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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I raised an issue in the House regarding the dismissal of the only child psychologist at the Janeway. We understand since, from Eastern Health’s press release, that this individual was suspended from their position for apparently not having the necessary provisional license to practice.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister today: How long was this individual practicing without a provisional license before his suspension, and did the loss of this license have anything to do with his testimony into a youth mental health case in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Eastern Health outlines in its news release the issue of why this individual was suspended, and further on states that there is other personnel information that they are not going to get into. So essentially, Mr. Speaker, that is something that Eastern Health will have to address when it comes to the personnel issue.

Mr. Speaker, the one point – and this was raised by the Leader of the Opposition the other day. I want to point out, when you look at what we have done as a government in relation to the Janeway incident that took place in December of 2008, there was $620,000 in funding in 2009-2010, Mr. Speaker. That is for five psychiatric nurses, an occupational therapist, a social worker and a recreational therapist. In the funding for 2010-2011, Mr. Speaker, another $429,916; again, another psychologist, an additional child care worker.

So, Mr. Speaker, in a period of two years, since this incident at the Janeway in December of 2008, we have invested $1.1 million. We have our two new centres which are being built, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: I do not know how much more government can do in such a short period of time.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very serious issue, I say to the minister. When you have only one child psychologist out of three positions left on staff at the Janeway, and the individual is suspended saying that they have lost their license, yet no one is prepared to say how long this individual continued to work without a license, why they had lost their license in the first place. Those are the questions I pose to the minister, and I ask you to provide an answer.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am aware – if we are talking about the same psychologist – of the comments that were made by Justice LeBlanc in his decision in the case of the teenager, but, Mr. Speaker, the statistics provided to me indicate that we have fifty psychologist’s positions at Eastern Health, and eleven-and-a-half of those are current and new positions, or assigned specifically to mental health, addiction programs, and services for children and adolescents. Of these, seven are filled and recruitment efforts are ongoing. So, it is inaccurate to state that this individual is the only child psychologist in the Province. There are all kinds of people out there, Mr. Speaker, who are also engaged in child psychology, but in terms of Eastern Health, we also had an interdisciplinary team at Unit J4D, which included an art therapist, an occupational therapist, and they are part of the team. So if you read the report prepared by the Acting Child and Youth Advocate, he does not simply talk about one individual being important. He talks about a global approach and the need to have an interdisciplinary team.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister just stated, and was stated by Eastern Health yesterday, the interdisciplinary team at the Janeway would provide the services to these children and youth on an in-patient and outpatient basis while all three psychologist’s positions remain vacant. However, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to all three families who were using the services of the recent psychologist that had been let go. They have informed me that their children have not been receiving any treatment in the past month since this doctor has been suspended.

I ask the minister: Why that is the case?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of – I would not know who these families are that the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. If there are concerns, I can certainly pass those concerns on to Ms Kaminski, the CEO of Eastern Health and ask her to look at them.

Mr. Speaker, again, what we are talking about is a psychologist is one part of a team in terms of the interdisciplinary team. Mr. Speaker, for example, with the new facilities that we are building, both in the addictions centre in Grand Falls and the Centre for Youth with complex needs here in St. John’s, they are, again, based upon interdisciplinary models where you have, not simply psychologists, you have psychiatrists if needed, you have various types of counsellors, Mr. Speaker. In St. John’s, for example, and Grand Falls, there will be dedicated social workers, psychologists, teachers, art music therapists and consulting psychiatrists. So, again, it is part of a continuum of care that is being provided, and if there are issues with the care being provided to children we will certainly take that up with Eastern Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say the minister should be well aware of who some of these families are because he has dealt with them.

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister stand here today and say that these children are receiving care as part of that team, and Eastern Health make those statements publicly yesterday, when three of those families that I have had communications with are stating otherwise?

I ask you, minister, in the case of this psychologist being suspended for what reason we do not know, everyone is refusing to tell us, I ask you again: What treatments are going to be made available to these children?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years this government has invested more than $17.5 million in the mental health and addictions field. If this is an issue of money, in terms of we do not have the people to provide psychologists; I can assure you, that is not the issue. That consulting psychologists can be found and that if there are issues out there, I will personally speak to Ms Kaminski and if we do not have the psychologists to provide, we will hire people. The money will be provided. Money is not going to stand in the way of providing proper health care to the people of this Province.

In our Budget, Mr. Speaker, we talked about this being a youth budget and that is what we are trying to do. So, the Leader of the Opposition raises an issue, I say to her, I will deal with that issue but I do not know the family she is talking about. There are privacy concerns and there are ways that this has to be dealt with, but that is the way it is, Mr. Speaker. I am more than willing to deal with that. We are not going to allow families out there to be without proper medical…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Unfortunately, minister, you have already left families out there without this service.

Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet unilaterally selected John Rorke as the Acting Child and Youth Advocate after heavy-handedly removing Darlene Neville from that position. They selected Mr. Rorke, Mr. Speaker, without going through any selection process. They chose to pay him $175 per hour, $100 an hour more than any other advocate who has served in this position.

I ask the minister today: Why is government willing to pay such a substantial salary to an individual who refuses to even advocate for children and to even discuss his reports publicly?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province were well aware in September of the chaotic conditions that existed in the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate. The situation down there was in shambles; it was in chaos. Government had to take action. The action of the government was confirmed and verified in the Noseworthy report. We had to do what we had to do in the interest of the children of our Province.

The second piece of that process, Mr. Speaker, was to have somebody go in there in an interim position, an acting position, to do the job, to clean that office up. We did that, Mr. Speaker. We got a person with impeccable characteristics; he has done the job. Contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition says, he has advocated for the children of our Province. He is doing a tremendous job. He has impeccable characteristics. We are delighted to have him there. We put no price tag on him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Other officials in the House of Assembly, such as the Auditor General, the Citizens’ Representative, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, all make less than half of what Mr. Rorke’s salary is. While Mr. Rorke is making the equivalent of over $300,000 per year, in this year’s Budget the government has only estimated $107,000 for the Child and Youth Advocate salary.

So I ask the minister: According to your own Budget Estimates, one, when will you be selecting a new, substantially lower paid permanent Advocate; and why is there such a discrepancy between what is budgeted for this year and what is being paid to Mr. Rorke at present?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, we make no apologies for the appointment of John Rorke.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: I imagine he is eminently qualified and has done a fantastic job. He has cleaned up a mess. He has cleaned up a mess in a short time. He has advocated for the vulnerable children of this Province. We put no price tag, Mr. Speaker, on his efforts. We are happy with the results. It was one of the best decisions this government ever made to get such great results in such a short time.

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: You have no trouble putting price tags on doctors in this Province who are saving people’s lives in operating rooms every day.

Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the minister to apologize; I asked him to tell me why they are paying Mr. Rorke as high as they are for the job he is doing.

Mr. Speaker, the Child and Youth Advocate in other provinces speak publicly regarding their reports because they want to explain the methodology used and the recommendations they put forward. They want to clarify all issues within their reports. Even the Citizens’ Representative, Mr. Speaker, as early as this morning in this Province spoke out regarding a report and an issue from his own office on the cancellation of the pre-detention facility for Goose Bay.

I ask the minister: Why is there a double standard and a lack of accountability when it comes to Mr. Rorke? Is it because he was hand-picked by your government and you are protecting him?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition was quoted on September 3 in The Telegram as saying that her only concern with the new appointment was that the work gets done, and it gets done in a timely manner. Her concerns have been met, Mr. Speaker, in spades, with Mr. Rorke.

Mr. Speaker, the act that governs the role of the Child and Youth Advocate – he is a member accountable to the House of Assembly, not to any member or any minister or Premier or anybody else. We cannot direct Mr. Rorke to speak to the media. That is up to him, if he wants to do it. His contract - the legislation is permissive legislation. It sets out his rules and duties. It is not prescriptive of what he can do, what he cannot do. If he wants to talk to the media, he can do that on his own. Some officers of the House like to talk to the media, some do not.

There is nothing in this legislation or our control, whether it is me as Minister of Justice, the Premier, or the Leader of the Opposition that can direct Mr. Rorke to do anything like that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When Mr. Rorke was appointed with his big salary, Mr. Speaker, no one in this Province understood that he would be muzzled, that he would never speak out again, that he would just push paper out the door in the Child and Youth Advocate office and not make himself available to talk about the findings and recommendations in his report.

I ask the minister: Does he honestly believe that that is the acceptable behaviour for a Child and Youth Advocate in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, anybody who knows John Rorke, I do not think can say he can be muzzled.

Mr. Speaker, again I repeat, Mr. Rorke took on a position in an acting capacity for a short term, a very highly volatile situation, very public situation, agreed to do it, did a job for government, did it well, and worth every cent he is getting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the Opposition reviewed the court decision documents relating to our government’s environmental protection orders against AbitibiBowater, we learned that there were environmental assessment reports presented as evidence. Up to this point, no one in the public knew that government had full knowledge of the extent of Abitibi’s environmental liabilities.

I say to the minister, to use her own words, we take the issues of the environment very seriously. Minister, officials in our office have had the opportunity to read the reports, and we now realize that government had full knowledge of all environmental liabilities since the fall of 2009, but did not make the public aware of the extent of the damage.

I ask you today: Why did you not tell the people of the Province that you had reports which outlined the full extent of pollution on former Abitibi properties once these reports were in your hands?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have full knowledge. If she understood the difference between Phase I, Phase II and Phase III environmental site assessments, she would know that the information we have is limited information and there is a further piece of work that needs to be done and it needs to be done by Abitibi.

As a part of that work that was done, one of the things that was brought to our attention was that there was immediate health and safety concern in Buchans. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we were very public around that issue. Within days of having the information, analyzing the information, the Minister of Health and myself were out in Buchans. The information was put forward, presented in a very public way - it is, in fact, on the Web site if you want to see it. Our government committed $9 million to clean up the immediate health and safety concern in that area, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, at the same time that the minister had the report on Buchans, you also had the report on Grand Falls mill site which showed that heavy metals and other toxic pollutants exceeding human health guidelines were not only in the soil but discharging into the Exploits River.

I ask the minister: Why did you not bring that information forward to the people of Grand Falls in a timely fashion and on a precautionary basis as you did in Buchans?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, her question is about forty-eight hours too late. Do you know why it is too late? Because under her direction, an e-mail was sent to the Town of Grand Falls stating that there is some very serious health and safety concerns for the people in your community.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing further from the truth. There are environmental issues there; they are not of immediate health and safety concern. What she did was absolutely, totally irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, I had to pick up the phone and call the mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor yesterday to reassure the people of that community that there is not an immediate health and safety concern there.

Yes, there are environmental issues; they are on an industrial site, very different than the case in Buchans where we stepped up to the plate. Had there been issues that related to the public in that area in health and safety concerns, we would have done the exact same thing in Grand Falls-Windsor that we did in Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister was doing her job, no one else would have to send an e-mail, I say to you, Minister.

In the same press release concerning the Buchans soil contamination, the Minister of Environment and Conservation said, "While this data is preliminary, it allows us to inform the town so appropriate measures can be taken to reduce their exposure while additional testing is ongoing."

So I say to you, Minister: Why were you not equally concerned about the potential health impacts of the sixteen areas of concern that were identified in the environmental assessment of the Grand Falls mill site?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I am going to give the member a little science and engineering tutorial here now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: There is a difference in terms of a health and safety risk when it is related to an industrial site and a residential site. On an industrial site, such as Grand Falls-Windsor, there is no continuous source. It is not spreading throughout the community, Mr. Speaker. It is an environmental issue that we do want remediated but compare that to Buchans where you have exposed tailings that are spread around the community, that the children have a potential to ingest. There are no children on an industrial site; that is the difference; that is the science difference.

Mr. Speaker, if she has any questions like this before they go fear mongering in the public, I suggest that they certainly call my office and ask me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister put out precautionary notices to Buchans back in the fall. She had the same information on Grand Falls.

I say to you, Minister, do not lay the excuse here today, do not lay the excuse here today that there are no children on a playground in this community when you know that the sixteen areas of concern, noted in the consultant’s report, include facility wide concentrations of arsenic in the soil at higher levels than legal guidelines, along with other metal facilities in groundwater, and an asbestos disposal site in which the people who were out there working had to stop digging in.

So I ask the minister: Why did you believe that this information should not be shared with the public, and why did you not conduct further testing and analysis on the residential properties and the public spaces adjacent to the Grand Falls mill site as you did in Buchans?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, last week in this House, the Leader of the Opposition stood up and said that we took over half of Grand Falls when we expropriated that site - fear mongering again. Now, she is back here trying to put fear into the people of Grand Falls-Windsor again. She is making it up as she goes.

The Phase II reports indicate that there are environmental issues in the groundwater and in the soil. Mr. Speaker, there are no children playing in an industrial site; that is the very difference. However, when the issue came to our attention that there was an immediate potential human health and safety issue in the Town of Buchans, Mr. Speaker, we immediately acted. We did sections of a Phase III study in Buchans. That was not necessary in Grand Falls-Windsor because it is on an industrial site. That is the difference, Mr. Speaker.

Again, if she needs some further lessons in Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, and risk assessments, I will gladly give them to her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only one who needs lessons here is the Minister of Environment in how to do her job, Mr. Speaker, because she has failed at it miserably.

The consultants also found significant pollution in six logging camps in the Botwood site and the former Stephenville mill site.

Why did you not release this information to the public so that they could take precautions similar to the one encouraged in Buchans? I ask the minister: Will she release all of these reports to the public today and explain the implications of this contamination of human health and environmental safety to the people of this Province? What you should have done (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, this information is public. I have offered it to the member, to come over to my office, and she has sent her staff over. I have offered it to the mayor of Grand Falls –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, talk to the mayor of Buchans, ask him how open and transparent we were when that issue came to the forefront of an immediate health and safety concern. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are environmental issues in Stephenville, in Botwood, in the logging camps, but we prioritize. When it comes to health and safety and when it comes to children that gets prioritized over groundwater and soil.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: That is exactly why we committed $9 million to the people of Buchans. That is why the tenders are going out very soon. We are going to see work conducted there in June, all complete by the fall, so the people of Buchans do not have to deal with these exposed tailings any further.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to allow her colleague to ask the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for my protection.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, last week the minister assured us that the Beaumont Hamel will be going back to Bell Island over the past weekend; however, the vessel is still in St. John’s Harbour.

I ask the minister today: What is the status on the repairs being conducted on the Beaumont Hamel, and when can the residents of Bell Island expect to see this vessel back in service?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last week in response to the question from the member opposite the Beaumont Hamel is in for repairs and inspections are ensuing. Certainly, I am not going to rush bringing a boat back until I have the satisfaction that everything is okay, the inspection is continuing. As soon as it is complete and the boat is ready to come back, it will come back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I never asked the minister to rush the return of the Beaumont Hamel. It is just that he stated it would be in service last weekend.

Mr. Speaker, we have also heard that when the Earl W. Windsor goes for its annual maintenance that it would be likely replaced also by the Beaumont Hamel. The Beaumont Hamel can accommodate half of the passengers of the Windsor which poses problems for commuters, tourists and the crab fishery. We also cannot forget the residents of Bell Island who also depend on the Beaumont Hamel.

I ask the minister: When the Windsor goes on dry dock, will the Beaumont Hamel be replacing it, or will it return to the Bell Island service?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, in response to the question, obviously we are trying everything we can - I, as minister and we, as a government - to make sure that services to our islands are at a level that is meeting the needs of the people.

We are working - I, as minister, our department and my officials are working very closely with both committees, both on Bell Island and on Fogo Island. We are certainly working to the best of our ability to provide those services. The Beaumont Hamel, we hope, will be back as soon as possible. It will go back on the Bell Island run. The Nonia then will be going out to Little Bay Islands or Long Island to take care of that and, I believe, on May 25 the Windsor will be coming out of Fogo to go in for three weeks – we hope – repair and during that time we will be moving the Beaumont Hamel out there and the Nonia back to Bell Island.

Again, asking the patience of the people as we try as best we can to manage this particular situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, our office has also received calls from concerned workers on the Earl W. Windsor, many who are worried that they are going to be laid off while the Windsor goes in for emergency repairs on May 25. We understand that this is going to affect about twenty-two workers and that such layoffs have not occurred in the past.

I ask the minister: Is this a new practice and, if so, what are the reasons for laying off twenty-two workers while the vessel is on refit?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: I say, Mr. Speaker, when I was in Opposition asking questions I always knew the answers before I asked a question. I am sure the member is very much well aware that this is not a new practice. The member next to him got up in the last session of the House and asked a similar question.

As I pointed out, the practice is that when a ship goes into refit that we do make sure that the crew that are aboard go in, usually the captain and engineers, to make sure that the work is completed and completed to satisfaction. Any crew members that are necessary for additional maintenance, they will be kept on, but those that are not needed, that the boat does not need that type of a refit or maintenance, those people will indeed be laid off. It is not a new practice; it is a practice that has gone on now for several years. The crew on the Winsor know it, the people we serve know it, everyone knows it, and I am sure the member knew it before he asked it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning there was a report that the Citizens’ Representative was not giving up the fight for the pre-trial detention centre –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: – recommended by his office in 2007.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, yesterday here in this House we debated a government private member’s motion on the Violence Prevention Initiative when we spoke about women trying to escape violent situations. Mr. Speaker, the women who get charged with a criminal action are often victims of abuse themselves. Mr. Speaker, it is important that women in Labrador feel safe and secure when they are in the pre-trial situation.

In light of this, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs if she will make a commitment to the women of Labrador to fight for a centre to be put in place before the review of correctional facilities in the Province is completed.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is well aware of the need of the women and the youth in Labrador as expressed a couple of years ago by the Citizens’ Representative. That need has been identified and, as has been said so many times in the last couple of weeks, that need will be considered in the internal review that we are doing of correctional institutions, including Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at what options are available to us to deal with these particular needs in Labrador, and at the end of the year hopefully we will have some clear direction as to how we can deal with that. That is where we are at the moment. They have not been forgotten. It has not been shelved, as the Opposition has claimed. Mr. Speaker, it is very much a part of our review.

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.

The decision has been shelved, Mr. Speaker, because it has been put on hold. I would point that out to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: We have heard the minister give this excuse a couple of times now here in the House. The Citizens’ Representative points out in his report that a pre-trial detention centre is not a prison; it should be a stand-alone program - a building, obviously - that has nothing to do with what happens with the correctional facilities in the Province. It is something that is needed in and of itself.

I ask the minister: Why are they determined to revisit this decision, and why not allow this pre-trial detention centre to go ahead?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, we take no opposition to the decision of the Citizens’ Rep; and, in fact, we welcome his comments. What we have examined, Mr. Speaker, to date, is a pre-trial detention centre, or some modifications thereof, and that may not well be the answer to the needs in Labrador, as the Citizens’ Rep has said. I mean, we might not need a pre-detention centre in the sense of a glorified lock-up or a detention centre where services are given to people who are staying for short terms.

He might well be right; there might well be other options in Labrador that we can look at. There might well be other facilities. We may not need walls and barbed wire in this situation. There are other options we are looking at and that is exactly what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, in our internal review.

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.

Well, reading and listening to what the women in Labrador are saying, and the Mokami Status of Women Council are saying; they believe that this centre is necessary.

I am asking two ministers, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister of Justice: Will they go and sit down with the women in Labrador and the women on the coast and hear what they have to say? Because they are saying it is needed, and it is needed now.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, just yesterday we met with the Minister’s Committee on Violence Against Women. We have talked to the people in Labrador; we have talked to a number of groups, Mr. Speaker. We recognize that we have to do a whole lot of consultation with the women’s groups, the stakeholders on the ground in Labrador, before we make any decisions in this respect.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that we are sending officials to Labrador within very short order, to meet with all the stakeholders in Labrador, to get what consultation we can on this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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