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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

She has been heard, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!