December 5, 2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 41
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we'll hear statements
from the hon. Members for the Districts of Bonavista, Cape St. Francis, Harbour
Grace – Port de Grave, Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune and Conception Bay South.
The hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, I rise here
today to speak of tragedy, perseverance and a young life well lived. Heidi and
Erica Dunn of Bonavista have been pillars of our community for years, even at
their young age. Both sisters love to perform and were no strangers to singing
and playing at community events, as well as being active members with number 84
RCSCC Golden Hind Sea Cadets, hockey players and dedicated volunteers.
Tragically, Heidi passed away at the age of 14 in July in an accident just days
before she was to compete at the Peninsula Idol competition at the Bird Island
Puffin Festival in Elliston. True to the impact that Heidi had on people, there
wasn't a seat to be had or a dry eye in the house at Memorial United Church in
Bonavista as her life was celebrated. Just recently, the first annual Heidi Dunn
under 15 girls hockey tournament was held in Bonavista to honour her spirit.
As often
is the case with tragedy, there is the spirit of perseverance. Showing courage,
Erica performed at Heidi's funeral and three days later won the Peninsula Idol
competition.
Please
join me in celebrating Heidi's life and Erica's bright future.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I rise
today to congratulate the Town of Flatrock on a successful come home year
celebration. The committee worked for several years preparing for the event and
what a fantastic job they did.
Chairperson Deputy Mayor Terry Humber and a team of over 20 volunteers organized
a 10-day celebration filled with something for everyone. Festivities opened with
the Kev Butts Memorial Softball Tournament, included other events such as the
Song and Story Circle, an East Coast Trail hike, a community bingo, a tea and
cinnamon bun workshop, demonstrations by the volunteer firefighters, a garden
party, cemetery mass, sports hall of fame ceremony, presentation of Citizen of
the Year, Mr. and Mrs. Chris Kavanagh, and a jiggs dinner that required three
sittings to accommodate everybody.
There
was also a senior's social, a car show with over 100 entries, a fun day, lancers
and local entertainment, and an open air dance. Celebrations closed with
fireworks and music by the Government Rams. Hundreds of people returned home to
Flatrock and everyone I spoke to was very impressed with the entire celebration.
I ask
all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating all those involved in making
the Flatrock Come Home Year such a tremendous success.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace – Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Season's greetings, Mr.
Speaker.
I would
like to recognize the members of the local Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints in Bay Roberts on an annual tradition they prepare and host during the
Christmas season.
Every
December, people from across the province visit the church on Central Street to
witness the special nativity display, a tradition which started in 2005,
originally featuring 86 nativities. Over the years, the numbers of nativities
continue to grow and currently there are 300 unique pieces.
These
special displays come from all over the world, such as Malaysia, Peru, Poland,
Angola, the Netherlands, Italy, Belize, Paraguay, Iqaluit, along with a variety
of communities throughout Canada and the United States.
The
display is a local favourite, cherished by those far and near. This church
community opens its doors for everyone to come and enjoy the spectacle every
evening from 6 to 9 p.m. in early December. Private viewings can also be
arranged.
The
church accepts free-will food donations for the local Bay Roberts Helping Hand
food bank. The church community takes great pride in preparing and hosting the
nativity and it's their way of giving back, while at the same time promoting the
true meaning of Christmas.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Otto
Fiander spent his childhood in the picturesque community of Coomb's Cove. As a
young man, he left his hometown to attend university and began a career in
education.
This
career path saw Mr. Fiander – as he is respectfully known – educating students
from Jersey Harbour, on the South Coast of the Island, to the Great Northern
Peninsula and Labrador where he became a member of the RCMP Marine Division.
In 1954,
Mr. Fiander and his young family returned to the South Coast of the Island and
to his career in education, teaching in the community of Belleoram and later as
the vice principal of the high school in English Harbour West. Mr. Fiander
became principal of that high school in 1970, a position he would hold for more
than a decade. In addition to teaching, he has been active in community
organizations, such as the Lions Club and the Volunteer Fire Department.
This
past summer, surrounded by family and friends at his home in Mose Ambrose, Mr.
Fiander celebrated his 90th birthday.
I ask
all Members of this hon. House to join me in commending this gentleman for a
remarkable career in education and a steadfast contribution to his community.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today it
gives me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House on the occasion of the
official opening of the new CBS Elementary school in Kelligrews, Conception Bay
South. On November 24, I was pleased to attend the opening with my colleague the
Minister of Education.
Conception Bay South is a fast-growing community, which is presently the
second-largest municipality in the province. The school has 500 students
attending and it's a much-welcomed addition to our two neighbouring elementary
schools.
CBS
Elementary is a K-7 school with 32 classrooms, two music rooms and a lunch room
with a commercial kitchen. It was designed in accordance with LEED rating
system, waste reduction, and daylight and water conservation are other design
features.
I would
like to thank both the former administration and the former MHA for Conception
Bay South, Terry French, for recognizing the need and initiating construction of
this new school. I would also like to thank the current administration for
seeing this project through to its completion.
Mr.
Speaker, this was a very proud day for the students, staff and families, which
concluded with a musical tribute by all students singing the late Gord Downey's
Tragically Hip song “Ahead by a Century.” So fitting.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm sure
you'll like my statement today.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge Labrador being chosen by
National Geographic Traveler magazine
as a Best of the World destination.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, each year
National Geographic Traveler magazine produces an eagerly
anticipated annual list that highlights must-see destinations to visit
throughout the world.
Standing
shoulder to shoulder with exotic and world-class destinations like Dublin,
Sydney and Vienna, Labrador was chosen because of its Aboriginal peoples'
involvement in Akami-Uapishku-KakKasuak-Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve.
Mr.
Speaker, as the only Canadian location chosen, this is a prestigious honour for
both our province and our country.
A place
of incredible scenery, people and spirit, the Big Land is truly a breathtaking
location. From awe-inspiring valleys and snow-covered peaks of the Torngat and
Mealy Mountains, to the unique multi-generational gathering and sharing space in
Nain, Labrador offers travellers an array of culturally rich and incredible
scenic experiences.
More and
more travellers are experiencing what Labrador has to offer, and with this
recent designation, Labrador will surely play a bigger role as we strive to
increase visitor spending to $1.6 billion annually by 2020.
Mr.
Speaker, I applaud all of those involved in this industry for their ongoing hard
work and commitment to making tourism in our province such a big success and I
encourage everyone to visit the Big Land.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Mr. Speaker, Labrador is a
dream itinerary for intrepid travellers who want to discover a land with 9,000
years of history. It truly is one of the last untamed places left on earth.
I invite
all hon. Members to join me in celebrating Labrador as one of the world's
must-see destinations.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I was proud to see Labrador
being chosen by National Geographic
Traveler magazine as a Best of the World destination. The Big Land will join
other awe-inspiring locations from around the world, and as the minister pointed
out, will be the only Canadian location chosen.
Mr.
Speaker, I couldn't think of a more deserving place in our country, apart from
the Coast of Bays, of course. While Labrador has amazing, expansive landscapes
and rugged natural scenery, perhaps its greatest attribute is its people, along
with its culture and its proud heritage.
Mr.
Speaker, I've had the pleasure of visiting a number of areas of Labrador over my
life, ever since I was a young girl visiting my family there, and have found so
many fond memories. Anyone who lives or has spent time in Labrador can fully
understand this honour being bestowed by National Geographic. Hopefully, through
such prestigious exposure, the number of people looking to experience all that
Labrador has to offer will continue to grow. I truly believe the sky is the
limit on tourism potential for this part of our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister. How exciting is this news? Bravo to all those who help make
Labrador an amazing place to live and to visit. They should be proud. This shows
how important and vital public investment in tourism is, as well as investment
in roads, infrastructure, arts and culture, and true partnerships with
indigenous peoples in developing destinations.
I
encourage government to resurrect the plans for Eagle River Provincial Park, and
a big bravo to the people of the Big Land.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
pleased to rise in this hon. House today to highlight the significant strides
our government has made towards enhancing the quality of our snow clearing
services for the 2018 winter season.
Most
recently I was pleased to announce our province's first-ever tow plow – an
innovative new piece of snow clearing equipment that can clear snow and spread
salt on two lanes at the same time, allowing for greater efficiency and better
allocation of equipment.
The new
tow plow has been assigned to the Trans-Canada from Salmonier Line to Route 2
Interchange and is a welcome addition to our fleet of more than 300 flyers
throughout the province.
Our
government provides numerous tools to help motorists plan for a safe trip
including highway cameras at 31 locations, online road condition reports, the
ongoing Snow Means Slow road safety campaign, Twitter updates using the
#nltraffic and more tools coming in the near future.
It is
also important to highlight the hard work and dedication of the more than 700
women and men throughout the province who work day and night, often in dangerous
conditions, to make our roads safe for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. As in
previous years, when weather conditions warrant, snow removal will take place 24
hours a day on the 13 busiest routes in the province.
Mr.
Speaker, while we continue to provide effective snow clearing services for the
safety of all those who travel our roads, we remind motorists that the best way
to ensure safety is to slow down, pay attention and drive to the conditions.
Mr.
Speaker, Snow Means Slow.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for an advance copy his statement. I'm pleased to rise in
this hon. House today to highlight significant – sorry, I'm reading his
statement. I knew there was something missing. The wrong piece of paper. I'll go
again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. PETTEN:
Did you like that? I'd
probably do a better job, yes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you.
Maybe I
should have picked it up and done it first.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Any
improvement of snow clearing operations in our province is always welcome news.
I'm interested to see how this new addition to the provincial snow-clearing
fleet will work and I hope that all staff will have the opportunity to do full
and proper training before the winter season starts in earnest.
I'll
certainly look forward to seeing the results of the pilot project, particularly
in terms of safety and effectiveness of using those plows on provincial
highways.
Mr.
Speaker, it is great that we have more than 300 flyers throughout the province.
I only hope they will all be operational this winter season. We all know how
quickly the weather can change in the province and we believe snow-clearing
equipment should be at the ready.
I would
also like to commend the many dedicated men and women who work to keep our roads
safe for the travelling public. Mr. Speaker, they do tremendous work. I
certainly encourage government to support these individuals by providing safe
and proper equipment and work environments.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, which I won't read.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. MICHAEL:
Got to keep the theme going.
Here we
are again facing another season of treacherous driving conditions on our
highways. I hope the new technology works for the safety of those who have no
choice but to drive the highways during less-than-ideal conditions.
Government says their snow-clearing services are effective, but there are many
drivers who disagree. What about those who have to drive on highways other than
the so-called 13 busiest routes? What analysis has the department done to make
sure they will be safe?
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday when I asked the government, it only provided answers
regarding marijuana production in Newfoundland and Labrador. My question is not
complicated and it's not about that.
I ask
the minister for NLC, the Minister of Finance: What discussions are taking place
with the company Canopy Growth regarding being the sole-source provider for
marijuana to Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes,
this government is preparing for the 2018 July legalization of cannabis. We have
to take a number of steps to make sure we're ready. That goes from regulation
right down to making sure we have supply here. Certainly, there have been
multiple companies that have been in touch with our government and with various
departments to discuss the possibility of having production done right here in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
What I
would say is that, again, we have to look at the best interests of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It's not something that's fully within the
discretion of the provincial government; when it comes to licensing itself, that
has to be done by the feds. I can confirm that Canopy is one of the groups that
have approached government.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate that information.
I ask
the Minister of Finance: Did you attend a meeting on Sunday night where there
was a discussion and a decision reached to provide an incentive to Canopy Growth
to provide marijuana to Newfoundland and Labrador markets?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I
reiterate that there are a multiple number of companies that have come to
government to talk about the possibility of setting up production here in
Newfoundland and Labrador so that we are not reliant just on having to import
this. This is something that we certainly don't want to see here in the
province.
Canopy
is one of those groups. I know they have reached out to this government, as have
other groups, with the possibility of setting up here. What I do know of Canopy
is they've set up outfits in at least three other provinces.
So,
certainly, we're going to look to see what we have to do here to make sure we
have supply and that we can have production set up right here in Newfoundland
and Labrador. We've entertained offers from multiple companies.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the
minister inform this House how many child or youth deaths or critical incidents
have been reported by her department to the Child and Youth Advocate's office in
the past two years?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for her question. In this current fiscal year, there have been three
to date is the latest information that I have received. Last year, I believe it
was eight or nine.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In June
2014, the then Child and Youth Advocate requested amendments to require the
mandatory reporting of all deaths and critical incidents involving children and
youth receiving government services.
I ask
the minister: Do you believe the legislation we will debate today sufficiently
meets these expectations?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a
little while ago, we did a press conference and we announced some of the
amendments that will be coming to the House of Assembly today – amendments that
I think will be very important in terms of ensuring more safety and care for
children and youth in this province that receive services from Children, Seniors
and Social Development and Justice and Public Safety.
Mr.
Speaker, the Child Youth Advocate, as an independent office of this House, has a
very important role to play in this province. As we were moving toward where
we're going today with bringing this amendment to legislation, we worked very,
very closely. She had opportunity, on a continual basis, to give input to us,
and we made sure that what we were doing today was what was supported by the
Advocate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
In November of 2014, the now
Premier agreed with the former Child and Youth Advocate. His private Members'
resolution read, and I quote: “… immediately introduce legislation for the
mandatory and immediate reporting by all government departments and agencies of
the deaths of, and the critical incidents involving, children and youth.”
Why have
you watered down this important legislation and are today only including just
two departments?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Children,
Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
believe that it's disrespectful to the Advocate, the comment that the Member
just made about watering down. Mr. Speaker, we're talking about children and
youth in care, and that's not really a place that I want to play a political
game for sure. But I will remind the hon. Member that four times over four years
the Advocate called for mandatory reporting. The PC administration, they
refused, they stalled and they delayed.
Mr.
Speaker, it was a Liberal government that brought Child and Youth Advocate
office to this province. It was a Liberal government that ensured that the
children in this province would have an independent voice enshrined in
legislation, just like it was a Liberal government that brought an independent
voice for the seniors.
Mr.
Speaker, we'll continue to take action and deliver.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
In
Hansard, the minister herself, in
2014, stated that she believed in mandatory reporting to the Advocate by all
departments and agencies.
Minister, why does your bill ignore, in particular, the Departments of Health
and Education?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Children,
Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, we have worked
very closely with the Advocate. The amendments that we are bringing to the
Legislature today are very much supported by the Advocate. I believe you'll see
that on the evening news tonight. I wasn't there when she was interviewed, but I
understand that.
Mr.
Speaker, Children, Seniors and Social Development, Justice and Public Safety –
we have a responsibility in those two departments to care for children and youth
in this province. There are mechanisms in the education system, in health where
– and parents, if my child in school is injured, I am an advocate for that
child. I'm pleased that the Advocate supports where we're going today.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Fortune Bay –
Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Can the minister elaborate to
this House why the Department of Health was left out?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Children,
Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, again, I will
reiterate that what we are doing today in bringing amendments that will make it
mandatory for the reporting of child deaths and critical injuries in this
province were aligned with what is happening everywhere – we are the fifth
jurisdiction in Canada to be reporting. We are the first in Atlantic Canada.
The
amendments we are bringing to this Legislature today do align with what is
happening everywhere else and is supported – which is most important of all to
this House – by the Advocate. I believe it will improve safety for children and
youth in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation. Your cuts to the
24-hour snow clearing, a decision supported by every single Member of the
Liberal caucus, had a severe, negative impact on highway conditions last winter.
In the
interest of public safety, will you reverse your 24-hour snow clearing cuts?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I wish
the Member opposite would have read the rest of my statement where I said that
24-hour snow clearing will still be in effect on the 13 busiest routes in our
province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER:
As it was last year.
MR. CROCKER:
As it was last year, Mr.
Speaker.
What
we've done last year, and we'll continue to do this year, Mr. Speaker, is we
ensure that the 13 busiest routes of our province will have 24-hour snow
clearing when snow conditions and winter conditions warrant. So if he would like
to finish reading my statement, he's more than welcome to have another copy.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
minister just said a great quote there “when.” So when the weather permits. I'm
asking: Why isn't it what was there before? In 2008 there was a pilot project;
13 busiest routes provided 24-hour snow clearing around the clock, you could be
ready to go out and clear the roads. That was the issue last year, Mr. Speaker.
Not a matter of when the snow fell, it was always available, and that was always
my point and I'll continue on.
Can the
minister confirm what the trigger will be for calling snow-clearing crews out
this winter?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, just to remind
the Member opposite, it was the same as last year. It is four centimetres of
snow, forecast of freezing rain of any amount, any type of blizzard or drifting
conditions. What we are trying to do is to make sure that our equipment is ready
and available when we need it on the 13 busiest routes in the province.
Mr.
Speaker, if it's 10 degrees and raining at 2 tomorrow morning, we don't need to
have our snow-clearing crews out. I can assure the Member opposite, our
supervisors in our depots have the ability and will make the call. When it is a
safety concern and we need our equipment on the roads, it will be on the roads.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
I guess this winter is going
to be déjà vu, Mr. Speaker, from last winter.
My next
question will be equipment availability, because that's where we're going to.
Equipment availability reports for last November showed only 33 per cent of the
equipment at the Donovans depot was in good working order and only 22 per cent
was working at the Foxtrap depot.
Can the
minister tell us what percentage of snow-clearing equipment is in good working
order at these depots today?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the provincial availability today of equipment is 90 per cent. On the
Avalon today, we are at 87 per cent. In Eastern today, we are at 85 per cent;
Central, 95 per cent; and Western, 92 per cent.
Mr.
Speaker, we receive two availability reports a day. We receive one at
approximately 11 a.m. and we receive a second report – I think it's around 4
p.m. That is something that we monitor very closely.
When it
comes to the 24-hour routes, we also receive the forecast for every one of these
regions as well. We have people in our department that take the time every day
to monitor these reports, whether it's the equipment availability or weather
reports. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, it's in every single person's interest
in this province and in this House to make sure our roads are safe for our
families.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the
spirit of openness and transparency, will the minister proactively release those
equipment availability reports for all the depots across the province today?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, absolutely. If
the Member would like to see a copy of today's report for a region of this
province after Question Period, I'll certainly bring it over and pass it to him.
Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to safety in our province, it's something that affects
every single one of us. We all have families on the roads; we all have friends
on the roads. It's important we make sure our roads are safe. I can assure you
in this province today we have over 300 flyers, we have 26 graders, 137 loaders.
We have 700 women and men that work day and night to make sure our roads are
safe, and I have every confidence in our employees of this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to be on record, I support every employee that works in that department. I never
question the employees' abilities – never. Give them the proper equipment and
the proper tools to do the work, that's all we've ever asked. Last year they
were overworked, overtime through the roof. Those people were strained. I speak
to them; I think the minister should as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Last winter there was a
shortage of mechanics to keep the snow-clearing equipment in working order and
at times 50 per cent or more of your equipment was sidelined with mechanical
troubles. We understand you're short of mechanics again this year. As of two
weeks ago, there were 12 vacancies across the province.
How many
of those mechanic positions are unfilled today?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, for a Member opposite that spent time in Transportation and Works to
stand up there and talk about availability of equipment, he should know that
what happens is when we get into snow situations, when equipment comes in from
its nighttime runs, there is work in the mornings. We are at our lowest
availability in the mornings, Mr. Speaker, but our mechanics come in at 5 or
5:30 in the morning and they get that equipment back on the roads.
Mr.
Speaker, today, the latest number I have, there are 14 vacancies throughout the
entire province, six of which are on the Avalon. So the remainder are throughout
the province. We are actively hiring full-time positions in the heavy-duty
equipment mechanic position. We are active in doing so. So if the Member knows
of people who are looking for employment as heavy-duty mechanics, we're hiring.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the minister just outlined the very serious problem we have. We haven't
got enough mechanics to keep our equipment on the road. They should be dealing
with another plan until they get enough mechanics. Whatever that means, they
need to do it. Because right now if we get in the middle of a snowstorm and the
roads are shut down, this minister will get up and he'll talk about all the good
things they've done.
Right
now, we're short on mechanics. I said 12; it's 14, Mr. Speaker. It's time for
them to do something serious to address this problem. This is not a problem
that's come this year; it is last year.
Minister, will you have enough mechanics to keep snow-clearing equipment
operational this winter? That is the question.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Since
about the middle of November, when I started receiving a daily availability
report, Mr. Speaker, we're running about 90 per cent availability. So, Mr.
Speaker, that's a very good number when you look at over 500 pieces of
equipment.
Mr.
Speaker, if there's a circumstance where we have equipment that we haven't got
mechanics to move around to do this work, we will go out to local businesses. We
have a lot of great local businesses here in this city and throughout the
province that are more than willing to help assist us in the repairs that are
needed.
So, Mr.
Speaker, for the Member to get up and criticize what our department tries to do
for the safety of the motorists in this province, it's surprizing that he would
ask those questions. For someone that spent some time in the department, Mr.
Speaker, and knows some of the challenges that our employees face. I can tell
you, Mr. Speaker, our employees are about the safety of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, that's probably
why I do ask those questions because I was in the department. I do know how the
department works. I think the minister should probably know a bit, too.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
I wanted to highlight
something here to get on record, too. He's talking about percentages of
equipment; he's talking about broad percentages across the province for every
depot. You can have 20 per cent at Donovans and 20 per cent at Foxtrap and still
have 90 per cent across the province when you mush the numbers.
I think
he needs to release for each individual depot and show us the two most important
ones in those 13 routes. That's what he's playing with. Last winter we heard the
same numbers, but it wasn't actually true.
Mr.
Speaker, do you have adequate staff and heavy-equipment operators to operate all
the available snow-clearing equipment this winter?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, the answer to
that question is yes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
We have over 700 women and
men, Mr. Speaker, that are ready and willing and able to go and clear our roads
when we have the weather conditions that require that.
I'd like
to remind the Member opposite, it's not this government that meshes numbers. If
there was ever a government in this province that mesh numbers, it was that
crowd opposite, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
That's the government that
meshed numbers in this province, not this government, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Minister of Fisheries issued a press release to say he was travelling to Moncton
a few weeks ago to meet with the federal minister. There was no release issued
to say if any good came out of it.
What did
you find out about the process changes to the federal
Fisheries Act regarding things such as adjacency and licencing
policy?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can
tell the hon. Member doesn't listen to the Fisheries Broadcast or media very
often. Because there was indeed communication that was offered to the people of
this province, but in particular to the fishing industry, related to my meetings
with the minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the minister responsible for the
Canadian Coast Guard.
I went
to Moncton at our mutual agreement to discuss a number of issues, including the
Fisheries Act, pending
Fisheries Act amendments. And I made
it very clear to the minister, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador's
ambitions and expectations that any changes to the
Fisheries Act include important measures that are seen to be very
valuable to our province, and that includes the concept and principle of
adjacency.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Did the
federal minister offer any solution to the many problems created on the Burin
Peninsula by his decision to reallocate 25 per cent of the existing Arctic surf
clams?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Fisheries and
Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very, very much,
Mr. Speaker, because this is a very important question which is on the hearts
and minds of many people in this province.
I did go
to Moncton. I did discuss with the minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the
minister responsible for the Canadian Coast Guard, the nature of sharing
arrangements. Of course, as we know, sharing arrangements, interprovincial
shares, sharing structures, are an important component of fisheries policy.
There
has been a decision that was taken to consider increased access to the Arctic
surf clam resource. I would remind the hon. Member as the minister did say to
me, no decision has been taken yet. But I did take the opportunity to remind the
minister that there are serious considerations that must be made (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know
in your tweet you mentioned redfish. What did the federal minister discuss on
redfish in his quotas?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Fisheries and
Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Well, what a great repertoire
this is. The hon. Member opposite is providing me with a very, very unique and
profound opportunity to highlight the important discussions that occur between
the Newfoundland and Labrador Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources and the
federal minister.
I'd ask
the hon. Member opposite: How many kinds of opportunities did they enjoy when
they were in government to be able to discuss with the federal minister of
Fisheries and Oceans important fisheries issues? I suspect, Mr. Speaker, the
answer is next to zero.
With
that said, redfish is indeed an important topic. I did relay to the minister
that there has been a commitment that's already been made to share redfish in
the Gulf and that indigenous communities, including the Qalipu, would be a
primary beneficiary.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for the District
of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member,
the Minister of Fisheries, I'll remind you that you were in Ottawa for a number
of years and there are a whole lot of things that you didn't do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I also want to
know if there was any discussion on seals.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Fisheries and
Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Yeah, so there were
significant discussions on the seals, yes, indeed. We spoke of market access in
particular, access to the Chinese market.
I
understand that government over there really didn't accomplish very much with
the former federal minister, Gail Shea, but we are indeed advancing the
discussion. We are encouraging the federal government to move and to activate
any capacity they have to be able to open up markets, in particular markets for
seals in China.
China is
a huge marketplace, not only for seals, but for Newfoundland and Labrador's full
range of fish products. That is a market we're actively pursuing and we are
engaging with the federal government to be able to do so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I also
noticed there was no mention of capelin in your release on November 8. Did that
topic even come up?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
We could be here a while, Mr. Speaker, so why don't I just sort of run through
some of the things that were discussed.
We did
discuss the Fisheries Act. We did
discuss surf clams. We discussed red fish. We discussed mackerel. We discussed
seals. We discussed inland fisheries management. We discussed aquaculture. We
discussed pelagics. We discussed groundfish. We discussed shellfish. We
discussed harbours. We discussed infrastructure. We discussed a number of
things.
Is there
something the hon. Member would like to ask that we didn't discuss?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I'll ask the hon. minister:
What results did you get?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Well, I can think of 100 million successes that we've already had, Mr. Speaker,
that they have not been able to enjoy, but what we got is an ongoing dialogue.
We got a capacity to be able to resolve problems, to be able to create
circumstances which are in the best interest of our fishery. We were able to
formulate an action plan to be able to work through some of the issues on
mackerel sharing, for example. We were able to create a process to update the
Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador MOU on aquaculture, for example. We were able
to establish a basis that further work needs to be done on a framework for
resource sharing.
Yes, Mr.
Speaker, do you know what? They operate under the principle that all problems
cannot be solved. We operate on a principle that solutions are all around us.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, joint management
was also a commitment in your Liberal red book and it was a commitment in your
mandate letter.
It has
now been two years; did you bother to even discuss that with the minister?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, of course we always discuss joint management whenever we
collaborate; that is joint management.
When we
talk about responding to the crisis in the groundfish fishery and the federal
government and provincial government working with each other to make sure that
the resource is not only sustainable but available to Newfoundland and Labrador
fishermen, when we talk about adjacency, when we talk about historic attachment,
when we talk about the rules that are established to be able to afford those
sharing frameworks, that, Mr. Speaker, is a form of joint management. And, yes,
Mr. Speaker, we did indeed speak of those topics.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis for a very quick question, please; no preamble.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, in our fishery
there's a serious crisis when it comes to crab and shrimp allocations. Fishers
and harvesters in this province are very concerned. Joint management is one of
the – do we have a commitment on joint management?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources for a quick response, please.
MR. BYRNE:
We certainly do have a
commitment to collaborate, to work together to make sure that our two
governments work in harmony with each other.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, we will often
disagree – let's be clear – but we have a mature enough relationship that we
don't base the well-being of the relationship on whether or not we always agree
on everything, or we always disagree on everything.
Their
government was about one thing and one thing only. They never engaged; they
never spoke to each other. The federal and provincial governments never worked
with each other. Occasionally we do disagree, but more often, we agree with each
other.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Deaf and
hard of hearing children in our schools are not receiving the same services that
were available to them in the former Newfoundland and Labrador School for the
Deaf, contrary to what they were promised at its closure. At the same time, the
consultant position for deaf and hard of hearing and blind and visually impaired
is listed on the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development website
as vacant.
I ask
the minister: How can he justify this vacancy when the needs of children and
their human rights are not being addressed in the school system?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development is a fairly
enormous department of government. It is the second largest department of
government after Health. It has several hundred employees. I don't on a
day-to-day basis go in on the website and see which positions are vacant and
which ones have been hired, or which ones are open for competitions or which
ones are filled on a temporary basis, or which ones are filled on a contractual
basis or otherwise.
If the
Member has a specific question, she can always get in touch with the department,
get in touch with me; she hasn't to date. She can get in touch with me and I can
answer those sorts of questions, but I don't monitor these several hundred
positions on a daily basis.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I invite
the minister to go to the list of his staff who take care of the student needs
and explain to us why there is no specialized consultant in place to ensure the
different needs of the deaf and hard of hearing and the blind and visually
impaired are understood and are being met, because there is no consultant there.
My understanding is there hasn't been a consultant there for three years. So he
hasn't looked at this for the two years that he's been minister.
AN HON. MEMBER:
There was no question.
MS. MICHAEL:
If he wants a question
(inaudible). Why isn't he putting a priority on this initiative?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, when we sat in
Opposition, inclusive education was a significant priority for the Liberal Party
of Newfoundland and Labrador. Now we sit in government and, as everyone has
seen, the Premier had the foresight to appoint three prominent Newfoundland and
Labrador educators to form the Premier's Task Force on Improving Educational
Outcomes. They delivered the report in the summer.
I signed
letters today for the appointments to the implementation committee for the task
force. Amongst the priorities that came out of that is inclusive education,
which I would say is one of my top priorities, if not my top priority as
minister. We will resolve the issues in special services, but we need time –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the federal
National Housing Strategy is $40 billion over 10 years, with half the money
coming from provinces and territories.
I ask
the minister: Will her government commit to providing the required matching
funding, and that it be new money, not money from the existing NL Housing
budget?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
Member for the question. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing provides a very
valuable service in this province under investments in affordable housing, rent
supps. Unfortunately, we have a lot of families in our province that struggle,
and those are the people that we reach out to help.
As a
commitment, and one of our initiatives in
The Way Forward, Mr. Speaker, we are doing a number of things around
housing, and we will be, I say to the Member, announcing something very soon.
We've done a lot of work engaging stakeholders. We've done a full review of
programs and services, and I believe the people of the province will be happy
with the direction this government is going in.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre for a very quick question, please.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister: Where is her proposed provincial housing strategy and plan to end
homelessness?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development for a quick response, please.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, the Member
mentioned the National Housing Strategy, and as a part of
The Way Forward our government has
committed to a provincial housing plan. We have worked closely with our federal
counterparts. We want those two programs to complement each other. What I can
tell her is that homelessness and ending homelessness will be a key pillar in
our plan once it comes out, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Oral Questions
has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
As required under section 51
of the House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act, I am pleased to table the annual report of
the House of Assembly Management Commission for the 2016-2017 fiscal year.
Further
tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give
notice that I will ask leave to move the following resolution:
BE IT
RESOLVED by the House of Assembly as follows:
WHEREAS
the Royal Newfoundland Regiment distinguished itself in a number of key First
World War battles, and fought valiantly as equal members of the British Empire
alongside Canada, Australia and New Zealand; and
WHEREAS
the Trail of the Caribou memorials commemorate the brave actions of the Royal
Newfoundland Regiment in France and Belgium but there is not, as yet, such a
memorial in Turkey; and
WHEREAS
this House respects and honours the bravery and sacrifice of all Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians who fought and died in conflict, and today recognizes in
particular those brave members who served in Turkey;
NOW
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House requests that the Speaker, as a servant
of this hon. House and therefore a representative of the people of the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador, journey to Turkey to advance discussions towards a
shared goal of establishing a memorial commemorating the significant
contributions of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment at Gallipoli.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A
petition to the hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
a year has almost passed since the tragic event of January 17, 2017 where our
school was completely destroyed; and
WHEREAS
we have 250 people in a building which is only equipped to handle 150; and
WHEREAS
we do not have a science lab, library/resource room, cafeteria, computer room,
student support suite, no wheelchair accessibility washrooms and no
multi-purpose room; and
WHEREAS
we have classrooms which require co-programming, but this cannot happen because
of space issues in the building; and
WHEREAS
government has a legal responsibility to ensure our students have access to the
best education;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to commit to a new state-of-the-art K to 12
school for the students of Bay d'Espoir, announce funding in the 2018-2019
budget to begin the design and tender process and we would like the construction
to be expedited.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this is one of many petitions that I will be bringing forward to the
House from the people from the communities of Bay d'Espoir who are still going
through a very rough time. This year was incredibly traumatic for all of us.
There was a lot of upheaval with the loss of our school, our police station and
our town hall.
Everyone
has been absolutely phenomenal in coming together to get through the worst of
this, but it's really, really important that a new school be started as soon as
possible. As they have put in their petition, there are 250 children in a
building that's suitable for only 150 children.
They
don't have a science lab. They don't have a computer room. They don't have a
cafeteria. They don't have any student support multi-purpose rooms. It's not
wheelchair accessible, Mr. Speaker, for the washrooms. We truly believe our
children have been in old schools for a very long time. In fact, I'd say it was
probably back in the '60s when there was a new school built in the Bay d'Espoir
area.
It was a
very tragic time. We truly believe a new school needs to be built and built as
fast as possible. So we call upon government to make this commitment to us in
the budget.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
The hon.
the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
second-hand tobacco smoke has been shown to have negative health effects; and
WHEREAS
individuals who smoke near the entranceways of health care facilities are not
compliant to the non-smoking buffer zone policies of the regional health
authorities;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to direct the health authorities to enforce their
policies relating to non-smoking buffer zones outside health care facilities.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a petition that I had the opportunity to speak to a couple of
concerned people and I know it concerns thousands of people.
The one
thing when we go to health facilities, you have so many different dynamics of
people who are going there. There are people going there to do different
radiation and chemotherapy for cancer. There are people there who have
respiratory problems and everything else.
In
particular, when I look at the Health Sciences complex, people are walking by
there every day. There is a policy in place that there is no smoking in the
entranceways and along the entranceways, even if it's the walkway across the
way. Second-hand smoke has an effect on a lot of people.
I was
told of an incident of where a young child went to the Health Sciences, we know
the Janeway is onto the Health Sciences, and she had the effects of asthma. With
the second-hand smoke that she inhaled, she ended up in hospital because of the
second-hand smoke.
Listen,
I know it's the rules of the health authority. It's the health authority's
responsibility to enforce these buffer zones. I also know people had
conversations with the Minister of Justice, our House Leader, and he ensured
them that these buffer zones – like we brought in legislation last year – were
going to be changed and there was going to be some way to enforce this.
We're
asking government to really have a look at this situation. It's a serious
situation. I know people enjoy their cigarette and everything else, but other
people's health is affected. When people go to the hospital with serious
ailments, they need to make sure there's nothing that's going to cause any
effect on what they're doing going to the hospital.
I really
urge government to have a look at this. The buffer zones in hospitals and all
emergency areas should be zoned that no one can smoke there. This should be a
policy that has no tolerance. It should be done whether we enforce it and make
sure it doesn't happen so people can go when they have different treatments like
chemo or anything else, they can go and make sure they don't inhale second-hand
smoke.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the inshore harvesters of Newfoundland and Labrador have serious concerns about
their current union representation; and
WHEREAS
the inshore fish harvesters of Newfoundland and Labrador want the right to vote
on which union will represent them;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to request that government urge the Newfoundland and Labrador Labour
Relations Board to proceed immediately to a vote of the inshore fish harvesters
to decide which union will represent them.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I have several names here again today coming from areas like Castor
River North, New Ferolle,
Bird Cove – a lot here from Bird Cove actually, mostly Bird Cove, I think – no,
we have Twillingate, Durrell – I never heard of Durrell – Hickman's Harbour,
Clarenville, Heatherton, Robinsons, Cartyville (inaudible) –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
Again, Mr. Speaker, there are
numerous rural areas throughout our province. As I've said, we all recognize the
value that the fishery has to Newfoundland and Labrador. And certainly what we
need is unity in the fishery, if that can be achieved.
We know
that over the years there have been a lot of issues. A lot of it is related to
fact that we can't seem to get on the same page ourselves. Before we're going to
make change and advocate to the federal government, I think we need to be united
ourselves as a province.
What
we're seeing here right now, we do have division amongst inshore fish
harvesters. Without taking any sides because, as I said yesterday, it makes no
difference to me – I don't have a horse in the race – which union it is, but at
the end of the day the fish harvesters need to bring this issue to a head, have
a vote, decide who their representative is going to be and, once that's
resolved, hopefully everybody can work together for the betterment of the
fishery.
That's
what is being asked here. I was asked to bring it forward on their behalf;
that's what I'm doing.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for the District of St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
the residents of Mount Pleasant Manor received a rent increase in 2017 and are
worried about future rent increases; and
WHEREAS
many of the residents are seniors and low-income households receiving a rent
supplement under Newfoundland and Labrador's Housing Rental Supplement Program;
and
WHEREAS
61 residents wrote to the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development
requesting an increase in the rent supplement and were told none would be
forthcoming; and
WHEREAS
low-income and senior tenants throughout the province are struggling with high
rents and are deeply worried about the rising cost of heat due to the Muskrat
Falls hydro project;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
– humbly pray and call upon
the House of Assembly to urge government to raise the cap on the Rental
Supplement Program to meet the needs of clients.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, these are constituents in my district, all of whom have extremely low
income, many who are on Income Support or are seniors that are on GIS and OAS.
The rent is a minimum of $800 a month and it's been going up every year. Many of
them are in receipt of rent supplements. What is happening is that their
landlord is increasing the rent, but the rent supplement is not increasing.
These folks, their income is not going up. Those on Income Support, their income
is not going up. Our seniors on OAS and GIS, their income is not going up, so
they're really getting squeezed right now.
We have
no rent stabilization or rent control in this province so they know this year
alone it's gone up by $15 a month. The previous year it went up by that much.
They don't know what's coming down the pipe now in the new year. These are folks
who are getting squeezed and squeezed. The cost of heat has gone up for them.
They don't know how they're going to pay their bills, and there's no extra
padding here. They don't have any disposable funds. They are just eking by. They
are asking the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Development Corporation to take
a look at the rent supps. The rent supps are not going up.
Not only
are the rent sups not going up, Mr. Speaker, there's a growing demand
particularly from seniors. They're desperately begging for rent supplements and
there have not been any new rent supplements in three years, yet the demand is
growing and we have increasing numbers of seniors going into poverty because of
the cost of housing.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly
sheweth:
WHEREAS
the provincial government arbitrarily cut 24-hour snow clearing services in the
2016 budget; and
WHEREAS
cutting the 24-hour snow clearing services led to unsafe road conditions and
endangered lives: and
WHEREAS
government has an obligation to provide a safe system of transportation that
meets the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to listen to the people and reinstate 24-hour
snow clearing services.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this is an issue I've spoken about on many occasions and I'm going to
continue to speak about it. When we say the 24-hour snow clearing, it affected
13 routes, but they are the 13 busiest routes in the province. It was brought in
under a pilot project in 2008. It was kept until the recent 2016 budget and the
government opposite in their budget line item, as much as they want to say they
never removed it, it was clearly written: Removal of 24-hour snow clearing
services in the province for a savings of $1.93 million. During Estimates last
spring, the former minister told me the savings was more like around $1 million.
So
you're putting a price on endangering people's lives because we read last year –
it wasn't just me speaking. There were ambulance drivers, there were truck
drivers, there was the travelling public and there were parents – everyone was
very concerned about the condition of our roads.
When you
go out and you say you're going to put snow clearing services on when weather
permits, there's a delay, Mr. Speaker. Those people are in their homes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Those people are in their
homes, Mr. Speaker, those operators. They have to be called from home to the
depot and get the equipment on the road. It's a delay time response time, at
least an hour, hour and a half.
Members
opposite can – there are areas that they never had this. I understand they're
looking at me: What are you getting on with? We're looking at the 13 busiest
routes. It was there for a reason. The Outer Ring Road, for example, has 40,000
vehicles a day. It's one of the most travelled roads in the province. People's
lives are in danger, Mr. Speaker. Most everyone in the province, at one time or
another, used that network of roads.
It's a
serious issue. Government can play with the numbers, they can do what they want,
fudge numbers, play with percentages, but we know anecdotally – you can go back
and look through last year's stories – it controlled the media for about two
months because people were very concerned. The roads were not where they needed
to be. I've spoken on it and I'm going to continue to speak on it, Mr. Speaker,
because this issue will never grow old.
People
need to have safe and reliable roads to travel on, Mr. Speaker. When the roads
are down, when you have a washboard effect and people are afraid to drive on it,
people's lives are in jeopardy. For the sake of $1 million, that's what the
savings was. Not $1.9 million, but $1 million. They can say that there's 90 per
cent of equipment availability. We know that's province wide. When you look at
those depots, they're about 30 to 40 per cent at best.
I call
upon government to give serious reconsideration – I will not back away from this
issue, Mr. Speaker. I think it's an issue too important to let go. I urge
government to reconsider this move and to provide proper, safe snow-clearing
equipment through our provincial roads this winter.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
We are going to proceed to
Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. A. PARSONS:
I would move from the Order
Paper, Motion 3.
I would
move pursuant to provincial Standing Order 11(1) that the House not adjourn at
5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 5, 2017.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those in favour of the
motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
The
motion is carried.
The
Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would
call Order 9, second reading of Bill 26.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that Bill 26, An Act To
Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act, be read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 26, entitled An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act, be now read
a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act.”
(Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is an
honour today to speak to Bill 26, my first piece of legislation in this
portfolio to the House. I couldn't think of a better one, actually, to be
speaking to, Mr. Speaker, than something that's going to improve the lives of
children and youth in this province. Something that's near and dear to the
hearts of all of us, Mr. Speaker.
An Act
to Amend the Child and Youth Advocate Act; Mr. Speaker, this is important
legislation that we are debating today because it is one that will benefit
children, youth and their families in this province.
I'm
going to start off by providing a little bit of history on this amendment. In
2002, the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate was established as a statutory
office of the House of Assembly under the authority of the Child and Youth
Advocate Act. The Advocate represents the rights and interests and viewpoints of
children and youth receiving government programs and services and provides
advocacy in four areas. Those four areas are individual advocacy, systemic
advocacy, reviews and investigations, and education and promotion.
I
believe, Mr. Speaker, all of us would agree that this is an important office and
one which has provided recommendations and advice in a number of different
areas, which has improved services and programs for children and their families.
Mr.
Speaker, not all children and youth in our province have natural advocates in
parents around them. As we talked about a few moments ago in Question Period –
Children, Seniors and Social Development and Justice and Public Safety – we
certainly have a responsibility to help ensure that those children and youth in
our care are provided the best care possible.
It's
very important that we work closely with the advocate, an independent officer of
this House, Mr. Speaker. From time to time she provides recommendations and we
certainly embrace those. We welcome every opportunity we can to build upon this
revitalized child care protection program.
In 2014,
the Child and Youth Advocate at that time tabled information in the House of
Assembly outlining the need for her office to receive reports on all deaths and
critical incidents from departments and agencies providing services to children
and youth.
Mr.
Speaker, Members on this side of the House, we took this request very seriously.
We supported a motion later that fall to change the act to mandate the reporting
of deaths and critical incidents by government departments and agencies – and I
was a part, a Member of the Opposition at that time who actually spoke to that
motion in the House. We committed to address this issue during the election. It
was included in the mandate letter for the Minister of Children, Seniors and
Social Development, and it was also referenced in the Speech from the Throne in
2016.
Today,
Mr. Speaker, we are moving forward to commit these important amendments to
legislation. I am pleased to note that we worked in collaboration with the
Office of the Child and Youth Advocate to ensure the amendments to the
legislation adequately addressed all of the matters that were raised by her
office.
The
Child and Youth Advocate, Mr. Speaker – I can't stress it enough – she has an
extremely valuable role to play in our province. The advocate, both through
individual and systemic advocacy, plays a critical role in identifying areas
where improvements can be made in the best interest of children and youth. That
is why the provincial government and my department, especially, Children,
Seniors and Social Development, and I know Justice and Public Safety, takes all
recommendations of the Child and Youth Advocate very seriously.
We have
fostered, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate this – we have fostered a co-operative
and respectful relationship with the Advocate's office. It's so vitally
important, because at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, we share the same goal.
We want our children and youth in the province to be as safe as they can be.
This collaboration has resulted in mutually supported amendments which will
provide greater protection and more timely access to supports and services for
children, youth and their families.
Mr.
Speaker, I am confident that all Members of this House in all parties would
agree that we all collectively share the same goal, as I just mentioned, namely
the safety and the well-being of the children and youth in our province.
Mr.
Speaker, the specific amendments in Bill 26, there are five specific amendments.
I will run through each of them, starting with the definition of critical
injury. The proposed definition of critical injury is one that may result in the
child or youth's death “or may cause serious or long-term impairment of the
health of a child or youth.”
Designated services; the proposed amendment will require mandatory reporting of
deaths and critical injuries that occur while the child or youth is receiving
services from the Departments of Children, Seniors and Social Development or
from the Department of Justice and Public Safety, or they would have received
the service in the 12 months preceding the injury or death.
Timeline
to report; the proposed amendment will require the Departments of Children,
Seniors and Social Development and Justice and Public Safety to notify the Child
and Youth Advocate as soon as is practicable after becoming aware of a death or
critical injury of a child or a youth.
I'll
speak to this in more detail once we move into Committee and as questions come,
Mr. Speaker, but I just want to stop for a moment and speak about that as soon
as is practicable. That does align with the same language that's used in the
Fatalities Investigations Act under
13.4. Right now, we have a policy in place where we have been reporting deaths
in this province since 2014 to the advocate. We will now broaden the scope of
that to include injury.
Generally, Mr. Speaker, when a death does occur the name of the child or youth
and a limited amount of information is reported to the Advocate within the first
24 hours. Then there's a notification form where a more detailed incident report
goes within five days. I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, there's been a time when we
have not reported within a 24-hour period. So I just wanted to expand on that a
little bit.
Designated reporter; the proposed amendment will specify that the deputy
minister of a department or his or her designate shall report the death or
critical injury to the Advocate, and protection for employees providing the
information. So the proposed amendment will provide individual employees who
report the death or critical injury with protection from being sued provided
that they acted in good faith.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a couple of amendments about which I want to speak in a
little more detail. When the former Advocate brought forth the request for these
amendments, she asked for the reporting of deaths and critical incidents. The
amendment to include deaths continues our existing practice of notifying the
Advocate when a child or youth, who is receiving services or who had received
services within the past 12 months, has died. The amendment to include reporting
of critical injury will be the new piece over and above what we're doing right
now.
Some
people may ask why these amendments are moving forward as critical injuries
instead of critical incidents. The Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune is
listening; I'm going to talk a little bit about that now. She had some questions
during Question Period. We're always happy to answer any questions in this House
when we're bringing in legislation. It is very, very important that we have
debate and that we have questions on the floor that, hopefully, we can provide
the answers to. It's very important in democracy, Mr. Speaker.
During
our consultation with the Child and Youth Advocate, we had discussions on the
appropriate definition needed to capture the scope of reporting required. We
needed to determine exactly what information the Child and Youth Advocate
required in order to do her job to the best of her ability.
We also
reviewed, Mr. Speaker, all other Canadian provinces and territories to determine
what they report to their child and youth advocate. So we did a jurisdictional
scan to look at provinces and territories that were reporting, what they were
reporting. It became very clear to us that in those provinces which report
deaths and critical injuries, they use that terminology, that same terminology:
critical injuries.
In fact,
I am pleased to report that we will be the fifth Canadian jurisdiction and the
first, Mr. Speaker, in Atlantic Canada to legislate this information to the
Child and Youth Advocate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
In full agreement with the
Child and Youth Advocate, this amendment is for the reporting of child and youth
deaths and critical injuries involving those receiving services, and will also
include situations where the child or youth had received services in the
preceding 12 months.
Mr.
Speaker, just to be clear, critical injury will include an injury that may
result in a child or youth's death or cause serious or long-term impairment to
the child or youth's health. The definition includes reporting events involving
serious physical and/or psychological injury to children and youth that may
result in serious or long-term impairment.
Mr.
Speaker, having said that, we recognize that not all critical injuries are
physical in nature and that is why we have included psychological injury, which
will include events such as witnessing a traumatic event, a murder, suicide or
being a victim of a serious assault.
Other
examples of critical injuries include situations where a child or youth is
seriously injured in a car accident and admitted to the intensive care, or where
a child or youth might ingest pills and is unresponsive and requiring
hospitalization; if a child or youth witnesses a family member stab another
family member; if a child or youth attempts suicide and is admitted to hospital
for psychiatric assessment and follow-up.
Those
are the types of situations that would fall under a critical injury and we are
legislating that would be reported to the Advocate. As I said earlier, these are
things that we work very closely with the Advocate to try and deliver to the
House of Assembly today a piece of legislation that would align with what she
was requesting to allow her to continue with the scope of her work.
Another
point I would like to discuss in some detail is which departments are subjected
to these amendments and therefore required to report critical injuries and
deaths. In discussion with the Advocate, it was clear that the priority must be
on those departments which are responsible for the care of children and youth.
Mr.
Speaker, this primarily would be my department: Children, Seniors and Social
Development. We have about 350 social workers around the province who do
important work every single day to ensure that children and youth are safe. Not
only the children and youth that are in care, but there are many children and
youth that are not in care of the department, but we also provide services to
those families. Under Justice and Public Safety, they have youth who may be
retained in correctional facilities and things like that.
In my
department, we protect children and youth from maltreatment by intervening with
their parents or caregivers. In some cases, we place children outside their
family homes to ensure their safety; in the Department of Justice and Public
Safety, youth that have committed or have allegedly committed criminal offences
and may, therefore, be placed in correctional facilities under government's
care.
The
proposed amendments to the Advocate's legislation focus on these departments
specifically, given they are responsible for providing services to some of the
most vulnerable children and youth in our province.
Mr.
Speaker, I can't state it enough that we have worked closely with the Advocate.
I have tremendous respect for the Advocate, Ms. Lake Kavanagh, and the important
work that she does in Newfoundland and Labrador. We worked closely with the
Advocate to develop these amendments and ensure they fully address the
Advocate's role in the protection of children and youth.
These
are serious and difficult matters that are of critical importance; therefore, we
have committed to the Advocate that we will provide this information as soon as
is practicable. This means that within 24 hours of becoming aware of a critical
injury or child death, it will be reported to the Advocate. Furthermore,
detailed information will be provided, as I said earlier, within five days. Mr.
Speaker, this approach is consistent with other jurisdictions and with our
current practice of reporting child and youth deaths to the Advocate.
Over the
last several months, Mr. Speaker, three or four months – it hasn't been that
long – I have had the pleasure of meeting with many of my front-line social
workers and discussing some of the complex issues they are addressing. I think I
have been to eight offices around the province. I have been out in Gander, Grand
Falls, Deer Lake and Corner Brook. I have been to Sheshatshiu, Hopedale and
Natuashish. We have met with leadership of the Innu, Chief, Grand Chief; I have
met with some of Nunatsiavut Government; I have met with social workers from our
department in about eight different places.
Mr.
Speaker, every day I sit in my board room and I'm surrounded by senior staff and
we do important work on behalf of the people of this province, but very
important to me from early days to get out whenever there was an opportunity,
out and about in those offices in the province to see first-hand, to talk to the
front-line staff, for me to gain a greater understanding of the types of work
they do on a day-to-day basis, often heavy work, Mr. Speaker.
Since
I've come into this job, my eyes have been opened in a completely different
light, Mr. Speaker. I guess you realize the tremendous blessing of those
families that are stable. I think about my children and my daughter now, and
many of my colleagues around me that were fortunate to grow up in the
environment they did. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not true of all families in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Sometimes parents, for various reasons, need support to provide care to their
children. Where possible, our social workers work – they are very highly trained
professionals, and where possible they work with the families to ensure the
children stay in the home. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, in the best interest and
safety of the children, they are removed from the home, but if that happens it's
a last resort. It's always with a goal to reunify the children with their
families.
On a
daily basis, Mr. Speaker, social workers are intervening with children and youth
in situations of physical, sexual and emotional abuse. They are highly trained
professionals who use their assessment skills and practice experience,
complemented by strong supervisory support to make clinical decisions. I have
seen that, Mr. Speaker, again and again in just my short time coming in to this
role. I have tremendous respect for those employees that are out on the ground
dealing with challenging work that they do every single day, but very, very,
very important work.
Mr.
Speaker, my colleagues have heard me say it again and again. I often reference
the infrastructure and the roads and the capital works, the things we need to
advance our region, but in this department and parts of Justice and Public
Safety, I think we deal with the really, really valuable things in life. Because
if our people aren't well, as the Minister of Health would attest to, and if our
children and our families aren't safe, the rest of us at the end of the day, it
really doesn't matter. I think we all have a duty to do what we can to protect
where we can.
While
the Advocate and my department agree it is the more serious of these cases that
will be reported to the Advocate, I want to assure the Members of this House
that my department will continue to respond to all situations of maltreatment
and situations of harm. Each situation reported to CSSD is reviewed by a social
worker who is trained to review the circumstances of each event and assess the
intervention required. Further, the social worker with management support will
determine if it constitutes a critical injury.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to pause there for a moment because as I mentioned in the
press conference earlier, it is highly unlikely – I mean, once you get down into
the weeds of is something black, is something white, is something an incident,
is it an injury, what will be reported, what won't? It is quite likely that in
the initial months there will be over-reporting to the Advocate, and that's
okay. Because it's much better to have something reported and determine it is
actually an incident and it could have been dealt with the support services,
with the counselling and the types of work the social workers deal with every
single day, than to miss the opportunity of having an injury reported.
Mr.
Speaker, this is our mandate: that every day we continue to provide services to
this vulnerable group in our population. We are absolutely committed to ensuring
the safety and well-being of children and youth in the province.
Mr.
Speaker, I have been in this role as Minister of Children, Seniors and Social
Development for just a short time. It was an honour for me, an absolute honour
when the Premier asked me to be minister in this department. Because those who
know me, my colleagues and my friends here, when you look at the various
departments that there are, if I could have chosen where I would have wanted to
end up, I would have chosen here, Mr. Speaker.
In fact,
the types of work that this department does, everything from care to children
and youth, to seniors, to disabilities, to poverty, they're all things that are
really, really near and dear to my heart. Mr. Speaker, it's a big shift and
there's lots of change we would like to see happen, but it takes time to make
that happen.
I think
today is a very important good step toward children and youth with this
legislation that the Advocate has called for over a number of years, and pretty
humbling for me actually to be the minister today to stand here and to introduce
those amendments to the House of Assembly.
In fact,
Mr. Speaker, of all departments in the provincial government, as I said this is
the department that I feel the closest ties to. Make no mistake, while this
department deals with very challenging and difficult situations, there are most
definitely many, many rewards, too.
I wish I
had the time, Mr. Speaker, to talk about some of the things we celebrate. There
are so many people in this province doing tremendous work helping us. The
Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development is a large department
doing important work. We couldn't do it on our own, Mr. Speaker.
Attending the proclamation of foster families is coming to my mind, as I went
over to Corpus Christi church that day. I met families that have been fostering
for 25 and 30 years, Mr. Speaker, that have their own children and have opened
up their homes to take in more children that are in need of care. I think about
that commercial that used to come on many years ago when I was young. Some here
might remember it, where this little child is saying: I grew in my mom's heart
and not her tummy. We have a lot of people doing really valuable work, many
stories.
I
remember talking to one young man, about my age, so I would say he was a young
man. I said: I'm just so impressed with the fact that you've opened your home
for 25 years doing this. Then he quietly said to me on the side when no one was
around: You know I was a foster child. He said: I kind of banged – was his words
– around from home to home. He said: I ended up in a place where the family kept
me until I was 17 and ready to go to post-secondary. It gave him an opportunity,
Mr. Speaker. Those are the kind of people that I'm always really proud to
recognize.
Like a
quote I read in the office of a social worker in Natuashish that said: Every
child is one caring adult away from being a success story. Those are the kinds
of things we're talking about here today, Mr. Speaker. We're bringing amendments
to the floor, aligned with what the Advocate wanted to allow her to continue to
do this important work. But besides that, every day we deal with children that
find themselves in unfortunate circumstances. When we do, it's so rewarding to
see staff that goes above and beyond. I've seen many examples of that and
partners out in the community, people like foster families that work with us to
do what they can for those children.
We are
continuing to build a revitalized child protection system that is responsive to
the priority needs of our children and youth, as well as continuing to make
significant progress in creating a culture of accountability. Mr. Speaker, now
that's a mouthful: a culture of accountability. It's absolutely essential going
forward. We're not talking about projects, as I mentioned earlier,
infrastructure and things like that. We're talking about children, children that
when given an opportunity, what road they go on makes all the difference.
I'm
thinking about another lovely story from the West Coast, in Corner Brook. Mr.
Speaker, as most here would know, if a child is in foster care, once they turn
17, they age out. Unfortunately, sometimes when a child hasn't received that
love and care, they age out; they don't have anywhere to call home. They go down
probably what is not a productive road.
Thinking
about a couple of siblings, 14 and 17, on the West Coast, and a family – and as
most would know, often with adoptions people are looking for the younger child
or a newborn, and not so much the teenagers that might come with, I can say, a
little bit of baggage, because I'm a parent of a young adult. But there was a
family that adopted those two siblings, 14 and 17. These are the kinds of days
that we celebrate in the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development,
and we're so grateful that there are people like that out there in our society,
Mr. Speaker.
We are
continuing to build a revitalized child protection system that is responsive to
the priority needs of children and youth, as well as continuing to make
significant progress in that culture of accountability, excellence and
consistency, Mr. Speaker. It is so important that we have consistency.
I
mentioned I've been out in eight offices, and the location actually really does
vary. Sitting in a boardroom of a CSSD office in Gander is a world away from
when I was sitting in a CSSD boardroom in Natuashish or Sheshatshiu, but vitally
important that we have policy, that we have regulations that allows for us to
offer consistency to the children and youth that we provide services and care
to.
Mr.
Speaker, I have personally met with the Advocate since becoming minister, and I
know that we both share the same commitment and passion to protect children and
youth. I believe Newfoundland and Labrador, as a province, we're extremely
fortunate, we're very fortunate right now to have an Advocate of the calibre of
Ms. Lake Kavanagh. She cares very deeply about the work she does as an
independent office of this House, takes her work seriously, understand things
can't be the same everywhere around the province. Also, has made it her mission
to get out and about early in her mandate, meet with various groups and travel.
As said earlier, I've tremendous respect for the work she does.
This is
important work, Mr. Speaker, and today's proposed amendments advances further
protections for the children and youth in our province. That's it for my
opening, and I will very much look forward as I sit here listening to my hon.
Members from across the way and anyone else who participates in this debate
today.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is
certainly an honour and a privilege to rise in this hon. House here today and
speak to this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I do believe all
the legislation that comes forward in this House is of great importance, but
this piece of legislation, in particular, affects our children. We all, in this
province, place very high priority on all of our children who are our future. We
want to do our very, very best to ensure that all children of Newfoundland and
Labrador have the best opportunities available to them.
I do
agree with the minister in her comments about some of the great success stories
that we do have in this province and some of the people who are doing absolutely
tremendous, tremendous work. I guess what we, as Opposition, want to see is that
we continue to do the best we possibly can. That we strive to have more and more
success stories and the tragic stories like we've heard in the past become a
thing of the past. That's where we feel this bill, in particular, had the
ability to make us a leader in that regard.
For the
people viewing at home or watching the video or reading about this debate in
Hansard, I'd like to bring the debate
back to what this legislation is really about. This bill has been brought before
the House because it's about protecting children and young people who are
vulnerable. It's not just about finding out what happened after it's too late to
make a difference.
There
are numerous stories in this province of children who have suffered or died in
tragic circumstances that might have been preventable. There are also stories of
children who have been left to suffer after someone noticed that something was
wrong. There are stories of children whose plight should have been noticed but
wasn't.
Societies aren't perfect, governments aren't perfect, systems aren't perfect,
but the day that we allow that to become an excuse for not doing more is, I
believe, the day that we lose our moral right to be here. The whole point of
this bill is to acknowledge that we need to do more to protect vulnerable
children and youth. It's applaudable that we prioritize the most vulnerable
children and youth, but all vulnerable children and youth need the protection of
their government.
People
at home may wonder why it is that here in the House we cannot refer to one
another by our surnames. The reason is simple and it goes to the heart of our
democracy. Even though we are a democracy, it's obviously impossible for half a
million people to make each and every decision about how our society will
function, so people go to the polls to elect Members to stand in their place and
I stand here in the place of the people of Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune. Another
Member stands in the place of the people of Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair.
Another stands in the place of the people of St. John's Centre. I stand here not
just as one person, but representing some 7,000 people and many of these people
are not even old enough to vote – they're children.
The
responsibility weighs on my shoulders to make decisions that are in their best
interests on their behalf. So it is for all of us who sit here in the House of
Assembly. Even though we are divided into parties with particular views of how
best to serve the people, we have to keep before us the faces of the children of
Newfoundland and Labrador. The choices that are made in this House and the
choices made by the government can protect these children more effectively, and
certain choices can also leave them more vulnerable.
Who is
the vulnerable child or young person? It is certainly the child who is in the
care or custody of the state. The child in foster care or the young person in
secure custody is the direct responsibility of the state. But what about the
young person in hospital or an addictions treatment centre receiving care from a
department, other than those defined in this bill? This bill is limited to just
two, Mr. Speaker.
What
about a young person who's in school? What about a young person who's being
bullied by a teacher? That teacher has friends in the administration so the
teacher is protected, but not the student. What happens in those cases? This
legislation doesn't cover it.
What
about children and youth who are not in the care or custody of any government
department or agency? What constitutes a state of vulnerability? If a child has
died, then tragically it is too late to protect that child. Perhaps the child
was vulnerable before passing away and something can be learned so that justice
can be served and lessons can be learned that will protect others.
This
bill covers critical injuries which are defined as “an injury which may result
in the death of a child or youth or may cause serious or long-term impairment of
the health of a child or youth.” Is this definition broad enough to cover
physiological trauma, emotional trauma, the kind of trauma that may not become
fully apparent until later? Is the definition broad enough to cover situations
where the child may have been at significant risk without having suffered an
injury?
The
former Child and Youth Advocate recommended using a broader term called
“critical incident.” It would have made this province a national leader in the
protection of children, and we would have been ahead of all the other provinces.
But today, we're being told it's okay to be in the middle of the pack. We're
doing no better than the others and that's okay.
This
legislation applies to children and youth who are in the custody or care of
receiving services from the department of child, youth and family services, or
those in the custody of Justice and Public Safety. This bill does not cover the
youth involved in with the health care system, or those involved in the
education system unless they are also on the CSSD caseload. This means that
deaths and critical injuries which may occur in a school, the Janeway or a youth
addiction centre are not mandated to be reported unless through another process;
for example, the Fatalities Investigation
Act or the Patient Safety Act.
Officials in the department did point out during our briefing that incidents can
be reported to the Child and Youth Advocate without having to fall under this
legislation, but it's a may situation – it's not a shall. They indicated that
parents and youth can always call the Child and Youth Advocate office and that
there are other mechanisms within the health and education system in which
incidents are reviewed. Those mechanisms were in place when we had the tragic
incidents that we had years ago, Mr. Speaker. They didn't solve the problem then
and we need stronger mechanisms today. This legislation was the opportunity to
do that. They indicated that these mechanisms are in place, and we're certainly
glad they're in place, but we're advocating for even stronger mechanisms.
What
about the mandatory reporting of what government officials become aware of? It's
not there. Health and education were initially included in this legislation.
They were certainly included in what the Child and Youth Advocate was strongly
advocating for when this discussion began. They were going to be included up
until 2015, but they've since been removed for some reason that we still fail to
understand.
Officials indicated that other jurisdictions concern themselves with the
reporting of the child welfare and justice departments, with the exception of BC
who also covers some mental health and addictions.
Within
this bill, there's no requirement for a critical injury which happens in the
health system or the education system to be reported. The
Fatalities Investigation Act requires that deaths of children
are referred to the Child Death Review Committee. The Advocate reviews their
recommendations and follows up on their recommendations, but there's no
reference whatsoever to injuries or incidents which can be just as serious and
certainly if they were to be brought to the Child and Youth Advocate's attention
in a mandatory way, perhaps further serious injury can be avoided.
The Patient Safety
Act also indicates that if a close call or occurrence of an incident occurs
in the health care system, then the regional health authority shall review and
report on it and give notice to the minister, but there is no reference
whatsoever to mandatory reporting to the Advocate.
This was one of the key issues of concern back in 2014.
Today I ask: Is it good enough what we've brought forward, or should we be
heeding the advice of the former Child and Youth Advocate who examined,
personally, so many tragic cases before issuing her recommendation that she be
informed of critical incidents immediately when they occur? Remember, it's about
protecting children – all children, all youth, and treating them equally.
At one point in our history, taking children from their
homes and placing them in orphanages and residential schools was considered
appropriate care in the best interest of the child. We have since learned how
tragic these choices were for so many children. Well-intentioned people
sometimes get it wrong. When someone tells you what they are going to do is good
enough, we should always question them. That's our role as an Opposition: to
raise these questions on behalf of the children. This legislation is leaving out
some very, very, very important elements that may protect the lives of children
in the future.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, there was once an Opposition Party
that brought forward the following resolution to the House of Assembly. I'm
going to read this resolution back into
Hansard because it bears repeating, Mr. Speaker. This resolution was brought
to the House of Assembly in November of 2014:
WHEREAS the province's Child and Youth Advocate has
requested that government introduce legislation for mandatory and
immediate reporting of all
government departments and agencies of the death and critical incidents
involving children and youth; and
WHEREAS
government has not taken a lead in notifying the Advocate's office of such
incidents and, instead, the Advocate has relied on calls from the public and the
media to be made aware of cases needing her involvement – which is what the
legislation is still going to allow it to do, by the way – and
WHEREAS
legislating a direct reporting mechanism from all departments and agencies to
the Advocate would help improve outcomes for all those involved, as it would
improve outcomes for other children and youth receiving services; and
WHEREAS
as a direct result of earlier intervention in specific cases where a death or
critical incident has occurred or indirectly systemic issues can be more readily
identified and addressed;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge government to
immediately introduce legislation for the mandatory and immediate reporting of
all government departments and agencies of the death of and critical incidents
involving children and youth.
Notice
the wording, Mr. Speaker, because the words are important: The Child and Youth
Advocate has requested. Who is the Child and Youth Advocate? It is an officer
independent – a non-partisan Officer of this House of Assembly, answerable not
to the government, but to the people of this fine province.
What did
the Advocate request? Mandatory and immediate reporting. She simply wanted to
find out, as quickly as possible, that the government was aware of something
serious happening to a child or young person. When which government officials
became aware of such an incident? All government departments and agencies.
She was
comprehensive and so was the resolution that was brought forward by the
then-Opposition. On what kinds of incidents? The deaths and critical incidents
involving children and youth.
Incidents are not confined to injuries. You can use your imagination to see
situations where children and young people are at serious risk because of
incidents that have not yet led to injuries. Remember, the ultimate goal in all
of this is the prevention of harm to our children. Many times, the best way to
prevent harm is to catch the warning signs, Mr. Speaker.
That
resolution was brought forward by the then-leader of the Opposition, today's
Premier. It clearly stated incidents as well as injury and it clearly stated all
government departments.
What if
a school bus driver is caught driving drunk while transporting children, but no
accident or injury occurs? Is that a serious incident that needs to be covered
by this legislation? What if a spy camera is located in a school washroom or
drug-tainted needles are located behind a school? What if someone enters a
school with a firearm? If no child is aware of the incident or injured, isn't
that incident still serious enough to require that the Child and Youth Advocate
be made aware that it has occurred? I would think so.
Why are
the regional health authorities not included in this bill? Why are the school
boards excluded? What about children and youth who are vulnerable in other
situations? The question here is: Does this bill go far enough? We have to ask
that question because the bill certainly falls short of what the Child and Youth
Advocate and government opposite called for in its resolution of 2014.
So let's
look at some of the things Members opposite said at that time. Here are the
quotes from the now Premier in that 2014 debate. I quote: “The
motion today will be legislating the mandatory reporting of deaths and critical
incidents to the Child and Youth Advocate in our Province.”
“… the
Advocate once again reiterated or called for mandatory reporting to the Advocate
by all departments and agencies of the deaths and the critical incidents
involving children and youth.
“When
we have asked the question why the critical incidents piece, in this case the
Advocate is very concerned and believes and feels this would help prevent
further deaths, deaths by children who are in care from departments and agencies
in our Province.”
“What
we see here is after thorough investigations or three major investigations
within the Province,” – and, unfortunately, many of us can remember those – “the
recommendations came back after investigation suggesting that we have mandatory
reporting of deaths of children and critical incidents within the Province. This
is the view of the Child and Youth Advocate in our Province right now.”
These
are quotes that I'm reading directly from
Hansard from the 2014 debate, Mr. Speaker; just to put the tense in proper
context.
“… why
not just go to the next step and make that notification part of legislation so
it becomes mandatory?” Why not? It's only a matter of adding the wording to this
legislation that we are spending the time here debating today for the children
of out province. Why
not make it stronger?
“… why
not just go to the next step and make that notification … so it becomes
mandatory? That would include not just the Department of Child, Youth and Family
Services but indeed all agencies within government.”
Again,
still quoting from 2014's debate, “… she feels that she could fulfill her
mandate in a much better fashion by the immediate reporting of critical
incidents and deaths in the Province. Indeed, she could intervene and reduce the
harm to other members in some cases.”
“As an
Officer of the House of Assembly, this will allow – and she agrees that she will
be able to fulfill the mandate she has been given, to do her job in protecting
children, and not only children in care, but children who are receiving services
from various departments and agencies in the Province right now.”
“I
really believe what the Advocate is actually looking for here right now is a
mechanism that will allow this individual to do a better job in her position in
making sure children in our Province are safe when they receive care, safe when
they receive services from Child, Youth and Family Services and all the other
agencies we have in our Province.”
In fact,
Mr. Speaker, the then Leader of the Opposition, today's Premier, actually talked
specifically about our health care workers in his debate. But this bill does not
extend to the health department or the regional health authorities.
He
concluded by saying, “We cannot get hung up on making sure that the definition
of a critical incident, in this particular case, is something that will hold up
this piece of legislation.” That was the words in 2014. “What we are asking for
is let's get those definitions done, and let's get this legislation introduced
in this House of Assembly so that we can have a Child and Youth Advocate who
will be better equipped to do her job.”
“… it is
important enough that we create that sense of urgency in this House today. That
is the reason why we have put forward, and I have moved this private member's
motion today legislating the mandatory reporting of deaths and critical
incidents to the Child and Youth Advocate.”
“… we as
members would stand her debating the words in a piece of legislation that could
actually be an intervention in stopping one critical incident or, in a
worst-case scenario, prevent a death.”
Mr.
Speaker, this is what our current Premier asked for in 2014, but this is not
what is being delivered by the government today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. PERRY:
I don't know why they are
heckling over there, Mr. Speaker. It's a very important issue.
If the
Member for Lab West is actually listening, what I'm saying is this was your
leader who said this was what they wanted in the legislation. This has not been
delivered today.
Those
were the things the party, now in government, were calling for while in
Opposition. They are the things the Child and Youth Advocate was calling for.
They are the things this bill is missing.
When the
Members opposite went to the people to seek a mandate in 2015, they laid out
their policy intentions in their Liberal red book. It is interesting to consider
the wording of this particular section of their red book. It was numbered
section 4.3.2. It was entitled, “Mandatory Reporting of Deaths and Critical
Incidents to the Child and Youth Advocate” and it read like this, verbatim from
the red book:
“For
years, the Child and Youth Advocate has been calling on the PC Government to
make mandatory the reporting by all government departments and agencies of the
deaths of, and critical incidents involving, children and youth receiving
government services.
“Liberals believe the Advocate shouldn't have to learn of children falling
through the cracks through the public or the media. Mandatory reporting could
save lives.
“A New
Liberal Government will legislate mandatory reporting of deaths and critical
incidents to the … Youth Advocate.”
Mandatory reporting was also outlined in the mandate letter to the former
minister, when government first got established. The mandate letter reads,
verbatim, I quote: “I expect you to work with your colleagues and the Child and
Youth Advocate to develop legislation for the House of Assembly that will make
it mandatory to report deaths and critical incidents to the Advocate.”
It is
important to note that the mandate letter says incidents, but this is not what
the legislation covers. The legislation covers injuries only. And, Mr. Speaker,
we can't get a clear answer as to why that's the case.
Mandatory reporting was also mentioned in the 2017 Throne Speech, right here in
this hon. House. It reads: “Our Government will continue to work cooperatively
with the Child and Youth Advocate to develop legislation on mandatory reporting
of critical incidents and deaths to the advocate for consideration in the House
of Assembly.”
Again,
the Throne Speech says incidents, but the legislation says injuries. So there it
is. Either the Liberals believe in what they said or they don't. They now,
though, are in a position to do what they said. So they can heckle from across
the way about what did or didn't get done by the PCs. They have the opportunity
to do it now, Mr. Speaker, and they're not. They are not.
By the
bill that we see before us today, we see the legislation as it currently stands
falls far, far, far short of what they called for and what they promised. It
doesn't apply to all government departments and agencies. It doesn't include
critical incidents. It maintains a situation where the Advocate will continue to
have to learn of children falling through the cracks through the public or the
media. It reduces the scope of mandatory reporting that could save lives.
The
irony is that our PC government was actually in the process of following the
recommendations of the Child and Youth Advocate in 2014 and '15. The premier's
mandate letter to the minister actually called for this legislation to be
implemented. We made the same points when speaking to the Liberal's resolution
and voting in favour of it. The difference is that we intended to work with the
Child and Youth Advocate to ensure that the legislation reflected what she was
calling for in the recommendations based on the three very, very, very serious
reports she produced on the tragic situations she had to review.
We spoke
in favour of mandatory reporting. We spoke in favour of immediate reporting. We
spoke in favour of a broad scope. We referenced departments not covered in this
bill and we spoke of defining incidents.
The
Liberals, in 2014, said bring forward this legislation right away; don't even
bother to consult with the Child and Youth Advocate before bringing it forward.
They opposed our decision to include the Advocate in drafting the legislation.
When they were elected, they did not do it right away, either. This is more than
two years later. They did not pay attention to the recommendations of the Child
and Youth Advocate who demanded mandatory reporting, and they have brought
forward a bill that does not live up to their own promise, or their resolution
or their words in debate, or what the Child and Youth Advocate has demanded in
her recommendations.
This is
not the bill they promised to deliver. Why not? We can only conclude that it is
part of their pattern of hiding as much as possible from scrutiny and
accountability. What could be wrong with immediately notifying the Child and
Youth Advocate about more rather than fewer incidents? Really, what would really
be wrong with that? What is the issue with it?
If the
government is aware of a serious incident, what could be wrong with passing that
information along immediately to the person whose job it is to look out for the
best interests of children and youth in our province? First and foremost, this
person is independent of government, an independent, non-partisan position
responsible to the children of our province. What's wrong with informing her
immediately? What is the issue?
Where is
the harm in informing the Child and Youth Advocate? Is the government saying
that she can't be trusted with this information? I don't think so. That would be
shocking. But if they are not saying that, then why would they build a wall
instead of a channel for the free flow of information to the Advocate's office?
We don't understand it.
Let's
consider what the Child and Youth Advocate actually is. It's not an office or
department of the government; it is not an office that answers to the Premier
and Cabinet. This office answers to the people, to the hon. House of Assembly.
This is an independent office, just like the Auditor General is independent.
This officer can go where others cannot, look into what others cannot and report
on what others may not. This officer is a voice for all children and youth in
this province.
Where
does this office come from? It didn't always exist. In December of 1994, the
House of Assembly appointed a Select Committee on Children's Interests. Its
chair was the former MHA for Conception Bay South, the late Pat Cowan. When the
committee reported in 1996, the committee comprised of MHAs Gerald Smith, Harvey
Hodder and Mary Hodder; all fine parliamentarians who were genuinely interested
in advancing the best interests of children.
The
report was entitled, LISTENing & ACTing: A
Plan for Child, Youth and Community Empowerment. It recommended the creation
of a child, youth and family secretariat within government and it called for the
establishment of a Child and Youth Advocate reporting to the Legislature.
The PC
Party adopted this recommendation as a policy, which we held from that time
forward. In 2001, after years of pressure from the Opposition to implement this
all-party recommendation, the Liberals were finally dragged kicking and
screaming into bringing forward the legislation.
Lloyd
Wicks was appointed to serve as the first Advocate. On November 2002, he was
finally able to get down to work, advocating for children and youth. We finally
joined other jurisdictions across the country with similar offices.
Establishing the office is only the beginning. The really important part, Mr.
Speaker, is what follows. The Advocate's job is to dig into things that
otherwise might be left undisturbed. It's like the Auditor General's work. It
can be embarrassing for a government to be held to account and have its work
under the spotlight of scrutiny. It is embarrassing and onerous, but absolutely
necessary.
Governments demand constant scrutiny, and governments, being human institutions,
are always imperfect and always in need of scrutiny. In fact, it is sometimes a
conflict of interest for officials to determine whether an incident is serious
enough to warrant reporting to the Child and Youth Advocate. They are
essentially investigating themselves and their colleagues and deciding whether
to report on what may be even their own failings. People should not investigate
themselves. Let the Advocate determine what is serious after she has been
informed.
The
government opposite is developing a disturbing tendency to hide more and more
from the spotlight of scrutiny and accountability. They may think this is wise,
but it's actually dangerous. When it comes to protecting the best interests of
children and youth, the dangers are borne by the children and youth themselves.
The
government needs to be reminded that it's not about doing what is easiest or
just doing enough to get away with, just enough to tick off the box, oh, that's
done for the mandate letter; it's about doing what's right. If this means
inundating the Child and Youth Advocate with information about incidents where
children and youth in the province are at risk of harm, then is that the wrong
thing to do? I certainly don't think so. Wouldn't it be better to let the
Advocate sort out where to place the attention than to have the filter at the
government level, where factors other than protecting the best interests of
children might come into play?
Governments and departments and agencies and their officials sometimes have a
tendency to minimize the importance of things and sweep them under a rug to
avoid embarrassment or other consequences. Instead of thinking is a child at
risk, they could be thinking would this reflect badly or lead to embarrassing
consequences?
The
Child and Youth Advocate would focus solely on whether a child is at risk.
Nothing else would be considered by the Child and Youth Advocate. And isn't that
how it should be? I certainly think so, and Members on this side of the House
think so, too.
I'm sure
the minister's officials laid out all the ways things could go badly if the bar
is set too low, and too much information is sent to the Advocate. But if the
government is truly concerned with advancing the best interests of children and
youth, it will have the courage to put those considerations aside and set the
bar very low, so information on children and youth in all sorts of dangerous
situations is passed along to the official whose job it is to advocate for them.
Let's
look at the protocol that is currently in place regarding incidents. A critical
incident is defined as an extraordinary or life-threatening incident that
directly impacts the safety and well-being of a child or youth such as violence,
assault, injury, other serious criminal matters and significant threats of
self-injury or harm or suicidal ideation requiring hospitalization beyond the
initial assessment and treatment.
The
protocol actually lists some examples of critical incidents: a suicide attempt,
a child or a youth who is abducted, a child or youth who is involved in a
serious criminal matter. These are just some examples of critical incidents. If
they do not result in a death or long-term injury, this bill would not mandate
they be reported.
Essentially, these situations would be reported now through the critical
incident report and protocol, but they would not be legislatively mandated to be
reported once the bill comes into effect. This bill might actually be a step
backwards from what is being voluntarily practiced right now. Mr. Speaker, that
would be an absolute tragedy to see us move backwards.
Mandatory reporting to the Advocate by all departments and agencies – key, key,
key recommendations, Mr. Speaker, during the 2014 resolution debate, and the
current Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, the Member for
Cartwright – L'Anse au Clair, actually used the phrase mandatory reporting by
all departments and agencies during that debate in 2014 as well. So we see
strong support for it, but we don't see it in the written context of the
legislation today.
At the
news conference we had earlier this afternoon, the minister spoke repeatedly in
her notes about critical incidents, which is the broader term that interestingly
enough this bill doesn't actually use. So we're left to wonder, do they really
want to do what they promised in the red book and did they really want to do
what they asked for in the debate of 2014? Because if we were to believe that,
then we would see a much stronger bill before us here today.
We would
see a bill that includes all departments and agencies, not just Justice and
CSSD. We would see a bill that includes all critical incidents, not just
critical injury, and we would not just be reporting with respect to children and
youth in care, but we would be reporting with respect to all children in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
It was
stated by the former Child and Youth Advocate in a CBC report, actually, in
April 2016: “Every child and every youth deserves the same level of service.”
While we agree that vulnerable children are an absolute priority, we also feel
very strongly all children are deserving of the same level of service, care and
attention.
I can't
say it often enough: If we can have the strongest legislation, if we can save a
life, it's all worth it. It's only a matter of including some sentences that
were advocated for years and years and years by Members opposite. The bill we
see before us today is strangely void of this language and we don't understand
it.
I have
no doubt the minister is sincere in wanting to protect all children and youth to
the greatest extent possible. I have every confidence the minister is going to
do a fabulous job in her department and is a great leader. But I just wish the
legislation included the wording that was advocated for by our current Premier,
by Members of government opposite, by the former Child and Youth Advocate and
what we believe in here, as well, on this side of the House.
If only
they would stand by the words they said in the debate of 2014 and in the red
book and in the mandate letter and in the Throne Speech. If only they would
stand by these words, we would have a very strong piece of legislation here
today, Mr. Speaker, and one that we would find no fault with. The two key issues
of concern are the exclusion of critical incidents and the exclusion of all
government departments.
It was
the former Child and Youth Advocate who saw all the cases that caused her to ask
repeatedly for broad and tough reporting legislation. She asked for more than
this. Would this place an onerous burden on government? Would it overload the
Advocate's office?
We're
here this week to debate a bill to increase the size of the Independent
Appointments Commission and all they do is secretly report to Cabinet that can
secretly ignore them. So it baffles me why we would be debating a bill later on
that's going to increase the size of the Independent Appointments Commission,
yet we're not talking in any way about, well, if the Advocate's office would
need additional resources to do this work, then she should have them. Again,
it's quite baffling to us.
The
Child and Youth Advocate bill is about protecting children and youth, and if
more resources are required to do that, I don't think anybody in the province
would argue.
I don't
know if it's possible at the Committee stage to propose amendments to reflect
what the Child and Youth Advocate called for in 2014 because the rules on
amendments are very strict around changing the intent of the bill, but there is
not such a limitation preventing a minister from making a friendly amendment. It
would be a friendly amendment to expand the scope of this bill to reflect what
was called for and what was promised, all departments and agencies, all critical
incidents and deaths of children and youth.
This is
one of those circumstances where less is certainly not more. Less is less. Less
is children and youth who are going to continue to fall through the cracks, and
this legislation is going to do nothing to help them. Legislation has children
and youth remaining in dangerous, harmful situations that might lead to
consequences we wish could have been prevented.
They say
hindsight is 20/20, but sometimes foresight is also 20/20. In this case, we can
see clearly that providing the Child and Youth Advocate with more information
will probably lead to fewer oversights and fewer children and youth falling
through the cracks. So let's do the right thing and vote in favour of the
children and youth who cannot stand in this place to speak for themselves. Let's
be bold and set an example for the country, just as we did before on policies
such as poverty reduction. Our children and our youth deserve all the
protections we can give them, Mr. Speaker.
Before I
close, I want to say again we just fail to understand why they have excluded
critical incidents, why they have excluded all departments. We're not getting a
clear answer on that whatsoever. It's very, very baffling to us, Mr. Speaker.
I will
close by saying that we truly do hope the minister considers a friendly
amendment to put in those missing pieces that were called for by our current
Premier, that were called for by Members opposite, that were called for by the
Child and Youth Advocate in her recommendations and all of it for the purpose of
helping our vulnerable children and youth who deserve all the protections that
we can give them, and they will grow to thank us for having put their best
interests first and foremost above all else, Mr. Speaker.
So while
we're happy to see this legislation come before the House, we're certainly very
disheartened by its shortcomings. We hope that as the debate progresses we can
strengthen this bill so that the children and youth of Newfoundland and Labrador
– all children of Newfoundland and Labrador – are truly protected in the best
possible manner that we, as legislators, in this House of Assembly can do for
them.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a pleasure for me to stand in the House today as we're talking about
An Act to Amend the Child and Youth Advocate Act. As I sit here, honest to God,
I struggle with some of the verbiage that's coming across this House today. As I
think about what's gone on since the Child and Youth Advocate came into being
and that office was set up – I actually remember that time in 2002, Mr. Speaker.
I was keenly interested. I was doing a lot of work in the community on behalf of
government and the people of this province. I was doing a lot of work in child
welfare and in youth diversion. So when the office was being talked about and
being set up, I watched it very closely.
I
remember at the time Dr. Phil Warren, a former hon. Member of this House, he and
I had great conversations about the type of individual that you'd want in that
office who could perform that advocacy role on behalf of all children and youth
in this province who, from time to time, need our care.
Now, as
I listened to the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune and I'm reminded of some
of her commentary today, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I am scratching my head. It
makes no sense to me, none whatsoever, when she talks about that – and I've
heard this. Ever since we formed government, I've heard this time and time again
about how this government has never gone far enough when that government did
nothing – absolutely nothing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Mr. Speaker, I really want to
give you some examples of what went on while they were in power. I'm going to go
back – and I'm going to talk about a sensitive issue about a child who lost his
life under their care. I will talk about that. It's in the media and I'll talk
about how we have taken some steps to look into that issue.
In
Question Period today, the Member opposite referenced about 2014. Well, Mr.
Speaker, at the time there was a media story that came out. Just to help us set
it up a little bit, I want to go back and talk about the Member's statement, the
Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune. In September 2016, she did a press
release and she talked about how when we were in Opposition, how we failed to
follow through with changes that promised to protect vulnerable children in our
province.
Now,
today, she's saying we're not going far enough. She stated:“The previous
administration undertook a fundamental restructuring to establish the Department
of Child, Youth and Family Services in order to focus more attention on the
needs of vulnerable children in light of recommendations we were given. That
work took time, but it was beginning to bear fruit.”
Well, isn't that amazing because in a five-year period –
and it's interesting how the story came out. This is a story that goes back to
August 19, 2014 and it talks about the then Child and Youth Advocate, Ms. Carol
Chafe, who was there at the time and she became aware of 26 deaths of children
and youth in this province. The deaths happened when the previous crowd was in
government. The minister at the time was a former Member for the District of
Terra Nova, Sandy Collins, who is now their policy advisor, their researcher.
We've seen what he's been able to do since he's been in that position.
When the Child and Youth Advocate at the time went asking
about the children who had died, it says that according to the documents, 26
children and youth under the age of 18 have died while under the province's care
– a number that the then Child and Youth Advocate, Carol Chafe, was very
concerned about.
The Member opposite today talks about that we're not open
and transparent; we're not going far enough. Well, openness and transparency
when the other crowd was in office, the Child and Youth Advocate said she knew
about six of those deaths – only six. So we're open and transparent and we're
getting all that information and we're sharing it with the Child and Youth
Advocate.
She learned about the 20 from CBC. Not from the minister,
the minister who has responsibility, yet condemning us today about not going far
enough. Oh my, my Lord. The types of deaths: Protective Intervention, 18; Youth
Services, 3; Youth Corrections, 2. One child is certainly too many.
I find it interesting now that the Members in the backbench
on the opposite side – this
is such a serious issue and they're over there laughing – laughing. You tell me
that's appropriate today. It should not be happening in this House, I can tell
you that.
The
Child and Youth Advocate at the time said: I was aware of some of the deaths,
but not all of them. But now that you have made it known to me, I have made a
formal request for the information on all those cases. So she had to ask for the
information. Now, the Member opposite today said that it should be forthcoming.
Oh, it's holier than thou. Now all of a sudden as we're in government and
they're in Opposition, we can't get anything right and they did nothing about
it. Isn't that completely interesting?
Out of
the 26 youth who died, three of the cases were children in foster care; 18 were
receiving services from Protective Intervention; three were involved with Youth
Services; and the remaining two were in Youth Corrections – all receiving
services from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that was under their
administration.
The
minister at the time, Sandy Collins, the former Member for the District of Terra
Nova, was asked: Okay, Minister, so what's going on here? Tell us what's going
on. Sandy Collins was the minister at the time, former Member of the District of
Terra Nova. So do you know how serious he took this situation, Mr. Speaker? He's
quoted. And the reason I can reference this today in the House is because the
Member opposite in Question Period referenced 2014 and what they were doing as a
government – or not doing, as we're seeing.
He said:
“I'm only a young man, I have a young family. Any time you hear about the death
of a child it's concerning” – well, would you believe that? – “you feel it in
the pit of your stomach. That was my initial reaction, I have to be honest,”
says Mr. Collins.
So the
Child and Youth Advocate goes on the say – the story goes on to say, I should
say, Mr. Speaker: “Collins said making any change to the existing legislation
would involve other departments ….” He says: It's great what we are doing. “It's
great where we are, but I know there's room to move and room to improve.” That
was it. That was the entire commitment.
I have
to really tell you about a serious, serious incident that happened also under
his watch, and it relates to a 15-year-old boy. His name was Stephen Brown. I
said to the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development today because
she knows this family really well, just like I do. Now, Stephen, I knew him ever
since he was about five. His mom used to come to meetings that we'd have in the
community, so I watched him grow up.
At the
age of 15 – I'm going to tell you the story of what happened to him. At the age
of 15 he was on a dirt bike one afternoon and he went in a road. It was a road
that was a public road, but this person had put a chain across the road and he
didn't mark it. It is tragic that the front wheel of Stephen's dirt bike hit the
chain, it rolled up and it struck him and it killed him.
Now, the
mom, Michelle Brown, who I consider to be a great friend – I know Michelle would
not be concerned today that I am referencing her in this hon. House or her son.
Sandy Collins was the minister responsible.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Who?
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Sandy Collins was the
minister. He was the minister of Child, Youth and Family Services, and she
begged and she pleaded to him as a minister to investigate the death of her
child, to engage the Child and Youth Advocate. That information did not come
forward. She had no success. In her mind, the death of her child was really
unanswered. There was very little investigation by a number of departments in
government.
When I
was seeking to run in this position as the Member for Terra Nova, Michelle
called me one night and she said: If you get elected, can you do one thing? Can
you help me have a meeting with the minister for children? I said I will do
that. I promise you that tonight. I didn't make many promises during the
election other than I would work very hard for people, but I said that I would
get the right people to that table.
Now I
can tell you, Mr. Speaker, a year October past, 11 months after I was elected,
we had everybody who needed to be around that table with Michelle Brown to talk
about what happened to her son. Her son is gone. The Child and Youth Advocate
was not engaged, so we opened up a door.
When I
listen to the Member opposite talking about we don't go far enough, we haven't
fulfilled our commitments in the red book, well, I think we've gone a lot
further. We're actually achieving the stuff you talked about you'd like to do or
the former minister said, think what we're doing is fine. Twenty-six deaths,
it's not good enough as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker.
So the
amendments that are coming forward today are the right amendments to help
protect the children and youth of this province, who receive services on behalf
of the people of this province.
Mr.
Speaker, I look forward to other discussion on this bill today, I look forward
to the Members opposite really realizing that this is the right step forward and
that they actually do some real soul searching today and they vote in favour of
this legislation.
Thank so
much for this opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to get up and speak on all legislation in this House. I guess on this
Bill 26 it's a – how would you put it? I listened to some of the commentary
opposite, actually, and it takes me back a bit, so I – you know, to put your
thoughts in perspective.
I'll
start off by saying, Mr. Speaker, I spent 20 years of my life working in the
mental health field. I got first-hand experience. I dealt with a lot of children
that were in special needs. They are the vulnerable in our society. The role I
played for 20 years was a very – I used to say sometimes trying to explain it,
you were going around with their life in your hands. They were so dependent on
every move. Every decision I made, their life was dependent on my decisions as
well.
We
worked closely with social workers, families, medical professionals, educational
people, doctors. That was my life for 20 years. I get a lot of the commentary
that goes on there. I understand the sensitivity of this issue.
They
even flip it back to being a child. The area I grew up in, there were a lot of
children in care. If you want to simplify, we didn't use it back in those days.
There were a lot of – back in the day they were in foster care.
I'm very
familiar with this. I get it crystal clear, Mr. Speaker. I understand the need
for this legislation. I understand the need for the Child and Youth Advocate. I
understand the need for all the services. I totally get it. I understand what
can happen in our system with one mistake.
One
missed reporting, one error in judgment can be so catastrophic. You can never
understate the importance of all the checks and balances we have in place. Not
only with this legislation, Mr. Speaker, right through all our legislation we
bring to the floor of this House of Assembly – it's meaning. This one here has a
more special meaning because, ultimately, there's a life at play, there's a life
at stake. They are the most vulnerable. We always say our children and our
seniors are the most vulnerable.
Now, I
can go down the road of what I just heard from the Member for Terra Nova and
some of the commentary that's come across the way. I can go down that road, but
I'd like to stay above that because I think it's too important of an issue to
get into catcalls and this blame and this disgust that they find. Why are you
getting on? Who are you to make this comment? I'm not going to go there, but I'd
just like to emphasize this is too important.
For me
personally, I'm the Member for Conception Bay South. I'm one of six. Well, one
of seven, soon. I'm one of forty, but I represent the district.
These
concerns that we're talking about in this bill, they're happening in my
district. They're happening in yours. They're happening in every district. Every
Member in this House deals with this. People can laugh, they can accuse others
of laughing, they can point fingers and whatnot. At the end of the day, there's
a vulnerable child or minor in society that's looking for us as a Legislature,
looking for government power, to bring in the proper legislation that's going to
protect them.
If
you're not bringing in legislation, Mr. Speaker, no matter if it's on this issue
or any issue that's going to make improvements and make things better, we're
failing. To say the PCs didn't do this, okay, fair enough. I guess no one can
dispute that. I wasn't part of the former administration. I know people who were
and there are probably reasons it wasn't brought in, but if you use that
analogy: the PCs didn't pave this road, so we're not going to. They didn't build
this school, so we're not going to.
Mr.
Speaker, that to me is tough to rationalize in anyone's mind, because one party
or one group never did something we're not going to do it. You're elected by the
people of the province to do what's right. It's as simple as that.
This
government has made lots of mistakes. So has that government. Every government
that will ever come into this House of Assembly, they will make mistakes. They
will not carry forward with legislation, but most times there's a reason.
Collectively as a caucus, as a Cabinet, they make a decision: we're going to go
ahead or we're not going to go ahead.
I had
the opportunity for years to be in the minister's office. I know how it works.
Sometimes they'll be ready to go and they'll say no, they have concerns. The
minister may have concerns. Other people in Cabinet may have concerns. They pull
back. Does that mean it is right? No, sometimes certain things are missed.
Certain things should have been proceeded with, but for whatever reason the
government of the day – and that's what they're duly elected to do – will decide
they're going to pull back, they're not going to do it and they live with those
decisions. But to be turning a situation like this political, I think, is a bit
distasteful, personally. Again, I could single out and I can get into catcalls
back and forth, but I don't think that's going to solve any problems here, or
it's not going to make anything better.
On a
personal note, and me as one voice in 40, I feel that is distasteful. I have
personal experiences. I've been very close – this stuff hits home in a lot of
ways, Mr. Speaker. A lot of this stuff hits home and I've been there. I
understand it and I have my own stories to tell, too. But they're not going to
solve the issue today.
All
we're asking for – as we say, this legislation, we think this is good. Mandatory
reporting, we think, is good. We just want to make sure it includes all –
everything that we feel should be included in this legislation, we just want to
make it better. We want to make this the best piece of legislation that this
House can pass. We want to be the best in the country. Isn't that what we're
here for?
I don't
think we should be aiming to be second best. I don't think we should run the
gamut of having a little piece of legislation that's not going to hit the mark.
Why? No, we're not going to change that because that crowd over there didn't
know anything about it. If that's where we are as a government, if that's how
we're going to do legislation, I think we're in serious trouble, Mr. Speaker.
We know
a lot of decisions were made over the years. Governments are stubborn, and I get
that, too. But on these sensitive issues, on issues like this when you're
thinking about our most vulnerable – I keep going back to the most vulnerable
because seniors and children and those in need, those with various issues, they
are the most vulnerable. They are the ones we should park everything by the door
and do what is best for those people.
Government opposite, several weeks, a month ago or whatever, they put in the
inclusion, the parking spots. We should have done it. This government here, the
former government that was over there should have done that. I don't think
anyone would dispute that. It was one of those ones that – I don't know the
reason; I wasn't there to make the decision. They were working on it.
I know
my colleague for Conception Bay East – Bell Island, when he was in Service NL,
it was an issue that was important to him, but never got to the final date to
it. They did it and they should be commended, and I commend them for it. But
does that mean because we never did it, why wouldn't they do it? They did it
because there were people with disabilities who needed that, and I commend them
for it. Again, that's what we're here for.
So I'll
go back to the part that kind of hit a nerve with me personally: We should not
make this stuff political. Just because one person and one group never did it,
and one Member said this and one Member said that, you're not going to do it to
spite that person, who suffers? The most vulnerable, the people that need this,
Mr. Speaker.
There
are a lot of vulnerable people in our society. So if you have a child that's
coming into the school, if you have a child that's going into a hospital
setting, make this legislation to be the most inclusive so that we're not going
to have anybody fall through the cracks. When you do that you're still going to
have – unfortunately, there will be ones. That's going to happen. That's the
reality. That's human nature. That's going to happen; we're not in a perfect
world.
Don't
leave anything to chance. Every possible avenue you have to tighten up this
legislation and make it stronger, why not? Why not, Mr. Speaker? Why do you
leave something to chance? Well, okay, we're going to go to the hospital; they
will report it. The doctors will report it; the nurses will report it because
it's the right thing to do. I think they will most of the time, 99 per cent of
the time.
Go into
a school, teachers will report it, guidance counsellors. Parents may see it.
Friends may tell their moms. They will report it. I get that. Again, maybe
upwards of 99 per cent of the people will get it. They'll do that. What about
that other 1 per cent? That's what we're looking at here, Mr. Speaker. It's not
a perfect science.
Again,
even with everything included in that legislation, even if you had a list of
instances like that, Mr. Speaker, you had a stack of papers that high to cover
everything, you're still going to have cracks, but let's minimize it. You can't
do it to perfection, but you can minimize. I think that's where we need to be.
I'm
getting kind of – as the Members opposite, the newness is coming off this House.
I've been in lots of debates and I see lots of stuff. Contrary to what people
may think, there are a lot of things come from the opposite over the way and I
agree with some, not everything. I agree with some commentary across the way – I
do. I think that anyone in this House who watches me, they know that. I'll make
my little comment here and there.
Certain
things – they make sense. I'll nod my head in agreement. I'll listen to what
they say; I try to listen to most comments. I don't feel that we benefit our
districts, I don't believe we benefit this Legislature, I don't believe it will
benefit the people of this province that put us here to be getting on with some
of the nonsense I hear some days. I hear it right through this House sometimes,
Mr. Speaker.
When you
have been close to this stuff – and I've been very close to it in my own home –
to make it political, to getting up and recalling the former ministers or why
didn't you do it, the gall of you, I'm at a loss. I take personal exception to
it. It bothers me. It hits a part of my stomach that it doesn't feel good.
As an
example, I was sat here just now while people were up speaking. I didn't
even know if I was getting up to speak on this bill. I get up and speak whenever
I'm requested to and I was always tossing it around. But as I started hearing
some of the back and forth, I
said, no, I'd like to speak on this bill. I'm glad to be up speaking, by the
way. I probably would have gotten up anyway, but it motivated me to get up and
speak. We can go on, I can take up this bill and I can go to every little clause
and go through – there's not a lot to this bill, but this bill is very important
because it's to do with a child.
What's
more paramount in our society, if you're not looking after the most vulnerable
people? You read about it and you hear it on the news. We all say you hear these
stories – we heard one there a while ago. I won't get into details of that one;
I think we all know. It was pretty horrendous and it ended up in our court
system. How did that happen?
I asked
it. I'm sure everyone here did. You go home and you ask your wife, you sit down
and you say: How did that ever come to be? We have a great system. We have a
Child and Youth Advocate, who I happen to know from her previous life and I
think she's fantastic. I have great confidence in her abilities. I think she's
sensational, actually. I know her personally. I can't speak for the former one,
the Child and Youth Advocate, but I know this one in particular and I have a lot
of respect for her. It's not about her and her abilities because, like I say, I
think she's second to none, but make sure we're doing it right.
There
are concerns in this legislation, as my colleague for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune
pointed out. We're not bashing government for this. We think there are concerns.
We have concerns. We are the Opposition. Like it or not, that's the role. We
have to play a role. Opposition is not opposing for the sake of opposing.
Opposition is working to make a bill a better piece of legislation.
As the
Government House Leader alluded to back when we debated in September or October
on the elections bills, the Legislature was in disagreement. We debated – as an
Opposition we opposed things in that bill. At the end of the day, we got
something on the special ballot we were all accepting of. We all agreed it
wasn't everything we all wanted, but we agreed upon it. That's what the
Legislature is for: to make things better.
We do
things with them. We make amendments to certain legislation. Again, you don't
get everything you fight for, but you fight for it. Put it on record, get it out
there and people then can make their own judgments. We have a role to play, Mr.
Speaker, and if we see a piece of legislation where there are areas in this
legislation that could be better, could be improvements, it might only be
changing a word, it might only be changing a clause, so what's wrong with that?
What is wrong with proposing that?
We know
there are 30 Members opposite. We all can count. We know the numbers. We know
that every piece of legislation that comes through this House, they will wait us
out and eventually they'll get their bill. We know that. We can't filibuster
anymore, as we talked about last night, but all that being said, we still have a
role to play. We all get our time to get up and speak on this legislation and be
on record of our concerns.
We're
not knocking the government. The minister did a great job in explaining the
bill, the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development. There's nothing
about that and that's why I don't want to go down any road with – I'm trying to
keep on the high road. I really hope that government kind of looks – we are not
asking for the world. We think there are serious flaws, but we generally support
the concept of mandatory reporting. That's not an issue. We feel it needs to be
tightened up.
When you
have schools excluded and health, those are two big areas. I guess that's the
front door where you're going to find a lot of these concerns, you're going to
get them, that support. That's where you're going to get them is in the schools
or in hospitals, you're going to find these incidents. A child is going to come
in for an examination, they're going to notice there are marks, they're going to
notice there are other things, the child is probably going to speak.
You're
going to see it in school when they're talking to their friends and the teacher
sees them. Those are the things – and unfortunately, we live in a very
challenging society and things happen. Things that we can always say it should
never happen; we should never need these rules. If we lived in a proper world,
we don't need any of this, but we don't live there. Unfortunately, we don't and
that's the world we live in. We have to have that. I'll come back to it and I
can never say it enough and I'll not say it enough: You have to protect your
most vulnerable.
Asking
for changes or probably some modifications to a piece of legislation that's
going to make things better, not leave anything to chance, what's wrong with it?
I just challenge anyone – can anyone tell me what's wrong with that? If anyone
opposite is going to get up and say because we never did it, that still doesn't
tell me what's wrong with us wanting changes to it. If you say, okay, we agree,
so are you going to change it? No, but why? Because you never did anything about
it. That makes no sense, Mr. Speaker. It's what you get in a schoolyard – like I
said, because we never paved the road, oh yeah, we're not going to pave that;
they never.
We're
not building that school, no, no, the children can stay up in the parish hall.
We're not building it because they never built the school. That rationale, that
analogy, is just totally – that's half the reason I stood on my feet.
Another
part of the reason I stood on my feet is I have from a personal perspective –
without getting into great detail, I watched this personally. I watched where
the Child and Youth Advocate should have been in place, where what a difference
that could have made to a lot of children's lives when my child that I was
fortunate – I lived in a decent home, but I know a lot of my friends did not.
It's a sad situation and a sad reality and something that I lived with and to be
honest it's something that I've lived with for a long time and I still have to
live with it. There's nothing you can do.
The
system failed a lot of children back in the day, Mr. Speaker, when I was a child
growing up because we never had the protections in place. We never had the Child
and Youth Advocate. We never had this legislation. We never had Bill 26. We
never had this. These people fell through the cracks.
We've
come a long way, but why not go the rest of the way? Why not go until we got it
right? So we say mandatory reporting, what's wrong with it? Again, I challenge
every Member opposite, what is wrong with mandatory reporting? To do it right
now, if we just had mandatory reporting to include everything – not just
incidents, injuries, everything – include every group, school, hospitals, why
not? And I think that's the point they're trying to hammer home: Why not?
My
colleague for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune in her speech, people opposite were
getting frustrated and they were shaking their heads. She's not against this.
She's with me; we're all together on this. I think we should be together in this
House on it. Do it right. It is as simple as that: Do it right. If you're going
to do it, do it right. Don't go next year when you come back when this happened
and we should have included this and that was an error in that bill – we've
heard that happen before. And we've gotten criticism. We've criticized each
other. We've criticized ourselves. Do it right.
If
someone could say what's wrong with including what we want to include in that
legislation, what is wrong with it? I'm at a loss. I don't know if anyone else
here can tell me what's wrong with us – why can't we go ahead and do that?
So, Mr.
Speaker, as my time is winding down and I could have gotten in to the guts of
the bill, but I don't think that's necessary, I just think that we need to do
mandatory reporting, include all incidents, all injuries. We got children in
care, but maybe we need to have this continuous cycle. Even if they're not in
care, maybe we could even do it better to include those not in – we need to
protect our children. Every family model, no matter what the family model is set
up, it's not perfect.
We need
to make sure whatever we can do in this piece of legislation to protect everyone
– and I mean everyone, and we're still not going to get them all – we should do.
It's something that is incumbent upon us as a Legislature, each and every one of
us. Like I said, I'm one of 40. We all should feel the same way and we shouldn't
make it political; we should do what's right for our most vulnerable.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand and to speak to this bill. It's Bill 26, An Act to Amend the
Child and Youth Advocate Act. Mr. Speaker, this has been a long time coming. We
know that this legislation, the amendment to the
Child and Youth Advocate Act, was proposed – or actually the former
Child and Youth Advocate asked for this three years ago and here we are finally
today debating this bill.
I would
like to start by saying that the Child and Youth Advocate and the Office of the
Child and Youth Advocate is for every child in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's
not only for a certain subsect of children in the province; it's for every child
in the province. It is also for every parent in the province. It is also for
every government department and every agency in the province. It is for
everyone.
The
Child and Youth Advocate office, their commitment is the protection – and not
only a reactive commitment to do reactive work in terms of protecting children
who have already been hurt, but they are also very proactive.
Again, I
would like to applaud the staff at the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate
for their very committed work, for their expertise, for the hard work, often
very, very difficult work that they do. I would also like to stress once again
how pleased I was for the appointment of Jackie Lake Kavanagh as our new Child
and Youth Advocate because of her past experience. She has worked at Iris Kirby
House, which is a shelter here for women and children who have been victims of
domestic violence. She has been a long-time staff in the Department of Justice.
I believe that her life experience, her educational experience, her work
experience is so valuable and an asset that she brings to the office.
So there
are a few issues and confusions about this act. I'm looking forward, when we get
to Committee, to address some of those issues. My colleagues from the Official
Opposition have raised some of those issues. Now, I have spoken with the Youth
Advocate. I also want to thank those who have given us a very thorough briefing
on this act.
Some of
the concerns that have been raised I also had running around in my head as well.
I believe that once we get to Committee stage there may be some interesting
discussions on, for instance, the issue of why critical injury, instead of
critical incident, and why only youth who are in care, why not mandatory
reporting from all government departments and agencies.
In my
conversations with the Youth Advocate, I feel a little more confident in why
some of those decisions have been made and why the amendments appear as they do
in the act. I think it would be really interesting to discuss some of those
issues and to have the opportunity to ask the minister about why some of those
decisions were made. I think that will be a very interesting discussion.
I have
had the honour of working, in a number of instances, with the Office of the
Child and Youth Advocate on behalf of my constituents and sometimes on behalf of
children who were not even my constituents. I've always felt the children were
well represented, that the advocates really worked on their behalf.
Also, in
my discussions with both the Advocate and the Office of the Child and Youth
Advocate, I have brought issues to their office that may not have been related
specifically to an individual child with a reportable incident, but related to
the potential problems of certain government policies, or the potential problems
that might arise for children in my district because of some of the issues,
whether it be safety on the streets or other issues, whether it be economic
issues and what happens to children in families when there's a real problem with
economic issues.
Again, I
would like to say thank you to this office for the incredible work they do, for
their attention to detail and to their commitment to doing outreach, their
commitment to be proactive, to not just only receive complaints or not only just
reacting to responses to requests for investigations.
We know
that – and the discussion that we may have around some of the decisions that
were made to be included in this amendment about why not mandatory reporting by
all departments and agencies. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe that part of the
application of this amendment – and, again, we must keep in mind that this is
simply an amendment to the Child and Youth
Advocate Act; it's not the whole act.
In fact,
it is amendments dealing specifically with children who are in care who are
often our most vulnerable children in the province and, also, who may not have
parents or guardians who are able to play that role of really watching out for
their children, making sure their children are receiving what they need, making
sure their children are safe, and advocating on behalf of their children. For
the most part, Mr. Speaker, most parents are able to do that for their children.
So I do believe this is an attempt to be respectful of that process.
So, (a),
it's about really focusing on the children who are most vulnerable in our
communities, in our society; and (b), also respecting the rights and the
authority and the agency of parents who are taking care of their children. We
don't want government agencies or departments constantly, constantly and
lightly, opening files on every child.
Mr.
Speaker, I think it'll be an interesting discussion to see where that balance
really sits. Also, ensuring that all of our children are safe, are protected,
have what they need to thrive, to live fully; and, if not, that somebody knows
about that, and that someone somewhere will be advocating on their behalf. I
know it's not always the case, and that there are potentials.
It'll be
interesting to see the rollout of this legislation. Both the minister and the
Advocate have said there may be initially over-reporting. That might not be a
bad thing at first, because we're going to see how this rolls out, how different
government departments and agencies – who, by the way, do report to the
Advocate, but they are not mandated to. Again, in this case we're focusing
specifically on children in care.
So it'll be interesting to see how that's rolled out. Also,
how existing protocols, for instance, in the Department of Health, in the
Department of Education, who have protocols for the reporting of critical
incidents, serious incidents in their departments. It'll be interesting because
this is all about the whole network of all of our legislation in all of our
government departments and agencies and how they serve our children.
Also, one of the issues is we must constantly see that our
laws, our legislations, must be – as our human rights legislation – must be
living, breathing documents, and must be responsive to the needs and the
changing communities that we live in and to our changing understanding and
expertise of different issues, of different ways of providing care for our
children.
As my colleague from the Official Opposition, my colleague
from Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, pointed out, we have had different
ways of caring for our children. There was a time when we felt it was proper
care to send children to orphanages. We now know that is no longer proper.
There
are other instances where we have changed our practice. Again, legislation must
be a living, breathing document that is changed and responds to the movements,
to the changing expertise, to the changing ways we do our work within our
societies.
Again, I
would thank the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate for their dedication to
the work they do, and again to remind all of us this is a section of the act,
and that it is a focus on the most vulnerable children in our communities. I
look forward to the discussion we may have in Committee about answering some of
the outstanding questions that I myself have, that our caucus has, and also that
the Official Opposition has. I look forward to that dialogue with the minister.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for
the District of Lewisporte – Twillingate.
MR. D. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
honoured to stand here in this House of Assembly today to speak to Bill 26, An
Act to Amend the Child and Youth Advocate Act.
I'd like
to start off by thanking the Members for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, Terra Nova,
Conception Bay South and St. John's Centre for their comments earlier.
I do
have to agree with the Member for Conception Bay South about his comment about
not making this political. However, I do remind him, the Member opposite for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune began this debate by making it political and in my
opinion undermining the qualifications and abilities of our Child and Youth
Advocate.
Mr.
Speaker, I can assure you, the Members opposite and the viewing public that this
legislation was done with the full consultation and support of the Child and
Youth Advocate. I think maybe the Members opposite should have a meeting with
the Child and Youth Advocate to discuss this legislation further.
I can
assure everyone that over the past two years our government has made great
success and working toward the best interest of all children and youth in our
province, and we will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker.
She also
made reference that we are accepting being the middle of the pack. I just want
to remind her that this is the first: we are the first in Atlantic Canada to put
this legislation forward and I think we are making some great progress in that,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, this amendment, although not lengthy, is significant and very important
for children, youth and their families. The Minister of Children, Seniors and
Social Development has done an excellent job of outlining and explaining the
details of this legislation earlier during her speech.
I've had
the honour to serve as parliamentary secretary with the minister since 2015, and
it has been one of the most pressing issues for this department. I can assure
this hon. House that there has been significant work and consultation with the
Office of the Child and Youth Advocate over the last couple of years on this
important issue.
I want
to spend a bit of time discussing the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate.
This office was created in 2002 by our government as an independent statutory
office of the House of Assembly. This is an important point because it means the
office does not report to any one department of government. As an office of the
House of Assembly, it is independent and autonomous. This arrangement provides
the office to carry out its mandate, which is extensive.
The
Child and Youth Advocate is responsible for: protecting and advancing the rights
and interests of children and youth throughout the provision of advocacy
services; ensuring that children and youth have access to services and that
their complaints receive appropriate attention; informing the public about the
needs and rights of children and youth; providing information and advice to
government, agencies of the government and the two communities about the
ability, effectiveness, responsiveness and resilience of services to children
and youth; making recommendations to government regarding legislation, policies,
programs, services that are designed to meet the needs of our children and our
youth; and also conducting independent reviews and investigations.
Mr.
Speaker, I believe every one of us as legislators value and respect the work of
the Child and Youth Advocate. Government shares the goal of the Child Advocate,
which is the safety and well-being of children and youth in our province.
I have
seen first-hand the respect the Department of Children, Seniors and Social
Development has for this office. The department is co-operative in any way with
requests from the Advocate and is committed to recommendations the Advocate's
office makes as a result of any investigation or report.
Mr.
Speaker, that has been quite evident over the last two years with the reports
that have been submitted by the Advocate. We have worked diligently to make sure
these recommendations were put forward and that we made the necessary steps to
improve them.
One of
the things the office has been requesting for several years is the need for
mandatory reporting. I believe this was a request by the former Advocate that
she had raised several times before, before placing it in writing to the House
of Assembly in 2014.
Mr.
Speaker, as the minister stated earlier, this side of the House of Assembly took
this request very seriously. We introduced a motion to this act. We included the
commitment in our election platform. The Premier included it in the minister's
mandate letter and it was a commitment in the Speech from the Throne. It stands
to reason that any amendments to the Child and Youth Advocate Act must be done in conjunction with
the Advocate's office and that the amendments you see here today are a result of
our collaboration.
Both the former minister and the current minister have met
several times with the Advocate on this matter. I had the privilege of sitting
on some of those meetings, too, Mr. Speaker. We have built a co-operative
relationship with the Child and Youth Advocate, Ms. Jackie Lake Kavanagh, and
her office in order to determine the exact information the Advocate needs in
order to do her work.
There have been several meetings held between the Advocate
and the deputy ministers of Children, Seniors and Social Development and the
Department of Justice and Public Safety. Further, a committee was also
established with representatives between the two departments and the Advocate's
office with numerous in-person meetings and other communications, which has
ensured collaboration and communication throughout this process.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has described five amendments we
have proposed. It is very important that all Members of this House of Assembly,
media and members of the public who may be watching today understand that these
amendments are in collaboration with the Child and Youth Advocate. Although the
original request used the terminology critical incidents, and Members opposite
keep referring to that, it was through these meetings and communication that it
was determined critical injury best captures the scope of reporting the Advocate
required.
Jurisdictional scans also show that the reporting of
critical injuries is aligned with the practice of other Canadian provinces and
territories which report critical events. It should be noted, as the minister
previously noted, this province will be the first in the Atlantic provinces to
enshrine critical injury reporting in our Legislature.
In the department's jurisdictional scan it was also evident
that those provinces and territories which report to their advocates, the
departments are the equivalent to the Department of Children, Seniors and Social
Development and the Department of Justice and Public Safety. During ongoing
discussions with the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, it was determined
that information from these departments
would adequately address the
information the Advocate needs. This is where the priority needs to be.
Mr.
Speaker, it became quite evident to me when I first became parliamentary
secretary the devotion and passion the social workers and other employees of
Children, Seniors and Social Development have to their work. I have participated
in a number of site visits and meetings with social workers in this area and I'm
always impressed by their commitment to their work, the families they serve, and
the safety and well-being of children in their care.
The work
to protect children goes on daily. Through these amendments, the most serious of
situations that meet the criteria of critical injury will be reported to the
Advocate. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear, regardless if a matter
meets the criteria and is referred to the Advocate's office, our department will
continue to respond and act upon each appropriately as required under our
legislation and policy.
Mr.
Speaker, these amendments are positive ones to the Child and Youth Advocate's
legislation. There has been a lot of good work done in order to advance these
important amendments by our provincial government and the Child and Youth
Advocate.
For
those who may have missed the minister's speech, I will again reiterate the five
specific amendments to Bill 26. Definition of critical injury: the proposed
definition of critical injury is one that may result in the child or youth's
death, or cause serious or long-term impairment to the child or youth's health.
Designated services: the proposed amendment will require mandatory reporting of
death and critical injuries that occur while a child or youth is receiving
services from the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development and the
Department of Justice and Public Safety, or within 12 months of receiving these
services.
Timeline
to report: the proposed amendment will require the Department of Children,
Seniors and Social Development and the Department of Justice and Public Safety
to notify the Child and Youth Advocate as soon as practicable after becoming
aware of a death or critical injury of a child or youth.
Fourthly, designated reporting: the proposed amendment will specify that the
deputy minister of a department or his or her designate shall report the death
or critical injury to the Advocate.
Finally,
protection for employees providing the information: the proposed amendment will
provide individual employees who report the death or critical injury with
protection from being sued, provided they act in good faith.
Mr.
Speaker, in closing, I just want to say that I'm supporting Bill 26, An Act to
Amend the Child and Youth Advocate Act, and I ask all hon. Members to support
this bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just
going to take a couple of moments to speak to this bill. I guess this is
probably one of the most important bills we have debated and probably will
debate during this sitting of the House because, as has been said, we're talking
about children. We're talking about the most vulnerable amongst us.
It's
hard to wrap your head around it, as a parent myself, two daughters of my own
and a grandchild on the way at some point in time, hopefully. I can't imagine
some of the situations that you hear about in the media and through other means
of how children, whether they be children in care of the province or whether
they be children in care of the parents or children in alternate arrangements.
It's hard to get your head around how anybody could ever do harm to a child, but
it happens nonetheless. Unfortunately, it happens.
We've
seen it so many times and what we're doing here is we're just putting measures
in place that's going to further protect children. We do have systems in place
now, but we do know there are gaps in the system. One of the gaps of course was
the mandatory reporting of deaths and serious injuries to children to the Child
and Youth Advocate's office. That's a gap that's being closed. It's certainly
something that's been called upon over the last number of years by the former
Child and Youth Advocate. Unfortunately, it didn't get done at that time and now
it's coming forward to be done.
I'm sure
every member in this House – I know every Member in this House is going to
support this bill. Why wouldn't we? Like I said, we're here to protect children
and it's important that we do it.
So with
that said, Mr. Speaker, I guess I'll just go on record to say I support the bill
100 per cent. I'm glad the government is bringing it in. That said, as has been
said by other Members here on this side of the House, there are some questions
and concerns that we have. We had the briefing and so on, on the bill, and I
want to thank the staff for the informative briefing that was given. But there's
no doubt that there are some concerns here in the fact that we're really dealing
with two departments in terms of the requirement to report to the Child and
Youth Advocate. We're talking about the Department of Children, Seniors and
Social Development, formally CYFS, and we're talking about the Department of
Justice for children that are in care and receiving services from those
particular departments.
What is
not being covered off here, as has already been said, are children that are
having dealings with, in particular, the Department of Health and Community
Services, as well as the Department of Education. I know I've heard some
commentary, well, if there are children, if there are concerns that arise from
that that doctors and nurses, in the case of health care, they have a
responsibility. Teachers, guidance counsellors and so on, they have
responsibilities and so on.
I'm sure
that in all cases, or most cases, that will happen. I know they take these
responsibilities seriously. I'm sure that in most cases these things will be
caught up on. Nonetheless, there still remains that gap that's not covered and I
don't understand why we wouldn't just simply add those two departments in
particular to the two that are already considered in the bill. It would just
seem reasonable that we would do it. I can't understand why we wouldn't do it.
The only
thing I heard from staff or the sense I got from staff was it might be an issue
of resources in terms of there's only so much that the Child and Youth
Advocate's office can handle and perhaps adding those two departments might add
to the workload that exists in the Child and Youth Advocate's office. If that's
the rationale, then I would like the minister to simply state that is the issue.
Tell us that's the issue and what resources would be required over and above
what's currently there to include this, if that indeed is an issue.
Beyond
that, as I said I'm supportive of the bill, but I really do think that we should
be including education and we should be including health care. Another comment I
heard is that parents have a responsibility, and there's no doubt parents do
have a responsibility but, then again, we've heard of scenarios, unfortunately
and sadly, in the community where the parents were the actual perpetrators. They
weren't just not protecting their children from others; they were the actual
perpetrators themselves. Unfortunately, those things have happened. Hard to
imagine, hard to get your head around, but nonetheless, it's the reality.
I would
personally like to see the Department of Health and the Department of Education
included. I also have a concern or a question around what they call emancipated
youth, children who may have been, I guess for lack of – I'm not sure of the
exact term. I'm going to say a ward of the state, so to speak, but when they
turn 16, they can basically sign off a waiver, if you will, to say that they no
longer, at the age of 16, report to or receive services from CYFS and so on.
They are called, I think, emancipated youth is the terminology. What happens to
those children between 16 and 19? Do they fall through the gaps, between the
cracks, if you will, with this legislation?
We can
all talk about the fact that this was something that was asked for in the past,
whether or not former governments had an opportunity to put it in place and they
didn't – and I'm sure they can explain their own reasons. Maybe they had good
reasons or maybe they didn't, I don't know. At the end of the day, just because
the other administration didn't do it and just because this administration is
doing it, which is a good thing, Mr. Speaker – it's a good thing; it's a
positive thing – that doesn't mean that we simply say because you're doing
something that should have been done and wasn't done, then we just accept on
face value 100 per cent that what you're doing now, while it's better than what
we have today, which is nothing in this regard, that doesn't mean we say because
we had nothing now we have something and we have something good that we
shouldn't improve it or we shouldn't raise concerns.
As has
been said, that's the whole idea of debate in the House of Assembly, that we
have that debate back and forth and Members on this side of the House can offer
suggestions, bring forward concerns that they might have with the legislation.
I'm sure that the minister and so on and Cabinet, I'm sure that these issues are
not new –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
I'm sure those Members asked the same questions we're asking, and maybe there is
a good reason why it is the way it is. I don't know those answers because I
wasn't there. I don't know, but I can guess. I'm sure the minister responsible
for this department and other ministers and Cabinet, they would have asked the
same question: Why is health not included? Why is education not included?
I'm sure
there was a reason given and a rationale that maybe they're more aware of than
we would be aware of. Hopefully, when we get into the Committee of the Whole, we
can get the answers to those questions as to exactly what the rationale is.
Maybe it's good rationale; maybe it's reasonable. Maybe at some point in time,
this is a first step and they're going to enhance it as we move forward –
perhaps, I don't know.
Certainly, from this side when you receive this and you get your briefing and
you find out there are departments that are not being covered off that would
definitely involve youth, whether it be health, whether it be education, then
you have to ask the question why? Why are they not included? Wouldn't it be
better to include them? Would it not be better to close off all the gaps?
That's
my commentary, Mr. Speaker. It's nothing new. Other Members here have said it. I
share the concerns. I look forward to some answers on it when we get to
Committee.
With
that being said, although I have those questions and concerns, I still support
what's being done here. I do believe it is still good legislation, something
that should have been done a long time ago. I'm glad this government has taken
the initiative to actually do it, and I'm sure it is going to pay off and it's
going to be beneficial to many children.
God
knows, we would hope they would never need to avail of some of the services or
they wouldn't require the advocacy that would be provided because we would hope
that things would never happen to them, but we know, if we look through history,
right up through the years, sadly, we know that for many reasons, whether it be
because of neglect, whether it be because of mental health, addictions issues
that perhaps parents and caregivers might have and a whole host of other things,
unfortunately, we know there are going to be more instances in the future where
children are going to need this required protection.
The fact
that we're putting this protection in place is a positive thing, and I will be
supporting the bill 100 per cent. Again, just adding to it, I think it could be
made a little bit better if we had to include those other two departments within
the bill; other than that, congratulations to the government, to the minister,
kudos for doing it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the House of Assembly this afternoon is debating a very important bill,
maybe the most important bill the House has discussed this fall; if not,
certainly one of the most important. To me it's a very, very important one.
We're talking about mandatory reporting, and when we're talking about mandatory
reporting for health and children, I don't think there's anything more important
that we could talk about.
Mr.
Speaker, my comments this afternoon are going to focus on a couple of key areas
on this relatively short amendment to the
Child and Youth Advocate Act. Mr. Speaker, this goes back a couple of years.
The Child and Youth Advocate Act was
first brought forward, I think it was, in 2002.
In 2014,
the Advocate herself – the Advocate at that time, who's no longer the Advocate –
had asked for amendments to legislation arising from her many years of
experience and incidents she had experienced during her time as the Child and
Youth Advocate. I can tell you, in 2014 when she raised this – for me, I know it
was a very serious issue, a very serious matter – and through the fall of 2014,
into the fall of 2015, during the following year, there was a considerable
amount of work done to try and finalize those amendments.
I know
Members opposite want to stand up and say, oh, you didn't do this, you didn't do
that. Well, Mr. Speaker, I really don't want to go down that road because it's
not about that. I can tell you and I can tell you quite confidently, and ensure
you from my own personal knowledge, that there was a tremendous amount of work
done by a working group made up of senior officials in four departments: Child,
Youth and Family Services, as it was at the time; the Department of Justice and
Public Safety; Health and Community Services; and also the Department of
Education. There was a tremendous amount of work done by officials in those
departments.
At the
same time that this was taking place – I remember clearly sitting in government
– the Opposition, who is now the government, at the time were lobbying and
pushing very, very hard for this legislation to come through. I know earlier
speakers have talked about what their commitments were and what they were
looking for back in those days and I'm not going to rehash all of that here this
afternoon, but I will just remind the House that in the mandate letter of the
former minister, who first started in a role when the change of government
happened, it referred to this very matter.
The
mandate letter said, and I quote: I expect you “to work with your colleagues and
the Child Youth Advocate to develop legislation for the House of Assembly that
will make it mandatory to report deaths and critical incidents to the advocate.”
It's
important to note, Mr. Speaker, the letter indicates incidents. This is not what
the legislation today covers. Today is about critical injury.
Mr.
Speaker, I suggest to the House, and stand here today, that there is a
significant difference in critical injury, as defined in the bill, and a
critical incident. They are not the same thing at all, Mr. Speaker. The mandate
letter refers to critical incidents. Actually, the 2017 Throne Speech also
refers to this. I think this was referenced earlier by my colleague from Fortune
Bay – Cape La Hune, who I think did a fantastic job in discussing details and
the concerns from Members on this side of the House and providing a little bit
of history and background.
The 2017
Throne Speech reads: “Our Government will continue to work cooperatively with
the Child and Youth Advocate to develop legislation on mandatory reporting of
critical incidents and deaths to the advocate for consideration in the House of
Assembly.”
So, Mr.
Speaker, after a year's work by officials in 2014-2015, and two years of work by
the current government, three years of work in total, we are now here debating
this amendment that is before the House.
Mr.
Speaker, it's not so much about what's in the bill, because I support as well
the concept of what is in this bill. We support the concept, but as the Member
for Mount Pearl – Southlands just talked about, there are other concerns and
other issues because, for me, it's about what's not in the bill.
In
Question Period today, the minister was asked why Health and Community Services
was not included as a designated service in the bill, and I didn't hear the
rationale for that. I heard about what's in the bill. I heard about what's
included and what's being done, but I didn't hear rationale for why it's not
included.
Education is another area. What the government has proposed here, to be clear,
in this bill, in this amendment to the
Child and Youth Advocate Act, is to define a critical injury – not a
critical incident, but a critical injury, meaning an injury which may result in
the death of a child or youth or may cause serious or long-term impairment of
the health of a child or youth.
Mr.
Speaker, my concern is that there can be a broad variety of critical incidents
that don't necessarily result in a critical injury. In cases such as that, then
they will not be required to be reported to the Child and Youth Advocate.
As well, the bill this afternoon designates services and it defines
designated services. Under the bill “'designated services' means the following
services provided directly to a child or youth ….” It's not just services for a
family, but it's directly to a child or youth.
It's two parts: “(i) services provided by the Department of Children,
Seniors and Social Development under its protective intervention, kinship, in
care, youth services and community youth corrections programs, and
(ii) services provided
by the Department of Justice and Public Safety to children or youth in custody
at the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre or a designated youth holding
facility or to children or youth temporarily held in adult correction facilities
administered by Corrections and Community Services or a successor division of
the Department of Justice and Public Safety.”
Mr. Speaker, essentially what this says is that if a child or youth is in
custody under the Department of Justice and Public Safety, under Youth
Corrections or in an Adult Corrections facility and there's a critical injury,
it must be reported, or if a child is directly receiving services from the
Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development. What it doesn't say, Mr.
Speaker, is all of the other critical incidents that can occur and have occurred
in the past.
Colleagues on this side of the House have made a choice not to bring in
specific incidents to this debate. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I gave
considerable thought that because there are, I'm sure, many incidents that I
could try and refer to and relate to and use as examples, but I am choosing not
to do that. I don't think it's necessary to do that. I don't think it's
respectful to circumstances that families or communities have experienced in the
past, but I may refer to a such as or some will refer to as a hypothetical
circumstance. I'm choosing not to do that. Others have, but I'm not going to do
that. I don't think it's necessary or appropriate.
Under
the bill, under critical injury, if you think about the difference of critical
incident – and there are a number of examples that you could think about with a
critical incident. There could be the attempts that we sometimes hear or there
is a risk or something was about to happen. There was an intervention that
prevented it.
There
are health care examples that we could consider and ask about. If in a neonatal
unit, as an example – strictly and completely hypothetical – a child all of a
sudden couldn't be located, but is located fairly soon after and there wasn't a
serious known outcome, that may not be considered to be a serious incident.
Under this bill – because Health and Community Services and regional health
authorities are not included – that would not have to be reported.
What if
that happened in a facility a second time in a short period of time, or a third
time in a short period of time? Under this bill, a circumstance like that, Mr.
Speaker, does not have to be reported. While a single incident wouldn't be a
serious injury or a critical injury, it could be considered to be a critical
incident. Or when reported to the Child and Youth Advocate, the Child and Youth
Advocate may say let's keep an eye on this; it looks like an innocent occurrence
that happened. It looks like the regional health authority responded
appropriately and we don't need to do anything with it. We don't need to look at
it further. The Child and Youth Advocate can decide to do that.
If it
happens a second time or a third time over a short period of time, or a matter
of months, or whatever the case may be – again, it's strictly hypothetical –
then the regional health authority, the Department of Health and the government
are not obligated to report such an incident. I would suggest that if it was a
repeated occurrence especially, that many would consider that to be a critical
incident, even though it may not be a critical injury.
Mr.
Speaker, one of the questions that remain unanswered for us as an Opposition is
what is the rationale for Health and Community Services, our regional health
authorities and Education, including the school boards and delivery of services
through education, through schools which are done by school boards, school
authorities? Why are they not included? I just can't, for the life of me,
understand that when the government themselves were on this side of the House,
continued to advocate, consistently advocate and push for such an inclusion in
their bill.
So
somewhere along the way, the government's changed its mind and changed its
focus. As a matter of fact, my understanding is that the working group of senior
officials under our government included Children, Seniors and Social
Development, as it is known now, the Department of Justice and Public Safety,
Health and Community Services and Education and, through the new government's
initiative, eliminated Health and Community Services and Education.
So we
intend to try and seek more information from the minister on how that happened,
why it happened, what's the rationale for it. And what is the benefit of leaving
those circumstances out of the bill? What is the benefit to children and youth
by leaving that out of the bill and the bill remaining as silent on it?
The
other aspect, Mr. Speaker, if I move to paragraph (2) – so
the amendment is to amend section 16, to add after 16, 16.1. Paragraph (2) says:
“Where a child or youth dies or experiences a critical injury while receiving a
designated service or within 12 months of receiving a designated service, the
deputy minister of a department, or his or her designate, shall report the death
or critical injury to the advocate.”
Now, two
things I'd say about that here in second reading – again, when we get to
Committee I'm sure we're going to discuss this further. But, Mr. Speaker, what
if it's 12½ months or 13 months after a service, or 18 months after a service?
Maybe there was a long, extended period of a designated service, which is very
narrow, as I've already talked about. It's essentially if the child is not in a
secure facility, then receiving services from the Department of Children,
Seniors and Social Development. But what if there was a long trail and 12 or 13
months later – what if a child is a child that is adopted, and two years later
there are some issues arise? Should that not be included in what this bill would
cover?
There
are a number of scenarios and circumstances that we could discuss and consider,
especially based on history and past practice and knowledge, but we could make,
I'm sure, lots of reasonable what-if suggestions. But it still remains why not?
Why not have those included and why not broaden the range of what's included
under the bill?
So, Mr.
Speaker, they are just some very high-level concerns we have on this bill that
I, myself, as a Member of this House, have on this bill. What is here on this
bill, I know for the government, it will check that box and it will say we did
what we promised to do. They'll be able to say: Oh, we did it; we made mandatory
reporting.
They
also made an Independent Appointments Commission that has no authority to
appoint, but it checked the box. They were able to check the box and say: Well,
we promised to create an Independent Appointments Commission. But what they've
appointed is an Independent Appointments Commission that doesn't have the
authority to appoint.
They've
said we're going to create a Seniors' Advocate. Well, they've created a Seniors'
Advocate that has no authority to advocate for seniors. The Seniors' Advocate
has no authority, nothing anywhere remotely similar to what the Child and Youth
Advocate has to advocate.
Mr.
Speaker, there are other examples. This will check the box for the governing
party on bringing forward mandatory reporting, but my submission on second
reading here is that it comes up far short of what we need in our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development speaks now, she will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
want to thank the speakers to the bill here in second reading and I'm sure
there'll be lots more dialogue as we go into Committee. There were three – the
Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, Conception Bay South, St. John's Centre,
Terra Nova, Lewisporte – Twillingate, Mount Pearl – Southlands and Topsail –
Paradise that spoke today; but, Mr. Speaker, I'd be remiss if I sat down and I
didn't address some of the feedback that I heard here this afternoon.
First of
all, Mr. Speaker, somewhere along the line most of the speakers this afternoon
missed the memo that what we are doing today, what guided the amendments of the
Child and Youth Advocate Act, is that
we were responding to what the current Advocate wanted.
The
Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, she threw a lot out in a short time and
basically what I extrapolated from what she said was we had a former Advocate,
she wanted something, we were there, we didn't listen to her when she was there,
now she's gone, you guys are in, would you listen to her. That's basically what
I got from what she said. We were in government and when the former Advocate was
there she called four times over four years and they didn't respond. So now she
wants us to listen to the former Advocate.
What I
want to say to the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune: She talked a lot about
the Advocate today; we're talking to the Advocate. We're talking to the Advocate
today, Mr. Speaker. If she's following what CBC is reporting today, what the
Advocate is out saying about where we're going in this House, it's very, very
positive. I'm quite encouraged.
I did
make a couple of notes on what the Advocate said. She said: Today, there has
been significant development for advocacy in our province. The Advocate today
said: “This has been a long time coming.” I suppose it was, Mr. Speaker. They
had 12 years to do this and nothing was done. The other thing that's really,
really important for people to note here, Mr. Speaker – and I picked up on this
in the Advocate's coverage today in the media – she said: “If gaps are
identified … she will ask for further changes.”
When I
was leaving the Broadcast Centre today, the media centre, I had a brief exchange
with her. We thanked each other for the work that's happening. She plays a very
important role and I guess I have been given a portfolio with a tremendous
responsibility. At the end of the day, we both want the same thing: safer
children, safer youth, stronger families in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, at the end of the day, if what we did today was not enough – it is
certainly what the Advocate wanted; it was done in support of her – I am sure
she will be back with recommendations. I want to reiterate to this House that
any time the Advocate comes with recommendations, we embrace them
wholeheartedly. There are not enough checks and balances that can be put in
place for the care of children.
I have
to say again, Mr. Speaker, I found it offensive today. What the current Advocate
asked for, what she wanted, what guided our amendments was completely dismissed.
The current Advocate, in collaboration with Children, Seniors and Social
Development and Justice and Public Safety, determined that the definition of
critical incidents was broader than necessary. That was the Advocate. I respect
that. I respect the work she does. She determined it was broader than necessary.
As I said earlier, a jurisdictional scan showed that what we are doing is in
line with other provinces and territories.
Is the
Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune suggesting we dismiss what the Advocate
wants, an independent office of the House, and we dictate to an independent
officer? Well, Mr. Speaker, we know our place and we know that there are lines
and there are boundaries that we don't cross. We work in collaboration with her,
but we do not dictate how she runs her shop down the road, doing very valuable
work for the children in this province.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune referenced a PMR from
November 14 and what was called for in the House. Well, I would say to her: You
were in power in 2014. You were in power in 2015. Why didn't you do it?
The
Member for Conception Bay South said: If you don't get it right, then you fail.
Well, I want to say: You guys obviously failed miserably because you did nothing
over a 12-year period – nothing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune talked about the tragedy of getting it wrong and
seeing today as a step backwards. Once again, we have staff in CSSD who put a
tremendous amount of work into this. We did it again in line with what the
Advocate felt was needed to carry out the important work that she does.
Mr.
Speaker, when people throw around words like tragedy, I'm not going to go down
that road today, but there are some of us who understand a little bit more than
others in this House what it means to live with a tragedy. I can tell you today,
I'm encouraged by the media that I'm seeing play out since we have announced
this that we are making very, very big steps today with mandating the reporting
of deaths and critical injuries of children in our province.
I also
took great offence to the implication that our highly trained professionals
would hide information. The Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune is on record
today in this hon. House. I have so much respect for the people I have been
working with over the last four months since I have been in this portfolio. I
take great offence to the implication that those professionals who work –
registered professionals with a professional code of conduct and there would be
an implication that they would hide information, Mr. Speaker.
I think
it's important in closing that I talk about, again, a moment of the mandate of
the current Advocate. The current Advocate has a very, very, very broad mandate.
While we are mandating the reporting of deaths and critical injuries, Mr.
Speaker, any child in this province can go to the Advocate with a concern; any
parent in this province can go to the Advocate, and if the Advocate so chooses,
she can investigate. She has a very, very broad mandate in this province.
Mr.
Speaker, we've heard from the speakers, a number of them, asking questions about
the definition of injury versus incident. Critical incident is a broad term that
covers many of the day-to-day work of child protection. So I don't know if the
Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune was insinuating we no longer need social
workers doing their important day-to-day work and everything can just go to the
Advocate. I'm not sure. There were a lot of broad, sweeping statements made.
Mr.
Speaker, we have to be respectful here of parents who lose children when we're
thinking about death. If we have a child – and we do, there are parents that
live with this reality every day. If we have parents that lose a child to cancer
at the Janeway, that's not a natural cause of death, but I certainly don't know
if those parents want that death to be reported to the Advocate and
investigated.
I know
what I'm talking about, Mr. Speaker. I am well connected with a lot of families
who sadly have lost children in this life. Many of them do not want that being
reported to the Advocate. We need to bear all that in mind.
I think
the part that got lost in this today, Mr. Speaker, is that what we are doing, we
did it in full collaboration with the current Advocate. She felt the definition
of critical incidents was broader than was necessary for the scope of reporting.
I'm very pleased to be a part of that. I look forward to Committee. I look
forward to answering some of the direct questions that may come.
Health
came up a number of times, and I just want to touch on that for a moment, Mr.
Speaker. Through the provincial occurrence reporting system, the regional health
authorities, the RHAs, have a process in place to review and investigate
occurrences that result in serious harm to any patient that accesses health care
services through an RHA.
Mr.
Speaker, we already have processes in place in that area. The Minister of
Health, my colleague, we were all very pleased here in the spring of '17, I
believe it was, when he brought in new patient safety legislation that
standardizes and imposes a legal obligation for this process to occur.
Information will be disclosed to the patients and their families and they can
then decide if they need to take further action, which may include connecting
with the Advocate.
So, Mr.
Speaker, it is a bit unfortunate – you're talking about a heavy topic here, the
mandatory reporting of deaths and critical injuries, and then politics get into
play. I find that difficult to talk about as well.
Mr.
Speaker, this legislation includes all children receiving services from CSSD,
not just those in care. I just want to make that clear for the record as well
because, Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question in Question Period: How many
children are in care? There are around 1,013 now, but my department supports
many, many more children than that. We actually are working with around 3,000
families in this province, families that for various reasons need that extra
support. We have very highly trained, qualified staff that works with those.
Mr.
Speaker, does the bill go far enough today? We have heard a number of Members
get up and say the bill doesn't go far enough. The Advocate feels it's
sufficient and it does go far enough. As minister of children and youth in care
and protection, I am more concerned about what the Advocate wants and the
direction we should be going in than some other hon. Members – no disrespect,
Mr. Speaker – in this hon. House.
It
mandates those departments who service the most vulnerable to report to the
Child and Youth Advocate, the Office of CSSD, the Office of Justice and Public
Safety, children in our care that don't have the natural advocates out there
that maybe would advocate for them. The Advocate agrees and, Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased with that.
With
that, I'll take my place, Mr. Speaker. I'll just clue up with saying it is hard
to sit and listen when somebody is bashing, bashing, bashing a bill on such an
important, heavy topic, when four times over four years the Advocate called on
the PC administration for mandatory reporting and they refused, they stalled,
they delayed, they never did it.
Mr.
Speaker, it was a Liberal government who put the Office of the Child and Youth
Advocate in place and I am pleased now to play a tiny role in being a part of a
government that is enshrining in legislation an independent voice for children
in our province and playing a little role in helping to move this really
important bill, Bill 26, An Act to Amend the Child And Youth Advocate Act, to
mandate the reporting of deaths and critical injuries in our province.
I look
forward to working with all Members in this House as we move this bill into
Committee and get into more specific questions.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 26 be now read a second time. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Child And Youth Advocate Act. (Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Presently.
MR. SPEAKER:
Presently.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act,” read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by
leave. (Bill 26)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I would
call from the Order Paper, Order 8, second reading of Bill 24.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Establish A Serious Incident Response Team
For The Province.” (Bill 24)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to rise this evening and speak to Bill 24, An Act to Establish a Serious
Incident Response Team for the Province.
This
particular bill will establish the civilian-led Serious Incident Response Team,
referred to as SIRT. It will provide oversight of policing by providing
independent investigation. The team will be responsible for investigating all
matters that involve a death, a serious injury, things like a sexual offence,
domestic violence, and other matters of significant public interest that arises
from actions of police officers in the province.
According to some of the consultations and some of the things we've been
presented with and discussions we've had here and presentation by the minister,
extensive consultation was done with necessary stakeholders. What was relayed to
us, there was much agreement in regard to progressing ahead in what we find in
Bill 24.
I
understand, too, there was a lot of interjurisdictional review done in other
parts of the country in regard to where such an entity exists, what that entity
looks like, certainly what the pros and cons of that institution is. I'm sure in
looking at that, that was adapted to what's presented here in Bill 24.
Many of
the items that would be covered are issues of important public interest that may
have arisen from actions of a police officer in the province. A director would
ultimately determine if something is to be considered a serious incident that
would need to be part of the Serious Incident Response Team for the province and
referred to it.
This
particular entity and the legislation in particular would be relevant to both
the RCMP and the RNC – two of the police forces, as we know, that provide the
service to our province – are able to investigate, my understanding, on- or
off-duty conduct, and the director would be responsible to the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety for certain aspects such as budget, but the team,
which importantly, is my understanding, would be operationally independent. So
while the funding would be provided for the team, the team would need to have
that unbiased, separate entity, function and focus to be able to carry out
independent reviews of any particular investigation.
The
director and investigators, as we understand, is outlined in the bill and what
we received in a briefing. The director would be a civilian, someone who has
never served as a police officer and possibly held, at some point, maybe by a
lawyer, and Cabinet would determine the salary of this individual – the
director.
So the
director would be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I think it's
indicated for a five-year term, with the ability to reappointment for an
additional five-year term. So it could be a possible 10-year term for that
individual that's appointed as a director. It will not go through the
Independent Appointments Commission because it's a public servant position,
we're told.
There
were some concerns raised in regard to the potential level of optics for Cabinet
appointing an independent body to fill these positions, but the point was made
that it would be no different than any appointment of the superintendent of
prisons. This is very similar in terms of the process and what would take place
in regard to that appointment.
Cabinet
may appoint, under what is being proposed, an interim director for a term of not
exceeding one year, where the director ceases to hold office or is unable to
perform the duties. So that would go to, Mr. Speaker, certainly the incident
where if someone in the position needed to vacate it for any number of reasons,
and for an interim period of time of the year, Cabinet or government would have
the ability to temporary appoint that position, so in terms of carrying out of
legislation and having continuity of the process that would exist.
The
director of SIRT may, after consultation with the director of Public
Prosecutions, designate a Crown attorney to be the acting director while the
director is absent or unable to perform their duties. So that's how that process
would evolve in terms of getting that temporary position.
An
acting director can be appointed for no longer than an actual three-month term.
So that would relate to the director who provides the oversight. Then we have
investigators that would carry out the work and, I guess, carry out interviews,
collect data, all of those things that are needed in particular investigations
like this. My understanding from what has been outlined here, they could be
ex-police officers, seconded police officers or civilian investigators.
So
during our briefing as well in regard to some of the issues – and we may talk
about this in Committee – there was some concern raised regarding the fact that
having a police officer seconded to investigate other officers and then
subsequently return to service, could have an element of police investigating
themselves. Because while they've been seconded away from their normal duties
and wouldn't be associated with or involved in that particular police force or a
division in it and would be autonomous from that current police force or the
organization, would be outside of it serving with this new body, at some point
they would return to a police force or the prior organization which they
serviced. Maybe we'll have some questions on that again as we get to Committee
stage and the minister can speak to that.
Cabinet
will determine the salary of the investigator, as I just described, and both the
director and the investigators in accordance with the legislation and bill will
be considered peace officers.
I
mentioned the investigators and who may be part of that group. There was an
option to have seconded officers that would be taken from a police force and
seconded for a period of time to do a particular investigation. In that
particular case, once seconded, that police officer reports solely to and is
under the direction of the command of the director of SIRT. We certainly
understand and recognize the importance of that because that goes to the
autonomy of this SIRT and the organization or the entity and the legislation and
the independence to provide that independent oversight and investigation.
Officers
can be seconded for a specific incident or for a two-year term, so based on
what's required at any particular time. The seconded officer could be seconded
for a specific incident, to review it or to a period of a two-year term.
In an
attempt to eliminate any potential conflict of interest, the seconded officer
cannot be a team leader or lead investigator of a police officer from their home
agency, which brings to that issue of independence to be outside of that
interaction or scope of involvements with individuals to give that air of
independence and no bias. So certainly we recognize what that provision is
looking to achieve.
A model
similar to one proposed here, is my understanding, re: seconded officers have
been looked at in other jurisdictions, I believe Alberta, Nova Scotia and
Manitoba, to look at how that actually operates in other jurisdictions related
to seconded officers. That is in line, it's my understanding, with the
jurisdictions, as I said, of Alberta, Nova Scotia and Manitoba.
We have
gone through the appointment of the director, how that comes about, duration,
time, authority and scope, then the investigators that would report to the
director and their secondment. Then, we would get into the actual investigation
or the activities and how it would be carried out in a particular case, as has
been identified, or instance or activity that would be reviewed.
Both
provincial police forces would be required to notify SIRT of incidents that may
fall within its mandates. SIRT has the ability to initiate its own
investigation, so it could happen either-or. It could be something that's called
on or asked for, or it could be SIRT itself has some concern, something comes to
its attention or has identified something and has indicated and has the
authority to proceed with investigations. Referrals for investigations may be
accepted from public or the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
What
happens to start this process? Notifying the director of a serious incident,
what happens then? “A chief officer shall notify the director as soon as
practicable where the chief officer believes that a serious incident may have
occurred.”
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Or “where the minister
believes that a serious incident may have occurred and the chief officer has not
notified the director, the minister may notify the director.” I guess there are
a couple of avenues here for this investigation to be initiated and for who
would initiate it in particular.
Upon
being notified, the director may do the following, and that gives the director
authority and autonomy to proceed in regard to the investigation: arrange for
that investigation to be undertaken, which may involve taking over an ongoing
investigation at any stage; refer the matter to an agency to conduct the
investigation; upon consultation with a chief officer, assign one or more police
officers to assist or advise an agency that is investigating a serious incident
or assist or advise the SIRT investigation into that serious incident.
The
director can “(d) enter into an agreement to have an independent team or agency
from another province conduct an investigation; (e) direct that the Serious
Incident Response Team oversee, observe, monitor or review an investigation by
an agency; (f) appoint a community liaison or observer to work with the Serious
Incident Response Team in the course of an investigation; (g) refer the matter
to the chief officer or Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Public Complaints
Commission under section 19 of the Royal
Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1992 ….”
So the
director can also avail of current legislation, or a process that would exist if
the director thought it was appropriate, and one in particular would be the RNC
Public Complaints Commission under section 19 of the RNC Act. In addition, the
director can refer the matter under the complaints process in Part VII of the
RCMP Act – again, another piece of legislation which would be a federal statute,
I would assume, that could be referenced by the director.
As well,
the director can determine that the matter is not within the mandate of SIRT. So
if something came up there would be an evaluation done – it could be from the
public or elsewhere – to investigate a certain occurrence or happening, and at
that time the director and SIRT could determine that it wasn't within their
mandate to do so.
So as
you can see here in regard to notifying the director of a serious incident and
when that happens and upon notification, the authority that is held by the
director is significant and has broad discretionary power in terms of how you
would move forward once that complaint was made or discovered. The broad
discretionary power to investigate, with the ultimate decision to investigate or
take over an investigation referred to another agency, is left to the director
of SIRT. As I said, that's a broad spectrum of discretion and power that the
director would hold under the current legislation we're talking about, Bill 24.
There is
also duty to consult the director of Public Prosecutions. So upon the conclusion
of an investigation, the director of SIRT must consult with the director of
Public Prosecutions. My understanding is the final decision on whether to lay
charges is with the director of SIRT. So they've gone through, done their
investigation, used the avenues that are available to them in regard to the
investigations, investigators and all of that process, they would come to a
conclusion, the director of SIRT would, in regard to the laying of charges.
As well,
this bill will deal with investigative summary and update at the end of the
process, and there's a time limit in regard to the response and turnaround time
once that investigation is completed. Upon conclusion of investigation, no later
than three months, the director will be required to issue a public summary of
the investigation to the minister of Justice and Public Safety, chief of the
relevant police agency that the investigation is involved, as well as the police
officer under investigation and the person directly affected by the incident.
That
could be someone in the general public, someone associated in the police force,
whatever the case, these are the parties, within three months, must be notified
of the conclusions of the investigation. They are the Minister of Justice and
Public Safety, the chief of the relevant police agency in question here, the
police officer under investigation and the affected person involved in the
incident that was investigated.
There'll
be a duty to provide an investigative update within 45 days and then every 45
days thereafter. This will not be done in the circumstances that such an update
would negatively impact an active investigation. That gets to the point of an
ongoing investigation. The public realizes that something has been referred to
SIRT, a particular occurrence or concern, the investigation is ongoing and in
that process, as it goes forward, there will be an attempt through this, my
understanding, to provide an investigative update.
That
investigative update, as long as it doesn't negatively impact the ongoing active
investigation, as sometimes depending on what may transpire could indeed, my
understanding would be a call made by the director in providing those 45-day
updates.
As well
during our briefing, there was discussion about rather than a summary of the
investigation there would be required to issue a full report, similar to what we
saw recently in the Barry inquiry for report at that time. An annual report will
be tabled each year and will let the public know what the activities of the SIRT
are and what's being carried out over that 12-month period.
That
would look at the number of investigations started and concluded in that
particular year, the nature of each investigation. I guess we could quantify or
qualify the types of investigations that are ongoing. In some cases, maybe there
was a trend or you could certainly identify what types of things that SIRT is
looking into and the result of each investigation; what happened, what was the
investigation summary and those types of elements that flowed out of the
investigation and the work that was done.
As well,
the annual report tabled each year would look at the number of charges against
police officers laid in that year, if any, or how many. Other administration and
financial details, as the minister may direct – I guess the minister at some
point may have issues in regard to how the office functions, what actions it
carries out, results and information it acquires and how you can use that to
make information available to the public in regard to specific actions by any
police force that are being investigated or being reviewed and those other
matters as prescribed by regulations.
The act
would give authority, as most legislation does, to invoke regulatory framework
and regulations that would define in greater detail the authority, direction,
the expectations of what this organization, as set up, should do and that could
evolve in the future. So regulatory changes or regulatory framework could be
adopted, it could be changed, it could be modified based on the function of the
entity and the results it has or if for some instance in the future it's seen
that changes need to be made.
The
regulations are to be set out in further detail. The minister may make
regulations related to “(a) prescribing the duties of the director; (b)
respecting notifications of serious incidents; (c) respecting investigations;
(d) respecting investigation updates; (e) respecting investigation summaries;
(f) respecting annual reports; (g) defining a word or expression that is used
but not defined in this Act; and (h) generally, to give effect to the purpose of
the Act.”
So a lot
of what I just described there is much of what we talked about in regard to the
setting up of this particular office, and the response team, and what their role
would be, and the ability to set up a regulatory framework and as well any time
thereafter to amend or assist in changing that regulatory framework to meet the
needs of the day.
And no
doubt something like this and the response team when it's set up from what it's
originally set up as and its function, what we think it may be used for, and
foresee today in years following there may be other items that come up that we
become aware of that we need to have the regulatory framework changed and the
legislation certainly allows us to do it.
SIRT
will be subject to ATIPPA, but will not apply to ongoing investigations nor will
it apply to a case where there is only a suspicion of guilt, but no charge laid.
So as the summary report is completed by the response team, at that point then
there would be applications in regard to ATIPPA and an ongoing investigation.
This is
a piece of legislation that we support and we certainly look forward to
Committee and having further discussions and questions in regard to the piece of
legislation. I want to thank the officials for the briefing and information they
provided and look forward to when we get to Committee stage and having a further
discussion.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand and to speak to this bill for SIRT, Bill 24. What Bill 24 does,
Mr. Speaker, is it establishes the Serious Incident Response Team which
would be responsible for investigating all matters involving a death, a serious
injury, a sexual assault, domestic violence and other matters of significant
public interest that arise from actions of a police officer in the province.
I want to thank the officials from the Department of
Justice and Public Safety, in particular Paula Walsh and Steve Ring for their
very thorough briefing.
Mr. Speaker, because of the incidents we have seen over the
past few years here with the RNC, this is a particularly important and timely
piece of legislation. It's also very complex. We know how important our police
service is, whether it's the RNC or the RCMP to our province, to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
We know how important it is for people to have high regard
for the important work the police do on behalf of the people of the province. We
also know that, for the most part, the people of the province are very
appreciative for the work the police do. It's not easy work. It takes a special
person to be able to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in this way.
So this is important legislation.
It's particularly important legislation right now because
of the past few incidents over the past few years that have shaken, for some
people – some people, their confidence in the police service has been shaken.
It's so important to be able to regain that trust, to regain that confidence
again. I know the RNC has worked really hard on that.
It's very interesting to watch the evolution of policing in
our community over the last few years and the work the police have done in
reaching out into the community, to working with civil society, to train their
staff to be open and responsive to the changing needs, to the changing
demographics of our community. Everywhere from seeing the police take great
pride in the fact that there are more women recruits, there are more women
officers.
As a matter of fact, we've just seen one RNC constable
raised to the rank of sergeant. The RNC are very proud of that. They're very
proud of the work they have done with the LGBTQ
community. They're very proud
of the introduction of using the Memphis approach in working with people who may
be having serious incidents because of mental health issues.
I want
to applaud the very progressive and the very deliberate work that the RNC have
done and the RCMP have done in our province. It comes from their commitment, the
commitment of all those who are working in the RNC. It comes from the commitment
of their superiors. It also comes from the great work that civil society has
done with the police to ensure there are working relationships and that they
push each other.
The
police push themselves to do more and more education and awareness work, and
civil society is also asking that of the police. Whether it be working with
children, with people who are working in the sex industry, or people with mental
health and addictions issues, it's really, really important work. Again, I would
like to applaud those men and women who have dedicated their lives to serving
our people in this way.
The RNC
has had a series of serious incidents over the last years which have caused
government to have to bring investigators in from other parts of the country to
investigate the RNC. Not specifically to investigate the RNC as a whole body,
but when there have been serious incidents that have been identified, whether
it's criminal conduct by individual RNC personnel or by a few. It's been
difficult. It's been a difficult few years for the RNC.
One of
the incidents that have been very difficult, both for the RNC and for the people
of the province, is the tragic shooting of Don Dunphy by a police officer. The
RCMP was asked to investigate and then we had a $2 million inquiry conducted by
Justice Leo Barry. This issue went on for about two years, Mr. Speaker.
It was
really, really difficult. It was difficult on the RNC. It was very, very
difficult for the family of the late Mr. Don Dunphy. It was very, very difficult
for the citizens, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, because it did
somewhat – it was shocking. It was absolutely shocking. Someone lost their life.
People don't expect this to happen in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a very
rare occurrence. Investigators were brought in from across the country.
There
was a trial of a 10-year veteran of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary who was
found not guilty of sexually assaulting a woman shortly after giving her a ride
home from downtown in a police cruiser in 2014. The verdict was a very
controversial one with some members of the public. This was a situation where
the officer was on duty. So it was very, very controversial. Again, very
difficult for the woman involved; very difficult for the officer and his family;
very, very difficult for the RNC as a whole service; difficult for the people of
the province, and particularly very, very difficult for women who have been
victims of sexual assault and sexual violence.
The RNC
was under criminal investigation by the Serious Incident Response Team, a
civilian-led agency from Nova Scotia. The investigation involved senior RNC
managers and is focused on their use of a criminal as an informant during a
high-level investigation.
After an
18-month investigation, Ronald MacDonald, the director of the Nova Scotia
Serious Incident Response Team, cleared the officers of obstruction of justice.
I'm sure that is something we are very happy to hear. That these officers were
cleared of obstruction of justice, but those are the kinds of issues that are
investigated. It's about restoring confidence, making sure that justice is seen,
and that also we can restore confidence in our police service.
In 2010,
the Ontario Provincial Police were called in to investigate after $14,000, which
was being held in a temporary storage locker inside the RNC building in St.
John's, was reported missing on December 13, 2009. The locker was not accessible
to the public, no one was ever charged with the theft and the money was never
recovered. So that's one that wasn't quite solved.
It's
important that we are able to have these kinds of incidents investigated and
investigated in a professional manner, investigated thoroughly and to make sure
there is expertise brought to the investigation, (a) for the protection of the
public and (b) for the protection of the RNC as well.
Government committed to the creation of SIRT back in March 2016 following years
of calls for better civilian oversight of the RNC and the RCMP. In the past,
outside agencies were being hired or commissioned to come and investigate our
law enforcement services. With this bill, we have a local – at least for now –
committee or a team which will be able to investigate serious incidents as
defined above in the act.
Now, I
will have some questions for the minister and I look forward to the Committee on
this bill because I do have some questions. He has alluded to and in the
briefing that there will be an Atlantic provinces SIRT. I'm not quite sure what
shape that will take, and I'm sure the minister will be able to talk to us about
that.
Also,
how many cases can we reasonably expect that our SIRT will have to investigate?
How does that intermingle then with the SIRT that would be an Atlantic SIRT?
Those are questions I will have for the minister, and I'm looking forward to
hearing any kind of clarification that he will have.
Our
team, our SIRT, like most SIRTs across the country, will consist of a civilian
director who has never served as a police officer. Then the director will be
hired by Cabinet, and this is not an appointment under the Independent
Appointments Commission, as this is a line position in government such as a
superintendent of prisons.
We know
that we've heard from the minister how SIRT will be composed, and I will have
some other questions for the minister. For instance, SIRT in Nova Scotia
currently is all white men. That's probably not how we want the diversity of our
communities represented in our SIRT. I'm wondering if there's going to be
anything either in the act or in the legislation to ensure that our SIRT covers
a certain diversity.
Also
within the Alberta SIRT in 2014, ASIRT, which is the Alberta SIRT, increased its
staffing by adding two full-time investigators that hold unique Aboriginal
portfolios. These investigators bring valuable knowledge and experience in
working with the Aboriginal communities. Maybe that's something that government
will consider for our SIRT as well. Again, that SIRT be reflective of the
diversity of our communities so that those perspectives are brought to the work
of SIRT.
We know
how important it is to have a SIRT that has civilian oversight. Judge Barry
found that the RCMP in the inquiry over the death of Mr. Don Dunphy, Judge Barry
found a few things in terms of the policing investigation of what happened. He
said that the RCMP were too quick to accept the constable's version of events in
this case and that their investigation into Mr. Dunphy's fatal shooting by the
constable was less than robust; he also said but ultimately not flawed.
He
outlined that there are a number of defects in the Mounties' investigation. So
this was the police investigating the police. He said: The defects that he found
in the Mounties' investigation were permitting the constable to meet with RNC
colleagues before giving a statement; agreeing to delay that statement for about
24 hours; going too easy – these are the words of Justice Leo Barry – on the
constable during his interview; failing to rigorously challenge his version of
events; failing to maintain an appropriate degree of suspicion; and supplying
the constable with unnecessary information during and after his interview.
So these
are all troubling findings that undermine public confidence in the ability of
police officers to investigate fellow police officers. That's really what we
want to be careful of. That's why it's so important to have a civilian as a
director of the SIRT.
Mr.
Speaker, I've spoken in this House before about the necessity for a civilian
oversight commission for the police; for all policing services for the province.
It exists in other parts of the country where that civilian oversight is
different than the police complaints commission. They're actually part of, for
instance, hiring the police chief. They're part of identifying what are the
priorities and goals and objectives of our police service in the community. It's
comprised predominately of civilians. They're also involved in even helping to
set the budget for the police service. How ideal – this is best practices in
police servicing.
I would
hope that government will look at this particular issue, as well, for our police
service here in the province, where the civil society works hand in hand with
our police service and has a hand in helping to direct what are the goals and
objectives of our police services, has a hand in also hiring the police chief. I
believe that's a progressive thing to do. I believe that we can do that here,
that we can do that in our province. I believe that would go hand in hand also
with ensuring a SIRT with absolute integrity, transparency and accountability.
I
believe, Mr. Speaker, that, in fact, we are ready to move in that direction. I
believe with all the incredible community work that the RNC has done in the
province, I believe the RNC is ready to move in that direction. I also believe
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are ready. They, too, are ready to move
in that direction. I also believe because in the past few years the serious
incidents that we have experienced within our police force, that it is time to
move in that direction.
Again, I
would like to thank those who have dedicated their lives to public safety, who
have dedicated their lives to serving the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
through the RNC, whether they are officers within the RNC or civilian workers
within the RNC, and also within the RCMP.
After
that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Close debate.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
If the
hon. Minister of Justice and Public Safety speaks now, he will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand here and continue progress on this bill, the Serious Incident
Response Team. It's a very important piece of legislation. I'd like to firstly
thank my colleagues across the way for their comments and their contribution to
this debate. I know there will be a number of questions that will be asked in
the Committee stage. I'll certainly try my best to answer those as we progress
through that, with the undertaking that if I'm not able to provide what we
consider a satisfactory answer, I'll certainly have it for third reading.
A lot of
the hard work here certainly wasn't done by myself. There are people – and I
appreciate the Member opposite naming Paula Walsh and Steve Ring. They've done a
lot of work on this, a lot of the analysis that goes on, a lot of the
behind-the-scenes work. So I appreciate them and others that have contributed.
On that
note, what I would say is that one of the benefits of a constituency week – and
sometimes a delay from the time you introduce a bill to the time you debate it –
is that it gives people more of an opportunity to discuss it, to talk about it,
to mention it to you for you to hear about it. That's just one of the benefits.
What I
can say as it relates to this bill is that the only concerns I've had about this
piece of legislation – and it's not about the legislation itself, it's about the
program. Some people will say: What about the cost? I think I made my point
originally that as it relates to the integrity of police and to the public
perception, we need that confidence and we need that support. That cost is
priceless; it's immeasurable. I think it's a very small cost.
The fact
that we are catching up to the rest of Canada here shows that there is a need.
In fact, we've seen those stories out there in the papers, out in the media.
Every time that comes out, we know there's a process that has to be followed.
One
thing I would say is, especially in the last couple of days, we've had an
incident where the police have come to us, come to the department and said we
want to retain an independent service – and we're having trouble. We're having
trouble retaining the outside service because they have their own work to do.
It's
just another example of where people don't want and we don't want and the police
don't want to have what they call blue-on-blue investigation. They don't want
that. In many cases it's doomed before it starts, because no matter what the job
is, there's a perception that it's not above board.
We know
we'd like the independent oversight here. We think this is a very strong, good
piece of legislation, modeled on other jurisdictions that will allow us to bring
in a model – is it the right one for Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it's
stand-alone, whether it's regional, whether it's between just one other
province.
I will
sit. I will look forward to the Committee stage, which we'll be calling right
now. In closing, I'd like to say I'm very proud of the work done by my
department on this and for the contributions made by the Members, and we'll
continue on.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 24 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK (Murphy):
Bill 24, Serious Incident
Response Team Act.
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time. When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “Serious Incident Response Team Act,” read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill
24)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 24.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 24, the Serious Incident Response Team Act.
A bill,
“Serious Incident Response Team Act.” (Bill 24)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for
that.
Mr.
Chair, I'm not going to make my commentary very long. I did mean to speak in
second reading, but I stepped outside the Chamber for a moment. When I came back
in we were done. That was my fault; I thought there would be another speaker.
I just
want to say for the record that I do support this particular bill. There's no
doubt about it that we have two very professional police forces here in our
province, being the RCMP and the RNC, but this is a tool now that will be put in
place just to instill more public confidence.
We know
there have been incidents that have occurred, particularly over the last year or
two. We know of a couple of cases in particular that have been somewhat high
profile in the media and so on. I think it's important that we have this Serious
Incident Response Team in place to deal with issues when they arise.
We know
we're dealing with human beings and as great as everybody may be, we know there
are times where there could be individuals who don't act appropriately. That
needs to be addressed. Sometimes there are allegations made by the public that
things weren't done properly, but they actually were. In that case, we need to
have an independent oversight to be able to investigate and to basically give us
confidence that, yes indeed, things were done properly and the officer did
nothing wrong. It can work both ways, but to have that independence, I think, is
important to instill confidence, as I said, in our two police forces.
I
certainly commend the minister and the government for bringing this forward. I
will be supporting it. The only question I had, or issue I had – which I'll just
put on the record, perhaps the minister may respond. If he already did when he
was up speaking while I stepped outside, I apologize; I didn't hear him. The
only issue I had was the fact that there would be investigators – well, first of
all, we have a person who's going to be in charge who's going to be civilian,
which is great. They will be in charge overall.
In
addition to that, there would be investigators who would be assigned to
investigating complaints and concerns when they come forward. These could be
retired police or peace officers. They need not be. They could be a retired
fisheries officer or something like that. They don't actually have to be police
officers, but someone who would have experience in doing investigations. Like I
said, that could be a fisheries officer. It could be a health and safety
inspector for that matter. They do investigations. There is no doubt; there will
also be police officers who will be involved in doing the investigations. They
could be retired, or there are provisions here that officers would be seconded.
Now,
officers could be seconded from both forces, either on a case-by-case basis or
someone could be seconded to that particular team for a two-year period. They
would come for two years, be seconded there as investigators for the Serious
Incident Response Team and then once their two years are up, they would go back
to their job as a police officer with the RNC or the RCMP.
I
realize with the investigators there is a provision that says if there was an
investigation on, we'll just say, a member of the RNC, as an example, then the
lead investigator could not be a seconded RNC officer. I think that's correct.
The lead investigator would have to be RCMP or possibly someone else who's one
of the members of the team who may be a retired fisheries officer, I don't know,
but certainly it couldn't be an RNC officer as the lead investigator
investigating an incident at the RNC. By the same token, you couldn't have the
lead investigator being an RCMP officer while investigating a complaint about
the RCMP.
We do
have the fact that we have the person who is ultimately in charge, who they
report to is not associated to either force and never was. So that's good. The
lead investigator won't be associated to the force. That also is good.
The only
question is, let's say if you have two investigators on a file, even though the
lead investigator may be from the other police force, the second investigator,
if there were two, could be from the same force they're investigating. In
theory, you have a person who is involved in an investigation of one of his or
her colleagues and then after two years or even after that one incident, goes
back to work with that same said colleague or colleagues that were being
investigated.
I know
we have those two layers in terms of the independent civilian administrator
who's in charge, the lead investigator from the other force, but the only gap I
see is, again, there could be that second investigator who is actually with the
force that's being investigated.
Now, I'm
sure the people that will be there doing this are going to be professional
people. I know they will, and I know, of course, they still have to work with
the lead investigator. They have to work with the person who is ultimately in
charge. All of that is great, but I'm not pointing it out because I necessarily
have concerns per se, but in terms of public perception.
I
realize no matter what we do, there will be people who will think the whole
thing is a sham. If we brought in people to investigate from some other part of
Canada, they'd say, well, there're still police. If you brought in someone from
the United States, they'd say, well, they're still police. No matter what you
did, there will be always someone out there who would try to find something
wrong with it. I'm not trying to pick holes in it for the sake of picking holes
in it. I'm just pointing out the fact that you do have one person in theory who
would be, albeit not the lead investigator, but involved in investigating one of
their own.
I
understand the professionalism. I understand the safeguards of the lead
investigator, the person overall in charge. All that's good, I accept that. I
still support the bill. I just wanted to put that point in there that someone
could look at it and say there's some kind of a concern or a conflict. I just
throw it out there. I don't think it's going to be a big deal because of those
other two safeguards, if you will, that are going to be in place.
I
suppose what you could do is if you're going to be seconding people on a
case-by-case basis, or you could be seconding one or two people from each of the
police forces, at least, whenever possible, I'd recommend that if it was an RNC
officer being investigated, why not have both the lead investigator and the
second investigator both be RNC officers? If it was the RCMP, have two RNC
officers, if that's reasonably practical to do so.
Other
than that, I think it's a good bill. I support it 100 per cent. Kudos to the
government for doing it.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will
speak to the point raised by the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands, which I
think is a reasonable question to ask given the circumstances here because what
we are dealing with is independent oversight of police.
I will
disagree with one part of his language and I'll agree with the other, because he
said that it could be a gap. What I would say is that's very much a hypothetical
– I don't think it's a gap, but I will provide an explanation to why I think
that.
The
other thing is I get where he's going to say, look, this could be theoretically
something that happens. So if it could happen in theory, it's something that we
should address. Although he also said, I don't think this will be a big deal and
I don't think it will happen. But, you know what, we should talk about it.
The
model that's being proposed right now – again, the legislation does allow for a
stand-alone model, a partnership with one other province – say, for instance,
Nova Scotia – or an Atlantic model. That decision has not been made. We will
make this decision. The legislation allows for the contemplation of any of that.
We're going to do what we think is best.
One of
the reasons why I agree with Justice Barry and think there are a lot of
positives in an Atlantic model is it allows for situations which could
definitely avoid the situation that you bring up. Because what would happen
there is we could have officers from PEI come here, our officers go to New
Brunswick – again, to completely avoid the perception.
The
reason I don't think this is going to be an issue is this: the civilian
oversight comes from the director who cannot have been a police officer. That
part is what constitutes the civilian oversight. That is the overseer, and that
is a very important position. I think the credibility of the entire organization
rests with whoever that individual will be. I've met with all the other
directors. If you don't have someone that's a good leader, you're not going to
have a great organization.
Again,
part of this organization comes down to credibility, integrity and perception.
One of the things you want to do is avoid putting in to a situation something
that could cause this perception. This is exactly the thing we're talking about
here is that you could have police investigating police. In many cases, it's
done right and it's done fair, but if it creates the perception that something
is not above board, this is the issue we're trying to avoid. That's why I think
the director in these situations will take all necessary steps to ensure that
you don't have RNC investigating RNC, RCMP investigating RCMP, because I get
that that creates the perception here.
The
model that will be set up is civilian director, three investigators, hopefully
one admin support. That's the contemplation we have now. Two of those will be
seconded, one from each force, plus one other investigator who could be anybody.
It could be a retired police officer. It could be retired CSIS. It could be
somebody who wants to currently leave CSIS. It could be fisheries. It could be –
name it.
At the
end of the day, what will happen is there will be a – basically, similar to any
other job that's created within government. The Public Service Commission and
HRS will sit down and come up with the skill set, come up with basically the
template of what should this person have. That's only easy to find, because we
can look elsewhere and see what they have.
I'm
hoping that when this happens we get applications from everywhere. I hope we get
tons of applications because we want the best individual for this position with
the greatest background that's going to do a service to this. So depending on
how this works, at the end of the day, the first thing is that the civilian
oversight starts at the top; they are involved in absolutely every file.
The
other thing I would say is this has been contemplated and done in Alberta and
Nova Scotia. It has worked. We have not seen issues there and both are bigger
jurisdictions with more files that are happening. They do have bigger forces.
Don't get me wrong, they have more resources to expend on this, but it has not
been an issue. In talking to the individuals there, both civilian directors and
people involved that have had police background, this has not been an issue.
They have not seen it, so I'm glad to hear. That's the reassurance that we'd
like to see.
The
other thing I would say is we have had restrictions placed on hiring in other
provinces. British Columbia said we can't hire anyone who has been police in
that province over the last five years. They've since come back and said this is
an issue, because it's preventing us from hiring people that want to do the job.
BC is telling us that themselves.
I would
note that BC has made changes recently by bringing in the head of Nova Scotia's
service, who is now the head of BC's service. That's a name that is familiar
here, Mr. MacDonald, who has actually done work here in this province and has
quite a solid reputation across the country for the work he has done in Nova
Scotia.
I think
the key to coming back here, the acceptance comes down to the messaging by the
director. Whoever this director is, they have to ensure they are maintaining
public confidence by what they do. If they make negative choices as it relates
to investigations, that's going to affect what we do. That's going to affect
this.
Again,
the director is a position that obviously will be selected by government. This
is going to be a crucial position – absolutely crucial – because that's the
person you want to then help pick whoever else is there. They will go through
this process. We want the best people for the position. I don't care where
they're from, I don't care who they are. I have no idea; I just want these
people to be the best and to have that commitment and desire.
As I've
said with our police forces, and as I've said with anything in government, how
these agencies do and how they're regarded is a reflection on us. If you put
someone in that is clearly not up to the task – and that's the same with any
agency, any group. If you're not putting in the people that have the right skill
set, you're going to get yourself in trouble.
I think
this is going to work. I do appreciate the question from the Member. It's a good
question. You know what? I bet he's not the only person who has wondered this
because we all have this concept of how can they have a police background.
You
can't just bring anybody in to do this; there is a skill set that is necessary,
an investigative background. In many cases, the police I've talked to said you
need police to investigate police. You have to understand that mindset, how they
operate, the protocol. Again, that's what I've been told by police themselves.
We
haven't seen an issue in the other jurisdictions we've looked to. We think it
will work here, but I do appreciate the question from the Member. Hopefully,
that's satisfied the question anyway.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I'd like
to ask the minister: How many cases does he think may pop up on an average in
the next few years, per year? Also, what is his idea of an Atlantic SIRT? I'm
not sure if it means that people are borrowing from each other's SIRT in the
Atlantic provinces, or is it a combination of SIRTs from different Atlantic
provinces? If that is the case, why would government strike a SIRT here now if,
in fact, the goal is to have an Atlantic SIRT? So if he could just clarify that
for me.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
appreciate the question from the Member opposite. We're anticipating roughly 25
cases, but obviously it's hard to tell, a year; that's per annum. What I will
say is if it does go that high that would be higher – in 2015, there were 20; in
2016, there were 13; and in 2017, there were six. Those are cases that could
have been dealt with by a SIRT.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
What's that?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, because they weren't
used. Some of these were. The ones in 2017, we've already started going out of
province – some were – but there are some of these cases have been done
internally. What I'm saying is that we're anticipating up to 25; that could be
higher. I hope it doesn't get that high. We hope for zero, but going by these
past numbers that's the number that we've come up with.
What I
would say is that we haven't set up a team yet. The purpose of this legislation
is to set up a framework so that we can start the team. There's still a lot of
work to do. There is no decision made on which model we will use. I've spoken
very clearly about what I think. I think there are a lot of positives in using
an Atlantic model; the economies of scale; get some expertise from other areas;
allows for more resources to be shared amongst the provinces. And again, Nova
Scotia has that experience as well.
But we
cannot guarantee that we get the co-operation of the other provinces. We hope
to. We've had that discussion. It's very positive. I'm having it again very
soon. The premiers have talked about it, but the way this legislation is set up
is to allow us to ensure that we are getting a team, whatever model.
Some
people say you could do it this way; you could do it that way – do you know
what? There's logic and probably a reason for each. We're setting ourselves up
to do what we need to do. We haven't made that yet. I think I said when we did
the press conference, I'm anticipating six to eight months before we get this
operational.
Two
points I would make. After speaking with all the directors, the first thing they
said was if you rush it, you're going to get yourself in trouble. It happened in
BC; it led to serious issues. They're saying, look, you want to get it done, but
don't rush it and take the time that's necessary. All of them have also said
make sure you adequately resource it. If you don't put the resources in, you're
going to have yourself an issue.
We've
taken both of those pieces of advice to heart and those will help guide us in
determining the model that we have. Again, in determining the model, we've laid
out what we think here. But after we have the continued meetings with our
counterparts, what will the Atlantic one look like? Hard to tell. Will it be one
director that's based somewhere, would be an assistant director – the big thing
to me is the resources in terms of the investigators. That's one of the big
things, having that pool of resources elsewhere that have the backgrounds that
can do the work, but maybe don't have that familiarity that the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands talked about where you're not investigating your own people
that you work with.
So I
think that's the answer to the question, but if I forgot anything, please stand
up and I'll go back at it.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
So I'm
not quite clear, then, on your concept of an Atlantic model. Would that be a
model that would include members from all provinces and work as one body, as one
SIRT? And if that's the case and you're saying that you see six to eight months
before the SIRT for Newfoundland and Labrador is operational, why would you not
wait and see what the Atlantic model would look like? Where are you in your
discussions with the potential of an Atlantic model?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Well, this is the thing. The
Atlantic model could be whatever we want it to be. But I see a team, a structure
that has resources from all provinces that can be shared and deployed all over
the place. Again, we will leave it to these people to figure out the operations
side. What we're doing is setting up the legislation to allow that.
When we
talk about the six to eight months, that's the framework, that's the timeline we
would like to see a team here. But again, we know there are still some moving
parts here. The fact is, given the fact that the director of Nova Scotia is
gone, that in and of itself has created a delay because Nova Scotia is trying to
figure out what they're doing. They've got to fill this position. As I've said,
and everybody knows, that's a big position; it's important. So they're going
through their own process.
I'm
actually meeting with most of the ministers again in the next two weeks to
discuss this. It's hard for me to say right here where we are. Let's just say
the premiers have talked, we've talked, there's still more to do and there's
still work to happen. I think the big thing putting this legislation now – we're
not going to rush it. I've always said I don't like to put timelines on
something, especially something you don't control entirely yourself. I've said
six to eight months, but if it takes longer, it takes longer. Not very often
things happen quicker than you want.
What I
wanted to do and what I've said and I think we've committed to is I promised to
have the legislation on the floor here this fall. This gives us the ability to
be ready for it. And similar to when we changed the
Judicature Act to take our judicial complement from 21 to 24, we
didn't get those 24 yet. We're working on the 24, but there will be nothing
worse than the feds saying we want to give you extra judges, extra positions,
and you have to change your act and what if it's in June and the House is
closed? So we've changed our act to allow for that. This is the same thing. We
have the legislation now that allows the creation of this team and we're being
proactive here.
We have
the legislation, we'll continue work and I do anticipate that, as we continue
on, we're going to have regular updates on this. The public is very interested
in it. I'll put it out as soon as I can, as we get there, but I think that's the
best I can answer the question at this point.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So it's
still not quite clear whether the minister is saying that he will establish a
separate SIRT here, but there is a possibility of an Atlantic SIRT. I'm just not
quite clear on that. I'm not objecting to anything here; it's just sort of, for
me, a matter of clarification.
The
other thing is that, again, we've seen in Nova Scotia SIRT it's all white men;
and we've seen that Alberta has taken a very inclusive model and hired and added
two full-time investigators that hold unique Aboriginal portfolios.
I would
ask the minister: Would he make some kind of commitment, either within – I
always think it's much better to have it within legislation rather than just in
regulations, particularly if there's an Atlantic SIRT – but even within our own
province, to ensure that there is diversity within the SIRT? I wonder if the
minister can speak to that.
The
other thing is that we have heard some concerns that people have raised –
certainly not big objections, but concerns about if government is looking at an
Atlantic SIRT, why do this now? Why not just develop an Atlantic SIRT? Those are
some of the issues that people have brought to us, and I know that you somewhat
answered that, Minister.
Also,
some folks have commented to us that there isn't enough distance from or
independence from the police service here in the province in terms of if we have
investigators from within the province because our police service is so small.
What I'm
sharing here with you, Minister, are issues that people have raised with us:
What about this; what about that? Given the relatively small policing community
in this province, that could be tough for investigators. Really, how much
distance or independence is there? Again, I appreciate that the director will
not come from within a police service, but again, these are issues that are
raised to us.
One
issue that was raised – and I do believe that we do need a SIRT, but perhaps the
Atlantic model may serve the Atlantic provinces. Some folks are concerned about
the cost, and I imagine that the minister has weighed the cost in terms of
having our own SIRT-based service, or whether it's Atlantic or bringing in
people from outside.
I know
using a SIRT from outside – and I know that the minister has spoken about the
fact that you can't always get a SIRT from another place because they may be
very busy, but these are just issues that I bring to the floor because they've
been raised to us from people.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm going to apologize in
advance to the Member because she raised a number of points, valid, and my
ability to retain all of that – so again, if I don't cover it, please stand up
and ask again because I do want to answer it.
I am
going to refer to something actually the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands
said: No matter what we do here, there will be individuals that it's never
enough. We've seen this in the news where if we don't do this, it undermines the
credibility of the police. They absolutely refuse to trust police. Whereas if we
do it, they're going to say, well, my God, you're spending too much money. I
will not be frustrated by that. I'll accept it. That's a part of not just this
decision, any decision that we make, anybody makes, is that there's very little
that you do that will have universal support amongst everybody.
I think,
to address the cost part, what I would say is that we have had incidents in the
past where the cost by not having this has been significantly higher in terms
of, even, dollars. We've had that. We want to avoid that in the future. The
other cost, though, the cost of people losing faith in police – I've said this –
we can't have it. It undermines everything.
When you
have police saying to you, personally, I do good work. I know I do good work; I
want people to trust what I do. In fact, when people don't trust, they don't
speak to the police. When they don't speak to the police, it compromises the
investigations that they're doing, it compromises safety and it leads us down a
path that we don't want to go to.
So while
I understand the point – I get it; I can see why the point is brought up. I've
had it brought up to me. I've sat down over the last well over a year, and asked
a lot of these questions myself because you have to be, in some cases, your own
devil's advocate and ask these questions. So I see that.
I think
the cost – here's the other thing. We've budgeted, I think, roughly we're
anticipating $794,000 per year, which is a significant sum, but a couple things
we have here now, we do have to spend money having these investigations. The
second part, even if we wanted to spend $1 million on an investigation, in some
cases now, we're to the point, we can't get anybody to do it and that is a
problem.
It
brings us back to the situation we had where people lose their faith. What I
would say – I put this out just because I want it reflected – I have the
ultimate faith in our police. I've said this before and I just wanted to make
sure that it's in Hansard again. There
is not a single profession out there where one person who does wrong affects
everybody else: politicians, teachers, doctors, armed forces, you name it,
police, lawyers. The fact is we are all human. People make mistakes. They make
errors in judgment. I don't like to think that one tarnishes the lot.
So the
fact is when I say this, people need to know, too – I'm sort of rambling, I
apologize, aside from the point, but when we get back to the bill as a whole,
the police want this. The police forces support this. They came out, both have
spoken publicly, and said we want this because our people do good work. Bring on
an independent investigation. We need that.
I think
one of the questions the Member asked was about the individuals working. What I
would say is that at the end of the day my primary concern is qualifications.
Our job is to pick the director and I think the director will be responsible for
the hiring.
A lot of
this will go through – I'm not completely familiar with HRS and PSC; that would
be the Minister of Finance and it comes to their policies for hiring. I
obviously welcome the idea of diversity. I take your point when you say five
white men doing this, that creates an issue. What I would say is this – and it's
not my position to put conditions in here that may limit us – I need to make
sure the positions are filled.
I hope
that it's there. This has gone through a screening with just about every agency
within government in terms of PSC, Women's Policy. It's gone through everybody.
What I would say is that these concerns have not been brought up.
When I
met with the other individuals, I know that they've taken steps. What I would
suggest is this. The other places have had the advantage of starting off and
seeing how it goes and how it progresses. What I would say here is that this is
the start. This will change down the road. Everything changes down the road once
we have an opportunity to see how it works. I want to see how that goes.
The
advice I have been given is to ensure that we get the people in there. I hope we
get so many applications that the tough job is on the people to pick through
that and pick out just five. That's going to be the hard thing. I'm not closed
to that, but this bill was very much drafted with the advice of a number of
individuals, so that's what we're proceeding with. The biggest thing that I
think we'll start off is the civilian director is going to be huge. We need to
bring in the right person there.
I don't
know if I've covered off everything. I come back to the point: We want a SIRT.
Whether it's Newfoundland and Labrador or Atlantic, or Newfoundland and Labrador
and Nova Scotia, that hasn't been decided. There's going to be a Serious
Incident Response Team in Newfoundland and Labrador. This legislation will
create for it, but the decision will be made down the road in terms of what
model. It's not like this here is creating a Newfoundland and Labrador team.
This is creating legislation that allows for a team of whatever team it is that
we choose based on our discussions and based on where we go.
I know
that everybody would love to know the model that we're picking. We're not ready
to do that yet, but what we've done – and it's not often I like to commit myself
to timelines, but I said it would be the fall. We're here now during this
session, it's done. Hopefully we'll continue on and make progress on this.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
Order,
please!
I'd just
remind Members that we're still debating clause 1.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Yeah, I'm just wondering if
the minister could answer: If we were going to go to an Atlantic model, would
the civilian director, then, be an individual that would not necessarily reside
in Newfoundland and Labrador? Would that person then have to be paid for, a
cost-shared salary between all four of the Atlantic provinces? How would you
envision that working?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What I
would say is that the advice I've been given is that no matter what model we
have, this act will allow for us to do either. What I would say is when we look
at section 4, which is the director section, all it says is that the LGIC “shall
appoint a person to be the civilian director of the Serious Incident Response
Team.” So depending on what model we get in, there may be some variances there,
but the person – we're going to be hiring a civilian director here. How that
person fits in to this model and what terminology we use down the road, that
hasn't been ascertained.
The
second part is it will not be – “a current or former police officer in any
jurisdiction shall not be appointed as the director.” We have the terminology
there in terms of their term, five years with a reappointment for five years,
and “The director shall be paid the salary and other remuneration that the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council may determine.”
I think
what we have here – I know what the Member is trying to say, is that if we go
with a certain model we'll change it. It's our opinion that this legislation
will still continue to be satisfactory and will work no matter where we go down
the road.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Minister, if we went with an Atlantic model, then, it almost seems like, the way
it's written here to me – and I stand to be corrected and I know you haven't
worked it out yet. Could there be a director who is sort of an Atlantic director
and that's it, or are we saying we're going to have our own Newfoundland and
Labrador director, our own team?
The
other provinces would have their own teams and then they could exchange
investigators back and forth as need be. That would be the Atlantic model. When
we talk about an Atlantic model, are we saying a director is responsible for all
the Atlantic provinces who's hired? We wouldn't be able to appoint. If that was
the case, we wouldn't be appointing the director here in Newfoundland because
the Province of Nova Scotia said, well, why should we? Why are we going to go
with your director? We need to be part of this discussion if we're going to pay
for it. We're not just going to put who we want to put there.
I'm just
trying to understand, is the model one of an Atlantic model, an Atlantic
director, cost-shared, hired by all Atlantic provinces and a team around it; or
is it we're going to have our own team, our own director here in Newfoundland,
but we would be co-operating with the other provinces in terms of trading
investigators back and forth as needed?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The
Member asks very good questions. Unfortunately, there is no answer because there
is no model. We have not determined what it would be. When he says it could be
this or it could be that, that is true. It could be anything, and that's the
discussion we're still having and have to figure out.
These
are the negotiations and discussions we're having. So he's very right in saying
it could be – we have someone here and we have this issue. That's all stuff that
has to be worked out. The legislation that we have will guide us. Our big thing
is if we don't put the legislation in – you can't create the team and then put
the legislation in place. We have to start somewhere.
I think
this legislation will allow for us cover off what we want to do, and which will
also allow us to have the flexibility to determine what an Atlantic model or
framework looks like. What does an Atlantic team look like? That's the thing;
there is nothing in place right now.
Nova
Scotia has a team that they have deployed to PEI. They've deployed here, but
it's Nova Scotia's team. We have to ask them to use it. If the framework comes
up, we have to figure out, how will an Atlantic framework work? Will there be
multiple directors with a committee? Will it be a case of – these are the things
where we say in some cases you can make any kind of argument on this that you
want.
You can
have a Newfoundland and Labrador model that's your own and you make all the
decisions, or we can have an Atlantic model that maybe there could be drawbacks
to that, but it also allows you a number of positives, too, like more access to
resources.
So what
I would say, and all I can say at this point, is there is work to be done. There
is work to be done, but this legislation allows for us to create a team, to have
a team, and to figure out what kind of team we want, and our options are still
open in where we want to go.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I appreciate your answers, I really do. I am, like I said, very
supportive of this concept.
The
concern I have now, I suppose, the more I think about it, and I'm hearing your
answers. The only concern I would have is we're voting on a bill – and don't get
me wrong, I support the concept, but we're voting on a bill, and based on what
you're saying, we really don't know at this point in time if by voting in favour
of this we're voting in favour of a civilian director here in Newfoundland and
Labrador overseeing a team here in Newfoundland and Labrador, investigating
things in Newfoundland and Labrador; or, potentially we're voting for signing up
to an Atlantic model where you have a director who's hired by other provinces.
We don't know where that person would be stationed to, we don't know what the
team makeup would be, what the costs would be, what our proportionate share
would be.
I guess
my concern, Minister, is that there are an awful lot of unknowns. We're kind of
voting for this on face value based on, well, it could be this, it could be
that, it could be something else. We really haven't nailed down what it is, what
the model will look like, what the cost will be and so on.
If we
were to vote on, say, we're going to have our own team – which is what I thought
it was, to be honest with you. I thought we were voting this is our team, just
here for Newfoundland and Labrador, and at some point in time we just said, you
know what, we're going to scrap this Newfoundland and Labrador team. We're going
to move in to an Atlantic model, and here's what this will look like and here's
what this will cost.
We'll
make adjustments to the legislation. We all agreed to do it, but that's not
what's happening. It's like, in a sense, we don't know what it's going to be,
but we're going to vote for it anyway and hope that it works out the way we
would like.
That's
not being critical of what you're trying to do there because I support it 100
per cent. I'm just pointing out, though, that there seems to be a lot more
unknowns than I thought there was originally when we were debating this bill.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
going to take one more crack at this. What we're voting on is what's written in
Bill 24. We're voting on the creation of a SIRT in the province. Now I've been
very clear up to this point, in the media and in here, that we still have
flexibility to determine what model we want. I don't know if I can allay the
concerns you have. That's fine; I might not be able to do that.
We voted
on a framework for the Liquor Corporation
Act for cannabis the other day where there are still a lot of unanswered
questions there, too. You know what, there are still people who have concerns
there, too, and that's fair.
What I'm
suggesting here – and I'm confident in this, extremely confident – is we have a
bill here, we're voting on the language that is written here that allows for the
creation of a SIRT here. Now what we've allowed ourselves is we will pick out a
model that works for us. As you can see, we have budgeted here and allowed – and
this was part of the briefing and part of what I said, is we can have a SIRT
here with a director, investigators, all the rules, everything is laid out.
Now, if
we can partner with the other provinces for something that gives us greater
resources and maybe less cost, we'll consider it. I'll consider anything if it's
better for us as a province. What this allows us to do is have a team, and we
will have a team.
Again,
that may not have been the answer the Member wanted. I'm confident in this; I'm
supportive. There's uncertainty in life. What I would suggest, though, is this
allows us to move forward with the certainty that we are going to have a team.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
thought my colleague from Mount Pearl – Southlands was finished, but I've been
sitting and listening to debate in Committee. I thank the minister very early in
debate. I expect it's going to go on for some time tonight, but I want to thank
him now because he's obviously very focused on the discussion that's happening
here in the House.
I'm
getting a sense from discussion that's happened already – it's consistent with
what I had hoped was going to happen, because since this bill was released
publicly, I personally have talked to many police officers, former police
officers, family members of police officers and people who have no association,
in any way that I know of, to police officers. I've reached out to some to ask
them what they thought of it and overall I can say, especially within the police
community – I echo the comments of the minister – they're happy to see a bill
for SIRT, to establish SIRT, come before the House.
Having
said that, every time I've reached out to people, I've had questions asked to
me. I'm going to ask some of those questions to the minister tonight. I
appreciate his patience on this, but a lot of what I'm going to ask is police
officers – and I think for the most part it's seeking clarification. I can tell
you, Minister, we're already receiving and getting some of that clarification
based on the discussion that's already taken place here.
While
we're still in this discussion that's currently happening, the minister
mentioned that he anticipates 25 cases per year, but it seems to be an increase
from current cases that are done by SIRT. Minister, I think what you're saying
is that because we don't have a SIRT, cases were more carefully – maybe you can
describe this yourself. Let me put it this way: Cases that are currently being
investigated that could potentially be investigated by SIRT in the future, what
processes are being followed by those now where we don't have a SIRT?
I
anticipate you may say that we're not bringing in the SIRT right now as often as
we would if we had our own SIRT. I think it's what he may be saying. If there's
going to be an increase in cases, maybe the minister can just give me a little
bit of insight as to why that would be. I think it was six a couple of years
back and now he's anticipating 25 under this model.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When we
say the number 25, obviously, that is a best estimate based on numbers before
and it more allows for capacity than anything. You wouldn't want to budget for
something that's lower than what you've seen in the past or doesn't allow you to
keep up with the demand that comes in. As I've said, I hope the demand stays
consistent with the lower numbers that I quoted earlier.
What
we've seen in the past is in many cases there's a process within where – and,
again, it has changed. Over the years there have been a number of different
approaches that have been taken. Police forces have reached out and, in a lot of
cases, it's not the department making the decision per se; it is police forces
that can make the decision or in consultation with the department, in some
cases. It depends, in many cases, on the situation itself.
In some
cases, they've used each other, so they've reached out within province. I know
they've reached out in the past to other provinces, whether it be OPP, I think
Saskatchewan has been used, Alberta and Nova Scotia. So there's been a
difference there.
The problem we've had in the last number of years that
is ramped up is that there's this concern that – I think a lot of it is created
through some of the good work that's happened. In the last number of years,
you've seen the CFSEU, which obviously the Member is very familiar with, where
we got a partnership in the province between the RNC and RCMP.
The Member opposite can speak, I think, a little bit
better to this than I can, but over the last number of years the co-operation
amongst our RNC and RCMP has increased. They've started working together,
especially on bigger files, drug files. With that increased co-operation comes
that increased familiarity, which is some of the concern out there amongst
people.
I don't know if that quite answers the question. What I
would like to see is when we have a SIRT that has capacity, the police forces
don't have to look within and they don't have to look outside. We just have to
look to this entity to bring them in to allow them to handle it.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate that. I echo your comments. Yes, I believe
as well the co-operation between both the RCMP and the RNC has improved in
recent years. I think they're probably in a better position now than they have
been in some time and, hopefully, that will continue. There are many
relationships between the RNC and the RCMP in different aspects of policing in
the province and CFSEU is one of those examples.
Right now, there's a Public Complaints Commission that
has a role in our province for investigating complaints against police officers.
I know this bill is about serious incidents and they are defined here. I think
my inquiry on this is probably on a couple things.
One is: How is it determined what's investigated by
SIRT versus by the Public Complaints Commission? Will this reduce or change the
current responsibilities of the Public Complaints Commission?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Basically, what this legislation allows under the
definition section, section 2(f) “'serious incident' means a death, a serious injury, a sexual
offence, domestic violence or any matter of significant public interest that may
have arisen from the actions of a police officer in the province.” So that's the
criterion that's been laid out, which is very similar to other provinces. There
have been some additions there as well.
I think
the key one is the last one: or any matter of significant public interest, which
really to me is a catch-all. It allows us to ensure. I can also say that this
bill has gone through the scrutiny
of both the RNC and RCMP.
They've looked through this, as they should, because it's governing them.
As it
relates to the Public Complaints Commission, I haven't talked to the Complaints
Commission recently to see how this will affect them in the sense that if people
want to make a compliant to the commission, they're going to hear it as long as
it falls within their standards. We haven't looked at that legislation. There is
more work to do down the road.
One of
the issues that was brought up by a reporter who recently departed this province
– he used to ask about SIRT and we said we're doing this, and then the next
thing he moved to was: Are you going to have a civilian oversight board? Are you
going to have a board? I said: Well, I'm willing to consider anything, but this
is what our focus has been on right now.
What I
can say is that the Public Complaints Commission is there. It works very well.
I'm always willing to consider changes and looking at what does this do in terms
of affecting what they do. In terms of what this covers off, those would be the
incidents that fall under its purview.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This may
be my last question on this particular section. Minister, serious incidents as
is defined in the bill, which you just read – I won't repeat it – those types of
investigations today, are they being investigated by other police services? I
know you referenced the OPP sometimes have been brought in and Alberta SIRT has
been used and Nova Scotia SIRT and so on.
So in a
case of a death, a serious injury, a sex offence, domestic violence or matter of
significant public interest, are those today, in the absence of Newfoundland and
Labrador's currently have a SIRT, being investigated by other entities?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My
answer to that would be yes. That is my understanding that anything like this of
a serious nature, as the Member mentioned, is going to an outside force. We've
had some recently that we saw where we've had to go outside, but we're receiving
some – I don't want to use the word backlash, but they're indicating that their
resources are being used in their own provinces and it's getting tougher for
them to go along. But yes, we have gone outside.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, given the seriousness of the position of the civilian director – and I
do agree with you; it's going to be critical to this whole thing, especially if
we have our own team here in Newfoundland and so on. I understand it says the
Lieutenant Governor in Council would appoint this person. But given the
seriousness of it and the importance of getting it right and having qualified
people and so on, is it your intent to bring this through the Independent
Appointments Commission?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think
we've indicated that, no, this is not a position that will go through the IAC.
After looking through this and looking at it, it was deemed it probably wouldn't
be appropriate. It's more of an operational position. I have a couple marked
down where this is how they're already done.
It's an
operational position similar to the Public Trustee, the executive director for
human rights, superintendent of our prisons, assistant superintendent of our
prisons, High Sheriff. None of these are IAC appointments; they don't go through
that process. It will be a public servant, there is absolutely no doubt. There
will be an extremely competitive process that it goes through.
What I
can say, and I put this out there, I'm hoping that there's significant interest
in the position. I'm anticipating significant interest in this position. I'm
definitely anticipating that. I know how I feel about it. We have to do the best
job possible to get the best person in this. Having seen how it's gone in other
provinces, you don't want a bad start to this. Whoever the top person in the
position is would determine how the entity goes.
That's
the rationale for that. I appreciate the question. I hope I've adequately
explained it.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
Clauses 2 through 22
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 through 22
inclusive.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Under
section 2, Minister, Definitions, it refers to chief officer meaning the chief
of police of an agency. It's pretty clear to me who the chief of the Royal
Newfoundland Constabulary is. Who are you referring to when you refer to the
chief of the RCMP? Is it actually the commissioner because I think, statutorily,
the commissioner, based in Ottawa, is the chief of the RCMP.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you.
Yes, the
RNC have a chief of police. The RCMP here in the province has an assistant
commissioner as the head of their organization.
We've
discussed this terminology with both agencies during the consultative process
and in developing this. Neither had any concerns so that's the one that we
decided to go with after consulting with both to make sure that there was no
issue.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
The
intention is, Minister, the chief officer for the RCMP would be the assistant
commissioner in charge of B Division in Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes.
MR. P. DAVIS:
It would be.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Sorry, I
sat down because you usually ask a question and sit down and someone asks after
you.
Under
(f) – I don't want to push this too much, but I just want to comment on it,
because I think the minister is right that there's an all-encompassing phrase
there. When I refer to Public Complaints Commission, I've seen incidents in the
past where a matter is being heard by the Public Complaints Commission – because
the Public Complaints Commission is set up to independently investigate
complaints about police officers and their activities and how they conduct
themselves and so on. It is certainly not intended to be a criminal
investigative type of circumstance.
But they
certainly, over the history of the Public Complaints Commission – not so much in
the last few; I can't think of an incident in recent years, but in earlier years
where they've conducted hearings that have created a fair bit of media attention
and public attention, which would probably fall under that all-encompassing
section where it refers to in any matter of significant public interest that may
arise.
I'm just
wondering – I think it might be in the act, but can the minister explain to me,
if an incident occurs and the chief of police becomes aware of it, what process
is in place to determine if it's going to be considered to be a matter for SIRT
or a matter for Public Complaints? And maybe you could just shed some light on
maybe how that could be worked out in a case that could become one or the other.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So,
basically, the process as we have it is under section 11(1): “A chief officer
shall notify the director as soon as practicable where the chief officer
believes that a serious incident may have occurred.” So if it falls within the
definition of serious incident, which are those that are laid out, this will go
to the SIRT. Not that it also, I believe, cannot go to the Public Complaints
Commission after, but obviously there's an investigation that would happen right
away.
“Where
the minister believes that a serious incident may have occurred and the chief
officer has not notified the director, the minister may notify the director.” We
move into Investigations, “Upon notification of a serious incident under section
11 or where the director becomes aware of a serious incident, the director may
do one or more of the following ….”
And
there's a whole range of things the director is able to do: arrange for the SIRT
team to come in and do an investigation, or take over an ongoing investigation;
refer the matter to an agency to conduct one; upon consultation with the chief
officer, assign officers; enter into a different agreement; direct that the SIRT
team oversee, observe, monitor, review; appoint a community liaison; refer the
matter to the chief officer or Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Public Complaints
Commission under section 19 of the RNC Act, 1992; refer it to the complaints
process in Part VII of the RCMP Act; or determine the matter is not within the
mandate of the SIRT.
Basically what happens, when something comes up, the chief officer is the person
who's going to know of everything. In some cases, I can't imagine it's going to
be very often, the minister finds out. Either way, it has to be referred as soon
as practicable, if it constitutes a serious incident. Once it goes to the SIRT,
that person has independent ability and authority to look at what's going on and
make a determination based on their – it might not constitute a serious
incident. That will be their determination. They can put it out or they can take
a number of other actions including going, as you say, to the Public Complaints
or the RCMP equivalent.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When the
chief determines that it's a serious incident as defined, the first order of
business would be to refer it to the director and that the director can do one
of the options. I appreciate that.
Mr.
Chair, under section 3, just on a clarification for section 3 that maybe the
minister can comment on, it involves all incidents involving police officers. I
take that to be on duty or off duty. I'm sure the minister must have given this
some consideration if it should be on duty or off duty.
I ask
him if he could provide just some comment on how they considered that and how
they reached that conclusion.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
It is
indeed on duty or off duty. Basically, the big thing is “arisen from the actions
of a police officer in the province.” One of the big things, too, is we get
officers who come here from other provinces, maybe in the course of an
investigation, they could also be covered under that as well.
This was
a discussion we had. We realized that police officers carry a special duty, a
special standing. Their actions, not just on duty but everywhere, guides them.
They're in a position of trust, as it relates to people in the public. So it has
been determined that it would be police officer. As soon as the chief officer is
aware – this is already what happens – the chief makes a decision on what has to
happen. If there's something serious involving one of their own officers, my
experience is that they take action very quickly.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A
similar question under section 4 – and I apologize, Minister; I was making some
notes and doing some research while I was listening to you when you were
answering some questions earlier. Under section 4 it allows for LGIC to appoint
a person to be a civilian director. Under paragraph (2) it's very clear and a
very concise statement: “A person who is a current or former police
officer in any jurisdiction shall not be appointed as the director.”
I raise this, Minister, just again to ask you to
clarify your rationale on this; if you could comment on this, if you wouldn't
mind. I can think of some circumstances where a person could be very qualified.
The RCMP
today, for example, have many lawyers who are police officers that work with
them in the country. They're well recognized as lawyers as well as police
officers. There are police officers who are standing agents for prosecutions in
our province. Sometimes they'll prosecute minor offences or the
Highway Traffic Act violations and so
on, but there are also police officers who are lawyers who work as police
officers in other parts of the country, not only here. My thought was is that
could be very well qualified to become a director.
They may
have been a lawyer before or police officer, or more than just a police officer
being a lawyer, but your section on 4(2) is very, very clear. I'm just wondering
if you've given any thought to those types of circumstances. Apparently your
decision is to be a solid, fast policy on this one.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's a
good question by the Member opposite. We feel that looking at the experience of
other jurisdictions and the fact that we just look at the questions that were
asked earlier about even seconded officers within. People were saying, well, how
can you even have somebody who was a police in here? The mere presence of police
takes away its impartiality. That's one of the questions.
What
we've decided is that in order to avoid this, the civilian oversight stems from
the top, and to eliminate that person, eliminate any possible perception or –
anyone trying to say this person has a bias because they were a police officer,
that's eliminated, absolutely. Unfortunately, this is one position where if you
were a former police officer or a current police officer, you are just unable to
do that. We think that's the best step.
It's my
opinion, and it's my opinion only – I don't know if I shared that – having a
police officer, a former police officer, someone who's trained as a police
officer and served on the force, will create amongst some aspects of the public
that perception which we're trying to avoid. That's why we've made that decision
there.
This is
a question we've tossed around a lot over the last number of years. Well, you
know what? It has been because it's been ongoing for at least two years that
I've been talking about this. That's the decision we made. I mean, no doubt,
there's probably some kind of circumstance where you had somebody that may have
been a police officer for six months and left it and went to law school and
became a Crown attorney for 20 years. That's possible, but that's more of a
very, I think, low-level, hypothetical probability than the fact that if we just
eliminate that.
There
are a number of individuals out there that had the skill sets that will be able
to be the civilian director and avoid any perception at all. The whole success
of this piece of legislation and this team will be from the public perception,
and that's what we want to stick with.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yeah, thank you, Minister.
I think
it's safe to say one of the significant factors of creating SIRT is to ensure
that the public has confidence that investigations regarding police officers are
being done as impartial and as fair as possible. I fully appreciate that.
I jump
over on a similar topic on section 8(4). Section 8 is about Agency assistance to
Serious Incident Response Team. Under section 8: “The minister may direct a
chief officer to select qualified police officers and other resources from the
agency to assist the Serious Incident Response Team and the chief officer shall
select police officers for that purpose and advise the director accordingly.”
While
that's the case, while police officers can be utilized from the agency, if we go
down to section 8(4): “A person shall not perform the role of a team commander
or a lead investigator in an investigation relating to a police officer where
that person is a member of the same agency.” I know section 8 has kind of
overall, but I'd be very interested in your comments, Minister, because we're
not going to allow for the lead investigator or the team commander to be from
the same agency; however, qualified police officers can assist from the actual
agency of the officer.
For
example, if the RCMP is under investigation by SIRT, it could actually use RCMP
officers to support the investigation, I would think, as interviewers,
collecting of evidence, crime scene examiners, those types of things. I'd
appreciate your comments on that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The
question from the Member opposite is actually similar to one that was brought up
by the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands. It's a good point.
I think
the difference here comes down to the concept of assisting with an investigation
versus team commander of an investigation. Sub (4) says: “A person shall not
perform the role of a team commander or a lead investigator in an investigation
relating to a police officer where that person is a member of the same agency.”
That's the point made by the Member earlier in debate where he said if we got
the RCMP as the lead investigator, that's the seconded person, they're
investigating an RCMP person. Well, that's going to create that issue.
That's
why that's not the case, that cannot happen here. They can be a part of it, but
anything they do would theoretically be looked over and scrutinized by the team
commander or person in the lead who is not a member of that and does not have
that bias and maintains that impartiality.
What
we're saying here is the minister may direct the chief officer to select
qualified police officers to assist the Serious Incident Response Team. The
director is going to have the ability to say we need the resources to do this
and at the end of the day the minister's job is to allow this to happen, but the
minister won't direct it.
I think
what we have here is at the end of the day, when you look at it, civilian
oversight is maintained by the civilian director. That will never go away. What
goes on in every other province is the civilian director oversees everything.
There is no file that comes in that the civilian director does not play some
role in. That ensures the civilian oversight that's going on, because everything
we're doing has had the same questions asked elsewhere. I asked Ron MacDonald
this question myself and this is basically what he said.
We don't
want, as the Member said opposite and as you said, if I got RNC as the team lead
on this particular investigation – because you might have, theoretically,
multiple investigations ongoing. That can happen. So you got two of your team
out here, you got another one of your team out here. You might have to be able
to call in somebody else to assist with that, if you have simultaneous
investigations. What you don't want is you don't want RNC or RCMP investigating
their own. They can be a part of that, but not the lead officer. At the end of
the day, the civilian director is at the top guiding everything.
So
that's the logic behind it. It works elsewhere. I've had a lot of chats about
it. I think it can work here and I think we have the controls in place to
eliminate – as you said, as we've all said – the possible perception that
there's this bias or this partiality that's going on, that we're all trying to
avoid anyway.
I think
this covers it off, and then hopefully this will be the case going forward.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
appreciate that, Minister. My thought line was a similar rationale as to why.
Your
comments earlier when the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands was talking to you
were, I noted as well, it's going to be challenging, practically impossible. I
would say not practically, but it will be possible to satisfy everyone that it
was completely independent and was done in – the bottom line is you have to have
police officers do the investigations.
If SIRT
is being tasked to investigate a serious incident as defined under this bill,
then nothing less than those who are best qualified, experienced, trained to
carry out the details of such investigations, which can be very complex and be
very specialized in many ways. I can think of, just by the types of offences
laid out in the serious incident definition, from one particular type of
incident to another, it could require a completely different skill set or
specialized training background, experience of officers from one type of an
incident to another could be very, very different.
You
could have a traffic incident. It's no good to send a Major Crime investigator –
well, they may be some help, but you're going to need traffic specialists to be
involved with a traffic-related matter. You're going to need those types of
expertise.
Minister, my question would be – and you've commented several times on the
importance of impartiality. I fully agree with that. Did you give thought to
also limiting who those assistants or supports, those investigators, those
qualified police officers and other resources – did you give consideration to
restricting them to being only officers from the other agencies?
The last
time I used the RCMP as an example; this time I'll use the RNC. If an RNC
officer is being investigated, did you give thought to limiting all people
involved with the investigation of the RNC officer to officers who are not from
the RNC?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I can
confirm that, yes, we've given consideration. I'd like to think we've given
consideration to everything because we've sat around those tables and we went at
each other pretty hard, especially over the last year. We've gone at each other
pretty hard.
What I
think we have is a scenario where I don't want to put restrictions in place.
We've seen other areas where you put a restriction in place and you end up
finding yourself in a situation where you're prevented from doing something that
could make all the sense in the world, but you're legislatively prevented from
doing it.
What I
would suggest – because I think what you're saying could very well be a best
practice. That's going to be up to the director to enforce. We're giving the
director the leeway, the authority and the ability to do what they need to do
for an investigation.
I agree
with that concept in theory. If we have an RNC incident, well, let's avoid
having an RNC officer being a part of that. That might be the case and that can
happen every time because I have full faith in whoever the director is going to
be to be able to do that. There may be a situation arises where that's
impossible, but looking at the situation you don't think that a conflict exists.
If you
put in a legislative barrier, you might end up in a situation where you're
prevented from doing something that makes all the sense in the world. It's very
similar; I've seen other incidents of this, not within this type of legislation,
but within the Criminal Code. If I want to get into something like
mandatory minimums, there are times where a mandatory minimum in and of itself
made sense when you created it, but then it causes more problems down the road
because it doesn't allow for common sense, it doesn't allow for flexibility.
I think in this case, again, if we have a director that
comes in and this person is going to have the abilities and the skill set that
they can look at situations that you outline and, hopefully, do everything that
they can to avoid – because that's one of the big things. Everything they do,
they have to be beyond reproach. So I think they'll probably take into
consideration situations like you
lay out, to do everything they can to avoid it, but will also avoid the
legislative barriers which may get in the way of trying to do what actually
could be the best step.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I appreciate that, Minister.
Actually, I have draft amendments that I haven't tabled because I wanted to
discuss this with you first and understand exactly what your intent was. I had
it because I've given a fair amount of consideration to this. I fully agree
that, for starters, it's important to maintain public confidence that the
investigation is going to be fair and complete or, as I learned when doing major
case management training, full, fair and frank were the three words that used to
be referred to in major case management – full, fair and frank when you're doing
an investigation.
I
actually first heard it from the Ontario SIRT or members from the Ontario
equivalent. I don't think they call it SIRT in Ontario, but it's the equivalent
group in Ontario that full, fair and frank was the first place that I heard the
term used and I think it fits in many ways.
Minister, my understanding from you – and I'm not trying to put words in your
mouth; I just want to make sure I fully understand it. Your concept or what you
visualize or what you are intending here is that ideally that would happen
anyway. I think that is what you may be saying. I also appreciate – and my
hesitation on this as well is that there may be an investigation whereby the
best person available to participate in a certain aspect of that investigation
is from the same agency. I think that's very realistic that could take place. My
understanding from you – and you talked a lot about public perception and so on
– of course it will be up to the director, but you would envision that ideally
it would be separated from the agency who is the subject of the investigation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
going to apologize in advance. I may have missed certain parts of the question
by the Member opposite. So for the sake of me actually not wasting time and
talking about something that I might be off, I'll just ask him if he could
repeat the question again and I'll try my best to answer.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Yes, certainly, Minister. I
don't want to put words in your mouth; I just want to understand what you had
envisioned as the minister. Is it your vision that ideally if a certain service
or a member of a certain service was under investigation that all the players
involved in that investigation would come from the other service or someone
other than that particular service? But knowing that there may be circumstances
where the best person to add value and a certain role in that investigation
could come from the same service. I think you're stating here that the public
confidence is a key part for you as minister and for your government and,
ideally, it wouldn't be someone from the agency. You're not restricting it to
that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I get
what the Member is saying. Ideally, the person who's put in as the civilian
director is going to take all steps necessary to both allow for the
investigation and to maintain credibility and positive public perception of the
investigation.
What we
have here in this legislation is flexibility that allows the civilian director
to do what's necessary. So if that means using somebody from the same force but
not as the team commander – because, again, we want to avoid that altogether. So
they can use somebody, yes. They can avoid it, yes. They can go outside and get
assistance, whatever is necessary, to do the best investigation and using the
three Fs that you mentioned. They have to be able to do that.
We're
not putting any constraints in place here to allow the director to do everything
to ensure that we have a full, thorough, fair investigation that won't have
artificial restrictions put in place, but at the same time, whoever comes in
here is going to realize that the steps they take will have a direct impact on
public confidence. I'm confident this person will do everything to ensure that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The
other scenario that comes to mind on this, it comes under circumstances you
referred earlier of the CFSEU which is an established Joint Forces Operation,
JFO. Quite often in policing it is referred to as a JFO. Joint Forces Operations
whereby police officers of the RCMP and the RNC co-operate and work together as
a team to conduct certain types of investigations.
In some
other provinces, in Nova Scotia, for example, they actually have police officers
from the RCMP embedded into sections of the Halifax Regional Police, as an
example, and Halifax Regional Police have officers embedded in divisions of the
RCMP. So there's an integrated policing model as they've referred to it there.
So there
are circumstances that exist here in the province whereby police officers work
together and sometimes are very serious matters, high-level matters, matters
that could, at some point in time, give rise to the need for a SIRT
investigation.
My
thought on a circumstance if that was to happen, in order to ensure public
confidence, it would be beneficial if neither the RCMP or the RNC were part of
that investigation. I know under section 10 is allows for agreements.
I ask
the minister: Under those agreements, is that something you gave thought to that
in those types of circumstances that what's currently used, bringing in outside
agencies, if it be from Alberta or from Nova Scotia or wherever, Ontario, did
you give thought to saying if there is both services involved in an
investigation, is there another route that the director could be given to ensure
that confidence in the police process?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Chair, I can confirm
that there certainly is.
This all
stems from, first, the key is to have a very strong, independent civilian
director. That's how this organization is going to work.
Section
12, “Upon notification of a serious incident … or where the director becomes
aware … the director may do one or more of the following” – this lays out all
the circumstances – 12(b), “refer the matter to an agency to conduct an
investigation, which may include taking over an ongoing investigation at any
stage.”
So, yes,
they have the ability to go outside when necessary to ensure an investigation
continues and is done properly.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Moving
over to section 11 – just a moment, Mr. Chair. Section 11 deals with notifying
the director of a serious incident. Section 11(1): “A chief officer shall notify
the director as soon as practicable where the chief officer believes that a
serious incident may have occurred.”
Under
section (2): “Where the minister believes that a serious incident may have
occurred and the chief officer has not notified the director, the minister may
notify the director.”
I just
ask the minister if he can give me some explanation as to the intention of that
section. I'm trying to think of a scenario where you may circumvent the chief
officer notifying the director. Can you shed some light on that?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
What I
would say is what we have here is a catch-all to allow for any possibility.
Primarily, it will be the chief officer, because it's usually the chief officer
of that force who knows that something has happened, and their duty – and I like
the term as soon as practicable. Basically, as soon as it's possible they will
notify the director, and that's usually the procedure that happens.
What
we've allowed, though, is the possibility where if for some reason the minister,
through whatever reason – because some people, who knows how people like to
approach these things. If the minister were to find out, and maybe – it's our
belief, whoever the minister is, that a serious incident has occurred, you have
to have the ability to refer that to the director.
The
whole point is we have a civilian independent individual that's going to take
this over. I like the catch-all here, the cover-all. Again, I can only
anticipate, I can only speculate. My speculation is that may be a section that
is not used at all, and if it is, it's used very infrequently, but I like the
idea of having it to protect for the possibility of something happening. In many
cases, you have to prepare for that possibility.
What I
will endeavour to do is to check other – because I don't have it right here in
front of me. I think this may be used in other jurisdictions as well, where
ministers are able to do that and have that ability. In many cases, for whatever
reason, I get lots of calls and emails from people complaining about things that
have been happening or alleged to have happened and we have to have that ability
to pass it on.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The only
area that I thought of and I don't know if this would be an impediment to
reporting, I don't think it would be. The only area I thought about is if one of
the police agencies or two of them jointly were conducting some type of an
investigation without the chief being made aware – when I read this, it sounds
like the minister can go directly to the director in a case where the chief may
not have been aware.
My
belief is that the chief should be made aware first, because the chief may be
aware of an investigation and activity that's taking place or underway that the
minister may not be aware of. I'm sure in many cases that happens; the minister
is not aware of what's taking place within the organization, either the RCMP or
the RNC.
I'm just
wondering if there's any possibility of a conflict that could occur there
whereby the director comes in and maybe does some damage to an ongoing
investigation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think the way the wording
is – again, I can only talk about practice. If I were to hear about something
that was a possible police issue, my duty is to pass that on immediately to the
police force, the appropriate jurisdiction. That's how I think you should
operate.
I think
with the situation here, it says: Where the minister believes that it has
occurred and the chief officer has not notified the director. It might be very
well a case where the minister is aware, has reported it, it hasn't gone
anywhere and there's still a serious incident, the minister may notify the
director. There's a lot of – we used the words here: he believes that it may
have occurred, the minister may notify the director, if the chief officer has
not notified the director.
Once
it's in the director's hands, it's up to the director then to determine what
action is taken, including not going forward, going forward.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl –Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I just want to go back to the whole idea of members from one agency
being part of the investigative team. I understand you're saying that's not how
you would envision it. You would hope that the director would utilize, if at all
possible, non-members of a particular force that are involved in the
investigation.
I'm just
wondering when it comes to things like, for example, collection of evidence. I
understand you have someone who's investigating a file and so on, but if there's
forensic type of evidence or something involved, how would that work? I guess
you would just second somebody from the RNC, RCMP forensic unit, if they're
examining evidence and stuff like that. They wouldn't be an investigator per se,
but they would be obviously a needed resource, correct?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I don't have the section
there, but the act very clearly outlines that the director has the ability to go
outside to retain assistance as necessary.
If an
issue arises where – and the Member said specialized, very detailed or forensic
or whatever it is, the director will have the ability to go out and get the
resources they need to do that particular investigation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
I thank the minister for
that.
I guess
the only concern would be is that – and I'm sure they wouldn't do it, but
obviously if you have to go for any kind of specialized forensics that, even
though you may have a lead investigator who is from another force, you would
hope that the person who is actually doing the forensics and actually collecting
the evidence, even though they wouldn't be the lead investigator, they would
have absolutely nothing to do with that part of an investigation. Because if not
it would – obviously in terms of public perception, people wouldn't have a whole
lot of confidence in that, I wouldn't think.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I just
want to remind all hon. Members, if you're speaking to a clause, I would like
for you identify the clause that you're speaking to.
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like
to move on to – I'm sorry, I want to go back to 11(2) just for a minute. This is
a matter, too, that I've given some thought to and I did so based on my own
experience and when in talking to other people, and as I referenced earlier,
about potential circumstances that could exist.
I just
ask the minister if – under “11(2) Where the minister believes that a serious
incident may have occurred and the chief officer has not notified the director,
the minister may notify the director.”
If the
minister was to add or if the clause would be amended to include after the word
director: “the minister may notify the director” after consulting with the chief
officer. Based on what work you've done and review and your catch-all, would you
see that as anyway of an impediment to what your intention was in the bill?
I can
read it again from start to finish with the addition if you want.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think I got it.
MR. P. DAVIS:
You think you got it, okay.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
The Member is asking about
section 11, which has two subsections. “(1) A chief officer shall notify the
director as soon as practicable where the chief officer believes that a serious
incident may have occurred. (2) Where the minister believes that a serious
incident may have occurred and the chief officer has not notified the director,
the minister may notify the director.”
All I
can say to that is whenever there's an allegation of possible criminal
wrongdoing, you wouldn't go directly to the civilian director first because if
it's a criminal matter, your job is to go to the police, to notify them. I don't
think there's a need to change that, to have that. It allows the possibility to
ensure that, at the end of the day, the civilian director gets access to
everything, but I think it lays out what's necessary very clearly.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I appreciate that. That's a
valid point the minister raises. I thank him for that.
I'd like
to go to section 12. Section 12 is about investigations. The minister has
already referred to this, Mr. Chair. It deals with the list of what the director
may do, one or more of the following, and it says: “Upon notification of
a serious incident under section 11” – that's the section we just did talked
about – “or where the director becomes aware of a serious incident, the director
may do one or more of the following ….” I noticed here where it says “or where
the director becomes aware of a serious incident,” because I suppose a citizen
could go directly to the director and report a matter or allege a serious
incident as well.
I want to just go down to (f) “appoint a community liaison
or observer to work with the Serious Incident Response Team in the course of an
investigation.” I was just looking a bit earlier, but I believe it's the only
place in the bill that it actually refers to appointing a community liaison or
observer to work with the serious incident.
I know that Justice Barry, in his recent decision of the
most recent public inquiry held, had actually Recommendation 29, Recommendation
30 and Recommendation 31 that deal with independent observer. He made three
separate statements and commentary to each one of them, but the bill only refers
to appointing the community liaison or observer to work with the Serious
Incident Response Team in the course of the investigation.
I
wonder, Minister, is there a reason why Justice Barry's specifics weren't more
so included within the bill itself?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I point out two things. The
first part is there was only one section of the bill where we actually did not
agree with what Justice Barry said, and that had to do with the timeline on the
investigation.
This one
actually is coming through our consultation with, specifically, Alberta, where
they've done investigations in indigenous communities. So what they want is to
have a community liaison, somebody from the community that can work with the
team. It is something we actually deal with in the court system in Labrador
here.
That's
what it allows. It allows for the team to say we need somebody from the
community to work with us to assist in the investigation, which is different
than – I know the concept you're referring to and what Justice Barry was talking
about where he had an independent observer overseeing the investigation. I think
this is meant in a different way. That's the reason that it's added in there.
It's allowing them to bring in somebody for particular circumstances.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, if that's the case, then you're not referring to Justice Barry's
recommendations. What's your position on Recommendation 29, 30 and 31 that are
absent in the bill?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, I don't have that in
front of me, the Dunphy report. If the Member wants to just stand up and say
what the three are, I'll give you the reason why our bill is like it is.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
My apologies, Minister.
Recommendation 29: “An Independent Observer's mandate and duties should be
clearly defined before the Independent Observer commences work.” The commentary
on this is: “The details of the procedures and protocols that the Independent
Observer and the investigating agency are to follow should be clearly
articulated and communicated to all parties involved. The Independent Observer
should follow a protocol that objectively measures the integrity and
impartiality of the investigation.”
Recommendation 30: “An Independent Observer should have unrestricted access to
members of the investigating force and the disclosure collected, but should not
have direct contact with any potential witnesses.” There is a commentary there
as well, Minister; I'll read it briefly: “An Independent Observer is not an
investigator or should not be permitted to take any investigate steps. If the
Independent Observer has concerns during the investigation or suggestions that
could improve the impartiality, fairness or transparency of the investigation,
these should be communicated to the investigative team. The investigative team
should maintain final decision-making authority over the direction of the
investigation.”
Recommendation 31: “An Independent Observer should be subject to appropriate
terms of confidentiality, but the ultimate findings of the Independent Observer
should be made public, subject to any redactions or other modifications ….” When
I read 12(f) “appoint a community liaison or observer,” I drew the conclusion
that this was fulfilling the three recommendations from Justice Barry.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
What I would suggest is that
this is different in the sense that I understand what the Member is talking
about, and that was a very different case where we had an observer come in and
we saw what happened there in the sense of crossing the line was maybe one of
the terms that was used.
The
reason we have this in here is we have experience from other jurisdictions that
we need to allow for a community liaison to come in. This community liaison will
abide by the policies and procedures set out by the civilian director. It's also
subject to ATIPPA; it's subject to confidentiality. Whoever comes in, they're
not coming in as an investigator. That's not contemplated in any way, shape or
form.
I'll
continue on now. I think I've covered off where you're going with this. I know
what he's saying, but at the end of the day, the civilian oversight director is
going to make sure that this is all covered off.
I'm
going to take my seat. I'll wait for the next question.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
We're
having a job trying to hear the questions. The minister is having trouble
hearing the questions. We want to respect on the other side as well for asking
the questions.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Minister.
When I
saw them, I honestly thought this was meant to address Justice Leo Barry's
recommendations. Justice Barry's recommendations, just to be clear, are as a
result of an investigation of a serious incident. Of course, the SIRT bill is
directly related to Justice Barry's recommendations.
My
reading – and just correct me if I'm wrong, Minister. I don't want to go too
long on this because it's certainly not what I expected. When I read 12(f), what
I'm reading here is that the recommendations of Justice Barry could exist. I was
thinking the reason why it wasn't done deeper than what it is here may have been
because that may show up in regulation or in policy developed by the director
and how the director is going to operate the SIRT here in Newfoundland and
Labrador. I thought 12(f) would give the authority of the director to actually
assign an observer because it's not an absolute.
I don't
think Justice Barry anywhere said that an independent observer has to be
appointed, it's just made as an option – if an independent observer is
appointed. I don't see anywhere in the recommendations, in my reading anyway,
that Justice Barry says that an independent observer is a must or is required.
That was
my thought. I thought when I read Justice Barry's recommendations, that he was
indicating that an independent observer is an option that can be used, and if
it's going to be used, here are some of his findings. I can move on or if you
want to comment on that, I could –
MR. A. PARSONS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I know what the Member is
saying. The civilian director has the power to set out policy and procedure.
What I would assume is that as we go forward anything that's done will be guided
by a number of factors, including recommendations.
Section
12 doesn't say that they will, it says that they may: “the director may do one
or more of the following.” So it's just another option to allow them, and I
think it's more along the lines of what we've identified for special
circumstances.
Again, I
cannot speak for whoever the civilian director will be. They will have the
ability to do what's necessary for the operational purview of the entity. I get
what you're saying, but I don't think it's an issue here. I think it's been
covered off and reviewed quite adequately.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When
SIRT came out, I immediately went to Justice Barry's recommendations, and
consistent with what you're saying, under 12 the bill says, and the law will be
that the director has a number of options. He may apply or may do any one or a
number of those options, but none of them are absolutes, and appointing a
community liaison observer is not an absolute. It's an option there for the
director, depending on the circumstances. I think Justice Barry has done the
same thing. He's not saying it's a requirement. He's saying that if you're going
to do it, here's what you're going to do.
While
we're on Justice Barry, I'll move over to section 13. You just referred to this
briefly yourself, Minister, where the timelines under section 13 have not met
under recommendation 34 of Justice Barry, which was his last recommendation. I'd
be very interested to hear your comments on why those timelines were not met as
Justice Barry had recommended.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, certainly we've taken
everything that Justice Barry has said very seriously. He did an extensive
amount of work, very important work, very public work. We've gone through – the
only one we had difficulty with was the 90 days. After reviewing with every
other SIRT in the province, they all said unanimously that it was not fair to
put 90 days in there.
In many
cases, investigations can take significantly longer than that, and to put an
artificial limit on it, that may not work with the investigation. Let's just
think if they have to do forensics. In many cases, we have to go outside the
province to deal with labs outside of here. We have to wait a significant amount
of time to get the results back. Here we are, we're breaking the law even though
it's no fault of our own.
What we
did, though, and I think this covers the spirit of where he wanted to go. He
said 90 days, and I think the reason we want that is because people want answers
in a very timely fashion – even though we know police investigations can take a
lot longer than that. Let's put out an interim report after 45 days and every 45
days to ensure the people that are a part of this investigation are kept up to
date.
That was
important. Everybody we consulted with was in agreement with this. This was a
best practice from the other jurisdictions, seeing what they've done there. We
thought it was appropriate here and we think it's going to work.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, the minister's last comment was very practicable and best – what was
the word you used? Not best case, best practice from other jurisdictions. I
fully agree.
You make
a good point as well, because investigations can take much longer than 90 days.
If you have a serious incident, it's very likely that work of forensic
laboratories would be required, but also the collection of evidence, forensic
examination of scenes, or areas, or premises or properties and, also, then the
collection. That can take some time in itself. Having to go through warrants and
so on to obtain access can sometimes lead you very easily into 90 days very,
very quickly.
One last
section, Minister, on section 17; it's also on timelines. This one is about an
investigation summary or the reporting. Section 17(1) says: “As soon as
reasonably practicable but no later than 3 months after receiving a report under
section 14, the director shall provide a summary of an investigation conducted
in accordance with paragraph 12(a) to (a) the minister; (b) the chief officer of
the agency in which the police officer under investigation is or was employed;
(c) the police officer under investigation; and (d) a person directly affected
by the serious incident or where he or she is deceased, his or her family.
“(2) The
summary shall be in the form prescribed by the regulations.”
Minister, in this case, no later than three months, 90 days after an
investigation was concluded, seems like a very long time for me. I'm wondering,
can you also shed some light on why you landed or how you landed on three
months?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What
we've done here is we've given the director leeway and ability to – there's
other work that has to be done once the report is put in. This, again, I can say
was done after consulting with the directors from other jurisdictions where
putting in tight timelines makes it very difficult for them to abide by that.
Nobody wants to be in contravention of the law.
What we
do there is we have to put a date in because if we don't have a date in, it can
be open-ended forever. So you put in the “no later than three months after
receiving ….” I think the term that people want to see here is the “as soon as
reasonably practicable” because I think that's going to be the guiding factor.
The
three months is something that absolutely prohibits going that long. I don't
anticipate it will, but we have to have that ability there. It can't be forever,
but as soon as reasonably practicable. If the situation comes where that's not
being followed, then there are going to be questions that arise, but I think
this covers off both sides of the equation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My last
comment to you, Minister; we've been here for probably a couple of hours now
going through line by line here and we've had a good discussion. You've
responded to all of my questions and almost all the questions that came from the
Opposition. I just want to thank you for clarifying and providing that
information.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
A
question for the minister on section 17(3): “The director or the minister shall
provide a summary of an investigation to the public in the form prescribed by
the regulations.” I'm just wondering, because it's going to be left to the
regulations so we don't know exactly what it will be. Can the minister give us
some idea as to what might be contained in that summary, what it might look
like?
Is it
going to be just simply we investigated a complaint from an individual regarding
some incident and we found it to be non-founded? It was not founded and then
that's the end of the summary and that's it, or is it going to be a little more
detailed without necessarily divulging names of officers and names of
individuals, but being more specific as to what the allegations were, what
process was taken, who the lead investigators were, what agency, what other
agencies were involved and that type of thing? So that people have some – I
guess in terms of the public report, there's some confidence that, yes, this was
pretty extensive work done. It was done on a fair and impartial basis without it
getting into personal details and so on and have some confidence in those
reports as opposed to simply we investigated a complaint on this date and it was
unfounded, end of story. That wouldn't be, I wouldn't think, too good.
I'm
asking what you would envision it looking like in the regulations.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The
first thing to put out there is my contemplation that whatever is given to the
Minister of Justice is also what will end up going out to the public. I think
that's important to know, that the public wants to see that.
I'm
assuming it will contain facts, time frame, the number of civilian witnesses
interviewed, a decision on whether charges should be laid or not. If no charge
is laid, there might be a reason for allowing for that, giving out that
explanation.
There
will be an annual report put out every single year, laying out the entire year's
work, body of work that's done. There is a transitional part here for ATIPPA,
because obviously there are certain things that cannot be put out there. It is
my understanding that what comes to the minister is what goes out, should
contain something like that. There may be some stuff I'm omitting
unintentionally that I'm not aware of, but I think it has to lay out those
factors.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 22
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 22 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Establish A Serious
Incident Response Team For The Province.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 24
carried without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report Bill 24.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 24.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Deputy
Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 24 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 24 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
call Order 7. We'll continue second reading of Bill 19.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to rise tonight to speak to Bill 19. The particular bill we're debating is
related to changes to MCRC and particular application of them. What was in that
review came to the Management Commission for review and then proceeds here to
the House.
Bill 19
certainly looks to that. There are a number of amendments proposed, as we go
through a number of clauses, to amend the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act.
One of
the areas we've talked about, and as my colleagues have spoken to as well in the
House and about the particular bill, relates to Management Commission quorum. I
know through the Management Commission there were a number of areas that we
looked at and talked about. While this did go through the Management Commission,
on further review and us looking at it – and certainly looking at what Justice
Green had done and said in his review of the House of Assembly some years ago –
we thought it was relevant to have a discussion on it and bring it to the House
at this point in time.
Section
18(8) of the House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act currently reads: “A quorum
of the commission shall be 50% of its members, but (a) one member representing
the government; (b) one member representing a party in opposition to the
government; and (c) the speaker or the deputy speaker shall be present during a
meeting of the commission.” We would want to look at where there would be
guaranteed representation from an individual from the Opposition, which I think
is important.
The
Green report stated in Recommendation 30(5) on page 6-14: “A quorum of the
Commission should be 50% of its members provided the Speaker or Deputy Speaker
and at least one member representing a party in opposition to the government be
present….” I think when we get to Committee we'll be proposing an amendment
ensuring that the meeting of the Management Commission could not occur without
at least one Member of the party in Opposition participating.
I think
no matter what party would be in power, no matter what the details would be at
any particular time, that there would be guaranteed representation from a party
in Opposition. That would, I think, meet some of the commentary we saw in the
Green report and bring that unbiased and confidence that all representation
that's being made and can be heard through the Management Commission on
decisions that are made.
I look
forward to getting to Committee and having further discussion.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I would
like to draw the House's attention as well to a clause in Bill 19, to clause 4,
subsection 18(8). The quorum used to be 50 per cent of government Members, plus
one Member of a party in Opposition, and the recommendation was that the quorum
be a simple majority with the Speaker and Deputy Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, my colleague, the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi, wanted to
point out that, yes, she accepted the recommendations of the review; however,
she accepted all of them. In sense of when we look at that this recommendation
can't be isolated from the MCRC's other recommendations, such as setting up a
fixed calendar that is paid attention to.
Mr.
Speaker, this could work, but only if there's a set calendar that is paid
attention to so that Members on the Committee know ahead of time. Then there's
an agreed upon future date, and then people are committed to that date. Without
that, then there's no guarantee there would be a Member from the Opposition, and
they feel it's really, really important that in fact there be a Member of the
Opposition.
So it's
in that context that the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi accepted this
recommendation, because there were the other recommendations of fixed calendars
that were done in a meaningful way that people could adhere to.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. Government House
Leader speaks now, he will close debate.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to speak to close second reading of Bill 19. This is one of those bills we
actually started some time ago, and we've had a lot of time in between and we're
going to move to Committee now.
I'm
actually really happy it took some time, because what I can tell you, I took my
original, however long it was to speak, and I went through this bill very
carefully and didn't really pay any particular attention to any section. There's
a reason for that, because this is not a government bill per se. This is a bill
that comes from the Management Commission. Just so people know, the Management
Commission is made up of Members of all parties. So I'm glad there was actually
some time in between because I can tell you, I was quite – to quote Captain
Renault from Casablanca – I was shocked, shocked I tell you, when I heard what
two of the Members on the other side had to say, particularly the Leader of the
Official Opposition and the Leader of the NDP. I'm going to lay out why.
The
Member for Conception Bay South started and he put forward his points, which is
fine. The Member for Conception Bay South, as well as the Member for St. John's
Centre, as well as the Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands do not sit on the
Management Commission. The Leader of the Official Opposition does, the Leader of
the NDP does and the Opposition House Leader does.
The
section that is in question here is the quorum section. Now, we're debating a
bill that stems from – just so we understand, we're doing the SIRT bill, we just
did this. This is a bill that's government policy. It's our policy. We brought
it forward. We came up with everything behind it and we put it in the House. As
the Member said before, in many cases they don't get to give input on it. This
is why it goes through a debate process.
Some day
we will get to legislative committees. That's going to happen at some point, but
that's how governments work. Governments govern. Governments bring forward the
policy that they run on. SIRT was one of our policies. We put it out and we've
had what I thought was a really good debate.
This
bill is a bit different. It's the House of Assembly, Accountability, Integrity –
I'm just going to call it HOAAIA because I'm going to mix it up. I'm using
acronyms. It's called HOAAIA, that's what we refer to it as.
What
happens after every election, there is a Members' Compensation Review Committee
that is struck by non-politicians, usually three people, and they go around and
look at things like Members' compensation, pensions, severance, allowances and
constituency allowances, all that stuff, and they come in and make
recommendations on what we should do. It goes to the Management Commission, made
up of Members of all parties, a non-partisan group that is supposed to sit there
and debate these things and say we're going to do it or not do it. In most
cases, they are accepted by the Management Commission and put forward.
I've
heard the Members on the other side talk about how the Members' Compensation
Review Committee did this thing so we should agree with what they did, but in
this particular case, when it comes to quorum, and it's quorum of the Management
Commission, they're saying: No, no, we don't agree with what that independent
group said. We don't like that.
That in
and of itself is fine, but here's where my issue is – again, I didn't think this
was an issue. I stood up and barely spoke about it. The reason is because I sat
at the table with them when this came up at Management Commission. Not once –
twice it came up and the Members opposite didn't say a word.
I tell
you why that perturbs me, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to go back to some of the
commentary from when we opened up this bill in the House, okay?
When we
opened up this bill in the House the Member for – and I'm going to refer to
Hansard so as to be accurate and not
misquote anybody. What we have is the Member for Conception Bay South spoke of
it again. The Member for Conception Bay South is not on the Management
Commission, so that's fine.
What we
had then is we had the Member, the Leader of the NDP or co-leader or whatever it
is, came up. This is what they said that day – or, actually, do you know what
I'm going to do, Mr. Speaker? I'm going to go back and talk about what they said
in March. I'll take my time.
In
March, I have it here, it's a briefing note from the Management Commission, a
group they belong to, they sit in. They said here: “At a meeting held on March
15, 2017, the House of Assembly Management Commission approved a number of
recommendations of the 2016 Members' Compensation Review Committee which require
amendments to the” House of Assembly Act.
We, as
the Management Commission, accepted these. We approved these. The way that it
goes into the House is not where this is a government bill. As Government House
Leader, it's the only mechanism we have to put it in there. I am the vessel
through which it travels, but it comes from that Table where we all sit.
This is
why it's important that we hear this because what's going to happen here, once
we hear the comments from the Members on the other side, you're going to say:
Wow, that's a little about-face there, isn't it?
“The
amendments to the Rules will be tabled by the Speaker in the House and brought
to the next meeting of the Commission for final approval.” So they were talked
about on March 15.
“The
Government House Leader will be asked to bring the proposed amendments to the
Act forward to Cabinet for approval subject to final drafting by the Office of
the Legislative Counsel and presentation to the House of Assembly as a Bill.”
Every
one of these was accepted – every one of them, every single one. One of them –
let me see, let's get to it here now – was number 54. Where is it? I'm going to
take my time here.
Recommendation 54: “Subsection 18(8) of the Act is repealed and the following is
substituted: (8) A quorum of the commission shall be a majority of its members,
including the speaker or deputy speaker.”
The
Management Commission read the report that was done by the MCRC and the MCRC
said there are issues getting these meetings together, there are issues getting
quorum. The reason is because it's made up of – I disagree with the Member for
CBS. He said it's dominated by it – no, it's actually equal. There are three
government Members, three Opposition Members, and the Speaker sits on it to cast
a vote in the case of a tie. So it's not like the old IEC, which was changed,
which was government dominated. Three, three, the Speaker casts the vote.
The
interesting thing here, Mr. Speaker – I have to continue on. I'm going to make
sure I have my notes. I got lots of time here, don't I? I got lots of time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
The Commission, made up of
the Leader of the Opposition, Leader of the NDP, both sat there at the Table,
and I assume they were of sound mind and body, adopted Recommendation 54 and
directed that section 18(8) of the act be amended to permit that a quorum shall
consist of a simple majority of the Members, without reference to government or
Opposition.
So I'll
tell you what's important. They sat there and said we agree with this, we need
to change this, let's send it forward. Here's the interesting thing, this was in
March – oh, the interesting thing, too, I got to come back to this, and God
bless Hansard sometimes, March 15, the
Leader of the Opposition and this is in relation to that section:
“The
only comment, Mr. Speaker, is I understand sometimes there are challenges in
setting Management Commission meetings and that's the nature sometimes of what
happens. But I would expect that what happens right now is Management Commission
and the Clerk and the Clerk's Office sometimes goes to some length to make sure
that the meeting can accommodate as many Members as possible, and I certainly
appreciate it. I'm sure all Members appreciate it and I'm sure that tradition
will continue, even though we're moving to a simple majority of the Members.”
Here's
the good one: “I don't think it's an issue.”
AN HON. MEMBER:
Who said that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
The Leader of the Opposition
said here in this House, recorded: “I don't think it's an issue; I just say that
I know the intention all along was to get as many Members as possible to attend,
and I'm sure that will continue.”
Now, the
interesting thing, the Leader of the Opposition didn't say a word – sorry, the
Leader of the Third Party didn't say a word. I didn't say a word because I agree
with it. I support it, I still support it. That's what he had to say. The Leader
of the NPD didn't say a word. What's interesting, you know what she did do? She
moved the motion, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
AN HON. MEMBER:
You can't make this stuff up.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I
echo that comment: You can't make this stuff up.
I'll
continue on. This is where I go back to
Hansard. They moved a motion. The Leader of the NDP moved that we accept it.
The Leader of the Opposition said: I'll second that motion; all in favour, let's
send it forward. But here's the thing: That wasn't the only time. It had to go
to Cabinet and then it had to come back and the second time it was again moved
by the Leader of Opposition. The Member for Placentia West – Bellevue seconded
it at that time, as he should, because he agreed with it.
On two
separate occasions not only did he not speak to it, support it, voted for it,
they moved it. One would assume they knew what they were doing, which led to my
great surprise. When we come in the House on November 14, I call the bill, I
speak to it and I think it's not going to be a serious bill. Some bills you know
you're going to have a big debate. This is not one I expected, but there's
foreshadowing.
The
Member for CBS spoke, but again, he didn't vote on it. He wasn't there. He's not
a member of the Management Commission. He didn't, but his leader was. Then, the
Leader of the NDP gets up and says: “… there is one piece of the bill that I'm
concerned about and that has to do with the quorum.” It seems we're having a
problem sometimes having meetings.
“I have
a real problem with it. I'm not ready to agree with this. I think that we should
not be changing the makeup or the definition of quorum.” Here's the best part:
“The responsibility that's being laid on the shoulders of the Opposition Members
only in this ruling … is unbelievable. I mean, I'm shocked.”
I have
to tell you, I have a hard time, Mr. Speaker, when I sit at two meetings and
they support it, they move it, they vote on it, and then they come in the House
later on and say: This is unbelievable; I can't believe that we did this. I'm
sorry, I have a hard time with that. Imagine how I would have sounded if I was
allowed to speak that day?
It
continues on. This is the part that really, really gets to me: “The thing of
allowing a meeting of the House Management Commission with three Members of
government only at the meeting, to me, is completely unacceptable.”
“I just
think it's extremely disingenuous of government to go ahead and make this
recommendation in this legislation without looking at the broader picture of the
MCRC.”
I'm
sorry if I'm confused. She moved it. She said it was good. She supported it. She
moved the motion. She voted on it twice. This is not government. Government is
the vessel through which it gets here. This was her own doing. So excuse me if
I'm confused when she gets up and expresses how we're disingenuous. I think
there's somebody disingenuous here and it isn't us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, if there's an issue
here, blame the staff at Hansard. They
typed it.
Now,
we'll continue on. Just so I put some context in there, if you go backwards,
that was Recommendation 54. Recommendation 53 actually clearly says the
Management Commission will take all steps necessary to ensure all Members are
present.
One of
the concerns they brought forward was that government – again, government
doesn't schedule Management Commission meetings, Mr. Speaker. It's the House
that schedules. The Leader of the Opposition said he had no issue with it
because they've gone out of their way to make sure we're all available.
God
forbid, if that's the case, and if all of a sudden it becomes partisan which,
again, is completely against tradition – this here also says you have to go out
of your way to ensure everybody is available. It's never been an issue ensuring
that people are there, the issue is – ensuring that we have people there. We're
having trouble scheduling the meetings.
They
didn't have an issue with it. Now they have an issue with it. That's fine. I
can't explain. Maybe during Committee the Leader of the NDP can get up and
explain. If I'm wrong, call me on a point of order now. Get up and explain
because not only is she going against what she voted on twice, she clearly does
not understand how this process works. She clearly does not understand.
I'm
going to continue on because the Leader of the Opposition got up and then he had
his say. Let me see, this is the part that amazed me. I have five minutes but,
you know what, I have Committee, too. It goes on. There's a little bit of
talking because there are other parts of this bill. This is the only one we're
worried about, this is the only one there's contention with: “The way I look at
it” – this is the Leader of the Opposition – “Mr. Speaker, we were dealing with
an elephant in the room, being the pension plan, when we had a snake in the
corner.” His words.
We were
in this room and he was saying we were looking at everything else, we didn't see
the snake in the corner, but he felt so bad about it (a) he said, I have no
issue with this, (b) I'm going to second that motion and (c) I'll move it the
next time. What are we doing here, Mr. Speaker? It's amazing. It's absolutely
amazing that a Member can stand up here with a straight face and say that after
doing all this on the record.
It
continues on. I'll leave it to the Leader of the Opposition to explain this one.
Contrary to the Leader of the NDP, at least he recognized the fact that he had
done one thing, said one thing and then did another here in the House, but he
had a reason. “Mr. Speaker, I have to admit, I didn't read that phrase. I don't
remember seeing that recommendation and reflecting on it prior to the Management
Commission meeting, but I've certainly reflected on it since ….”
That
gives me grave concern, when a Member can go to a meeting where the notes are
put out well in advance, speak to it, support it, second the motion and then the
next time when it comes back months later, move it. Then, Mr. Speaker, the
minutes from those meetings would have come up at another meeting, plenty of
occasion.
Just so
you know, this was all done in March and May and we're here actually in November
and December talking about it – can't remember seeing it. That gives me great
concern when the Leader of the Opposition supports something and then comes back
later and says I don't remember doing it.
I could
continue on. The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, I understand that someone could put
out a concern, but I think the MCRC laid out a change that makes sense. They
agreed with it. It was an issue before. The MCRC is not government; it's an
independent crowd, one that they had no issue agreeing on everything else they
said, including particular Members, one in this House, voting themselves a
raise. They had no issue with that recommendation, but in this recommendation
they're saying no.
There's
a reason they're doing this. There's a protection put in place so that the
Management Commission can do it. If people out there are wondering, the
Management Commission is a non-partisan team of all Members of the House
represented as non-partisan and is equal; three here, three there. It's not
government led. The bills that come out of there come through the Government
House Leader because that's the method that we have to do it, but it's dictated.
As you
can see, they felt so strongly against it that they moved it twice. They
supported it. They stand up in the House here and say they have a big issue and
blame it on government; (a) they don't know what they're talking about and (b)
they're trying to create something. I don't know what it is. Again, I'll repeat
myself: there's disingenuousness going on here. It's certainly not me.
I think
the Members on the other side will take the opportunity, when we get into
Committee now, to please explain why
Hansard was wrong.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 19 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act No. 3. (Bill
19)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time. When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity
And Administration Act No. 3,” read a second time, ordered referred to a
Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 19)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 19.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
This
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Reid):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 19, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity And Administration Act No. 3.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And
Administration Act No. 3.” (Bill 19)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 2 carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 2 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 3.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 3 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 3 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 4.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 4 carry?
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I'd like
to get up and talk a little bit on clause 4.
Mr.
Chair, I had the opportunity to sit on the Management Commission for a period of
time back about five years ago, actually. It's very interesting, the stuff that
comes forward to the Management Commission, and some things that come forward
involve Members and compensation for Members and everything else.
I
believe the Management Commission should be non-partial and should be – I tell
you, it's not questioning the Speaker of the House, I guarantee you that,
because I think the man's integrity is great, but I think this clause that's in
here, and I know the House Leader was up for about 20 minutes that time talking
basically about this clause, but I believe people have the right to change their
mind sometimes whenever they do speak.
I looked
at this clause also, and while I respect most of the people here in the House of
Assembly, sometimes I can see that the decision can be made and it would be
great to have someone from the Opposition Party at the table to talk about it or
bring a different perspective to whatever's brought to the table.
Again,
on clause 4, I'd like to put forward an amendment on this clause:
Clause 4
of the bill to be amended by adding the proposed section 18(8) to the act,
immediately after the words “deputy speaker,” a comma and the words, “provided
at least one member representing a party in opposition to government is
present.” And I have copies for everyone here.
CHAIR:
Okay. The House will recess
for a few minutes to review the amendment.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
amendment has been found to be in order.
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I'm
glad. That's the first amendment I ever brought to the House of Assembly and for
it to be in order, I'm very, very pleased.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Perseverance pays off. After
a while I knew it would work.
Mr.
Chair, this amendment, we had Justice Green here a little while ago and
celebrated his retirement and the great work he's done for our province; great
work he's done under the Green report for this House of Assembly because we
understand that things didn't go the way they should have for years and years in
the House of Assembly.
Back
some years ago, Justice Green was tasked with the force to probably straighten a
few things out and make sure this House of Assembly had the integrity that it
should have and transparency, I guess. We always talk about integrity and
transparency. That was part of Justice Green's report.
When we
look back at what Justice Green talked about, the Management Commission, in his
report he suggested – he was the one who said there should be presence from the
Opposition parties. So to change the great work that Justice Green has done, I'm
hoping all Members of the government will have a look at it and say Justice
Green brought this in for a reason.
I'm not
questioning – I am definitely not questioning anybody in this House of Assembly
right now. I'm not questioning whether it will be the Liberal Party or it will
be the PC Party or it will be the NDP that will be the government in power down
the road, but this opens a door. This opens the door that for some reason or
other the governing power could call a meeting together when the Opposition is
not around, have a meeting and it could be concerning all Members.
I'm not
saying that's going to be done now, and I'm sure the House Leader and Members on
the other side – I'm not saying that could be done, but if we pass this clause
the possibility down the road is that it could be done. So why are we passing
this clause, when we are opening the door?
The
Minister of Transportation can laugh all he wants, but down the road this clause
could cause some trouble for the House of Assembly. This could cause some
trouble for the people of the province because the opportunity is there to do
something wrong. I'm not saying –
MR. LETTO:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
The Member for Lab West, I
hope you get up now and talk in a few minutes. I hope you get up, the Member for
Lab West; you're chirping over there all day. I hope you get up and say a few
words. It would be great to hear from you.
Mr.
Chair, I think that democracy – this is about democracy. It's about the country
we live in. It's about the province we live in. Given the opportunity for
something to be misled or miscarried and something to be done wrong, why are we
doing this?
We have
technology today; maybe we can change the technologies that are out there today.
The technology today and I'm sure it's done in boardrooms right across this
country and right across this world. I'm sure the Management Commission could
come up with the technology that's available to make sure that representation is
there by all parties.
Years
ago everybody had to fly into St. John's to come to a meeting here. Today, that
doesn't happen. We can put them up on a big screen, we can have them on your
laptop or we can have them wherever you want. They can be here to that meeting.
So why are we putting this opportunity in place that something can be done
wrong?
I'm not
saying this government or I'm not saying future governments, but down the road
when I'm long gone maybe, this bill here, this clause that we're putting in here
right now, something could be done wrong because malice is in place and they
want to do something to affect the other group and this is the way to do it. It
could be that the Opposition Party at the time, whoever it is, is away on a
conference or away on something and a meeting gets called. That's wrong. The
opportunity is there to do it, it's wrong.
Justice
Green said it was wrong. Justice Green's report said the forum should be that
representation should be there from all parties. That's all I'm asking you for,
is to make sure it's done properly.
I know
the House Leader is shaking his head over there, but the opportunity is there to
do something wrong. Your big thing tonight was they voted for it. Let me tell
you something: people can change their minds on anything. I looked at this and I
thought it was wrong. I wasn't at the meeting at the time, but maybe other
people are looking at it, too. There are technologies today that can put
everybody at the meeting, so why not use those technologies.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not
going to take up much time, but I am going to address a couple of issues here.
It was
just a couple of days ago, yesterday, I think, that we voted on the pension
issue. I sat as Speaker of the Legislature, I sat in charge of the Management
Commission and I remember the Opposition parties saying: We can't vote for a
proposal put forward by government to save the taxpayers money on pensions
because it goes against what the MCRC recommended. It goes against what the MCRC
recommended and we must do what the MCRC recommended. Now, I remember that. So,
Mr. Chair, if we're going to be fair, we're going to be fair.
Now, I
also know why Sandra Burke, who sat in this Legislature and explained some of
the provisions of what the MCRC recommended and the reason the MCRC said a
simple majority, is because there were a lot of games played with Management
Commission meetings.
I know
when I sat as Speaker and Chair of the Management Commission that we would call
– and let me say this: It's not government that calls a Management Commission
meeting. They may request one. The Opposition may request one. The Speaker, who
is an independent Officer of this Legislature, will determine whether or not to
call a Management Commission meeting. The Speaker will call the Members of the
Management Commission to determine availability.
There's
nobody being hoodwinked with a Committee meeting being called. There is nobody
being hoodwinked with a Management Commission meeting being called because the
Speaker, who is independent, will call the Members to determine availability for
a Management Commission meeting.
Here's
the rub: Members of one side – because you needed representation from this side
of the House, that side of the House and the Third Party, if one party decided
they wanted to play games and not show up and deal with an issue that the
Management Commission had to deal with, they'd get busy all of a sudden the day
of the Management Commission meeting and business of Management Commission would
be delayed. Sandra Burke, the Chair of the MCRC, came in and said: This will
force both sides to show up to meetings. It will force both sides to show up to
meetings instead of playing games and one side of the Legislature or the other
not showing up when the Speaker calls for a meeting.
What
would happen previously is one side wouldn't show up to delay something from
being dealt with, because you couldn't deal with it unless there was
representation from both sides. Guess what? The way it's set up now, both sides
are forced to show up and deal with an issue because you just need a simple
majority. If one side doesn't show up, it's their loss; you just need a simple
majority.
You
could have a Management Commission meeting under the new rules with just
Opposition Members. So, you bet, government is going to show up to make sure
they have their say. You could have a meeting with just government Members if
Opposition decides they're not going to show up. Guess what's going to happen?
The fairness and the independence of the Speaker calling around to determine the
availability and only upon people saying they're available will the Speaker call
a meeting, then there's no backing out.
If one
side of the House doesn't show up, guess what? We'll get the business of the
Management Commission done, whether it's the government side or the Opposition
side. So this has been set up to eliminate the game playing and one side of the
House or the other not showing up for political reasons. That's the reason the
clause was put in.
So, Mr.
Chair, that was done to protect the business of the Management Commission being
carried out.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Chair, I just have a
question, and where we're in Committee of the Whole I guess I would direct it to
the Government House Leader perhaps, just to answer a simple question for me.
Maybe everybody knows this, but I don't.
In terms
of the House of Assembly Management Commission, can you have alternates? For
example, if the Member for Ferryland is not available, could he have one of his
colleagues go in his place? And if not, why wouldn't we do that? That way at
least we can ensure that someone from all the Opposition parties could attend.
If the
Member can't go, someone can go as an alternate for him. That way we have
representation, and I would think that would be a fair way of doing it. I don't
know if that would require an amendment to this, or if it could just be done as
a practice. I ask the question.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'll defer to my colleague
who has actually sat as the Chair of the Management Commission at some point.
The answer would be no, and I don't think it's something we would decide here.
What I
would suggest is if the Member has a concern like that to certainly direct it to
the Management Commission for consideration. Make sure it's brought up to the
MCRC, but it's not something that should be decided right here. This is
something that came straight from the Management Commission. It's not
government-led. Government does not make that decision, but if he feels strongly
about it, then make sure it goes to the appropriate body.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just for
clarification, I'm not raising this as a concern per se. I was just asking a
question. I'm just raising it as a suggestion as a way we accomplish what the
Minister of Finance is saying, that one side can't play games, so to speak.
By the
same token, there's an opportunity that if one Member in a particular party,
government or Opposition or whatever, can't go for legitimate reasons, then at
least they could have an alternate. I just think that would be a fair way of
accomplishing what we want to accomplish on both sides of the argument. So I
will put that request in writing to the MCRC as a suggestion.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
I don't
think it was a question; it was more of a point on the record for the Member.
I do
want to address the Member for Cape St. Francis, and he's laid out his concern.
There are a number of reasons that I think it's completely unfounded.
If you
look through the recommendations, one of the concerns brought forward by I think
it was the Member for St. John's Centre was we need to have a schedule. We
should have a schedule.
The
Opposition has tried to paint it that the government is going to set these
meetings up. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition has said: What if the
Opposition are all up in Labrador and they go ahead and call a meeting on the
sly? That's basically what he was saying, which shows a clear non-understanding
of how the body works; but the good news is there are protections in place which
render the amendment they put forward unnecessary.
The
Commission adopted Recommendation 2 and said that the Speaker shall not set
Management Commission meetings that conflict with Cabinet no later than
September 15 of each year; set a fixed schedule with a minimum of three
Management Commission meetings of which all Members shall make a priority in
attending no later than January 15 of each year; set a fixed schedule of a
minimum of three Management Commission meetings for the spring.
They
moved on then and said we're going to have Recommendation 53, and directed that
no Member shall be permitted to be absent from any Management Commission meeting
without good cause and prior approval of the Speaker. So you're not even allowed
to be absent unless you go to the Speaker and say here's why I can't go.
Then the
last one we have here, which I think the Minister of Finance has done a very
good job of explaining why that one is put in. I think the amendment by the –
again, I certainly won't be supporting because it's unnecessary. I think, quite
frankly, they've twisted themselves in knots trying to get out of a situation
that the Leader of the Opposition didn't know what he was doing first or last.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West – Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wanted
to lend my voice to the debate this evening as I am a Member of the Management
Commission and I have been since the last general election. So, of course, we
deal with a number of matters and one of the biggest matters we've dealt with is
the MCRC report. One of the critiques that this MCRC made was that former
Management Commissions did not address all of the recommendations that have been
made.
I know
the Member for Cape St. Francis mentioned he was on a previous Management
Commission. Well, not all previous Management Commissions even addressed all of
the recommendations that were made by these independent panels, Mr. Chair.
We have,
under the chairmanship of the former Speaker, addressed them all. I am also
Chair of the Audit Committee, a sub-committee of the House of Assembly
Management Commission. We've addressed all of these recommendations. I just find
it ironic, and I have to stand here, Mr. Chair, to say that we sit in these
chairs, we televise meetings, they are made public to the people of the
province. We all agree to accept this recommendation of the MCRC.
In fact,
I remember the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi, when we were discussing
one recommendation, Mr. Chair, she said she was going to vote for it and support
it because it was a recommendation of the MCRC, pointing to its independence,
the fact that they have the ability to consider everything. That was
Recommendation 4.
There
were a number of House positions that were reduced in pay and there were
positions increased, including the NDP House Leader by $12,000. That was a
position created, independent recommendation of the MCRC, that the Member for
St. John's East – Quidi Vidi voted for in the Management Commission. She didn't
recuse herself, voted for it and her justification for that was because it was
an MCRC recommendation.
Mr.
Chair, I was there. I was sat right there and she was sat right there, and she
voted for it. In fact, justified it on that basis, which is her right to do, but
now we're seeing that we all agreed to the provisions of quorum, which was also
an MCRC recommendation. That they voted for, that they supported and tonight
they're here saying they suddenly had a change of heart. The Leader of the
Opposition saying he read it and now didn't fully comprehend or understand it.
Mr.
Chair, what I can say is that this is something we agreed on. It was one of 45
recommendations, I think, in the report and it's something that I encourage all
Members of the Legislature to support, as it was an independent recommendation
of the MCRC and something the Management Commission took great time to accept.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Is it the pleasure of the
Committee to adopt the amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
CHAIR:
Division has been called.
Division
CHAIR:
All those in favour of the
amendment, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Brazil,
Ms. Perry, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Petten.
CHAIR:
All those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Ms.
Coady, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Osborne,
Mr. Kirby, Mr. Mitchelmore, Mr. Warr, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Letto,
Mr. Brown, Ms. Haley, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr. Finn, Mr. King, Mr. Dean, Ms. Pam
Parsons, Ms. Rogers, Mr. Lane.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CLERK:
Mr. Chair, the ayes: five;
the nays: 23.
CHAIR:
The amendment is defeated.
Shall
clause 4 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
The
clause is carried.
On
motion, clause 4 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 5.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 5 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Clause 5
is carried.
On
motion, clause 5 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 6.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 6 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Clause 6
is carried.
On
motion, clause 6 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 7.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 7 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
Clause 7
is carried.
On
motion, clause 7 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
The
enacting clause is carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The House Of
Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act No. 3.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
The
title is carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 19
without amendment?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against?
The bill
is carried.
On
motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR:
The Deputy Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much.
I move,
Mr. Chair, that the Committee rise and report Bill 19 carried, without
amendment.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 19.
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for
St. George's – Humber, Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MR. REID:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 19 carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 19 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 2.
MR. SPEAKER:
Motion 2.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
read out the motion:
WHEREAS
on August 22, 2017, government announced its decision to reinstate the original
point-of-sale rebate on purchases of qualifying printed books made after
December 31, 2017; and
WHEREAS
the harmonized sales tax is levied by the Government of Canada, pursuant to the
federal Excise Tax Act and the
collection of harmonized sales tax is administered by the Canada Revenue Agency;
and
WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador entered into a federal-provincial agreement called the
Comprehensive Integrated Tax Coordination Agreement which allows the province to
introduce federally administered tax exemptions with certain conditions; and
WHEREAS
a condition of that agreement is that a change in provincial tax policy must be
brought to the House of Assembly for a vote ratifying that decision;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the point-of-sale rebate on the provincial portion
of the harmonized sales tax on purchases of qualifying printed books made after
December 31, 2017 be reinstated in the same manner and form that had been
employed prior to January 1, 2017.
Mr.
Speaker, essentially –
MR. SPEAKER:
First of all, I require the
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to move and second the
motion.
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, I was reading out the
motion, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I move this motion, seconded by the Minister of Tourism, Culture,
Industry and Innovation.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Finance and
President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know
everybody is excited, but I do get a few moments to talk.
Thank
you.
Mr.
Speaker, I know that all Members of this Legislature are going to support this
motion because it does remove the provincial portion of the sales tax. The
federal portion is still charged on books. Most people in the province don't
realize that. The federal portion of the harmonized sales tax is still charged
on books. The provincial portion of that will be removed. We've asked the
federal government to remove that sales tax as of January 1, 2018.
Mr.
Speaker, this is something that government has heard from stakeholders,
bookstores, retailers, suppliers of books and even publishers. So we've heard
their concerns and we agree with those concerns. It is unfortunate that in 2016
government found itself in a position where tax increases were necessary. I
think the people of the province all very well understand now why that was the
case.
Mr.
Speaker, I will point out – I'll get into greater detail should the need arise
through the course of debate; I'll be delighted to get into more detail. I will
point out something that a lot of people in the general public probably don't
even realize, and that is in October of 2015 – actually, let me back it up a
little bit because I released the mid-year fiscal update just a few weeks ago.
That's a normal thing for government in this province to do, it has been for
several years, is to release a mid-year fiscal update.
In 2015,
Mr. Speaker, that mid-year fiscal update was not released; government did not
come forward with a mid-year fiscal update. Even though we had called on them to
tell us where we were as a province, what the fiscal situation of the province
was, they had indicated the provincial deficit was $1.1 billion. We all went on
that assumption. Absolutely, government was overspending by $1.1 billion. That's
what we understood.
We went
through 2015 with that understanding. We had asked for a mid-year fiscal update.
Government refused in 2015 to bring in a mid-year fiscal update. We know why,
because there was an election in November. In October, November they refused to
provide a mid-year fiscal update to the people of the province.
Mr.
Speaker, we didn't know what the true situation of the province was. We found
out in December. It was quite a shock to everybody, including us; quite a shock
to the people of the province. I think it took a while for the people of the
province to truly grasp the reality of the fiscal situation the province was in.
But let me paint a little bit of a picture, because there are probably people in
this Legislature who don't even realize what I'm about to say.
In
October of 2015, government released short-term Treasury bills, Mr. Speaker, to
the tune of $1 billion. Now, we didn't know that – we did not know that. They
didn't release that publicly, didn't tell the Opposition. People of the province
didn't realize the situation the province was in, but here's the scary part.
We went
through the election in November. Government continued to go around the province
promising additional spending. They knew we didn't have the money. They weren't
going to tell the people of the province that because it was election time. They
went around the province promising additional spending, promising schools,
promising other infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, that they knew they simply didn't
have the money to put in place.
Mr.
Speaker, the shock is this: that as the former Premier, the Member for Topsail,
walked out of the Premier's Office in December and the new Premier took his
place in the Premier's Office, within 48 hours – now, keep in mind, I just said
the government went to market with short-term Treasury bills to the tune of $1
billion in October.
Guess
what, Mr. Speaker – guess what? I only found this out about a week ago and it
infuriated me, Mr. Speaker. It freaking well infuriated me when I found out, but
my staff in my department told me that within 48 hours of the new Premier taking
office, they went to ask for an emergency issue of Treasury bills to the tune of
another $1 billion or this province would not have been able to make payroll.
Now that's the reality.
That, my
friends, is the reality of the situation the Opposition, who were government of
the day, left this province in. That is the reality, Mr. Speaker. I couldn't
believe it when I found that out.
There
was an Order in Council for that, anybody can check the record. There was an
Order in Council for the one in October as well; but, Mr. Speaker, that's the
reality. This province would not have been able to make payroll if we didn't
issue an emergency issue of Treasury bills in December of 2015.
Now, we
couldn't go and broadcast that at the time, Mr. Speaker, because the confidence
of this province, the economy in this province would have absolutely spiraled.
We can say it now because we've been able to get things back on track. They're
not the way they should be yet, Mr. Speaker, but we're getting there – we're
getting there.
Mr.
Speaker, the spending in this province is still unsustainable. The situation in
this province is not yet stable to the point that we would like to see it, but
to have a province in risk of not being about to make payroll.
Now, the
former premier and the Members on the opposite side, Mr. Speaker, knew that. We
didn't even know it. We didn't know that was the shape the province was in until
the Premier walked into the office and a couple of days later there's a knock on
the door. That's a scary situation. We can talk about it now without risk of the
economy grinding to an absolute halt because we've gotten the deficit from $2.7
billion down to less than $1 billion.
I sit in
this House every day and I hear Members opposite putting petitions to the House
looking for more money, and standing in the House and asking for more money,
more spending. Then, in Question Period, they'll say: Where are the cuts?
Mr.
Speaker, they can't have it both ways – they can't have it both ways. But I'll
tell you this, they'll get up there and speaker after speaker after speaker over
there tonight are going to say: Shame on you for bringing in the taxes.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, we had to bring in the taxes to pay the short-term Treasury bills
that they didn't even tell us were going to be demanded. Didn't even tell us –
MR. HUTCHINGS:
(Inaudible.)
MR. OSBORNE:
You're darn right I'm angry,
I say to the Member for Ferryland, because of the situation you guys left the
province in. And the gall of them to stand up and complain about the measures –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. OSBORNE:
– that we're taking place,
the gall of them, Mr. Speaker, to stand up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER:
Where were you?
MR. OSBORNE:
I'll tell you where I was.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Minister
of Finance, please continue.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, thank you.
I'll
tell them where I was. I was in Cabinet on that side – I was – when we
increased.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. OSBORNE:
Do you want me to tell you
why that decision was made? Do you want me to tell you? I'll tell you and then
I'll get back to my situation. I'll tell you why that was made, because I was
asked to do something by your former premier that I refused to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
Now, that's a fact.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
That's a fact. You know what
it was.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
the hon. minister to address his remarks to the Speaker, please.
Thank
you.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
afraid of anybody over there. I can tell you I know where all the closets are
and all the skeletons, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
So I'm not afraid to deal
with the issues.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
I'll tell you something, Mr.
Speaker –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. OSBORNE:
You're right, I was in
Cabinet over there. We had an infrastructure deficit, there's no doubt about it.
The province went through decade after decade of not having enough money to
invest in schools and hospitals, there's no doubt about that.
Government after government, Mr. Speaker – and you can't blame any of the
governments because the province simply didn't have the money for decades,
regardless of political stripe, to put the money into hospital spending, school
spending and road construction. There was an infrastructure deficit.
When I
was in Cabinet, we increased the provincial budget from $4.5 billion to $5.4
billion. After I left Cabinet, the provincial budget went from $5.4 billion to
$8.7 billion – unsustainable.
I'm
going to tell you something about the unsustainable budget. They knew it. They
knew it was unsustainable because in the Throne Speech of 2014, Mr. Speaker,
they said it was unsustainable. They said they needed to make cuts but, you know
what, they didn't.
In
former Throne Speeches, they talked about the fact that spending was
unsustainable and they were going to deal with it, but they didn't. Mr. Speaker,
they knew the spending was unsustainable and, in fact, I knew it when I was over
there. You wonder why I left.
Mr.
Speaker, there were Members on that side of the House that knew the spending was
unsustainable. Former ministers of Finance from that side talked about the fact
it was unsustainable, but there was such an insatiable urge to pull out the
chequebook and spend money that the spending didn't stop, they managed by
chequebook. That's the reality.
Now,
back to my comments because this is important. We didn't know the fiscal
situation of the province, Mr. Speaker. We didn't know that as the Premier
walked in, there was an emergency demand to release Treasury bills to the tune
of $1 billion literally two months after there was another release of Treasury
bills for $1 billion.
Mr.
Speaker, that's a pretty sad state – a pretty sad economic state for this
province. That's why there were measures, drastic measures, put in place by this
side of the House. That's why those measures were put in place.
Mr.
Speaker, as we are able to get things under control, and as we are able to deal
with the fiscal situation the province is in, we're bringing the taxes down.
We've seen it with the gasoline tax twice. That was lowered. The levy that was
put in place – there's legislation in place to eliminate the levy. We've
eliminated the book tax. As we're able to afford to lighten the burden on
taxpayers in this province, we will do that. We will gladly do that because
we've reached deep enough into the taxpayers' pockets in this province.
The
fiscal situation of the province is still unsustainable. The spending is
unsustainable. When we took office, when we formed government, in addition to
the $1 billion in Treasury bills that were issued in October of 2015, and then
the emergency issue of $1 billion of Treasury bills in December of 2015, do you
know what, Mr. Speaker? This province was borrowing on average $4.38 million a
day – simply unsustainable.
The
Members on the opposite side of the House will talk about what have we done to
address the situation? Well, we got the province's spending down from $4.38
million a day to roughly $2 million a day, Mr. Speaker. That's what we've done.
We've
raised taxes enough. We're trying to reduce them as we can afford to. We need to
find efficiencies in agencies, boards and commissions, we need to find
efficiencies within government, but we have our province's borrowing on an
average daily basis down to about $2 million a day.
We still
need to do more, Mr. Speaker. We need to create a situation in this province
where the fiscal situation is sustainable. That's what we're going to try to do.
It starts here with eliminating the book tax.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
That was pretty entertaining.
Yeah, that's right, it's not totally entertaining, if you look at it from the
context that some of us, I know I viewed it as.
You want
us to thank government for eliminating the book tax. You want us to thank you
for reducing the gas tax. Thank you for reducing the levy. The levy's not gone.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Please
proceed.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
sorry, but when I talk to people on the street, there are no thanks going across
the way. The Minister of Finance can get up with his antics and blame the former
administration for all their problems, but as my colleague pointed out there –
and it kind of got his dander up a bit – in 2003 to 2007, he was a Cabinet
minister in this former administration. From 2007 to 2011 he was an MHA, Deputy
Speaker, in this administration. It was only in 2012 he entered an identity
crisis and didn't know where to go. So he sat for a while, then he decided to
cross over to the other side – which is his own prerogative. He has friends over
there. He has others that did the same thing – that's fine.
Don't
stand up here with your righteous indignation, though, and stand up and
everything is wrong now, everything is wrong, everything is wrong that happened
for all those years, for those almost 20 years he served in this other
administration, now we're terrible? Now it's terrible? I have an issue with
that, Mr. Speaker.
One
thing, if anyone knows me, and I've been on the record as saying I don't like
pretentious – I don't like pretentious. I like be who you are. Stand up and be
counted. Don't all of a sudden everything is wrong, what you stood for for most
of your career. Now all of a sudden you're on the other side and everything that
was done prior, there's a reason why it was done and it's all bad? I have an
issue with that. I think a lot of people out there, when you look at it for what
it's worth, most people should have an issue with that.
That's
not what we're here for. That's not who we are. That's not who I am. If I get
defeated in 2019, I'll go down the same person that got elected. I stand up for
what I believe in. People voted for me because of who I was, and I will be that
same person whether they vote for me or don't vote for me, whenever that day
comes, Mr. Speaker. I stand by that, and that's the way I came into this. I
walked into this career that way and that's the way I'm walking out of it –with
my dignity.
Getting
back to my point of book tax and gas tax and all this, and where we had a
deficit they didn't know, even though it was announced and it was a $1.2 billion
deficit in the budget of 2015. For some reason they never had enough people to
read the documents to show that it was a deficit. Everyone else knew there was a
deficit. Sure, the deficit was higher than anticipated, but I hear the same over
and over repeated comment: we didn't know, we didn't know, we didn't know. They
didn't know. Why didn't you know? What didn't you know? Then you're crediting
because you've lowered the deficit.
In
December of 2015 this government brought a black cloud over this province, and
to this day that cloud has not lifted. So you can remove your book tax, and
yeah, you saved, what was that, to make a million dollars? You crippled rural
Newfoundland in regard to literacy; little libraries in communities, that was
the lifeline of those communities. It was one of the biggest outcries for the
smallest cuts you made. It was one of the biggest outcries from the people in
this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
No one in this House can deny
that. I was taken aback by it myself. It was a huge outcry, you can't deny it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
You're reversing your cuts
for that reason. It wasn't a money-maker; it was just a bad decision. It's just
as well to acknowledge what it was. It had nothing to do with your so-called
major deficit. One million dollars is not going to save you $2.8 billion, I say
to the Minister of Finance. So it's all about the optics. It was a bad decision;
now you're trying to turn it around and make it a good decision.
You put
16.5 cents on as the gas tax, you lower it by 12.5 cents and then you want
people to get up and applaud you. It's great news – and they're up, yes b'y,
it's all great, yeah. We're still paying four cents more since 2015 or when it
came in as a result of Budget 2016,
but you want us to clap.
I have
the Member for Burin – Marystown –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. PETTEN:
Whatever. Sorry about that.
The name –
MR. K. PARSONS:
Placentia West – Bellevue.
MR. PETTEN:
Placentia West – Bellevue.
All he wants to talk about is ferries. Yeah, we can talk about that, I say,
another day, Mr. Speaker. I'm on the book tax issue now, but ferries are an
issue. Ferries have been around for a long time, Mr. Speaker.
MR. BROWNE:
What about (inaudible)?
MR. PETTEN:
I say to the Member opposite:
There are a lot of communities that depend on those ferries; why don't you go
talk to them?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Why don't you ask your
colleague next to you about ferries?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
temperature is getting just a little too warm here. Let's just calm it down.
The
Member for Conception Bay South is identified to speak. That's all we should be
hearing from. Everybody will have a crack at it.
Please
proceed.
MR. PETTEN:
Mr. Speaker, getting back to
this book tax, I'm one of the people who enjoy elections. It's stressful. I
knocked on a lot of doors in Mount Pearl North and –
MR. K. PARSONS:
They spoke.
MR. PETTEN:
They spoke. Yeah, they did.
They spoke on November 21, but they spoke every time we knocked on a door.
They
never individually mentioned the book tax when I knocked on their door. The
Minister of Finance knows I can carry on a conversation with anyone at any door
and we'll always have a conversation about what you think. Sometimes they didn't
like us. I'm not saying that – again, I'm not living in a pretentious world.
I'll be honest. Sometimes they didn't like what we did. The big criticism I
heard over and over and over and over again – it wasn't about ferries, it wasn't
about Muskrat Falls, even though that came up – it was taxes, taxes, taxes,
taxes, taxes.
My
colleague for Cape St. Francis knocked on just as many doors as I did, as well
as my colleague for Conception Bay East – Bell Island. They can tell you the
same thing. And so did all of you across the way. I'm sure you heard it. I heard
people – I can't stay here anymore, I'm moving away. A lot of the empty nesters
in there – why am I staying here? I've told my children.
A family
I met; she said, I have two children – I've known her for a long time – I'm
telling them not to come back here. Do you know why? Taxes, taxes, taxes.
MR. LETTO:
Shame on you.
MR. PETTEN:
I say to the Member for Lab
West – shame on me. No, Sir, not shame on me. You're saying shame on the people
for Mount Pearl North. They spoke to me about this. I'm telling their story, Mr.
Speaker.
Maybe we
all should speak for more people in this community and our people we represent.
These were true stories. My colleague for Ferryland was at doors. We knocked on
doors together and we heard the same stories: taxes, taxes, taxes. You take
credit – so it's all about taxes. That's what we heard.
On
November 21, the people spoke. They gave their verdict and the verdict is
they're sick of taxes, they're sick of fees.
These
are the fees and tax increases in the 2016 budget – 300 of them. I guess when we
get the carbon tax figured out, it will be 301. We might have to get another
sheet added into this, but we'll figure that out when the time comes. It's no
less; it's not going to be any less. As you reduce one, there's another one
coming. We know there's one in the replacing of it.
To hear
the opposite taking praise, to be getting credit for doing something, for doing
what? For fixing something you should never have brought in? I say, we're glad
it's gone, but I question what were you ever thinking to bring it in. I think a
lot of people in this province asked that: What were you thinking to bring that
in?
Gas tax,
insurance tax, levies; they cut right at the core of every citizen in this
province. You said, Minister, putting hands in people's pockets. People have had
quite enough of that. That book tax is only the tip of the iceberg; there's an
awful lot more hands in the pockets yet. There's a lot more stuff coming out of
people's pockets today that need to be stopped as well.
The book
tax, yes, it's important – it's very important – but there are a lot of other
taxes around in this province. We heard it loud and clear, as did you in Mount
Pearl North. People have had enough.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I've
stood and presented a petition almost every day that the House was open
(inaudible) since this tax came into effect and –
MR. SPEAKER:
May I just have order for a
moment?
Just to
the attention of all Members in the House, we are having some audio challenges.
You will note that some of the mics are on, some of them are off. We may be
signalling to you if Hansard is not picking it up, but yours is working right
now.
St.
John's Centre, please proceed. It's working.
MS. ROGERS:
It's working?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Once
again, since the book tax came into effect, I stood in the House almost every
day that the House was open to present a petition on behalf of the thousands of
people who signed those petitions saying that they didn't want books taxed, that
they were against this new imposition of a book tax. Although we know really
what it is. It was a tax rebate for the provincial tax on books and they wanted
that rebate reinstated. For brevity sake, we're going to call it the book tax.
Mr.
Speaker, in the last two budgets, government waged a war on literacy, on the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. First of all, they were going to close half
the libraries. We're still not quite sure what's going to happen with that.
Then, they taxed books –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Then,
they decided to tax books. Again, we are the province with the lowest literacy
rates in the country and we were the only province that was taxing books.
It's
very interesting to hear the Minister of Finance and his big flourish of
theatrics tonight about the financial situation of the province. I believe, Mr.
Speaker, that, in fact, the financial situation of the province was real, that
some of the information he gave us was probably accurate, but let's see what
government did about that. In the last two budgets, this government basically
waged a war on literacy. Not on illiteracy – they waged a war on literacy,
making it more difficult for people who have low literacy rates.
In fact,
what they should have done – government's role during this really tough time
should have been to help strengthen some of the most vulnerable people in this
province to help them weather the storm. Instead, government made it even more
difficult for them. I'm not so sure, Mr. Speaker, that it really was a good
economical decision in the long run. There seemed to be no cohesive plan to the
types of cuts that were done at the great expense and on the backs of some of
the people who were least able to pay those taxes.
The tax
on books really affected our local booksellers. We know when we take a look
around our province, how hard it is for independent booksellers to maintain
their business. We've seen independent booksellers – there was one that just
closed in St. John's, Afterwords. That bookseller had been open for years. There
are very few independent booksellers left in this province.
Independent booksellers are really important. So what happened is that a lot of
people directed their business to online vendors so they could avoid the tax.
There is even one bookstore here in town that decided they would pay the tax
themselves.
Booksellers are small businesses in our communities; they're very important
small businesses in our communities. One of the things about our local
booksellers is they promote the books written by our own authors, local authors.
So our local authors took a hit as well.
We see
that fewer people were buying from local bookstores because of the imposed tax.
The rollout effect there was on our local authors. A lot of our local authors
came to the forefront; they spoke out publicly about the effect of this book tax
on the province.
For
instance, our homegrown boy, Rick Mercer – quite a celebrity in Canada and even
beyond the borders of Canada – said the tax will put a damper on reading in a
province with one of the lowest literacy levels in the country. He said – this
is his quote, Mr. Speaker: “So when you are increasing taxes on books,
you are accepting the fact that fewer books will be sold. And so it is an attack
on literacy, there's no other way to look at it.”
Mr. Speaker, we know this tax on books was ill thought out.
I kept thinking people all over the province were thinking: What in God's name
is this government thinking to tax books?
Then those who were really hit hard by this tax on books
were our students. Already, our students in post-secondary education – the
downward fiscal pressure on Memorial University, for instance – they'd already
been burned. Memorial University had already been burned by this government. But
then, Mr. Speaker, –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS: –
the added burden of tax on books. Some textbooks that students had were $300 a
book, which meant that was an increase of $30 – $30 extra for one book for
students, many of whom are some of the most economically vulnerable folks in our
province right now while they're going to school.
Some students paid as much as $1,000 a semester for their
books. Technical textbooks are very expensive, so it meant they spent an extra
$100 on taxes on textbooks. Mr. Speaker, these weren't frills; these were
absolute necessities for our students. It made no sense whatsoever to tax
textbooks.
The average student in fact spent anywhere from $800 to
$1,000 on textbooks per year, which meant an additional $80 to $100 taxes on
their textbooks in addition to the extra fees that have been imposed on them,
because of the downward financial fiscal pressure on Memorial University by this
government.
What should we have been doing? We should have been
strengthening our students. We should have been finding ways to get books into
the hands of all of our people because we know that education is absolutely
paramount in lifting people out of poverty, and then, also consequently, Mr.
Speaker, lifting our province out of poverty.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Please
proceed.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In fact,
instead of this government putting downward pressure on students and downward
pressure on our small booksellers, downward pressure on our authors, downward
pressure on our publishers, they should have been strengthening them.
Cutting
libraries and taxing books was the antithesis, the opposite of what this
government should have been doing. Particularly in this tough financial time,
particularly when we need to strengthen our communities, strengthen our people
so that they can not only weather this storm, but also, Mr. Speaker, so that
they can be full participants in the recovery of our province, educating our
people so that they can be part of building our province by making our province
more financially viable.
These
taxes were short-sighted. The possibility of closing libraries was
short-sighted. Then, Mr. Speaker, even further, the cutbacks on home care, the
cutbacks and the complete cutting of the Adult Dental Program, the cutting of
the over-the-counter drugs. I know that the Minister of Health and Community
Services, who was a surgeon, would not be very happy if his patients weren't
able to afford their stool softeners and their laxatives after surgery. He
wouldn't be happy about that at all. Those kinds of cuts were so short-sighted.
Now the
Minister of Finance tells us there's going to be legislation to remove the levy.
I'll be interested to see that coming forward, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure that will
be welcomed by the majority of people in this province, again, who have been
battered in this storm, not only by the economic situation of the province, but
what government has done in their short-sighted, misdirected cuts that were not
part of any kind of comprehensive plan in terms of strengthening the province
and strengthening the people of the province.
Mr.
Speaker, I have one more petition that I look forward to reading on behalf of
the people – I tried to read it today and I'll hopefully be able to read it
tomorrow – to make sure that all those who vehemently oppose the tax on books
will be heard in this House.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
going to take a very quick moment. Obviously, I think, I as well as I'm sure all
members on all sides of the House are in support of this motion to remove the
book tax. I'm not going to take this opportunity to relive the budget debate of
2016. I think there's no need of doing it; people know where everybody stands on
it.
As far
as this bill goes here, this is being reversed. I think it's a good thing that
it's going to happen now and I will be supporting it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board speaks now, he will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm only going to take a couple of minutes now; I think the points were
made in the House. This is an important day for this Assembly. We still need the
federal government on January 1 to remove this portion of the tax for the
province and we look forward to that.
Mr.
Speaker, the reality here is nobody on this side of the House enjoyed putting
this tax in place. Nobody on this side of the House enjoyed any of the taxes
that were put in place, but they were necessary. If it was a popularity contest,
we'd be out spending money that the province didn't have.
We had
to put measures in place, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the bond rating agencies
that give very direct instructions to this government, and the lending agencies
that give very direct instructions to this government – when we issued an
emergency release of Treasury bills in December, we got the message. And that
was you need to, very quickly, put measures in place to get the fiscal situation
of the province under control and you develop a plan.
A plan
is almost like turning a cruise ship, Mr. Speaker. It turns very slowly. You get
slow movement. It's very difficult, after years and years and 49,000 public
servants in this province – I mean 15 years ago we had 40,000. But with two
major projects in the province coming to a close, a third one winding down, and
the result of people who were working in Fort McMurray – you can almost call
that a fourth major project in this province – measures had to be taken. We
couldn't afford to lay off thousands of people without shocking the economy.
We are
finding efficiencies. We're doing that. Despite inflation, Mr. Speaker, we've
been able to hold spending steady. As we can afford to remove the taxes that we
didn't want to put in place, that the people of the province didn't want to see,
we will remove them because it's the right thing to do.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion 2 as it appears on the Order Paper?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
This
motion is carried.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Seeing
the hour of the day, I move, seconded by the Member for Grand Bank, that the
House do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
This House now stands
adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.