June 8, 2010                        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                  Vol. XLVI  No. 34


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome the 50 Plus Worsley Park Association, as well as other residents from the Districts of Topsail, Conception Bay South and Harbour Main. The group is accompanied by Ms Kayla Lynch, the assistant recreational director with the Town of Conception Bay South.

Also, a special welcome to another member of the 50 Plus group; Mr. Stan Wicks who, I understand, served in the House of Assembly as an RNC Duty Constable back in the days of Premiers Moores and Peckford.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North; and the hon. the Member for the District of Humber Valley.

The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to recognize the members of the Worsley Park 50 Plus Club.

Mr. Speaker, the Worsley Park 50 Plus group was established in 1984 and currently has eighty active members. The club's membership is comprised of residents from the Towns of Conception Bay South, Paradise, Holyrood and the City of Mount Pearl.

Mr. Speaker, our government has made the commitment to healthy aging one of our top priorities, and the 50 Plus Worsley Park group is certainly contributing to this goal. Through an array of activities and enticing outings, this club has helped to foster both active, healthy lifestyles and close friendships amongst its participants.

Mr. Speaker, this club is always seeking new and intriguing places to visit on their excursions. Certainly, there is no place filled with as much history and passion as this Province's Legislature.

Today, I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing the 50 Plus Worsley Park Club and congratulating them on their continued success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the City of Mount Pearl for holding the twenty-first Focus on Youth Awards at the Reid Community Centre recently. I was joined by my colleagues, the MHA for Topsail and the MHA for Mount Pearl South, at this wonderful event.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate all of the nominees and winners of the awards. In particular, I offer my congratulations to the following award winners: Female Athlete of the Year, Hannah Jardine; Male Athlete of the Year, Adam Keating; Team of the Year, Mount Pearl Synchro Club Tier 6 Team; Adult Volunteer Working with Youth in Sport, Mike Oliver; Official of the Year, John Kennedy; Youth Volunteer of the Year, Kiersten Didham; Female Youth of the Year, Lindsay Collins; Male Youth of the Year, Brian Peach; In Service Youth of the Year, Gillian Elliott; Group of the Year, the thirteenth Mount Pearl Pathfinder Unit; Visual Performing Arts, Jasmine Dezeeuw – I am almost done, Mr. Speaker. Literary Arts Award, Erica Hayward; Performing Arts, Individual of the Year, Jeffrey Sullivan; Adult Volunteer of the Year, Patricia Clancy; Performing Arts Group winners, O'Donel High Jazz Band, Mount Pearl Senior High Drama Club, and Mount Pearl Show Choir.

I would like to extend my best wishes to all of the nominees and winners on their hard work in sport, the arts, and volunteerism.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the City of Mount Pearl and its youth on a fantastic Focus on Youth Awards ceremony!

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Hampden Academy's graduating class of 2010.

Mr. Speaker, they held their special graduation ceremony in their school gymnasium on Friday, May 13. The graduating class consisted of twelve students and included: Nicholas Avery, Stacey Burton, Billy Davis, Kerra Davis, Corina Day, Kyle Gabbard, Ashly Parsons, Samantha Pynn, Ellis Stokes, Kayla Stride, Travis Young, and James Zarowny.

Mr. Speaker, this entire event was first-class and my sincere congratulations to the organizers which included students, parents, teachers and the community. The attention to detail and the overall quality of this graduation experience was second to none. The decorations were exceptionally well done and I extended my sincerest of accolades to all participants.

Mr. Speaker, all the graduates had a role at the event. Kayla Stride was the valedictorian. She did an exceptional job. Mr. Neil Osmond, a former graduate of the school who is now an educator, did a tremendous job in addressing the graduates as guest speaker.

It was indeed a pleasure for me, as their MHA, to share with these impressive, young graduates a special night as they celebrated their successful completion of high school and look to embrace the many opportunities that await them in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the twelve members of the graduating class of Hampden Academy and extend best wishes as they embark on their individual career paths and journey to lifelong learning.

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. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the honour of being in Cupids for the launch of Tourism Awareness Week in Newfoundland and Labrador

Mr. Speaker, Tourism Awareness Week is an opportunity to acknowledge tourism operators in this Province who are working hard to further build this very important industry – an industry which contributes about $850 million annually to the provincial economy.

It was certainly appropriate that the launch of Tourism Awareness Week took place in Cupids, which this year celebrates the 400 anniversary of its establishment as the first English colony in Canada. It certainly does not hurt, Mr. Speaker, that they had marvellous fish cakes and wonderful bakeapple tarts. So I encourage everybody to go out for that alone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRENCH: I even brought some home.

Mr. Speaker, there have already been several events throughout the region to mark this milestone, and we expect to see an influx of visitors this summer who will take the opportunity to tour the Cupids archaeological site, take in live theatrical productions, and visit the newly constructed Cupids Legacy Centre.

The provincial government has invested $5.3 million in support of the anniversary celebrations, including upgrades to municipal infrastructure, beautification initiatives and construction of the Legacy Centre. This fabulous facility, which will open to the public next week, will showcase the history of the region and chronicle the establishment of the English presence in the New World. It will serve as an anchor tourism attraction which will serve Cupids and surrounding areas for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, this year is shaping up to be an excellent year for tourism throughout our Province – and that is due in large part to the growing professionalism within our tourism industry and the operators who are providing visitors with unique experiences they come here to enjoy.

In acknowledging Tourism Awareness Week, I ask my colleagues in this hon. House to join me in congratulating Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, the Province's Tourism Industry Association, and all the individual tourism operators who are ensuring that Newfoundland and Labrador remains a travel destination of choice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. It is too bad he just brought us the statement and not the bakeapples, maybe the next time.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, indeed these major tourism type attractions are great for tourism. It started, of course, back in Premier Tobin's days with the flagship celebrations, I call them, when we had the Matthew visit, the Soiree, the Vikings and the Marconi. All of these major type initiatives, of course, are great for tourism in the Province, especially when they are spread around all over the Province. I note the minister says about $850 million annually comes into this Province as a result of tourism. So that is certainly a major economic contributor to people who are involved in the industry. We, as well, would join with the minister in wishing luck to all of those who are involved in this week's announcement, but of course those who are involved in the tourist industry on a full-time basis as well.

I would, of course, encourage the minister – we have heard a lot in the media these past few weeks about Marine Atlantic as well, and they are another major involved party and stakeholder in our tourist industry. We have certainly heard a lot of complaints and I would urge the minister, even though Marine Atlantic have undertaken some major initiatives in the last couple of weeks, we still need to keep the dialogue open between this Province, the federal government and Marine Atlantic because there is still lots to be done.

Other than the air – people who come in by plane, of course – the major number of tourists who come to our Province in the summer come across on the Gulf ferries and the Argentia run. So we would certainly like to see that that service operates top-notch as it ought to.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

I am delighted to stand with him today and to commend tourism operators who contribute so much to our economy. I particularly would like to mention one thing that he had in his statement, and that is the Cupids archaeological site which is certainly a fantastic tourist attraction for people in the Province, in Canada and from around the world.

At this time, I would like to use the opportunity to particularly mention and acknowledge the work of archaeologist Bill Gilbert, who has worked for so long on the Cupids Cove dig. It was his vision and determination that even when he had to scrape up money, he kept at it. What he hoped to find he found and now we are reaping the benefit of that as we come to the 400 anniversary of the community in Cupids.

So I do congratulate the Cupids 400 committee for their hard work and commitment, but I also hope that we recognize the work of Bill Gilbert. I do encourage the minister to put a lot of support behind the archaeology work that still needs to be done in our Province, there is still a lot more of our history that we need to learn.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today is Oceans Day and we know how important our ocean environment is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The current catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrates how fragile our oceans are and the importance of necessary precautions, especially when balancing the risk of the oil and gas industry. We have questioned the government extensively over offshore drilling in the Orphan Basin and today I would like to ask the Minister of Environment to outline the protections that are in place for oil shipping lanes in Placentia Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today, because according to comments made by the Mayor of Placentia there is no emergency management plan in place to address a spill in Placentia Bay, and I ask her today: Why hasn't government implemented such a plan.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my voice holds up here - but in terms of Placentia Bay, Mr. Speaker, that is under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada. Certainly, the Department of Environment and Conservation is involved. We participate in the SmartBay project. We participate - we have a voice on the REET, the Regional Emergency Environmental Team.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly consult with the communities on all of the environmental issues and as it goes through the environmental assessment process we participate and are certainly aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but this is under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this is about the only Minister of Environment that I have ever seen that will have nothing to do with the environment, but I say it did not stop them in 2003 in the Progressive Conservative Blue Book, Mr. Speaker, to committing to a full strategy on the environment for Placentia Bay, I say to the minister.

Well, this is an area of the Province, Mr. Speaker, that has supported a vibrant inshore fishery for well over 400 years, and, Mr. Speaker, fishermen have stated that a spill in Placentia Bay could destroy their livelihoods, and environmentalists have stated that a spill of any magnitude could wipe out the seabird population in Cape St. Mary's, and we all know the impact that oil has on land once it reaches shore, minister.

I ask the minister today: Is there a comprehensive plan in place to immediately deal with a spill, should one take place in Placentia Bay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that she has right, and that is that we have the jurisdiction in the Department of Environment and Conservation should the oil, in the unlikely event, that should the oil reach land then it does come under the Department of Environment and Conservation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when we came into government in 2004 we saw that there was not one plan in place, not one procedure in place, not one person hired to deal with should there be an oil spill that reached shore, Mr. Speaker. That is why we immediately consulted with the industry, talked to other jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, and actually hired somebody in the department so that we would have a policy in place should it reach land. That is under my jurisdiction. That is something that I oversee and that is something that we are working towards, but, Mr. Speaker, all of the other things that she is talking about in the bay, while we do participate and we are very interested and very concerned, Mr. Speaker, they are not in the jurisdiction of the Department of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You have over 500 fishing enterprises in that area. You have one of the busiest areas and ports in North America for that kind of business, or at least in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and you have the mayor out there saying that we do not have a strategy or a plan in place, and you, minister, are part of a government that in 2003 committed to put that strategy and that plan in place without ever saying at that time we have no responsibility for the environment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again today: Will there be a comprehensive strategy implemented, as her government committed to seven years ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, we certainly consult with the FFAW. They have been in my office for certain meetings. Vale Inco is one of the projects that also have impacts on Placentia Bay, and my understanding is the mayor also wrote on that particular project and was very supportive of that project, which could also have cumulative impacts on Placentia Bay. So consultation does take place. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and I meet about Placentia Bay. As I said, we are involved in SmartBay, which is one of the most comprehensive projects that are in place in all of Canada. It is a very comprehensive committee, and we certainly participate in that Mr. Speaker. Anything that the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and myself, as minister, and certainly DFO, can do to ensure the safety of the fisherpeople and the environment in that bay, we will certainly do that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Seven years, no strategy, as was committed to by the government opposite. Yet, we know that Placentia Bay, Mr. Speaker, is adjacent to the main transatlantic shipping routes between North America and Western Europe, and we know the traffic that occurs there.

Mr. Speaker, in 2007, and again in 2010, Transport Canada performed an oil spill risk assessment for the South Coast of Newfoundland. It estimated that a spill in the range of 10,000 barrels will likely occur within the next thirty years.

I ask the minister, because I am sure you do some work with your counterparts – or I hope you do, the federal government: What actions were taken in conjunction with your federal counterparts to address the alarming findings that were in both of those reports?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, as I said, SmartBay is one of the most comprehensive projects that is going on in Canada right now. The purpose of the SmartBay is to look at all of the ecological aspects of the committee. People from the Placentia and surrounding areas are involved. My department - there are officials there from my department. There are officials from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; there are officials from Transport Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, when projects like this are filed environment comes to the forefront, and that is something that we are very committed to protecting is the environment. There is all kinds of development not just the transshipment facilities, there is Vale Inco, there was the proposal for the second refinery, and there was expansion to the current refinery. We look at cumulative effects in all of this, Mr. Speaker, and that is what the environmental process is all about, it is ensuring at the end of the day that (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During consultation on various industrial projects in Placentia Bay, and the minister just mentioned a couple of them with regard to the Inco smelter and with the second refinery proposal, which never materialized, but anyway, Mr. Speaker, concerns were raised about the lack of safeguards and early response measures for potential oil spills even at those times, Minister.

I ask you today: Are there sufficient human resources and capital infrastructure available within the Province, particularly in the Placentia Bay area, to detect and immediately clean up a large scale spill?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, there are different levels of oil spill response. I understand that the member and the Opposition had a briefing about the oil spill response. There are Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 responses. There is the ECRC in terms of a spill of up to 10,000 barrels. Mr. Speaker, above that, we certainly have the Coast Guard who also responds to spills. All of those policies are in place and plans are in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are being told that one of the pieces of infrastructure required to respond to a large oil spill in the Placentia Bay area would be an ocean going tug. We are also told that the nearest tug to this Province would be located in Halifax.

I ask the minister if that is true and if there is a strategy, in the case, again, of a large oil spill in Placentia Bay, what is the process to respond to it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to do my best to provide information that I have in speaking to my counterparts within the federal government, but, Mr. Speaker, these questions are really better suited to be asked to the federal government. So, I suggest that she get in contact with the Minister of Transport Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Absolutely unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Environment in this Province cannot answer the questions on how they would respond to an oil spill in Placentia Bay that affects the fishing industry, every other industry that surrounds the ocean including the bird population, Minister. You should be ashamed today to stand in this House and even say such a thing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, environmentalists and the mayor of Placentia have been very vocal about the lack of response capability in Placentia Bay. Currently, equipment needed to respond to a spill is located in St. John's and Halifax, and there have been concerns expressed about the impact that this could have on response times.

I ask the minister once again: Since Transport Canada has concluded in both 2007 and 2010 that Placentia Bay was most at risk of having a spill, have there been any changes made to the location of response equipment in the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, the member can get all worked up all she wants. It is not within my jurisdiction. I am trying my best to help her with the information that I have. It is not our equipment that is in the area. It is not our equipment; that is owned by the Coast Guard. I can certainly give her the information I have, but again these questions are better put to somebody else.

It is not to say that we are not concerned about the environment or that we do not consult with our federal counterparts. Mr. Speaker, these are not my questions. I am trying my best to give her the information. She can get all worked up as she wants, but we all have our own jurisdictions to be responsible for and the questions she is asking –

MS JONES: I cannot believe it (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: While she is saying she cannot believe it, she was a former Minister of the Crown –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: – she would know what she is responsible for in her certain department and, Mr. Speaker, that goes true for any minister of this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the Fisheries Broadcast, the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale stated that he is quite confident that the licence for Little Bay Islands would not be transferred out of the community.

So I ask the Minister of Fisheries today: As you have the final say on such a transfer, are you ready to provide the same assurance to the people of Little Bay Islands today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member that represents Little Bay Islands, as would the Member for The Straits, would like to see things remain in their communities, but as the member representing Little Bay Islands pointed out, he informed the people in his community of the process and they will present the information to the licensing board, then the licensing board will make the recommendation that comes forward to me, as minister. Then, Mr. Speaker, I will either accept or reject it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Fisheries rejected a recommendation from the fishery licensing board just last year and we know the final decision ultimately rests with the minister.

So I ask the minister again: Are you willing to ease the minds of the residents of Little Bay Islands and assure that this rejection or this request for transfer will be rejected, or is this really just an indication that the MOU rationalization really has begun?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I swear to God they do not want to see this MOU process working. On three or four occasions now the member opposite has got up, in their statement tomorrow, and said that there is no progress that has been made.

Mr. Speaker, I have outlined to him time and time again the meetings that we have made, the input that the FFAW, the ASP, SPNL have all brought forward. Mr. Speaker, we are hoping for a positive result that comes from the MOU.

As to his issue around licensing, Mr. Speaker, we have a licensing board in place. I intend to allow them to do their work and they will bring forth their recommendations based on the information that is submitted to them, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say first of all that we certainly do hope the MOU process brings us a good solution. I have said that before and I will say it again. What we do not see is this government giving the leadership to the MOU process that is required.

Mr. Speaker, last month the community of Jackson's Arm, again, abruptly heard the news that it was losing its shrimp plant that some 120 people would be out of work. Earlier this week, I understand the minister met with union representatives at the union's request to discuss this critical issue.

I ask the minister if he and his department has had discussions with the owners of the plant on their decision for this year, and if government has received or indeed requested a written confirmation that the plant will operate next year for those people.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member may not be aware of this, but on Friday past, I visited his area. I went to New Ferolle; an issue that he has raised from time to time. I, as minister, and we, as government, have no problem meeting with any groups that represent fish plants or communities across this Province. We indeed did meet with the representation from Jackson's Arm. We have asked them to provide us with some information. The company has indicated that they will not open this year, but they have not said that this is definitive and that the plant will not open the following year. They are making business decisions based on current economic conditions and cuts to quotas.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with the community to find the best resolve that we can to this situation, like we do in all situations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the facts, New Ferolle is not in my area; it is in the area of St. Barbe. Also, ICO does not operate the plant in St. Anthony either; nevertheless, the fishery is in crisis in this Province right now, and not every plant worker or community has the luxury to wait for the MOU process, and that is the point we are trying to make.

I ask the minister: In the absence of any short term, long-term plans for the fishery by this government, are you prepared to implement a response measure that will provide income for plant workers at communities like Jackson's Arm, because there will be another community next week and so on, and just as importantly, provided at levels of incomes that they are used to earning?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, he indicates no short term, no long term. I do not know if there is any other term in between there, but, Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member opposite that the members who represent the communities that he mentioned, we have set - the Minister of the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, we have met with her. We are in the process now of having her officials go and make contacts within these respective communities and we will roll out the plan as we have in other communities, Mr. Speaker, who have faced similar circumstances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we also met with these plant workers yesterday and they are simply astounded by what is happening in their community, and rightfully so. We understand that, and they are looking for some assistance from this government beyond what they termed as being make-work programs.

I ask the minister: We will not talk about long term and short term, but what is the long-term strategy for dealing with these plant closures outside of the MOU? As we wait for the MOU process to develop, where is the long-term strategy? Are we willing to provide early retirement programs? Are we willing to look at worker adjustment programs, community infrastructure money and so on, that will allow these communities to attract new opportunities and give them a sense of hope?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, he is right in saying one thing, that the people who come in to meet with us in communities that are faced with this challenge, rightfully so, they face a tremendous challenge. Any time that happens to a community there are repercussions. We certainly sympathize and we are willing to work to the extent that we can with them.

Mr. Speaker, we have an MOU process that is in place. I hope that the member opposite is not suggesting that we start another process outside of the MOU. We have the groups at the table that can make a difference in this fishery engaged in this MOU process, Mr. Speaker, and I am certainly hoping that as a result of that process, we will have a stronger fishery in the Province in the future, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, again, either intentionally or unintentionally, it seems to be misunderstood. I am not suggesting another process of the MOU. Again, I will state that we are in support of the MOU, but many of these workers that we met yesterday suggested to us they have two or three weeks of unemployment left, they have been waiting for their plant to open, we know the plant is not going to open, and they are looking to government to give some assistance, some direction as to what they can expect in their communities.

Again, I ask the minister: What is the plan?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, despite the challenge that some of these communities face, in terms of plant workers, Mr. Speaker, we have stepped up for plant workers time and time again and we will do likewise in the situations that we have before us right now, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you of that.

Mr. Speaker, in the long term, as I indicated I believe here in Question Period last week, I met with the chair of the MOU and I directed him to have something to me by January 11, which is the anniversary of this process. Mr. Speaker, shortly after that, I asked that we have something submitted in writing. So, if we can have that put before us, Mr. Speaker, hopefully that will lay out the direction for the –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot – she is shouting at me, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

I guess that is not unheard of in this place, when somebody shouts at you.

Anyway, yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Business about the graving dock for Marystown, given the federal government's announcement of the two new $35 billion contracts that were going to be let over the next number of years. The minister responded that there had been conversations between him and the people in the Marystown area and that government would step up to the plate if there was some infrastructure that was needed and if they were successful in the bidding process. I say to the minister, the graving dock is needed, not after the contracts are let and awarded, minister. The graving dock is needed in order to make them successful in the bidding project.

I ask you again: After years and years of conversations and consultations, is this government prepared to commit to a graving dock so that they can enhance their chances of being successful, and if so, when are you going to tell the people of Marystown?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said yesterday that we as a government were very pleased that the federal government has now decided to proceed with a new shipbuilding strategy, and that Marystown yard, because of its history and successes that it has had, is well positioned to bid for that kind of work. They have indicated to us that to help with that process, depending on the nature of the work that they get – because that thirty-year strategy involves a full range of boats and ships to be built over that period time, some of them large, some of them small, and some of them mid-sized. Depending on the nature of the work that will be going to Marystown, that will influence the kind of investment they need to make to be able to respond to and to do that piece of work, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that we have been trying to do, and working with the company, is as they have been trying to identify the infrastructure requirements that they will have, depending on the scope of work that they get to complete. We have indicated to them that we would want to work with them to ensure that their position –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister is like a tape recorder.

I will put this very bluntly: Are you prepared to commit money to a graving dock? Period!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Business.

MR. WISEMAN: Now that the member opposite has clarified the punctuation, let me try to respond to his question.

Mr. Speaker, it is very unfortunate that in the Department of Business, and other departments of government, we frequently find ourselves having discussions with private companies who are interested in soliciting support from government. It is very difficult on the floor of the House of Assembly to discuss what is very confidential information in a very public way. So the members opposite get up frequently and ask questions of government and the ministers on this side of the House about issues relative to their discussions and negotiations, potentially, with private companies. It is difficult - in fact, impossible, I say, Mr. Speaker, for ministers to get up and to actually start to disclose the nature of what might be very private and confidential discussions. So I ask the member opposite to respect the notion that government may on occasion –

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We know a lot about what the Department of Business does not do, but we know what this minister is good at doing.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. Last month in the House, minister, the Minister of Natural Resources slipped that a German company had toured the former AbitibiBowater mill with an interest to possibly doing something with it. Upon hearing the news, the president, I believe, of the Grand Falls Chamber of Commerce revealed that they had no idea there had been an Expression of Interest from that particular company and, in fact, he expressed concern about being kept out of the loop.

I ask the minister: Have you since included the partners in the process - such as the Chamber of Commerce - and can the minister provide us with any kind of update as to where things might stand with respect to the German interest?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this House before, the work that the ministerial task force does in relation to the shutdown of the mill in Central Newfoundland and Labrador is done through the Community Development Committee; so we engage with the Community Development Committee on any economic development issues or other issues that we may have related to the mill closure. So, in terms of going out and speaking to individual Chambers of Commerce or individual municipalities or other individual groups that may be out there - and there are many of them - we have certainly talked to them in the past, but, in terms of formally engaging, our engagement would be done with the Community Development Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

We have learned today, Mr. Speaker, through the media, that half of our capacity of containment boom is en route to the Gulf of New Mexico. The containment boom is what is necessary, in the case of an oil spill, to keep oil from reaching the coastline.

I would like to know from the minister, Mr. Speaker, if the Province has been involved in this decision to have half of our boom capacity moved to the Gulf of Mexico.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly check for the member and get back to her. I do know that we did send a staff person who has involvement with the cleaning of birds, very highly specialized within Canada, and they work at one of our provincial parks here; we did send one of those down to help out. They just came back yesterday, or the day before, and we are looking forward to a report from them, but I can certainly check on the other one for you and get back to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister - she said earlier in Question Period that her department is in consultation with all those who are involved in issues around oil spills: Canadian Coast Guard, DFO, et cetera - how could this decision be made without the Province being consulted, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that this equipment is privately held. I am not saying that they did not consult with anybody in government; I am saying that I am not aware of any consultation done in my department. Our department is responsible for, should there be an oil spill on land. We are not responsible for the offshore, Mr. Speaker. Again, I can certainly check around within government and see if anybody within government was consulted, but again I think it is private equipment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I point out to the minister that the boom that has gone down is half of the capacity of the Canadian Coast Guard, so she may want to look further into that issue.

Mr. Speaker, we know that Placentia Bay is at very, very high risk when it comes to the potential for oil spills – much higher than the offshore, Mr. Speaker – and the Mayor of Placentia and others who are concerned say that we are not adequately prepared for an oil spill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: So I am asking the Minister of Environment and Conservation: What is her concern about the implication of half of our boom capacity being deployed to the Gulf of Mexico?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, it seems like the member opposite answered her own question. She said herself that half of the equipment came from the Canadian Coast Guard, so a very appropriate entity to ask would be the Canadian Coast Guard, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, we consult with the communities; we participate on the SmartBay. Certainly, there are environmental assessments that go on, that we pay very close attention to, Mr. Speaker. We consult with the FFAW, with the mayors themselves, and we keep in very close contact with the federal government, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, this is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I know in the past that the mayor has been very outspoken. I know that he does not believe that he has gotten the attention that he deserves from the federal government, Mr. Speaker. There are certainly discussions that we have had with the feds on that, but again it is the jurisdiction of the feds and certainly the Canadian Coast Guard. If they make a decision to send half of their capacity, then that is certainly a decision that is within their rights to make.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was on Sunday that the federal government announced it was sending 3,000 metres of boom, and I heard that in the news on Sunday. I am asking the minister: If she is so up on consulting with all of the parties involved, whether it is the communities or the mayors or Canadian Coast Guard or DFO, why would her department not have started asking questions about where the 3,000 metres of boom were going to come from when the federal government made this announcement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, again, I do not mind providing information when I consult with the various organizations in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, this is not within the Department of Environment and Conservation. I have no issue whatsoever – I think it has been demonstrated in this House - I have no issue with answering questions that fall within my jurisdiction. I certainly would never want to answer questions for the Minister of Finance –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: – or for the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, and I certainly should not be answering questions for the Department of Transportation, or Transport Canada or the Canadian Coast Guard, Mr. Speaker.

I just said that I can certainly follow up within government. Certainly, if she does not want to ask them herself, I can certainly ask on her behalf. That is what I can offer to her, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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.

Pursuant to section 26.5(a) of the Financial Administration Act –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that Question Period has expired.

Tabling reports.

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

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to 5(a) of section 26 of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling two Orders-in-Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2011-2012 to the 2012-2013 fiscal years.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, one commitment is for the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. It authorizes that department to enter into a cost-shared arrangement with Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited to support implementation of a comprehensive training program. The other is for the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, to authorize an equity contribution to the Republic of Doyle television series.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Government Services, for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008, (Bill 26), and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008, (Bill 26), and that Bill 26 be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 26 be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008", carried. (Bill 26)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 26 has now been read a first time.

When shall Bill 26 be read a second time?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 26 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we adjourned debate in second reading on Bill 1. Today I will call from the Order Paper, Order 7, and we will continue second reading of a bill, An Act Respecting The Care And Protection of Children And Youth. (Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER: The House is now ready to hear debate on An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth. (Bill 1)

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

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

I just want to say that it is a pleasure to be able to stand today and take a few moments with regard to Bill 1, An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth.

Mr. Speaker, as we look at this bill it is a very detailed bill which will replace the Child, Youth and Family Services Act. Included in this bill there are some eighty-seven sections. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have to say I guess from the outset, and it has been stated by two of my colleagues, that we support this bill even though we have a couple of amendments that will be coming forward. We look forward to working with the government through the committee stages in implementing, or hopefully they will accept those amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I also have to say that it was a pleasure that the Official Opposition were given the opportunity to get involved in the process and to know that maybe - I think some of the issues that were brought forward has been implemented into this bill.

I guess I am not the only one here who has spent quite a bit of time involved in the political arena, but when you go back twenty-one years - I guess my day started as an EA in the old department, when I was Executive Assistant to the Minister of Social Services. That was back in 1989. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that at that time, not only within your own district that you represented but throughout the Province, you heard many heart wrenching stories of incidents that involved families, foster care, and yes, court action.

I remember one particular time, I received a phone call in the office and it was from a mother who went to the school bus to pick up her children, they were not there. There was an incident that happened and they were taken into foster care; a very serious situation. What was done was the proper thing to do, but I just want to relate several incidents that happened and hopefully with this bill, with the new guidelines that are in this bill, many issues – we know this will happen again, but hopefully the situations can be looked after.

There were many incidents back in 1989 that came forward with relation to foster care. We hear so much about foster care here today, that there are many families in this Province who look after children, and yes there are also vacancies. I have heard the minister make the comment that, yes, we need more. That is very important because those people play a very important part.

Over that period of time, you get to know not only the social workers but many of the chief financial officers when you are dealing with various issues. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation is a very important piece of legislation, but we also have to have the numbers and the skilled people to see that what is in this act is carried out. I have to say, not only in that time frame but down through recent years, the work that those people have to do is very crucial as they deal with children, families in crisis, and foster parents.

We all know there is another bill that is coming forward – Bill 20, a Practice Of Social Work Act – and I am sure we will be given an opportunity to touch on the same issue there, to know the work that those people go through and how stressful it can be. I believe there are approximately 1,342 social workers in the Province today. As the minister stated, there is additional funding allocated in the Budget hopefully that extra people will be taken on and that proper training will be provided for them all.

Mr. Speaker, in 2007, there was a survey done listed as quality of work life survey, and it showed what those individuals go through on a daily basis. Many times the work conditions take a tremendous toll. They have a serious issue, whether it is balancing their personal and work lives, knowing the strenuous situations that they have and the harassment that they have to put up with on the job.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is solely for the protection of our most vulnerable, children and youth. As good as this bill is, it has to have the people – and I am sure with the new department, with the minister just dealing with those issues and the staff that is there now with extra training, we will see that this act will carry out what needs to be done for the children and youth of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, many speakers yesterday touched on the custody orders; the continuous custody, protective intervention, plan of care, and access to information. I guess one of the key components - I know we all find from time to time that when someone reached the age of sixteen, but now we know there is an extension to the age of eighteen if they are in care, and possibly to the age of nineteen, but I think they have to be attending school.

The new act, Mr. Speaker, replaces the old act. However, there are some sections I guess that are similar or the same as what is in the old act. One of the key issues that I see involves the investigative services, where all complaints should be followed up on. We know there have been incidents in the past, and hopefully this will be corrected, that this situation will not be involved, or we hear talk of it in the media any time in the future. It is good to know that children are going to be protected from physical harm, sexual abuse, and yes, emotional harm.

When we had our briefing yesterday, I just forget the ladies name – that does not matter – but one of the things she did tell us, I think the word director will be changed to manager. It goes on and lists the duties of that manager, that they cannot give consent for adoption unless the consent is there from the family where the child was removed.

Mr. Speaker, we all know the other key component that was mentioned yesterday is the wording foster parents will be brought back in, as versus caregivers. I think that is very important because we all know the tremendous job that foster parents do throughout this Province.

I remember first when I moved to Bay Roberts, a long time ago, there was one foster home there that had quite a few children. As a matter of fact, they went on to adopt some of the people that they had there. They had children who were Aboriginals and so on, but I can tell you, the love and respect that they showed for those individuals made a tremendous difference in the lives of those young people.

All too often, like this year, the foster care – I think their theme for this year is Taking Care of Me – Taking Care of You. I guess all of us received the booklet that foster care or a different association has put out from time to time. It is very interesting to hear the stories by young people who write to this magazine, outlining the care they have been given and knowing that they have been protected when they have been removed from a home.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to touch on section 11 and section 44. Section 11 has to do with duty to report, and section 44, a child returned at any time. It also goes on to comment on a child returned within seventy-two hours, or after seventy-two hours

Mr. Speaker, another incident that happened in my particular area - and hopefully this legislation can take care of that. What I am going to say is not blaming anyone in the system because they carried out the work that they were supposed to do according to the regulations that they had to work with. This little child about a year or a year-and-a-half old was taken from the family. We all know that the end result or what we should be aiming for is that families do get back together. Many times that happens and more times it does not happen.

In this particular case - and that is why I reference duty to report and a child returned at any time - this particular little child in the estimation of many, and with the staff who were dealing with it at the end, realized that they thought everything was fine to return that child, but the individual who had the child made a report, it was not followed up on, maybe it just slipped by the wayside, and I know they called us and asked us to get involved, but at the end the right thing was done. That child was left with the individual who had it in their care because the family were not prepared. They were not back to the stage where they should have the care of that child. I believe that this piece of legislation will strengthen this because it is outlined in the regulations with regard to the duty to report and a child returned at any time.

Mr. Speaker, also under section 12, determining the need for protective intervention, we all know that when the staff and the social workers, they receive phone calls, whether it is from a school, whether it is from some individual, they have to react and react immediately. Many times the situations become very serious. I know another incident, an individual from my district who was living here in St. John's and the time came when the call had to go out that the children would be removed from that home and what was done was done properly.

Mr. Speaker, even the RNC had to be called in and the lady had to be taken to the Waterford Hospital and the children were put in care. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, that lady was released from the Waterford Hospital within an hour and fifteen minutes. When she went back home, the children were not there. She called to see what could be done, nothing could be done, and that is understandable. The act that was carried out was proper, but the lady just could not cope with it and the next morning the RNC received the fatal call.

So what I am saying, even though there are issues that have to be dealt with, and were dealt with properly, but I think there is something, maybe not missing from this piece of legislation, but there should be something else to follow up with the family members who are on the other end of the spectrum. All too often that has happened. I do not blame that on anybody, but I think with the new act that we have now the situation will change to see that those issues are looked after properly.

I understand, from comments made yesterday, that there are some 644 children in custody in our Province. That is a staggering number, and it just goes to show the work that those individuals have to deal with. I can assure you, none of them are easy cases. As I said, hopefully this bill will take care of those major concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe that if we are to advance this bill – and no doubt, we will, because it is something that has to be done – I think it will be one of the most important bills, if not the most important, that we will see put through to not only this sitting of the House but up until we head to the polls again because this is a crucial piece of legislation to protect the children and the youth of this Province. As my colleagues stated, they will be supporting this bill. I can assure you, I will be supporting it.

If there is one issue that I see in this bill that I would have any negative thoughts about, it is under Part IX, where it comes to Offences Against Children. I know it says there: $10,000 or imprisonment up to but not exceeding six months, or both. If I was to have anything to say about this bill – and I say this for a reason because we are going to debate two other bills, hopefully, in this sitting, Bill 21 and Bill 23. My hon. colleague, the Minister of Government Services, know the bills I refer to. In those two bills – one has to do with insurance brokers, the other one has to do with securities, and talks about scams and so on. The fines in those two bills, one of them is up to a maximum of $100,000, and the other one is $500,000. When I look at this, and maybe there is a reason for it, and hopefully the minister can explain it in her closing remarks, but to know that someone would be able to do something to a child and the fine would be only $10,000. I think that fine should be a lot more when we look at the other pieces of legislation and see where we are going to with the offence part.

Mr. Speaker, this bill as I stated - and I will conclude with this - is a very important piece of legislation. I commend the minister and all those who were involved in putting this together. I know we also heard yesterday that this should be implemented within a year and we all know that it takes time to put legislation through, but if there is anything that could be done to speed this up, to implement this act, I think it should be done.

So with that, I thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill, Bill 1, An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth.

Mr. Speaker, there are many pieces of proposed legislation that have been introduced and are at various stages before this House, and I have to echo the comments of the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General when he rose and spoke on this bill when he addressed it as a very important piece of legislation. I, too, believe that this piece of legislation is by far the most important bill before the House today.

That is not to say, Mr. Speaker, that other legislation is not important because every bill before the House is important in its own right; however, this legislation, the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act, is written to provide a clear authority for and to set the guidelines respecting services to children and youth who are at risk. I believe this legislation is the most important currently before this House.

This new act, Mr. Speaker, will provide the authority to intervene when a child or youth is not only at risk of harm but also risk of neglect by a parent, or when a child or youth is a victim, a victim of an action or a victim of a crime.

Before we go too far into my comments this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be valuable to clearly understand the difference when we use the term child and refer to a child and refer to a youth. In the interpretation section of the act, which is quite often known as the definition section, a child is defined and means: a person actually or apparently under the age of sixteen. Now, Mr. Speaker, one may ask or inquire why it would be worded like that. I know there has been circumstances, and in all likelihood in the future there could be circumstances again, where the absence of specific information may be available, and in a case where a child does not have the capacity to articulate their age that a conclusion could be reached by an employee of the Child, Youth and Family Services, or an employee acting under this act, a conclusion could be reached that a child is actually or apparently under the age of sixteen and therefore can be considered a child under the act. As well, under the definition section, or interpretation section, a youth is defined, or means: a person who is sixteen years of age or over but under eighteen years of age.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important change. It is a very critical change that is occurring in this piece of legislation from the current legislation and there are many benefits for adding this age group. The age of under eighteen years is consistent with the age applicable under the federal Youth Criminal Justice Act, and it is also consistent with similar legislation in other jurisdictions in other provinces. The increase in age also increases the age whereby a youth will have continuous custody opportunities, which is not available to a person between the age of sixteen and eighteen today and also provides for support for a youth will continue longer as the youth enters adulthood. Because we all know and are aware that a sixteen, seventeen, eighteen-year-old is at a very difficult time in their lives and being able to provide for a continued support through those ages is very important.

Under current legislation, the termination of a continuous custody order occurs at the age of sixteen; as I said, which is considerably a young age. At that time a youth service agreement can be entered into. However, currently it is the only option available to a sixteen-year-old youth.

As well, with this increased age, Mr. Speaker, the new act will extend the automatic termination of a youth who has a youth service agreement from the age of eighteen years to nineteen years, allowing for that continued support as the youth works towards completing high school or other formal program or educational opportunity. Again, it is quite often a difficult age for young people and if a young person working towards high school, completing high school, or a high school graduation or other program, this extra year, bringing them to nineteen years, is an important time for them.

Mr. Speaker, in Part II of the proposed legislation, the purpose and general principles of this act is stated. Under section 8 of the proposed act it states, "The purpose of this Act is to promote the safety and well-being of children and youth who are in need of protective intervention". It is a very clear statement. It is a very straightforward statement. It is a very meaningful statement. "The purpose of this Act is to promote the safety and well-being of children and youth who are in need of protective intervention".

If you read that and consider that as well, it clearly demonstrates that this piece of legislation is written very child centered and youth centered. It is written around the best interests of the child and youth, which brings me to the general principle under section 9 of the legislation. Section 9.(1) which states, "This Act shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the principle that the overriding and paramount consideration in a decision made under this Act shall be the best interests of the child or youth."

Mr. Speaker, this is different from the previous legislation, the current act, which considered the best interests of the child principle, but also referenced other several general principles. This act clearly, and very clearly states, that the best interests of a child is stand alone, general principle. That really is the overriding consideration, the paramount consideration affecting decisions made relating to children and youth who are at risk.

However, we do go to section 9.(2) which states that, "In determining a child or youth's best interests…" when making that determination of what is in the best interests of a child or youth "…all relevant factors shall be considered". So, all relevant factors shall be considered. Then the section goes on to explain some of the factors that are included in what will be considered or shall be considered. It includes "the child or youth's safety, health and well-being". A very basic principle, a very basic consideration and factor that is very important to consider.

It also states "the child or youth's physical, emotional and developmental needs". Another very important aspect of a child or youth's life and needs; "the child or youth's relationship with family or a person significant to the child or youth", that shall be considered. Also, what must be considered is "the child or youth's identity and cultural and community connections; the child or youth's opinion regarding his or her care and custody or the provision of services".

As well, within that section is "the importance of stability and permanency in the context of the child or youth's care." These are considerations that when determining what is in the best interests of the child or youth, these are all considerations that must be considered by the worker or the employee under Child, Youth and Family Services who is acting and will be acting under this act.

Section 10 in the act adds new grounds for protective intervention to include the risk of emotional harm. That is a new ground that does not currently exist. It gives new latitude to workers who have to work under this legislation and new opportunities to, in the best interests of children, for protective intervention. It also indicates not only the risk of emotional harm, but also where a child or youth is living in a situation where there is risk of violence. That is currently absent in current legislation and I am sure it can be very frustrating for child protection workers who work with, quite often, very difficult times and very difficult circumstances and have to make decisions that are in the best interests of children and youth. Now these new grounds will provide broader protective intervention opportunities for workers.

I want to speak for a few minutes, if I may, Mr. Speaker, under section 11 of this new proposed act. Section 11 is referred to as the duty to report. This is a very important section that affects all of society. It affects everyone in our community and it clearly articulates and affirms the obligation placed on all members of society to ensure the safety of all children.

It says under section 11.(1), "Where a person has information that a child is or may be in need of protective intervention, the person shall immediately report the information to a manager, social worker or a peace officer." Now that is a very important part of this piece of legislation, a very important part. Now it does not say that a person must have conclusive evidence and it does not say that a person must have grounds to believe, reasonable probable grounds as the police are required to have to lay a charge. It does not say that. It just says a person has to have information, "information that a child is or may be in need of protective intervention, the person shall immediately report the information to a manger, social worker or a peace officer." That is a duty that is placed on all members of society within jurisdiction of this legislation, within the Province, where it indicates you must report that information.

It goes on to say, "Where a report is made to a peace officer under subsection (1)…" the section I just read, "…the peace officer shall, as soon as possible after receiving the report, inform a manager or social worker." So it not only provides a burden and an obligation on members of society, it also places an obligation on peace officers to ensure that that information is reported to a social worker or a manger under Child, Youth and Family Services so they can act and be informed of that information.

"This section applies, notwithstanding the provisions of another Act, to a person referred to in subsection (5)…", which I am going to get to in a second, "…who, in the course of his or her professional duties, has information that a child is or may be in need of protective intervention." Some of those professionals include a health care professional. So if a health care professional, engaged in their professional duties, has information that a child is or may be in need of protective intervention, that health care professional is obligated to report it to a manager, a social worker, or a peace officer. It also applies, Mr. Speaker, to a teacher, an educational psychologist, a guidance counsellor, and a school principal. It is interesting to note, through my own experiences in my previous career, it is quite often that this type of information of protective intervention requirements actually come through schools, come through educators, come through people who are working with students through education systems, guidance counsellors, and school principals. Quite often that is where the information comes from, and this act clearly articulates that all of those professionals are obligated to report that information. It includes a social worker, a family counsellor, a member of the clergy or religious leader, operator or employee of a child care service, a youth worker, and a recreation worker. Again, under professional duties, for persons in the course of their professional duties, it also includes a peace officer and a solicitor. All of these persons, acting in their professional capacities, are obligated to report the information to a manager or social worker. This is in the best interest – this requirement is clearly in the best interest - of the safety of our children, the children who are most in need of protection and most in need of intervention. These people have to report this.

There is a penalty section involved with this, as well, for a person who fails to report. Under the penalty section, a person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both a fine and imprisonment. Now, we have to reflect as well that this piece of legislation is not a federal criminal law. It is a provincial legislation designed for the care and protection of children and youth, and to have a $10,000 fine and a term not exceeding six months is, under this type of legislation, I believe, a very strong penalty. It is a very strong message to the community and to society, that this is a very important aspect of the bill and it is a very important requirement, and failing to report such information would be taken very seriously.

To further support that belief, if we read the next paragraph, it indicates, notwithstanding section 7 of the Provincial Offences Act. – I should tell you that the Provincial Offences Act, under section 7, indicates that an information or complaint under this act may be laid. So a charge may be laid. What that refers to is, if a charge is going to be laid against someone for an offence, a provincial offence, under the Provincial Offences Act, the charge may be laid twelve months from the day when the matter or the information or complain arose, unless another time limit is provided; so, it is twelve months. So, if a person - under provincial legislation there is quite often what is referred to as a statute of limitations of twelve months that a charge may be laid, but under this new legislation, under section 11.(9) it says – not withstanding what I just read – "…an information or complaint under this section may be laid or made within 3 years from the day when the matter of the information or complaint arose". Three years. So, if a person has withheld information that a child is, or may have been, in need of a protective intervention, then that liability under the act continues for a three-year period, and that is significant. That is a very significant part of this act. It highlights once again the importance, the high importance, of reporting information. I cannot stress that enough, because the eyes and ears of protection of children exist everywhere in the Province, and it is people who quite often will have those pieces of information who do not want to get involved: I know there is something happening in my neighbourhood, I know there is something happening in my family, but I do not want to be a part of it. It is none of my business. I want to stay out of it.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is everybody's business. It is everybody's business to get involved with the care and protection of children and youth. That is why that section is written the way it is and has those important aspects of it: three years where a charge can still be laid, and the significant penalties attached to them, because it is everybody's responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of minutes left, and before I conclude, I just to speak for a couple of minutes, if I may, on my own experiences in my past career as a police officer. With twenty-five years of policing, I was engaged in a number of different roles as a police officer: for several years as a front-line officer, a first responder, and I could not begin to count the number of times - it may have been 3:00 o'clock in the morning, it may have been 6:00 o'clock in the morning, it may have been 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon - where I responded to circumstances and situations that involved less than ideal circumstances for children and youth, where I had opportunity to work very closely with child protection workers under difficult circumstances, under very stressful times, when those workers would join us at a home or circumstance. I can tell you that the decisions that these people make under those circumstances are very, very difficult, very stressful and very critical, and very important to the best interests of children. I can tell you that from my own experiences, the number of times that I have had those first responders - something just occurred, we had to respond, and we would contact the on-call social worker who, whenever possible, would join us at the scene. Quite often that was not possible, and quite often it was, and they would join us in the capacity that they could. We would work very closely together and, of course, the focus quite often was the best interests of the child, the best interests of what was taking to place to the child or children – quite often it was more than one child - and I can tell you they work under very difficult circumstances.

As well, I have had experiences in the past that were a little bit different but somewhat the same where, in an investigative capacity, I worked very closely with child protection workers more long-term through the course of an investigation, either investigating allegations of physical or sometimes sexual abuse or assaults against children, and would work very closely with child protection workers, conducting joint interviews, joint interventions, sharing information as we could do, as well. Again, I can tell you from first-hand experience, the work and decisions that these people face on a daily basis is extraordinary. It is very stressful and very difficult, and I admire them for the work that they continue to do on a daily basis for the children and youth in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the passing of this legislation and look forward to the continued progress and development of the new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services. I look forward to the day that all of its employees are equipped with this new act so that they are better equipped in the efforts to provide care and protection to children and youth in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my privilege this afternoon to be able to stand and speak for a few moments to Bill 1, An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth.

I would suggest, as the hon. Member for Topsail just did, that protection of our children and youth is certainly everybody's business and we all need to be involved. Oftentimes, people are reluctant to be involved for different reasons, and it is so important that we have the proper legislation and so on in place that protects our children when people do get involved. Children need that type of protection.

The innocent part of our society, I would suggest, is our children, and it is certainly important that we protect them as they go through the young years and require that type of extra attention and so on. Child abuse comes in many forms, as we know. Sometimes it is physical, and it is easy to see that, obviously, and often in those times intervention is easier or quicker. There is sexual abuse, there is verbal abuse, there is emotional abuse, and those are the kinds of abuse that often really seem to drag on and at times can be the most devastating.

The purpose of the act is to promote the safety and well-being of children and youth who are in need of protective intervention. So, as submitted to government some time ago in the legislative review, good legislation is important, but alone it cannot guarantee that a quality of service for children and for their families will always be there.

The effectiveness of the legislation concerned and with the welfare of the children is dependent on a number of factors. For example, the way we interpret it and the actions that are engendered by it are important to the legislation being effective. If it is interpreted improperly and not acted upon properly and so on, then, obviously, the legislation really does not do justice and does not achieve its mandate. Certainly, when it comes to protecting children and so on, and intervention, the timeliness of that is so important. When we get into these critical situations and situations that do require intervention, intervening prematurely, or intervening at a point that is too late, obviously, can be detrimental to the situation.

Also, of course, the effectiveness and the purpose of the legislation being fulfilled really depends on the quality and qualifications of those that are responsible in carrying out its mandates, whether that is the judge in the court, or whether it is the social worker, or whether it is a foster parent, or whatever the case might be, then it is important that these people are able to fulfill their duties and able to really ensure that their positions are effective in that regard. The general principle of the act, as was stated in the briefing yesterday that it is paramount, is that the decision that is being made is being made in the best interests of the child. There are a lot of other factors involved, there are a lot of things to be considered, but at the end of the day it is important that the decision that we are making is one that will be rendered as being in the best interests of that child.

The principles also acknowledge, of course, that the family is the basic unit for social responsibility, for the safety and the health and the well-being of the child. The challenge is in balancing family preservation, if you will, while reducing risk of harm to a child and developing a reasonable plan to achieve a permanent home for a child and so on. So, certainly there is a great challenge in all of this for those of us who would be responsible and involved in protecting our children.

We have indicated in the legislative review as well that the first principle is, and really always should be, that of the safety of the child. We try to really stress that, and I know that has been coming out in this debate in the House in recent days. Where the child's safety can be assured, it is also necessary that supports to preserve the family may be required as well, and should be provided. Even when a child is taken into care, it is important that the family be preserved in that situation as well, when possible. Whether it is in situations of divorce, non-custodial parenting and so on, that parent does not cease to be a parent. So that is a part of the process of getting through that and so on.

There are several significant changes that are outlined in this act, and there are two or three that I would like to just touch on this afternoon for a moment. One of them is the extension of the age from sixteen to eighteen. I think that is a good change; I think it is important. Government has changed the age for the automatic termination of continuous custody to the age of eighteen. In our submission to the legislative review, we certainly recommended that the age would be changed, and obviously, are pleased to see that it has been.

The responsibility again of providing care for children, as a parent, certainly carries through at least until they finish their schooling, and well beyond that it would seem as some of them, in particular, more are ready for – every child is ready for independence at a different point in their life, possibly. So it is important that as time is needed - as a further extension of time is needed I should say, then it is important that that parenting role continues in the situation of children that have been removed from their homes.

So every attempt should be made to encourage and support success in school. That was sometimes undermined in the past because of the age of being sixteen, then, obviously, by extending it to eighteen has been a good thing. Children should not have to worry, whether they are a foster child or in protective services, they should not have to worry about where they will be living next year, or what changes they will experience as they try and finish off this schooling and so on. So, it is good to see that their needs are being protected at least until they finish school. Quite frankly, should they be entitled to or really need support and assistance after leaving that particular care, then I think it is important that that would take place as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DEAN: Okay, thank you. So it is to the age of twenty-one. It is good to see those kinds of changes.

Another thing that was important to see there was the expansion of the grounds, if you will, for protective intervention and emotional harm. I have had the opportunity, if you will, throughout my career to see people, young people, children, who have been really challenged and harmed in emotional ways. To see this new act as having included that is important. The previous act outlined the cases in which children were acknowledged to be harmed and in need of protective intervention; however, emotional harm was not indicated to be a reason for intervention. This is changed in this act and that is very important and it is good to see.

Again, in our submission, we said that it would be wise to extend the need of protection to those who would be at risk of emotional harm. Domestic violence in particular often constitutes risk of emotional harm, but often parents, victims, female victims in particular, are sometimes reluctant to report that emotional harm in fear of losing their children. Often, that is one of those things that are covered up. I guess in some ways it is an easy thing to cover because it really does not show itself in the way that physical abuse would show itself in particular. So there can be a lot of emotional harm taking place within a home, and yet, not really anything being done about it.

So it is important to note as well that because a child may be suffering from emotional harm does not necessarily mean that a parent will lose that child or lose their children. It is important that it is dealt with, that there is legislation there to cover it and so on. Again, I am glad to see that it is included in this new act in protection of our children.

Some things that are not included that we would want to raise and just to mention briefly as it goes into debate further and so on - one thing that was put forth in the legislative review was the review of decision. In the previous act, there was no provision that allowed a child or a guardian or a caregiver to ask for a review of a decision made by a director under the act. It still does not appear that that has changed. The minister can correct me on that if that is the case, but in the legislative review submission we indicated that there should always be provision for review. It would have added value as its provision would enforce or reinforce the likelihood of consultation and shared decision making before problems occur at times. It would be preferable to any difference of opinion be resolved at an informal level and so on.

So the first line of defence, I would think, is always to promote communication and collaboration and so on to try to resolve the issue. If it becomes necessary, of course, the next step is to allow a child or a guardian or a caregiver or a parent or other concerned party, whether it is a teacher or a school counsellor or whatever the case may be, to request a case conference. If the issue is not resolved than a statutory review panel would then be in order.

We also recommended that a foster parent who has parented a child for at least a six-month period or more be entitled to participate and be heard in any court hearing regarding care and custody. So that is one of the things that does not seem to be included in this legislation that we had suggested and so on.

The second thing was duty to report. In our response, again in the legislative review, we indicated that the person reporting be kept informed as to the results of the investigation and the actions that are being taken. That does not seem to be addressed in the review as well.

I go back to my opening statement referring to the hon. colleague from Topsail, his remark in the fact that child protection is everybody's business and that we all need to be involved. I would suggest that as we get involved and as we see situations where we are concerned about a child's safety and a child's protection, if we get involved then it is unfair to expect the public at large to share responsibility for the safety and the security of children, and at the same time – let alone be kind of kept in the dark as to where that is so to speak. So while we understand the issue of confidentiality, and we understand the importance of things not being totally public and so on, yet I think it is good that if a citizen reports something, that somehow they can be abreast of where that is and how it is doing and so on, at appropriate levels - that certainly I would not be one to determine. Again, just something that I feel would be important.

Another thing is that we indicated in our legislative review submission that parallel family supports are put in place to assist families who struggle with addictions and behavioural problems and so on. In fact, any issue, I guess, that has contributed to disfunctionality in the home then this does not appear to be addressed in the legislation as well.

One of the things in the act that, in my review of it, and certainly I think is very important, is in Part VI of section 62. It talks about the placement of children and youth. "The placement of a child or youth shall be conducted in a manner which is least disruptive to a child...." I think that is very important that when we reach those places - because I have seen it unfold in front of me when children are taken away from homes. It can be a very disruptive process, and at best it is disruptive anyway, yet in their interests, obviously, recognizing first of all, when that is done, the importance of placing them with siblings and contact with his or her families who are significant to the child or to the youth. That certainly is important for consideration. Of course, as it states, first consider placement of a child or youth with the child or youth's family or a person with whom the child or youth has a significant relationship. Then, of course, if that is not possible, that they be placed in accordance with the subsection, with a foster parent or into a residential placement.

So I think it is very important that again – and I know that those working in the field certainly would be aware of that - they understand the assessment that is necessary at that particular time to ensure that the placement is as close to the child as possible, if that is possible. If not, then it is done in a timely and a proper process.

One of the things that I believe it takes to ensure that is done properly is that we have adequate support staff within the system to do that. I know that social workers play a vital role in our health and community care system, whether they are helping individuals, whether they are helping families, whatever the case might be; they play a very important role. Across our Province, in a vast number of areas ranging from supporting those who are impacted by addictions to ensuring the protection of our children and their safety and so on, they play a very vital role.

Yet it seems, from the statistics that I am reading and the information that I have, that the caseload continues to increase. I do not know what the average is, and I guess it is not necessarily important at this moment, but it is certainly important that as we give them clear direction as we look for greater protection of our children and so on, that those who are the front-line people are not over-tasked to the point where really they are not able to carry out their role effectively.

The statistics that I was reading in some of the reports that were available to me suggested that probably five or six years ago it may have been thirty – thirty-eight cases, approximately - across the Province in terms of caseload per social worker. It seems as though that has increased substantially in recent years, and I am sure it is something that government is looking at and something that hopefully can be controlled.

I was concerned when I read in The Telegram, I believe it was, just a couple of months ago, as the university graduates were coming out, the fact that Eastern Health appeared not to be hiring any new graduates this year. My first thought is that if an organization such as Eastern Health – as big as Eastern Health – is not hiring any of our graduates from the social worker program, well, where does that leave us? What would be the reason?

AN HON. MEMBER: No vacancies.

MR. DEAN: We can debate whether there are vacancies, or whatever the case might be, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DEAN: Okay. Well, I know that was a statement in one of the interviews of one of the young ladies who was graduating, and that was one of the comments that she made in a CBC interview as well, the fact that Eastern Health was making that statement.

Again, not to belabour that, just to make the point, Mr. Speaker, that I would hope that as a Province, as a government, we can continue to put the resources in front of them -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DEAN: I can give you a copy of that, if you want. That is not a problem - and that we can continue to support the program, and that the legislation, as it comes into place, can have the proper mechanisms in place.

Again, I support the legislation, the act, obviously, as does the Opposition, as we have already stated. I appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to stand for a few moments to speak to it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services and the Government House Leader speaks now she shall close debate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of comments I want to make as I close debate on Bill 1, but I feel compelled to address the issue just mentioned by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North: the fact that when we talk about hiring social workers in Eastern Health and Child, Youth and Family Services specifically, there has been no decision made to even suggest that we are not hiring any more social workers. That is absurd.

What the situation is with Eastern Health or any other regional health authority, and Child, Youth and Family Services, is that if there is a vacancy they hire someone. If there are no vacancies they are not going to out and hire people in Child, Youth and Family Services, and get them to come on, and say: I am sorry, but there is no work for you today.

If there are vacancies, we will hire. Just to say that they are not hiring should probably indicate to some degree that the efforts to do recruiting over the last three years have probably worked to some extent, that we are not running a lot of vacancies all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I do need, though, to clarify some points that came up in the debate of Bill 1. I must say, I was certainly pleased with the calibre of the debate, and it obviously shows that the people who sit in the House of Assembly here really consider this important legislation and we will work together to make sure that if there are any possible amendments that come in through the Committee stage that make sense and that can enhance this bill, that we would certainly be open to that, but I do want to clarify some situations just in case there may be amendments to address issues that may have already been addressed in this legislation and need further explanation.

I know that most people who spoke are very comfortable with the purpose of this bill, and the intent and the general principle being that this bill is all about serving the best interests of the child. We had to do this bill, because when we look at some of the reports that had in recent years, whether it was the Turner report or the Clinical Services Review, it felt that the legislative review was necessary, and we had to put more focus on the best interests of the child. There is a pendulum that swings in child protection, and it is in family reunification or family preservation, and the best interests of the child. Although the family, as a unit to take care of the child, is extremely important, it does not trump the best interests of the child.

So we need to be able to find a balance that serves this child best, and if the family can be part of that and can be part of the program and the treatment and the case plan as we move forward, and be able to provide the care and nurturing that that child needs, that is where we put our emphasis. Unfortunately, there are some children who will not thrive within their families, and we also have to be able to work with those children as well.

I want to address some of the issues that I feel are necessary. I notice there are a lot of times we are debating issues here and listening to, in particular, some of the members of the Opposition talk, truly about operational issues, as opposed to the philosophy behind the legislation or the legislation itself. I am going to try not to get into the operational issues in the House of Assembly, unless there are specific questions, again, I will get into at that point, but I want to clarify points within the legislation.

One is the emotional harm. I know the Leader of the Third Party indicated that when we talk about emotional harm in the legislation, we give a list and it says: it may include. She recommended that we change the wording to say: may include, but not limited to. Well, we consulted with Legislative Counsel regarding that particular word change, and the way the legislation is worded now means exactly that. So it is unnecessary to bring in, but not limited to. I appreciate that she said it and it was clarified because it is certainly a good point to be made. It is not an exhaustive list that is in the legislation.

There was also comment here this afternoon regarding the fines and penalties in section 76. There are no changes in the fines and penalties that were in the previous act. It is there in this present act. It is rarely used under this act, and usually when situations regarding child protection issues, whether it is sexual abuse or physical abuse or parents not caring for the children, if it leads to court or charges, the charges come under the Criminal Code of Canada, although they can still come under this act, but that would be the way that we would most likely proceed with a case here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There has been suggestion that we should share information back with the source that provides information on a referral. Mr. Speaker, I do have some concerns about that. I do understand what people are saying is that you make a referral to Child, Youth and Family Services because you genuinely care and you would like to know that something has been done about a particular case.

What we can do is we can provide assurance that every referral that comes in has to be acted on. Now, if we can find instances where that has not happened, we can label that inappropriate and deal with it, but it by no means lets any office or social worker off the hook. If there is a referral that comes in, it has to be acted upon; that is why we exist as a department.

The problem with reporting information back is simply because it may be somebody who does not have your best interests or the best interests of the child at heart that reports something. Then we go back – there could be very personal matters we are dealing with, it could a mother or father who is dealing addictions issues, mental health issues, coping with stressful situations, they could be diagnosed with cancer or HIV and unable to cope and having to try to care for their children all at one time. Then we go back and we report this back to the neighbour or the person down the street. This is highly confidential, personal information. This may be information they will not even share within their own family. If they have extended family – parents, aunts, uncles, these adults, these parents – they may not want to share that information within their families, but we are going to phone the neighbour or the person down the street and we are going to tell them. Now, what happens if they go on Open Line and talk about it? What happens if they say enough to identify these people and the issues and what is going on within that home? What if they decide to get on the evening news or in the newspaper? This is something private, confidential, involves your children, it is private and at a point of probably crisis in their lives, and we are going to report it back to the neighbours. I do not think that is appropriate.

I understand the rationale and why they ask because people want to be assured when they make a referral that we act upon it. I understand that, but we cannot report back. We would not expect that in any other situation, whether it is addictions counselling – we would not expect a psychiatrist to be phoning a neighbour. If you phoned in and said you thought that somebody who was bipolar or manic depressive was out driving a car and they intervened and the psychiatrist dealt with them and we have to report that as well. No one would expect a psychiatrist to phone and give a report on your mental health or your treatment or your medication. So, we do not expect that and we cannot put that other standard in Child, Youth and Family Services either.

We also have a number of reviews underway now, whether it is the Duggan case or the Labrador fire, and we will wait for the reports whether it is from Susan Abell or from the Child and Youth Advocate. If at that point we see that there is need to further amend the legislation, this new legislation, or if there is a need to incorporate anything from those studies or those investigations into our policy, we are more than willing to do it.

One thing, Mr. Speaker, I think that I have made very clear since being the minister of this department is I am not afraid of reports that suggest changes. We did not create this new department because status quo was the way to go. We created this new department because there were issues and there were concerns.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He is bothering me and I cannot concentrate, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have developed this department because we truly feel a need to change. We feel that we need to bring in some changes in the legislation, in the policies and we need to build a more accountable system in Newfoundland and Labrador that serves the best interests of the children.

There were also some questions around consultation from the Member for Burgeo & La Poile wondering if we met with judges or police. I can say that there were meetings with judges at the Unified Family Court. There was also a teleconference with another judge who had input into the legislation. We also contacted the Chief Provincial Court Judge and invited participation. There were several meetings with the RNC, including their lawyer and the chief, and at least three meetings with the RCMP. Further to that, Mr. Speaker, there were also quite a few other people who we consulted with. I would just like to go down through that list because I know the judges and the police are important but there are so many stakeholders I think, for the record, I would just like to indicate who we consulted with.

We consulted with Choices for Youth and a youth focus group for Choices for Youth; the Central Regional Health Authority Child, Youth and Family Services division; Daybreak Parent Child Centre; a client focus group with the Daybreak Parent Centre; the Department of Education; the Board of Directors from the school boards; Health and Community Services, the division of Child, Youth and Family Services; also with Health and Community Services, the division of family and child development.

We asked Mental Health and Addictions, they did not have any feedback for us. We also consulted with the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and the employment disability office within that department. We also consulted with the Human Resources, Labour and Employment, the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism. I know that the Leader of the Opposition asked us about that yesterday as well.

We consulted with the Family Justice Services in the Department of Justice; the Family Litigation Unit within the Department of Justice; Child, Youth and Family Services within Eastern Health; Community Health and Nursing Services within Eastern Health; the department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry with Eastern Health. These are all agencies that provided information and met with us.

I can keep going through a list of people who did not provide feedback, but these are people we heard from: the Foster Families Association; the Janeway Family Centre; Professor Ken Barter with Memorial University's School of Social Work. We also had feedback from the St. John's Native Friendship Centre, from Labrador-Grenfell Health Authority, Child, Youth and Family Services division, from the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Social Workers, from the Nunatsiavut Government, from Newfoundland Legal Aid Commission, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the RCMP, the RNC, Dr. Stephen Ellenbogen from the School of Social Work over at MUN, Unified Family Court judges, Waypoints - Waypoints also had a youth focus group - Western Regional Health Authority, Child, Youth and Family Services, the Women's Policy Office, and the Women's Policy Office staff within the Violence Prevention Initiative.

So, Mr. Speaker, there was extensive consultation. It did include the judges and the police and issues regarding immigration, as we were asked by members of the Opposition yesterday. I just want to confirm that point because I think that is also important. They felt it was important enough to ask and I think it is also important enough to show that we did connect with these groups and we understand the issues, and we certainly did our best to consult with as many stakeholders as we felt absolutely possible.

There was also a question from the Leader of the NDP yesterday regarding a child's culture and how do we protect that, or work with that, as the child comes in care. It is noted in section 9 of the act, and I will refer to that. That was the section referred to by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. That part reads it is the purpose and general principle and it reads, "In determining a child or youth's best interests, all relevant factors shall be considering, including" – and that is subsection (2)(d) – "the child or youth's identity and cultural and community connections." Then if you go to section 29 it further outlines that once a child, once we have to go through the court process and enter a plan of care, part of that plan of care that is identified that we have to follow under section 29.(3)(e)(iii) reads, "…a description of the arrangements made or being made to recognize the importance of the child's identity and cultural and community connections." So that is important, Mr. Speaker.

Now I want to explain a bit about section 25 and section 26 because there were questions on that yesterday from the Member for Burgeo & La Poile. In doing that I have to explain that there is about 5,900 children who are clients in the protective intervention program of this service in Newfoundland and Labrador - so 5,900 cases. Of the 5,900 cases, only 4 per cent go to court. So what that means is most times, with the majority by far, with 96 per cent of the parents who we deal with in our protective intervention caseload, they co-operate with the plan that we put in place. Now, that means we may put services in the home to mitigate the risk or what is going on that may put the child at risk, or we may remove the child, and the child may go live with a family member in what we call a child welfare allowance agreement, or the child may go in foster care. In 96 per cent of the cases, it is a voluntary arrangement through the family; they agree to the plan. So that addresses, in some way, an appeal process because the family agrees with what is going on.

When a family does not agree to what is going on, but we decide that the child does not need to come out of the family home, section 25 of the act comes into play. The questions yesterday from the Member for Burgeo & La Poile, who read through the criteria of what we do under section 25, he asked: What are the time frames under section 25? If you look under section 25, and you look under subsection (2) it says: A hearing under this section shall be held within thirty days of filing the application. So, once we determine that the child is in need of protective intervention services, we have to have our court proceeding, our protective intervention proceedings, within thirty days. Now, if we feel that things are escalating in the home and that we are unable to work with the family any more, we always have the option of removing the child and invoking section 26. So that can happen as well.

When we remove a child under section 26, we then have ten days for a presentation hearing, and then thirty days for the protective intervention hearing. So the thirty days under section 26 is the same as under section 25. The difference is there is a presentation hearing within ten days. There is no presentation hearing if we invoke section 25. It was in the current legislation, but it is unnecessary. The presentation hearing basically gets the case to court, it does not necessarily evaluate the merits of the case at that time, but it evaluates whether or not the procedure and appropriate criteria were used for the removal of the child. Therefore, we do not need the presentation hearing if we use section 25. I know it is a bit tangly to explain that, but I hope people understand that.

The other point I want to clarify is that under section 29, it outlines a plan that we submit when we go to a protective intervention hearing. That plan is presented at the presentation hearing, which is ten days after the child is apprehended. That is referred to as a plan of care, and section 29 outlines the criteria in the plan of care.

There were questions here yesterday as to who monitors the plan of care. Well, the plan of care is monitored by the courts because you go to court, you present your case to the court, and you say this is the plan we are going to follow, then you get an order – it could be an interim order or a temporary order or a continuous custody, but continuous custody would likely follow a number of temporary orders. You go back to court within the time frames and you show that plan of care. You are questioned about how it is followed or why you updated it or how you updated it. So that is for court purposes.

That would apply to the 4 per cent who actually go to court. The 96 per cent of our cases do not have that plan that needs to go into court. Now, by saying that, it does not mean that 96 per cent of our cases do not have a case plan. So there is a difference between the plan of care outlined in section 29 that accompanies court proceedings and the fact that every case that comes to our attention, whether it is part of the 4 per cent that goes to court or the 96 per cent, there is a case plan done on every single case. That is what is monitored by the social worker and the front-line supervisor and the manager to ensure that we are meeting the best interests of the child.

So when you refer to section 81 of the act, section 81 of the act says, "The minister shall develop a process to monitor plans for children who are under the supervision or in the custody of a manager." What that means is not the plan of care that is submitted to the court which needs to be monitored through the courts and followed, what this refers to is the plan - the case plan - that will be developed for each and every child who comes into Child, Youth and Family Services under this particular legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the need for this section 81 goes back to the Susan Abell report, the Clinical Services Report, where there were, I guess, some alarming statistics and information. One thing was that only probably two-thirds of our files had cases. That is completely inappropriate; 100 per cent need it. We accepted Susan Abell's report and we accepted all of the recommendations. This is reflective of one of the recommendations, that we need better monitoring and oversight and supervision of the cases. This means that we will develop a process that will provide direction as to how we will oversee these cases.

This is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, because we need to make sure that the work is being done and that it is being supervised appropriately and people are held accountable for what they are doing. It is almost impossible to outline that procedure in legislation because we are going to have so many different kinds of cases and work that we are involved in. We could have cases that need very little intervention, very low risk. We could have some very complex cases that involve social workers. Some could involve more than one social worker, sometimes two or three, based on if they are falling under different programs.

We cannot be as definitive in this legislation and say how we are going to look at these cases and how we are going to oversee it. One thing we are going to be doing is, we are going to be setting up what I call an audit unit, or quality control unit, where we have our social workers –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS BURKE: With leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Leave.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

We want to set up a quality control unit - I prefer to call it an audit unit - with a director and with social workers who are our auditors. They will conduct work very similar to what was done in the Susan Abell report. They will review cases for individual workers for offices and for the Province. They should be able to provide feedback to individual workers, and be able to go to their supervisor, and be able to identify where there are gaps in their skills that we need to focus training. They will be able to deal with supervisors and say in this particular team they need better leadership in this area or that area, because the trend should become apparent. We should be able to look at it from a provincial perspective to know; we should be able to get trending from across the Province after we compare offices and regions, to see where we need to go.

We also want to make sure that this audit or quality control office is separate from all of our other social work offices, from our Child, Youth and Family Services. We do not want to set up a scenario where we have people who are out having a coffee break, sitting down and having coffee together, and then one has to go out and audit the other person's files and provide feedback that sometimes is not always pleasant to hear, but it is reality and we have to deal with it. It is no good for us to try to sugar-coat anything here.

We want to have a stand-alone, independent office where they feel empowered to do their work and to be able to give us the best and the strongest results they can; because it is only through doing a thorough analysis and really looking at where the gaps are in our service that we will actually improve in any meaningful way.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to have any type of service or evaluation that looks good on paper and we can talk the talk and here is the theory behind it. I want something that is going to provide real results and that is going to provide real information that we are going to be able to use to develop our policies, amend our legislation, influence our training programs, but it has to be meaningful information. It has to be able to come and affect the work of the department in a most positive way. I think that is extremely important.

I will just touch again on the appeal process. There were questions: Where do you go if you are not satisfied with your case? Well, in 96 per cent of the cases there is a level of satisfaction, and it is voluntary, and the agreements are signed; the case plans are signed and agreed to by the parents. Where we cannot get an agreement, we invoke section 25. Then the courts see the plan, they hear the parent's side, and they make some decision if the child can stay, and what plan is in place, or if the child is in need of protective intervention. If they do not like it at that point there is an appeal process through the court; the same under section 26. Only 4 per cent of our cases are involuntary, that the parents do not agree with. They are the cases that go to court, and they would then have access to an appeal through the court process.

I have explained the difference between our case plans and our plan of care and what is necessary for court, and I spoke on the appeal process and the difference between section 25 and section 26 on a presentation hearing and a protective intervention hearing, so I think I have been able to address most of the concerns that came up during second reading.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place and therefore adjourn debate in second reading on Bill 1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 1, An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth, be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth. (Bill 1)

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

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

Now? Tomorrow?

MS BURKE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 1)

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

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

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 said bills.

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'.

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Kelly): Order, please!

We are now debating Bill 1, An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth". (Bill 1)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Burgeo & La Poile.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: (Inaudible) ease of reference, I guess, there are four amendments that are being put forward by the Official Opposition. Just so that we do not skip them over or whatever, maybe I can just tell you what sections they are now, and that will help things in the course of going through?

AN HON. MEMBER: Okay.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: The first one is section 12(1); 62(3), 80 and 81.

CHAIR: The Chair is asking for copies of the amendments. While we get those amendments, we will take a brief recess for a couple of minutes.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair has reviewed all four amendments and they are found to be in order.

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And Youth". (Bill 1)

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 11 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 11 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 2 through 11 carried.

CLERK: Clause 12.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I rise on clause 12 because there are a couple of concerns that I have with regard to this clause, and I will move an amendment to this particular clause, Mr. Chair. I would like to explain why I am moving this amendment.

First of all, Mr. Chair, clause 12 states that: "Where a manager or social worker receives information in the form of (a) a request for protective intervention services; (b) a report under section 11; or (c) other evidence that a child may be in need of protective intervention, the manager or social worker shall investigate whether the child is in need of protective intervention unless, upon assessment, the manger or social worker is satisfied that the information provided was without merit or without reasonable grounds.

The amendment, Mr. Chair, which is moved by myself and seconded by the Opposition House Leader, would read like this, "1. Subclause 12(1) of the Bill is amended by deleting the words and commas ‘unless, upon assessment, the manager or social worker is satisfied that the information provided was without merit or without reasonable grounds'." So, Mr. Chair, we would have it conclude that the manager or social worker shall investigate whether the child is in need of protective intervention.

The reason we have asked for that particular amendment, Mr. Chair, is for a couple of reasons. In explaining my particular case, I will have to revert to sections 10 and 11 under the act in order to make that particular case.

First of all, Mr. Chair, we all know that protective intervention occurs in the case of a child whenever a child is at risk of being physically harmed or sexually harmed or emotionally harmed under this particular act by someone or by a parent – and the child's parent does not protect that child. In all of those particular cases, Mr. Chair, a child can be taken into protective custody or there can be protective intervention. When that occurs - and as I said, it deals with physical harm, it deals with sexual abuse, and it deals with emotional harm, which is a new section of the act that the minister has introduced and one that we most definitely support. Any time, Mr. Chair, under those two sections of the act, that that would necessarily happen then there is a responsibility by the social worker or by the person that is acting, whether it is the manager, the director, or whatever the case may be.

In addition to that, Mr. Chair, section 11 also indicates, "(1) Where a person has information that a child is or may be in need of protective intervention, the person shall immediately report the information to a manager, social worker or a peace officer. (2) Where a person makes a report under subsection (1), the person shall report all the information of which he or she has knowledge." Mr. Chair, whenever a report is made to a social worker, to an authority, any other authority, whether it is a peace officer, then that information under this act is automatically presented to the social worker. Then, it is up to the manager or social worker, as I have said in section 12, to act on that information.

The amendment that we are making today will make it mandatory that they should investigate whether the child is in need of protective intervention. It would not be left to the discretion of an individual who thinks that the call may be without merit or that there may be no reasonable grounds. We think, in order to determine those things, there should be a full investigation into every complaint that is sent through a particular office. The level of that investigation, I guess, may not be outlined here, but I guess, Mr. Chair, in lots of cases that will determine what the complaint is, be determined by the complaint and the circumstances.

Mr. Chair, the reason that we have that there, and again, as I said yesterday when I spoke in the House, there are a couple of inquiries that were asked for in this Province that involved children of which we have never seen a completed inquiry to find out if what was alleged is actually true or factual, and we have never seen any report around the circumstances.

One of those was the fire in Labrador that took the life of five individuals, but one of them was a child that had been in and out of custody and was under the protection of Child Welfare. There were complaints made, or allocated to have been made, to social workers in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area and to those offices. We do not know to this day, because there was never any release of an investigation to show us if those complaints were ever followed up on. Today, Mr. Chair, that child is no longer with us, but we feel that in this act, if we are doing this to protect children, we should take every single call, every single piece of information that is given to us asking us to protect the children of this Province. We should take it seriously. We should follow through with the investigations and we should not leave conditions within the act that allows anyone, whether they are on the front lines, a manager, or a director, to use, Mr. Chair, any discretion in saying that they will not act upon this.

Mr. Chair, I say that not only because of what happened in the case in Labrador, but I say that because in a lot of rural areas, in a lot of urban areas around this Province, there are people who become known sometimes to caseworkers and social workers. There are people who often develop reputations and sometimes are not taken seriously, but it does not mean that the time that they make that call, or they report an incident regarding child protection in this Province that they are not acting in the best interest or acting seriously. I would never want a situation whereby a piece of legislation in this House would protect someone who would dismiss it simply because of a source of information or, Mr. Chairman, because someone failed to investigate and do their job appropriately, and there is an out clause in the act which allowed them to do it. All we are saying is: Tighten the regulation. If a child deserves to be protected, if that is what our primary interest is in this House, and in this legislation, then we should bring forward the amendment that says: Whenever it is reported, it shall be investigated.

That is the premise of what we are asking the government to do. It does not change this bill in any way, shape or form. If anything, Mr. Chairman, it provides for greater protection of children in this Province, and it places greater responsibility on those who work on the front lines to carry forward those duties in ensuring that all issues and all incidents are investigated.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to comment on the amendment, as put down by the Leader of the Opposition. I understand the merit in what she is saying, because the whole argument is that if a complaint or an allegation is phoned in – and we have removed from this new act the fact that anyone who has knowledge of this information has to report it. There was a higher standard attached, at one point, to a professional, that we took out because everyone is at the same standard. They do not have to do the assessment; the assessment is done by the social worker, who has the skills, the ability and the training to do just those assessments. If we eliminate the part of the clause, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, it will create a lot of issues within the department. That is not to say, or in any way demean or belittle the fact that serious issues that come in need to be addressed.

The whole indication that we have to keep the best interests of the child first and foremost is what this legislation is all about. It outlines the parameters, and what we look for, and what constitutes abuse or neglect, and how we intervene, and the processes that we have to follow.

What is important here is the fact that many times reports come in, and when we act upon them there is an extensive process that follows. A risk assessment is not done lightly. It involves collateral contacts. It involves police checks, interviews with family, friends, and others who may have access to information. It involves interviewing the children, which is not easy for the children; lots of times they are very concerned about what is going on. I would not want to suggest that we trigger that whole assessment process for investigation if it is unnecessary. Now, when we say that, it is not the role of the social worker or the manager to be taking this information and just dismissing it, especially if it is on a case that is already open, that is new information that goes into that particular case, and we build on that all the time.

What can happen if we remove this, unfortunately, because we are not in an ideal world, is there are many times we get calls for Child, Youth and Family Services when there are custody disputes. A marriage breaks down. The day before the marriage broke down there were no concerns about parental responsibilities. Then, all of a sudden, when there is custody starting to go before the courts, we get a lot of calls. A lot of them are custody issues. If we left that, we would have ourselves immersed, probably, in a lot of these issues, doing one investigation after another after another after another.

The other time where it may be prevalent sometimes is that sometimes, unfortunately, women, and sometimes single mothers, who have had to leave violent relationships are very intimidated and very harassed by the partner, who leaves, who would stop at no means to continue to harass, especially if they felt it meant somehow causing an issue between the relationship between the child and the parent – the mother. We have often had to deal with cases where we have a violent partner who makes allegations back about the mother. We still have to take it seriously and look at it, but we cannot allow a single mother who has been a victim, a victim of violence, to continue to be victimized by the system as well, Mr. Chairman.

There are many times there may be something that is called in that somebody sees that they felt was a real issue, but upon a very initial call or assessment by the manager or the social worker it is not true. It may be, if we look through some of these examples here, that the child is abandoned. Well, maybe the child is not abandoned; maybe someone thought the child was abandoned. It may be that no one is caring for the child, but maybe there have been care arrangements that have been set up that, once the social worker makes the initial call, they understand that and they do not have to do a full risk assessment in order to assess this information.

Some of this information can be dealt with very quickly without putting the child through interviews, without doing all of the necessary police checks and then interviewing the parents and the friends and the neighbours and doing that big piece of work. If we do not have some ability to somehow, when there are nuisance calls or frivolous, if we do not have a way to deal with it, I do not think there would ever be enough resources in Newfoundland and Labrador to do the full-blown risk assessment on all of these cases. There is no differential risk assessment when someone comes through our doors.

So, I want to say I understand. I understand the reason to put this amendment forward. I understand that we have to take every case seriously. We do not assume, because so-and-so phoned it in, we do not act on it. We have many cases that are active, that we continue to get calls on, that we continue to have to work with those families, but we also have calls, unfortunately – very much, unfortunately – it is the darker side of things that we do not discuss here today, where the calls are vindictive, or they are malicious, or they are intimidating, or they are harassing, and oftentimes, too, a women who has probably been victimized by the system in other ways. It could be a way that if they knew this triggered a full-blown assessment on anyone, it could happen all the time. There has to be some professional jurisdiction at this level, that we are able to make that call as professionals.

In saying that, I do not want to, in any way, take away the fact that all the referrals, if they are not screened out right at the beginning, through that assessment that they make, we have to screen them in, we have to follow the assessment process, we have to do the risk assessment, and we have to do a thorough job. We also have to make sure that we use our skills and our resources in the most effective manner, and that we are out putting our time and our resources and our assessments in truly to the children in Newfoundland and Labrador who are deemed in need of protection. That is where our resources need to go; that is what the skills are developed for. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, we will not be supporting this particular amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I would just like to have a few words on the suggested amendment as well. I appreciate the minister being up front as to not being supportive of this amendment which, of course, is being put forward here, because we do believe this is an important piece of legislation, but we also believe that if you are going to do it, it is worth doing right.

We feel that there is something missing in this section that could make this a better piece of legislation. It is no good to come back a year or two years from now and say, we have had an incident that we talked about today, that was recognized today, but yet we did not act today to prevent that from happening.

So, I would like to pose a few questions to the minister, and I would appreciate it if she could provide us with the information; because, if you are going to vote against something, there should be very valid reasons why you are going to vote against it or why you cannot support it. I would like to probe that type of information with the minister, if we could, before this certainly comes to a vote here one way or the other. Because the people are deserving of the questions being asked, so that we know the answers being given, and let the people decide then whether the people in this House who took part in this debate considered everything here.

At the end of the day, if the minister can convince me that this amendment is not well-founded and not well-grounded and does not make sense and is not needed, I have no problem also voting against the amendment. That is not what this is about. It is not about whether an Opposition amendment succeeds or not. This about whether something that is put forward is serious, is rational, and ought to be done, because I do not believe for a moment that anybody in this room, or anybody in this building, is necessarily the sharpest knife in the drawer. I think no matter how much consultation you did, and what kind of process you go through, there is always somebody who can look at something some times, most times, virtually all times, and add something to it to make it better. We think there has just been a glitch here, and we think we ought to remove that glitch before we pass this piece of legislation.

The thing I would like to put to the minister, for example – and these are some questions. Again, I do not have, and I will admit I do not have, the in-depth understanding of this department, of the job of social workers, and what this piece of legislation is that the minister would have. That is why I need her to assist me to make up my mind as to what I am missing here. I hope I did not miss it, but if I did, by all means – that is what this is about. It is an exchange, when we get to Committee stage, to ask questions and to exchange information so that something either is or is not proper.

My question to the minister is, first of all, in this section it uses the term "investigation" and it uses the term "assessment". It says, "…the manager or social worker shall investigate whether the child is in need of protective intervention unless, upon assessment…" – two different processes. So, first of all, maybe so I know we are all on the same page here, could the minister explain to me what is meant by assessment? Because it seems to indicate that there is some kind of assessment made before you make a decision whether you are going to have an investigation. So, it is like a precursor to an investigation.

I would like to know if the minister could point out to us: Is it defined anywhere in this piece of legislation what an assessment is? We have been given a lot of definitions here as to what things are. We have been told what protective intervention means, we have been told what replacement homes mean, and all this kind of stuff, but I would like for the minister to explain to us what, in fact, is an assessment, where it is defined in this act, and what is the difference between an assessment and an investigation. That is a very preliminary start.

The other piece is: Where are the criteria? What goes into an assessment? For example, a social worker out in the field, if he or she gets a complaint about an incident, and a child may or may not be in need of intervention – that is what this is all about, somebody is going to make that initial assessment - what kinds of criteria would a social worker look at to decide whether it goes on to the next stage of an investigation? Is there some rule book? Is there some guide that a social worker would look at to say – well, obviously they look at things - What are the facts here? – I would assume. Who are we talking about? Where are they? What is the alleged allegation that has been made? Who is it made against? Where do they live? Was there contact between the two people involved? I would think that is a factual matter, the same as in any kind of case when you are trying to decide things.

I would like to know where that fits. Then, what is the difference between an assessment and an investigation? Because, if you made your assessment, that implies to me that at least a part of the investigation has been done. A lot of the stuff you are going to follow through upon, in an investigation, you would have made all of those preliminary steps. If you go further to an investigation, what more do you do when you get to the investigation stage that you did not do in the assessment stage? I would just like to know so we have a comfort level of what we are talking about here.

The other thing is: The criteria that the social worker uses in either the assessment or the investigation, are they subjective or are they objective? By that I mean: Is there a set of A, B, C, D guidelines that every social worker in the Province would follow? If so, what are they to do an assessment, or is it a subjective thing that every social worker does, and he or she makes it their personal assessment, their subjective assessment, as to whether there ought to be an investigation? I think that is important.

I have other things to say, but I will not belabour the point at this point. That is my initial concern in this section: understanding the difference between an assessment and an investigation. I would appreciate if the minister could point that out to us, and inform us as to exactly what the distinction is and where it is.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you.

They are interesting questions, and it is certainly something, I guess, at points in time - being a social worker, you make assumptions that everyone is reading from the same legislation, under the same definitions, but it is certainly interesting.

The information that we are reading in clause 12 say, "…the manager or social worker shall investigate whether the child is in need of protective intervention…." Then, after your investigation, it goes into (2), what happens, "…unless, upon assessment, the manager or social worker is satisfied that the information provided was without merit or without reasonable grounds".

In this particular clause, what it means is that the information that comes in is assessed. Again, it may be somebody who, for one reason or another, the social worker or the manager, being familiar with the area, being familiar with the cases, or being able to do a phone call or so on, can assess that the information had no merit and therefore they are not going to do the investigation.

The investigation is a thorough process that happens. It is the gathering of information, and that could include everything from court record checks, police checks, and a file check for previous files within Child, Youth and Family Services. It could involve getting information from physiatrists or psychologists. It could involve interviews with the child with collateral contacts, gathering a fair bit of information.

What happens is, once the information is gathered, it is put into what is known as a risk assessment. Those risk assessments are done following the investigation. They are very thorough. They are not done at the whim of any particular social worker who makes a decision of what they are going to assess or what they are not going to assess. It is a structured process. It is followed; there is training in that. It is outlined in policy what a risk assessment is. It is also considered, our risk assessment, so the assessment, what we do is considered - that risk assessment itself is considered a validated tool that we use in the department, so it is not one that somebody creates or someone may operate on their own. It is one that is validated, that we follow. It has certain criteria that we do.

The other thing to remember is that an assessment is being done at every stage when we deal with Child, Youth and Family Services and we are investigating and we are getting access to new information. The assessment part is the clinic judgement of the social worker. Therefore, they use the skills and the education and the knowledge that they have, whether they gain it through training within the department or through their educational background, that they use, then, to make these decisions.

It is also worthy to note that the people who are tasked with these particular duties have to be a registered social worker in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, so they have to meet the educational requirements, the upgrading requirements that they have to follow every year to maintain their registration, so these are all registered professionals. They investigate; they asses. The assessment is their clinical judgement. The risk assessment specifically is outlined in policy. It is a validated tool that we use throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, so it is not based on the individual social worker to determine what they are going to look for in a risk assessment. In fairness, they have to deal with issues that contribute to the risk. It could be complex mental health issues. It could be addictions issues. It could be an inability to parent, through many reasons, mental capacity, probably unable to do it. It could be going through illness or sickness and not being able to care for your children appropriately. It could be living with a partner who is violent or being violent yourself, acting out violently. So there are a number of things that would come into play. Not all risk factors are pertinent to any particular family. Some families have complex needs and a number of the risk factors have to be dealt with. Others may specifically deal with one particular area of risk. That is something that is determined by the social worker.

So, let me try to clarify: the investigation is the gathering of facts and information. The assessment is: whatever information is available is assessed by the social worker using their clinical judgement. It could be a lot of information that goes into a risk assessment, it could be just a small bit of information, but the assessment is done based on the clinical judgement of the social worker, and the social workers are all registered professionals in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I hope I have clarified that, as opposed to probably making it more complicated.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess some more questions in fact. One of the things, Minister, you just said, and maybe you could clarify it for me, was that the risk assessment is done following an investigation. Not necessarily following any assessment that would occur. Again, that brings me back to the reason for my amendment because, Mr. Chair, when the minister was defining the difference between an assessment and an investigation, which is interesting to point out that neither are defined by legislation under this particular act for child protection. Neither is defined in terms of what is included in the assessment process, what is included in the investigation process.

Mr. Chair, the other piece here is that the minister, in her explanation, gave a list of what could be involved, which tells me that there isn't a mandatory process of assessment, which tells me that it is really is the judgement of the social worker based on information that comes in. I understand that the risk assessment, Mr. Chair, is more of a procedure that is defined within guideline or regulation, is what I understand, but not that the assessment is. With it being defined within the act, we can only go on what she is telling us today.

So, Mr. Chair, maybe she could clarify that for me again because what she said was the assessment is looking at the information that you have and making a judgement. That is the only information that she has given us. What that procedure involves, I have no idea. It could involve someone calling up a social worker's office and saying this is the incident, I want to report it, and that social worker saying okay, that is the information, I have no reason to proceed based on that, and that is the end of the process.

Mr. Chair, the Minister of Natural Resources is over there like somebody batting flies all over the House of Assembly. We are in committee, Mr. Chair, and she has more than the entitlement to stand on her feet and debate any clause in this bill and take her ten minutes. I would appreciate it if she would not interrupt me while I am trying to propose amendments to a very important piece of legislation here.

Mr. Chair, as I was saying, because the act does not define in any way what an assessment is and it does not define what an investigation is, but what it does say is that an investigation does not have to be completed where the manager or a social worker undertakes some assessment process and feels that there is not merit or reasonable grounds, and that is the problem here. That is the entire issue that we have with this particular section.

The other thing is that the minister has not outlined to us in any detail what an assessment is prior to triggering an investigation - what happens. Other than to say they look at the information that comes in and they make a judgement, in my opinion, does not constitute an assessment. In my opinion, that does not constitute following up on a request that comes forward, whether it is from a teacher, a police officer, a neighbour, a daycare worker, or whoever that person is. What we are saying, Mr. Chair, is that when those things come in, when they are reported, there should be an investigation into those particular things.

Minister, with all due respect, if it means a social worker has to pick up the phone and call a court or call a school, so be it. That is the job; that is what needs to be done. I do not buy into the excuse that it is going to be too much work so therefore we cannot do it. That is not a reason to not put the proper language in a piece of legislation to protect children in this Province.

The other thing, Mr. Chair, is that the minister also said that this will create issues within the department. That is a really big statement. Someone could tip over the water cooler and create issues in a department, I say to you, Minister. When you gave a statement like that, it is a pretty broad statement. I would ask the minister that if she is going to refuse to consider this amendment, I want her to give some real reasons for doing it. I would like to ask her: What issues is it going to create in her department in terms of requiring social workers and managers of children in this Province to do an investigation when there is a report made to their office?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, this is important from a number of perspectives, and you have to have a number of perspectives when you are talking about the protection of children. One of the things that children need to be protected from, and their families need to be protected from, is harassment. So, in certain cases you need to rely on the clinical judgement of social workers.

Mr. Chair, when a call comes in to a social worker, there is a screening done. You could have a call from a school saying a child is absent from school today, I called home, nobody is answering the phone, so this child is on the missing list, we are concerned. We are really concerned there is something going on here because this child is in care; there have been issues around truancy, all of these kinds of things. A simple phone call or two, Mr. Chair, may tell you that the child is sick and in the care of a relative or neighbour or caregiver – some other caregiver. In that case, there is no need to launch a full investigation with a full risk analysis and so on. The minister outlined a number of those instances, when the resolution was brought to the floor, in her explanation as to why a full investigation is not required under every complaint that is made.

Mr. Chair, social workers are well trained in this Province. They bring their own clinical knowledge to the work that they do. Not all of us have experience with social workers, but most of us have experience with doctors. It is the same thing when you go to the doctor with a complaint. There is a clinical judgement that is required, either to treat immediately or to do further investigation. Mr. Chair, it is that kind of professionalism that exists within registered social workers and within the new department. So, it is important to understand when it is appropriate to take certain measures. A call registering a complaint is not the only impetus one needs to launch a full investigation.

Mr. Chair, where it is required, you have a risk assessment tool. That risk assessment tool needs to have information that comes from an investigation so the social worker can apply their clinical judgement. That is done when there is good reason to do so. Mr. Chair, you also have to have the ability to be able to make a judgement or make an assessment on the screening information and certain follow-up that you might do, to be able to bring your own clinical knowledge to bear to say the issue has been raised, I am satisfied in terms of what I have learned, and I am satisfied that there is no need to proceed further in this case. That is extremely important, Mr. Chair, because if you do not have that ability then you, in fact, by proceeding when you do not have reason to do so, you then can put the child at risk just in terms of the stress you are creating within their family and within their home.

So, Mr. Chair, there are reasons why we require the people who do this work – social workers – to be registered, to have the appropriate information and skills that we think are necessary to do this kind of work. They are not the same as exist in the rest of the country, Mr. Chair. There is a very high standard in Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of the people we allow to do this kind of work. Mr. Chair, one of the reasons we have confidence in their ability to apply this legislation appropriately is because of that requirement for a high level of training and capacity.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

It is interesting to hear the comments from the Deputy Premier and the minister, but again, if we could have some more definitive information. We just had another word added to the puzzle now. The Minister of Natural Resources just used the words screening process.

Now, that is what this questioning is about back and forth here. We are talking about a very important piece of legislation and, by the way, probably the most important clause in this legislation. This clause 12, if you notice the sidebar on it, what does it say we are talking about here - determining the need for protective intervention. That is where all of this is grounded. This is not some little ad hoc section on the side about who can do something or not; this is the criteria that grounds this piece of legislation. What do you need to do, and who needs to do it, to determine if a child is in need of protective intervention? So it is a very important clause.

I heard the minister making comments when she gave her second reading and she talked about closing. She said: Oh, there are operational issues and there is legislation that we are dealing with. Well, folks, the way the world works is: yes, there are operational issues, but you operate in this world based upon the legislation that is supposed to guide you. All we are asking here is proper consideration, full and complete consideration, about is the legislation proper so that these social workers who have to work in the field and make these decisions, do they know what they are allowed to do and not allowed to do? Do they have the proper legislation within which to work? We all know, for example, that social workers are trained. They have social work degrees. We know that they get experience based upon what they do in the work environment. I mean that does not mean that there are not mistakes made. There are all kinds of lawyers, doctors and engineers and everybody else in the world who has malpractice and who ends up because something was not right, either the policy was not right, the operational manuals were not right or people made judgement calls that turned out not to be right. That is not taking anything away from the professionals involved, and they are all professionally trained. The issue here as we are asking is: What happens, what is involved in this process of assessment? We have heard the word screening, we have heard it called assessment and we have heard it called investigation.

Now, the minister, when she responded last to my immediate questions, she said they make a clinical judgement, no problem with that; that is their job to make that clinical judgement. My question was: Upon what do they base the clinical judgement. She said they have tools in the department. They have tools that they use in their training. My question is quite simple: Tells us what some of the tools are. That is what we are asking. Do not get up and say they have tools. I am asking: Give me some level of comfort, what are the tools they use? By the way, if you have the tools, why can't you outline in this act what it means the same as you have outlined in everything else? You have told us what 500 things are supposed to mean legally in this act. Yet, we ask you: What does assessment mean? You say: Oh, that is done based on tools and making clinical judgements. I am saying surely, there must be something more general than that, which you make an assessment on. If you have to make an assessment: What would a social worker do (a), (b), (c), (d) to make an assessment versus making an investigation? That is all we are asking. Surely, there is somebody ought to be able to answer that simple question.

By the way, for the public who are viewing this thing, and there is more than the forty-eight people who sit in here and the few people who sit in the galleries, there is half a million people in this Province who probably did not know what this was about until yesterday when it was introduced here, but they have a lot of questions and they need some answers. It is not only this person here that needs answers. I just happen to be one of the forty-eight who gets to vote on it. There are a lot of people who have questions, and that is our job as legislators is to ask the questions on their behalf. Not because we want to know or I need to know personally, it is because they have a right to know. We cannot treat it frivolously and say: Oh, you should be smart enough to understand this yourself. I do not understand it all and there are a lot of people in this Province who do not. That is why I am asking the questions and that is why we would like some definitive information.

B the way, folks, I have thirty years practice in the field. My daughter-in-law is involved in the social work industry, but I do not know it all, and I am sure there are lots of us here who do not. That is the purpose of having this debate here and asking questions. We call it a debate, but it is not because we disagree. A debate means we are trying to flesh it out and get some answers and some information. That is all we are trying to do here.

The other thing is we, in the Opposition, were not part of the focus group. Every social worker in this Province was asked what he or she thought should be done. Lots of groups were. The police were and the courts were. The only opportunity that I have seen this actual finished bill was a few days ago when the minister gave it to us. That is when you see what came out of this. So that is the purpose of us to have –

MS BURKE: (Inaudible). I have a copy of it here.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I say to the minister: This is our opportunity, as legislators, to ask whatever we want about the finished product. What you have here is a combination of what fifty, sixty, seventy-five people put into this. This is the Legislature's opportunity to ask questions about it.

Let me frame it more specifically and see if the minister can give us a more definitive answer on this, particularly tied into the amendment we put forward. By the way, the Leader of the Official Opposition did submit a brief on this. She had her input into this. This is this member's opportunity to see the finished product and that is why I have a right to ask whatever questions I want.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Do some of the members want to have a statement to say?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay.

Let me propose this specific example, and maybe the minister can give me an answer. Individual A down the street in a certain community in our Province has a concern that a child he or she thinks is in need of protection, an intervention. That person picks up the phone and calls the local social worker and makes a report and says: I think parent A may be doing something of an abusive nature to his or her child. Would you make an intervention? We think there ought to be an intervention. So that social worker does something; that social worker makes an assessment. Now, I do not know what the assessment is, but from what I am reading here that social worker makes an assessment and then makes a decision.

Let us assume, for example, that the decision is: I think that the neighbour who called down the street is without merit or without reasonable grounds. So the social worker has made that decision, so therefore it does not go any further I am assuming once the assessment was made. That is the end of it. First of all, correct me if I am right, Minister –

MS BURKE: (Inaudible) wrong.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. That is what it seems to be here, but I look forward to your explanation. Maybe you can explain it now so we do not waste any time.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

I guess I need to explain a bit more the inner workings of what happens when a call is made to the office because it is not that someone takes a call and it is frivolous and it is thrown out. In policy – so we are getting, I guess, from legislation to operations, but I agree that the operations need to be rooted in the legislation and the policies.

What happens is when there is a referral made to Child, Youth and Family Services the call goes to what is known as an intake worker, which is a social worker who takes the call. Now, if you take a call, whatever you feel when the call first comes in you do not say, that is frivolous or has no merit or no reasonable grounds and hang up the phone and you go about your business. When a call comes in, the intake worker gathers information around the call. So it may be the caller who is calling in has a lot of detail, a lot of information that you can get right there from that phone call about what is going on.

Then, based on that level of information, you can then assign it – before I even get to that part of it, or it may be a call where there is very little information. It could be an anonymous call. Just a couple of sentences, someone phones something in and hangs up. Well, then you may have to do a little bit of information gathering right there and then on that call. It could be extremely serious.

I can go back to the call from Grand Falls-Windsor of the little boys in the media not that long ago. The social workers walked in on that, that morning, but that call was no different say than most calls we get, but never reach that level of harm that you see to a child. If the call comes in and the call only provides a small bit of information, it is not very definitive, the intake worker gathers some information around that at that point in time to see if there is a referral here. Maybe, it could be a call on a child that does not exist. It could be, God knows what could get called in.

Once the intake worker either has the detail from the caller or the detail from collateral calls at that point in time, before there is any decision that there will be further follow-up, or there is no merit to the case, that goes through a supervisor. It is not like the social worker can dismiss it or hang up the phone, there is an intake process. It has to go back to a supervisor with the explanation as to what came in, what the merits are, and why or why not it needs to be followed up. So there is that second lens that goes on it. The supervisor also has to agree to that. Now, based on the office, because some offices are bigger than other offices, that is a sign then to somebody to go out and do the investigation.

So, in most cases, the intake and the investigation can be done by different people. The intake is just a screening in process. There are screeners who do that all the time; that is their jobs. Then there are people who actually go out and gather all the information that is necessary. Once they gather all of that information, there is a process of risk assessment that is done. It is a very thorough, detailed process. There is training on it. It is a tool. We can provide a copy of that –

AN HON. MEMBER: Risk assessment has to be (inaudible).

MS BURKE: - but not to confuse assessment with risk assessment. Risk assessment is the tool that we do – we can give you a copy of that, that is fine, that is a validated tool. Risk assessments are used all across the world. We are not the only ones who use that.

Based on the risk assessment, which is a thorough process and can be quite invasive, especially if we do it in cases where it is absolutely unnecessary because we can tell from that very screening, a couple of phone calls, that there is no merit to this. Children have to be interviewed. If there is no merit to it and there is no abuse and there is no need for us to be in their lives, that can be very intimidating at times to small children.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS BURKE: If they are screened in. The risk assessment, you can almost say the risk assessment is a computerized tool that you go in and answer yes and no and type in your notes. That information only comes from what you have gathered. You are not sitting at the computer and entering in. That is a tool that we use. Based on the information and the decision points you make your clinical judgement then as to whether or not that child is in need of protection or what services, but you cannot separate your gathering of information from your professional judgement.

The risk assessment is a computerized tool but it is only as effective as the information and the knowledge and the skill of the social worker. So, there is a screening process where they assess the information that is coming in as whether there is merit to it or not. Like I said, they might get a call on a child that does not exist. They might get a call on somebody who is – we have had them over eighteen, they are not even children. I have had calls on people twenty-five. They have the ability to say we are screening that out. There is no merit. This person does not fit our criteria. We cannot go out and do an investigation.

So, they have to have that level of professional judgement on the information that is coming in. That is not left to a social worker on their own. A social worker has to meet with their supervisor, the intake worker meets with the supervisor and they discuss whether it gets screened in for further investigation. The supervisor then assigns it, or the supervisor goes through the information that was gathered, could ask for more information, and could say: Have you phoned the school? Have you phoned the parents? Have you phoned the police? Because until we are ready to screen it out, I need to know a little bit more. So there is an extra set of eyes. It is not just somebody who takes it and throws it out. That is the day-to-day operations of what happens when somebody is doing intake in Child, Youth and Family Services.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

There is still a little bit of confusion there, minister. You start off with your screening process through your intake worker. I take it that person is a qualified social worker, has all the credentials and can make the clinical judgment him or herself at that point, but they do not, you are saying. They take that information and go to a supervisor who is also, I would gather, a trained social worker and is that person's intake worker's supervisor. Is that correct, minister?

MS BURKE: Yes.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Okay. Who makes the decision based upon that screening in, that assessment information that the intake worker took and him or her and the supervisor talked about? Who makes the decision that we do not need to go any further with this? One of them? Both of them? Who makes that decision?

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

MS BURKE: Based on the information, the social worker makes the judgment call. The supervisor reviews it. If the supervisor is not comfortable with the decision – well, the supervisor has three options. The supervisor can support the decision of the social worker, the supervisor can ask for more information, or the supervisor can override the social worker.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Therein lies part of the problem. It does not say here – in fact, it does say. It says that either the manager or the social worker can make that decision. The process you just described to me puts that second lens on it you talked about, but that is not what the law says here if this becomes law. What you are saying here is that the manager or the social worker can make the decision. Now that implies in black on white that it is one or the other who can make that decision. Whereas I have a greater comfort level with what you said when you tell me that the person taking it in is not the only set of eyes that see it. You say there is a supervisor who sees it and then the decision gets made.

The act says that it could be either or and that is where I come back to my example. If the person called to report an incident, a social worker got it, as you say the intake person, and if that social worker's understanding of the law is that the law says I can do it, the manager or social worker. If that social worker makes a decision that this is without merit or without any reasonable grounds, that social worker can say we are not going any further with an investigation. That is the problem that I have here, is that it is the clarity that is missing.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

MS BURKE: I can explain that, because when I read this legislation first I was saying the same thing: Why are we saying manager or social worker? Policy will dictate that both levels have to sign off on the decisions, but what becomes particularly important is that under ideal circumstances we have the social worker and the supervisor or the manager, whatever we call it, so we have that second set of eyes. Let's not forget, now, that first set of eyes is the social worker who is a registered professional in what they do.

Why we have it as the manager or the social worker: policy would tell us it is both levels to make that decision, but we may have a social worker who receives information or other evidence that a child may be in need of protective intervention. They may walk in on a situation, they may have a referral, they may be somewhere where there is no cellphone coverage, and they have to take that referral because it could be very serious at that given time and they need to have the legal right to act on it.

Policy would dictate that we have two levels of decision, that the social worker's work is supervised by the manager, by the supervisor; but we may, and we will, have cases where a social worker may not have access to a manager, so it reads social worker or manager. At any given time it could be an emergency, you could be out of cellphone coverage, you could be somewhere where you get information, but our social workers need to be empowered to be able to make decisions in situations like that.

They may have evidence that a child is in need of protection, and they shall investigate whether the child is in need of protection. They may have to do things a lot quicker, sometimes, based on the situation, than they would from a phone call into an office.

The ideal situation is to phone call the intake worker the assessment, the supervisor sees it, but we have situations sometimes where, despite the fact that would be how it is in policy, sometimes social workers may not have access to a manager but, based on their professional duties and what they see, they need to act. It is not the ideal way, but that is the reason between the social worker or manager.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Opposition House Leader.

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

I am glad the minister made those comments, because therein is the crux of the problem. We are trying to design a piece of legislation that is going to be for the best interests of the children; yet, we have some resource - it might be resource - issues. Maybe the person might have a technological issue and cannot get to a phone. Why are we not erring on the side of caution, and making sure that the children's interests are protected? Why are we saying that it is okay if you do not have a manager available? Why is it okay to say, if you are out of cellphone range, that a social worker should make that decision his or her self, if the process that we would prefer and that is being used when there is a manager is to have that second lens? What is the problem with holding off on making a decision until you get the second opinion?

We are talking about an issue here of whether a child needs protection or not. If we are going to be safe about this, why would we have a situation where a social worker who might not be able to contact the manager can simply say: Yes, I did my intake process, I did my assessment process, and I don't think there is an intervention required.

Why would we make a decision that might not be in the best interests of the child, simply because we cannot contact the manager? That is not what this is about. This is not about giving social workers more discretion. This is about doing what is right. Why would you not do it, if it is right? What is the big problem if the person is told in Bonne Bay, for example, where they are known to have some cellphone issues, or down in my district in some areas, what is the problem with saying to the social worker, flip it over. This is about the child. Why don't we flip it over and put an onus in that case to say, if, for any reason, the social worker cannot get in contact with the supervisor or the manager - put the onus on the social worker to make sure that every precaution is taken; not simply say, well, I think it is frivolous or vexatious - and that is the end of it, and nobody else sees it. We started out all of this process about doing what is right for the child. Now we are talking about whether we have cellphone access or not. I think we are a far cry….

The other thing is – and that was where my example came from, when I gave the example of the neighbour up the street who called in - under this legislation, if there is no manager around, if that intake worker says: I think there is no merit in this - and that concerned citizen up the street says: I don't think that is right. That does not make sense. I saw that child being battered about by his or her parent. I saw the abuse, regardless of what the social worker did. Maybe there is something wrong. Maybe I did not make myself clear, but I saw that.

Where does the concerned citizen – and I know you get lots of frivolous complaints, I know you get lots of complaints that do not have merit, but what about the incident where the person is legitimate and is sincere, and there is a child in need? Why do we not err on the side of caution? Why are we passing a piece of legislation that does not have oversight? When it comes to somebody saying, you are the social worker who made the call, why would you not, as a social worker, want that backup? If I was a social worker and I have to make a decision whether a child is in need of protection, I would feel more secure having somebody back me up. I would feel more secure if the law said I have to have a second lens, than I would to leave it like it is here. That is the protection piece.

Those are the comments I make, and that is why I think we ought to have this amendment.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

MS BURKE: Thank you.

I think I need to explain a little bit more what I meant by the social worker and the manager, and the screening in versus the screening out. If a social worker had access to information and felt that it did not necessitate a referral for assessment, that would go to a manager because there would be no particular, I guess, emergency at that point in time for that call to be made. What I was talking about, when we read this legislation, I was talking in terms of screening in.

What a social worker would do, if you look under section 12.(1)(c), if they had "…other evidence that a child may be in need of protective intervention". So, if they had that information - they probably did not get it from another person; they probably witnessed something; they probably see something; they see a child is in need of protective intervention; they have to do their process - they would be able to act and do their screen in based on the evidence, and then they would still consult back with a supervisor, because there is someone who oversees all the cases.

In the case of a screening out, any referrals that are screened out are not technically screened out until the supervisor agrees with the information and says that either we need more information or I am going to assign it to an assessment worker. This says manager or social worker because a social worker is empowered to act if they see something that indicates that a child is in need of protective intervention and they may need to act on a very emergency basis to do something to intervene, to help start the process. They do not need to go back to the office and get a supervisor and go through it. They may very well, if they have coverage or they are not far from the office, be in contact – that is in policy – but if we have a case where they do not have access - it could be somebody who is on call; there is a manager on call. The manager on call could be doing something else, or for some reason you cannot connect, but that social worker needs to have the ability to intervene.

More important, what we are talking about here, is the screening in; because the screening out, and the merit, and whether or not more information was needed, will be signed off. It is giving the social worker the ability to err on the side of caution.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with the comments that the minister is making. In fact, they do not even jive with her own legislation, which is rather unfortunate Mr. Chairman. First of all, she refers to section 12.(1)(c). Well, first of all, Minister, there are three ways in which information can come to the attention of a social worker; (c) is just one of them. 12.(1)(c) probably substantiates the point of why you are talking about cellphones, and being out of cell coverage, but, Mr. Chairman, it does not change the amendment that we have brought forward.

The amendment deals with the fact as to whether a manager or social worker shall investigate whether the child is in need of protective intervention, or whether one or the other has the right to dismiss it. That is what we are talking about here. The minister stands up and says they have to report to a manager, the manager can either overturn the decision or do something different. That is not outlined in the legislation, nowhere. This legislation is very specific. It says that once the information comes, whether it is in the form of, as the minister says, when they are out in the wilderness and they have no cell access and they observe something, or it comes in another form through reporting by an individual, or by a request from someone for that protective service.

Mr. Chair, it does not change the fact that it is written in this legislation, I say to you, Minister. What is written here gives authority to a social worker, with or without being in contact with a manager or ever seeing a manager, the opportunity to dismiss based on merit and without reasonable grounds in their own opinion, any case and any information that could come to their attention. That is the problem that we have with this. Now, if the minister wants to stand up and amend the legislation to say that it has to be screened through a manager so that we know that every inquiry going into a social services office in this Province is not being dismissed by one social worker, that it is being passed up the line, and it is being looked into by a manager, or a director, to ensure that the right decision, the proper decisions, have been made. Well, if she wants to amend the legislation to put that in that will, no doubt, give it greater clarity and give more security to the children in this Province. There is no doubt about that, but that is not what the legislation reads today. That is the reason why we are bringing forward the amendment that we are bringing forward.

In fact, Mr. Chair, we have had no explanation as to the reason why this would not be accepted other than the fact that it would create issues in the department that is yet undefined by the minister. Also, the fact in describing an assessment, as opposed to a risk assessment, as opposed to an investigation, we have very simple language that says it could involve this, this and this, or it could not involve this, this and this. The legislation does not speak to an assessment or an investigation, or defined either in this act, which in my view, Mr. Chair, is something that should have been done as well. That might be another amendment that the minister might want to look at introducing in order to give greater clarity to the legislation itself.

Mr. Chair, as was outlined by my colleague, section 12, which is determining the need for protective intervention, is the whole purpose of the bill. It is the entire purpose because the bill is there for the protection of children. The minister went out of her way to add a purpose clause in this bill that was not in the old legislation, simply because she wanted to pull that out, create a section within the act that would specifically outline the real purpose of it. There is nothing wrong with that, and that was necessary, and it was good, and we are glad that it is there.

Mr. Chair, do not forget that the whole purpose of this act is outlined by what happens in section 12. That is the beginning of it because if children that are going and cases that are being reported are not being followed in a process that guarantees the greatest extent possible, that all the information is checked, that the investigations are performed, and that this child is not in any way at risk, what is the purpose of the legislation? What is the purpose of all the other things, if right at the beginning, Mr. Chair, right at the beginning, if we do not have the proper clauses to ensure for the protection and intervention where children are involved? That is where the whole act begins, Minister. Every other section of this act, from section 12 onwards, is related to what happens in this one section. More importantly, Mr. Chair, is related to what happens in the case of how a social worker deals with every call that comes to their office.

So, Mr. Chair, while we have a very important piece of legislation here, and while we have in this legislation, without the repeal clauses, we have over eighty different clauses in this bill - eighty-two I believe it is, or something, without the repeal clauses. A very important piece of legislation, but I say to you, Minister, that if we are not doing it right from day one, when the first call comes in and full investigations are not launched into the complaints, then that is where we go wrong in our system. That is where we went wrong, in my opinion, in the case of Labrador, and if we can ever get an investigation to see what happened there, we might get more evidence and more information. Based on the information that was told to me by the people that I met with within the system that was definitely a case where we saw that there was not a full investigation, when it was probably warranted.

Will there be other incidents? I have no idea. Are there other incidents going on today? Maybe - I have no idea. What I do know is that if we are going to bring in legislation we should provide for the greatest extent possible in determining the protective interventions that are required for children in this Province and that means taking every call as seriously as we can and ensuring that it is investigated and that is the amendment that we have proposed.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I would not want to cast any aspersions on our social workers in Newfoundland and Labrador in Child, Youth and Family Services that they do not take their calls seriously. They do. This legislation provides a foundation document to enable them to do their work.

I want to just clarify this particular clause and keep the debate to this particular clause. This clause, what they would like to eliminate, says: "unless, upon assessment, the manager or social worker is satisfied that the information provided was without merit or without reasonable grounds". We have to leave that piece into our legislation. It opens the door - this is all about enabling us, as a Province, as a department, and our social workers to be able to work with children who are in need of protection. We need to be able to gather information at an intake process to understand what cases need to come in so we do not have to investigate and do thorough assessments for cases that may not even hit our criteria in any way, shape or form. We have to be able to do that screening process.

I want to provide assurance that cases that are screened out, calls that come in that do not lead to an investigation, or a risk assessment, or come on our caseload are not screened out solely by a social worker. It is in policy that those decisions - a supervisor has to be consulted and they have to go through that process.

I also want to assure people that this legislation, although it is a foundation document on which we build the department, there is a policy manual and probably every bit of this legislation and more besides is outlined in policy. We have extensive training developed for our social workers. They have policy manuals and they have to follow the policy. So, not everything is defined in legislation, but it is the foundation and the groundwork on which we have built our policy manual.

Mr. Chair, with that, I want to reiterate that we will not be supporting the amendment as put forward by the Opposition to clause 12.

CHAIR: It is moved by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that, "Subclause 12(1) of the Bill is amended by deleting the words and commas ‘unless, upon assessment, the manager or social worker is satisfied that the information provided was without merit or without reasonable grounds'."

Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 12 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clause 12 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 13 to 61 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 13 to 61 inclusive carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 13 through 61 carried.

CLERK: Clause 62.

CHAIR: Clause 62.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I rise to speak to clause 62 because, again, we feel that an amendment is required in this particular section. Mr. Chair, this section deals with the placement of children and youth. Basically, I will read for the record what the section is and what the amendment is that we are proposing.

Mr. Chair, under section 62.(1) "The placement of a child or youth shall be conducted in a manner which is least disruptive to the child or youth and recognizes the importance of placement with siblings and contact with his or her family or other persons who are significant to the child or youth."

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

Section 62.(3), Mr. Chair, and the section for which we will propose the amendment says, "Where a manager or social worker is satisfied that a child or youth cannot be placed in accordance with subsection (2), the child or youth shall be placed with a foster parent or in a residential placement."

Mr. Chair, the amendment that we are looking to introduce pertains only to section (3) and it pertains to the clause of residential placement. Mr. Chair, moved by myself, seconded by the Opposition House Leader, we would like to make the amendment that subclause 62.(3) of the bill is amended by adding immediately after the word "placement" a comma and the words "provided that the residential placements have been permitted and are regulated in accordance with guidelines developed by the department."

Mr. Chair, the reason that we have added that has to do with situations in the Province where we have seen children placed in residential placements. Residential placements under this particular act are defined as this: "residential placement" means approved board, lodging and the associated supervisory, shelter or group care for a child or youth who is in the care or custody of a manager.

Mr. Chair, we have no problem with section 62.(1) or 62.(2) of this act and we certainly have no problem with children being placed into residential placements because we do know that in Newfoundland and Labrador residential placement is a placement of last resort. That means using hotels, using rental accommodations, whatever the case may be, to be able to provide for children who need protective services. We understand, in Newfoundland and Labrador, that in the last number of years we have been short on foster homes and placements in foster care and we know that children need to be protected. We often know that social workers find themselves in a difficult position in providing for the protection of these children when we do not have those foster homes or we do not have family members or others who are able to provide that care.

Ideally, Mr. Chair, we think the department has gotten it right under this act in terms of ensuring that there is the least disruption in a child's life by ensuring or trying to find placements with family members and other people who are significantly known to the child or to the youth. We feel that is exactly the way that it should be.

We also feel, Mr. Chair, that section 62.(2) of the act where a "…social worker shall first consider placement of a child or youth with the child or youth's family or a person with whom the child or youth has a significant relationship" is exactly as we would like to see it. Ideally, I am sure it is the way that everyone who works in the business of child protection, Mr. Chair, would like to see it. Unfortunately, those are not always the cases. There are cases when foster homes have to be sought and also when residential placements have to be sought.

Mr. Chair, our issue with residential placement is the fact that they are not regulated in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is one organization in the name of CareGivers that has provided for this service, probably to a greater extent than anyone else in the Province. Mr. Chair, I have become somewhat familiar with the services that they provide and the care that they provide for children in the Province, and I do think that they have been doing a good job to the greatest extent that they possibly can. However, Mr. Chair, they are not required under legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador, nor is anyone else, to obtain any kind of a licence, permit or to follow any particular regulations in providing for that care.

There are no policies developed in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I know the minister will say that this is not something that should go into the act, that the regulations should be something that is done in policy and done outside of the legislation. That is the reason we have amended the clause to say that residential placement should have permits and should be regulated in accordance with the guidelines that are developed by the department, because it gives the minister and her department some time to be able to develop those particular guidelines.

Mr. Chair, just because CareGivers is one of the organizations providing this service, or one of the companies providing this service today, who has taken it upon themselves to meet the standards across Canada and to be able to provide some training for their workers and to be able to provide a higher standard of service because that is the initiative they have taken as an entity themselves, does not exclude others in this Province from setting up to provide the same kinds of services yet not having to meet any obligations for licensing or regulation.

All we are saying, Mr. Chair, is that we feel section 62 has tremendous merit. We feel the priorities outlined here are definitely the right approach. The only amendment that we would make, Mr. Chair, is to ensure that residential placements are regulated in accordance with guidelines that are developed by the department, and we would move that amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, we are challenged in Newfoundland and Labrador to have appropriate placements sometimes when we take children into care, into foster care, either under temporary orders or through continuous custody. Sometimes we take children into care and there may be a foster home available but they need a different kind of care. They may need to go into a residential program - it could be an addictions program or it could be a mental health program - some kind of a specialized program. Sometimes they go into some of the group homes that we may have through Waypoints or other agencies in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have children who go through there. Then, we also have times when we have children who we would like to see in a foster home, but for one reason or another there is no foster home available. There are many reasons why that can happen.

We are in the process, over the next year, to develop what we will see as a continuum of care for residential options, which would be the foster home, therapeutic foster home, and residential placements. In saying that, and once we develop the continuum, we will always probably run into situations where we have a child where, despite efforts and all the options we have available, we are challenged right there and then to find a place. We may have a situation where a child can go with family; a family member is identified who is supportive. That family member may be out of the Province or out of the country, so we may have to find a placement for the child that may be for a week or two weeks or whatever it is to get back.

What I want to say is we are not supporting the amendment here today not because we do not support that we need to make sure that we have regulations and we oversee what is going on, what we are saying today is that we are not supporting the amendment because we want to do the continuum of care. As we do it and we are able to look at the operational challenges and develop the policy, we may very well come back with an amendment to this legislation, even before we proclaim it, which addresses this issue here. We are just not in a position today without the continuum of care to address it.

I do not want to take away from any of the merit of what the Leader of the Opposition said. A lot of the concerns we share as well, but we need to have that continuum before we take this particular step. As I said, we may be back with an amendment based on this information as we work through that continuum of care. For today and until we get that piece of work done, I am not comfortable in supporting the amendment, but I certainly support the philosophy and the concerns that go behind it.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I would like to say I, too, am in agreement with what has been put forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition, and the House Leader has made reference to her being in agreement too with the principles that have been put forward. None of us want to see children in temporary situations or alternative living arrangements that go on for months as has happened, and we know that that has happened.

I am still not clear why doing this amendment would be as problematic as the minister has indicated. It seems pretty straightforward to me in terms of what the spirit of the residential placements are when you look at what the definition is, as the Leader of the Official Opposition has already done. It would seem to me that the definition, which says: "residential placement" means approved board, lodging and the associated supervisory, shelter or group care for a child or youth who is in the care or custody of a manager. The approved situation seems, to me, to be exactly what is being referred to here in the amendment. So, it is not totally clear, Minister. I am really serious. It is really not totally clear to me, so if you could make it a bit clearer for me, please.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

MS BURKE: I only have one concern. Like I said, it is not even about not supporting the amendment. It is, at this point in time, as we move through our continuum of care, we may very well come back with this. Until we get it done, until we look at the continuum of care, what concerns me is that we say provided that the residential placements have been permitted and are regulated in accordance with guidelines developed by the department - that may very well happen. We may be able, as we move through that policy, to bring this in.

My concern right now is I want to go back and do a really good scan of the department and what happens sometimes when we are faced with emergencies where, based on geography or unable to get a child out of a certain area, that we may have to place them sometimes in a place that we do not have licensed or regulated. If I say this now, we are tied to that. Now, we may very well, as we go through the continuum of care – I have no problem behind the philosophy of this. I do not want children in the care of this department that are in unregulated placements. I understand the issues brought forward through the hotels, the ALAs and all of that and that is why we are doing the continuum of care, we want to get away from it. If we bring it in and we have somebody, say in Coastal Labrador, the planes are down, and we do not have a regulated placement, we have to put the child somewhere and that could be anywhere – we could be in a snowstorm and we may place the child, and sometimes this happens, with a neighbour or with a friend. It is not a regulated place, it is not a foster home, there has been no investigation, but at that point in time we sometimes have to act and do something that in the long term we would not do.

I cannot put the word regulated because if we say regulated at this point that means they have to be regulated and a regulated foster home goes through a series and process that includes PRIDE training and assessments.

I am not saying I do not support this. I fully support what we are doing with the continuum of care. What I am saying is that rather than debate that today and me get up and say why I am not supportive or to put something in that I cannot deliver on, on the other end, but I want to say we are doing the continuum of care because we are concerned about the placements and we have to have appropriate placements. I want to do an environmental scan. I want to look at all the situations where we use places that are not regulated. If we are okay with it, we can come back and do the amendment on it, but I am not satisfied that that piece of work is done today.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is not a new issue. I have raised this issue for nearly two years in the House of Assembly in terms of ALAs and ILAs in this Province not being regulated, and I am frankly very disappointed to hear today that the minister is not prepared to move with this amendment because she has not done a scan of her department. Well, Mr. Chair, there has been ample time to do that. We have been dependent upon a system of ALAs and ILAs in this Province for a number of years. It is not something that just happened in the last six months. It has been something that we have had to use and turn to as a last resort for providing protection of children in Newfoundland and Labrador for quite some time, Mr. Chair.

The issue in terms of the example that she uses in Coastal Labrador, for example - she says if we regulate residential placements what does it mean when we get into an area like Coastal Labrador and we have to look at placing a child with a family member or a neighbour or something because we cannot get them out? Well the act provides for that, Minister. Under subsection (2) of the act it says, "A manager or social worker shall first consider placement of a child or youth with the child or youth's family or a person with whom the child or youth has a significant relationship." So, Mr. Chair, under that particular clause it has nothing to do with having a house in Mary's Harbour or Hopedale regulated at this stage.

MS BURKE: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: No, it does not, Minister.

In fact, Mr. Chair, if there is residential placement required in any community around this Province then it should be done. I say to you, Minister, you have a whole year before you proclaim this act. In a whole year you can meet the amendment to this clause in your department if the will is there to do it. If the will is there to actually do that and to ensure that there are residential placements in areas of this Province where they will be required even if it is on the Coast of Labrador then that can be done.

We are renting houses today in areas of this Province and placing children in those houses and they are not being regulated. I think that is wrong. I really do think it is wrong and I think at some point we have to make a commitment to change that, and that commitment should come here today. You have already said it is going to take you a whole year to proclaim this legislation. That means it is a whole year you have to put that regulatory piece in place for residential care in the Province. If you are really concerned by the fact that it is not regulated and it is unlicensed, then now is the time to take some action and to do something about it. As I said, Mr. Chair, it is not a new issue. It is an issue that has been ongoing in this Province for a number of years and it should not be left undone and unattended to.

Mr. Chair, I can understand that the government wants to do a review of continuum care in this Province. I have absolutely no problem with that, but I take objection to the fact that this amendment cannot be included until that is done, because the minister knows the difference. If this amendment is included and it does not meet the full scope of what the need is at the time, then you can always make the changes at that time, I say to you minister. It is better to have it there than to not have it there and leave that gap continuous in the Province as it has been for quite some time.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, I just want to make a couple of comments because, again, this is a piece of work that we are working on within the department. Even if we develop a wonderful policy on foster homes and whatever, the recruitment process is also something we need to address, and retention. So it does not happen quickly, and to get licences for foster homes and be able to identify where we need them is certainly a piece of work we need to do.

What concerns me, I guess – and, like I said, we may come back and we may actually amend using this. So I do not want to go saying we are not in agreement. What particularly bothers me right now is that it says, "…provided that the residential placements have been permitted and are regulated in accordance with guidelines developed by the department." We regulate our foster homes. We will regulate our therapeutic foster homes. We can regulate the group homes and the placements and the treatment facilities.

I want to make sure if we go with this that we are not selling ourselves short of what happens sometimes when we need to do an emergency placement. The foster home may be in the child's community, that they may not have to transfer to another school, but who is to say the foster parent is not gone away for the weekend? We pick the child up Friday night; by Monday morning we can have the child in the home, but we have to cover off something between Friday night and Monday morning. Things like that can happen and we have to deal with it.

The other situation is, even when we go back and say we can place a child with a family member, they do not have to go into foster care. We still have to be assured that that home where the child is going, despite being a family member, is a safe environment. So, just because it is a family member – my God, there could be incest issues in that home. Like, we just do not say -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS BURKE: - well, because you are a family member you meet the legislation, you can do it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

It being 5:30 p.m., the Chair will ask leave to rise and report progress, and to sit again.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Chair of Committee.

MR. KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee have leave to sit again?

MS BURKE: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

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

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

MS BURKE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it being 5:30 p.m., or just past 5:30 p.m., I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources and the Deputy Premier, that this House do now adjourn.

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourned until 2:00 o'clock tomorrow, being Private Members' Day.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.