June 18, 2012                     HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                    Vol. XLVII No. 49


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we start today, I want to acknowledge some special guests in our galleries this afternoon. We have fifty-five Grade 3 students from St. Matthews Elementary in the District of St. John's West. The students are accompanied by their teachers, Ms Nancy Ryan, Ms Danielle Bishop, and Madame Lillian Regular.

Welcome to our House. We hope you enjoy your visit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We are also very pleased to have in our gallery this afternoon, members of the Canadian Peacekeepers Association of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Welcome to our gallery.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements for the District of Harbour Main, by leave; the District of The Straits – White Bay North; the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the District of St. John's East; the District of St. John's South; and the District of Humber Valley.

The hon. the Member for the District of Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to a musician, an icon, who made a huge cultural contribution to our Province throughout his life, Mr. Wilf Doyle, who passed away Friday, June 8.

Born in 1925, Wilf began playing at barn dances at a very early age. By nineteen he had already formed his first band, and soon after did begin to tour the Province with a full orchestra. The ambition he showed as a musician extended into his professional exploits, as he would study electronics and eventually build his own recording studio where he recorded his own unique brand of traditional Newfoundland music.

Through the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s he played regularly on VOCM, performed in television productions, formed the St. Anne's Dancers, played nineteen different instruments, and recorded eleven albums. Wilf's many achievements were officially recognized by the Newfoundland and Labrador Folk Festival in 2007 through a Lifetime Achievement Award for his influence on the music of the Province.

He was a great, generous, gregarious man, and I am very proud that this music legend was a constituent of mine. I ask the hon. members to join me in applauding his achievements, and extending our respects to his family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to congratulate the organizers of this year's Iceberg Festival, which wrapped up yesterday in my district of The Straits – White Bay North.

The festival ran from June 8 through June 17 and I am happy to report there were plenty of icebergs on hand for visitors to admire. The Iceberg Festival is a perfect celebration of the vast beauty of the district.

Mr. Larry Daley started the festival with stories, artifacts and videos of the Titanic. Events this year included iceberg, whale and seabird tours, tours of jam processing facilities, geo-caching, family days, concerts and more. From dances to concerts, from mummers to Vikings and from pottery to felt making, each day of the festival had something for everyone.

From the opening evening to the closing celebrations this weekend at Norstead Viking Village, the Iceberg Festival was an event to enjoy, more than worthy of our support and marketing efforts in future years.

Thanks to the committee members: Chair Paul Alcock, Loretta Burden, Theresa Burden, Natasha Hynes, Kerr Knudsen, Desmond McDonald Jr., Andrew Mayers, Glenda Noble, and Cynthia Randell. Their months of hard work paid off in a spectacular fashion.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate everyone at Virginia Park Elementary, a school in my District of Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi which is just celebrating the close of its thirty-fifth school year.

Virginia Park Elementary is very much a neighbourhood school with an active school council and diligent parent volunteers. The school also encourages 190 students to volunteer – and they do – for peer mediation, serving hot lunches, and collecting recyclables on a regular basis.

Involvement with the community is also a priority for Principal Lorraine Williams and her staff. There is an in-school mentoring program, operated by Big Brothers Big Sisters in collaboration with the school district. The Grade 6 class participates in Roots of Empathy and the Grade 5's visit the Hoyles-Escasoni Complex.

Virginia Park Elementary has a full academic program, including Intensive Core French and band. Extra-curricular activities include a truly lovely choir and the Virginia Vaulters, which for twenty-five years has given students the opportunity to perfect gymnastics skills and perform a fast-paced forty-five-minute show, coached by Mr. Tim Facey.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Virginia Park Elementary community on thirty-five years of exemplary operations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Holy Heart Highlanders Boys' Senior Basketball Team. While the school itself is not in St. John's East, many of the team members live there.

The boys had an absolutely stellar year, with a win-loss record of 46 and 1. They won every tournament that they entered: the Holy Heart Invitational, the Hall of Fame Cup – Elite 8, the O'Donel High Invitational, and the Regional Qualifiers. The Highlanders, for the second year in a row, were the AAAA Champions and the proud winners of the City Shield for the St. John's area championship. They then travelled to Alberta to compete in the Notre Dame Invitational Tournament.

The coaches of the team are: Blair White, Matt Bruce, and Sean Wickens. The results of the time and energy that they gave to the team are obvious.

The Highlanders themselves are: Mikie Allan, Marco Brauers, Ryan Burt, Ben Collingwood, Tyler Evans, Terry Griffin, RJ Hutchings, Jacob Hynes, Carter Mackey, Mattie Murphy, and Eugene Walsh.

I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Holy Heart Highlanders Boys' Senior Basketball Team for an outstanding year.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had the pleasure of attending the Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association annual banquet where several of their members were the recipients of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal.

The Canadian Peacekeepers from the Newfoundland and Labrador branch who were honoured are: Jesse Wilkins Sr., who is their president; Frank Legge; Selby Luffman; Gary Best, their past president; William Fudge; Rose Auchinleck; Harold Pye; Charles Hapgood; and Frank Denine.

Mr. Speaker, while Peacekeepers were not sent into active combat, they often found themselves in the middle of conflict trying to bring about a peaceful resolution to both sides. Oftentimes Peacekeepers were put in harm's way to promote peace.

It is this service to Canadians and to the world in their role of promoting peace that has earned these individuals the recognition of receiving the Diamond Jubilee Medals.

I ask all members to recognize these nine individuals and all Canadian Peacekeepers. They are the reason Canada has such a good reputation on the international stage as world Peacekeepers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this House today to congratulate the Gracia Cheer Force cheerleading team from Deer Lake on their recent provincial gold medal victory. This team of ladies led by coaches Julia Williams and Shania Caravan travelled to St. John's last month and walked away with the level one competition title.

Mr. Speaker, this was the very first competition for this group of ladies who are all fourteen years old or younger. Not only did they walk away with the prize banner, but they also received the Spirit Award for being the friendliest and most approachable smiley team in the whole competition.

One squad member received the Most Valuable Player award. This young lady was named Laura Janes. The remaining team members included: Chloe Alexander, Rhianna Bennett, Kaitlyn Collier, Janica Curlew, Desirae Drake, Alyssa Gilley, Tianna Healey, Chelsea Hiscock, Hunter Laite, Heather Legge, Abby Manuel, Shalyn O'Keefe, Evelyn Reid, and Madison White.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members in this hon. House today to join me in extending congratulations to the Gracia Cheer Force from Deer Lake. It is through athletic events such as this that lifelong memories are created for our youth.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to acknowledge the work of Let Them Be Kids, a volunteer non-profit organization that helps build playgrounds, skate parks, and fitness parks in communities throughout Canada. This initiative provides safe opportunities for children to play and increases community participation, volunteerism, and community projects.

Since 2006, the Let Them Be Kids program has helped many communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, seven of the thirty projects awarded so far this year are in this Province. Ian Hill, Chief Executive Officer of Let Them Be Kids, has told us that this is a direct result of the commitment our residents have to children and communities.

Mr. Hill is well-known for his dedication to positive change nationally and internationally, winning numerous awards, including Humanitarian of the Year and Child Advocate of the Year. Mr. Hill and his wife, Gina Lopez Hill, started the Let Them Be Kids program over a decade ago after helping homeless children in their community.

This Saturday, the Hill family will be in Twillingate to launch a documentary that celebrates the building of playgrounds in five Canadian communities, including Twillingate. Ms Lopez Hill was director and editor of the film that features local musicians and residents.

Many players from both the public and private sectors are needed to sustain the recreation and sport system in Newfoundland and Labrador. I appreciate the work of organizations such as Let Them Be Kids that are helping create a healthy, active population, starting with our younger generation. Their work complements the goals of the provincial recreation and sports strategy, Active, Healthy Newfoundland and Labrador, which includes increasing involvement and participation in recreation, sport, and physical activity. Since the launch of this strategy, the provincial government has committed more than $70 million to recreational and sport infrastructure, programming, and athlete development throughout the Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy. As you look over the reasons why they started this program, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more worthy than noticing that they started it because of homelessness in their own community. What better spirit than seeing something that is needed in your own community because of people less fortunate, starting the program, and expanding it all throughout Canada, Mr. Speaker. It is worthwhile for Mr. Hill and his wife, Gina. As mentioned by the minister, he won two awards, Humanitarian of the Year and Child Advocate of the Year. It shows his dedication is being recognized all throughout Canada, Mr. Speaker.

As we said, in a Memorial University study, one in four kids in Newfoundland and Labrador are overweight, so anything that we can do in this Province to promote healthy living and play activity, Mr. Speaker, I think is great for Newfoundland and Labrador. We also must congratulate all the volunteers who keep the program running once the facilities are built and all the community leaders that help out in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So I just want to thank the minister. Once again, we have another opportunity to promote Newfoundland and Labrador in Twillingate this weekend, which I am sure is going to be a great exercise and a great promotion for all Newfoundland and Labrador. I congratulate the government for helping in recreation throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, because the more kids that we can help out in Newfoundland and Labrador at a young age is going to be an investment for the future, better individuals, and less on our health care.

So, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: I too thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Congratulations to Ian Hill and Gina Lopez Hill for their incredible work in Let Them Be Kids, and congratulations to the volunteers in seven communities in this Province whose projects were selected. Volunteers in small communities have always been important for obtaining essential services. These groups have worked so hard at organizing and fundraising to get basic playground facilities in their communities.

The provincial recreation and sport strategy calls on volunteers to help achieve its goals, but in many communities now, it is harder to find enough people with the time and resources to create and maintain such services. In this time of prosperity, we need more funding for the recreation and sport strategy to create and upgrade facilities across the Province. Yes, let them be kids, but also let us ensure we provide the resources needed for that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in 2006, this provincial government embarked upon an initiative to review the regulatory environment in this Province in an effort to reduce red tape and simplify and improve the ways in which businesses and the general public interacts with government.

The original goal of the provincial Red Tape Reduction initiative was a 25 per cent reduction in red tape. Mr. Speaker, this goal was surpassed within a three-year time frame, and the provincial government continues to achieve its objective of no net growth in the new number of regulatory requirements.

In fact, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in their recent annual report, placed Newfoundland and Labrador second only to British Columbia in the area of red tape reduction. They noted in particular our success with the three-year initiative and our public reporting of regulatory reform measurements since 2006 as areas of strength.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of regulatory improvements which have been implemented recently which have contributed to the reduction of red tape for the people of this Province. The new Fire Protection Services Act, which was passed into law this session, modernizes and consolidates older legislation, thereby reducing red tape and providing for improved fire safety for the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. Also, the new Mines Safety Regulations, which have been consolidated as part of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, significantly modernized the regulations and brought them in line with current mining practices.

Mr. Speaker, in April of 2011, the Municipalities Act and the Urban and Rural Planning Act were amended. The Department of Municipal Affairs made changes which allow six of the larger municipalities in the Province with the ability to enforce property-related bylaws through ticketing. This significantly reduces the regulatory requirements on municipalities when engaged in enforcing their municipal bylaws, and this project is still underway, Mr. Speaker.

Our government continues to strive for regulatory reform in all areas and that is why the Regulatory Reform Office of Service NL is leading an effort to put in place an accountability framework which no other Canadian jurisdiction currently has in place. The framework puts additional structure around our initiative and imposes additional requirements in terms of reporting on activities, both internally and externally.

Mr. Speaker, while we look back at our successes in regulatory reform, we must continue to look ahead, and ensure that we are working to make processes and procedures simpler for the people of the Province. Regulatory reform, as international experience shows, is a cultural shift in how governments develop new regulations and policies. It is not something that can be successfully implemented solely in the short term rather, it takes a long term commitment. This commitment is what our government has clearly made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Updates on regulatory frame efforts, it seems is regular for ministerial statements. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed commendable to reduce red tape for businesses and people in the Province. Red tape is a burden that hurts small business owners. They lose hours on the phone with government agencies. They have to comply with confusing and arbitrary rules. All this makes it more time consuming and costly to run their businesses.

In the regular updates that we get, Mr. Speaker, in red tape reduction, government has yet to state how this red tape is measured so that its reduction can be quantified precisely and what regulatory requirements have been abolished along the way. With the passage of the new Bill 29 it will certainly be harder and harder to get this sort of information.

I urge the government to continue to reduce red tape, but I also encourage them to become more open and accountable about how this is achieved.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

It is good to see the initiatives introduced, but while government has made advances in its program of reducing red tape we would certainly like to see an analysis of how they arrived at those conclusions. We hope that this new accountability framework will help get rid of more red tape. We hope it is not a case of adding more red tape to an effort to reduce it, case in point. I could not help but notice a line in the minister's statement that says, "The framework puts additional structure around our initiative and imposes additional requirements in terms of reporting on activities, both internally and externally." Mr. Speaker, their own initiative talks about adding additional framework around their regulatory reform efforts, and that sounds like just adding more red tape to the effort in reducing red tape.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The passage of Bill 29 through the House last week leaves many questions. One question of course is, why? Why would government be pushing this through now? Some people have suggested it has to do with Muskrat Falls.

I ask the Premier: Will Bill 29 be proclaimed before the special debate on Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is no great mystery about who the some people are who are suggesting – the members of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you and tell the members of the Opposition and the people of this Province that more information has been disclosed on Muskrat Falls than any other development in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, and more to come.

We are interested in everybody knowing as much as can possibly be disclosed around this project, Mr. Speaker. That has been our practice since day one, Mr. Speaker, and it will continue to be so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have not seen this much government money spent on a project like this either.

The question was, and I did not hear the answer by the way: Will Bill 29 be proclaimed before debate on Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It most probably will, Mr. Speaker, because it is not the objective of Bill 29 to keep information that should be available to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador away from them, despite the assertions from people opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A key amendment in Bill 29 was the removal of the substantive test to determine what constitutes a Cabinet record. This was not recommended by Mr. Cummings.

I ask the Premier: Why did you go against your own consultant's recommendations and extend the reach of Cabinet secrecy?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, it was considered that the previous tests for Cabinet records being the substance of deliberations was confusing, not clear, resulted in a lot of documentation being severed, and information severed and redacted. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of including all the Cabinet records that were included in the information of managements act sets a specificity to that, it specifies the documents that are Cabinet records. It puts clarity into a situation, Mr. Speaker, that was a little bit unclear before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: The whole idea between the substantive tests was exactly to do that, to provide clarity.

Mr. Speaker, with Bill 29 government is making it more restrictive and expensive to access information. For example, a request to get a number of thirteen-week contracts in a department that would have cost just over $4,000 will now cost almost $7,000 under this new legislation.

I ask the Premier: Why are you making it more expensive for people to access this information?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, we have made some very positive changes to this piece of legislation with regard to fees. The $5 application fee stays in effect. Where there were two hours of free investigation before, now that extends to four; so, people who make application now for information have the first four hours free. The overall cost beyond that is very much consistent with the other provinces across Canada. Mr. Speaker, with regard to personal requests, this government has always taken into account positions of hardship or people who cannot afford the fees. We will continue to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: It is very easy to say that the application fee at $5 has not changed. The fact is though that overall the cost will rise and we have that demonstrated right here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a month ago, after a series of cuts announced by the federal government to our Province, the Premier stated that she had requested a meeting with the Prime Minister. This meeting between the Premier and Prime Minister is urgent, but to date we have not heard a thing.

I ask the Premier: Has this meeting been confirmed, and if so, when will it happen and what issues are being discussed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the date has not been set yet. Between the Prime Minister's schedule and mine there are some challenges in doing that, but we expect to hear something very soon as to the date. Mr. Speaker, the agenda will include items that are important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week government announced new appointments to the Board of Nalcor, including the Chair. This morning, CBC quoted Richard Powers, who heads the governance program at the Rotman School of Management and is a national expert on governance. He questioned the rationale of these appointments.

I ask the Premier: What process did you use in the search to select the appointees at Nalcor?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the CBC and experts from Toronto, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are quite capable to determine who manages their affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of Chairs in the seat at Nalcor, on the board of Nalcor over the last number of years. I named Dean MacDonald for one, Danny Dumaresque for another, John Ottenheimer, and now we have a new appointee. These are all people who have a broad expertise in a number of things, Mr. Speaker, a broad experience and a deep commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador, and we were glad to have them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Thank you.

Well, I am sure the Premier knows that Newfoundland Hydro and Nalcor are two separate, different entities. Obviously our energy corporation right now is seen to be a very powerful company. Besides the multi-billion-dollar Muskrat Falls Project, Nalcor is embarking on an ambitious program of oil and gas exploration, as well as many other initiatives, yet these appointments have no experience in Nalcor's business lines of management or financing of multi-billion-dollar corporations.

The question is: What possible skills and experience were you looking for from those people so they could assist the management team at Nalcor?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that I find this line of questioning offensive. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition aspires to be Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, as did his House Leader, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair. What broad experience do they have in life to bring them to this post?

Mr. Speaker, I lived in community. I was a social worker. I contributed, Mr. Speaker, as did all of the people who now sit on the board of Nalcor. Why would anybody cast aspersions on me and question my ability to be Premier, or yours, or yours, or yours, Mr. Speaker? We are ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we know how to serve the people of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BALL: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Premier this is not about the individuals. What we are talking about is the experience –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: – and what they can actually bring to the board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BALL: These are good people who make contributions in their communities, but what we need is experience at Nalcor. That is the reason why we are asking the question.

Mr. Speaker, the contract for all ambulance services for the Province expired on March 31. There has been a preliminary meeting with the Department of Health but nothing with Treasury Board. Official negotiations have not yet started.

I ask the minister: When is she finally going to get around to starting a new contract for all ambulance providers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, providing a contract for ambulance employers is certainly something that is very important for ambulance operators. It is very important to us. What we have been doing is some preliminary work in terms of trying to get a handle on the issues and concerns out there. Over the last four months, my department officials have actually been meeting with the operators to try to have that sense and get the determination of what their concerns and issues are.

Mr. Speaker, the last time there were negotiations, they negotiated under one umbrella. What we are learning now is that they would prefer to negotiate individually. So we are having some discussion with them around that issue as well, as we head into the actual negotiations themselves to see how we can best help to facilitate that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to save almost $80 million, DFO made cuts to services and staff, and our Province have been particularly hard hit. Incredibly, federal Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield revealed in the media earlier this month that he is not ruling out further cuts to his department.

Last week the minister met with his federal counterpart, and I ask him to provide an update on his meeting. Further, will he table a list of the issues raised, and what commitments and timelines were made by the minister to address each of these?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We were indeed in Ottawa last week; we had multiple meetings. Unfortunately, the face-to-face with Minister Ashfield did not go ahead because of filibustering in the House. I can certainly report that we met through Thursday and Friday and we raised a number of issues – the DFO cuts were obviously one of them. We talked at length in particular about the seal hunt.

As members may not be aware, there was a debate in the Senate – and we attended that – on a private member's motion today by a Liberal senator to do away with the seal hunt in Newfoundland and Labrador. We took an opportunity on that particular item in particular to impress upon a number of senators the importance of making sure that we defeat that motion and reminding them, as we have done on a number of occasions, of the importance of that hunt to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Preview Report dated January 12, 2010 estimated that the five kilometres Parsons Pond Road to the Darcy drill site would cost $600,000; however, the final cost went into the millions.

Can the minister advise how much more it will now cost taxpayers to destroy this road?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, first of all I will say, no, the road will not be staying. No, we are taking the road, it has to be removed, and that is based on decisions from lobbying from people like the member opposite who stood in this House and said to me over and over again how concerned he was. How concerned he was about the number of moose in the area. How concerned he was about the number of caribou in the area, Mr. Speaker. We know from our collared data that caribou do hang around that area of our country and it is in the name of conservation, Mr. Speaker, is the reason that we are having that road decommissioned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, there is a move underway to immortalize the minister by naming the destroyed road, French's Folly.

Can the minister confirm that the closest outfitter to the road is over ten kilometres away, that they are the only ones pressuring the minister to destroy the road, and that they are the largest PC donor on the Great Northern Peninsula, and that is the real reason he wants to destroy the road.

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

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure where the hon. member is going with all this. I have no idea where the outfitter is in the area. I know there is one in the area but how far it is from the area – I have no idea how much money he has given to any political party, none whatsoever. I have never asked, I have never researched it, and have no idea, Mr. Speaker. This has absolutely nothing to do with political politics or political donations or anything of the sort, Mr. Speaker. This has everything to do with conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The RFP for long-term freight service to the North Coast of Labrador will be reissued. The minister has indicated that proposals received were interesting but we need to go further.

I ask the minister: What was missing in the five proposals received under the RFP to cause the RFP to be reissued?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the hon. member on the other side, basically as a government we are trying to make sure that what we provide for the North Coast will be more than adequate. We looked at the five proposals and went down through them. It is in the best interests of all if we go forward now with a more focused RFP to get the boat, the service, that we need for that particular coast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Residents of the North Coast of Labrador have been asking for a roll-on, roll-off freight and passenger service as a long time solution for service.

I ask the minister: Did any of the proposals received include a roll-on, roll-off vessel, and when can we see the re-tendering process?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These proposals came in, there were five proposals that were entered in and they were from one company. Of course the information that is contained in that right now, Mr. Speaker, we need to set aside as we go out for the next RFP that will perhaps address what the member has just brought to our attention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, when asked in the House last week about the entitlement of college employees in Qatar to the end of service gratuity, the minister stated no more giveaways, that government is protecting the people of the Province in their fight in Qatar.

I ask the minister: Many of these employees are people of the Province who are entitled to this money. Why are you calling this issue as employees receiving giveaways, when in fact, government is effectively giving away money to fight what is owed to the people of this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear that we are not fighting Qatar. We are in negotiations right now to renew a contract with the State of Qatar so we can continue to offer advanced education services through the College of the North Atlantic.

We have employment contracts in place now that indicate there is no end of service gratuity, based on the contract that we have signed with the workers, Mr. Speaker. We are seeking clarification on that, but on a go-forward basis, Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that when we enter into a contract with Qatar that it looks after the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is our focus, any contract with any department, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we certainly want to keep in mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the State of Qatar pays the College of the North Atlantic a 25 per cent fringe benefits payment for disbursement to employees to cover such things as CPP and EI; however, hundreds working in Qatar are non-resident Canadians, meaning they are not paying into CPP and EI.

I ask the minister: Can you confirm the college is withholding a portion of the fringe benefits payment meant for employees, and instead claiming this as profit?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, what I can confirm is that based on the contracts that we have signed with workers – or the college has signed with workers – we are living up to our signed contracts, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we understand the Premier and her staff, and not the Minister of Advanced Education, will be attending the graduation of students at the college in Qatar in late June, which coincides with a meeting of the college's joint oversight board.

I would ask the Premier: Will you be meeting with the joint oversight board to address the end of service gratuity issue, as well the future of the college in Qatar?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the joint oversight board plays a very important role to help us regulate, work with, and have that liaison with the State of Qatar so that we work through our contract. Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the hon. member, because the Premier will not be travelling to Qatar this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has been silent on one of the most regressive and repressive pieces of legislation ever introduced to this House, but there has been a public outcry in the Province over Bill 29.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Will she withdraw the obnoxious legislation forced through the House last week?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador was the first Province in this country to introduce legislation on access to information. We were rated number one in the country. The Centre for Law and Democracy does rankings of provinces that have this legislation, Mr. Speaker. Five provinces and the federal government have this legislation. Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador is ranked second in the country, next to BC, on openness and access to information in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

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

I point out to the Premier, that the ranking is going to change once this bill has been declared.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has recognized the Leader of the Third Party.

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

Last week, government forced a vote on their unpopular and regressive amendments to the Province's Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which act was ranked high in this country but not with the amendments that are being made. Government members claimed the amendments to the act made it stronger and more accessible -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: - yet, the amendments raise fees, force people into court to get information, and allow government to claim Cabinet confidentiality for everything, including the kitchen sink.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: How do these measures improve accessibility to those seeking information from government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the Leader of the Third Party through you is wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Mr. Speaker, this is spin coming from the Leader of the Third Party. She says: You have the ranking of second highest in the country before the amendments – no, after the amendments, Mr. Speaker. When your first piece of information is wrong, you can pretty much assume, Mr. Speaker, that the rest of it is wrong as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is telling us that a ranking has been done since 1:30 Friday morning on the new bill – wonderful.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is fond of talking about the good stewardship and good governance her party offers the people of the Province, yet she has appointed to Nalcor's board of directors people national experts say may not be properly qualified. These people take their seats when Nalcor is poised to proceed with the largest, most expensive project in our history.

I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Given the magnitude of the decision regarding whether or not to sanction the Muskrat Falls Project, why did she not work harder to find board members with direct knowledge of complex energy issues?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, might I say, like the Leader of the Third Party, who aspires to be Premier of this Province, everyone in this House who wants to come, have wanted to come, and stood for election to come and serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; who feel qualified to stand in this House every day and comment on energy policy; who have demanded a debate in this House so they can talk about the pros and cons of Muskrat Falls – ordinary people, I suggest, despite your vast experience in certain areas of life, Mr. Speaker; so it is with the Board of Nalcor. As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we all bring something to the table. We all have something to contribute.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: We learned in the media that national experts in the field of corporate governance questioned the qualifications of the Premier's new appointments to Nalcor. They are concerned that the new members may not have the qualifications to be effective in their roles.

Last week, international access to information experts decried government's amendments to our Access to Information and Protection of Privacy legislation, claiming the amendments to be a large leap backwards.

I ask the Premier: Why is her government continuing to fly in the face of best practices and expert advice in their decision making?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me counter with a question of my own: Why is the Leader of the Third Party not standing up for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: We have heard quite a few aspersions from her in the last ten days or so about the character of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, and I for one do not like it very much.

With all due respect to expertise outside of this Province, we know what we are doing here. We got to where we are today by the knowledge, the support, and the business experience of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, of the people who sat in this House and made decisions on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Nalcor is a stellar company. It was devised by this government and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It stands up to any company of its type, not only in the country, but anywhere in the world, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the Harper government says that denying basic health care to refugees will not endanger public health because they can still be treated for infectious diseases. The doctors are saying that if government cuts people off from medical care, we will also cut the most effective means of screening newcomers for diseases such as tuberculosis.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minster of Health and Community Services: What is her department going to do to ensure that refugees continue to have access to health care in the first year of their stay in our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a very important question to us as well; it is something that we are assessing and monitoring. It is also a point of discussion that happened at an FPT recently with deputy ministers, something that we are very concerned about and we are monitoring on a regular basis. We continue to have that discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, despite the need for licensed practical nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador, the College of the North Atlantic has not announced the new intake of LPN students at the Bay St. George Campus in Stephenville.

Can the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills confirm that the LPN program at the Bay St. George Campus has been suspended?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the College of the North Atlantic is contracted to do the licensed practical nurse program. Based on analyses from the Department of Health and Community Services on the labour market outlook, as well as the location of where seats are needed, and in consultation with the College of the North Atlantic, the College of the North Atlantic will determine the number of seats that it can offer in any given year and the specific locations.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, it is not in my purview or my responsibility to decide where and how many seats are offered in each and every program. The college takes in all that information as they do up their academic plan and they will then announce where they are going to be offering the LPN program, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Well, Mr. Speaker, jobs will be lost as a result of this decision. Despite government's assurances that there would be few job losses as a result of this year's Budget, job cuts at the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial University are mounting.

Can the minister advise this House of the number of positions at the college and the university that will be lost this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I assume the hon. member is worried about his position at the university to stand up and ask what is going on at the university.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS BURKE: If he wants job security he should probably go talk to his employer.

Mr. Speaker, the College of the North Atlantic will determine what courses are available based on the needs of the labour market and where they need to offer these courses. Mr. Speaker, the College of the North Atlantic needs to be flexible. We may have had programs that were offered ten years ago, no longer needed today, Mr. Speaker. The College of the North Atlantic needs to be able to do their analysis and determine what programs need to be offered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is a nationally recognized –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: – Supreme Court endorsed harms test which is used to decide if releasing corporate information would harm that corporation. In response to a question on Bill 29 last week, the Minister of Justice said it was not necessary to use that nationally recognized harms test, that government's amended procedure was better. He noted, government's new simpler test was in the interest of the economy and the interest of good business, and now people who want to do business with us have better protection.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice: What about the interests of the people who elected this government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Bill 29 does is in our negotiations with third parties, especially business parties who we are negotiating with for the betterment of the economy of this country, it is necessary. Mr. Cummings recognized this, as did all the other stakeholders. It is necessary to protect certain classes of information.

Mr. Speaker, there is a three-part harms test in the current act. That has been reduced to a one-part harms test because it is going to improve negotiations between this government and third party businesses. Mr. Speaker, it is essential to safeguard that information and part of business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, last week the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation issued their new numbers on housing starts and sales. In Newfoundland and Labrador, the average price for a new single home has doubled since 2004 to $350,000, and the price growth has accelerated faster than income factors. The government in its Blue Book promised a home ownership assistance program.

I ask the Premier: What has been done to establish this program, and when will this program be available to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to housing in this Province, obviously our main priority are those who are most vulnerable in society, those who are without homes, those who are coming from vulnerable situations. When it comes to purchasing of houses and that, we did make a commitment, and a commitment that we will in this term move forward with some sort of a program. We are seven months in and we need to do due diligence to make sure that if we are putting money into this that we are doing what we need to do to help people out there, not just simply throw something in just for the sake of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we proceed with the rest of the day's agenda, I want to respond to a point of order that was raised on June 14 by the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi with respect to comments made by the Member for Carbonear – Harbour Grace during Question Period on June 14. I indicated at the time I wanted to have an opportunity to review Hansard and the video from that day's proceeding. I have reviewed the Broadcast Centre's video of the member's point to ascertain the exact context in which the words were spoken.

Words said and directed to the Speaker may be seen as debate and commentary, although some words even through directed through the Speaker are clearly unacceptable and unparliamentary. Words in and of themselves are not always unparliamentary but must be looked at in the context in which they are stated. Words spoken directly to a member in the House by another member are more likely, though, to be seen as intentional slurs upon the member and, as such, the language becomes unparliamentary.

My review of the video recording revealed that the Member for Carbonear – Harbour Grace commenced his argument by directing his remarks directly to the Speaker. However, in completing his remarks, his argument turned to the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi and directed the comments directly to the member. In that context, the use of the words "how nasty" she really is was directed solely to the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi and not a part of comments directed to the Chair.

I find this direction of comment, coupled with the words used, was an intended slur upon the Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi, and view it as unparliamentary. I ask the Member for Carbonear – Harbour Grace to withdraw his comments.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comment.

MR. SPEAKER: Just as a further commentary to the ruling, it is a real good example of my suggestion repeatedly, that comments in this House be made to the Chair. It is not as personal then. If your comments are part of a debate, debate is supposed to be directed through the Chair.

I would remind members to be guided by the ruling, because it is a real lesson here; all comments as they are directed to the Chair have an ability to focus the attention on the issue at hand and not let the debate become overly personal.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to provide more information to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, a number of routine activities undertaken by the Department of Finance, and in particular, the Budget Division, require tabling in this House of Assembly from time to time. These include something called precommitments. Precommitments are agreements for the payments of money to be made in subsequent fiscal years.

Pursuant to section 26 of the Financial Administration Act, these documents have specific table requirements in the House of Assembly. The section reads, "Where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council" – of course, that is Cabinet – "authorizes an agreement under subsection (4), all relevant documents, including the amount involved and the reasons for the agreement, shall be (a) tabled in the House of Assembly within 3 days of the authorization or where the House of Assembly is not then sitting, on 1 of the 1st 15 days that the House of Assembly is next sitting".

The last precommitments were tabled in this House on May 31. So, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 26, subsection 5 of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling today three orders in council relating to funding precommitments for the fiscal years 2013-2014 to 2015-2016.

One of these, number 150, was issued on June 14, 2012; it was the Department of Natural Resources to facilitate the award of a contract with the Stewart Group Inspection & Analysis Ltd., for the analysis of the Voisey's Bay concentrate samples for the period April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2016. Another one is the Department of Transportation and Works to facilitate the award of a contract to Labrador Marine Inc. for the provision of freight services to the North Coast of Labrador. The third one is the Department of Transportation and Works to provide for the award of various service contracts such as cleaning and snow clearing, et cetera, at public buildings throughout the Province.

So tabled, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand today in this hon. House to table the 2011 annual business report for the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation; the 2011 annual report for the Professional Engineers and Geoscientists, Newfoundland and Labrador; and, as well, the 2011-2014 activity plan for the Public Safety Appeal Board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice under Standing Order 11, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 19, 2012 and further, I give notice under Standing Order 11, Mr. Speaker, that I shall move this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 19, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that the motion that was moved by the Member for St. John's Centre last Monday for the Private Members' Day will be presented this Wednesday, June 20.

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

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The MHA for St. Barbe recently laid on the table, and I quote from the Order Paper, "To ask the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to lay on the table of the House a detailed account of the activities of the Fish Harvesting Safety Association and the Fish Processing Safety Council over the last two years." I rise today in response to that question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the fish harvesting industry is recognized as one of the most dangerous in the world and is one of the most dangerous in Newfoundland and Labrador. The fish harvesting industry captures the inshore and offshore harvesting of sea species, including aquaculture. Currently, there are 3,800 workers in this industry. The number and the rate of injuries can be a reasonable predictor of the level of risk for injury.

In 2011, Mr. Speaker, the lost time incident rate for the fish harvesting sector fell from 2.8 per 100 workers in 2010 to 2.4 in 2011. Between 2007 and 2011 there had been twelve fatalities in the fish harvesting sector. This year, there have been three fatalities in the sector.

Mr. Speaker, the fish processing industry captures the processing of seafood products and the services incidental to fishing such as fishing protection and inspection services. Currently, there 4,200 workers in the industry and the lost time incident rate for the fish processing sector in 2011 was 3.6 per 100 workers, a slight decrease from 3.8 in 2010. Between 2007 and 2011 there were three fatalities in the fish processing sector.

Since December of 2010, the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission and the government have remained committed to working collaboratively with industry leaders in the fish harvesting sector to reduce the risk of injury of workers. This collaborative process can take time to arrive at the established safety sector associations.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, the commission has been active in these industries with prevention initiatives to improve education and awareness of workplace safety. The Workplace, Health Safety and Compensation Commission offers fish harvesters an array of workshops and educational resources to improve safety aboard fishing vessels.

The commission also has a Priority Employer Program which enables employers to receive intensive health and safety services to improve safety performances in their work place. In addition, a new initiative began in 2012 on Starting the Season Strong. It involved focusing on the fishing industry in the Burin area. A team from the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission travelled to the area to meet with fishers and health care providers to hold an information gathering and planning session. This session identified how to start the fishing season healthy, with the ultimate goal of being fewer injuries, more productivity, and healthier people. Follow-up initiatives are underway, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past two years the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission has worked closely with the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board to improve safety certification training for fish harvesters. The collaboration has also resulted in a focus on fire safety aboard small fishing vessels, given the increased frequency of fires over the past number of years.

The commission, and also the certification board, produced a fire prevention guide for fish harvesters which was mailed to all fish harvesters earlier this year. The commission has entered into discussions with Transport Canada, the Occupational Health and Safety Branch of Service NL, to improve safety compliance for small inshore vessels. The agencies are working on a safety campaign to increase the inspection of vessels throughout the summer months, addressing issues regarding emergency response, fire safety, and safe work practices.

It takes time, Mr. Speaker, to engage all stakeholders and industry, and to reach agreement on the development of credible safety sector associations. It involves consultation with industry leaders, representing employers and workers in the industry. Time is required to gain support and sponsorship for the sector council. Garnering support results in a shared vision of industry leaders, incredible goals sufficient to provide effective education -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member his time has expired. If he wants to table the report for the members opposite, then by all means table the document.

Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

WHEREAS with the passage of Bill 29, the Access To Information and Protection of Privacy (Amendment) Act, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has weakened citizens' access to information and has reduced government transparency; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has moved towards greater secrecy and less openness; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is breaking its own commitment for greater transparency, accountability and freedom of information which it said at one time was the hallmark of its government;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to repeal the passage of Bill 29.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present these petitions on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. At a time when a right to information is being strengthened worldwide, we are taking a major step backwards, as has been pointed out to us. I also have received several e-mails from people across the Province and I would just like to read two excerpts from two different e-mails, if I may have leave to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: Provided they are very brief, you can paraphrase.

MS ROGERS: Yes, absolutely, okay.

I am appalled at Bill 29's potential to block Freedom of Information requests, given Stephen Harper's use of a financial budget to change over seventy laws, especially environmental laws. I wonder why this provincial Conservative government is moving in this direction. Why this and why now? Perhaps this particular –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member if she wants to paraphrase, please paraphrase. Please do not read from another document.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

This particular constituent was wondering, does it have anything to do with the upcoming signing of the European trade agreement? She also wants to know, are there agreements that affect our fishery, our resources, and our fresh water? She is wondering about these issues, Mr. Speaker, and she wants to know about the local employment practices.

Then there was another constituent who was wondering about how this will affect freedom of the press. These are concerns that constituents are bringing forth, Mr. Speaker, and they are worried about the effects that this bill will have on our society as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, the other issue is that it seems that the passage of this bill is causing political alienation and undermines –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member her time has expired.

MS ROGERS: Okay, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KENNEDY: I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that I call Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day have been called.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order?

MR. MITCHELMORE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday evening the Minister of Health and Community Services made comments regarding repetitive ATIPP requests for air ambulance service. Her remarks suggested the Member for The Straits – White Bay North had made fourteen such requests.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this would be in an incorrect assumption. In fact, the fourteen requests were not made by myself, the current member of the district, and I am seeking a point of clarification for these remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has made reference to comments made in debate on a previous sitting of the House. I will undertake to review Hansard of that day before I make a comment with respect to the point of order.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 27, 30, 35, and 36.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 27, 30, 35, and 36.

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'.

Motion carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

The Committee of the Whole will be considering four bills – 27, 30, 35, and 36.

We will begin with Bill 27.

A bill, "An Act To Regulate The Personal Services Industry". (Bill 27)

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 21 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 21 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 21 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor in 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 Regulate The Personal Services Industry.

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: We will now debate Bill 30, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act And The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act And The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act". (Bill 30)

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 24 inclusive.

CHAIR: The Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is just a matter of clarification on this particular section of the act of Bill 30 when we are talking about blending the two types of taxes – I guess, for the minister in this case. The information that I have as regards to charities – they will not be affected by this, is that right? I guess you can answer that.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: That is correct. The City of St. John's has agreed to treat them no differently with the changes as they did previous to these amendments. They give the charities that are occupying space a break or a rebate, and they will continue to do it.

CHAIR: The Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

That was the only question I had for that, so we can carry on.

CHAIR: I ask the Clerk to call the clauses again.

CLERK: Clauses 2 to 24 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 through 24 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 24 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor in 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 City Of St. John's Act And The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation 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: We are now debating Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act". (Bill 35)

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 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 Municipal Affairs 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: We are now debating Bill 36, An Act Respecting Regional Service Boards In The Province.

A bill, "An Act Respecting Regional Service Boards In The Province". (Bill 36)

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 50 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 50 inclusive carry?

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: I just have one question for the minister.

Is there any timeline when it is going to be set up for a Western Regional Board to be up and functional for the site itself?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. O'BRIEN: That will be very soon. I have been working on that for awhile and will be announcing the composition of the board within the next week or two.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 50 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 50 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 Regional Services Boards In The Province.

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 Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Committee rise and report the bills we just discussed – report progress.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bills 27, 30, 35, and 36.

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 (Wiseman): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have asked me to report Bills 27, 30, 35, and 36 carried without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bills 27, 30, 35, and 36 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the bills be read a third time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

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

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, Order 2, Bill 27, An Act To Regulate The Personal Services Industry, third reading.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 27, An Act To Regulate The Personal Services Industry, be now read a third time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion and that Bill 27 be read a third time.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Regulate The Personal Services Industry. (Bill 27)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Regulate The Personal Services Industry", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 27)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that Bill 30, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act And The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 30 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act And The City Of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act. (Bill 30).

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The City Of St. John's Act and The City of St. John's Municipal Taxation Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 30)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that Bill 35, An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act, be now read a third time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 35 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act. (Bill 35)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipal Affairs Act", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 35)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that Bill 36, An Act Respecting Regional Service Boards In The Province, be now read a third time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 36 be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting Regional Service Boards In The Province. (Bill 36)

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Regional Service Boards In The Province", read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 36)

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

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, for clarification, can you clarify if Motions 3 and 4 have been moved?

I have the clarification. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, while we are in Orders of the Day, I would like to move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 18, 2012. I also move, pursuant to Standing Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, June 18, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House do not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 18, and it has been further moved that this House do not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock p.m. on Monday, June 18.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper number 9, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act, Bill 33.

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

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, that Bill 33, An Act To Amend the Fatalities Investigations Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act, be now read the second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act". (Bill 33)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in this House of Assembly to open debate and move second reading of Bill 33, An Act to Amend the Fatalities Investigations Act. Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend the Fatalities Investigations Act to provide the legislative framework for the establishment of a Child Death Review Committee to review the facts and the circumstances of child deaths, and in certain circumstances, neonatal and maternal deaths in this Province.

The establishment, Mr. Speaker, of a child death review process in this Province was recommended in the Turner Review and Investigation report. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, recommendation 10.6 proposed "That the Medical Examiner's Office establish and conduct Child Death Reviews, chaired by the Chief Medical Examiner, with multi-disciplinary membership including the Child and Youth Advocate."

Mr. Speaker, a child death review is a process that works to understand child deaths in order to prevent harm to other children. It is a collaborative process and it brings people together from multiple disciplines to share and discuss comprehensive information on the circumstances leading to the death of a child and the response to that death. These reviews, Mr. Speaker, can lead to action, hopefully, to prevent other deaths.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, if there is a child death in this Province, the death and the circumstances leading up to that death may be investigated by any one of three different offices, and each one for a very specific purpose. The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner; his mandate, Mr. Speaker, is to determine the identity of the person, the date of the death, the time and the place of the death, the cause of the death, and the manner of death. That is the mandate of the Chief Medical Examiner.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services may also conduct a review. That mandate would be to conduct an internal review, but that is limited, Mr. Speaker, to the death or serious injury of a child that is in the custody or manager under the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, whose mandate is to protect and advance the rights and interests of children and youth to ensure access to services, to provide information and advice to government, to agencies, and communities about services to children and youth, and review and investigate matters affecting children and youth. So, Mr. Speaker, a child death can be reviewed by any one of those three bodies, all with different focuses.

Child death reviews, Mr. Speaker, have not been the practice in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, while the Turner Review and Investigation was conducted under the Child and Youth Advocate Act, the review itself highlighted a gap in our legislation with respect to conducting a child death review. This proposed legislative framework, Mr. Speaker, to establish a child death review would fill a void and fill this gap in our legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in the past decade, child death review processes have been established in a number of provincial and territorial jurisdictions in Canada, and in municipalities, cities, and States in the United States as well. Initially, these child death review processes began as an effort to better identify child abuse. The current child death review models and processes have expanded, Mr. Speaker, to include a focus on understanding and responding to many other preventable deaths of children.

Mr. Speaker, when we did a jurisdictional scanning of child death review processes and models in this country, the general overview found that there exists no universal standard process for child death reviews. There are, however, various models of child death review processes across the country and they vary from province to province, jurisdiction to jurisdiction. These include reviews, Mr. Speaker, that may be conducted by various government departments, for example; particularly those departments that have responsibility for protecting services and providing services to children.

Some reviews, Mr. Speaker, were conducted by the Chief Medical Examiner in some jurisdictions, in others the coroner's office, in others by the Child and Youth Advocate, in others by the police, and in others by external multi-disciplinary committees. There is no one universal standard, Mr. Speaker, but a number of different models, different process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

In Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Child and Youth Advocate conduct the child death review, but these are the only two jurisdictions in the country where that happens. Most child death reviews, Mr. Speaker, are conducted by the coroner's office or the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, and sometimes in collaboration with an external multi-disciplinary committee. Mr. Speaker, they found also that many jurisdictions have not legislated the child death review process but rather these processes are ad hoc and they operate, in a lot of cases, pursuant to terms of reference or pursuant to policy, or even to membership agreements.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Fatalities Investigations Act we are putting forth here today would create a child death review framework and establish a multi-disciplinary Child Death Review Committee to review the facts and circumstances of child deaths, and pregnancy and neonatal deaths as well, that it would have been referred to this committee, Mr. Speaker, by the Chief Medical Examiner. The purpose, Mr. Speaker, is for the purpose of discovering and monitoring trends in those deaths and determining whether further evaluation of these deaths is necessary or desirable in the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to know here too, that in the experience of other Child Death Review Committees, specifically in Canada, they reveal that the deaths of children who die of natural causes or expected deaths, these are rarely investigated further by the death review committees. There is good reason for that, Mr. Speaker. One can appreciate that the death of a child is difficult enough for families and in certain circumstances further review by the Child Death Review Committee is really unnecessary. A person who dies from natural causes, a person who dies from death in a hospital, who has been treated for disease and so on, there is no further need to review these deaths, Mr. Speaker. As well, we can appreciate that difficulty enough has been experienced by the families in these cases.

Mr. Speaker, a child death in this Province will be the death of any child under the age of nineteen and which death has been reported to the Chief Medical Examiner already. Deaths are reported to the Chief Medical Examiner under the Fatalities Investigations Act, pursuant to sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of that act. Mr. Speaker, the circumstances involving or surrounding these deaths being reported will be as follows – they are not limited to the following but would include the following. For example, a death that has occurred as a result of violence, or as a result of an accident, or as a result of suicide, this death would be reported to the Chief Medical Examiner. Any unexpected death, when the child was in good health, will be reported; any child who died who was not under the care of a physician; any child who died where the cause of death is undetermined, or as a result of improper or suspected negligent treatment by a person. If a death has occurred in a health care facility and there is reason to believe that it was the result of suspected misadventure or negligence or accident on the part of the attending physician or staff. Any child who died while detained in a youth correctional facility will be reported or any child who died while in the custody of a manager under the Children and Youth Care Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, these are specific cases, specific circumstances that would be reported to the Chief Medical Examiner. They practically include everything, Mr. Speaker, with the exception, as I mentioned earlier, natural deaths and deaths that are expected. Everything else, basically, is reported to the Chief Medical Examiner.

Mr. Speaker, the Child Death Review Committee will also have the mandate to review maternal, stillbirth, and neonatal deaths which are reported to the Chief Medical Examiner. They are reported under section 6(1) of the Fatalities Investigations Act. We are talking here, Mr. Speaker, about deaths that occur during or following pregnancy in circumstances that might reasonably be related to pregnancy, or child deaths that occur where maternal injury has occurred or is suspected. These as well, Mr. Speaker, are reported to the Chief Medical Examiner and will be reviewed by the Child Death Review Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about the membership of that Child Death Review Committee. That membership, including the chairperson and the vice-chairperson, and the terms of office, will be determined by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. The Chief Medical Examiner, by virtue of his office, Mr. Speaker, will be a member of that Child Death Review Committee. That differs slightly from the recommendation of the Turner recommendations, because the Turner recommendations suggested he be the chairperson of the Committee.

The Chief Medical Examiner, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Child Death Review Committee is not excluded or disqualified from being appointed as chairperson or vice-chairperson by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, but it is not mandatory; the Lieutenant-Governor will not mandate that this person, the Chief Medical Examiner, be the chairperson of the Committee.

The other members of the Child Death Review Committee, Mr. Speaker, may include specialists from such disciplines, for example, as pediatric medicine, obstetrics, child protection, policing, law, forensic pathology, and Aboriginal interests. Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see why those people might be members of that particular Committee, depending on the depth of the review. Depending also, Mr. Speaker, on the nature of the child death being reviewed, the Child Death Review Committee may obtain outside expertise in the course of their review, expertise that is not on their Committee that they may need to access. With the approval of the minister, Mr. Speaker, they can access those expert services.

Also, you note, Mr. Speaker, that contrary to the Turner recommendations, the Child and Youth Advocate is not a member of the Child Death Review Committee as recommended. To put the Child and Youth Advocate on this committee, Mr. Speaker, would essentially require that official to report to the Minister of Justice responsible for the Fatalities Investigations Act. That would detract from his or her power as an independent officer of this House of Assembly.

In addition, Mr. Speaker the Child and Youth Advocate may find a conflict of interest in being part of the child death review process, because of the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the death of a child, that could very well have required, or should have required, the advocacy of the Child and Youth Advocate while the child was still alive, including if that advocacy perhaps may have prevented the death of a child. Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate should not investigate itself, and that is the reason why that Turner recommendation was not followed.

Mr. Speaker, the Child Death Review Committee may review one or more deaths, but the Committee may only commence a review after the medical examiner has completed his or her duties under the legislation. Practically, Mr. Speaker, once the Chief Medical Examiner has completed his investigation of the death, he will then refer his file, or all those files, to the Child Death Review Committee. Some or all of the members of the Child Death Review Committee can then review a summary of the facts and circumstances that surround a child death and determine if a further review or investigation is warranted. There will be a number of child deaths reported to the Committee, but not all, or if any, Mr. Speaker, want warrant further review.

Mr. Speaker, again, not all members of the Committee may be necessary to do that review. Some of the members – it may be necessary to only have a certain number of the complete Committee to do a particular review. The policies and procedures that the Child Death Review Committee will use in the course of the review will be set out also, Mr. Speaker, in the regulations that will be approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Those regulations will be drafted and put into place, obviously, prior to the proclamation of this act. Such policies and procedures will set out, for example, the functions of the chairperson, functions of the members, timelines, and the expert opinions, confidentiality, and so on. These will be the types of policies and procedures that will be drafted and put in place with the regulations.

Mr. Speaker, after each review, the Child Death Review Committee will report to the minister its findings with respect to the facts and circumstances surrounding deaths that were the subject of the review, and any recommendations it may have respecting the prevention of similar deaths. The Committee may base its report on an aggregate and multi-disciplinary analysis of the deaths reviewed, and the Committee may, for example, Mr. Speaker, identify systemic problems that need to be addressed. The Committee may want to promote prevention of deaths through education, or through protocol development and dissemination of information, or it may want to make recommendations respecting the health, safety, and well-being of children and pregnant women generally. Mr. Speaker, this bill expressly precludes the Child Death Review Committee from making a finding of legal responsibility or expressing a conclusion of law. This is not the role, Mr. Speaker, of the Child Death Review Committee.

Upon receipt of the report and recommendation, Mr. Speaker, of the Child Death Review Committee, the minister shall provide a copy to the Child and Youth Advocate. As mentioned previously, the Child and Youth Advocate is not a member of the Child Death Review Committee; however, to support the mandate of the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, whose objective it is to ensure the rights and interests of children and youth are protected in this Province, government must facilitate reasonable access to information necessary for that office to fulfill its mandate. Mr. Speaker, the Child and Youth Advocate can then assess the report to determine if it satisfies the mandate of his or her office, or for further review or investigation may be warranted respecting a matter falling under his or her authority.

Mr. Speaker, within sixty days of receiving the report of the Child Death Review Committee, the minister will make public the recommendations of the report. These recommendations, as I mentioned earlier, may relate to relevant protocols that need to be addressed or developed, to existing policies or procedures that exist or need to be developed, to current standards and legislation, to linkage and the co-ordination of services between difference agencies and departments, or it might make recommendations with regard to improvements of services affecting children and pregnant women. That report and recommendation, Mr. Speaker, within sixty days of receiving it, the minister has to make those recommendations public.

Mr. Speaker, similar to the ability of the Chief Medical Examiner, under section 25 of the Fatalities Investigations Act, right now the Chief Medical Examiner has the authority to ask the minister to conduct a review. Similar to that authority, Mr. Speaker, at any time, either in the course of review under this act, or on completion of a review, a Child Death Review Committee may recommend to the minister that a public inquiry be held where it is felt necessary for the protection of the public interest or in the interest of public safety. Mr. Speaker, I point out again and repeat the Chief Medical Examiner has that authority now to request the minister to conduct a public inquiry. The Review Committee would also have that authority.

Mr. Speaker, if the minister accepts or receives a recommendation by the Chief Medical Examiner or the Child Death Review Committee to conduct such an inquiry and the minister is satisfied that an inquiry is necessary for the protection of the public interest or in the interest of public safety, the minister may order an inquiry to be conducted under Part IV of the Provincial Offences Act. Mr. Speaker, an inquiry established under this act, the Provincial Offences Act, is conducted by a Provincial Court judge and is held in public.

Mr. Speaker, this also involves an amendment to section 15.1 of the Child and Youth Advocate Act – a consequential amendment. That would restrict the Child and Youth Advocate from investigating any matter which is the subject of a review already by the Child Death Review Committee or subject of an ongoing public inquiry under section 26 of this act. The reason for that restriction is simple and pretty reasonable: to ensure that there are not several investigations going on at the same time by different offices. There is a good reason for that: so as to be sensitive to families affected by such investigations; also, Mr. Speaker, to ensure there is no overlap in jurisdiction; and to avoid a needless use of resources to have more than one review going on at one time.

Mr. Speaker, there is also a proposed amendment through subsection 8.1(2) of the Evidence Act, which would protect the members of the Child Death Review Committee from testifying in legal proceedings and would disallow any report, statement, evaluation, recommendation, memorandum, document, or information of or made by, for, or to the Child Death Review Committee to be disclosed in connection with a legal proceeding. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the report would be protected under the Evidence Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to do that, to protect the members of the Child Death Review Committee, under this section of the Evidence Act for two reasons. Recruiting members to the Child Death Review Committee would be difficult if frank discussions and minutes, evaluations, and so on involving child deaths are subject to disclosure and committee members are compelled to be witnesses in that regard. Two, Mr. Speaker, the quality of the child death review may suffer because members of the Child Death Review Committee would be reluctant to provide meaningful input for fear such information would be made aware publicly. So the members, Mr. Speaker, and the reports are protected under the Evidence Act.

Mr. Speaker, in reviewing child death review models in Canada, this concern of protection was raised by a number of jurisdictions and was the impediment to legislating a child death review framework in their province and country. A lot of jurisdictions brought that to our attention. One of the reasons why they could not get a child death review framework organized in their jurisdiction was the concern over the protection afforded to members of the review committee and to the reports, the information.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments in this bill today will be subject to proclamation. That means a date will be set down the road some time when this act will come into force. Mr. Speaker, that is to allow time to appoint the members to the committee, to draft the regulations pertaining to the policy and procedures of the Child Death Review Committee, and to ensure that appropriate resources are put into place to implement this child death review framework.

Mr. Speaker, the establishment of a child death review framework in this Province is a very positive initiative. It is, in a sense, an ongoing recommendation and one of the final recommendations put into place with respect to the Turner Review. A child death review process led by a committee of experts will enable this Province to learn from and to help prevent the untimely deaths of children in Newfoundland and Labrador. The care and protection of children in Newfoundland and Labrador is a priority for this government and will be further strengthened with these proposed amendments to the Fatalities Investigations Act.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this act and this bill today. I ask for the support of all hon. members in supporting this bill, and I look forward to members in debate from both sides of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising to speak to Bill 33. Mr. Speaker, I have to say, I have been waiting a number of years to see this legislation introduced in the House of Assembly. I do commend the government for bringing it forward at this time. I would like to speak to the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to also do so in outlining a number of the concerns that I have with regard to how the legislation is currently worded.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that Bill 33, which in this case is An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act, is a piece of legislation that could have been introduced in this House of Assembly in a number of ways. It could have been introduced here as a stand-alone piece of legislation that probably would have fallen under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, but, Mr. Speaker, it is fine the way that it is. Our goal was to see this process legislated, and not just see it outlined as a policy of government.

Mr. Speaker, child death reviews have been conducted in Canada for many years. They have been done in various cases of where a child has died. Sometimes it only applies to children who are in the care of a province, and sometimes it applies to all children. There are some cases across Canada where the legislation is law binding and there are other cases where it is just policies that have been instituted. Nevertheless, we have been one of the few provinces across Canada that have not initiated this type of legislation and, Mr. Speaker, I am happy, as I said, to see that it is coming forward at this particular time.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act, speaks very directly to what we call a child death review. Let me tell you a little bit about what a child death review would encompass. It would encompass any cases where a child had died in the Province and whether that death was as a result of an accident; was as a result of systematic issues that we were dealing with in our Province; whether it was due to suicide or violence; whether it was when a person was under the care of a physician. All of these things would now apply, Mr. Speaker. Whether it is a vehicle accident or a house fire, whether it is a suicide or it is a homicide; where there is any kind of violence at all that is included. It could be a person who has been ill, it could be a woman who is having a child and the child is lost during maternity. It could apply to any number of cases. Basically, Mr. Speaker, that is the way that it works.

Where a person dies while in a health care facility or another place where patients are received for treatment or care, and there is reason to believe that the death occurred as the result of any kind of violence, or suicide, or accident, no matter how long the patient had been hospitalized, whether it was due to negligence on the part of the attending physician or staff; whether the cause of death is undetermined; whether the death occurred during or following pregnancy in circumstances that might reasonably be related to pregnancy; whether it is a stillbirth, a neonatal death, that has occurred where maternal injury has occurred or is suspected, either prior to admission or during delivery; or the death occurred within ten days of an operative procedure or the patient is under initial induction, under anaesthetic, or during the recovery from anaesthetic; the person responsible for that facility shall immediately notify a medical examiner or an investigator.

What will happen now, Mr. Speaker, is once a medical examiner has been notified, and a medical examination takes place, then the medical examiner shall refer this to the committee responsible for child death reviews in the Province. Then, Mr. Speaker, that committee would undertake a review.

Let me tell you the process that will be used. First of all, they will look to see if there were any particular trends around these deaths. I will refer you to a specific incident that we might want to look at in Labrador, for example, Mr. Speaker. In the last nineteen years in Labrador, we have seen 101 suicides. I know that is an alarming, alarming number, and many of those, in fact, most of those suicides occurred with young people between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five. This act speaks to children under the age of nineteen; any child under the age of nineteen that dies would fall under this child death review.

So, when the bill talks about looking at trends, they would look at cases of where these 101 suicides have occurred in Labrador. They would look at: is it predominantly in one community or one region, is it in one cultural group, and is there a systematic problem occurring in this community, in this culture, or in this region that is basically contributing to this factor. That would be looked at as part of that particular review, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, there have been a number of times when we have seen the numbers of suicides in Labrador, in the Northern region. My colleague for Torngat Mountains knows this very, very well. He deals with the realities of what this tragedy brings to communities and families every day in his job as an MHA. That is a very tough job and a very tough responsibility.

There have been occasions, Mr. Speaker, and I will cite some of those occasions, especially in 2009-2011, where we have seen twenty cases of suicides in the five Inuit communities and the one Innu community in Northern Labrador. That leads me to believe that this is a broader problem within the region that needs to be looked at.

In doing a review of a child that may have committed suicide, under this new legislation they would now look at these other cases. They would look at what are the problems here, what is contributing to this; is poverty a contributing factor? Is violence a contributing factor? Is the lack of educational or health care providers in the area a contributor? Are drugs and alcohol addiction a contributor? All of these things would be looked at in terms of what is triggering this systematic statistic that we are seeing for the high rate of suicide. It may be the death of one child that will trigger this review, but under this current legislation, the ability is now there to look at a broader approach to what is contributing to problems like this in cases like this.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the legislation is not retroactive; very seldom do we see legislation retroactive. However, we do know – and I know firsthand in my own experience in representing the broader community of Labrador over the last number of years – that there have been cases that warrant a child death review that never got reviewed. These cases are not systematic. In many cases, Mr. Speaker, they are very individual. They pertain to particular auspices of our government systems, whether it is justice or health care, education or community. Therefore I feel, Mr. Speaker, they should be examined. I feel the medical examiner should have the authority to make any referral to the Child Death Review Committee that he or she deems necessary, whether that occurred six months ago or in the last four or five years.

I am not saying that we go back twenty-five years. I am not saying that at all, Mr. Speaker. I am saying that we look at, at least a period of time where many of these cases are very individual, they still pertain to the system we operate in, and they should be looked at. I am hoping the government, Mr. Speaker, will give some consideration to doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, this particular legislation does provide for some exceptions. It is like all legislation, I guess. There will be cases that will not trigger a child death review, and that is understandable. If it is a case of a child who is born with and diagnosed with significant illnesses, that child is under the care of a doctor for the duration of their life, and that child dies within the first two or three years of their life. That would not trigger a child death review because the cause of death would have already been predetermined. It would already be recorded within the system and it would be a different case.

However, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, if there is a case like a case that I have dealt with in my own district, where there was a child who was at the time they went into the health care system with medical problems, they were seventeen years old or had just turned seventeen years old. When they entered into that particular system – in fact, Mr. Speaker, if you really want to go back, it goes back three years. Three years was the first log of this child at fifteen years old, going into the health care system with medical problems. This child went in, they saw doctors, they were referred to other doctors, they were treated for a number of different diagnosis. They underwent a number of examinations and tests. They were referred to specialists outside of the Province. This went on, Mr. Speaker, for a period of over two years.

It was beyond that two-year period before this child, who was then, Mr. Speaker, at the age of seventeen, actually diagnosed with what their real problem was. By the time they were properly diagnosed with what the real problem was the disease had progressed too far, it could no longer be treated. There was not an option any more for transplant, which was what would have been required, along with other treatment. As a result, a few months later the child died.

I personally asked the minister at the time to do an inquiry into the death of this child because it was felt by the family that their child did not get the proper diagnosis, that the system had failed them because their child was being diagnosed by people who they felt – and this is just their interpretation, it is not a fact. Their interpretation is that their child had been diagnosed by people who probably did not have the right skill set to make the diagnosis for the condition they had. They felt, Mr. Speaker, there had been a number of things that had been done in what they termed to be a negligent way within the health care system as it related to their son. They felt the medical profession had let them down, and that the health care system had let them down. They were seeking answers and they wanted those answers, Mr. Speaker. The only way that those answers could be found would have been through an inquiry that would have been launched by the department or, if the legislation had been in place, through a child death review.

I have all the letters, Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the minister at the time and the correspondence, the numbers of questions that I posed. Mr. Speaker, that started in 2009. The correspondence continued into 2010 and, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, at the time, the government refused to do an inquiry into the death of this child. In fact, the recommendation was that the parents should seek a legal opinion.

A legal opinion and a child death review are two very different issues. When a child dies in this Province, it is not always a legal case and in some instances it will be. It is not always a legal case. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that any time a child has died without the proper answers accruing to the family, they should have the option to have a review. What happens in the case of this child? To this date, these parents still question what happened to their son. They are still questioning that. They have never received a thing that outlines or documents why their child died, why their child was not – after three years of being in the health care system, why nobody had diagnosed their child with the appropriate diagnosis. If he had been diagnosed properly, there was a chance that child would be alive today. We do not know that to be a fact, but there is a chance that child could have been alive today.

My issue in this, Mr. Speaker, is that if this was going to happen after the legislation was proclaimed, these parents would be able to walk in to the Medical Examiner, have the medical examination done, and that would trigger a child death review. They would be able to look at that review and see the recommendations being put forward for change. They would have a piece of mind knowing that the system that failed their child was now going to undergo change; change that would protect the lives of other children in the future. I think that is the objective of what we want to get at with Bill 33. I think that is the objective of the government, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that if there is complacency, if there is wrongdoing, if there is inadequacy that can be fixed and improved upon, then we are going to as a government ensure that happens. I think that is their objective in this bill.

My question is this: What happens to this family? What happens to this family whose child's life story of dealing with the system is contained in this document? What happens to that child? How do the parents get that child death review today? That is what I am appealing to the government on. That is my appeal to the government. There should be an option there that allows them to meet with the Medical Examiner, that allows the Medical Examiner, if he sees fit, to refer a case like this for a review under the new legislation. It does not matter that it happened two years ago, or three years ago. If it still warrants being looked at to serve the goal of what the bill has intended, and that is to make the appropriate changes within our system, then that needs to happen. I see that as a very important point.

Mr. Speaker, the government has said, in response to my inquiry with regard to this – and I think they understand where I am coming from; however, they seem to feel that the Child and Youth Advocate also has the responsibility to do this work. I do not see it that way, Mr. Speaker, because if the Child and Youth Advocate had the responsibility to do this, we would not be bringing in the legislation in the first place. It would already be done in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I have a very interesting history of dealing with the Child and Youth Advocate. I was a strong supporter of that office. In fact, I was the Parliamentary Secretary for child and youth in this Province, Mr. Speaker, when we did the consultations to set up the Child and Youth Advocate. I was a person who was involved with drafting the legislation around it. I was certainly involved in doing a lot of the groundwork with all the advocacy groups involved. I am very proud of the legislation that we proud in and I am very proud to have been involved, engaged, and affiliated with it at that time. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, if I knew then what I know now I would have made sure that the act spoke to these kinds of issues that I am talking about. I guess you learn as you go. That was almost ten years ago, so we are ten years later and now, in the experience that I have had in the last ten years, I see a number of things that need to change.

I am going to talk about another example. Another example is the house fire that occurred in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the tragedy that was affiliated with that house fire is unimaginable. It is unimaginable. Mr. Speaker, when that house fire occurred, in addition to the five individuals who subsequently died in that fire, two of them would have fallen under the child death review act that we are currently bringing in. There were two children who were under the age of nineteen. One of those children was already in the care of Child, Youth and Family Services. We did not see a child death review into those cases because it did not trigger one in our Province. The legislation did not exist. So what were the options?

I met with these families after this fire. I met with them, I talked to them. I had research done as to what their options would be, Mr. Speaker. We looked at different options with them through the Department of Health and child services at the time, because this is 2008 now I am talking about, when this occurred. At that particular time, Mr. Speaker, there was no process in place. Unless the department was prepared to do a full inquiry into this, there would not be one. However, Mr. Speaker, the government at the time did commit – and it was out there in the public, it was in the news – to do an investigation. There was an investigation done into this particular fire. Then, Mr. Speaker, it was also said that although the investigation was done by the RCMP, they knew there was no foul play. The Department of Health and Community Services looked at it, they did not feel there was a need to trigger a full investigation based on the review they did.

Mr. Speaker, it was then that the family decided to contact the Child and Youth Advocate Office. They met with an intake worker at that time. The worker went to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The worker met with the family, and they outlined their situation. However, Mr. Speaker, they did not get anything back from the Child and Youth Advocate. Although this family was concerned, their child who had been in custody had died, they did not know where to go, so they went to the Child and Youth Advocate Office and met with an intake worker. What happened after that? They waited to get a response back. There was no response. What did they do then? They called me and others to see if somebody would pick up their cause and do something with it.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, writing to the Child and Youth Advocate. I remember going down and meeting with the Child and Youth Advocate at the time. I remember sitting in her office and telling her, Mr. Speaker, that there was a request made for her to look into this file and nobody had responded. Guess what I learned? She was not even aware of it. As the Child and Youth Advocate for the Province, her staff did not even inform her that the request had been made to do an investigation into this file.

Mr. Speaker, shortly after that there was a lot of media around this issue because I continued to raise it in the House of Assembly. The more I raised it, the more media. Finally, the Child and Youth Advocate – because I think she was shamed into it at the time, more than anything else – came out and said: Okay, I will do the investigation. She came out saying she would do the investigation into this fire in Labrador where these children had died. Shortly after that, she got fired from her job as the Child and Youth Advocate. The government opposite sent her packing, Mr. Speaker. To this day I do not know the reason why, but I will suspect until the day I die that it had to do with this case in Labrador. It had to do with the fact that she had agreed to do this investigation.

Shortly after that, we had another Child and Youth Advocate appointed who got paid twice the money that the former one had gotten paid, twice the salary, and they did not feel there was a need to do this inquiry because they did not start it. They did not start it. They did not do anything with it while they were there.

Then shortly after that, we get another Child and Youth Advocate appointed in the Province, Mr. Speaker. I was looking for the date but I do not have the date here. I know they were in place in 2011. I do not know if they were appointed before that or not. Mr. Speaker, they then appointed a new Child and Youth Advocate. After that, Mr. Speaker, again we approached the new Child and Youth Advocate and we asked him to do an investigation into the house fire in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. There were no other options for this family. If there was no child death review, it did not trigger an inquiry, Mr. Speaker, in the department by government and the only other option was the Child and Youth Advocate.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, they have agreed that they will complete these investigations, along with three other investigations that have been outstanding since 2005 – some of them go back to 2005. The one I am referring to goes back to 2008 and here we are now in 2012 and we are finally going to get the Child and Youth Advocate to do an investigation into the death of this child.

Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that if the Child and Youth Advocate's office was filling the void of child death reviews and inquiries in this Province, we would not need to be bringing in this legislation today; there would be no need for it. It is quite obvious from the two cases I just cited that the mandate of that office has not spoken directly or promptly to that particular case; therefore, many families in this Province have been left without obtaining the answers that they know, in the absence of a child dying. I am just asking the government that in bringing forward the legislation be cognizant of those things. Be cognizant of that and allow for a provision that will give them the answers that they seek.

Mr. Speaker, there are other cases as well that I have looked at personally; I will not speak to what others have looked at here. There are other cases I could cite that I will not at this time. The ones that I wanted to discuss, I have, and that is around the suicides in Northern Labrador; in particular, around the house fire where the children had died, one in custody and one not, in Goose Bay; and the case of the individual whose name I will not mention. The current Government House Leader would be familiar with his case because he was the Minister of Health at the time, in which I referred that case to him as the Minister of Health for an inquiry, and that inquiry did not happen. Those are the three cases that I specifically have dealt with where I really felt where the gaps were in our legislation and in our system in this Province that needed to be fixed.

I guess the most recent case that I have been involved with, not as directly involved as I have been with the past cases because this case has been more directly led by my colleague for Torngat Mountains, because it has been his consistency, and that is the case of Burton Winters. In the case of Burton Winters, Mr. Speaker, this legislation would have triggered a child death review, which did not happen in this Province, which did not occur when that child died this year. Should that family now have the option, when this legislation is proclaimed, to ask for that child death review? I think they should, Mr. Speaker. They should have the option.

How does that occur? I really do not care. I do not care what legal terminology you have to put in there to make that happen; I think it needs to go in there. I honestly do. We have asked this family, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of answers, have asked for everything for under the sun – they have done everything they possibly could do, physically within their being to have an inquiry done into the death of their child. So far, Mr. Speaker, no one in the place of authority has seen fit to authorize that.

I do not agree with the response that this family have gotten. I totally do not agree. I will never agree because, Mr. Speaker, I think there is nothing to hide and everything to gain by doing it. That is exactly how I feel. I think that the government, in their wisdom, Mr. Speaker, should not have even had to wait for the family to come begging and pleading, for the mother to be in the news crying for an inquiry, for the father to be in the media asking and begging for the answers to what happened to his son, for a grandmother to call and plead through the media to get a meeting with the Premier to discuss this, the death of her grandson. That, Mr. Speaker, should not be the process that grieving people who lose a child should have to take in this Province. It should not. They should be able to get the answers they need to be able to put this behind them, to look at how changes can be made so that they know that something good has come from the most terrible thing that could ever happen in their lives. That is what the government is trying to achieve by bringing in Bill 33. That is what they are trying to achieve, but while they are prepared, Mr. Speaker, to do this on a go-forward basis, they are not prepared to allow it to be acceptable and applied to cases like that of Burton Winters, which we have seen in the last two, three months in this Province, since January.

That again is another case. There are so many, I am sure, that are out there, but these are ones that I have been personally involved with, that I know, that I have researched. I have looked at our own laws, I have looked at the laws in other provinces, and I realize that what we are introducing here is by far better than what you will see by most standards across the country. It is a good piece of legislation, but it does not mean it is perfect; it does mean that there is still room for improvement. The improvements, Mr. Speaker, will seek to find the answers of where a lot of families would like to go.

Another issue that I have, Mr. Speaker, with the bill is that I feel that when a child death review occurs – say, for example, my child dies; my child dies as a result of substance abuse, for example, because we have seen a case in the media not too long ago of a mother who is still asking for an investigation into her child who died because of substance abuse. That mother, Mr. Speaker, has been waiting almost two years now for someone to tell her if there is going to be an investigation into the death of her child.

Now today, we are going to vote on a piece of legislation that will allow that to happen, but it will not allow an investigation into the death of her child, because her child had died before this was proclaimed. I cannot stress that enough, Mr. Speaker, how imbalanced that is in the thinking of where government is going with this. I cannot express it in words and I cannot use enough time to express it, because I think it is so important to all of these families. I hate to see what could be a very good thing in our Province become a very negative thing for all of these people that are directly affected.

Mr. Speaker, this mother today whose child is no longer with her because of substance abuse, for two years has been lobbying for an investigation and a review. If that was to go to a child death review – say it is another child, God forbid if it should happen, but say if it is another child a year from now who dies in this Province because of substance abuse, and a mother comes out and says: I want a review into the death of what happened with my child. The medical examiner shall refer that upon his examination to the Child Death Review Commission, which, Mr. Speaker, I feel confident the government will have made up of experts in all different facets of our society to sit on this Committee, who can bring a wealth of information in doing these reviews.

That Committee, Mr. Speaker, made up of the very best people that deal with police enforcement, that deal with social work, that deal with health care – all of these people will then make a referral to the minister. They will make a referral to the minister. The minister will release that report to the Child and Youth Advocate. The minister will then release the recommendations to the public. If the recommendation is that an inquiry be launched into this file, into the case of this child who has died from substance abuse, then it becomes a decision of the minister and the Cabinet as to whether they want to do that inquiry or not.

That is not good enough. I think it should be mandatory. If you are confident enough to put this to a panel of experts to look at a child death review in this Province, and that panel of experts is going to come back and say to you, minister, government, we need to do an inquiry into the death of this child, then I think that as the minister and the Cabinet, you have a responsibility to follow through. I do not think that you should become all of a sudden the expert in this case. I do not think you should be left with the authority to decide then whether you do this or whether you do not. I think, Mr. Speaker, that should be mandatory. I think that if the minister looked at this, he would agree with me. I really think he would agree with me that this should be mandatory, Mr. Speaker.

That is basically the two little things that I have. While they are little things, Mr. Speaker, they are big in the bigger picture of things. They are two little things that I feel this legislation is still failing to address. I would encourage the government, Mr. Speaker, to look at that and to do whatever needs to be done to make those appropriate changes as we go through debate on the bill.

I know the government is open to this, Mr. Speaker, because if they were not open to it they never would have brought the bill forward in the first place. If they were not committed to giving families the answers they need, they would have never brought the bill in. If they were not committed, Mr. Speaker, to having full child death reviews on children who die in this Province, they never would have put the bill on the table for debate in the first place. Because they did, Mr. Speaker, I know they are committed to what they are doing. I know they definitely want to do what is right and they want to do what is in the best interests of the public. I think those particular areas need to be addressed.

Mr. Speaker, the first ever death review to my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected, that I have seen investigated in this Province were the circumstances that surrounded the death of Zachary Turner. The Turner inquiry, Mr. Speaker, was started I think in 2003, and I think it finished in 2006. At that time, Mr. Speaker, the review basically determined that the system should have done more to protect Zachary Turner. The system did not do its job the way it was intended to. They concluded at the end of the Turner inquiry, which is two complex documents containing a lot of information and recommendations – which I still have sitting in my office today, that I have referred to in getting ready for my debate on this bill and I have referred to in getting ready for debate on other bills in the past. Mr. Speaker, what it did conclude is that the death of Zachary Turner was preventable, had the proper supports been put in place.

Mr. Speaker, in response to this review, the government did examine all of the circumstances, they did. In fairness to them, they examined all the circumstances under which children under the age of two die as a result of other questionable circumstances, I suppose is the right way to put it. Mr. Speaker, they did use the recommendations in the Turner inquiry, the child death review and the inquiry into Zachary Turner. They did use those recommendations to form what we see as a new system of child protection in this Province today. It resulted in a lot of new legislation being passed. This particular piece was one of the pieces that was recommended as a result of that review, along with many others. We saw in that review, Mr. Speaker, more improvements in child welfare and in the administering of child protection in this Province than we probably seen in decades. In decades I would say or at least in the years that I have been involved in this House of Assembly.

Did that serve, Mr. Speaker, to hurt or hinder anyone, or did it serve to help develop a better system of care for our children? I suggest it was the latter. It served to provide a stronger system of protection and care for the children of this Province is what it did. While it pointed out where there were weaknesses in our system, while it pointed out where changes were required, while it pointed out there were not always people who were the most qualified making some of these decisions, it however did not legally imply, Mr. Speaker, any legal wrongdoing but rather served to provide for recommendations that strengthened the system of child support and protection in the Province.

I cannot reiterate that enough, because again, it brings me to my point. My point being, the case that I cited from the eighteen year old boy in Labrador who died, who was in our health care system for three years and wrongly diagnosed. By the time he was rightfully diagnosed, it was too late to save his life, and therefore a few months later he died. Why shouldn't that family have answers? More importantly, why should we as the public and why should every other family out there who is going to use that same system of health care, not know what went wrong and how it could be improved?

There is no reason why they cannot – absolutely no reason why they cannot – and we should not have to wait until another child dies in a similar manner to have that child death review completed. If it is warranted, it is warranted today. Therefore we can benefit from what happened. The same applies, Mr. Speaker, in the case of a child in care who was in the house fire. I could see the same, Mr. Speaker, in the case of the other examples that I cited that I am less engaged with but have known only through the media, and that is the case of the child with substance abuse who died.

These things can only serve to better protect the children and youth of our Province. They are not going to serve, Mr. Speaker, to see who we can put behind bars today. They are not going to be done to see who we can embarrass or to see who did not do what appropriately. It is like the inquiry into the death of Burton Winters. It is not, Mr. Speaker – because I totally disagree with what the Minister of Labrador Affairs said when he said: It is only going to see who did not do something right, although they think they made the right decision at the time they were making it. It is not what it is about, Mr. Speaker. Do not get tangled up in the personalities that are involved in this. To do that is wrong. Focus on the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is that every time there is a child who dies as a result of incidents like I have cited in my debate here in the House of Assembly today, an inquiry or a review into those cases will only serve to further protect the children and youth of this Province. That is the ultimate goal. It will only serve to ensure that more lives are saved and not lost.

That is what the Zachary Turner inquiry did, Mr. Speaker. It opened our eyes. It taught us to be less complacent. It taught us to be more stringent. It showed us where we needed to make changes. As a result, Mr. Speaker, there are days I would put our Department of Child, Youth and Family Services up against anyone else in this country because of lessons that we learned as a result of that. Why stop now? Why not do what we need to do to better serve the public? Mr. Speaker, that is the message that I take from this.

When the government decided to do this, I was so happy. I was so proud. I do not think I need to tell the minister how this has affected me personally, the cases that I have dealt with, and the troublesome days that I have shared with many families because they could not get the answers that they needed.

More importantly, Mr. Speaker, than giving families answers, we have a broader master to serve and that master is the public. That is the protection of the public. Therefore, I think if we are going to do this, let us do it right from the beginning. We do not need to be making any issues out of this. Let us do it right from the beginning.

Let us serve the people of this Province, minister, the way you are intending to serve them, the way that you have good intentions of doing, but let us do it so that it applies to the cases like those that I have outlined that have been a part of our system for the last five years. Why not? We have nothing to lose by doing that and we have everything to gain, I say to you, minister.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot more I could say about this bill. I have not gone into all the details of how the Committee will be set up or how the Committee will be mandated. I will leave that to my colleague, the justice critic, to speak to when he stands.

These are the things that I feel very passionate about. I feel that they are necessary, Mr. Speaker, if justice is to be served to all the people of this Province, to our children and youth who will be impacted by this legislation. I ask that government give credence to what I have said and that they look to give clarity to those recommendations so that they better serve the people and the population, which I am sure is what they intend to do with Bill 33.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will see what happens as the debate continues and if there will be any need for amendments or not as we get into Committee.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am quite pleased to be able to speak to this legislation today for the simple reason that this is showing the continuing work of the Turner committee and the Turner report, which certainly outlined and provided significant recommendations based on the murder of Zachary Turner, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, any time a family loses a child similar to how the Bagbys lost Zachary, there is trauma, and people are shocked about what can happen and to think that it actually did happen. Unfortunately, the Bagbys and how they had Zachary murdered are not alone in this world, nor are they alone in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, sometimes the best lessons we learn come from the tragedies of other people.

I certainly want to ensure the public that as we move through this legislation, that it is solely based on the fact that we have taken the lessons learned from the Turner report and have made sure that we followed through. The Turner report was written – I do not know if it was five-and-a-half years ago or six-and-a-half years ago, Mr. Speaker, and it is still a working document within government. I wanted to speak a little bit about that, because this legislation that we are debating today is deeply rooted in that report.

Mr. Speaker, the Fatalities Investigations Act will permit the Chief Medical Officer to provide details to a Child Death Review Committee, and they will then be able to evaluate the facts and the circumstances surrounding the death. Mr. Speaker, this is very serious work that happens. This is not something that is going to be taken lightly, or that people are not going to dig in and do the work at that actual committee level. It is interesting to note – and I hope people understand this – that the Committee members of the child death review will be made of disciplines such as paediatric or obstetric medicine, community health, policing and investigation, child protection, forensic pathology, law, Aboriginal considerations, and others, if they are needed. What this represents, Mr. Speaker, are experts. I know as we were developing this legislation – and I can assure people there was significant debate within government as to how we should proceed, because it is the type of legislation that you want it to be absolutely foolproof when it comes in – that you want to make sure that everything is where it needs to be; however, there are so many different models and ways of looking at it, and we are also dealing with human behaviour in which there are no absolutes, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly looked at the different models, we consulted, and we had experts speak to us to make sure that we understood what it was we are proposing and the implications of our proposal. I certainly remember we had one conversation at a committee level with Susan Abell, who I regard as one of the leading experts – certainly in Canada, maybe in the world – on child protection services, and we have been able to draw on her experience and her knowledge and her expertise a number of times within government, Mr. Speaker. I value the solid advice that she gives us in any matter that we look at, and I will be speaking about Susan Abell's work a bit later as I speak to this legislation.

What this legislation allows us to do is to have a framework. We will have a framework that we will implement in this Province, and this framework will have similarities with other frameworks for child death reviews in other provinces. What this Province will do, we will legislate this framework. That sets us apart from some provinces, not all provinces, Mr. Speaker, but by legislating it, it means that we take this as an extremely serious matter and something that we are bringing in because it is necessary – unfortunately it is necessary – but it is a mechanism and it is a process that will give us confidence as well in how these matters should proceed, Mr. Speaker. We are also confident that we have learned from some of our lessons, and the Turner report and what came out of the Turner report, including this, is certainly an example of how we have learned.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about the Turner report because it played such an instrumental role in where we are today and where we are with this particular recommendation. Mr. Speaker, Child, Youth and Family Services was part of the Department of Health and Community Services under the health boards. Following the Turner report, there was a ministerial committee struck to deal with the Turner report, so it was not a report that we have to satisfy the public and put it out there and say here it is, it is all done and we passed it over to the officials and say here make this work. We certainly wanted to ensure that, as a ministerial committee, we looked into all aspects of the Turner report. We met with various stakeholders to ensure that we had their side of the story, what they saw was inappropriate and how we needed to proceed.

When I say that, Mr. Speaker, we had meetings with the Directors of Child Protection, we had representatives from the union, we spoke with experts outside the Province, we had briefing material developed, we asked questions, we dug into the information, and we did as much as we could to look at the whole system. As we went through the process of questioning and reviewing and making sure that the Turner report was implemented in the most effective manner, we also decided that we would have a Clinical Services Review conducted in the Province.

The debate at that time was, do we need a Clinical Services Review in the Province or do we need it just for Eastern Health, because this was where the Turner case came from, within Eastern Health. What was important to note, Mr. Speaker, was the fact that the ministerial committee felt that the Clinical Services Review needed to be done on a provincial-wide bases. It was also felt that if every matter was okay outside Eastern Health, well, fair enough; that review would tell us, but we did not want to take for granted that the issues in child protection, or Child, Youth and Family Services, rested solely with Eastern Health.

When we did our Clinical Services Review, it was done on a provincial basis. At that time, the person who was commissioned to do the Clinical Services Review was Susan Abell. That report was completed and was turned over to government. Upon review of that report, there were even more serious concerns. We had gotten a flavour for what the concerns were through the ministerial committee and through our stakeholder meetings, and through the Turner report. However, the Clinical Services Review provided that definition that we were hearing anecdotally, but it really put it in perspective for us.

As government, we looked at the Clinical Services Review and there were ten areas of recommendation. As a government, we accepted all ten areas of recommendation. It was also felt that in order to have successful implementation, the present service delivery model had to change. What happened in 2009, as a government we announced that we would be creating the new department of Child, Youth and Family Services; therefore, child protection and the related services under Child, Youth and Family Services would now come out of the health boards and be administered by a line department of government, Mr. Speaker.

That work started in April of 2009 and we are in now 2012. All areas of the Province that were delivering Child, Youth and Family Services under the health board authorities have now all moved, or transitioned, into the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. When we said we were going to move the services in, it was not like it could just happen overnight. It was a daunting task to have to take that on, Mr. Speaker. I know first hand, as the first minister of that department, what that work entailed.

What we had to start with, Mr. Speaker, was a legislative review. This goes back to the Susan Abell report as well. We were told to look at the legislation, the foster care system, we had to look at the documentation, the policies and procedures, we had to look at our quality control; we had to look at all of the different areas. We had to take each area. As we tried to advance each area, we also had to build a new department. We also then had to plan on how to transition the staff over. What we wanted to make sure, Mr. Speaker, was that we did not do everything the same and just find out after it was under a different venue. It had to be done and done differently.

Mr. Speaker, we started with the legislative review as recommended by Susan Abell and we brought that into the House of Assembly. We also developed a new organizational chart that changed the structure of how child protection services are delivered in the Province, Mr. Speaker. At one point we had directors in each region who were ultimately responsible. Now we have that divided so that we now have more managers across the Province who would have that responsibility. However, there still remain regional directors, but they do not have the same level of responsibility for the care and custody of the child as what the manager would have. By having more managers, Mr. Speaker, what that means is ultimately a single person is not responsible for as many cases.

We looked at how to divide the cases so that there is an equitable distribution of work, because that was not evident in the system as well, Mr. Speaker, and we had to work at that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Some of the other initiatives that we brought in, Mr. Speaker, include the training unit that was set up in co-operation with the College of the North Atlantic. It is not just to say you have a BSW, a degree in social work, that you can come in and do child protection. There needs to be significant training on child protection for the social workers. Just because you are a social worker does not necessarily mean you have the exact skills necessary to do child protection.

Training is extremely important. The social workers who do child protection in this Province, Mr. Speaker, or any province in Canada or anywhere around the world, hold the most accountable positions that a social worker can hold. We want to make sure that they have the most effective training that we can offer to enable them to do their jobs the best they can. They make very serious decisions involving the custody, the care and control of children, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to the training unit, we also developed what we call a quality unit, which I refer to as the audit unit. On an ongoing basis, the files of Child, Youth and Family Services need to be audited. They need to make sure that the new standards that have been set are in place. We have teams of social workers with a supervisor, and the supervisor reports to a manager. All that fails if we do not audit our work to ensure that the changes we are bringing about are actually implemented. Change is not about what we write on paper; change is about what happens in the workforce and what happens to the children who come into our care, Mr. Speaker.

As part of all this, we also have now reached a point in the Turner Review and in our legislative process to look at child death reviews, Mr. Speaker. When we look at this, we can look at any time a child has probably come to an untimely death in this Province. We can go back over years and years in our memories, whether it hit us on a personal level with family, or with neighbours, or people in our community, or cases we have come across by virtue of being a member of government.

Mr. Speaker, any time a child dies of any reason other than natural causes, it puts a shock right through a community. Sometimes when a child dies and it is not of natural causes, there is an explanation. The explanation could be a car accident where there was due care, caution, and control but unfortunately something happened, the road conditions, or a child ran out in front of a moving vehicle, or something. Sometimes things happen, they did not die of natural causes but there was an accident. It was truly an accident, and there is nobody to be held accountable because of the circumstances.

Take that one step further. Sometimes things happen in this Province, sometimes we lose children and we question what happened and why it happened. Sometimes we question the trend. Is this a trend in a particular community, in a particular area, and why? What is happening and what do we need to do? Sometimes we look at individual cases and sometimes we look at trends. This child death review will help us do that in an impartial way.

What I particularly like about the child death review is the fact that it will be experts. We will be able to call in experts if the child death review determines an expertise in a particular area. That is extremely important. I would go so far as to say that we need the best of the best with their experience, their knowledge, and their ability to do critical analysis to sit on that review and do the work. This review and this work will probably at points in time dictate legislation, legislative changes, policy changes, or it could refer matters to the police. It is such important work that comes from the child death review.

What is most important, are the recommendations that come that can help us as we build systems in government. In the history of this Province or this country, Mr. Speaker, as things develop and as legislators, we develop – and I say we, meaning anybody who came before us – what we feel is the best possible system. However, there are times you cannot foresee into the future what may happen, what the shortcomings may be or how we may need to do things differently. The child death review will help us do that.

My final point, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we cannot be afraid of what may come out of a child death review. We may not like the information. It may be something we would prefer not to have to deal with because it is so sensitive. However, as government we need to take it on, we need to look at it, and we also need to be able to say what needs to change. This is not a process about trying to defend the system or trying to defend certain individuals. This is about saying: look, if there is something wrong, what do we need to do and how do we fix it? One thing that is extremely important are the systemic issues within government, because sometimes they are very difficult to determine and the review may give us some recommendations to help us dig in and make the necessary changes.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this legislation. I would have liked to have seen it brought in earlier, but what I can assure people is that the Turner report is a living document within government. We continue to have our Turner committee. The Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, although the transition has been completed, is still a new department. It is still going through various stages of implementation with all the policies that need to be done, whether it is the audit function or it is the training function.

Mr. Speaker, what I can also say is that I know the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services and the officials, the executive of that department, are very committed to change, are very committed to improving the system and ensuring that we have the best child protection system in the world. We are not going for a mediocre system. We want to make sure that we take the information we have – we are still in a process of change.

When we had the Clinical Services Review done by Susan Abell, we were told it would probably take at least five years to do the changes. We knew this was not something that we could come out and write a few letters or a few policies and say it was all fixed. We also know that the solutions are not paper solutions. They are implementation solutions, and how we practice and how we handle child protection in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

The child death review I think strengthens that system and provides another mechanism that is independent. It is impartial and draws on the experts to provide us with the information we need, Mr. Speaker. I certainly want to say that I am very supportive of this legislation.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Kent): The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

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

It is a pleasure to stand here today and speak to this bill, to these proposed amendments to the Fatalities act. What I can say at the outset is that I am in agreement with the intent of these amendments. I think everybody is here in this House. We have to do what we can to strengthen our legislation to cover off this specific area. We have had a number of incidences over the last number of years and one of these situations is too many. So, anything we can do in terms of allowing investigations to occur which may help us prevent these situations from down the road is a step in the right direction.

Again, I agree with the minister. There are a lot of statements here, but one of them she mentioned was she would have liked to have seen this earlier. I agree; I think we all would have liked to have seen this earlier, which I will readdress later on in my comments, Mr. Speaker.

I think this is a good piece of legislation. I think the amendments which have been suggested are an attempt to address the issue. I guess I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I agree with them in the majority. There are a couple of small points that we will suggest. We do have some possible amendments we would suggest to, in our minds, strengthen. What I would say is keep in mind that we are in favour of the legislation; it is not amendments or suggestions just for the sake of it. We had an opportunity – we were lucky the department briefed us this morning. We sat down and had a very thorough conversation where we asked questions and there were answers. Out of that came these suggestions that we will make, and we will certainly put them out there for discussion. Again, anything we can do to strengthen the system is for the benefit of us all.

When we talk about the Fatalities Investigations Act, Mr. Speaker, in general we have to look at the purpose of it, and the specific purpose of these amendments that we are suggesting here now, which would relate to the implementation or creation of a Child Death Review Committee. What I would say is, why is it important; well, we need to understand and look at the circumstances of a child's death and why it is important that we investigate this.

Obviously, one of the first and foremost reasons is just the purpose of bringing closure to family and friends. It is hard to move on from these situations when you do not have the answers to the questions that you may have. Sometimes these things can haunt you and prevent you from moving forward in your life. That is why I would suggest this is a great thing so that we could put this out there to answer these questions that people may have that may be nagging at them, those questions that you just cannot escape.

Knowing friends and family that have lost children – I am sure we all know these people; they have these fears and these doubts. They just wonder what about this or what about that. If we can put a committee in place comprised of experts that will examine this and come to some sort of conclusion that these people – again, they may not always be happy with it, but at least it gives them some definitive answer as to why, and hopefully that is where we will get.

The second part would be that it would answer any outstanding questions or concerns. We need to look at each situation and look at why these happen, how it happened, and again, even to get into the black and white, where it happened. We need to be able to look at the facts and make sure we can ascertain the entire situation and what caused this particular episode. The last thing, and perhaps up there in terms of importance even with number one, but perhaps even more important, is: if we could potentially avoid the death of other children, then that is as fundamental to this cause as it gets, I would suggest. These are why the creation of this Committee is so important and why I am certainly in favour of it.

It is something that has been long in the works and perhaps a bit overdue, but we need to get it in there. Up until now, Mr. Speaker, this Province did not have any requirements that the death of a child must be investigated and reported on. To put this in here now is another step in the right direction.

I am not going to belabour some of the points made by my colleague, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair. She has actually lived through a number of these situations, dealt with them, and has to deal with the families. She knows the history of this perhaps a bit better than I, being a new member and only seeing some of these things through the media.

One of the things we look at is the currently existing legislation and we look at the Chief Medical Examiner. What is their mandate? Basically, if you use the language mentioned in the briefing today, they have to answer five questions: the identity of the person; the date, time, and place of the death; the cause of death; and the manner of death. Those are the questions imposed on them under section 10 of the current piece of legislation.

If we have the child death review, we are going to go beyond just these black and white answers and we are going to get more substance to what it is we are looking for. We should have a broader examination of the life of this child in the hopes it will assist us in preventative measures. No matter the cause of death or how this death occurred, there is now a mechanism in place to investigate it – again, a great thing.

A piece I found particularly interesting and I think is very beneficial is the fact that not only will we look at the individual cases but the aggregate cases. I believe my colleague mentioned the situation we had in Labrador where we had a number of deaths over the course of nineteen years. I believe it was 101 deaths –

MS JONES: Suicides.

MR. A. PARSONS: One hundred and one suicides over the course of nineteen years. It is one thing to look at these individually, but we have to look at them on a grand scale and figure out what is the systemic cause of something like this. It is absolutely unbelievable when you look at it here in the black and white to think that something like this could happen. To allow us to perhaps delve into this and have these experts coming from all walks of life, whether it be medical, legal, social work, from the Aboriginal community, will allow us to do this. Again, the goal here is not only answers, but preventative.

Why are these child death reviews necessary, and why are they so important? The reason they are so important, Mr. Speaker, is that they are effective. They are proven to work and we need to remember that – and that is why it is so important that this be legislated in. Again, I am glad to see that this is not just a policy, per se, but this is now hopefully going to be a part of legislation – and that is a great thing.

Again, the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills referenced the Turner situation, which was something that struck all of us here in this Province. It was just a terrible time. If there was anything positive out of this situation – in which there was very little – but the one thing was that we have had the information come out of that since to help us continue on to avoid these situations in the future. I guess, really, you need to make sure that we take silver linings out of these dark clouds, and to make some positive out of what really appeared to be completely negative on its face. Again, as I mentioned previously, the fact that these Committees will be expert in nature – not just Committees put together with people that have no knowledge or background – again, multidisciplinary teams that will focus on prevention and increase public awareness. Again, we are looking at the well-being of children; that is a very positive step.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have taken the opportunity to review Bill 33, and to compare it to the previously legislation to just look at the black and white and what has been written down there, and certainly a lot of it, when you go through it I guess the minutia, the specific details – which again are necessary to any piece of legislation. Some of them are the standard stuff when we talk about that we amend the definition section to include child and committee – again, these are necessary things, sort of housekeeping in nature. Then we include review – but when we get to section 13 and we have a previously existing section 13, but now we are adding 13.1 and 13.2, 13.3, 13.4, 13.5, 13.6. This really is the meat of the amendments that are being suggested. It lays out the implementation of the Committee, the review, who will be on the Committee, timelines, and what their powers and duties will be. So, this is really what we need to look into as we get ready to discuss and possibly amend or debate these sections. This is probably the main part of what we are looking at, Mr. Speaker.

If you look at section 13.1(1)(a) "discovering and monitoring trends in those deaths". That is specifically dealing with what I just mentioned in terms of systemic causes. We need to look at trends. We can look at individual cases, but we need to make sure that we look at greater situations involving more than one person.

When you lay out 13.1 and all the subsections, very standard sections here, I agree with them. The Chief Medical Examiner will be a part of the Committee. We allow people depending on their level or their specific area of expertise, they will be given an opportunity to review matters based on that, which is always a good thing. There is the part there to eliminate people due to a conflict of interest for whatever reason.

I was wondering about subsection (9) there, I had some small concern at first where we talk about giving assistance or allowing this Committee to get expert services or retain these services. At first I was thinking well, okay prior approval of the minister, will that tie it up? Then after reviewing it and tossing it around in my head I realized that really that section – you need to have that ministerial oversight there. I am sure that any committee that wants expert services or wants to go outside to retain people to help them that they are going to be given every resource that they need. I cannot imagine that they will not be given that. It is important to have the ministerial oversight on that to make sure that we do not have a committee go off and do something in terms of monetary expense that the minister cannot recall. I do not think a minister is going to say no to any request, but at least it is just one small step along the way.

One section – and this is the section that has caused some concern to my colleague, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, is section 13.2. This is where we talk about the review by committee. It says that the Committee will review the facts and circumstances of child deaths and deaths referred to in paragraph in 6(1)(d) and (e), which specifically refer to deaths during pregnancy, neonatal, or stillbirth deaths. What it is saying here is that the review shall only begin after a medical examiner has completed his duties.

I think my colleague's issue is the fact that – and this sort of goes along the lines of what the speaker prior to me said - is that this legislation is coming in now. Who knows when it will be proclaimed, these things take time. There have been some matters in the not too recent past that would be excluded from the purview of this piece of legislation. So we are hoping that an amendment can be introduced and discussed as to why we should not be looking at some of these matters. When you deal with retroactivity clauses it can be very dicey because how far do you back? When we deal with the case mentioned by my colleague, specifically the situation with young Burton Winters, that was something that specifically would be covered by this, as discussed during the briefing, but because of the timing of it, it cannot be covered. That is something we would like to discuss, especially at the committee stage.

There are other matters that have been dealt with that perhaps an inquiry or a review should be commenced. We are dealing with a couple of matters up in Labrador. That is one of the situations. We agree with the clause per se. We just think that an amendment could be added there which would cover off the concerns that we have.

Another one would be where there are deceased children out there where their surviving relatives might be excluded from this act due to the timing but they want and perhaps deserve a review. So we are asking they be considered in this as well. We will be suggesting that. We think it is a reasonable suggestion or amendment that at least deserves the benefit of debate on both sides as to if we cannot do this, why should we not do it? We want to make sure that what we put in covers off all situations so we can all move forward together in a positive manner and eliminate these outstanding questions that may be there. That is why I suggest that, Mr. Speaker.

As we move on, we talk about the report of the committee itself. Now this is something that when we were briefed about it this morning, it is my understanding that only the recommendations will be made public. The report itself will be put forward to the minister and from minister it goes then to the Child and Youth Advocate. One might question as to whether a report can go directly to Cabinet and go directly to the Child and Youth Advocate, if we need to have that middle person in there. I do not know if that is something that can be changed or not. It is just something that we noticed this morning during the briefing.

As long as the Child and Youth Advocate is getting it is the major question here, which has been addressed in 13.4. Also, I do like the timeline that within sixty days after the minister receives the report the recommendations have to be made public. The fact is it is not about a blame game here or blame exercise. That is not what anybody wants here. We want to make sure we – why are we putting this in? We are putting this in, in order to help prevent in the future. In order for us to help prevent in the future we need to know what happened in the past. That is why we need this here. We need it to be made public.

It will make public the recommendations of the report relating to protocols, standards, linkages and improvements; a, b, c and d. My only question there is whether the report itself should not be made public. One of the things we tossed about during the briefing was – we understand that the inner workings of the committee should not be made public. When you have these experts put together, are they going to be comfortable discussing these things if it is made public? I agree with that, the same as last week when we had our lengthy discussion on access to information. I agree with the fact that certain things are necessary to remain within the realm of Cabinet.

What I am wondering is, aside from those recommendations, if there is an actual report compiled should that report not be made public, not just the recommendations but some stuff in the report? I understand there may be some sensitive information in terms of privacy. I put this out there for the purposes of discussion. If there is a reason why not, I am sure I am going to be told why we cannot do this as I am suggesting. I am just putting that out there. Maybe not just the recommendations but some people may want to know, if these recommendations are there, than what was used to justify those recommendations? I would put that out there. Either way, as long as the recommendations are made public that is a very good start, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker.

When you look at section 13.6, the no liability section, that is a no-brainer as far as I am concerned. That is necessary. It has to be there; not an issue.

We move on to, section 26 of the act is being repealed and a new section being inserted. What I am wondering is, it states there: and the minister is satisfied that an inquiry is necessary. What I would suggest, this is the concern or question I have, section 26 says: Where the minister receives (a) a recommendation by the Chief Medical Examiner; or (b) a recommendation by the committee and the minister is satisfied that an inquiry is necessary for the protection of the public interest or in the interest of public safety, then the minister may order that a judge conduct an inquiry. My question is: If the Chief Medical Examiner or the committee that we are now creating says an inquiry should occur, why should we leave it up to the minister's discretion? If either one of these bodies says it should happen then it should happen.

We would not want anybody to be able to turn this down, possibly for political reasons, or possibly for whatever reasons. I think that is a very fair suggestion to make, that if a committee which we are creating by legislation says do an inquiry, then the minister should not have the ability to say, no, we are not doing an inquiry. It should be mandatory here. This is another situation where we need to get into shall versus may. We are possibly allowing for the possibility of defeating the purpose of why we are bringing in these amendments in the first place. If the Chief Medical Examiner does his review and says, look, we need to have an inquiry here, then why would we allow that this possibly would not happen? I am just putting those out there as well, possibly for discussion during the Committee stage.

The remainder, Mr. Speaker, is very housekeeping in nature. Other pieces of legislation had to be changed to take in these amendments that have been made. My time has run out here fairly quickly, unfortunately, but I am in support of this. I put forward some very reasonable and some very cogent arguments as to why certain things need to be changed. I would suggest we keep in mind why I am putting them forward. It is not just for the sake of it. We are putting it forward because we want to make sure we make this as strong as possible.

I look forward to the continuation of this debate on these very worthy amendments to the existing act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a real pleasure to stand here today and speak to Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act. It is really a progressive piece of legislation that is being brought in here today. I am not going to stand up in the House today and tell you that everything is absolutely rosy in the Department of CYFS, but what I can say is things are certainly headed in the right direction. As the previous minister who spoke said, we really want the child protection system in this Province to be not only the best in Canada, but the best throughout the world, Mr. Speaker.

It is not very often that I am going to stand up after the Member for Burgeo – La Poile and agree with almost everything he said. It is going to be a rarity in this House, I suspect, but this is one of the days when I think a lot of us will agree it is very important we do the right thing by the children of our Province. They do not deserve any less than that, Mr. Speaker. As political figures, it is important we put them first and put politics aside when it comes to such substantial legislation like this.

These recommendations today are as a result of the Turner review. There were fifty-eight recommendations that arose from that report and these are the final ones to be addressed. While it has been said we would have liked to have seen this sooner, Mr. Speaker, it is not to say that things have not been happening. Many changes have taken place: the new department was formed, training units were formed, quality units were formed, new organizational model, new legislation; the list goes on and on, Mr. Speaker, and the majority of those fifty-eight recommendations have been acted upon or are currently ongoing. There are a few that alternatives were proposed, Mr. Speaker, and there were some that just were outside of our jurisdiction.

So, while this does not bring closure to the Turner Review – because I do not think there will ever be closure to the Turner Review – it is certainly very progressive in what we are doing. Certainly, we are here due to the unfortunate death of thirteen-month-old Zachary Turner, a real sad and unfortunate story, being murdered by his mother; really, our condolences, again, go out to the Bagbys, who lost a son and a grandson through this terrible tragedy. As has been said here in the House, while this is very unfortunate and sad and heartbreaking, Mr. Speaker, it is really important that we learn from this and go forward so that we can prevent deaths like this from happening in the future.

In the Turner Review, Markesteyn said that really our legislation at the time, and our whole way of thinking, was very parent-focused and it was not child-focused. That was the first major step in changing the way we do things in the department and in government, was having that focus on the child. I have heard the member – I think it is St. John's North – from the Third Party talk about how we do not do enough for the parents and the families; while that is very important, Mr. Speaker, I think that is the old way of thinking, because Markesteyn, and then Susan Abell, as was referred in the Clinical Services Review, both highlighted how important it is that we be child-focused and put the child first. Certainly, that is what we are doing in this legislation today.

As was mentioned, the child death review is a process that will establish a multi-disciplinary committee, there will be experts, and it will be looking at the facts and circumstances around child deaths. One of the recommendations was that all child deaths under the age of two would be reviewed, Mr. Speaker, but that would be one even less than what we have today, in terms of what the Chief Medical Examiner reviews, in that we look at deaths under nineteen.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there are deaths that take place that are very natural in nature. Certainly, if a family, a parent is suffering through a very difficult time losing a child due to natural causes, the last thing that I suspect they would want is to have governments and agencies looking into the death of the child. That is why we did not go with the under two, but certainly all of the cases where violence, where a child may be in our care, where there is something suspicious, where there is a suicide, where there is neglect, all of those cases that are currently reportable to the CME will now automatically go to the Child Death Review Committee. That will not be discretionary, Mr. Speaker, that will be an absolute automatic.

As the member opposite before me just mentioned, this is about preventing future deaths. This is what this Committee is all about. This is not about placing blame; this is really about learning from unfortunate situations, looking at trends, looking at patterns and trying to prevent it. Perhaps there is some education that is required that as a government we can do. That is what this is all about, Mr. Speaker.

I heard the Opposition House Leader – and it sounds like they will be putting amendments forward and we certainly welcome those amendments. I thought I would talk a little bit about the reviews that are currently in place so that the people listening have an understanding for what is currently there. If there is a child who is in the care of a Manager of CYFS who unfortunately experiences death or a tragic death, then there is a review currently in place within our department to look at that. Obviously, there are police investigations and the legal avenue as well. We also have the Child and Youth Advocate, and I heard the member speak in great length about the Child and Youth Advocate. It sounds like she has not had great experience in the past with the Child and Youth Advocate. I do not want to put words in her mouth, but I think I am being fair when I say that she has not been totally satisfied with the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to remind members is the Child and Youth Advocate is an Officer of this House. We all put the Child and Youth Advocate there, so if there are concerns, then we need to raise that with the Speaker of the House. The Child and Youth Advocate is one avenue for a further investigation to be done, should a parent or should the Child and Youth Advocate see necessary. That is something that I think we should address at some point. She is talking about giving the discretion to the Chief Medical Officer to go back in time retroactively and allow the Chief Medical Officer to refer cases to the new Committee. I thought it was important we talk about the processes that are currently in place.

The Chief Medical Officer can call a public inquiry now if they see it is of a reason for public safety if there is something substantial. That is also currently there. So, to go back and say to the Chief Medical Officer that you can retroactively go back in and look at cases just thinking at it – and I am not sure what the exact wording of their amendment may be – it almost calls into question the decisions that the Chief Medical Officer made in the past. If there was something substantial there, the Chief Medical Officer does have that authority today, and will have that authority in the future. We also have the Citizens' Rep and that is another avenue for people to go to should they want further investigation, further review done.

As I said, this Committee is about prevention of death, it is not about blame. We really looked around the Province, and as was said there are not too many provinces that put this in legislation. We certainly did put it in legislation because we want to give it that teeth and that significance. Mr. Speaker, when you look at other provinces, which we did quite in-depth, you look at Ontario and the child death reviews that they complete there, when they brought it in, they strengthened it in 2006 and they did not go back retroactively at the time. Part of the reason was they did not think that there would be much good coming out doing that, the information may not be available, but one of the other things that they cited is that families have already grieved the loss of a child and they are finally in a position to move on, so that was one of the reasons that they used for not going back retroactively.

BC also brought in legislation in 2008 around child death reviews, and that is really where our legislation is very similar to the BC model. In BC they do not go back retroactively as well, Mr. Speaker. I guess the thing with going back retroactively is: Where do you cut it off? No matter where you cut it off, somebody is always going to be on the other side of that timeline. So if it is two years, there is going to be a death that has occurred in two years and six months. If it is five years, it could be ten years and so on, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing I think is important to point out is that under the new Child Death Review Committee they will have the authority to go back and look at past cases and past deaths, should they so choose. If they see a trend that is happening of suicide, which is one of the examples that she used, or fires, which we have seen a couple of fires in Labrador, then it is their prerogative to go back and look on a case in the past, should they so choose. So that is there. On a go-forward basis, there is not going to be discretion on the CME's part, it will be an automatic that these cases will all go to the child death review. She is asking that it would be discretionary, prior to the legislation, but not discretionary on a go-forward basis. We will have to certainly look at the wording of the amendment and so on. Really, thinking of it on first blush, it really calls into question the CME, because currently they do have the authority to call a public inquiry. If the Chief Medical Examiner had concerns regarding the protection of public interest or public safety, then he certainly, I am sure, would have recommended an inquiry, which they have the legislation to do right now.

As I said, I really believe all legislation has to have a start date, a certain point in time. As I said, other provinces do not go back retroactively. Any date you would choose, there would be somebody on the other side of that date. Again, we will have to wait to see the wording. We always welcome amendments, but we have to do them for the right reasons too, Mr. Speaker. This is about preventing future death and it is not about blame. Some of the cases she mentioned, I have no doubt, if the trend occurs or if patterns occur, then the Committee can ask to go back and look at those deaths.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there were fifty-eight recommendations that came out of Turner. Turner was a review of just one case, the unfortunate case of Zachary Turner. Then the department went on to ask for a broader look at what was going on not just here in this region, but throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker. The Clinical Services Review was completed in 2008 and that showed that the issues were not just here in this region, Mr. Speaker. The issues were widespread – major issues. It is not to be understated.

Out of that Clinical Services Review came ten recommendations. We often refer to them as the Ten Commandments. It is what we live by in the department. The first of those amendments was new legislation to be child-focused. That act was proclaimed last year. It also brings permanency planning in for children at an earlier age. I already mentioned around training and quality, the organizational model, and all of those things that are currently ongoing in the department.

This today is not about finances, but I have to say, when it comes to putting money into this department, it has been an absolute pleasure. Because the Premier was on Turner previously, she really gets this. When it comes to children, she says we cannot do wrong by them. We have to absolutely do what is best for our children, particularly the vulnerable children. We have been very fortunate in the department to receive substantial amounts of funding to make sure we get this right for the children of our Province, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the fifty-eight specific recommendations out of Turner, twenty-nine of them related the Department of CYFS and one of them in conjunction with CYFS and MUN, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to report that all of those have been acted upon, either completed or ongoing. When it comes to training with the training unit that we have in Stephenville, that will always be ongoing, Mr. Speaker. Just for some examples that we have implemented: recommendation 7.1 and 7.2, the changes to the child protection legislation, the definition of the child in need of protective intervention; 7.8 and 7.9, the definition of the social history and when to use case conferencing to engaging other professionals. This all relates back to the Turner situation, Mr. Speaker.

There have also been another sixteen ongoing when we talk about the introduction of mandatory multi-disciplinary training that is done with the RNC and the RCMP. There was a recommendation that there be group supervision as well as individual supervision beyond what is already required by our law or policy. Currently, we do team meetings and it is an expected part of practice, and performance management is being introduced.

We have also worked with the School of Social Work to do clinical supervision mentoring for its frontline supervisors. There were some, Mr. Speaker, as I said, that were not implemented; recommendation 6.4, the Child and Youth Advocate does not have jurisdiction respecting bail and extradition, so she could not report on the findings of her review which was recommended by Turner.

This will never come to a complete close, Turner will always be ongoing. I remember first reading the three volumes of Turner. I could not put the book down; I stayed up the entire night. It is probably not appropriate to say, but it almost read like a novel, but at the back of your mind you always knew that this was a true story. It was a page-turner – sadly so, Mr. Speaker – but it was really an eye-opener into how the system failed this young, innocent boy.

For people who have not read it, and I am sure the Opposition critics have, it is certainly a guiding piece of work that we use in the department as well as the Clinical Services Review. As was said, it is really unfortunate that this did happen to this young, innocent boy, but our role now is to ensure that we work together to try to prevent this from happening to other children. That is what this is all about, Mr. Speaker.

It is a real pleasure to be in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. I have to say, the staff there are so dedicated. They believe in what they are doing and that, to me, makes all the difference, Mr. Speaker. This just is not another exercise in policy or legislation; this is doing it because the fire is in the belly to do it and they want to do right by the children of this Province. It is a real pleasure to be in that department. It is a real pleasure to have the support of my colleagues, the MHAs in the Cabinet, but truly, critically important, that we have the support of our Premier. I have to say she absolutely gets it, being on the Turner committee from many years back.

Mr. Speaker, on that note I just want to say that we certainly will take a look at the amendments if they do come forward, but I believe that we have a very progressive piece of legislation. As was mentioned, there are very few provinces that have put this into legislation, so that speaks to how strongly we believe in what we are doing. In terms of what was mentioned, the other provinces did not go back retroactively. We will have to take a look at it, but legislation has to start at some point in time and it has to be about preventing deaths in the future, Mr. Speaker.

I want to commend the Minister of Justice for bringing this in. By the sounds of it, the support is there, and I expect to hear the same from the Third Party because this is a good piece of legislation. It is about doing the right thing for our children and always ensuring their protection and safety.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to rise and to speak to this bill. I, like my colleagues before me, can agree with the intent and the focus. Of course, we are all relieved to know that the focus is on the prevention of deaths. So often, and unfortunately, it is with a death that shines a light on certain issues and situations, but often it takes something drastic to shine a light in some of the corners and alleyways of our society.

This seems to be a solid piece of legislation. We were very happy to sit with the department and the staff this morning for a briefing; however, to have a briefing late the morning of the day of the debate is, as you can imagine, problematic and it presents great challenges to us in terms of being able to fully and comprehensively review the piece of legislation. That is our role: to be able to fully and comprehensively review pieces of legislation before they are enacted. That being said, we do rise to the task and I am happy to speak to this.

Often, in our society there is nothing more tragic than the death of a child. Then, even more tragic than the death of a child, is if in fact there was a possibility – even a remote possibility – that that death could have been prevented, and this is what we are talking about here today. So we must do everything in our power to learn everything we can about the death of a child to hopefully learn from it, and hopefully place services or supports or corrective action in place to prevent – as much as we possibly can – the death of another child. I commend that this bill goes beyond a simple policy approach of the Child Death Review Committee to having it legislated in our Fatalities Act – and I know we will be among the strongest in Atlantic Canada in this way.

This establishment of the Child Death Review Committee will enable government to amend policies, develop services, and do whatever is possible to introduce corrective measures to prevent the death of a child. What comes to my mind at this point are some of the very public deaths that we have heard about in the past few years – some even in the past few months. Namely, the number of young people who have died in our communities not so long ago due to drug overdoses, and their drug overdoses were illegal street drugs, but also those children who died due to overdoses of illegally obtained methadone, even.

If the review had been in place, if the Child Death Review Committee had been in place at those times, we would have learned a lot surrounding those deaths. We would learn possibly about the lack of services for our youth in the whole area of addictions. We would learn about the lack of support services, the lack of counselling services. We would perhaps learn about the need for more social workers or more guidance counsellors in the school system. Who knows what we would have learned about those particular deaths if, in fact, this legislation and this bill had been brought to the House earlier.

The other issues that perhaps we may have learned about were the number of youth suicides that we have seen Province-wide by youth who are, or who are perceived to be, members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, or queer community, youth who have been mercilessly, mercilessly, bullied at school, either right in the school itself or through cyber-bullying. If this legislation had been enacted earlier, what would we have learned about their deaths? Not only what would we have learned about their deaths, what corrective actions, or what services would we have put in place as a result of the recommendations of this Committee? What responsibility, what would we have learned about the responsibility of our government to ensure that our schools are safe places, that they are safe places for every student regardless of their orientation, regardless of their race, regardless of anything? We would have learned something specifically from those deaths had this legislation been in place earlier.

Some of the concerns that I do have with the legislation as we have been able to examine it to date, in this short period of time, echo some of the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues in the Opposition. I commend the composition of the Committee, of the Child Death Review Committee. I commend what appears to be a very comprehensive approach, but also, not only that, but what appears to be a very fluid approach in terms of bringing in experts that will have a more relevant expertise depending on the death that, in fact, is being reviewed or investigated.

I applaud that; however, one of my concerns is that we have to make sure, in fact, that the Committee will be broad enough to include members on the Committee, members with expertise who are not necessarily employees of government departments, agencies or services, particularly when there is a government department, agency, or service that has been involved in the care of the child in question or the children in question, so that it would be really important again to make sure to not have only representation by employees of the provincial government.

The other area that I have a particular concern about is the release of information. The act, as it stands now, talks about that only the recommendations of the review Committee will be released. We understand the needs of privacy for the inner workings of the Committee. We understand the delicate nature of peer reviews. We understand the importance of safeguarding the ability of peers and of Committee members to be able to explore all facets, particularly when we talk about the death of child; it involves the family, it involves caregivers, and it involves, oftentimes, other organizations, so we understand the delicate nature and the need for the protection of privacy.

The other aspect and need that I think needs to be considered is: what about the needs of families? What about the needs of mothers or fathers in terms of having information about really what led to this death, what happened. Releasing simply recommendations does not tell us always about conclusions or findings.

In our briefing this morning, it was suggested that the recommendations, in and of themselves, may reflect back; you can read between the lines. For families, particularly mothers or fathers, when we are talking about – again, there is nothing more tragic than the loss of a child through death; I do not think that it is good enough to say to mothers or fathers, or families: well, if you read between the lines of the recommendations, you might get the information you need about the conclusions or the findings of the Committee.

Mr. Speaker, that is one area that I have concerns about, the needs of families to have information about the circumstances of the death. The other piece that I have is that we know that BC's legislation is kind of interesting in how they deal with the release of information in these particular cases. In fact, in the BC Coroners Act, if you might permit me, Mr. Speaker, to refer to it, they have a section on disclosure to the public or interested person in terms of disclosure of information about the review of a death. They say, "the chief coroner may disclose any report, or part of a report, made to the chief coroner" under this section. The chief coroner has some latitude in making some assessments and some decisions about whether or not to disclose information beyond just the specific recommendations. This is about looking at whether the public interest in the disclosure outweighs the public privacy of the individual whose personal information is disclosed in the report, or whether public good outweighs some of the information that has been deemed private. I would like to hope that within our legislation we can look at that issue as well, whether disclosure is necessary to support the findings and recommendations contained in the report.

Before we go off on the issue of disclosure of information, Ontario, in fact, in this same area of legislation, actually publish their reports online so that their reports are available to the general public. I imagine that disclosure issues that are delicate in nature in terms of the privacy and protection of personal privacy, the protection of the needs of peer reviews, and the deliberations within the committee are protected, but that there is a report above and beyond just recommendations that is available to the public so that the public can have a clear understanding of what is happening. This is about transparency and accountability for the people of their province.

The other issue, Mr. Speaker, is that the Turner inquiry made this recommendation for a Child Death Review Committee in the fall of 2006. That is almost six years ago – certainly five-and-a-half years ago, but almost six years ago. There have been a number of deaths of children in that time frame that probably would have been covered under the Child Death Review Committee, as I mentioned earlier, deaths of children of overdosing, deaths of children by suicide.

I would like to support the Opposition House Leader and say what could we have learned? What can we still learn from these deaths that have occurred from the time of the Turner recommendation that we have in fact a Child Death Review Committee? Perhaps what can be looked at is having this legislation reach back to bring forward the cases that would have been engulfed in this legislation, the cases that would have been dealt with in this legislation had this legislation been presented to the House in a timely manner.

I would like to posit that five-and-a-half to almost six years after a recommendation is not a timely manner. To look at the potential of reaching back and bringing these cases forward in the scope from the time of the recommendation that we have this kind of changes in our fatalities legislation. This would be a relief to communities, it would be a relief to families, and it would be a relief to parents.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close with saying that I support the spirit and the focus of this bill. I would hope that we would review some of the issues I have raised and also that some of my colleagues have raised. I think they are issues that are not unreasonable, but issues that also speak to the spirit of the bill, that will strengthen the bill; that will make the bill perhaps more comprehensive in its approach.

We know that the past can shed light on us as we go forward, as we reach into the future. This is about the future and preventing deaths in as much as we can possibly do that. I would look forward to further debate on this in terms of looking at those particular issues.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the amendments to fatalities investigations, Mr. Speaker. There are a lot of good things that I see in these amendments and certainly in some areas there is obviously room for some improvements.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to go through a couple of lines of what I like in these proposed changes, most of them come in section 13 – section 13.3(b) recommendations on changes as a result of death; section 13.5(d) improvements to services resulting from investigations. I would like to make reference to the tragedy in Makkovik, Mr. Speaker, where, should there be an inquiry, I am sure that we would see improvements to the services that would affect search and rescue in our Province rather than the degrading that is going on now.

Mr. Speaker, there was some reference made to the number of tragedies that have happened in Torngat Mountains as they relate to suicides and suspicious deaths. Just to comment on the stats that were given out by my hon. colleague, the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, regarding the number of suicides, throughout a lot of that period of time I was involved in youth corrections and was involved on the front lines in suicide intervention. I did put in my time on trying to stop suicides, Mr. Speaker, through counselling and through interventions, and I must say it is not the most comfortable volunteer position that I would wish on anybody. It certainly plays on your abilities and it continuously makes you question yourself.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to go back a few years, and I promise there will be relevance. Just to bring to the attention of this House that the Innu and the Inuit of Labrador at one point in time were Nomadic people, and they followed the coastline or they followed the caribou on the interior. I guess in the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s there was a major relocation problem throughout this whole Province, Mr. Speaker. It was not just up in Labrador; it was all over the Island of Newfoundland as well, and certainly we have heard all the stories.

In most respects, Mr. Speaker, the relocation was more of a geological impact moving from point A to point B. In Northern Labrador, not only was it a geographical impact but it was a cultural and it was a social impact when these people were forced to move to settlements far to the South. The Innu for example, Mr. Speaker, were nomadic people, they followed the interior of the land. In the name of logistics, these people were relocated to an island. Many of the Inuit in Northern Labrador, they were moved from places like Hebron, Okak, Nutak, to communities in the South, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing was the introduction of – I guess you would call it foreign substances that impacted Aboriginal people, Mr. Speaker, different geographical locations, changes in diet. The reason I say this, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that these people, upon being removed, lost their self-esteem, they lost their pride, and they lost their sense of self-preservation. These people grew up families in that respect to the point now where we are gone four or five, six generations of that sense of loss and how it impacts families. In terms of relevance, social impacts, cultural impacts, all had negative impacts on Aboriginal people in our Province. This is one of the reasons why we have seen all the negative sides of living after going through generations of some sort of suppression, Mr. Speaker, and so many changes that impact a once proud way of life.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about initiating investigations into suspicious deaths, including suicides or individuals being placed in out-of-family settings, foster families, I think there needs to be an investigation, an inquiry.

The other comment I would just like to make very quickly, Mr. Speaker, is that once a report is done and it is given to the minister responsible – and I will make reference to Bill 29 because it did not go through the minister's hands or maybe into Cabinet – then there could be repercussions in terms of information actually being released. The three topics that I see where change could be made, Mr. Speaker, are in the review process, input from the public, and discretionary information once the investigation is tabled as part of Cabinet information.

I hope to address some of this during committee, Mr. Speaker, maybe with some amendments that would strengthen these amendments to the Fatalities Investigations Act and hopefully make it clearer and more reachable by the people.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank my colleagues for their contribution to this debate this afternoon. It is evident from the tenor of the discussions that there is widespread debate for this initiative on the part of the government. We are convinced that this is a progressive piece of legislation. It is just part of our overall objectives to do what we can to make sure that our children are safe and have the best possible measures to ensure that safety.

Mr. Speaker, as mentioned by other speakers, there were fifty-eight recommendations in the Turner review and it was done somewhere around five or six years ago. These recommendations involved a complex set of interlocking changes that were made throughout government, including the establishment of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, a whole new department that was set up as a result of this.

Mr. Speaker, our focus in those five years has been the establishment of a solid infrastructure that is equipped to address all the issues of safety and concern we have for our children, our families. The Child Death Review Committee, Mr. Speaker, is an additional layer of review, an additional layer of scrutiny, an additional layer of expertise that will ensure that all measures possible are in place to ensure that the Turner report recommendations are implemented and are doing what they in fact intended to do, which is to protect our children.

Mr. Speaker, for example, in the Department of Justice alone, of the recommendations that were made twenty-two of the recommendations in that report had implications for the Department of Justice. Some of the things that came about as a result of that, Mr. Speaker, was the putting in place of new sureties procedures, bail procedures, and implemented by the Provincial Court and by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was certainly a big issue and concern with that report and that review.

Mr. Speaker, we had a number of discussions. A lot of the recommendations had to do with recommendations for the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. We have had many discussions with the Chief Medical Examiner. Most of the things that the review requested or suggested were already in place. We have already taken care of all the recommendations that had to do with the Chief Medical Examiner, as we have, Mr. Speaker, with the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. In 2008, we brought in amendments to the Child and Youth Advocate Act that put in place many of the recommendations that were put forth by the Turner review.

Mr. Speaker, we have taken other steps as well in the past number of years to provide better support for children and families. In the Department of Justice alone, Mr. Speaker, we allocated four new solicitor positions in order provide the necessary legal advice available to the Child, Youth and Family Services authorities. The following year, we followed it up with two more lawyers. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, a total of seven additional solicitor positions have been put in since Budget 2008 to address the concerns brought out in this report.

We have created a Child, Youth and Family Services project within the Legal Aid Commission and we have expanded the Family Justice Services Division to the Coast of Labrador. Mr. Speaker, we have done a number of things with regard to these twenty-two recommendations suggested by the Turner review. We are pleased to say they are all in some stage of completion. Not necessarily the most important one, but one of the most significant ones was of course the child death review process that we are bringing to this floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I hear what the other members are saying, especially the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair when she talks about the trauma and the tragedy involved around the loss of a child. That goes without saying. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about retroactivity that creates a whole list of challenges and concerns with any piece of legislation, but particularly with this one. If you put in a retroactivity clause, you have to determine where the review starts. Do you go back one year, two years, or three years? Do you put a discretionary responsibility on the Chief Medical Examiner as to what child death reviews to bring forward? You may create more problems than you solve. Mr. Speaker, we take direction from – as the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services indicated – the jurisdiction of British Columbia, for example, did not go back retroactively with any of his cases, neither does Ontario. We see all kind of challenges if we try to bring some sort of retroactive provision in the act. Mr. Speaker, if the members opposite want to bring forward an amendment in Committee, we will certainly look at it and see what it is specifically that they are talking about.

What it also will do, Mr. Speaker, and this is one of the major concerns we would have, it starts off our Committee – a voluntary Committee, a new Committee - starts it off with a backlog. So it is a possibility of setting the Committee up for failure from the beginning, so it is something we have to look at very carefully.

Going back and reviewing specific child death reviews to pick one or two, or to be selective of which ones you bring, also creates considerable challenges, and Mr. Speaker, in addition to that as well, the parents do not necessarily, in general, want these things to be revisited. There may be some specific incidents, as the member points out – and we realize the tragedy and we hear what you are saying, and I know some people can never put these things to rest, but going back and bringing up these situations on a selective basis, Mr. Speaker, will create logistical challenges for the Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the only other point I want to mention is that section 26, which gives the minister the discretion, upon receiving the report and the recommendation for an inquiry from the Committee – and it is the minister may, instead of shall. Mr. Speaker, there is not a body in the country, outside of an elected body, that has the authority to call inquiries – and that inquiry cannot be left to an unelected body, that is strictly the prerogative of the elected government, and to do otherwise, Mr. Speaker, would be, again, a logistical issue.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members for their contributions. This is, as I said, a very important, significant piece of legislation, and I now direct that this bill go to second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Fatalities Investigations Act. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend the Fatalities Investigations Act", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 33)

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

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, with leave, Motion 1, and I move, seconded by the Minister for Advanced Education and Skills, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, Bill 37, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Environment and Conservation and Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act, Bill 37, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 37 and that the said bill be now a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation and Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act", carried. (Bill 37)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 37 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 2, with leave, I move seconded by the Minister of Environment and Conservation and Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act No. 2, Bill 38, and I now move that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded the hon. Minister of Environment and Conservation and Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency shall have leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act No. 2, Bill 38, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 38 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation and Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act No. 2", carried. (Bill 38)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act No. 2. (Bill 38)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 38 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the Minister for Advanced Education and Skills that this House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

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