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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has already indicated that today is the start of Mental Health Week. Well, just Friday past, acting Child and Youth Advocate, Judge Rorke, released his report into the Janeway psychiatric unit. This investigation was prompted when two children were handcuffed and shipped off to the Waterford Hospital in our Province. The acting Advocate released a report on Friday, but today is refusing to speak publicly about it and has declined interview requests – an Advocate, Mr. Speaker, who is not prepared to be an Advocate.

I ask the minister today: Why would you appoint someone to this role who is unwilling to stand up, explain their own report and be accountable to the children and families of our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is aware of how the appointment of Judge Rorke took place. The Leader of the Opposition is the one who defended the former Child and Youth Advocate, but yet we heard no comment after the acting ombudsman released his report. So it is easy for this Opposition Leader to criticize.

The Acting Child and Youth Advocate has outlined in his report the review of the situation; he has made recommendations. I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that as a government we have already addressed some of these issues. In this year’s Budget we allocated money for the Janeway psychiatry services. Over the last two years, Mr. Speaker, we have allocated $1.1 million.

As for the Advocate speaking, I cannot control what the Advocate does; it is an independent office, as the Speaker is well aware. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Advocate reports to the House of Assembly, not to the Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to remind the minister that there is nothing independent about being sanctioned by the Cabinet as Judge Rorke was done.

I ask the minister today: In making the appointment, did you also muzzle the Child Advocate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would not expect the Leader of the Opposition to understand concepts of independence because it is something that requires a common sense approach and also requires, Mr. Speaker, an understanding of legal principle.

I do know that the Opposition House Leader would understand the importance of this concept. Essentially, the Child and Youth Advocate under the act is independent. We appoint judges, Mr. Speaker, but we do not at that point, as she says, sanction them. An appointment is made; the independence comes with the office. Judicial independence - independent offices by their very nature, Mr. Speaker, have to act at arm’s-length from government; are given the powers to make their own findings and comments. One of the ways that we dealt with the Child and Youth Advocate Office in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is to have the Child and Youth Advocate report to the House of Assembly.

I am sorry if the Leader of the Opposition does not have the cozy relationship with this present Advocate that she had with the previous one, who she went to such extremes to defend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would not expect a whole lot from this minister other than insults. I certainly do not expect answers; however I will ask the questions.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the minister said that this individual is accountable to the House of Assembly, because I e-mailed him today and I asked Justice Rorke for a meeting to discuss some of his findings in his report. The judge, Mr. Speaker, refused saying that he was not going to make himself available to any politician in this Province.

So I ask the minister: Who is this individual accountable to?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I can only speak to the legal principles involved. I know of no principle in law why the Child and Youth Advocate would jump because the Leader of the Opposition says jump. That is what happened with the previous Child Advocate, it is not happening here. Independence, Mr. Speaker, means that the person makes a decision independent of us.

Mr. Speaker, you are aware of the budgetary process, you are aware of the reporting procedure. Whether or not the Child Advocate decides to speak to politicians, that is up to him or her. I am certainly not advocating that that should take place. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the report, the report contains very sensible recommendations, recommendations that we are already acting upon, and I would suggest that if the Leader of the Opposition has a problem with that she should put her request in writing to the House Management Commission or to the Speaker and ask for a meeting, but other than that it is not up to me to determine what Judge Rorke should do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we have an Advocate today in the Child and Youth Advocate Office that is not advocating, I say to you minister. You appointed him. You put him there. The people of this Province are paying for him to operate in that office. He has produced a report that has questions that should be answered. Who is this individual responsible to, minister? It is not to the children and parents of this Province, not to the public when he refuses to talk about his own findings in the media, and not to this Chamber when he refuses to meet with any politician in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Actually, I am not sure what the question was. Who does he report to? He reports to the House of Assembly as an independent officer. The Leader of the Opposition should be aware, Mr. Speaker, and I would suggest that it is scandalous that she can simply come into this House and sully people’s reputations with baseless allegations and accusations. Again, that is what she does.

Back in August, well when she phoned up the Child and Youth Advocate, because we know she talked to the former Child and Youth Advocate and you started off with the Labrador incident. Well you caused a lot of trouble there didn’t you? Where were you, I say to you, where were you -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to direct his commentary to the Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: Where were you when the Child and Youth Advocate had that office in the state that it was in? Yet, I never heard a word from her, Mr. Speaker, after Mr. Noseworthy’s report was released showing what a true state that office was in and how this government took the right approach and put someone in place who could do the job. Judge Rorke has provided a report, Mr. Speaker. We have indicated that we are reviewing the report, we will act on a lot of the recommendations, and I apologize again to the Opposition Leader if someone does not jump because she says jump.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, I make no apologies for prompting the report at the Janeway or prompting the report in Labrador. I will continue to do my job, minister, to ensure that the children in this Province have half a chance.

Now let me ask you this question, Mr. Speaker. The catalyst of this report was really the children who were taken from the Janeway in handcuffs and put away, locked away in the adult mental health facility in this Province. We understand today that Judge Rorke did not even talk with the parents or the children who were at the heart of this investigation, prior to issuing this particular report.

I ask the minister: How can the public have confidence in the Acting Child and Youth Advocate that you have appointed when clearly he is not performing the necessary due diligence in this case?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to read the report. I have not studied it as much as I would like, but on this issue of the transfer, Mr. Speaker, there was a very poignant comment made where a psychiatrist stated: "I would much rather be here discussing why the RNC were involved than to be here discussing a dead patient and why they weren’t involved." So, Mr. Speaker, the judge has reviewed the situation of the transfer, he had indicated at that time that was the way it had to be done. This is an issue that we can address. We can look at how this type of situation can be prevented in the future.

Mr. Speaker, what you have to look at is the context of what was taking place in the Janeway unit at the time. There were certainly a lot of problems, Mr. Speaker. There were different age groups being held on the same unit. All of the issues that were brought out in this report are ones that we can address, ones that will address and some, Mr. Speaker, that we are already addressing.

At that time, Mr. Speaker, the use of handcuffs – it is my understanding – was the policy that had to be followed by the RNC under the Mental Health Act. So as unfortunate as it is, Mr. Speaker, as the psychiatrist said, it is better to have a person who is alive than wondering why they are dead.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, I did have an opportunity to read the report over the weekend. There is some good information in there but there are a lot of questions in there as well, questions that need to be answered and should be answered by the Child Advocate in this Province.

So, Minister, I would encourage you to unmuzzle the Child Advocate, allow him to speak to the report that he has tabled in this Province. I would also like him to answer as to why he did not interview the parents and the children that were at the heart of this very issue prior to releasing his findings.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a basic principle of independent, or an independent office, is that the person who makes the decision, whether it is a judge, or in this case the Child and Youth Advocate, does not have to answer for their decision. Is the next step that the Leader of the Opposition is going to propose is that when a judge makes a decision we will allow her to question the judge as to the basis for his or her decision? That is the principle when you extend it. That is the extension of the principle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: The Child and Youth Advocate –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KENNEDY: I hear the Opposition House Leader chirping over there, Mr. Speaker. He has been quiet for a long time and he should know better. He should know better, Mr. Speaker.

If you look at the section of the Child and Youth Advocate Act, it talks about the role of the Child and Youth Advocate is to protect and further the interests of children and youth in this Province. Mr. Speaker, it does not mean that every time the Child and Youth Advocate provide a report that he or she has to come out and outline why they made their decisions. If the Child and Youth Advocate chooses to answer questions, that is up to the Child and Youth Advocate.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition displays the lack of understanding and knowledge that she has her today, but I do not really expect anything better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that Justice Rorke is not there acting as a judge but rather acting as an advocate for children in this Province, and it is a job he is failing to do appropriately.

Mr. Speaker, the environmental disaster taking place off the coast of Louisiana is certainly a situation that we should take very seriously off our own shores, especially since the government opposite is an equity partner in some of our offshore projects and on the hook for any cleanup costs should an oil spill take place.

I ask the minister today: As an equity partner, what provisions does Nalcor have in place to protect the people of the Province from both an environmental and cost perspective?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the situation in the Gulf of Mexico is one that we are observing very, very closely - the relevant ministers that are involved. I am certainly watching it extremely closely, from a personal perspective, to see exactly what is going on.

Our primary concern here in the Province, of course, first of all, is the safety of the workers offshore; and secondly, the environment. From our own perspective in the Province, as a government, I can certainly assure hon. members in this House of Assembly that the necessary policies, procedures and processes are put in place and are being constantly reviewed as a matter of fact. We are in the process of even reviewing some of those policies right now. So we are very, very proactive on what is going on.

I do have some concern as I watch the process as it unfolds in the Gulf of Mexico to wonder whether the technology is able to keep up with the problem that is going on. The one thing, I think, that will come from this whole process is that better technology will be developed. In Newfoundland and Labrador, we are in the harsh environment of the North Atlantic - extremely high seas and winds that are factors.

To get to the question directly, it was certainly part of the process when Nalcor looked at taking its equity holdings, that the equity holdings would be certainly held in a separate company – in separate oil and gas company. From our own perspective, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador stands behind the environmental liabilities no different than the Abitibi situation. When environmental disasters happen, we go to our primary source of responsibility and then the government, of course, is the backup at the end of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard environmentalists and professors at Memorial University who have said publicly that they are concerned that our Province does not have the necessary technology to cope with a spill. They also stated, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a question of it happening but when a spill will take place.

I ask the Premier today: If people specializing in environmental protection do not have a level of confidence today in our current system, how can the people of the Province be assured that we will not be facing any similar disasters in the future?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province can be assured that we will adopt the best practices in the world. As we come to this process now in the Gulf of Mexico, if there are any new devices or methodologies or technologies that are developed, we will make sure that they are adopted in our offshore. From our own perspective, the C-NLOPB is responsible primarily for any offshore problems. If it comes to any leakages or seepages that come from tankers or ship transports, then that is the responsibility, of course, of Transport Canada.

From our own perspective, as recently as this morning, we have looked at just exactly what the situations are in the North Atlantic. It is a general understanding that because the offshore sites are significantly offshore and well east of the Province that the situation that could arise in Orphan Basin or Jeanne d’Arc or the Flemish Pass is that there is a lower likelihood that oil would actually come ashore in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, that is not to say that it would not.

As well, we are dealing with a heavy crude oil out there, so from a fishing perspective, there is less likelihood that it would affect the fishery although it would certainly affect the gear. However, having said that, I am not trying to minimize the circumstances under any situation, we will make sure that we monitor this very closely and that we adopt the best practices in the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, although it may be a lower likelihood of it happening, as the Premier indicates, it does not mean that we would not be on the hook in a case of an environmental disaster.

Mr. Speaker, in an interview with CBC, Memorial University biologist Ian Jones said that this government is not forthright about the impacts of oil spills and what the impact would be on wildlife. He also stated that a recommendation to put independent monitors on oil rigs still has not been implemented.

I ask the Premier today: As part of the regulatory process, why haven’t these particular independent monitors been installed, and is this something government has been advocating the industry for?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, with regard to - I did not hear this particular interview, so someone’s opinion on whether they are being forthright or not, I do not know, I cannot gauge it, I cannot respond to it.

Having said that though, I can tell you that any information we have will certainly be made available to the general public, as well as the members of this House. I think the immediate and the largest impact from any offshore oil spill, of course, would be on the birds. We are told that would have a significant impact on birds in the Province because, obviously, they are significant distances offshore and they are all around the coast of our Province. As I have said before, there is an indication that the fishery would certainly not be impacted as heavily because of the viscosity, I guess, of the oil that we are dealing with in our offshore.

From a perspective of the regulations, that has to be done by the C-NLOPB. We are constantly in contact with the C-NOLPB. Our officials have been discussing these issues with them over the weekend and as recently as this morning. So, as I said before, if there are any pieces of technology that would be better suited to our offshore, then we would certainly be recommending them to the C-NLOPB and we would be in constant contact with them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, court documents filed by AbitibiBowater indicate that it will be seeking $500 million in compensation under a NAFTA lawsuit for its assets that were taken by the Province under Bill 75. Preliminary costs associated with the environmental liabilities have been estimated at $200 million.

I ask the Premier: Did we obtain legal title for the mill property through the cancellation of timber rights and lands in section 3 of Bill 75, or did we accidentally expropriate the mill under sections 5 and 6 that were used for the other assets such as Star Lake?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what was not an accident. It was not an accident that we decided to take a bold move, as a government, and decide to step up and fight for the rights of the people of Central Newfoundland, in the Grand Falls-Windsor and other surrounding areas. What we did was unprecedented in this Province, and we are extremely proud of what we did. We took the bold move of going in, after Abitibi had broken their promise to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we took back our timber, we took back our land and we took back our water, and when we did that we are very proud of it because it puts us in an extremely strong position. So that was a very deliberate move. As a result of that, we are now in a position, that because of the environmental problems and liabilities that have been caused by this company that really does not care about Newfoundland and Labrador, we are now in a position where we have these assets that have value. Not only have we taken pride in repatriating them, they also have value. So we can now use the value of these assets to deal with the environmental liability, which we would have been responsible for because they intended to go bankrupt in the first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will ask the Premier again if he could answer my question. For example, Mr. Speaker, the legal title of the mill property, was it obtained through the cancellation of title or was it obtained through the expropriation clauses?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in order to secure the most valuable asset that Abitibi held in the Province, which was actually the hydro-electric asset, which is the water rights, we in fact described in the process an area which included a piece of the mill, which included the hydro-electric assets. Inadvertently, the mill had been included in that, and the Opposition is trying to make hay over the fact that a mistake was made by a bureaucrat in government and therefore that is a huge embarrassment to government.

Well, the bottom line at the end of the day is that we do own the assets, and not only do we own the land and do we own the timber and do we own the water, we now own the mill and we own Grand Falls House and we own the manager’s house, which are the three most valuable pieces of real estate in the community of Grand Falls, and we are now in a position where we have complete and full control of these assets. Ultimately, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador - if Abitibi walked away from their responsibilities and if Abitibi went into consumer protection - would have been left holding the bag. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador would have been left holding the bag on the environmental liabilities. Now we have the assets which we are in a position to be able to keep or dispose of as we see fit, and I can guarantee the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that at the end of the day the value of those assets will exceed any liabilities that arise from this transaction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that the mistake of this deal is not on the back of a bureaucrat, Mr. Speaker, but on the backs of a government who signed off on this and did so saying that we have the world’s best advice, Mr. Speaker. That is where the responsibility really lies. Mr. Speaker, it is important to know the facts of this particular mistake, I say to the Premier, because if it was made through section 3 of Bill 75, government may have also inadvertently cancelled all land rights that were given to other people on surrounding properties within the community dating back to 1905.

I ask the Premier today: Can you give the assurances to the people of the Province that no other properties besides the mill, the mill manager’s house and the Grand Falls House has been affected by this accidental mistake?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the people of this Province that we have done the right thing. I can assure him and assure them that we have taken their assets and we have protected those assets. Those assets would have been lost to an irresponsible company that did not give a darn about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of Central Newfoundland and Labrador. They would not - they would have walked away from their responsibilities. They either would have gone into consumer protection, they would have gone bankrupt or they would have done what they were in the process of doing, and that was trying to sell off those assets to somebody else.

So what we have done is protected the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now the hon. members opposite agreed with that in principle; they were present that day, they were fully informed. If a mistake occurred - it is irresponsible of the hon. members opposite to try and say now that as a result of that minor mistake, which actually happens to give us the most valuable piece of real estate in Grand Falls, that that is now saddling this Province with the environmental liability. That is absolutely untrue and erroneous. Now I do not how far I can go with regard to parliamentary protocol as to what I can say –

AN HON. MEMBER: Misleading is (inaudible) the word.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Is misleading okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: Misleading is okay.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: You are misleading the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the Premier, that misleading is unparliamentary and I ask the hon. the Premier to withdraw the remark.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible). I got bad advice, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw the remark.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Did the hon. the Premier withdraw the remark?

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Yes I did.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows full well that assurances were given to the people in this Province that the mill was not a part of any expropriation exercise and that any liabilities on the environment would be a zero balance at the end of the day with Abitibi as a result of the payment of assets. That was the assurance, that was the wording, that was the lingo, that was the message that was used by the government, Mr. Speaker. Now we find it is a completely different situation. We already know from court documents that AbitibiBowater is seeking the $500 million in compensation for the assets, a number that we were told was at about $300 million when we were briefed by the government.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier today: Is the accidental expropriated mill and associated assets included in the $500 million price tag, and is the fact that you took control of the mill the real reason for the claim to jump by $200 million?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member opposite and her government are not representing the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. No wonder, no wonder we gave it all away when the hon. crowd opposite had government, Mr. Speaker. So she is going to write off three hundred for environmental liability, then she is going to write out a cheque for $500 million. Well I can tell you right now, that is not going to happen while we are in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, because we do not believe in giveaways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, what she fails to point out is in the appeal which was filed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the judge, who is the hon. Gascogne, or whatever he is, Gascon or whatever he is, the Great Gatsby or whatever his name is, anyway, at the end of the day is in the Quebec Court, is obviously not too –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I do not care; I could not care about something like (inaudible).

The hon. judge in Quebec obviously has no time for Newfoundland and Labrador, and what he has done has gone beyond his constitutional competence. Because if you read the appeal, which was filed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, he did not have the statutory or constitutional competence to do what he did, and he made palpable and overriding errors of fact. You can rely on him if you want to, I would not.

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 very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, workers at the Voisey’s Bay mine site have been on strike since August, 2009. That is nine long months, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in September, 2009, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment told the House that government was committed to reviewing anti-replacement worker legislation and that a review was underway and legislation would be pending once the review was complete.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister give this House an update on the review process?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I would have pointed out back when that question was first posed is that we do have a committee that is in place that is directing that particular process. It is a committee that is made up of business, of labour, and of government. As I said at that time, should they bring forward legislation to us then we are certainly willing and ready to consider that.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the makeup of that committee however, we should all be reassured that they are very concerned about the employment relations climate in this Province. We have members from labour, Mr. Speaker, particularly Lana Payne, the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour. We have members from business, very, very concerned about the employment relations climate in this Province, and we have people from government there. When they have legislation that they feel is worthy of us looking at, then we certainly will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The foot-dragging of this government is now becoming suspect, because the minister refers to somebody who is on that committee who published a letter asking this government to bring in anti-scab legislation. That was done by the President of the Federation of Labour last fall. That letter is out there in the public, so we know where Ms Lana Payne stands.

Communities in our Province are being negatively impacted by this strike, and the Province is losing revenue. The lack of real consultation, and no sign of the bill coming up in this session, seems to show that government is allowing Vale Inco to act with impunity in this Province by attempting to impose Third World working conditions on the workers in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, when is this government going to deliver anti-replacement worker legislation to this Province, as they have been asked to do by the labour movement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The first thing I would like to point out is that this government has great sympathy for the workers in Voisey’s Bay. We absolutely understand the situation that they are in. We absolutely understand their concerns. We have been listening to them.

Mr. Speaker, the Labour Relations Agency continues to work, continues to support those workers, continues to be available to them. The bottom line on this, though, is that the parties need to get back to the table. The parties need to resolve the issues that are there. Let’s look at what the main issue is. The main issue there is the nickel bonus, Mr. Speaker. They need to get back to the table, they need to discuss that particular issue, and the people at the Labour Relations Agency are more than willing to sit with them to help them work through that issue.

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.

This weekend we learned that Vale Inco spent $2.5 billion U.S. acquiring oil rights in Guinea, indicating the labour impasse in Voisey’s Bay is not about money for Vale, but about strike breaking, Mr. Speaker, and maybe even union busting.

Mr. Speaker, how long is this government complacently going to sit by and continue to let Vale Inco walk all over our workers who have been out there in the cold for months and months?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the question is: How long before the two parties decide to sit down and negotiate this? That is the question that is at hand here.

We have suggested to the parties, over and over again, they need to be at the table if they want to solve this strike. We have consulted with the parties; we have made our people available to the parties. Business is concerned, labour is concerned, government is concerned, but absolutely the only solution that is going to be found to this problem is when the two sides sit down and actively negotiate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.