in the House of Assembly.

Under the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act, Mr. Chair, we are proposing an amendment to section 62. Mr. Chair, let me read what this is, section 62 talks about the placement of children and youth. It says that under 62.(1) "The placement of a child or youth shall be conducted in a manner which is least disruptive to the child or youth and recognizes the importance of placement with siblings and contact with his or her family or other persons who are significant to the child or youth."

Mr. Chair, 62.(2) says, "A manager or social worker shall first consider placement of a child or youth with the child or youth's family or a person with whom the child or youth has a significant relationship."

Mr. Chair, that is the standard, I think, that has always been used and we certainly have no problem with that. We think that any time a child who is in need of protection can be given that safety and security in the presence of someone who they know and that they love and who loves them in return, Mr. Chair, who is associated and familiar with the child in a loving and comforting manner, we certainly feel that is the primary option that needs to be considered.

In the case, Mr. Chair, where that option is not available, then 62.(3) says, "Where a manager or social worker is satisfied that a child or youth cannot be placed in accordance with subsection (2), the child or youth shall be placed with a foster parent or in a residential placement."

What that means, Mr. Chair, is that the child would be put into a foster home, and we do have guidelines in this Province for foster homes. We do have some regulations that are in place. There is a screening that takes place with foster parents and so on.

Mr. Chair, the other option is residential placement. This is one that you would have heard about because we have raised it in the House of Assembly on a number of occasions in the last couple of years. What residential placement actually means, Mr. Chair, is that when there is no family member, when there is no sibling, when there is no one that is known to the child where they can seek safety and protection, and when there is no available foster parent or family, then other options have to be sought for that child. We have seen cases in the Province, because of the number of children who are in care and the lack of foster homes that are available, children have been put up in hotels, they have been put up into rental units and into other residential placements.

One of the issues that we have is that many of those residential placements are not regulated. They do not come under any particular licensing practice or any particular guidelines. There are no regulations that are available and so on. So, Mr. Chair, we have asked that there be an amendment, and the amendment would read, after the word "placement" where it says "…the child or youth shall be placed with a foster parent or in a residential placement", that after the word "placement" it would read: provided that the residential placement had been permitted and are regulated in accordance with guidelines developed by the department.

Now, Mr. Chair, we feel that is necessary. We think that should happen because right now, today, the situation in the Province - in fact, we have an agency in the name of CareGivers, who have provided that protection and safety from a residential perspective for many children in this Province over the last couple of years. CareGivers is not licensed to do that by the Province, because we have no regulations that requires them to do that. They are not regulated in any way because we have no provisions in the Province to regulate them. We are fortunate because they are an agency, Mr. Chair, who has taken it upon themselves to go out and reach the accreditation standards in Canada for providing for these services. So, Mr. Chair, because they are a proactive agency and they care about their clients and the work that they do, they have taken it upon themselves to go out and be able to reach certain levels of accreditation on a national basis.

However, Mr. Chair, it does not prohibit other agencies from starting up and wanting to do the same kind of work in this Province. They are able to do that. Without being licensed, without being regulated, I can go out and start an agency tomorrow. I could probably go to an area of the Province where the services are not being provided and I know there is a need. What happens in a case when there is no protective services for the child is, as a last resort, my agency would get used.

Mr. Chair, I am not casting aspersions on any of the people who deliver that service or provide for residential placements in the Province. Only to say that in carrying out our responsibilities in protecting children in the Province, one of those responsibilities should be to ensure that those residential placements are licensed, that they are regulated, and that they are screened and assessed under a certain procedural guideline, which does not happen right now in the Province, Mr. Chair. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Now, the government will say: What do we do in cases like – we could be in Labrador in a remote area, we have to remove a child from a home and we do not have a residential placement there that is licensed or is regulated. Well, Mr. Chair, right now they go to temporary hotels on a temporary basis and none of them are regulated. I do not understand why residential placements for a longer period of time would have anything to do with a social worker who has to spend a night with a child in a hotel room until they can get them out of a community or into other arrangements or other accommodations.

Mr. Chair, I live on the Coast of Labrador. I have lived on the Coast of Labrador all my life. I know the resources and the limitations in resources oftentimes in responding to things like this, but providing for the protection of children under this legislation is not an impediment to doing your work in a remote area of the Province. It just means that the government will have to be more diligent in providing the services that are required in all areas of the Province. If it means that they have to use clinics in remote areas or they have to use group home facilities or they have to use hotelier facilities – well, there are always ways, Mr. Chair, to ensure that those facilities are appropriate, that they meet the guidelines that are established within the department. We are, in this amendment, giving these departments, giving the minister and her government the flexibility to be able to development those particular guidelines. So we are not standing here today and asking them to do this as an impediment to carrying out their work. We are asking them to do it and we are giving them the flexibility to do it properly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 62.(3) carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 62 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 62 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 63 to 79 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 63 to 79 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 63 through 79 carried.

CLERK: Clause 80.

CHAIR: Shall clause 80 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to speak to clause 80 in the bill. Mr. Chair, clause 80 talks about the statutory review of Bill 1. Mr. Chair, that is a very important section of this bill because when you are talking about providing for the legislation for the protection of children in this Province, there should always be a process of reviewing that legislation through a period of time to look at best practices, to look at what might work better, to look at the conduct and the role of the individuals that are being played by those individuals who provide the service, and so on.

Mr. Chair, what the act says right now is, under the statutory review it says, "The minister shall, every 5 years, conduct a review of this Act and the principles on which it is based and consider the areas which may be improved."

There is nothing wrong with that, Mr. Chair, except we want to ensure that the review is not going to be a statutory review that just occurs internally within the department every five years as a means of meeting the criteria within the act. Mr. Chair, we want to ensure that the review is open for public consultation so that people out there who work on the front lines in delivering services to children in the Province are consulted. That would mean social workers, it would mean foster care workers, and it would mean foster parents. It would be people such as the courts and the justice system. All of these individuals - the health care system - should be consulted, Mr. Chairman, in doing any statutory review that pertains to the protection of children in the Province.

Mr. Chair, what we are proposing today is that clause 80 of Bill 1, which as I said, is the statutory review and it falls under the accountability provisions, clause 80 states that, "The minister shall, every 5 years, conduct a review of this Act and the principles on which it is based and consider the areas which may be improved." We want to amend it, Mr. Chair, to add clause 80.(b) which would say "include public consultations when conducting a review under paragraph (a)."

So, Mr. Chair, the only amendment to the statutory review process is to ensure that it is a public consultation that would consult with all the stakeholders who provide for the delivery of services to children in the Province just like was done in devising the bill. In preparing the bill, there was a consultation document done, there was a number of professionals in the Province consulted, both individually and in group settings, Mr. Chair, and others were invited to submit their views and opinions. I know that I was one of the ones, being the critic for Child, Youth and Family Services, and I did take advantage of the opportunity to submit a paper to the consultation process to outline my views with regard to the act and to hopefully see it incorporated into the bill.

Mr. Chair, that is basically what the amendment is. It is basically to take it a little step further to what the act is already implying and that is to say that it would be open to public consultations, and we hope that the government is receptive to that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have no problem with the amendment except for the wording. As I go through, I will lay down what I feel would be more appropriate wording for the amendment; however, it does achieve the same purpose.

Mr. Chair, we certainly have full intentions with this act and this clause that there would be a public consultation, but I just want to take a minute and explain what is meant by a public consultation. Sometimes you think a public consultation means you have a room and you invite people in and they get in and the cameras are rolling and the media is there and you start talking. As we look at public consultation for this particular process, I just want to take a second to inform the public, what a public consultation could actually mean.

As the Leader of the Opposition noted, that is exactly what we did, was a public consultation when we reviewed this bill in order to bring it into the House of Assembly. I had the opportunity to list out all of the stakeholders and all the groups that we were able to consult, whether it was through a telephone call, whether it was through written submissions, whether it was through meetings that we had, and then there were also times when we had what were called focus groups where we would bring in youth or consumers of the service who had the ability to come in, sit down and discuss what we could do and what we could do to make changes.

What is important when we look at a public consultation when we are dealing with such sensitive issues, as we deal with when we are talking about the care and protection of youth and children, is the fact that you cannot open a public consultation that you go across the Province and you have your meetings in the different areas of the Province, you invite people in to talk and you have it as a public document and then it is in the local newspapers, broadcasted on the radio and TV cameras are in their face, because a lot of times, Mr. Chair, what people have is suggestions. In particular, people who are consumers of this particular system are very humbling stories, very personal, very private stories that they had to go through. It means sometimes they have to discuss their own personal situations, which is something they are probably not proud of, probably something that they felt there was an injustice, whether there was or not that is how they feel. It could be something that they talk about from years ago when a child was taken from their custody, what happened and the circumstances that the child was taken.

So, we cannot expect that we are going to have a full public consultation in the traditional way that we have town hall meetings, invite people to come in and speak and talk about the issues that they face. There is another way to do public consultation and it is to be able to work with our stakeholder groups, whether it is the Provincial Advisory Council for the Status of Women or different councils across Newfoundland and Labrador for the Status of Women. They sometimes know consumers of the service. They sometimes know people who have used the services who can provide us with valuable input, and sometimes they set up meeting for us, which we call focus groups. They are groups where there is not just an opportunity to talk but there is safety in a focus group as well because there is an invitation to come in and they are probably invited by other workers, supportive workers, who have worked with them and who helped them through any particular process.

I just want to make sure we are clear that although we are going to put in the amendment we support public consultations that I need to describe a little bit sometimes what a public consultation could mean when we talk about very sensitive issues.

We also, as we did with this particular review, and we will do it again, no doubt - maybe I will be the minister in five years, maybe I will not. We will also have an e-mail address set up where people can send in their comments, their concerns. We will have a 1-800 number set up as well where people can phone in, or if people want to come and meet in person with the person who is actually conducting the review, they would be invited to that as well. That then, although it is public in that it invites the input from anybody who wants to have the input publicly, it also provides a forum that is not intimidating. That they can stand up or they can phone in or put down their comments without fear of being heard by other people or having to play their story out for somebody to hear, for the local paper to publish their picture because they are up speaking.

I want to clarify that we certainly intended, in this act, that the review would be public. However, I want to again, while I am clarifying now, is what public consultation can mean. When we reviewed this act, we certainly went out and we are able to have some focus groups with the help of some agencies that deal with children here in the Province, and they were quite beneficial to helping us set that up.

Mr. Chair, I just want to say that as we looked at this, we have our own amendment, but it reaches the same thing. Under clause 80, we would delete clause 80 and substitute the following, "80.(1) The minister shall, every five years, conduct a review of this Act and the principles on which it is based and consider the areas which may be improved." Under that, we would add "(2) A review conducted under subsection (1) shall include public consultations."

CHAIR: Order, please!

Before I recognize the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I would ask the Government House Leader, are you now proposing this amendment or just reading it for information purposes?

MS BURKE: I am proposing the amendment, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Okay.

There is an amendment already to clause 80. Prior to proposing a second amendment to clause 80, we cannot have two amendments to the same clause at the same time, so I would ask direction from the House. Should we deal with the first amendment first, and then address the second amendment?

MS BURKE: If that is the process, that we address one before we put in the other, we will certainly follow House procedure.

CHAIR: Okay.

Again, prior to recognizing the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and seeing no official members of the Official Opposition, should I recognize the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi on the first amendment, and deal with the second amendment upon the return of the proposer of the first amendment?

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, the only thing I suggest is we follow House procedure. Whatever that procedure is, we will follow it. I have no problem with following it. I am not suggesting we do anything we should not do, or anything differently.

CHAIR: Okay.

Well, I will recognize the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi on the first amendment.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you Mr. Chair.

First of all, to say that even though the amendment that was spoken to just now by the House Leader and the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services is not on the table, I am really glad to see that she is bringing forward an amendment that in actual fact is a copy of, in some ways, the amendment that I am now speaking to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) wording.

MS MICHAEL: That is right.

So, I feel very glad about this because I was going to speak very positively to the notion of having the public consultations. I did recognize, when I read this amendment which says that public consultations should be part of the review process, that public consultations in this kind of a context can be difficult.

As a matter of fact, I am looking at it now from the perspective of a decision I am trying to make. Because I have had town halls in my district on things like housing, for example, and on home care, and issues that I know that people will have no problem getting up and speaking to in a town hall, but I am looking at having a consultation on an issue right now which would mean that people would have to be revealing personal things about themselves, and they certainly would not want to do that in a town hall setting. So I was struggling with looking at: How do I have that discussion in my district in a way that can have an open discussion where anybody who wants to take part in it can take part, but the session itself is a session that gives protection?

I suspect that is what the minister and the ministry will have to struggle with, in having the public consultations, but I think they are absolutely essential and I am glad that the word public is in this amendment. I fully support the word public because, for me, what that will mean is that no matter how the reaching out to people is done, the reaching out will be done in a wide way that can then be called public. I do not know whether it is the ministry who does the reaching out or whether the ministry uses groups that are involved in the issue or involved in the concerns around the care and protection of children and youth. Even if it is those groups, those groups should do an outreach which is broad enough to be able to call the consultations public. Some of those groups have memberships, but if they limit their outreach just to their memberships there could be people who are not members and who would like to take part in the discussion. So, a way would have to be found to make sure that all of the public has the opportunity to be involved in the consultations, though the consultations themselves might actually be private consultations in the sense that there would not be cameras in there, and they would not be public in that sense, and not open to the media, for example, but that anybody in the public who would want to take part could take part.

I think my time is up. I didn't think I had been speaking for ten minutes. Oh, I wasn't speaking for ten minutes, was I? May I keep going, Mr. Chair? I don't know how many minutes were up there when I started. Maybe it was around four, I think, when I started. So, if I may keep going….

There is not a whole lot more to say, but I would just like to finish that idea, that we just have to be sure that if the ministry, for example - not the ministry, but - if Child, Youth and Family Services uses groups in the community to help garner people to come to a public consultation, that the groups that are being used understand that they have a responsibility to reach out widely to the community to let people know that they have the opportunity through that group to come to a consultation. They would have to notify that group, probably, and that group then would bring people to the meeting in consultation with Child, Youth and Family Services. The meeting itself would be a private meeting - no cameras, no media - but the people who are coming are anybody who really would like to speak to the issue; they get the opportunity to come to the meeting and speak to the issue. I think that would be extremely important.

If we are talking about public consultations with that understanding, knowing that it is difficult to have them but that it means anybody in the community who would like to take part in the discussions finds a way to be invited, that the notifications are wide enough that the broad public will get the notifications, then, to me, that is the way to go with the public consultations.

I think that is all I have to say, Mr. Chair. I am fully in accord with having this amendment.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have looked at the amendment that the government has there. It is basically the same amendment that we have; it is just changing a couple of words. I think all of the same words are used as well.

Mr. Chairman, basically what we were proposing as an amendment here is that there would include a public consultation process, and public consultation measured in different ways. We are not suggesting to the minister that you have to go out and hold public meetings all around the Province. That was not the kind of public consultation that was engaged in, in the legislation. Public consultation is allowing those who have a view to express, to express it, whether that is through formal groups, or whether it is through submissions in writing to a process that is ongoing in terms of a statutory review; but, most importantly, it needs to ensure that there is consultation with people who work in the field of child protection, and people who provide for the care of children in our Province.

That was the reason that we added it. We wanted to ensure that those people who provide their services as foster parents, and open their own homes to many of these children, to social workers who work on the front lines, to people who work within the justice system who deal with youth within our community, Mr. Chairman, and work as health care professionals, they all have a vested interest in how this piece of legislation unfolds, because they are the people who are on the front lines of delivery of these laws.

So, we wanted to see that amendment to include public consultation. I have no problem, Mr. Chairman, with the way the government prefers that it be written. In fact, our amendment said that it should include public consultations when conducting a review under paragraph 80,(a). Theirs says, Mr. Chairman, "A review conducted under subsection (1) shall include public consultations." It is basically the same thing, and if the minister wants to substitute her amendment for the amendment that we have here, we would certainly have no problem with that.

CHAIR: Prior to recognizing the hon. the Government House Leader, I will ask the Leader of the Opposition: Is it your intention, then, to withdraw the amendment proposed by yourself?

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The amendment was moved by myself, and seconded by the Member for Burgeo & La Poile. Mr. Chairman, if the minister is going to submit the amendment that she has there, I guess there is no point in leaving my amendment on the Table. If it is the wish of the House, we can just vote. It does not make any difference.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is proposing to withdraw the amendment. Does she have leave to withdraw the amendment that has been debated?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify something she said, to make sure that if we give leave to withdraw it she understands.

We talked about public consultations. I spoke, the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi spoke, and the Leader of the Opposition spoke, but one thing I want to correct was: she indicated that front-line social workers should be consulted. That would not be considered a public consultation; that would be internal consultations within the department.

I just want to make sure that when we talk about public, public would mean outside the department into the stakeholder groups or into the public or the consumers, but if we consult internally, which we do all the time when we have our focus groups and that, that would not be considered under a definition of public consultation. I just want to make sure we clarify that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Nothing the minister has said changes the context of my amendment.

CHAIR: Okay.

Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have leave to withdraw her amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to put forward the following amendment to Bill 1.

"The Bill is amended by deleting clause 80 and substituting the following:

"80.(1) The minister shall, every 5 years, conduct a review of this Act and the principles on which it is based and consider the areas which may be improved.

"(2) A review conducted under subsection (1) shall include public consultations."

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 80, subsections (1) and (2) carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CLERK: Clause 81.

CHAIR: Shall clause 81 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair, I wanted to speak to clause 81.

Mr. Chair, clause 81 basically talks about the monitoring plans for children in care or custody. Mr. Chair, this was an issue for some time actually, because as you know, when children are taken into custody in this Province, and as is outlined in Bill 1 here in this legislation, there are care plans developed for the children. Mr. Chair, those particular plans of care need to be monitored and they need to be –

MS BURKE: They are case plans.

MS JONES: Case plans, yes.

MS BURKE: Not care plans.

MS JONES: Yes, case plans. I am sorry, Mr. Chair.

They do need to be monitored while children are in care or in custody. As the act states right now, Mr. Chair, it says under section 81, "The minister shall develop a process to monitor plans for children who are under the supervision or in the custody of a manager."

Mr. Chair, we were hoping that when Bill 1 came forward and the legislation was introduced in the House, that it would have outlined the process to which this would occur. We were disappointed to find that the process was not developed and it was not being submitted as part of the legislation.

Now, I understand, Mr. Chair, from questioning in Question Period that the minister has stated that the process will take some time to develop the monitoring process, and that it will be done over the course of a period of time. However, we have not identified what that time frame is and therefore the amendment that we are moving today to clause 81 would read this way: By deleting the words "develop a process to" and substituting a comma and the words and comma "before the coming into force of this Act, develop a process to regularly and periodically" monitor plans for children who are under the supervision or in the custody of a manager.

That is the amendment that we are moving, Mr. Chair, moved by myself, seconded by the Member for Port de Grave. That particular clause then basically gives greater certainty to the fact that the monitoring process will be put in place, and it will be put in place before the proclamation or before the act comes into force. I feel quite comfortable in saying that. I do not think in adding that amendment that we are going to disrupt the process in any way because the minister has already stated that it will take at least a year before they proclaim the act and the act comes into force.

We do not see any reason why over the course of the next year, that the minister and her department, Mr. Chair, cannot develop a process to monitor plans for children who are under the care and supervision of a manager. We think that is an ample period of time and we think there should be a firm commitment from the government, Mr. Chair, to actually develop that particular plan and to ensure that it is in place before the legislation is enacted.

As I said, Mr. Chair, because this is such an important aspect of the bill and such an important aspect of providing for protective services for children in the Province, we are somewhat disappointed that it was not outlined in the legislation. We would have thought that through the consultation process and through the period of writing the legislation and devising the act, that the government would have turned their attention to that particular piece in a much more diligent way, Mr. Chair, and would have provided us today, as part of the legislation, the entire process of monitoring. Because that has not happened, we are being very gracious in asking the government if they will commit to doing that before the act comes into force, and that is a year, the minister tells us. We think it is ample time. So we move the amendment, Mr. Chair, and we hope that it will be supported.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I want to speak to the amendment but I also want to indicate that we will be laying down an amendment very similar but again changes the wording, and I think it captures what the Official Opposition are looking for in this particular amendment. We ran it through Legislative Council to ensure that we had the appropriate wording. So the intent I think will be the same.

What was difficult in the wording that came from the Opposition was that it would say, "…before the coming into force of this Act, develop a process to regularly and periodically". Once this act comes into force we want to have the process for how we monitor case plans as opposed to plans of care developed.

I will not do the official wording of the amendment now because I know that the process will do it once we vote on what the Opposition has laid down, but we will be recommending that the bill be amended by deleting clause 81 and substituting the following: "There shall be a process to regularly monitor plans for children who are under the supervision or in the custody of a manager."

That means when the bill comes into force, it is not that we shall develop, the law is not telling us that we have to develop it; the law says there should be a process to regularly monitor plans. So the process needs to be in place. It not like - we are not being legislated to develop one, we are now, with the amendment we are bringing forward, we will be legislated to have the process in place to regularly monitor.

Now, regularly and periodically I think is redundant. I think regularly captures what we are trying to say there. Because we have changed the wording that will suggest that there shall be a process, that takes away from would say to develop a process. So I think that we will, with the wording that has been recommended to us, we are capturing the spirit and the intent that we will have a regular monitoring process in place when the bill is enacted. When the bill is enacted, it does not mean we have to go out and develop one at that time, it means it will be in place. I think that the wording that says regularly covers off regularly and periodically.

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

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

Yes, I was going to be standing and I am doing so in support of the amendment to clause 81 but now with the discussion that has just happened with the minister, (inaudible) the same situation we were in before. So I will probably speak to both things, even though I know we have to vote on eighty-one first.

I think what is important is the fact that we are all agreeing that we actually have to have the monitoring process in place. I think that is the bottom line, and that the monitoring include a process that will make sure that there is regular - and that is what is important - regular monitoring of the case plans. Case is not in there, but we know we are talking about the case plans for children who are under supervision.

I am listening to what the minister said and it seems to me – now, I am not the mover so I would be interested in hearing what the Leader of the Opposition says – that what the minister is proposing does meet and goes beyond what is here in the amendment that is on the floor right now. The amendment on the floor right now still talks about the development of a process and I like the notion of the fact that the process should be in place. Therefore the suggested wording that I expect is going to be coming to the floor, officially, would actually recognize that the process should be in place, and not saying that the development of the process – you do not need to say the development should take place before the act is in place if the act actually says that there is a process in place.

I think it makes the language cleaner and makes sure that, in actual fact, everybody knows that the process has to be in place because of the wording of the act. So the spirit of the amendment, I completely agree with and I will wait to see what process we are going to use in order to deal with the first amendment that is in front of us because I am interested, actually, in the wording that the minister has suggested would be the wording she would like to have there. So, I will let you take care of whatever process we have to go through to get to that point.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I just want to make a very quick comment on why I do not think the process should be outlined in legislation.

When we are reviewing cases like this, we need to be able to monitor on a regular basis and a process to do so. There is going to be a combination of data that we use, whether it is quantitative data through our IT system as we develop our new system or more qualitative data as we do clinical supervision. So through those processes there may never be a truly defined way and it needs to be fluent, but we need to be able to take whatever data we have, whether it is qualitative or quantitative, at any given time and use a combination of that data to do our reviews.

So sometimes when we are talking about a field like social work where not everything is black and white, it is more of a grey area, and we are dealing with human behaviour where there is probably no absolutes, it makes it more difficult to outline the process, but we certainly want to make sure we do have our process developed.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I have had an opportunity to review the amendment that the government is about to propose. It is within the context of what we were proposing, so I have no problem with the fact that if Legislative Counsel feels that it should be written in a different way or in different language in order to be incorporated in the act. I just want to make it quite clear, Minister, that the amendment, if I were to withdraw the amendment to clause 81 and support the amendment that is being brought forward by the government, I am just looking to ensure that the same intentions would be met, and that is to ensure that there is a process in place for the monitoring plans of children who are under the supervision in the custody of the manager at the time that the act is proclaimed and that it would be a necessary component that is incorporated and ongoing as every other piece of legislation that is incorporated here.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I could get confirmation of that from the minister maybe then I could move a motion to withdraw the amendment that I have tabled, then she would have the opportunity to introduce her amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chairman, without being repetitious, but I guess I will be, when I do move the motion it will read, and I have already said this for the record, "There shall be a process to regularly monitor plans for children who are under the supervision or in the custody of a manager."

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That is really the intent of the amendment that we have put forward today. We felt that in looking at section 81, as it was written in the legislation, that it did not provide any guarantee or certainty that there would be monitoring plans in place at the time that the act came into force. Originally, Mr. Chair, the motion had said that the minister shall develop a process to monitor plans for children, which is very different than what we wanted to see. We wanted to be guaranteed that once the act came into force there would be a regular process in place to monitor those children who were under the supervision or in the custody of the manager within the system.

We feel that this an important amendment to the act as it provides for an ongoing process of ensuring that children that are in protective custody, that these case files are being monitored, that they are being followed, that they are being acted upon, and that the needs of those children are being responded to.

As the minister outlined in questions in Question Period, the report that was commissioned by her department and completed by Susan Abell of a number of cases randomly across the system gave us a little picture and a little snapshot sometimes of how, no matter what safeguards we take, that we can have loopholes even in a system that works 90 per cent of the time.

So I think it is important that we have those kinds of follow ups and reviews of the case files of these children so that we get a better understanding, Mr. Chair, of what is happening with the children who are in protective care. Not only that, Mr. Chair, it guarantees a greater level of accountability to people who have to provide the services of protection for children in the Province.

Mr. Chair, the amendment that I had put forward was asking to do just that. I understand from the minister that there is different language that they would prefer to use after consultation with the Legislative Counsel. Mr. Chair, I have no problem. It has the same meaning. It gives the same guarantees.

Mr. Chair, based on that I would move, with leave of the House, to withdraw the amendment that I proposed to clause 81 at this time.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have leave to withdraw the motion put forward by her?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, to follow up on the debate we were having on section 81, and certainly I feel in the debate I have given the explanation. We feel that section 81 should be amended to read:

"The Bill is amended by deleting clause 81 and substituting the following:

"81. There should be a process to regularly monitor plans for children who are under the supervision or in the custody of a manager."

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 81 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CLERK: Clauses 82 to 87 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 82 to 87 inclusive carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just a few final comments with regard to Bill 1, first of all I want to say that this is definitely a good piece of legislation. The amendments that have been passed - the two amendments that were passed - have certainly allowed for greater protection of children in the Province, greater certainty around the legislation. It allows for a review process that will include consultation, Mr. Chair, and it certainly now states that any case plans will be monitored under the particular system. More importantly than that, Mr. Chair, Bill 1, while it carries forward on a lot of legislation that has been already passed and so on, it does make for certain amendments.

The other thing, Mr. Chair, is that I know the minister is getting pretty antsy over there, but it is an important bill, we are in committee, and we are dealing with the last clauses, and I am entitled to speak, I say to the minister.

Mr. Chair, one of the concerns that I do have, and it is related to clause 87. In clause 87 of the act, it talks about commencements. It says, "This Act or a Part, section or subsection, paragraph or subparagraph of this Act comes into force on a day or days to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council." What that means is that it does not matter what piece of legislation – Mr. Chair, I am having trouble hearing myself.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask the co-operation of all members of the House, and to respect the member that has been recognized to speak.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Under section 87 of the act, basically what it states is that this act is not a law, it is absolutely what it is today, a bill before the House of Assembly until such time that it is proclaimed. Once a bill is proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, it is only then that it becomes law, that it becomes enacted and it becomes the rules and regulations by which every department, every agency, whatever that rule or regulation or legislation pertains to, it governs how they operate.

Well, Mr. Chair, since this government came into power, there have been twelve pieces of legislation in this House of Assembly that have been passed but never proclaimed. There are twelve particular bills that we spent our time on, standing in the House, asking questions about, debating in second reading, debating in committee that never ever got proclaimed by the government opposite. Mr. Chair, the only fear that I have with any piece of legislation, especially one as important as the one that we have here today, is that at any time, government can make a decision that it will not come into force.

So, Mr. Chair, in concluding my comments on the bill, I just hope that this bill will be proclaimed within the year, as was indicated by the government, and that it will not fall to the wayside like a dozen other bills that we have seen under this Administration.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 82 to 87 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 82 through 87 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried with amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We call from the Order Paper, Motion 1, Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991". (Bill 4)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Order 2, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act, Bill 7.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 7, An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act". (Bill 7)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 8, An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act". (Bill 8)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 3 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 3 –

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Chair, I would like to make an amendment to the bill after clause 1. The bill is amended by adding immediately after clause 1 the following –

CHAIR: Order, please!

Does the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General have leave to revert to clause 1?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Chair, I understood that I would make an amendment after clause 1 was carried, that this is an insertion after clause 1. It is immediately after clause 1.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Chair, "The Bill is amended by adding immediately after clause 1 the following:

"1.1. Subsection 5(6) of the Act is amended by deleting the words and commas ‘or who, after the revocation of his or her appointment, uses or exercises the powers conferred upon a notary public by this Act'."

Mr. Chair, that is the amendment, and I will speak to it (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

Mr. Chair, this is an amendment that would add a clause to the bill to repeal a provision of the act which would be redundant as a result of amendments proposed in clause 3. It is an oversight in the drafting, Mr. Chair. If I can refer the House to the bill, clause 10 of the bill. Clause 10.(2) says, "A person whose appointment as a notary public has been revoked under subsection 5(1) or (2) who after the revocation uses or exercises a power conferred on a notary public by this Act is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $500."

That was the amendment that we made, Mr. Chair, but we neglected to take out of the act a section that is redundant with that, and we refer to the act, section 5.(6), which says as follows, "A person who refuses or fails to surrender his or her seal or to return his or her certificate or other evidence of appointment as required under subsection (4) or (5)…" which is fine, which is okay, but it also goes on to say "…or who, after the revocation of his or her appointment, uses or exercises the powers conferred upon a notary public by this Act…" which is the redundant part "…is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $100."

The effect of this change, Mr. Chair, is that it leaves in the old act, "A person who refuses or fails to surrender his or her seal or to return his or her certificate or other evidence of appointment as required under subsection (4) or (5),… is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $100." That stays in, but the section on - if he exercises his power after revocation comes out because the bill has a section dealing with that and the person would receive a fine of $500. That is the purpose of the change, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Shall the addition of clause 1.1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: Clauses 2 and 3.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 and 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 and 3 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill with amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 11, An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act". (Bill 11)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act.

CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 16, An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act". (Bill 16)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that the Committee rise and report Bills 4, 7, 8, 11, 16 and 1, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: It is moved and seconded that the Committee rise and report Bills 4, 7, 8, 11, 16 and 1, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

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

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

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

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 4, 7, 11 and 16 without amendment, and further, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 1 and 8 with some amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 4, 7, 11 and 16 without amendment.

When shall this report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bills ordered read a third time tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole also reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 1 and 8 carried with some amendments.

When shall the report be received?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the amendments be read a first and second time? Now?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services, that the amendments be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendments be now read a first time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: First reading of the amendments.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services, that the amendments be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said amendments be now read a second time.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: Second reading of the amendment.

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

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, amendments read a first and second time, bills ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From the Order Paper, I would like to call Order 13, second reading of a Bill, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will now hear debate on Bill 20, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the practice of social work in our Province has been self-regulated since the Social Workers Association Act was proclaimed in 1993. Our government has been drafting changes to statutes designed to establish self-regulation for a number of health professions since 1999. It is now proceeding with new legislation, Mr. Speaker, which will repeal and replace the existing Social Workers Association Act. The principle goal of this new legislation, Mr. Speaker, is to incorporate new disciplinary procedures and governance structures which are designed to institute greater public accountability by ensuring appropriate public representation on the respective licensing boards and providing a defined and transparent disciplinary process.

The new Social Workers Act is consistent with recent legislative changes for other health related occupations, such as massage therapy, veterinary medicine, pharmacy, optometry, medicine, physiotherapy, dentistry, and nursing. To ensure that the health and safety of the residents of our Province is maintained, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is designed to continue the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers. It will ensure, Mr. Speaker – first, I should say, the association governs the profession for public protection. It will ensure that only competent and appropriately trained social workers practice in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The act will see an enhancement of governance by the expansion of public representation. The board will have fourteen members, of which four people will be appointed by the minister. These individuals, Mr. Speaker, will not be registered social workers, but rather members of the public who can represent the public interest.

The act will bring the disciplinary system used by social workers in line with best practices and changes made in the last few years to numerous other acts related to regulated professions. For example, Mr. Speaker, the act sets out who will serve on the complaints authorization committee, and requires that there will always be a representative of the public on the committee that is not a social worker, the use of alternative methods of dispute resolution, with the consent of the parties, and when issues are not clearly discipline worthy. The act ensures public representation on the disciplinary panel. Disciplinary hearings are open to the public, unless the consequences of a possible disclosure of personal matters outweigh the public interest of an open hearing. The Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers have been consulted throughout the process and is supportive of the new legislation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk a minute, we have heard over the last period of time in this House discussion of what social workers do, and especially as it relates to the new Child, Youth and Family Services Act. Mr. Speaker, social work is one of the largest professions in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are almost 1,300 registered social workers practising throughout all regions of the Province in a diverse range of practice settings. Oftentimes, we simply think of social workers as we have heard discussed with the Child, Youth and Family Services – that is one big area, but there are other areas, Mr. Speaker, such as practising within hospitals, seniors homes, adult and youth corrections, child welfare, addictions, mental health, community-based centres, government departments and universities. Social workers are also self-employed in private practice and consulting businesses.

Social work, Mr. Speaker, is a profession that focuses upon improving the health and social well-being of individuals, families, groups and communities. It is an absolutely vital job and the individuals who perform this work are very professional and dedicated individuals. Social workers, as I have indicated, are engaged in so many different aspects of providing services to our communities. They work with people to assess, resolve, prevent or lessen the impact of psychosocial, physical and mental health related issues.

Registered social workers, Mr. Speaker, are equally responsive to social problems such as poverty, discrimination and violence. Some of this, Mr. Speaker, I am taking from the Web site of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers, and anyone who wants to learn more of what this association does can go into the Web site and have a look. This Web site says, Mr. Speaker, the focus of social work is based on the concept of "people within their environment". Major aspects of social work knowledge include: human growth and development; family dynamics; communication; organization and empowerment theory; psychosocial assessment and treatment; research and social policy development and analysis.

Mr. Speaker, since 1999, the Department of Health and Community Services, in consultation with the Office of the Legislative Counsel, has been drafting changes to statutes designed to establish self-regulation for a number of health professions. Now, when we have a self-regulating profession, it is felt that the individuals who practise that profession are cognizant of the duties placed upon them, both socially and professionally. They are aware of the ethical responsibilities that they deal with, and they are aware of the practical realities of whatever it is they do. Again, I think lawyers are one that come to my example, doctors are another, obviously.

So, Mr. Speaker, what government has tried to do in giving powers to these self-regulating professions, is to give them enough power to run their own show, for lack of a better term, but to ensure that there is a public accountability and that government can monitor, in the least intrusive way possible, oftentimes, how these self-regulating professions are proceeding.

Now, Mr. Speaker, for example, with lawyers we have a Law Society, and that Law Society, it requires certain qualifications in order for lawyers to practise law. The basic qualifications, I guess, are a law degree and being admitted to the Bar of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador by doing a Bar admissions course. Then you have to do an articling stint it is called. I forget now, if the Minister of Justice was near me - I do not know what it is now, I think it is longer than what it used to be a few years ago, Mr. Speaker. Essentially, the law profession sets these regulations, and you comply with these regulations. Then there is a code of conduct. Now, I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if the other professions all have codes of conduct, but there will be, obviously, ethical considerations which they must follow. So that doctors, social workers would go to school, they would study – I am assuming again in social work – basic theory and they would learn in principle and theory what is required of them. Of course, Mr. Speaker, once you get out there into the world of practice, whatever that practice may be, whether it be, as I have indicated, pharmacy, medical practice, law or social work, there are certain realities that you must deal with.

So the people who are best able to judge whether or not a person has complied with those standards are oftentimes the members within that profession. That is why we call them self-regulating, Mr. Speaker. Also, it is very important so that we do not have this effect or this allegation, well lawyers are protecting themselves, or doctors are protecting themselves, or social workers are protecting themselves, we ensure that there is a public component to these boards so that the various societies can be broken down, they can have complaints authorization committees, they can have other working committees which set the standards, rules and regulations, compliance committees. These committees, Mr. Speaker, are meant to ensure that whatever member of the profession in question is up-to-date in terms of their requirements that they have to comply with in order to practise that profession.

By having a member of the public or members of the public there, Mr. Speaker, it is felt by government that is a way that – the members of the public will act as the buffer between the professions and government. By that I mean, simply, Mr. Speaker, making decisions, because the individuals who are coming from the public bring with it a different approach. They bring with it a different perspective. Oftentimes, what they bring, Mr. Speaker, is common sense. Not to say that the professions do not have, or any professionals, there is a lack of common sense, but sometimes there can be a perception among the public that self-regulating or self-governing bodies are afraid to air their dirty laundry in public because it could sully their good reputations or names. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that at least in my experience with the Law Society, and it is quite a bit of experience over twenty years of practising law – some good, some bad – what we have is a situation where they take seriously their obligation to ensure that lawyers do their jobs, do them honestly and ethically, and serve the public, but also do it in a way where they have to make a living, for lack of a better term.

So, what we have tried to do as a government - and this started in the previous government - is to bring consistency to the self-regulating bodies. So whether or not you are a pharmacy board, the social workers, the medical board, the law society, it is bring them to a way where there is a similar procedure. Because, Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to ensure is that you do not have different rules for different professions. One common theme, Mr. Speaker, there is always the involvement of the public. In the law society we are called lay benchers.

Mr. Speaker, we drafted changes to statutes designed to establish self-regulation now for a number of the health professions specifically. These changes, Mr. Speaker, are designed to incorporate new discipline procedures and governance structures emanating from policy directions adopted from the White Paper on regulated occupations entitled: Challenging Responses to Changing Times New Proposals for Occupational Regulations.

Mr. Speaker, since 1999, this Legislature has passed bills to incorporate the new discipline procedures and governance arrangements into the Law Society Act, 1999; the Massage Therapy Act, 2005; the Veterinary Medical Act, 2004; the Optometry Act, 2004; the Pharmacy Act and the Medical Act, 2005. Now I know my colleague, the Minister of Government Services often speaks to some of these changes and some of the need for consistency because a lot of the regulations or some of the regulations can come within his department in various professions and groups.

Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 2005 session of the House of Assembly, ten bills related to health occupations were passed incorporating the new discipline procedures in governance arrangements. In the spring 2006 session of the House of the Assembly the Physiotherapy Act 2006, which incorporated a new model was also passed. The Registered Nurses Act, 2008, was passed by the Legislature in spring 2008. The Dental Act 2008, in the fall of 2008; and the Chiropractors Act 2009, in the spring of 2009. That repealed the previous legislation, Mr. Speaker, and adopted a new model.

What we do is we have all of these acts which are changing in terms of trying to ensure consistency with their self-regulation and governance. The new disciplinary procedures – now, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, we will have something - that you cannot have one set of rules for all professions and that is why it is thought that if we let each profession come up with their basic rules then they are the ones who know how to best govern, along with input from the public.

Mr. Speaker, for example, the pharmacy board may have - the rules that they impose are ones that they are in the best position, they know what is required of pharmacists. They know what ethical rules and what principles they have to follow, so they are the ones who can deal with that discipline, but the discipline model can be the same, Mr. Speaker, in terms of how to go about it. So, what we are trying to do here is to institute greater public accountability on the part of – again, I am talking about the regulated health professionals and in this case the Social Workers Act, by ensuring appropriate public representation on the respective licensing boards and by providing a uniformed disciplinary process that is quasi-judicial and publicly open and transparent.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with quasi-judicial, it simply means - I would describe it, I guess, in simple terms - is that individuals, if there is an allegation made against a professional who is a member of a society then there are basic principles of natural justice that have to be complied with. You have to know the case against you; you have to know the charge. What is it that I am facing here? What am I alleged to have done wrong? Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, that can start with a complaint from a member of the public or it can be most often in writing, that will go to the governing body. The governing body will perform an assessment and determine: Is there anything to this? Then the individual who is the subject of the complaint may be required to provide a written response.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the first rules of natural justice, you have a right to know what is being alleged against you. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, and I do not know, sometimes in a screening process - because if you have professions and oftentimes human nature being what it is, people complain because they did not get the result they wanted or they felt aggrieved by the approach of the individual involved. So, there has to be a way to screen out frivolous complaints.

There can generally be a screening process whereby someone will say: Well, no, I am not even going to require a response to that. So the individual, the professional may not be aware in those circumstances that someone made a frivolous and/or a factious complaint against them, but if it reaches the point where the governing body says: Well, look, this is something we should look at here. Then the individual has to be informed. The individual has to be given a right to reply or the audi alteram partem rule, the right to be heard. If someone is going to make an allegation against you, especially in your professional capacity, you have a right to be heard, the right to respond. So, that way, Mr. Speaker, we can ensure that there is no jumping to conclusions. In other words, even though there could be a determination that there is a prima facia or a basic case met, that is only to get the process going.

So, quasi-judicial does not mean that the matter has to be dealt with by judges, Mr. Speaker, it can be - discipline committees can be three people, it can be - they have a chair. There could be two members from the governing profession and a member of the public, with that member of the public meant to bring an even more independent and objective view. These are the individuals who will sit there and they will - the person oftentimes can be represented by counsel if he or she so desires. There can be a hearing.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we try to do is to ensure that there is an ability for the individual, for the public to make their complaint, if he or she feels aggrieved, but also to allow the professional member who has a reputation, to defend his or her reputation and to say: I did not do what I am accused of doing. Mr. Speaker, a lot of professionals, their reputation is so important to them.

The Supreme Court of Canada has spoken on a number of occasions, and I am trying to remember the name of the case now, of the lawyer from Ontario who went to the Supreme Court of Canada and was alleged liable against – I think it was Hill and the Church of Scientology – but the basic principle came out of it. I remember this, Mr. Justice Cory talked about the importance of a person's reputation, and if you attack a person's reputation then you are attacking something which is so integral to their being, something which is so important to them as an individual. It is also so important to them in society, because society sees professionals in a certain way.

Now, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we do not have the luxury, in this hon. House, as politicians to necessarily be seen by the public with those same glasses that they apply to other professions. Unfortunately, events in recent years can raise questions in terms of the eyes of the public and public trust. I guess the point I am making is that in these proceedings an individual has a right, if he or she desires, to protect their reputation and to fight the case. Now, Mr. Speaker, it does not have to be a long, drawn out trial. It does not have to be the six month trials that I did years ago. Oftentimes, a hearing can take place; there can be facts that are agreed upon. There can be situations where it can be narrowed down to a particular issue. This is the allegation against you. What happened here?

Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, an individual can be – there are different degrees of culpability or guilt, and I am not talking about in a criminal sense, Mr. Speaker. Well, people make mistakes. I mean that is just one of the realities of, again, one of the basic realities of life. So, you have a professional body, they are the ones who can determine how egregious or serious a mistake is. Someone might have made a minor mistake but still breached the rules of the profession; might have still breached, Mr. Speaker, the ethical rules imposed upon that person, but the degree of punishment imposed upon them must correlate to the degree of severity of the offence. So, Mr. Speaker, again, members of these professions are in the best position, it is felt by government, to determine what punishment should be imposed, if and when an individual either admits that they did not do something they should have done, or someone who says: Well look, I am guilty, but – guilty with an explanation, I guess is the way it could be described.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have tried to ensure that there is a uniform disciplinary process, but that uniform disciplinary process can then be adapted to each profession. Mr. Speaker, for example, an allegation of misconduct will be reviewed by the complaints authorization committee, unless the registrar can, with the consent of all parties including the complainant, resolve the dispute.

Now, that is interesting concept and an integral concept to dealing with issues in this day and age, is that of alternative dispute resolution. Why are we going to engage in a disciplinary procedure that can be hard on the individual, the member of the public who is making the complaint, depending on the nature of the complaint? It can be hard on the individual who is the subject of the complaint, especially if it is – I am not going to say a technical breach because it can be more than that.

Oftentimes people are better off to sit down. The one individual who says: I am sorry, I did make a mistake here and I am sorry for that. The person on the other side says: I am satisfied with that. The complaints authorization committee or the registrar says: Yes, okay, we are all happy here. So why are we going to bring people in from all over the Province as part of a complaints authorization committee, sit there for a day and listen to everyone say something, dispute what each is saying, if we can resolve it?

I guess it would be the administrative equivalent of the plea bargain, Mr. Speaker, where it can either be a resolution reached among the parties so that is amicably dealt with and people go away - the individual or the member of the public who has agreed, if the complainant feels that he or she has had their opportunity to express their concern.

Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, members of the public are motivated not only by their desire to have their case heard, but to ensure that what has happened to them does not happen to other members of the public. I find that is a common thread, Mr. Speaker, and I hear it a lot in terms of my present capacity. Even though you cannot change what happened to me, perhaps by recognizing that there was a mistake, by recognizing that the system failed, you can prevent it from happening to other people. So that would apply similarly to all professions.

So then what we have in the Social Workers Act, Mr. Speaker, is that review by the complaint authorization committee and the possibility of dispute resolution, which I think is a very positive approach. Not one that will always work, Mr. Speaker, because certain members of the public want to have their case heard. They feel very strongly about what has happened to them and they feel that there should be responsibility and accountability within the profession that they are dealing with – again, whether it be lawyers, pharmacists, physiotherapists, doctors or, in this case, social workers.

Mr. Speaker, the registrar is appointed under the act by the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers and is responsible for handling the day-to-day affairs respecting the disciplinary process.

We have a registrar, Mr. Speaker, and that is obviously crucial in terms of if you are going to have a disciplinary procedure that works, you have to have an office whereby the complaints come in, because that is, I guess, the best way to describe it, is a complaint comes in and someone has to first look at that complaint and then say: Where do we go from here? In this case, Mr. Speaker, it would be the registrar.

Now, the complaints authorization committee, Mr. Speaker, will comprise of at least three members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers, including at least one public representative. The complaints authorization committee can use a variety of tools such as what I discussed earlier, Mr. Speaker, the alternative dispute resolution, to resolve complaints without relying solely on formal disciplinary proceedings. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is very positive and it is something that oftentimes can be used by professional committees.

Once you get to the formal disciplinary proceeding, and I did not do a lot of this as a lawyer, but I certainly represented some individuals at administrative hearings, it is a type of trial, but the rules of evidence are different, not as formal as in a courtroom, but the rules are relaxed somewhat. Essentially, what people are trying to do is get to the truth of the complaint. Although I am not going to complicate this too much, but the standard of proof used in a criminal court obviously will not be used in one of these disciplinary proceedings, again, unless the statutes specifically impose that standard.

Mr. Speaker, once a decision is made by the complaints authorization committee it can be appealed to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court. So, what we have is an administrative review, Mr. Speaker. The Trail Division, we have essentially three levels – sometimes something is so basic to me I cannot assume that the members of the public understand fully the way our court system is set up. Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, we have a Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador which hears – these are provincially appointed judges and they are essentially a court of statute and they are given powers under the Criminal Code. They hear most of the criminal complaints. Now they will do other things, Mr. Speaker. For example, the provincial court does small claims work, there are some family matters that go to them, but there is always a restructuring of the courts.

The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division, Mr. Speaker, will deal with civil claims over a certain amount. I think we actually have – the Supreme Court Trail Division will deal claims over a certain amount, and I think there is a piece of legislation here now increasing the amount that we can go to small claims. Then, of course, we have the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, which is the court of last resort in this Province, with the Supreme Court of Canada being the ultimate court in the country. So, Mr. Speaker, there can be an appeal, but again, the appeals are restricted and there are certain criteria that are applied.

So, Mr. Speaker, the complaints authorization committee will have specified powers, privileges and immunities, and this will remove any barrier, real or perceived, to do the appropriate investigation of an allegation of misconduct, and allow the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers, through this new disciplinary procedure, to apply remedial and, if necessary, punitive measures that can be appropriately, again, appropriately is the key word, applied in the event of misconduct ruling, or to intervene in the event of a threat to public safety.

So, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is a continuation of the work we have begun with ensuring consistency and streamlining disciplinary procedures. Those would be my comments for now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am very happy to stand today and speak to Bill 20, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work. This is an extremely important act that has been brought in by the minister, and it is good that we can give it serious consideration. I want to thank the minister for the explanation of the various clauses of the act and walking us through those clauses.

We have, as the minister has indicated, over the past few years been dealing with other bills in this House that are acts respecting the practice of different professionals in our Province. I think the profession of social work is an extremely important one. Social workers are found in different types of jobs. The profession remains the same, but they perform different functions depending on who it is they are working for and the role that they are playing.

The bottom line is that social workers are there to protect the people who they are working for. The social workers who we are dealing with are social workers who are obviously trained. They are educated, and highly educated. This is something that I think is extremely important, that this bill does deal with recognizing the need for social workers to have a very high level of education.

I know, for example, that when it comes to social workers who are involved in the protection of children and youth, having a masters in social work is essential for doing that work. When we look at the registration of social workers – I am trying to find that section, and I will find it – that when we look at the registration of social workers under section 18.(2)(a) - and I am going right over to there; there are some things I want to talk about, this whole thing of the importance of the social worker - it tells us that, "A person who wishes to be registered under this Act shall apply to the registrar and a person shall be registered under this Act where that person (a) holds a bachelor, masters or doctoral degree in social work from an accredited educational institution approved by the board".

So, being a social worker is not enough to say: I understand people and I care for people and I can work with people. You also have to have an education that helps you do that in a very professional way and that helps one understand everything that is involved in working with people as a social worker.

In the original act, the educational requirement included other equivalent, which means that somebody may not have a degree but they could have had something that was being recognized as an equivalent of having a degree. In this new act, that clause has been taken out of the act and there are no ifs, ands or buts; you must have a bachelors, masters, or doctoral degree in order to be registered under this act.

I think that is very important. I think it is extremely important for the profession of social workers themselves that it is recognized that this profession is a profession that carries a high degree of responsibility. It does not matter where you are doing your work, whether you are doing your work as a social worker in a hospital, for example, or whether you are doing your work as a social worker as part of the community services of Health and Community Services, or whether you are doing your social work as part of Child, Youth and Family Services, or whether you are doing it as part of the educational system, that you are in a position of very, very important trust.

You are dealing with people, with their lives, and they trust the social worker to be there for them, to be there to protect them, and to be there to help them as they deal with the institutions of government; because, basically, all of the things I have outlined, social workers are in positions where they are working with institutions of government, so the registration demand in the new act which does not recognize other equivalent - nothing else is equivalent to having the degrees - is extremely important.

The thing that the act does - and I think it is important that it does that - there is a recognition of some people being able to have temporary registration. I think that temporary registration is important, because sometimes you can have a social worker student who has not finished his or her education yet and is in an area, maybe doing a practicum, even, where they cannot find a qualified social worker, and temporarily that person can be registered to perform duties in that area, but they have to be in a social work bachelor program and they have to comply with professional development and practicum requirements. So, there is a recognition that sometimes somebody may be needed by the agency itself, whether it is CYFS or one of the regional health authorities, to perform their function in a temporary way. I think it is important that the government do have this in there because we still do not have, in every part of the Province, people who are qualified.

The section I am referring to says, "Notwithstanding section 18, an employee of the government of the province or a regional health authority who is employed after the commencement of this Act and who practises social work in the course of that employment and who (a) does not qualify for registration under section 18…" - probably because they do not have one of the degrees yet - "(b) is employed in a region of the province where a person registered under section 18 cannot be recruited to practise social work; (c) hold a bachelors degree, certificate or diploma from an accredited educational institution approved by the board; (d) is enrolled in a bachelor of social work program in an accredited educational institution approved by the board; (e) complies with continuing education and practical experience requirements prescribed in the regulations; and (f) pays the fees required by the association shall be temporarily registered for a period determined by the registrar and that temporary registration may be renewed annually…" but for no more of a total than seven years.

In other words, they can be temporarily registered but only up to seven years. I think it is good to recognize that somebody can be in a situation where they can be employed temporarily to do the work that needs to be done, but there are strict criteria here that must be followed in order for the person to be temporarily registered, so I think that is extremely important to note.

Probably the hallmark of this act is the fact that public protection is being put ahead of everything. The purpose of the association - and it is made very, very clear in the act - is that the association shall act in the public interest. So, the association is not there to protect the social worker. The association is there to make sure that what happens through social workers, no matter where they do their work, that everything is being done in the public interest. That also means that the association has to also look at public policy and make sure and have a voice in public policy, in pointing out if the association thought that even public policy was not acting in the public interest, that the association would have a responsibility to speak about that, but the association is not there to protect the interests of individual social workers. In actual fact, it is the unions who unionize the social workers in this Province - that is NAPE and CUPE - that is it the unions that protect the interests of social workers.

Now, the interests of the social workers do have to be protected, just like the interests of any worker. Everybody has to be protected, and when you are doing the kind of work that social workers are doing, for example, it is like most of the professionals who are involved in working with people - the same way with teachers, social workers, people in the health care system in other professions, nurses, et cetera - there is always the possibility of people, either rightly or wrongly, being found to be not doing the work the way in which they should be doing it.

If, for example, a social worker had some kind of a charge laid against him or her, it would not be the association who would stand up for that social worker. The social worker would go to their union, and it would be their union that would stand up for them. We have a similar model when it comes to nurses, for example, where you have both the association and you have their union, two separate bodies. This makes it extremely clear that it is two separate bodies with social workers as well.

So, social workers do need protection. Every worker at some time or other needs protection. Sometimes workers can be treated unjustly or unfairly, or sometimes there can be a difference of opinion about the actions that somebody has performed. In any case like that, there has to be protection for the worker just as there has to be protection for the public as well. The association will not do that protection; that would be the role of the social workers' union, whichever union it is that represents them.

This document, this act that we are dealing with, is there to protect the public interest and to protect public policy. It is about regulating and governing social work, but regulating and governing social work not for the sake of the interests of the members of the association but for the sake of public policy. It is important to point out – and the minister may have and I may have missed it – that in the former act, it said that the association must do all things to protect the interests of members. Well, that is gone; that is not the association's role any more.

That is extremely important because it is really important to have an association that can look at policy and can look at public interest and be in charge of being sure that public interest is met and not have a conflict of interest. If the association was also in charge of protecting the interests of the members, the association would be in a conflict of interest because the conflict of interest would be – it could very well be that a member maybe had violated in some way something that would be for the public good. If the association had to represent the member, they have to be trying to uphold the public good and at the same time representing the member. That is a serious conflict of interest. So, that conflict of interest is gone.

Public awareness is extremely important. That is the job of the association to help the public understand what social work is about, what the role of social work is, what public policy is. So, being out there in the public as an association, raising public awareness, is extremely important. We now, also, in this new act, have something else removed from the act that used to be there that shows that there is a limit to the public awareness. There is a part of public awareness that is no longer recognized. There was a phrase in the old act which said, that the association should "…communicate and co-operate with other professional organizations for the advancement and best interest of the profession and of the practice of social work." That phrase is now gone from the act, and I think the reason that is gone is that once again, it is to shift away from what is good for the social worker to what is the best for the public. Once again, that is something that is extremely important.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, as I say that, I am sure – and I know social workers were involved and consulted as this was put together – but I am sure, knowing some social workers that I know, that they understand fully what their role is. They definitely understand that they are there for the public good, that they are there for the people that they serve, no matter where those people are. Whether those people are in health institutions, whether those people are children or families that they interact with through Child, Youth and Family Services, no matter where it is that they find the people who they interact with, that the people they interact with, they are number one for social workers. It is a service that is a highly demanding piece of work. To be a social worker takes a lot of energy because there is a lot of emotional energy that goes out when you are working with people. It is the same way for teachers, as I have mentioned. It is the same way for nurses.

When you are interacting with people at a time when they are vulnerable – and that is what happens with social workers, very often, they are interacting with the people when they are in very vulnerable situations, that it does take energy from them. So, social work is a highly demanding profession, a very highly demanding profession, and it is a profession that we cannot underestimate in terms of its impact on people's lives. So having people who are qualified, and having people who have to stand up to a high standard is extremely important for the protection of the people in our society.

When it comes to advocacy, in the past, associations, a lot of the professional associations did advocate for members, but as I have pointed out in this act it is very clear, it says very clearly that the association shall not undertake individual advocacy for members. It is not there for the members. That means, for example, if there was anything about working conditions that the association would be allowed to deal with, it would have to be done in the light of what serves the public interest best.

So, for example, if we are talking about let's say the working conditions of social workers under Child, Youth and Family Services. Let's say that a social worker has an extra heavy workload, has maybe even a third more of the caseloads that they should have and they are not getting to work with, say it is a child or a youth under protective care. They are not getting to work with that child or youth adequately, not getting to monitor adequately what is happening with that child or youth, not getting to interact with the parent or with the other group that the child may be with - the child could be in the family, or the child could be in a foster home, or the child could be a group home - but the social worker is not getting the time to be able to spend finding out what really is happening to the child because of the social worker's workload and because of administrative work, et cetera. Then, the association could take on the issue of working conditions, not because the working conditions are the working conditions of an individual social worker but because the working conditions are an issue of the very system that the social worker is working in.

So, the association, for example, I would put forward, could speak to the overall workload of social workers inside of CYFS, or inside of an educational system, or inside of a hospital and say we really need to talk with the ministry about what can be done about recognizing that social workers cannot do their work the way it should be done for the good of the public. That is the bottom line. In order for the children, for example, or the families or the people in the hospital to be served adequately there needs to be changes to the working conditions. That would be different from an individual social worker maybe having a problem arise in their workplace maybe with a supervisor and they get into a conflict with a supervisor. That is a working condition issue; however, that working condition issue has nothing to do except for the fact that it impacts the social worker who then might act differently with his or her clients, but that working condition is an internal thing that the social worker is experiencing in her workplace or his workplace. That would be a union issue to deal with. That is not dealing with working conditions that are affecting the good of the public interest.

So the association would be the one to deal with the kind of working conditions that I talked about first. If it is a conflict between the worker in his or her office with, like I said, a supervisor or even another worker, then that becomes an issue for the union. The association can formulate or critique public policy, but only public policy in the public interest and not the interest of the social workers. I think that is extremely important, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is incumbent on the government and on the departments that are relating to social workers to make sure that public policy is there for the good of the public interest, but also make sure that the public policy that the social workers are working under is a policy that allows the social worker to do his or her work for the public interest. So that is why I have a concern.

For example, I have spoken here in the House about social workers who are coming to me about their workload, social workers who are front-line workers in the care and protection of youth and children. These social workers are coming – it is not that they are complaining about their work. They absolutely love their work. The ones I have been speaking to, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind how much they love their work, how much they believe in their work, how much they want to be able to serve the people whom they serve well. There is no doubt in my mind that is what they want. What they are coming to me and saying is: We cannot do the work the way we want to do it.

There is one person, for example, and she is not the only one, that I spoke to one night – 9:00 o'clock at night. At 9:00 o'clock at night she was in her office and she was doing the administrative work that is required of her as a social worker – 9:00 at night – not because she does not know how to do her work, not because she does not know how to organize her time, but because if she really tries to do the work with people that she is working with, and she is in protective care of children and youth, that if she tries to do her job to the best of her ability with those children, or with those families, or with those youth, then she cannot, at the same time during the day, do her administrative work. So, she is doing work that she is not going to get overtime for, she is not going to get more money for, doing her administrative work at a time when she would not be doing the work with the children or with the families, or whatever, whom she is working with.

I have spoken to others who are in the same boat, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that it is a serious issue. I noticed recently this week, that the Newfoundland Association of Public and Private Employees, whom we know as NAPE, they have come out because they, of course, are one of the two unions that organize social workers. They have come out and talked about the need for more social workers, especially in CYFS, Child, Youth and Family Services, because the workload for their members is so heavy. This, to me, is both an issue for the association and it is an issue for the unions because it is not the fact that an individual has had a problem.

Mr. Speaker, it is getting just a little bit too loud for me, please. I am stopping to be able to hear myself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member speak.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot remember where I was. I was talking about the social workers - oh yes, their workload.

As I said, they do not have to work in the nighttime doing the administrative work because they do not know how to organize their time. It is because if they put the public interest first, as they should, then they cannot do the administrative work until later. That is why the union has now come out and said that they are concerned about the workload of the social workers, that there definitely are more workers needed in the system of Child, Youth and Family Services.

I am going to connect this act with the act that we just did second reading on here in this House, and that is the Act Respecting the Protection and Care of Children and Youth, that in order to do their job they need more people because the work that they do, you cannot put timelines on it sometimes. You cannot say that you can see so many children a day, or you can see so many families a day because of the types of issues that they come up with. The issue of people's lives sometimes demand, or depending on the situation, a lot of time for the social worker to have to be with a child or with a family. You cannot leave them. You cannot say: oh, I have to go now because I have to do some administrative work. You cannot do that.

I am really concerned to see what is going to happen with regard to the structuring in CYFS with regard to the work of social workers. I firmly believe that there will have to be more positions put in place if they are to do their work. So while the association will deal with the public policy and the union deal with the working conditions, there is also a public policy side to the fact that because of what the social workers have to do, because of the breadth of their work, there is a real impact if the public policy does not recognize the need for the social workers to be able to perform their duty as social workers.

This is extremely important, Mr. Speaker. I cannot speak too strongly about the importance of recognizing what needs to be in place for the good of the social worker, so that the social worker can do his or her work well for the public. That is the bottom line. That is why the association would still have a role to play and something to say about the policy of government with regard to the capacity of social workers in the system.

The act, of course, has a lot of things in it which are things that are functional, which are things that are administrative. The minister went through all of that, and I am not going to go through that. I do not think that I need to. I would like to talk about the whole thing of the board of directors. The act as we have it - in section 10 of the act, the act outlines who should be on the board. Not who, in terms of what persons, but the numbers and the roles of people on the board of directors. So, before in the old act it was in a more general way, just in terms of numbers, and there were some appointments by government but not as many as in the new act.

In the new act it details that the board shall have a president, that the board shall have a president-elect, that the immediate past president is also on the board, that seven persons shall be appointed directors of the board, and the association is in charge of those seven directors, but there are also four persons appointed by the minister. Now, all of the other associations, professional associations, also have that, Mr. Speaker, and the minister shall appoint as members of the board four persons who are not members of the association, who are suitable to represent the public interest.

Now that is extremely important, that the members who are appointed to the board are not there to protect the government, or are not there to protect the interests of the ministry, or are not there to protect the interests of one of the regional health authorities or the Child, Youth and Family Services. It is very important that the four who are appointed by government are there to represent the public interest, and that is going to put, I think, an extremely important responsibility on the shoulders of whichever minister or whichever person is in charge of putting people on the board of the association - I guess it would be the Minister of Heath and Community Services, who presented this bill - that this association is accountable under the Ministry of Health and Community Services.

I think it is extremely important that the minister, in appointing people to be on the board, should really look broadly to make sure that the persons who are on that board, I think, have to be connected to the community. They have to understand how the systems work, but they need to be there from the community. I do not think they should be people plucked out of a government office. You know, somebody in a government office can obviously be there and say, I am protecting the public interest, but I think it would be good to have people from the community, from the public. Their role is to protect the public, their role is to be there representing the public interest, and therefore I think they need to be seriously looking at who they should have on it. I know that the legislation would not go into detail, but I think a lot of thought will have to go into: What would the criteria be for the four people that government is going to appoint? What would be the process? How would the selection happen? Who is it that the minister would be going to for advice with regard to who should be selected to be on the board? It is a very serious thing to look at, and that is the makeup of the board.

We do not have the terms of office in the act, but we do have maximum limits set in the statute, and I think that is important. So you could have people through the bylaws who could be on the board for less than the time that is designated in the act, but you cannot have them for more than the time. I think it is important that there is a maximum limit, because you do have to have changeover. You have to have new blood coming in, and that is extremely important.

Right now, the government will be appointing four of the fourteen members of the board. Before, there was just one government appointee. I think the importance of having four members of the fourteen being appointed by government would be getting a breadth of experience from people in the community to represent that public interest; looking in the community and seeing: well, who are the groups in our society - I do not mean organizations; I mean groups of people in our society - who most have to interact with social workers? What groups, maybe, should be represented on this board?

For example, we have a big change going on in our Province right now with regard to having a much more multicultural community than we are used to having, especially in urban centres and especially in St. John's, I guess. This would be the role of the minister. Maybe if the public interest is going to be served, we need to have somebody representing somebody from the multicultural community who is a minority group. Maybe it is the role of government to say it would really be for the public interest if we have an Aboriginal person on the board. Maybe it is in the public interest for the minister to say maybe we should have somebody from the gay, lesbian, bisexual community on the board.

I think it is very good that government will now have four appointees, but it will be good to the degree that government uses those four positions to look at the breadth of what is the public interest that needs to be served by the board of the association.

I think, Mr. Speaker, I have raised most of the points that I would want to raise. There is nothing in this act that is something I could say should not be in the act. The act obviously is an act that is based on the professional act model that we have had. It covers, as the minister pointed out, all of the things that such an act should cover. I do not need to go through all of that again, but just very briefly to say that obviously it has to cover the whole issue of discipline, and you have a whole structure set up for that. You have to have a structure set up for fees, for the registrar for annual reports. All of that is done. All of that is in place. You have to have an adjudication tribunal because, obviously, if there has to be a disciplinary action then you have to have a tribunal who is going to hold hearings, and that is called now an adjudication tribunal.

The act is comprehensive. I will be happy to vote for this act, but the one thing I do say to the minister, and I know it is not in the act, but I would be interested in hearing his thoughts on what the role of government is with regard to the four appointees, in terms of the appointees on the board having to represent the public interest. I put out what I thought about that, and I would be interested in hearing what the minister thinks about that, because I think it is an extremely important piece. It is not something that is in the legislation, I know, but it is something that will be spelled out afterwards. As I have just said, I will be looking forward to hearing what the minister's perspective is on those four positions.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I think I will close my part of the debate.

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

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

I just want to take a few moments this afternoon - I know there is not a lot of time left this afternoon - to make a few comments with regard to Bill 20, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work.

Mr. Speaker, I guess it was today that we put through the Committee stages Bill 1, An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth. I think probably every speaker who took part in that particular debate recognized the tremendous work that the social workers here in our Province do, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the children and the youth of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, I guess, incorporates new discipline procedures in governance arrangements and is consistent with other regular adopted status regarding health care professionals. Mr. Speaker, really what this piece of legislation does, essentially this legislation is lining up all of the regulated professionals with the same procedural structures, and the social workers, I guess, are among the last to be regulated. I know through the Department of Government Services, over the past couple of sittings of the House of Assembly, various pieces of legislation came forward dealing with other professionals. Mr. Speaker, I guess the social workers are no exception here in this Province. They play a major part.

I have to say that under section 5, when we reference the objects of the association, "The association shall act in the public interest and the objects of the association are to (a) establish and maintain standards of professional conduct, knowledge and skill among its members and to ensure to the general public the proficiency and competency of the practice of social work in the province and to serve and protect the public interest".

Mr. Speaker, the group of individuals, professionals that we talk about today, I can assure you down through the last several years, having to deal with them, and other people in the various fields, we know the tremendous job that they have. It is not an easy job. All too often we have to deal with issues with regard to the protection of children and youth. Under this act, we see now the protection that will be put forward. The objectives here are to see that takes place on a more protected basis.

Mr. Speaker, many times you have to deal with social workers in various fields. In the past, I know we are talking about children and youth in the bill that we put forward. Many times there are incidents that happen when you are dealing with constituents – and I am sure we have all had that placed upon us – that you deal with social workers, social workers who are in the hospitals. Many times you have to deal with them, whether it is in regard to a loved one who is there that has to be moved from the hospital to an institution, whether it be a personal care home, whether it be a facility such as Escasoni, or the Interfaith Home like we have in our area of the Province. Mr. Speaker, many times the work that they do, they have to deal with the families, and all too often the situations are very difficult.

The other thing under the objectives, Mr. Speaker, is to "promote, increase and improve the knowledge, skill, efficiency and proficiency of its members in all matters relating to the profession and practice of social work in the province; (c) regulate the practice of social work in the province and to govern the profession according to this Act". Mr. Speaker, I have to say that those people, this act will protect them, as compared to probably some sections in the other association.

Mr. Speaker, under section 7 we see the association membership, where it talks about "The members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers on the commencement of this Act are continued as members…" It goes on to say that other people, other individuals who probably do not have the final degree, as the hon. member for the Third Party mentioned, they are given the opportunity to also be able to be registered.

Another important component here is the composition of the board. I know, Mr. Speaker, that the board consists of, as it says: a president; a president-elect; the immediate past-president; and seven persons who shall be directors of the board. It also states that: four persons appointed by the minister as outlined under section 12.

Mr. Speaker, under section 12 it states: "The minister shall appoint as members of the board 4 persons who are not members of the association who are suitable to represent the public interest." I guess that is also very important to have other people take part on the board in conjunction with the social workers because many times the issues that are brought forward, some of the comments that they hear in the general public may not be knowledge that the social workers would have at any given time. Mr. Speaker, those people: A person appointed under subsection (1) should hold the office for a term of three years. So those people with a three-year term can be reappointed for a period of nine consecutive years.

Mr. Speaker, those individuals would be very knowledgeable people. They would have the interest of the public at hand and to be able to bring the issues forward. I know many times when there are appointments made, that it is probably done - rather than all of them moved from the position at the one time, they would be staggered. In other words, probably three come on one year and three the next year, but there always would be the equal number there, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we know under this act it also outlines that if anything, I guess, should go wrong there is even a contravention of the act. There is a penalty that is put forward, and that comes under Part IV, General: "A person who contravenes this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000…"

Mr. Speaker, those are some of the comments that I just wanted to make here today, but we know, as I stated in the beginning, that this is a very important act. Many times we might want to say who they are and where do they work? Well, those people, Mr. Speaker, play a very important part. They play a very important part as social workers or counsellors, administrators, they develop policy. They also present important issues within our hospitals, our various community organizations and mental health clinics.

Mr. Speaker, seeing the clock has reached the hour of 5:30 p.m., I will take my place and hopefully continue debate at a later date.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, either by leave we can continue debate now or we can lay down a motion and return at 7:00 p.m. It is up to the Opposition, with leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker is asking if there is leave to have the clock stopped to continue debate on this particular bill.

MS BURKE: Or we will come back at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Or come back at 7:00 p.m.

Does the hon. minister have leave to stop the clock?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

Does the hon. the member want to continue with his – he adjourned the debate; I will offer the member an opportunity to conclude.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, it is okay; I will continue later on.

MR. SPEAKER: It is my understanding that this would be the end of second reading, I say to the hon. member.

MR. BUTLER: (Inaudible) seven.

MR. SPEAKER: Or we will return at 7:00.

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, we will stop the clock?

MR. BUTLER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Further commentary on Bill 20?

If the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services speaks now he will conclude the debate in second reading of Bill 20, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the members opposite for their comments. I will address the issue raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and I will indicate to her that we certainly take into account various aspects of individuals and the communities they come from. We apply a rural lens, a gender lens in appointments to boards, Mr. Speaker, and we would do the same here.

In terms of how the members will be brought to the attention of the government, sometimes, Mr. Speaker, the association themselves will write in with recommendations of names they want on the board. In terms of the public then, Mr. Speaker, sometimes the public will write me an e-mail or a letter and say: I would like to act on that board. Sometimes, recommendations will come in from other members.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no set way as to how members are appointed to the boards. It simply says in section 12 that, "The minister shall appoint as members of the board 4 persons who are not members of the association who are suitable to represent the public interest." The public interest, Mr. Speaker, would again be the paramount concern that we would look at the kinds of individuals who we would have on the board. Oftentimes, as I indicated earlier, we look for people who possess common sense and are practical, who have life experience and who are willing to volunteer their time. Oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, or most times, these are not paid positions. So, if the criteria are outlined and that is the only criteria that are suitable to represent the public interest, then that are the criteria that we apply.

So, Mr. Speaker, those would be my comments. Again, I thank the members for their comments.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 20, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 20 has now been read a second time.

When shall Bill 20 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 20)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier, that the House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

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

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