December 6, 2017
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 42
The
House met at 10 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, that the
House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 26.
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 (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act.” (Bill 26)
CLERK (Barnes):
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's
once again a pleasure to rise and speak to this very important debate as we're
in Committee of the Whole. We have a number of questions here this morning for
the minister.
My first
question pertains to clause 16.1(1). We're hoping the minister can outline for
us today why the Departments of Health and Community Services and Education and
Early Childhood Development are not included in this legislation, if we could
have the basis of the rationale for that decision.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the Member for the question as we move into Committee, after going through
second reading yesterday on Bill 26, An Act to Amend the Child and Youth
Advocate Act, for people that may be watching this morning. I know I hear –
especially from some of the seniors, so I mention that just to let them know
what we're doing, debating a very important bill to make it mandatory on the
reporting of deaths and critical injuries to the Advocate.
Yesterday, there was a fair bit of discussion on why we did not include Health
and Education. Mr. Chair, I will reiterate that how we arrived at what we would
include in this bill was through many, many meetings and working closely with
the current Advocate.
As I
stressed yesterday, the Child and Youth Advocate has a very important role to
play in this province as an independent voice for children. We do not dictate to
the Advocate what she should be doing. The Advocate feels that Children, Seniors
and Social Development, Justice and Public Safety – two departments that are
responsible for providing services to children in care and to families that we
support and to youth – is necessary to allow her to do the job that she was
mandated to do.
Mr.
Chair, I look forward to other questions, but we have mechanisms in place under
Health, under Education. Most of us here are parents; we know that if there's an
incident in school, you're going to be an advocate for your son or your
daughter. If something happens, if your child breaks a foot in volleyball, like
happened to my daughter, you're going to go to the administration if you're not
satisfied. Maybe you'll go to the school board if you're not happy with what
happened.
At the
end of the day, we need to be aware in this House that the Advocate in
Newfoundland and Labrador has a very broad mandate and she can investigate
whatever she chooses. Any child can go to the Advocate, any parent in this
province can go to the Advocate and the Advocate will decide if she is going to
investigate that or not.
I cannot
stress that enough that what we're doing is what the current Advocate is
completely satisfied – I listened to her again this morning on VOCM. Before I
was out the door, I listened to the Advocate being interviewed saying that she
was satisfied with where the amendments of this bill was going. Far be it from
me to try and dictate to the Advocate what she would like to have included.
As a
Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development, we welcome all
recommendations. If we get a few months into this and the Advocate wants
something else, Mr. Chair, she has every opportunity to come back to my office
and we will sit down and we will continue to work with her. As I said yesterday,
at the end of the day, we want the same thing and that is the best possible care
for the safety of children and youth in this province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We seem
to be still bringing up where we were yesterday. I fully understand and
appreciate what the minister is saying and we, too, have every confidence in the
Child and Youth Advocate. This legislation – and for all of us who were around
in those days – was brought forward on the basis of recommendations that came
from the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, an independent office of this
House.
It was
stated in a private Member's motion brought forward by government when they were
Members of the Opposition, it was stated in the red book and it was stated in
the recommendations, as I said, of the former Youth Advocate and the three
reports that were done. It seems to me like I'm hearing the minister say that
this is not their decision to remove these components. Either way, there must be
a rationale; there's a reason for why for three years there was a strong
sentiment that all departments be included, strong sentiment by –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
– all sides of the House that
all departments be included and that critical incidents be included as well.
We're just looking for the reason as to why today it has changed and why today –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
There was work done on this
for 18 months prior to the Liberals coming in to office and here we are now two
years later. So, really, a bill that has been in the works for 3½ years, that we
still are falling short on based on the recommendations that came out of those
three tragedies that we had.
Can we
just have a reason as to why? I understand you are saying it's because the Child
and Youth Advocate has said that's what she wanted; that's what you've said. But
why is it excluded? What's the basis for that? There has to be something that
justifies your rationale as to why this is excluded.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, the hon. Member
said we keep referencing yesterday, we're referencing yesterday because the
messaging yesterday and the messaging today does not need to change.
The
Advocate – and I cannot stress it enough for people watching and people who may
not understand – is an independent office of this House. We are all here
elected, we represent different parties, we're different colours and stripes but
there are some things that politics do not belong in. In this case, Mr. Chair,
we are talking about the safety of children and youth.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
What we are doing is what the
Advocate said satisfies the scope of what she needs to do in her practice. What
the Member is talking about by suggesting that every single incident should be
reported to the Advocate, my concern, even as a parent and as a parliamentarian
and as a member of this province, if we are going to inundate the Advocate with
more than she is asking for with every single incident, what happens with the
serious stuff?
Mr.
Chair, the nature of the everyday work of social workers in this province, they
are highly trained professionals. They are there to support, to provide
counselling, to provide wraparound services when things happen. Unfortunately
every day in this province – not every day, but in this province serious things
happen. We have children that experience very traumatic things, like maybe
seeing a member of their household stab another member – difficult things to
talk about.
I spoke
last night to a large group of grieving people at Eastern Health. So I'm a
little bit close to this, Mr. Chair. I know maybe too much what I'm talking
about. We have people that a child that's killed in an accident. All of these
things need to go to the Advocate, but what the Member is suggesting is if a
child, if there's a little altercation on a playground, and the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety, if his boy is in a scrap with another boy, then that
should go to the Advocate. Well, I say, Mr. Chair, that that Member could be his
own advocate for the child.
This is
so broad and all encompassing. When she talks about watering down, that what we
brought in this House is a watered-down version – I say, Mr. Chair, what we
brought in, working in close collaboration with the Advocate, is something that
will focus on the very serious, difficult things that happen in this province.
If we were to include everything, Mr. Chair, everything in this province, that
would certainly be a watered-down version of the act.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
I'm a little shocked at some
of what I'm hearing, Mr. Chair, across the way, in particular from some of the
hecklers.
Mr.
Chair, it's incredibly surprising to accept that as government who wanted the
very, very, very best for our children when they are in government are prepared
to accept something much less today. It's baffling and I have yet to hear
something that satisfies me in terms of an explanation for that. We're not
talking about incidents in playgrounds. To trivialize this is unbelievable.
Let's
use, for example, a youth in an addictions centre, a youth who falls under the
Department of Health, and this youth is being sexually abused during their time
at the addictions centre. There's no mandatory reporting that requires the Child
and Youth Advocate to be informed of that.
And to
say that you're going to inundate the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate
alarms me somewhat. If we need more resources for our Child and Youth Advocate,
then I would think that is something that would be a very, very high priority
and would take priority over some of the other expenditures we would certainly
see.
For
example, we're going to be looking at asking for additional resources for the
Independent Appointments Commission. I would say that our children and our youth
are far, far, far more important than that, Mr. Chair, but we'll move on. I'm
not getting an answer as to why these important issues have been excluded.
Perhaps
the minister can elaborate for us on what mechanisms are in place, specifically
in detail in the Departments of Health and Education, that will be enforced and
that makes you, as government –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
– feel this bill, as it's
presently written, is satisfactory to you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want
to respond to a couple of things. The Member keeps saying what she's hearing is
not satisfying her. Well, I want to respectfully say to her what we're doing
satisfies the Advocate and that's what's important to me.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
The Advocate has been out in
the media. We work collaboratively. As I said yesterday, they spend a lot of
time talking about her; we've been talking to her, Mr. Chair.
The
Member yesterday referenced what happens if somebody comes in – and we don't
want to make light of this, Mr. Chair. We're talking about heavy things. I don't
like politics at play when it comes to children and youth. We need to ensure
their safety.
The
Member said: What happens when somebody comes into a school with a gun? I say
call the police, Mr. Chair. We have a lot of services and supports out in this
province.
The
other thing I want to say to the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune: When you
reference a sexual assault or a sexual abuse case not going to the Advocate, you
are wrong. You need to go back and read the details in this bill. The definition
of critical injury is one that encompasses more than a physical injury; it's a
psychological injury.
Mr.
Chair, if there's a child in this province and they are subject to sexual abuse,
that absolutely will be reported to the Advocate. So I want to correct the
record on that.
The
Member has stood several times and said: Why the change? The change is simply
because the current Advocate has a different request than the former one. Mr.
Chair, we are not here today to meet the needs of something in the past. Today,
December – I don't know what the date is – the 6th maybe, we are here to meet
the needs and satisfy the request of the current Advocate.
The
other thing I'll say is, as I said yesterday, we are the fifth province in the
country to do this; we are the first in Atlantic Canada. What we are doing is
completely aligned. When you do a jurisdictional scan, what we are doing is
completely aligned with other provinces and territories in this country.
I shared
this yesterday, but I'll share it again when the Member said: What specifically
do we have in Health? The Minister of Health can speak much more eloquently than
I can. I think he's a brilliant man and I tell him all the time. He's doing some
great work in that large department. One of the things he did, as minister, was
he brought in new patient safety legislation that standardizes and imposes a
legal obligation. Mr. Chair, information will be disclosed to the patients and
their families and they can decide, once again, if they need to take further
action, which may include connecting with the Advocate's office.
Mr.
Chair, what I hear the Members asking for is that every single death of every
child would go to the Advocate. We have to be respectful of the privacy of
parents. I used the example yesterday of a child that may pass away from cancer.
It's not considered a natural death. Do those parents want that gone to the
Advocate and reported?
Mr.
Chair, it's a little bit close to home, to me, some of this stuff. I'm not
assuming that I know everything – and I'm not going to get personal because I've
had multiple tragedies in my life – but I will tell you I have met enough people
over the last 20 years to know that some families are very, very private. We
have to respect that, Mr. Chair.
So, once
again, what we are doing is the Advocate is satisfied that the mandatory
reporting of deaths and critical injuries from those two departments is
satisfied. It will allow her to carry out the scope of the work that she needs
to do, the important work that she does in this province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Perhaps the minister can
clarify for us, then. It's our understanding, based on this, that in the example
I had used earlier of a youth in an addiction centre, yes, this legislation
would kick in if the child were in care, but what happens in the case of such a
situation happening for a child who's not in care?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, if a child is not
in care and the parent wants to report that to the Advocate, they have every
opportunity to report that to the Advocate. The Advocate in this province has a
very, very broad mandate. As I said earlier, she can choose to investigate
whatever she chooses to investigate.
I will
go back again and reiterate that we have highly trained social workers spread
all throughout this province, many that I have met with from Gander right to
Hopedale and Natuashish in my colleague's district, doing very valuable work,
doing important work, but doing heavy work, Mr. Speaker. The nature of the work
they do on a day-to-day basis I commend them and I have tremendous respect for
that.
If the
Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune is aware of something in her district,
anywhere in the province, she has an obligation to report that and at least make
the Advocate aware. Once again, what we are doing is we arrived at these
amendments after close collaboration. This has been a long time coming. As a
matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, those are exactly the words the Advocate said to me
yesterday.
I've
only been in this portfolio, Mr. Speaker, for three or four months. I have a
team that has been working very hard and my predecessor, the Minister of Service
NL, has been working on this for a long time.
We don't
want to bring politics into it, but they're asking questions about something
they had 12 years to do and didn't do it. I'm happy to be a part of a government
that's doing it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Funny how that commentary
ended with a political swipe, Mr. Speaker. This is not about politics and I
really want to keep this where it's important.
When the
minister started with her introductory comments and said, in the case of a child
who's not in care, it's up to the parent, therein lies the crux of the problem
we have issues and concerns with in this bill. For youth that have natural
advocates in parents, that's absolutely fabulous and that solution will work.
But, as we all know, that's not always the case.
Like the
Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, we don't want to refer to specific
cases, but there are specific cases that we are aware of where children have
fallen through the cracks in this regard. We just feel quite strongly that this
legislation should be a stronger voice for all children in Newfoundland and
Labrador. We will leave it there.
The
minister did allude to bringing the bill back to the House at some point, but I
still hope there is consideration to make the bill stronger today so that today
we can come out as leaders in the country with the best piece of legislation for
the best possible interest of all children in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Can the
minister detail for us why critical incidents – moving on now beyond the
departments – are no longer included in the legislation?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair I'm just going to
go back to a couple of points and share with this hon. House that the regional
health authorities in our province investigate all adverse reports. So it's
important this House knows that.
These
are some of the reasons the Advocate, who is much more experienced in this than
we are – this is why she was satisfied with the reporting from the two
departments. The regional health authorities investigate all adverse reports.
Mr.
Chair, in the education system, we have a safe and caring school's policy. As I
said yesterday, in addition to parents being able to advocate for their
children, there are also mechanisms in place within the other departments.
I want
to reiterate, I've said it before but I'll say it again, not only will we be
reporting to the Advocate on something that happens with a child or youth in
care, but on any child or youth that is receiving any services. We have around
1,013 youth in care in our province, but we provide support to around 3,000
families, Mr. Chair.
Yes,
before I sit down, I'll ask the question again: Why, in five years, did they
never legislate any reporting from any department? It just kind of really
astonishes me, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Well, Mr. Chair, it's
something we had started to work on based on the recommendations of 2014. Had we
been in government post-2015, this legislation would have included all of the
recommendations – that, I can assure you.
The
minister's speaking notes talk about physical and psychological injuries. Can
the minister elaborate for us why this was in your speaking notes, but not
specified in the legislation?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
I apologize, Mr. Chair. With
some distraction around me, I didn't quite hear the question. I think she asked
about –
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
I understand, because,
Minister, I'm finding it really hard to hear you as well. It's really loud here
today.
The
minister's speaking notes yesterday talked about physical and psychological
injuries, but that's not specified in the legislation. Can you elaborate on that
for us?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
I apologize to the Member
that I didn't hear the question.
It is
specified, Mr. Chair, right in the definition. I shared it at the press
conference yesterday and I believe I shared it in second reading.
The
definition of a 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 the youth. Mr.
Chair, the definition – and its written right here – is limited to serious
physical and/or psychological injury to the child or youth. It's right there in
the definition, so I'm not sure what the Member is referring to.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Where are you seeing it?
16.1(1)(a) that I'm reading here defines critical injury. It means “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 ….”
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
I'm going to check, take a
moment, as she comes with more questions, and get back to you. I can tell the
Member the definition of critical injury does include physical and psychological
injury. It's the mandatory reporting of death and it is a policy in the
department, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Yes, and, Minister, we
certainly appreciate that, but our issue is that it's not defined right here in
the legislation. If you could check into that for us, we'd greatly appreciate
that.
Mr.
Chair, this bill is a very, very important bill. Many of us remember the
tragedies that occurred. None of us ever – ever – want to see the magnitude of
those types of events ever happen again to any of our children. We respectfully
are bringing forward an amendment that we hope will be given genuine
consideration by Members opposite.
Clause 1
of the bill is amended in the proposed subsection 16.1(1) of the act: (1) by
renumbering the proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (c) and (d)
respectively;
(2) by
adding the following paragraph before the proposed paragraph (c): (a) “critical
incident” – so we would like to see critical incidents added as well, as was
originally requested based on the recommendations of 2014 – means an
extraordinary or life-threatening incident that directly impacts the safety and
well-being of a child or youth such as violence, assault, injury or other
serious criminal matters and significant threats of self-injury or harm or
suicidal ideation requiring hospitalization beyond the initial assessment or
treatment; (b) “critical incident and death protocol” means the critical
incident and death protocol of the Department of Children, Seniors and Social
Development which is numbered QA-2014-001.
(3) by
deleting the word “and” from the proposed sub-paragraph (d)(i) the second time
it appears;
(4) by
deleting the period in the proposed paragraph (d)(ii) and substituting a comma;
and
(5) by
adding the following sub-paragraphs: (iii) services provided by the Department
of Education and Early Childhood Development or by a school board in
Newfoundland and Labrador, and (iv) services provided by the Department of
Health and Community Services or by the regional health authorities.
We have
copies of that for you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
We will
recess the Committee to consider the proposed amendments.
Order,
please!
Go
ahead.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're
having technical difficulties again this morning.
That's
moved by myself as the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, and seconded by my
colleague from the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.
CHAIR:
As discussed, we will recess
the Committee to consider the proposed amendment.
Recess
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Are the
House Leaders ready?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
CHAIR:
We are debating Bill 26 and
the amendment that was proposed is not in order.
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's
disappointing to hear, but it is something that we certainly hope the minister
still considers bringing forward herself as a friendly amendment. We just feel
that there's no reason not to have the strongest, best possible piece of
legislation that we possibly can have.
Mr.
Chair, moving on now, I do have a few more questions. Can the minister outline
for us today how the process has been working for the last year or two? In the
absence of the legislation, can the minister outline who is now reporting on the
deaths within her department to the Child and Youth Advocate?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
going to speak for a moment to the amendment that was proposed. What the hon.
Member across the way proposed in the amendment – in particular I'm looking at
2(b) – she is referring specifically to existing policy. Just for the benefit of
the people in the House, that policy will no longer be applicable. Once we bring
the amendments to the act, then there will be new policy that will be required.
So that's why that is changing, Mr. Chair, and it's not in the new act going
forward.
I want
to say to the hon. Member about a point she made earlier, before we recessed the
House, what is included in that definition that I gave of critical injury will
be operationalized in policy. We will be drafting and we will be sharing that
information out jointly with the Advocate.
I guess
what I also want to say to this hon. House and to the listeners, the points that
the Member is raising are things that were all considered. There has been a
tremendous amount of effort by senior staff in my department and working closely
with the Advocate again. All of these things have been considered over a period
of time.
At the
end of the day, and the amendments that we find ourselves discussing here in the
House, it's the language that we landed on. We landed on the wording that
satisfied the Advocate.
I had a
colleague say to me: I've heard you explain that 10 times this morning. Well, if
I keep getting questions on it, I have to keep responding. What we're using and
where we're going is what satisfied the Advocate to be able to carry out the
scope of the reporting required by her office, Mr. Chair.
Since
2014, there has been a Child Death Review Committee set up. All deaths in the
province – we're bringing in legislation right now, but all deaths in the
province of children in care, children receiving services, are being reported to
the Advocate up to this present time.
Since
2014 we have been reporting that and now what we're doing, Mr. Chair, with the
amendments in this bill is we're broadening the scope of that definition so that
critical injury will also be mandatory to be reported to the Advocate. I look
forward to further questions.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Sorry, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
I'm sorry, I thought you
stood; my apologies.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Once
again, what we are doing here in the House points to the fact that we have a
parliamentary tool and mechanism that allows us to deal with such complicated
and important legislation in our legislative committee structure and that hasn't
been done. This is so important. This kind of legislation is complex; it's
important. What we see happening in the House here today is dissatisfaction
because we haven't used that process.
The
minister stood up and said there has been an enormous amount of work that has
been done to get us to this point. If we had been in a proper committee
structure before this legislation was brought to the House, we would have been
able to work out some of these situations and some of these issues.
I am
sure that the goal and the desire of every single Member in this House is to
come up with the best possible legislation for the protection of our children,
and also information, then that would come to the Child and Youth Advocate that
would ensure that every system, every service and every program that is
delivered in our public services is the best that it possibly can be for the
children and youth of the province. By not doing that process, by not using
those tools that are available to us in this House, violates that principle and
doesn't ensure that we get the best possible outcome in our legislation and it
also makes it much more difficult to work together. I know that every Member in
this House wants to be able to work together on this type of legislation because
it is so crucial and is so important.
I'd like
to ask the minister: Why was that process not used?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the hon. Member for the comments, a long-time parliamentarian in this
Legislature. Myself, I've only been here about four-and-a-half years, but long
enough that I appreciate the democratic process and sometimes the spirited and
lively debate.
It's
absolutely necessary in our democracy, Mr. Chair, what she's talking about. So
in response to that what I will say, we are here debating, we are going back and
forth. I'll stay as long as the hon. Members across the way want and answer
questions.
I will
also remind her that it is this government of the day that is bringing an
all-party committee on democratic reform in 2018, because we recognize the
importance of this. It is in the minister's mandate letter that we would have an
all-party committee on democratic reform.
Regarding the bill, Mr. Chair, and the point to where we are today; once again,
I have to go back to the role of the Advocate. We are here today to discuss
amendments to a bill, bringing before the floor to debate. Mr. Chair, it was not
for us in this House to dictate prior to now what the Advocate was requesting in
order to do her job. I see that in a pretty black and white.
Up to
now, the Advocate, as an independent office, told us what she wanted to see. She
told us the reporting she needed in order to carry out her job. Now I, as the
minister, where I have a lot of children in care and we provide services to
thousands of families around the province, it falls under me to bring that to
the floor of the Legislature to say this is what the Advocate has said she
needed.
We need
to go through the legislative process. We need to discuss it, consider things;
but, at the end of the day, Mr. Chair, I don't believe – because that's an
independent office of the House – it is for government or it is for the
Opposition or Third Party or the independent Member to say what we want that
bill to look like. I think we can't lose sight of that.
At the
end of the day, it is absolutely vital to maintain the integrity of an
independent office in this province that we look to her to say: What is it you
need to do your job? What is it you need to keep children and youth in this
province to ensure they're safe and to investigate some of the very serious, sad
things that happen?
Bearing
in mind, every day we have hundreds of social workers who deal with serious
work. That's the nature of their business, maltreatment of children. They're
trained, Mr. Chair, highly trained professionals. They use their experience,
they use the training they've learned in school, their experience on the job to
make clinical decisions. Those decisions they make, Mr. Chair, they make them in
consultation with their supervisors. They're not making them independently.
That's the nature of the job they do.
We're
526,000 people in this province and we work with a lot of families. When you
talk about a watered-down version, Mr. Chair, things would get pretty watered
down. I'm not sure what would happen if everything would go to the Advocate. I
keep going back to that, because what we're doing right now does align with what
the Advocate stated she needed.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Chair, I believe the
minister really doesn't quite understand the structure of the committees, the
standing committees in the House. As a matter of fact –
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I would
suggest the Member stay relevant to the bill.
Thank
you.
MS. ROGERS:
Yes. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
When we
look at some of the specific issues that we are addressing here in this bill,
about whether it's critical injury or critical incident, whether it's mandatory
requirements reporting from all government departments, that in fact the due
process to get to those agreements on that and to ensure there is respect for
the needs of the Advocate, then, in fact, through a standing committee, the
Advocate can appear at a standing committee and explain what she feels is needed
by that independent office.
This
does not take away or interfere with the independence of the office. This is a
democratic process to ensure it isn't politicized, that the work we do to ensure
that what the Advocate is asking for is heard by every party here in this House.
This is about supporting the independence of the office. That's why we have
those kinds of standing committees. That's why legislation can come before the
standing committee before the legislation gets to the House.
Mr.
Chair, it's not about interfering with the needs of the Advocate. It's about
working with the Advocate, hearing from the Advocate, based on her expertise and
what she feels is needed in that office. That's what that democratic process is
about. That's the democratic tool that has not been used in the process for this
bill, which very well should've, could've and must be.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
going to stand here – I take great offence to when the Member for the NDP sits
here and accuses one of our ministers of not understanding how the committees
work, this after we had a long discussion last night about how the NDP don't
understand how the Management Commission works. In fact, you had one speaking
against it and one speaking for it last night.
One of
the things I'm going to talk about, they want to talk about the structure here.
That's fine and dandy. We can have that conversation.
I hear
the Leader of the Opposition talking about relevance. Well, listen, you should
have talked about relevance last night, too.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
Member for Topsail – Paradise on a point of order.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Earlier
this week, Mr. Chair –
AN HON. MEMBER:
What section are we on?
CHAIR:
Quote your section.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I will, Mr. Chair. I was just
wanting for the Members opposite in the gallery to calm down so I could have the
floor.
Earlier
this week, the Government House Leader stood in his place – I stand in my place
under section 49 – and several times –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
– stood
in his place and pointed out repeatedly the importance of staying relevant. It's
obvious that the Government House Leader is now doing exactly –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. P. DAVIS:
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I'm
just trying to speak without interruption.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Chair, the Government
House Leader is doing exactly that very same thing this morning and throwing out
matters and comments in debate that are not relative to the bill. We're in
Committee. We should be specific to the matter that's before the House.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
There is
no point of order.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again,
the Member talked about he had a hard time speaking again. The reason I was
speaking about this is because he was over chirping from the sidelines there, so
I had a hard time. I was speaking about the fact that we are talking about
committees here. We didn't understand the committee structure.
I'm
going to let the minister continue to do the great job that she's doing,
speaking about this piece of legislation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Talking about the specific
parts of the legislation. They want to talk about the committee structure here.
Again, we'll have that. We can talk in the Management Commission. We can talk in
Standing Orders. We can continue to do that, but let's keep talking about a bill
that's finally been delivered after years of waiting.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I remind
all hon. Members to stay relevant to the bill, please.
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
One
final comment on the democratic piece: There are times and places where the
all-party committee can be used in this House. An absolutely perfect example was
the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. As a result of that,
Mr. Chair, we came out with a report towards recovery with 54 recommendations, I
believe, and that was good; but, in this case, the Advocate is an independent
office of this House.
The
Advocate said this is what she needs: reporting from two departments of the most
vulnerable. Let's not forget, Mr. Chair, what we're talking about today is some
of the most vulnerable children and youth in our province – not just the ones in
care – that receive a service from the Department of Children, Seniors and
Social Development, from Justice and Public Safety.
There
are mechanisms in place, Mr. Chair, in the other departments. In addition to
that, everybody, every parent in Newfoundland and Labrador who has their own
children – I have never met a parent yet – there are many that receive services,
but all of the parents I know and that my daughter went to school with, they're
certainly there pretty quick to stand up for their children when they need to be
an advocate for that.
In
addition to that, let's not lose sight that the mandate of the current Advocate
allows anybody in this province to bring anything to her and she can choose to
investigate. The definition we're using is very, very similar to the definition
being used right across the country. What we're doing is we're not reinventing
the wheel, we work closely with the Advocate, this satisfies her and the scope
of the work she needs to do and it's certainly aligned with the rest of the
country, Mr. Chair.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I would
just like to respond to what the minister said that the All-Party Committee on
Mental Health and Addictions was a specially appointed committee. It is not, was
not, is not a standing committee of the House of Assembly. The standing
committee, the descriptions of what a standing committee is –
MS. DEMPSTER:
Point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development on a point of order.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, I just want to
respectfully correct the Member under section 49 –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, I think
Hansard will show that I did not say that. I understand what
happened with the all-party –
CHAIR:
I ask for the co-operation of
all hon. Members of this House. I actually can't hear what I'm doing here. I
really can't, so I'd appreciate the co-operation from everyone.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Once
again, the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions is not a standing
committee in the House of Assembly. We have standing committees that are –
CHAIR:
Order, please!
I have
to ask the hon. Member to stay relevant to the clauses of the bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
In order
to be able to really support the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate in her
request – for instance, the difference between critical injury and critical
incident – then it's important that everyone in this House, who is tasked with
the job of voting for legislation fully understand what it is she is requesting.
Let's
not forget, this is a bill that is being presented to the House by government.
It's not a bill that's being presented by the Office of the Child and Youth
Advocate; this is a bill that's being presented by government. That's the way we
work. That's fine. We will trust that the Child and Youth Advocate had full
co-operation and was fully consulted and involved, actually, in the process of
the kind of legislation that she needs in order to be able to best do her work
and best provide for the safety of our children, of our youth and, also, to
ensure the services that we provide are in the best interests of our youth and
our children.
We
believe that's the process that needs to take place. The standing committee is
one that would allow the Social Services Committee, which has been struck, but
has not been used – their role is to ensure that as well and, also, to give
confidence to every Member in this House that that is exactly what is happening.
Mr.
Chair, we are at a disadvantage here. This doesn't need to be happening in our
House at this time. If the structures that we have, the democratic structures
that exist within our legislation, within how we do business were, in fact,
followed so that we could understand exactly why the Advocate would prefer
injury over incident, why just children in care and youth in care – because
those are many of the outstanding issues right now, issues that could have been
addressed in a standing committee and given confidence to every Member in this
House that this is the direction to go in.
Again, I
would ask the minister: Why not use that tool in order to be able to address
those outstanding issues?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, I just want to
correct the Member when she said why is this bill just pertaining to – is it
just going to be reported to Advocate the injuries of children and youth in
care?
I want
to say that is not the case; it's not just children and youth in care. While we
have around 1,013 children and youth in care, we are actually working and
providing services to about 3,000 families in this province. So any child or
youth that is receiving service, I just want to correct the Member there.
I also
want to say to the hon. Member, and I may not know the democratic structure as
well as some people in this House, but I believe she could have asked to send
this to Committee in second reading. I believe that could have been asked. She
could have asked to send it to Committee in second reading and it wasn't done,
Mr. Chair.
I also
just want to let her know that the hon. Member is free to meet with the
Advocate. She's free to meet with the Advocate to discuss. The other thing, Mr.
Chair, when we talk about structure in this House and the Member said what we
have is a government bill and she would have liked to have heard directly from
the Advocate. We are bringing this on behalf of the Advocate. We don't have a
structure in place that allows the Advocate to stand up here and bring a bill to
the floor. She has not gone through the democratic process of being elected to
represent a district and to act as a parliamentarian. So this is the mechanism
we have in place. This independent office came and these were the
recommendations she gave, we worked closely with her, and that's what we're here
debating today on her behalf.
I will
say to the Member we're certainly aligned on one thing, 150 per cent, when she
says we want the best for the children and youth in this province
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Because, Mr. Chair, I can
guarantee you that I don't know if there's anyone in this Legislature or
province that wants more than I do to ensure that the children and youth receive
the best possible care that they can. I take the portfolio that has been
entrusted to me very, very seriously.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Yes,
absolutely, everyone in this House, and I do trust that the minister absolutely
wants this to be the best legislation it possibly can be, and that it will
empower and give the authority and whatever it is that the Child and Youth
Advocate needs in order to do the work that she has been asked to do on behalf
of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
So in
light of that, Mr. Chair, I would ask the minister if she would give leave so
that I can request this bill go to Committee, to the Standing Committee on
Social Services to deal with it there.
CHAIR:
The Deputy Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Chair, we've been all
sitting here listening to the Member opposite talk about Committee structure,
democratic process. This is the ultimate democratic process.
You have
a very learned and educated minister who is bringing, on behalf of the Child and
Youth Advocate, a piece of legislation that is very, very critical, that we all
seem to agree is important to the people of this province, important especially
to the children and youth. The Member opposite doesn't seem to understand the
processes of this House and the democratic institution in which we stand.
She
understands very full well we are in Committee of the Whole. Everyone in this
House is having the opportunity to have a discussion and ask questions to the
minister responsible for this legislation. It is the ultimate form of democracy.
Mr.
Chair, what she's referring to is we can sometimes – in various legislatures we
have committees of the House. Not the whole House gets together, committees,
sub-committees of this House get together. I'm familiar with it because it's one
of the tools in the legislature in Canada, in the Parliament of Canada that we
use.
We have
been speaking about, in the Standing Orders Committee, the opportunity of having
sub-committees of this House, standing committees of this House meet on
legislation. But the ultimate form of democracy, Mr. Chair, is that the whole
House has the opportunity to ask questions to the minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
The entire House has the
opportunity to ask questions of the minister who has been very sincere, open,
honest and dedicated to this piece of legislation.
We've
heard publicly from the Advocate who is saying this is an important piece of
legislation; it is the legislation she requests. So if anyone has questions with
the Child and Youth Advocate, they can certainly meet with her. She will be
happy, I'm sure, to discuss this legislation.
Mr.
Chair, I think we should all take the opportunity to ask the questions that we
need to ask of the minister, to make our points that we need to make. This is an
important piece of legislation. I request that all of us turn our attention to
making sure it is exactly the best piece of legislation.
I have
ultimate faith in our minister, Mr. Chair. I have ultimate faith in the
incredible work of the department. The social workers that are involved in this,
they especially have important work on behalf of the Child and Youth Advocate.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I thank
the Minister of Natural Resources for that speech. But, in fact, the Committee
of the Whole is not a standing committee. It is not in any way, shape or form.
It doesn't substitute for it. It does not substitute –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Chair, it does not
substitute in any way, shape or form the work of a standing committee. It does
not. I would direct all Members to the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly.
It's very clearly stated, page 41, what a standing committee is and what is the
work of a standing committee.
One of
the things that a standing committee can do is look very closely at what's
involved in this legislation; for instance, the difference between injury and
critical incidents. We can call expertise, we can call the Advocate. Of course,
the Advocate has not been elected and does not take a seat in this House, but
the Advocate can speak to the standing committee. That dialogue is really
important. It's a tool that we have at our disposable and has not been used.
I would
once again draw people's attention to the difference between what a standing
committee is and what Committee of the Whole is. I'm going to assume, then, that
the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Children, Seniors and
Social Development – that she probably understands that as well. So in light of
that, I would ask her again, with leave, will she do the right thing and refer
this legislation, which is so important?
We've
all said how important it is, we've all said how we want it to be the best that
it possibly can. In order for us to all work together, will she refer this to
the Standing Committee of Social Services?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, with all due
respect, the hon. Member, who's been a parliamentarian for much longer than I
have, knows full well she had that opportunity in second reading to refer it out
to a committee.
I'm
going to try to get back to discussing the important matter of this bill. What
we see is someone trying to stall in this House what the Advocate wanted here,
Mr. Chair. I do believe the Member may have asked for some definitions around
the difference between –
MS. ROGERS:
Point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre on a point of order.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Chair, a point of order
on article 49 of the Standing Orders. To say that I am deliberately trying to
stall this legislative process –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
– really casts aspersions on
my integrity and on the work that I am doing on behalf of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, what I am doing is saying let's do this the
best way that we can.
The
accusation that I am trying to stall legislation is reprehensible. I ask for an
apology on that, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
There is
no point of order; it's just a disagreement between two hon. Members.
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, it is really
unfortunate that we are going down this road discussing the safety of children
and youth in our province. What I merely said to the Member was you had an
opportunity in second reading. You had an opportunity. You understand the
process; respect the process. That's what I said.
I do
believe the hon. Member asked for a definition between critical injury and
incident. I will lay that out again for the House and for people that may be
watching today, Mr. Chair.
What I'm
going to do – because I've talked about a critical injury as one that may result
in the child or youth's death or cause serious harm or long-term impairment to
the health of the child or youth, versus a critical incident as an extraordinary
or life-threatening event. We've discussed that, so I'm just going to give a
couple of examples, Mr. Chair.
Under an
injury, as I mentioned, you might have a child that was injured in a car. You
might have a child that takes pills and ends up in the hospital and they're
unresponsive – serious things, Mr. Chair. They're very serious, difficult things
for families to go through, life changing. There might be a child that goes
missing who's a diabetic and then there are additional reasons for concern.
These are the types of things that would fall under injury.
On the
other hand, Mr. Chair, there may be a child who is receiving services from
either the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development or Justice and
Public Safety and they go missing from a playground and they're found or
something. There are mechanisms in place.
Once
again, I say we have social workers that do very important work every day. They
are very qualified to do their work. They counsel children. They counsel
families. Sometimes the children have to be removed from homes, always with a
goal to reunify, to provide wraparound supports. At the end of the day, we all
want the same thing. We want our children and our youth safe, we want healthy
families and we want healthy communities.
I
believe, Mr. Chair, the amendments that we are proposing here today takes us –
it's a ginormous step, in my opinion. In my humble opinion, this is a huge step
forward today making it mandatory to report deaths and critical injuries to the
Advocate from the Departments of Children, Seniors and Social Development and
Justice and Public Safety. I think it's going to be a good day when this bill
gets through for the children and youth in the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want
to take a few moments now to speak on this as well. I want to say right off the
bat, though, that as I said in second reading nobody, I don't think, on this
side – and I'll speak for myself, but what I've heard, nobody on this side is
saying that this is a bad thing, that we don't support mandatory reporting of
child deaths and serious injuries. I certainly don't. I support it 100 per cent.
I also
want to say that I really don't believe there's anything political going on, on
any side, to be honest with you. The government brought in a piece of
legislation for all the right reasons, I believe, and it makes sense. I believe
all Members of the Opposition are just simply doing their jobs in asking
questions and raising concerns. I don't see that there's anything political
about it, to be honest with you. I don't know why we want to go down the road of
anybody –
MR. MITCHELMORE:
What's the question?
MR. LANE:
The Minister of Tourism there
wants to chirp. Maybe he can stand up now when I sit down and he can offer some
of his enlightenment because I'm sure he has an awful lot to offer to this
debate so far.
As I was
saying, Mr. Chair, this is not political. I can say I have stood up in this
House now during this session and during the last session and so on, and
Hansard will show I supported the vast
majority of what this government has brought forward.
I said
if they did something good, I would support it. If they did something I didn't
agree with, I wouldn't support it. There have been times when the Official
Opposition or the Third Party have voted one way, against the government, and
yesterday, I voted with the government while the Official Opposition voted a
different way.
So, for
me, this is not political, but this is important. This is very important
legislation. We have a responsibility on this side to bring forward issues and
concerns that we have. I will say that the Member for St. John's Centre does
raise a good point about the process. And I'm here to talk about this
legislation, but she does raise an important point about the process, and not
about this bill, and not about this government either because it was no
different when it was the other way around and there was a different government.
The fact
of the matter is that when we get into it – it's fine when we get into
legislation which is pretty straightforward, minor changes, housekeeping and so
on, but when we get into complex, complicated issues that are so important, then
to not vet it though every system we can to ensure that all Members are
informed, well aware of what the issues are and what the rationale is. You don't
get that, by the way, in a 20-minute or a half-hour briefing up in a department.
In this
case, we are asked to rely on the Child and Youth Advocate that that's what she
wants. I have no issue with that. She's obviously a very qualified person who is
making these recommendations. I have no problem with her qualifications or her
ability and so on, but I will say this, that the former Child and Youth Advocate
who was there for a number of years, in three or four different reports, she
made different recommendations. Some of the things that have been raised here by
the Official Opposition and so on were recommendations that she made.
Now, she
was also a very qualified person. So obviously, you have two Child and Youth
Advocates, two qualified people, who have a differing opinion on what should be
included and what shouldn't be. You can argue they can't both be right. Maybe
they can, maybe it's just a matter of perspective, but because we're questioning
this doesn't mean that we're saying that the Child and Youth Advocate doesn't
know what she's doing or whatever, that we're not supporting her. That's not
what we're saying at all.
The fact
of the matter is that the prior Child and Youth Advocate made some suggestions
or recommendations that are not being covered off in this particular bill. The
concerns she raised are the concerns that are being raised here today. It is
important. This is part of the democratic process. We are parliamentarians. We
are the ones who were elected by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to
discuss these important issues.
We're
not here to rubber-stamp what gets brought forward by the government. We're not
here to rubber-stamp what gets brought forward by any Officer of the House. The
Child and Youth Advocate reports to the House of Assembly. It's not the other
way around. We don't report to that office. That office reports here. We're
ultimately the ones that have the responsibility –
MR. MITCHELMORE:
I don't think there's a
question.
MR. LANE:
I say to the Minister of
Tourism, you'll have your opportunity.
So it's
important that we ask these questions, that we raise these concerns. For me, I
have to agree – now, I'm going to support the legislation because we should've
had this a long time ago and it didn't happen. So I'm supporting it 100 per cent
– don't get me wrong, I do.
I'm just
going to put on the record, as others have, that I have some concerns. I have a
concern about the definition of a critical injury and the fact that it doesn't
say psychological injury. Now, the minister can say, and fair enough, that in
the policy and when the policy comes forward and so on, psychological injury is
part of it. I have no reason to disbelieve her. I'm sure it will be in the
policy, but who's to say that next year or the year after or the year after that
it gets taken out of policy, the policy gets changed. There's no guarantee that
those things are in the policy, unless it's enshrined in here.
If you
have a definition in the act, which is the law, then the policy has to stick to
what's in that. They can't change it, but if you don't include it here in this
act, which is the law, then they can change it. They can not include
psychological damage and so on. Someone can decide for some reason: I'm not
going to include that – and the public would be none the wiser, until something
happened one day and then somebody looked in to it and said: yeah, someone
decided to change the policy. It didn't have to go before the House, was never
debated publicly, it just happened. They were given free will to do whatever
they want. That's an issue, that's a concern.
The
other issue is the fact that we don't have a –
MR. B. DAVIS:
You're grandstanding.
MR. LANE:
No, it's not grandstanding, I
say to the Member for Virginia Waters – I think it is, or whatever the district
is.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. LANE:
It's not grandstanding at
all. It's doing my job, that's what it is. It's doing my job as I was elected to
do. That's what it's doing.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Raise a question first.
MR. LANE:
I'll ask a question, I say,
when I'm ready to ask a question. That's when I'll ask a question; if I decide
to ask a question. I'm not restricted here to ask a question. I can make
comments. I don't have to ask questions. I'll do what I decide I'm going to do
because, guess what? Nobody's going to tell me what to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. LANE:
Anyway, we'll move on.
I have
an issue with the fact that we don't have critical incidents included. There's
no critical incident included here, which should be included, I think. Because
you could have a very, very serious incident involving a child, involving a
youth that did not result in them actually getting injured, but they could have
been killed. If the stars hadn't aligned a certain way it could have resulted in
a death, but it didn't. So to leave out critical incident, to my mind, is a
mistake. I think it should be there.
The
final point I have with this is the fact that we're only dealing with two
departments. We're dealing with the Department of Justice and we're dealing with
– it was Child, Youth and Family Services – Children, Seniors and Social
Development, there you go.
I really
do understand what the minister is saying that Eastern Health, the health
authorities, the Department of Health have protocols. Schools would have
protocols. I get that, but I'm sure if it was the Whitbourne youth centre, as an
example – I just throw it out as a random example – which falls under the
Department of Justice, they have protocols, too. Even though they have their
protocols, it still applies to them.
What's
the difference between something happens at the Whitbourne youth centre that has
protocols, but they have to report it, it's mandatory; something happens in
Paradise at the drug treatment centre, granted they might have protocols, but
they don't have to report it. What's the difference? I don't understand the
difference.
The
other thing – actually, I'm running out of time, so I'm going to take my seat.
If somebody else stands up, then I'll finish.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, I thank the Member
for the points on the issues. I believe it was just a question right at the very
end for me that I will respond to directly: What's the difference with the
Whitbourne youth centre? They have protocols in place, too.
What I
will say to the hon. Member is those two departments are responsible for the
children and youth in their care and that they provide a service to. That's what
makes those two departments different from Health and Education.
We have
a direct responsibility. CSSD has a responsibility to protect children by
intervening with their parents or caregivers and, in some cases, providing
out-of-home care, as I talked about earlier, to ensure the children and youth
are safe.
Also,
I'll say to the Member: Justice and Public Safety also have youth that are in
their custody in the department, maybe youth that might have committed a
criminal offence. Government is, therefore, also responsible for these children
and youth. That's what makes the difference there with those two departments, I
say to the hon. Member.
The
jurisdictional review supports limiting the scope of Children, Seniors and
Social Development and Justice and Public Safety because our mandate gives us a
direct responsibility to the children and youth in care there.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to
be clear, Mr. Chair, for all of us in the House, is the minister saying that the
bill, as it's presently written, is exactly what the Advocate asked for? Is she
saying in particular that the Advocate specifically said she only wanted CSSD
and Justice included?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, she is correct.
The
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 for the scope of reporting required to her office. I
have said that a number of times already, so in the interest of time I'm not
going to keep repeating myself.
The
Advocate did say that incidents were broader than was necessary for her to carry
out her important work. That is why we landed on the language that we did,
working closely in collaboration with the Advocate.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In 2015,
following the recommendations that arose that we're trying to finalize now and
get 100 per cent of them in place – and we know in 2016, we believe, there was a
working committee comprised of child, youth and family services, Justice, Health
and Education. This was the working group that was dedicated to drafting the
legislation. Can the minister tell us specifically what date, what point in time
this committee was disbanded?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, that would have
been before my time in this department. I don't have that answer, but I will
certainly try and get that answer for her. I only know that a lot of the
questions that are coming from the Members opposite relate to the former
Advocate. Since I came, I'm working with the current Advocate and, again, what
we're doing today satisfies the current Advocate.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Has the minister reviewed any
of the information in the recommendations that arose in 2014 and, I guess, the
genesis of where all of this came from?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, I can report to
this House that committee has not been disbanded. It has not been disbanded, but
some of the membership has changed under this new current Advocate. Other
departments were left once the scope of what the Advocate wanted was determined.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
The committee still exists,
but it now only has members from CSSD and Justice. Can you tell me when the
Departments of Health and Education were removed from the committee? What month
did this occur?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Windsor Lake.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
really pleased to stand and participate in this debate. I've been listening very
attentively since the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development
introduced the bill. I think this is, no doubt, a very important conversation
for every single Member of this House; hence, the seriousness of the debate.
I will
say, Mr. Chair, while we talk about this in Committee, one of the things I think
is important for us to recognize, as legislators and parliamentarians, is that
there is an urgency, quite frankly, to the need to provide approval for this
bill. The reason I say that, as has been referenced many times in this House,
the Advocate has been without the ability to have this automatic reporting
happening for over a decade.
The
former Child and Youth Advocate, whom I know and have had dealings with before
she became the Child and Youth Advocate, certainly saw the importance. The
current Child and Youth Advocate, who I also have a tremendous amount of respect
for and have known for many, many years – and it was a privilege to be a Member
of this House and ratify her appointment in that very important role that
reports to this House – has also advocated.
I think,
Mr. Chair, one of the things, though, that is important to remember as part of
this piece of legislation is that the Child and Youth Advocate must focus and
should focus the attention and resources of that office, in my opinion, on the
most vulnerable individuals and, in this case, children who are impacted by
tragedy, who lose their lives as a result of tragedy. That Advocate is there to
make sure those most vulnerable children are represented and that their voices
are heard.
Mr.
Chair, I want to take a moment to congratulate the Minister of Children, Seniors
and Social Development, as well as the former minister for the same department;
both mothers, both advocating to this House on a very important issue related to
children. As we have the debate and Members opposite do the work they're
supposed to do as Opposition Members – and maybe it is critiquing the standing
committees of this House – I also want to recognize the efforts of our House
Leader to work on how we use the tools that are available to us under the
democratic process.
Let us
not forget that right now, today, in our province, if there is a critical
situation where a child – a very vulnerable child, without an advocate, without
somebody to be in their corner – loses their life, it is not automatically
reported to the Child and Youth Advocate. I would hope, Mr. Chair, that before
we leave today we can make progress on supporting the work of the department,
the Child and Youth Advocate and the work of this minister.
Mr.
Chair, I stand here not only as a parliamentarian, but also as a colleague of
the minister responsible for Children, Seniors and Social Development, who I
know, like I, has stood at the side of a grave and buried a child. I would say
that while the discussions around the historical weaknesses of the former
administration to act on this make great political fodder, while the intentions
of parliamentarians in this House to improve the discussions around standing
committees, or special committees of this House are important, let us not forget
the focus of what this act is meant to do. It is meant to give the Child and
Youth Advocate today, as quickly as we can pass this bill, the rights to
investigate because she will be informed of those situations that happen to the
most vulnerable children in our province, Mr. Chair.
With
that, I will sit down and allow the minister to do the great job she's doing in
presenting this bill and hope that the Members of this House understand that we
must and need to pass this bill as it is.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl – Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just
want to say to the Member opposite who just spoke that I certainly have no
intentions of holding up this bill. It's not about holding up the bill. It
really isn't. I can't imagine anybody who has had the loss of a child and what
they would have gone through. As a father myself, it must be unbearable. We all
want to do the right thing.
For me,
as I've said, I will be supporting the bill. This is not about not supporting
the bill, but this is about making sure that our concerns are heard. If that
takes a little more time to do it right, then I don't see a problem with that.
We've said we've been 10 years waiting for this, if it takes a few more hours or
whatever it takes – not that I'm planning on standing here for the next few
hours because I don't.
If it
takes a couple of amendments, if that was possible, if government wanted to do
it, and it took a day or two or whatever – I know they're not going to do it,
but if they did, I don't think that would hurt if we made sure that everything
was done properly and covered everything off. Not that what's here is wrong or
bad; it's about making it better and more inclusive. I think that would be my
goal. I think that's the goal of all my colleagues. I would think it should be
the goal of us all.
To
finish off where I had spoken before I ran out of time, last time I was talking
about the Whitbourne Youth Centre versus the Paradise drug rehabilitation clinic
and so on. I understand and I appreciate what the minister is saying that if a
child is in the Whitbourne youth detention, then he or she is in the custody of
the government – in care, so to speak. It might not be the right terminology,
but I think you get what I mean.
If we're
looking at a facility – and I don't want to keep using the Paradise drug
treatment centre, it's just one that comes to mind. I'm sure everything is fine
there and they're doing a great job. I don't want to make it seem like I'm
making any accusations about them because I'm not. I have no reason to believe
that there's anything only good stuff happening there, but I just use it as an
example because it's one that comes to mind.
You
could have a child go in there, as an example, as I've read it and from the
briefing, who is what you call an emancipated youth, I believe is the
terminology. So, basically, it's a child who was in care, perhaps, and turned
16. They signed a waiver or whatever they do to say I'm no longer going to be
part of the child, youth and family services system, so to speak.
Now, I
understand there's a 12-month period here, but that brings you to 17. So there
still is that gap between adult – in theory, and I know we're talking in theory,
but things can happen is all I'm saying; things can happen. There is that gap in
time where it is possible, in that scenario, where you have someone who is an
emancipated youth, we've gone past the 12 months from when they were part of the
child, youth and family services system and they go into a facility like that –
it doesn't have to be that one – or some other health facility, some other
educational facility or whatever, and something could happen to that child, to
that youth, and that wouldn't be an automatic report.
Granted,
as the minister said, they have their own internal systems, but then again the
Whitbourne Youth Centre has their own internal systems as well. So do group
homes and stuff; they have their own internal. So an internal system is an
internal system. In one case, it's automatically reported and the other case,
it's not automatically reported.
The
other thing is you could have a child who is not part of the system, so to
speak. They're still with their parents or whatever – and I understand that
parents would advocate for the children. That is most parents. That's the
majority of parents, I would hope, but we also know there are circumstances that
have happened, unfortunately, where parents involved were not good parents and
may not have been picked up through CYFS and so on and they still had custody of
the children. In that case, is there any guarantee if something happened that
that parent would be of sound body and mind, whatever the case might be? Maybe
the parents have addictions themselves. Would they report it? So would it go to
the Child and Youth Advocate? It may not.
These
are hypotheticals and all we're suggesting here is to cover those hypotheticals
off. I heard the minister give an example when she talked about a fight at a
school or something, some kid gets picked on or they're having a little scrap
outside at recess time or whatever. That's not what we're saying. It's not what
I'm saying, at least. I don't think it's what anyone else is saying. We're not
talking about that. We're talking about very serious incidents. We're talking
about things that meet the definition in here of a serious injury or a serious
incident, if it was included. That's what we're talking about. That would happen
or could happen in an educational setting or could happen in a health care
setting. That's what we're talking about, for those serious incidents to be
reported.
If the
Child and Youth Advocate don't have the resources to deal with all those things,
then she should ask for more. If that's the issue – I don't know. If that's part
of the issue, if it's a matter of focus and resources, then she should come out
and say: I don't feel that I would have the resources to focus on everything and
that's the reason why we've narrowed it from what the original predecessor,
Child and Youth Advocate Ms. Chafe, said. That's why I've changed this now and
narrowed the scope, because under my analysis I don't believe I would have the
resources to do it all.
If
that's the case, then that's what should be said. Then we can discuss giving her
more resources if that's what we need. I know there's a cost to that as well,
and that all has to be in consideration, but if that's the issue, then it's a
discussion we need to have.
Those
are my concerns that I have, Mr. Chair. As I said, we knew when the bill came
through, like all bills – and, again, that's not about this government, it's
about the process. We all knew it wasn't going to go to a legislative committee
because we don't do it. We all know that amendments are not going to go through
because they very rarely do. I don't know, I've hardly seen anything since I've
been here, very little.
Tom
Marshall, when he was deputy premier – or maybe he was premier at the time – put
it very eloquently, I always remember it, when he stood up and said: Mr.
Speaker, Oppositions have their say and government has its way. That's the way
it works. It doesn't have to work that way, but that's the way it works.
With
that said, we know it's going to go through as is. I'm going to support it as is
because we didn't have it before and this is a good thing. This is a good-news
story. This is not about trying to, in any way, say this is bad. That's not what
it's about. It's good. We should have been doing it all along. We're doing it.
For me,
I do see those gaps there that I would like, personally, to see closed. The
purpose here is to put it on the record and to say to government, as we have on
other bills from time to time, you have the power, if you want to, that you
could make amendments.
If you
do or you don't, that will be your choice. You'll have your way, but at least I
want to put those points forward.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just
want to go back because there have been a lot of speakers. It's great to see so
many people engaged in this debate here this morning, Mr. Chair, because it is
very important.
I agree
with my colleague for Mount Pearl – Southlands. This piece of legislation has
been three years in the making and if it takes a few extra hours to make it the
best piece of legislation that it can be, then that's a few extra hours very,
very well spent, Mr. Chair, and certainly in the best interests of the children
of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I just
want to go back to a question I had asked a few minutes ago regarding the
committee that was struck to draft this legislation and to work with this
legislation. Can the minister inform this hon. House what specific time the
Department of Health and the Department of Education were removed from the
committee structure?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When the
new Advocate was appointed, there were deputy ministers from four departments
that would have met with the Advocate; I believe it was in late March. At that
time, when the conversation focused around what this current Advocate felt was
needed to carry on the scope of her work, it's my understanding that they all
met in that first meeting and then the other two departments left. The Advocate
continued to work closely with the two departments that have a responsibility to
children and youth in care or receiving services, Mr. Chair.
One
thing I didn't mention here this morning is the
Children and Youth Care and Protection Act,
another very, very important act in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Under the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act, Mr. Chair, we all have a
duty to report any concerns of children needing protective intervention. I think
that serves merit in being put on the record here during this important debate
as well.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank
you for allowing me some time to enter in Committee debate this afternoon.
I'll
start with a very simple question for the minister. The minister has referred
many times to the Advocate. I'd like to ask her: Other than the Advocate and
officials in core government, who else did she consult with on this bill?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, I mentioned the
deputy ministers, in the departments that have been questioned here today, have
been meeting with the Advocate. I have an ADM in my department, a very, very,
very qualified, competent individual, once a front-line social worker herself;
have spent 26 years dealing with it. She is now the individual that actually
reports the deaths, since 2014, those deaths that are being reported. She is now
the person in my department that reports that to the Advocate. Those are the
people that are working on this and working closely with the Advocate to arrive
where we are today.
I also
want to say again, Mr. Chair, to this hon. House, picking up on some points that
my colleague, the Member for Windsor Lake, made. She did a very good job. I
appreciated the points that she brought to the floor. The Member for Windsor
Lake has met and spoken with the Advocate. I'm wondering, when I look across the
way at the Members, who over there has actually sat down and had discussion with
the Advocate because anybody can. Her door is open.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Maybe
the minister missed my question. My question was: Other than the Advocate and
officials within core government – other than those, who has she consulted with?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I spoke
on this in second reading yesterday and I won't really go back to many of my
points. I've taken in all this debate today and the back and forth. I think this
is a very important piece of legislation. I think it should not be lost on the
House the importance of this legislation and getting it right.
This was
what I alluded to yesterday and I'll keep to the high road today again. We make
political comments and I'm not going there, I've made that point and I'm
sticking to that point, because I think this is too important. I stated
yesterday on a personal level the minister can look across and ask who has
spoken to the Child and Youth Advocate, but she can never question, I don't
think, any of the Members in this House how much passion, how much importance we
feel this legislation means to our children, our youth, our vulnerable.
We would
not be stood here today, Mr. Chair, debating this legislation if we didn't see
the importance of it. All of us here could ask questions. We have our critic
asking, our Leader of the Opposition and Members of the other parties – we could
all ask questions because we feel it's very important.
On that
note, I'm going to ask a straightforward question, and I think it's a fair
question based on some of the debate that's going on: Can the minister tell this
House with confidence she feels this is the best piece of legislation without
having Health and Education as part of this bill – do you feel this is the best
piece of legislation out there with those two excluded? It's a simple question.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, in response to the
earlier Member for Topsail – Paradise – it's hard to think of it all when you're
on your feet right away. I also wanted to remind him that in getting to where we
are today, we did do a jurisdictional scan and we looked at what was happening
in the other provinces. We're the fifth to bring in this mandatory reporting and
the first in Atlantic Canada. So we looked at that as well.
I also
want to say, I keep bringing it back to working with the Advocate and what the
Advocate wanted. This is not about what individual groups or other departments
might have wanted. That's an independent office of the House. What I take very
seriously is what I need to do in my capacity, as Minister of Children, Seniors
and Social Development, to support what she needs to do to carry out her work.
The
Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands said is this about resources. In our dialog
with the Advocate there was no conversation about resources, because we're
talking about children in care and these things that matter, we'll always find a
way. So right now, this is about satisfying her requirements.
I say to
the hon. Member to answer his question, today I can stand before you and say
that I have every confidence that what we are doing satisfies the Advocate. She
has said that to me and she has said that to the media repeatedly, yesterday and
today. The Advocate has been out there saying, right now, this is what I need to
carry out the important work that I do.
In
addition to that, what we're doing today doesn't chisel this in stone, Mr.
Chair. If the Advocate comes back in three months' time and says I'd like to
talk to you, I have concerns, our door is open; we embrace recommendations
wholeheartedly. Any opportunity that we have to improve the safety and
well-being of children and youth in your province is a conversation that we will
have.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want
to go back and thank the minister for that response, but that's not what I asked
you. I respect that that's what the Child and Youth Advocate wanted and I
respect her, as I said it yesterday. My question is: Do you think, as minister
responsible, this is the best, strongest piece of legislation? Because that's
what we're asking for: the best piece of legislation. Again, it is not being
political. In your opinion, as minister responsible, is this the best piece of
legislation with Health and Education not included in the legislation?
It's a
simple question, but I'm asking you, Minister, not the Child and Youth Advocate;
I want your opinion.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, I would not have
brought it forward if I didn't think otherwise.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My
question just a few moments ago was about who the minister consulted with. I
appreciate her rising to a subsequent question and pointing out that they did a
jurisdictional scan. I appreciate that, but my question is around – and it
really comes back to what my colleague for Conception Bay South just asked about
getting the best legislation. That's what it's about. It's not just doing what
somebody asked if it be an Officer of the House or somebody else or someone
within a government department, it's about coming here – there was a comment
about coming here and bringing in what the best legislation is going to be.
There
was a comment earlier by the Member opposite about discussing it and considering
things. That's what we're doing here in Committee. We're saying: Did you
consider this? Did you consider something else? We're trying to find out why
they went from fully endorsing and backing and lobbying for what the former
Advocate was seeking out to this. This is not what they promised. This is not
what the former Advocate was lobbying for. This is not what they promised to do.
This is not that, Mr. Chair.
I also
have to take issue with the Member opposite who a couple of times I've heard –
the Minister of Health, I heard him say it this morning: You had 12 years to do
it. You were working on it for years. As a matter of fact, their own platform,
2015 platform, says for years the Child and Youth Advocate has been calling for
the PC government to make mandatory reporting.
That's
not true; this is not a truthful statement in here, Mr. Chair. What was in that
campaign is not truthful. I say to the Member over there, it was in the fall of
2014, if you read the Advocate's 2014-2015 annual report the Advocate says: “In
the fall of 2014, the Advocate made a formal request to the Honourable Paul
Davis, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the
Child and Youth Advocate Act be amended to include mandatory
notification from government departments and agencies when a child or youth
receiving services is involved in a critical incident or when a death of a child
or youth occurs. Mandatory notification from government departments and agencies
when a child or youth receiving services is involved in a critical incident” –
critical incident, not critical injury, but critical incident – “or when the
death of a child or youth occurs will provide the ACY with the information
needed in order to ensure that the rights and interests of every child and youth
are protected and advanced.” Every child and youth, and they hitched their wagon
to it, Mr. Chair. They campaigned on it.
They
promised to the people in their campaign platform that's what they were going to
do. The reason why we're here today having such a lengthy discussion in
Committee is the bill before the House here today, that's not it – that's not
it. We're asking questions that are not difficult, that are not complicated.
Mr.
Chair, the previous minister had confirmed in April 2016, and I quote from a
CBC news story posted April 26, 2016, at 4:24 p.m. The previous minister,
now the Minister of Service NL – and the story here quotes. The previous
minister had been asked about a time frame. It says: “'I really cannot talk to
the time frame right now,' she says. 'It's a very important piece of work,
reporting critical incidents, and it's a very detailed and deep piece of work.'”
Well, I
agree. That's why a working committee between '14 and '15, when the change of
government happened, deputy ministers from the Department of Child, Youth and
Family Services, the Department of Justice and Public Safety, the deputy
minister of Education and the deputy minister of Health at the time engaged in
hundreds of correspondence, exchanges and discussions about this very matter,
hundreds because we wanted to make sure it was done right, too.
We
wanted to make sure it was done right; they wanted to make sure it was done
right. There were hundreds of exchanges by those deputy ministers in their
deputy minister committee – hundreds – to get it right. That was of ultimate
importance to get it right. Here today, I still believe, yes, we should do it
and, yes, we should get it right.
Then the
Members opposite get up and say: Oh, we shouldn't make politics about it; you
had 12 years to do it. It's about today and the bill before the House today. The
bill before the House today is about critical injury, not critical incidents.
The
Child and Youth Advocate of the day talked about critical incidents many, many
times. The platform of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, when they
went to the people and asked them to vote for them, talks about critical
incidents. The current bill before the House does not.
Even the
current Minister of Service NL, when she was the minister of Child, Youth and
Family Services – it was referred to in the article – talked about critical
incidents. Somewhere along the way there are some changes in what was committed.
It was absolutely changed and we're concerned about that, Mr. Chair.
My
question for the Member opposite – and who she consulted with, she did a
jurisdictional scan. She talked about how important and great people are in the
department. I agree. I agree there are great professionals working in her
department. Long before I came to this House, I worked with some of them on a
daily basis.
I know
the current Child and Youth Advocate; I have known her for decades. On a
professional basis, I have worked with her from time to time for decades. I have
utmost respect for the current Advocate. Absolutely, I thought and I believe,
and still believe today, the current Child and Youth Advocate was a great choice
to be the new Child and Youth Advocate; a good position, good appointment, no
two ways about it.
Just
like the minister herself said, she knows lots about it, but she also is new.
Mr. Chair, she reflected on that this morning here in the House that she's new.
The Child and Youth Advocate is new, but there's a Child and Youth Advocate who
was around for many years who asked for critical incidents – asked and we put
together all the departments.
As a
matter of fact, the Child and Youth Advocate even went on to say, contrary to
what the Members opposite said: “Since this request and throughout 2014-2015
fiscal year” – this is in her annual report – “the ACY has worked in
collaboration with the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, the
Department of Health and Community Services, the Department of Education and
Early Childhood Development, and the Department of Justice and Public Safety on
proposed amendment. The Advocate looks forward to further collaboration with
these departments and to the proposal of the legislative amendment.”
My question for the minister is: The former Advocate
you hitched your wagon to in your 2015 election platform, your predecessor was
continuing to work with the four departments and the Advocate up until a few
months ago. We want to know why the change? Minister, why did you not consult
with the former Advocate, who has a significant depth of knowledge and
experience in this area?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, the Advocate that
the Member is referring to that he has tremendous respect for, I would say:
What's her opinion on this bill? The Advocate that we're bringing these
recommendations forward today, if he has tremendous respect for her, respect
that this was acceptable to her. That's what's more important here.
Mr.
Chair, I also want to say to the House, when the Advocate, who works closely
with other advocates across the country – the current Advocate is satisfied with
the direction we are going in today with what these amendments will bring. She
works closely with other advocates across provinces and territories.
They're
trying to go down a rabbit hole here and make this political. I find it
difficult to refrain. I want to continue to focus on the important work of this
bill, Mr. Chair. Even the Member who was just on his feet, he had since 2011 to
deliver. He could have delivered since 2011. He was minister in that department.
While he was minister, there were three separate investigations. The former
Advocate was calling for it.
I'm not
going to continue to stand and answer and repeat the same thing over and over
again, other than to say when he says: Why do you find yourself where you find
yourself here today, what changed? The Advocate changed. We are working with an
independent officer in this province. We are working with her to meet the
requirements that she said she needed to carry out the scope and practice of her
job, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail – Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
appreciate the response from the minister – I do. I see she's sincerely trying
to provide the information, but I don't see how she's able to do it with
clarity. Yes, I do – tut, tut, tut, tut, tut, that's what you have to face here.
We stand
in the House, we're trying to have a debate and Members opposite are looking
over like I'm a four-year-old being talked to by my mother. That's the way it
feels like sometimes the way people get on over there, Mr. Chair. It's certainly
not the conduct we'd expect from ministers in the House, I can assure you.
Mr.
Chair, I do respect the current Advocate. I respect her position and I respect
her opinion. I also respected the former Advocate. While we never always agreed
on things, I respected her position. I always respected her opinion. She was the
expert and the professional. There were times I met with her that we had some
very good discussions. It didn't mean that we aligned in our views or our
beliefs, but we certainly had a discussion, could make our arguments to each
other and then go away to meet again at another time and have continued
discussions. That's not a bad thing.
It's not
about an official saying to the government here's the bill to bring forward, go
bring it forward. It's about the government doing what they believe is right.
They believed in 2015 that critical incidents were the right thing to do. They
believed that all government agencies was the right thing to do. They believed
in what the former Advocate started to ask for in 2014 when she asked us to make
an amendment in 2014. It wasn't 2011 when I was minister.
Sometimes it really frustrates me – why didn't you do this 10 years ago, or 20
years ago? Or I don't care when it is. You can do that until the cows come home,
Mr. Chair. If we did all that back then we wouldn't need to be here today. I've
said it so many times here in the House, but that's the way things happen in
life and society and here in the Legislature. Things change, new ways are found,
opinions change, technology changes, people's beliefs change. New circumstances
arise that the previous bill, rules, law and so on didn't sufficiently cover or
deal with and there's a better way to deal with it.
Things
evolve and change; that's just a fact of life. In 2014, there was a lot of work
done between '14 and '15 with four key departments that have contact with
children, four key departments that provide government services to children on a
daily basis. Not just Child, Youth and Family Services or Children, Seniors and
Social Development, not just them, not just the Department of Justice and Public
Safety, but also Education and Health, both of those as well.
I
listened to the Member for Windsor Lake as well this morning. I listened very
carefully to what she said. She made some points and she talked about the good
work being done and hard work we did. I appreciate all that, but she also in her
discussion when she got to – it was very interesting to me. She talked about,
she said if a critical situation occurred today there's no legislation required
to be reported – is essentially what she said – but she used the word critical
situation.
Well, I
say to the Member for Windsor Lake, after this is passed, if there's a critical
situation, it doesn't mean it's going to be reported. This bill doesn't
necessarily change that, unless the child is receiving services from Children,
Seniors and Social Development. Unless they are receiving services from that
department, it doesn't have to be reported. That doesn't change, is what I say
to the Member opposite.
A
critical situation is exactly what she mentioned. And I think she did it
honestly because it is just the way she was thinking about it. I think she did
it completely honestly to say critical situation, because that's exactly what
our problem is. That's exactly the serious problem we have over here, is that a
serious situation can occur from a person who is receiving services through
Health Care or through Education, if they're a student in a school or receiving
other extended services or they have a medical service they're receiving. It
doesn't have to be reported.
Now, I
heard what the minister said: there are new processes set up here and there and
so on. Well, the Child and Youth Advocate is the person who is to advocate for
all children, and she refers to that in her annual report. It has been discussed
publicly in the past – as soon as I find it here, Mr. Chair – about it's for all
children, not just for some children.
In the
interest of every child and youth, that's what it's about: in order to ensure
that the rights and interests of every child and youth are protected and
advanced. Well, people come into services under the minister's department. Over
time, there are always new families and so on coming into services. Sometimes
there are families who maybe should be receiving services from her department
who are not, because it hasn't been discovered yet that there are issues or
concerns or something happening within that family where they should be
receiving services.
If there
is a family that should be receiving services and are not, there's an incident
at a school, an education facility, or through Health or any other branch of
government besides Children, Seniors and Social Development, besides the
Department of Justice, which is essentially being detained; if there's some
other circumstance, it doesn't have to be reported. Mr. Chair, that's a
significant hole in this legislation. That's a significant hole.
I
appreciate what the Advocate is focusing on, those who are known to be
vulnerable and so on. What about those who are not known to be vulnerable? They
are vulnerable, but they don't know about it? They're still children; they're
still youth. It's still important to know that. It's absolutely still needed for
support and assistance and need to find a way for it to be dealt with, Mr.
Chair. There's no two ways about that. I cannot for the life of me understand
why they would go to critical injury and change from everything they've ever
said they were going to do about critical incident.
She also
mentioned they did a jurisdictional scan. I'm glad they did. I remember Members
opposite sitting over here in the Opposition and saying to us: Why can't we be
the first to have the best, or why can't we be the first province to go further?
There were times that we were. We did it with policies that happened while we
were in government. There's some things they're doing over there which want to
see us not to be standard or average, but to be the best in the country.
As
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Chair, we always do that. We've done that
for a long time, especially in recent decades where we've prided ourselves on
being the best of anywhere and we can compete with anyone. There's no reason why
this legislation can't be better than everyone else.
We know
when change and evolution occurs it's something ahead that's dragging everyone
else along. We talked about people in the gallery here the other day that were
here for the opening of a bill, this bill, the
Highway Traffic Act bill. Everyone here praised them for being the
advocates and those that are changing, causing an evolution in change and
changing how we feel about safety on our highways and so on.
Someone
has to lead that change. There's no reason why the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador can't be the government today that changes and leads that higher
level, that higher standard in the country. There's no reason.
The
government promised to do it. This government over here, in their Liberal
platform in 2015, promised to do it. The previous minister was underway to do it
and somewhere over the last two years it fell off the rails. I'm not criticizing
them for taking two years to do it, Mr. Chair, because I know from the year that
we worked on it there was a lot to consider. From privacy, to policy, to
principle, to actually putting it into effect, there was a lot to consider.
There was going to be a lot of work needed to be done to make sure it happened
and that departments abided by it.
One of
the big obstacles, Mr. Chair, was to find a way to ensure that departments had a
reporting system that would abide by the legislation. I don't know if that's
maybe why they didn't. They took out Health and they took out Education. Maybe
it was too tough to do. Maybe it was too tough to put in those processes to make
sure the reporting happened as required by this legislation. Maybe that was it.
I don't know because they haven't given a straight answer as to why they removed
them, only to say we took them out because of the current Advocate.
I
honestly think, by the way, I have to say, the minister opposite has said so
many times: We're doing it because of the current Advocate. I really think she's
a little bit over the top on laying this at the feet of the current Advocate. I
really think so.
AN HON. MEMBER:
That's a low blow.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Do you think? Well, it's what
you're saying over there. It's what they're saying over there, Mr. Chair.
They're saying: We're doing it because of the Advocate. I don't think it's fair
to do that. The minister is responsible for bringing the bill forward. The
minister is the one to stand on her feet and say: This is the best piece of
legislation that's going to protect all children and youth in our province
today.
I say to
the Member for Bonavista, it's not doing that. It comes up short from what you
promised. It comes up short of what the previous Advocate said should be. It
meets the requirements. The minister said the current Advocate is satisfied with
it. I don't think we should rest on being satisfied. We should achieve to get
the best we can.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to
build on what my colleague from Topsail – Paradise, the Leader of the Opposition
just spoke about, that's what we all feel. I think it's important to build on
that because we're not here to politicize this. We want to get the best piece of
legislation out there. The best piece of legislation we can present to this
House and government can take it as a win. If you want to look at wins and
losses, government can look at it as a win. Make it the best piece of
legislation.
Why
leave stuff to chance? I spoke about this yesterday and it's comes back again
today. I respect the minister –
MR. KIRBY:
(Inaudible.)
MR. PETTEN:
The Minister of Education
likes to heckle. I just want to point that out because we're talking about a
serious piece of legislation, and I'm including his department, his officials. I
believe Education should be a part of this bill.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Maybe he should give it more
serious consideration and respect while we're discussing this serious issue
here. This bill is a serious issue, Mr. Chair.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I stand on a point of order,
Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader on a point of order.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'll just refer to Standing
Order 49(2) where we talk about, not the issue of relevance, but the issue of
repetition. We know this is a serious bill, but when every speaker says it's a
serious bill and doesn't actually talk about the issues and continue to repeat
the same issue, we are getting into repetition. I'd just like to point that out
for the record.
CHAIR:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I
respect points of order and relevance and whatnot. This is what we're talking
about. I'm talking about Bill 26. I'm talking about the seriousness of this
bill. I'm talking about the importance of this bill. I want to make sure there's
no child left out.
We're
all here for a reason. I said yesterday and I'll stand here today, relevant or
not, I'm one of 40: that should be our number one priority. This stuff should be
our number one priority. Our children and seniors – listen, the most vulnerable
people in our communities should be our number one priority. That should be
first and foremost what we're elected to do. Everything else comes with it, Mr.
Chair, these are paramount in my mind. I'm sure other Members feel the same way.
So
whether you want to call me for relevance or not, I am very passionate about
this. I spoke yesterday – I won't go into the stories. I am personally connected
to a lot of this stuff and I take this bill very seriously. I respect what the
minister is doing to bring this forward. I respect the Child and Youth Advocate.
I know the Child and Youth Advocate. I have the utmost respect, but we can make
this better.
We're
telling, we're here and we're pleading that we can make this bill better. Why
not have Health included? Why not have Education included? What's wrong with
that? You're closing the loops, Mr. Chair. You're closing the loops of the
possibility, I said yesterday, 1 per cent, one child, just the chance – if you
can do something to limit the opportunity for something to go wrong, a child,
for an incident not to be reported, again we'll say the typical falling through
the cracks, why aren't we in favour of that? Government can take credit for it.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think that multiple Members
of the Official Opposition have made the point. Certainly we understand the
point, but it's being made repetitively. It's not a different point. It's the
same point that's being made. I would suggest that upon multiple repetitive
comments, at some point, it would be in contravention of the Standing Order.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Point of order, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland on a point of order.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Chair, the general
practice in this House has been that in Committee on the calling of a particular
bill and certainly on clause 1, it's a general discussion on the overall intent,
desire and content of that particular bill. There are 40 Members here in the
Legislature and they're free to stand and give their opinions on that bill in
the Committee and then, as it proceeds through Committee, there will be
particular clauses that would be called and specific discussion about those
specific clauses. But it's been my understanding in 11 years here that that
general discussion goes on in Committee when the bill is first called in clause
1 and Members here are free to respond back and forth to discussions that are
had.
Will it
be repetitive at times? Yes, maybe there will be, but that's about the
discussion of the bill that is allowed and has been allowed in the past, as far
as I've seen it.
Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
If I could just speak very
quickly to the same point of order – and again, my apologies, it's under 48(2).
Usually during clause 1, you have free reign to speak to the entire bill. When
you get into the clause by clause, you have to speak to that particular section
of the clause, but there's nothing that allows you to be repetitive. The
Standing Orders say that repetition, at some point, has to be stopped.
In
clause 1 you can speak to the whole bill, you can continue on, but there's
nothing that says you can be and should be repetitive.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will
continue to speak on Bill 26, as my concerns –
AN HON. MEMBER:
As you were elected to do
(inaudible).
MR. PETTEN:
As I was elected to do,
that's right. It's the people we all represent that got a keen interest – they
should have a keen interest in this bill.
The
minister makes reference – and I understand you're taking your lead from the
Child and Youth Advocate, what the Child and Youth Advocate wants, and I get
that. But what's not been clear in this whole process is: What does the minister
want? What does government want?
MS. DEMPSTER:
I answered that.
MR. PETTEN:
It has not been a clear,
stated fact. The minister is saying she answered. I want to be clear. Every time
the question comes back, it's pointed to the Child and Youth Advocate.
What
does the minister – what does this government want? Do you not want – and my
question will be simple, before the Government House Leader tries to get up on
relevance again.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Repetition, not relevance.
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Again, Mr. Chair, it's a very
import piece of legislation and I think it's incumbent upon all of us to be
respectful in this House and let us have our say. I represent Conception Bay
South and I'm speaking for the residents I represent and I'll continue to do
that. Whether I try to be bullied across the way or intimidated, I will not be
intimidated, Mr. Chair.
My
question to the minister is simple: You're telling us, you're telling this
House, you're telling this Legislature that the Child and Youth Advocate, this
is what she wants, this is a piece of legislation that she believes in, having
those departments not included. What do you feel – and I'll say it again. Do you
feel, clear answer, this is the best piece of legislation possible to protect
our children?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
Simple question, because that
has not been answered.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's
really loud here now –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The
Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The
minister indicated that the Department of Children, Seniors and Social
Development and Justice and Public Safety would have the most severe incidents
to report as part of her justification for not including the other departments.
So I
guess our question to the minister would be: In her opinion, do you believe it
is better to over report or to under report?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Mr.
Chair, I got a question, too. This is a very important bill that we have here
today. I think it's important that we all get up and speak on this. I know the
Member for CBS talked about his district. All I want, Minister, is to make sure
that we bring the best possible legislation for the children of Newfoundland and
Labrador. I believe that everybody over on that side wants the same thing. We
can say whether it's to do with resources or what it's to do with –
CHAIR:
Order, please!
Given
the hour of the day, I'm going to rise the Committee and report progress.
This
Committee stands adjourned.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Deputy
Speaker, 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 progress and ask leave to sit again.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and
have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the Committee have leave to sit again.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
In accordance with
provisional Standing Order 9(1)(b), the House is in recess until 2 o'clock this
afternoon.
Recess
The
House resumed at 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
In the
Speaker's gallery today, I'd like to welcome family and friends of the late
Susan Shiner, who will be honoured by a Member's statement today. Joining us are
her husband Rick Page, her daughter Claire and her two granddaughters Margaret
and Elizabeth. Joining them are the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador
Federation of Labour, Mary Shortall, and the President of CUPE, Wayne Lucas.
I'd also
like to welcome in the public gallery friends of Ms. Shiner, including
representatives from the St. John's Status of Women, the Iris Kirby House and
Daybreak Parent Child Centre.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd also like to recognize in
the public gallery today – we have two hockey teams from this province. One is
with us and one that's watching us. Their achievements are going to be the
subject of a Ministerial Statement today.
In the
public gallery today we welcome members of the Avalon Celtics Peewee House
League team. We have with us today Eric Butt, Emmett Cochrane, Nicholas Dalton,
Liam Davis, Sarah Gardner, Rama Ladu, Sebastian Milord, Andrew Quinlan, Connor
Sullivan, Daniel Warren, Peter Whelan, Samuel White and Jonathan Whitten.
Also,
before we have a round of applause and, as I said, they're watching us from
home, I'd like to recognize the Grand Falls-Windsor Under-12 Cataracts team who
are watching.
Welcome
to you all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd also like to recognize in
our public gallery today Mayor Tony Ryan. He's the Mayor of Port Saunders and
he's acting in his 29th year as the mayor of that fine community. Here for
meetings.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements today
we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of St. George's –
Humber, St. John's Centre, Baie Verte –Green Bay, Windsor Lake and Lewisporte –
Twillingate.
The hon.
the Member for St. George's – Humber.
MR. REID:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize the work and accomplishments of multi-disciplinary visual
artist Jordan Bennett, originally from Stephenville Crossing on Newfoundland's
West Coast.
Bennett
was asked to be part of an exhibit at the Smithsonian and the National Museum of
the American Indian. During his research for this project, he discovered
photographs taken in 1930 by anthropologist Fredrick Johnson of a man from Conne
River. Through further research, Bennett was able to identify the man in the
photos and discovered that the man in the photo was a great-great uncle of his
friend John Nick Jeddore.
Together, Jordan and John Nick consulted the family of the man in the
photographs and were able to visit some of the places where the pictures were
taken. They recorded the natural sounds in the areas, such as the sound of a
flowing salmon river or a hike through the woods. The end result was an
exhibition which brought the photos back through audio and visual elements.
The
exhibit, entitled Transformer: Native Art
in Light and Sound, continues at the American Indian museum's George Gustav
Heye Center in New York City until January 2019.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Susan
Kathryn Shiner: daughter, lover, partner, mother, friend, grandmother,
folklorist, social worker, community builder, unionist, fierce fearless feminist
activist, vagina warrior.
Forty-five years ago, Susan landed on the shores of the Northern Peninsula from
Ontario. She recorded our traditional folk singers, encouraging them to perform.
Awarded the Newfoundland and Labrador Folk Arts Society Lifetime Achievement
Award.
Moving
on to St. John's with her amazing husband, Rick Page, making the coolest,
grooviest home with their amazing children, Claire and Ian, and eventually
beloved grandchildren, Margaret and Elizabeth.
After
co-creating the children's program at Iris Kirby House, she moved on to Daybreak
working with families – always, always empowering mothers and children.
The
Governor General's persons award, the YWCA Women of Distinction Award, the YMCA
Canadian Peace Medal.
In July,
Susan moved on again, but her work lives on in the love, hope and optimism she
shared with so many. Her last wish – the SKS Daycare centre for children who
have lived with trauma. It's happening.
From
Arundhati Roy: “Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a
quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”
Thank
you, Susan Kathryn Shiner.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Baie Verte – Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
hard to put into words how a parent must feel when their child has been
diagnosed with a serious illness. At the young age of 13, Ria Colbourne of
Coffee Cove was diagnosed with schwannoma tumours, a nerve sheath tumour that
attacks the nervous system. For the Colbourne family, Ria, Jessie, Kenny,
Sharlene and Logan, it was to be a challenging road, one filled with long
drives, hospital stays, surgeries and treatments.
Ria had
spinal surgery in July of 2016 and in September 2016 a second surgery to remove
tumours from her shoulder blade to her rib cage.
It has
been amazing what can happen in a year. Ria is doing well, followed closely by
her team of doctors at the Janeway. This year, the Children's Wish Foundation
granted Ria's wish to swim with the dolphins. The vacation in Hawaii was
everything Ria's family had hoped it would be.
Just
last week, Ria was given the honour of switching on the Lights of Love on the
Christmas tree at the Ronald McDonald House here in St. John's.
I ask my
colleagues to join me in saluting a real trooper, Ria Colbourne.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Windsor Lake.
MS. C. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, 70 years – an
amazing legacy for a business.
Theatre
Pharmacy, founded by Bob Heale and his partner Ern Stanly, was renowned for
personal service and expert advice. The pharmacy provided an opportunity for
young pharmacists to train and provided jobs for many young people who drove on
bike to deliver prescriptions and pick up supplies for the busy store.
Joined
later in the business by his brother Harold Heale, Bob was known as a
compassionate health care professional more than a business person. “He gave
away more than he sold,” his brother Harold would say, as the rather large
ledger, which recorded the monies owed by customers, went mostly uncollected.
As a
centre city business serving the community, tragedy was also part of the legacy.
One need only think of the fires in the neighbourhood to remember the help and
shelter provided.
Bob
Heale, and many young pharmacists who followed him, saw pharmacy as a duty and
that is what built this 70-year-old St. John's icon. Today, things are much the
same under the stewardship of the pharmacist/owner Robert Doyle, whose
compassion for his patients is evident daily at the dispensary counter.
Congratulations to all who have contributed to the Theatre Pharmacy's legacy of
service.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Placentia West – Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, today marks the
28th anniversary of the terrible massacre that occurred in Montreal at
L'École Polytechnique,
where, for no other reason
than their gender, 28 women were shot, 14 of them fatally. One would have hoped
that society would have learned from this horrific event; however, in the
intervening years, incident after incident has shown this is not the case.
Recently
held functions in Marystown, such as the Red Dress Vigil organized by Keyin
College and the Remembering Her Dinner organized by the Grace Sparkes House,
have highlighted everyone's role in combatting and speaking against violence
against women, while bringing particular focus to the plight of the family of
Cortney Lake.
Cortney,
a 24-year-old woman, a daughter, a granddaughter, a sister, a mother of a
six-year-old son; family, friends and the search angels refuse to give up the
search for Courtney. When the Member for Burin – Grand Bank and I joined the
search, we were struck by the outpouring of love and support. We wear this
ribbon today in her honour.
Mr.
Speaker, let each of us, as hon. Members, do our part to end violence against
women. Let us also pray to God that Cortney will be soon found, allowing her
family to find a measure of closure to this terrible event.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I understand the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment has leave for a statement.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber – Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, all Members.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an amazing lady. I have to do it right
because she's watching.
Mr. Speaker, Lillian Mae Wells has lived a long and
colourful life. Growing up, she was the only girl among four brothers. She
worked in the woods with her father and she worked at the Porter's herring plant
on McIvers Island.
In 1949, as a young widow, she moved to Cox's Cove with her
four daughters to work as a housekeeper for Benjamin Wells, a widower himself
with four kids of his own. On Boxing Day 1953, she and Bennie were married. Mr.
Speaker, they did it again. They added two more children for a total of 10.
Over her life, Lillian ran a convenience store and took in
boarders. She was an avid gardener. She raised all kinds of animals and along
the way raised 10 incredible children.
Today, she can boast 23 grandchildren, 38
great-grandchildren, several great-great-grand kids and one
great-great-great-grandchild. They just had a family photo done of six
generations.
Mr. Speaker, there are people who simply amaze you and
Lillian is one of them. I had the privilege of being on the dance floor and
waltzing with Lillian on her 100th birthday. Today, I am privileged to stand on
this floor and ask all hon. Members to join me and her furry friend, Muffin, in
wishing this amazing lady a happy 105th birthday.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand
today to recognize the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence
Against Women. On December 6, 1989, a gunman shot and killed 14 young women at
École Polytechnique. This tragic incident remains one of the worst incidents of
mass murder in Canadian history. To honour and remember those who lost their
lives that day, flags are flown at half-mast at Confederation Building until
sunset this evening.
All 14
were killed that day simply because they were women. This horrific event is a
chilling reminder of the devastating effects of violence against women and girls
and the continued struggle we face every day in our society. We all want and
deserve a society where women and girls are treated with equality and respect.
We must work every day to achieve these goals.
Violence
against women and girls is simply unacceptable, in any form, or by any means. We
must stand together to make change happen by bringing our collective voice and
strength to address the many complex reasons why violence occurs.
Mr.
Speaker, approximately 50 per cent of women over the age of 15 will experience
at least one incident of sexual or physical violence in their lifetime.
Indigenous women are three times more likely to experience violence and five
times more likely to die by violence.
That
equates to half of all the women in this room right now. It's our sisters, our
mothers, our daughters, our neighbours, our friends. This must stop. We all
share the responsibility to work together to end violence so that all women and
girls can live, work, learn and play in a society where they are safe.
Mr.
Speaker, at this time, I want to acknowledge the women and girls who have been
lost, those who are hurt and hurting and those who have been killed.
The
provincial government, on behalf of the people of the province, joined by the
Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, regional coordinating
committees against violence, the indigenous community, as well as new immigrants
and community-based organizations, stand together with everyone in this room
today, working to address this horrific societal problem.
I ask
all Members of the hon. House to stand with me, the women of Newfoundland and
Labrador, for a moment of silence to remember them, and all the women, girls and
families whose lives have been impacted by violence.
(Moment
of silence.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Please
be seated.
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement. On this side of the House we
agree with everything included in her statement.
Twenty-eight years ago today, a gunman shot and killed 14 young women at
École Polytechnique
in a horrific and
unacceptable tragic event. These 14 young women were killed and robbed of their
bright futures simply because they were women.
Mr.
Speaker, gender-based violence is unacceptable. As legislators, as community
leaders and as members of society, it is all of our duty to do anything and
everything we can to bring change to this world. It is unacceptable that
approximately 50 per cent of women will experience at least one incident of
sexual or physical violence in their lives.
Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have been invited to participate on the ministerial
committee regarding the issue of violence against women and girls, and pleased
that government has brought this forward. It is my hope that by bringing
together policy-makers, community leaders and advocates, that together we can
address this terrible societal problem.
As the
minister said in her comments, violence is unacceptable in any form, by any
means.
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. I lived only a few blocks away from
École Polytechnique.
I remember the shock and chaos of that night. It was frightening. For the first
anniversary I made a film called After the
Montreal Massacre.
We
talked about violence against women, and not only the big tragic events of
violence in our lives, but also the daily micro-aggressions of sexism and
inequality and the issues of poverty, wage inequality, lack of affordable child
care and more. We talked about moving forward together.
Today we
remember, but we also celebrate and acknowledge the great work we have done
together, especially our women's centres, our feminist activists and our allies.
We commit to push on. We must continue to push on for a task force because the
time for incremental measures is over.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers.
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives
me great pleasure today to rise in this hon. House to recognize two teams from
this province who have won the opportunity to play hockey on Parliament Hill.
The
Avalon Celtics Pee Wee Malibus and the Grand Falls-Windsor Cataracts have been
chosen to represent Newfoundland and Labrador in Ottawa from December 28 to
December 31.
The
contest was presented by the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Ottawa
International Hockey Festival, in partnership with the Ottawa Senators Hockey
Club and support from Hockey Canada. It invited eligible boys and girls peewee
house league teams, comprising of 11- and 12-year-olds, the chance to represent
their province, territory or region at this year's Bell Capital Cup hockey
tournament in a special Canada 150 division.
Mr.
Speaker, the Celtics and the Cataracts were among more than 300 entries,
representing more than 6,000 minor hockey players and team officials from across
Canada. Entrants were asked to demonstrate why their team deserves to represent
their region in the Canada 150 division by way of a brief written essay and a
video submission. The winning entries were selected based on creativity, energy
level and, of course, Canadian spirit.
The
teams have won round-trip travel to Ottawa, accommodations, ground
transportation, commemorative Canada 150 hockey jerseys and the opportunity to
play at the Canada 150 rink on Parliament Hill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, a focus for our
government is supporting a vibrant and active population in our province – a
population that safely participates in physical activity, recreation and sport
at all levels for improved quality of life, improved health, enhanced social
interaction, personal fulfillment and excellence. This initiative by our federal
partners is complementary to our own efforts to promote healthy active living,
and will certainly provide unforgettable memories for the participants.
Mr.
Speaker, I extend my sincere congratulations on behalf of this House to the
Celtics and Cataracts on this incredible once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We wish
them the best of luck.
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 want
to thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement as well.
Mr.
Speaker, we, too, want to congratulate members of the Avalon Celtics Peewee
Malibus and the Grand Falls-Windsor Cataracts on winning the opportunity to
represent our province at this year's Bell Capital Cup hockey tournament.
Both
teams should be very proud of being selected from such a large group of entries.
I'm sure they are all very excited about travelling to Ottawa for this very
unique experience. Undoubtedly, the trip will provide a wonderful opportunity
for the children to play hockey, but it will also give them a great chance to
explore our nation's capital. I am certain they will build memories to last a
lifetime.
We wish
both teams very safe travels and the best of luck.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister and a big rousing bravo to our fabulous hockey teams.
How
important for all our children to have the opportunity to play team sports. It's
not only about the game and winning, but learning to work together, supporting
one another and developing confidence and resilience.
Perhaps
we all here in the House should be playing hockey together. I, myself, started
playing hockey only seven years ago, although using the words “playing hockey”
to describe what I do on the ice is very generous.
Good
luck to the Avalon Celtics and the Grand Falls Cataracts.
Bravo!
Go teams!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to highlight the innovative movement known as Hacking
Health.
Hacking
Health aims to transform health care by connecting health care professionals
with innovators and entrepreneurs to build solutions to front-line health care
problems. Beginning in Montreal in 2012, this province is now in its second year
of activities.
Last
April, Hacking Health held its first 48-hour Hack-a-Thon. I am pleased to say
that Michael Bannister, an official with the Department of Health and Community
Services, was a part of one of the winning teams. His team created an online
tool that showed the average blood clinic wait time around St. John's. The other
co-winner created a tool aimed at helping patients find appointments at local
clinics. Finally, Eastern Health took the people's choice award by developing an
application to increase reliability of triaging patients with heart disease.
Last
week, the local Hacking Health chapter continued its works by holding a session
focused on senior's health and wellness. From all accounts, I'm pleased to say
there was a significant increase in participation from health care
professionals. It's inspiring to see so many disciplines coming together to
design solutions for patient-centric care.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask this hon. House to join with me today in recognizing the vision,
passion and innovation of those who are helping Hacking Health take root in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We join with the minister in
acknowledging the importance and potential that technology has to offer health
care, not only in traditional use for medical procedures, but also as it relates
to service delivery. We also acknowledge that efficiencies are needed in our
health care system. We should be open and supportive of such initiatives.
We join
the minister in congratulating Michael Bannister, as well as the other
co-winners and their respective teams in their success at last year's Hacking
Health event. Hopefully, those individuals will continue to innovate and find
solutions to some of the challenges we face. Wishing them all continued success.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East – Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. It's worth noting that
Hacking Health has spread from Montreal to many cities in Canada, the US and
abroad. The minister notes the many disciplines coming together to design
solutions, not just health and IT professionals, but also project managers,
entrepreneurs and venture capitalists, working on ways to bring these tools to
fruition.
I look
forward to hearing more from the minister in the future about ongoing practical
applications inside of our health care system.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 26,
a very important piece of legislation, is currently being debated in this House.
In the Liberal 2015 red book, the minister's mandate letter and the 2017 Throne
Speech, the Liberal government committed to mandatory reporting of critical
incidents from all government departments.
I ask
the minister: Why does your bill not follow through on these commitments?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for her question. She's right; we have been having some debate
back and forth. In the House yesterday, we finished second reading on a very
important bill, An Act to Amend the Child and Youth Advocate Act.
Mr.
Speaker, the Advocate – as she said in the media, this bill was a long time
coming, where we will bring in legislation to make it mandatory to report deaths
of children and youth who receive services and critical injuries to the
Advocate. How we arrived at this today, Mr. Speaker, is we worked very, very
closely with the current Advocate who clearly stated, and has done so multiple
times in the media, this is the reporting she needs to carry out the scope of
her important work.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In
debate this morning, the minister said that she wasn't aware of when the working
committee on this legislation was disbanded, but later said that the committee
does still exist.
Can the
minister inform us who sits on this committee today?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, at the moment
that the hon. Member asked the question, I didn't have it right in front of me,
but I did provide it to this hon. House this morning before we recessed at
lunchtime.
That
committee, there were four departments that were involved. As I told this hon.
House this morning, when the current Advocate came into office, the four
departments met with her. At that time, she determined that her primary interest
was in working with Children, Seniors and Social Development and Justice and
Public Safety, those offices where responsibility lies for children and youth in
care. That happened, I believe, sometime around late March in '17 and going
forward since that time, the discussion has been with two departments, 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.
As
minister, will you accept an amendment to bring this legislation, Bill 26, in
line with what was requested by the 2014 recommendations of the Child and Youth
Advocate office and what you had promised originally to deliver?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, one thing that
we cannot lose sight of is that the Child and Youth Advocate is an independent
office of this House and it's not for us to dictate how she runs that important
operation that she does.
We have
worked closely with the Advocate. The Advocate works closely with other
advocates across this country, provinces and territories. We are completely
aligned with other jurisdictions. We are the fifth province in the country to
bring in this legislation. We are the first in Atlantic Canada.
She is
comfortable with where we are going and I am very pleased, as minister, with
this important responsibility right now that we are satisfying her requests.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, information reported to the Public Utilities Board indicates that Units
1 and 2 at the Bay d'Espoir generating facility became unavailable yesterday at
3:10.
I ask
the minister: Can she give an update and is there any effect on power generation
as a result?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I was
advised yesterday that those two units were unavailable. They were doing some
maintenance on those two units. I was advised there is no impact on the power
supply. They should be available for when the cold weather hits, and that work
will continue.
As I've
been telling the hon. House and the people of the province, Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro has put in a full year of maintenance and feels that they are
very ready for the upcoming winter season.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We're
hearing from the workers at the Bay d'Espoir generating facility that there are
concerns with the penstocks having cracks and the effect it may have on future
generations.
I ask
the minister: Is she aware of this and is there indeed an impact in future
development generation for Bay d'Espoir as a result?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, thank you for
the question, to the hon. Member opposite.
I'll
again repeat that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has said publicly, and through
me to this House, that they feel confident in their generation for the upcoming
winter season, Mr. Speaker. There is ongoing maintenance and there are ongoing
concerns around that maintenance.
As you
can remember, Mr. Speaker, during DarkNL it was pointed out from a number of
independent reports that the work hadn't been done up to par and that's why we
had that incident. We have made sure, as this government has made sure, that
there's been money available in Newfoundland Hydro, made sure that the
maintenance is being done and made sure that they have what they need to ensure
the safety and security of our electrical system in this province, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister, but I just need to clarify; the information we got is there are
problems with the penstocks, cracks. It could lead to problems in regard to
generating electricity.
I'm just
asking: Are you aware of it? Is that one of the issues being dealt with related
to maintenance?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, as the Member
opposite would know, I don't have the absolute details on all the maintenance
and all the information on the details of what every day Newfoundland and
Labrador Hydro is working on. I have heard about the penstocks. We've had
multiple conversations about the requirement around maintenance and around the
requirement to ensure the safety and security of electrical energy in this
province, Mr. Speaker.
I can
assure the Member opposite Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has been working on
their maintenance program. They have been working on ensuring the security of
supply for generation. And I can assure the Member opposite they will continue
to do so.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, earlier this year Vale announced, and the minister confirmed it, they
were doing a review of the expansion at Voisey's Bay and had put it on hold for
a 60-day review.
I ask
the minister: Can she provide an update on the review, the results and going
forward on the underground mine at Voisey's?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is
a very important point, and I know the employees of Vale are listening carefully
and closely.
As the
Member opposite noted, the Vale global did a base metals review, Mr. Speaker,
including going underground in Voisey's Bay. Voisey's Bay was still operational,
as was Long Harbour, but the new project contracts for the underground mine was
put on hold pending this review.
This
review has been ongoing, Mr. Speaker. I can assure the people of this province,
this is a tremendous resource. I can assure the people of the province that Vale
considers it a good resource and I think that we will be seeing – I feel fairly
confident, Mr. Speaker, that we will be seeing an announcement fairly soon by
Vale. This is a great resource to the province.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it was in July that Vale indicated they would do a 60-day review;
obviously, that time has passed.
I'm
asking the minister: Is she aware if that review is done and what were the
results of that review?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
said, it's a tremendous resource and I believe all efforts will be taken to
ensure the underground mine.
Yes, Mr.
Speaker, in July Vale did announce a 60-day review period. Coming out of that
60-day review, the parent company looked at some of the locations around the
world and made some changes to their operations. They asked Vale, locally, to
continue to do some work around the underground mine, making sure that, in this
very low commodity market, it is viable and that they can move forward as
expeditiously as possible.
I have
had some discussions with Vale. I feel fairly confident that we'll be seeing
some results in the very near future, Mr. Speaker.
As I
said, this is an incredible resource, has great economic benefit – not only to
this province, but to the company that is using it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, late December 2016 we asked this question and again in Estimates in
2017, and at that time the minister indicated there was an issue with
procurement and engineering and the business plan with Vale.
I ask
the minister: Is that still an issue, or have those issues been resolved?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
He
refers to the timelines for going underground, Mr. Speaker. I had advised this
hon. House and Members opposite and, indeed, the people of the province, that
Vale wanted to make sure they had the right procurement strategy, the right
engineering done so that when they move forward on the underground mine, they
could move forward as expeditiously as possible.
I
understand they have worked through some of those concerns and issues, Mr.
Speaker. That's when global Vale did their final review or did their review in
the base metals business.
I would
say to the hon. Member that I do believe that every effort will be possible to
go underground. I think we'll be hearing something in the very near future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the original plan was to have production by 2020 in regard to
availability in nickel to be mined.
I ask
the minister: Have any changes been made to that timeline? Has any agreement
been made with Vale to extend that timeline?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Natural
Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, as I said, Vale
is just coming through their review period. They've indicated that they are
coming through that review period.
What
exact length of time may be needed to add on to the project as it was originally
intended – whether it be six months or eight months or around that time, Mr.
Speaker, because that's the delay that we've experienced so far – will be known
when we get down to the final decision of Vale to move forward on this project.
Mr.
Speaker, I will say to the people of the province and to the workers with Vale:
Things have been continuing at Voisey's Bay. What we're talking about here today
is the opportunity to go underground to procure more resource.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the minister mentioned a final decision. A final decision and agreement
had been made to go underground in a time set to have that mine operational in
regard to nickel in 2020.
Mr.
Speaker, the Voisey's Bay Development Agreement lists the penalties for which
Vale will pay if they do not meet its commitments and timelines to construct the
mine.
I ask
the minister: How are you holding Vale accountable in ensuring our province
receives the benefits as listed in the development agreement?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Natural
Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I
was referring to when I said whether they'll be moving forward is pending their
global review, of course, Mr. Speaker. As I've said in this hon. House in the
past and I'll continue to say: We do have an agreement with Vale and we do have
timelines set out in that agreement.
There
was a deferral, by the way, Mr. Speaker, by the former administration, by the
former government. The Member may be aware that there was a deferral of some of
the penalties because the timelines were changing. I'll just remind him of that.
We will
look at all avenues under the contract as we know when Vale will be going
underground.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yet
another group of people impacted from cancelled appointments due to staffing
shortages. Two weeks ago it was patients negatively impacted at the Grand
Falls-Windsor Cancer Centre; this week it's the mammogram patients at the Burin
Peninsula Health Care Centre.
Will the
minister take responsibility and fix this concerning health issue?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
I'd just
like to cast the Member opposite's mind back to a couple of weeks ago. The issue
in the cancer centre in Grand Falls was one of communications, not staffing.
With
regard to down on the Burin Peninsula, there were unforeseen issues with
staffing at very short notice. Eastern Health have arranged appointments for all
urgent patients and will be running staff down there at the weekends to fill in
the gaps until such time as the staffing, which is highly trained specialized
staffing, can be replaced. It's underway.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island for a quick question, please.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
to remind the minister that our understanding –
MR. SPEAKER:
A quick question, please.
MR. BRAZIL:
Why do patients have to wait until January to get these procedures?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, that is the
expected time of restoration of the regular staff. As I alluded to in my first
answer, staff from Eastern Health's other facilities will be going down to the
Burin Peninsula at weekends starting this weekend. So the effect of disruption
will be minimized. For those patients who require urgent examinations,
arrangements have been made in the meantime and they should suffer minimal
inconvenience, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
this arose at very short notice and Eastern Health has done very well to fill
the gap caused by this problem.
MR. SPEAKER:
I apologize; the Speaker
needs to do a little bit of math.
I
recognize the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island to please have a nice
lengthy question.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to go back and remind the minister on his first answer that through the media,
our understanding from talking to the patients and from the unions, it was
indeed a staffing shortage, to a point where a staff member had to be brought in
from Gander to go to Grand Falls-Windsor to provide the same service a couple of
days later.
Does the
minister think it's reasonable to have residents of the Burin Peninsula drive,
in some cases, multiple hours to access vital services because of staffing
shortages?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, the issue around
the cancer clinic in Grand Falls, as I mentioned to the Member at the time, to
expect staff to be travelling from other centres into Grand Falls to the
chemotherapy unit, as it is standard practice for Eastern Health. They
administer the program. They do onsite training, upgrading qualifications. It's
highly specialized. So it is not at all unusual that staff from other facilities
would be going to Grand Falls or indeed Gander to provide services. That's part
of the delivery model, Mr. Speaker.
Once
again, the issue in the cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor was a communication
issue. The analysis has been done. That has been fixed. It will not happen
again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With all
due respect, we've verified that it was a shortage of staff. Regardless of what
model he now decides to use, there was a shortage of staff. That's why people
had to do without a service for a period of time. It added undue stress.
Can the
minister confirm that contractors working at the Mobile school have been
directed to use a sewage flow design that is significantly lower than industry
standards that wouldn't meet the needs of future student enrolment?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, the issue around
the Grand Falls clinic, once again, was not staff shortages. I have been
consistent in my response to that and I take exception to the Member opposite
suggesting that somehow I am misleading the House on this. That is not the case.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
love to debate with the Minister of Health, but we'll have another opportunity
to do that. There are other important issues here that we have to get to.
I do ask
either the Minister of Education or the Minister of Transportation and Works if
they could answer the previous question that I had asked about the Mobile
school.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can
assure the Member opposite the renovations that we're undertaking at the Mobile
school will be done to meet every standard necessary for such a building that
Service NL would put out in our province, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to inform this House that the tender for the
extension to Mobile school has closed. I'm happy to say, at this point in time,
that right now we have a tender that is actually under our budget. Now we're
going to have a school that is going to hopefully – we're going to make sure
that we deliver it on schedule.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to make the minister aware – and maybe he's not aware and that's something he
should find out about – that there is a problem with the sewer system on that
site at this point. It's been identified as that.
Can the
minister verify that there's a problem with the sewer system that's going to be
put in to the extension of the new school in Mobile?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, septic systems
and septic design in this province is something that's governed by Service NL. I
can assure you, for Transportation and Works' part, we'll make sure the
necessary septic system is put in place to meet the standards set forth by
Service NL.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The list
keeps growing: the overall lack of space, the sewage issues, the water flow
issues and the parking lot.
Can the
minister finally admit, once and for all, that they just ignored the advice of
the school board? He is now ignoring government infrastructure regulations with
the Mobile school.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, the Member comes
up with these questions. I said in my earlier response standards for septic
design in this province are governed by Service NL. Transportation and Works
will make sure the septic design at the extension or for Mobile school is done
to standard.
Mr.
Speaker, again I will reiterate, the tender for the extension closed a number of
weeks ago. It came in under budget. We're going to deliver the school under
budget and on time.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Conception Bay
East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
All that the people of the
Southern Shore asked for, and all that the school district asked for, was that
the school would be built to spec and would accommodate the growing community.
That wasn't done and it's still not being done.
Will the
Education Minister finally admit that he was wrong and is now sacrificing
comfort and the well-being of students on the Southern Shore area?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We're
pleased to be able to provide this new addition to Mobile Central High to
alleviate the overcrowding issue that was ignored for 13 years by the Members in
Opposition. When they built the previous school extension, it was obviously too
small to accommodate the growing population, which anyone who knows population
statistics – demographers can tell you that the population was going to grow.
Now we
have arrived at a suitable arrangement and extension to the school that will
more than accommodate the student population there. We're really looking forward
to having that done. As the minister said, it is significantly under budget and
we're looking forward to having it done on time.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Conception Bay
East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do
know that 35 new schools were built and 54 expansions were done to accommodate
students, and they were done properly. That's what we ask the same thing would
happen on the Southern Shore, also.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
We know the Minister of
Education has scoffed at providing additional resources to the school, but will
the minister be providing a separate teaching allocation to be dedicated as
school-based reading specialists?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, as I said in
Question Period previously, I'm very pleased the Premier had the foresight to
establish the Premier's Task Force on Improving Educational Outcomes. He
appointed four distinguished educators in Newfoundland and Labrador to do a
top-to-bottom review of the K-to-12 education system, something that had not
been done in a generation in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
report was released in July. Since then, staff have been working very hard on
the education action plan and the required submissions to our internal processes
in government. I look very forward to seeing all of the recommendations of the
report, all 82 of them, implemented.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind
the minister the task force report was released in June, six months ago. Let's
not forget what the title was: Now is the
Time. Six months later, we still haven't done anything. Six months later, as
they get into this next budget, they haven't allocated any monies to go into any
of these recommendations.
I do ask
the minister: Can the minister state if the department is undertaking a review
of the Teacher Training Act?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Education and
Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
For the Member's information,
Mr. Speaker, the time was July, not June. So he may want to go back and check
the date on there.
In any
case, Mr. Speaker, as I said, there were 82 recommendations from the Premier's
Task Force. The mess that the previous administration created in the K-to-12
education, in particular the mess they created with their inclusive education
policy, which they consulted nobody with other than themselves, will take a
number of years to undo, unfortunately. We have started the process.
The
Member thought that somehow from the beginning of July to the beginning of
September, less than two months, somehow that we would be able to implement 82
recommendations of this comprehensive report. It's simply impossible to undo the
mess that they made in such a short period of time.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Conception Bay
East – Bell Island for a very quick question, please.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Three
years in to that administration over there, I ask: Are you going to expand the
operating grants for early learning and child care programs?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Education and
Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, as I said
previously in the House of Assembly, we are absolutely delighted that we will be
signing a comprehensive agreement with the federal government to get $22 million
of additional funding –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
– for early learning and child care over the next three years that we can do a
lot of improvements to the system. We've got a wildly popular full-day
kindergarten program, which both Opposition parties voted against to deny
children in this province of having a full-day kindergarten program, the same as
all of the other children in Canada.
We are
making very progressive changes to early learning and care. Stay tuned, there
will be many more to come.
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.
Our
questions today are in memory of Susan Shriner, passionate lifelong women's
activist.
Mr.
Speaker, I asked my first House question in November 2006: Would government
invest in children and parents by creating adequate child care spaces so people,
especially women, could participate in the workforce while their children enjoy
the protection of regulated child care?
Eleven
years later, I ask the current Premier: When will his government implement a
full provincial child care program that provides quality, affordable child care
spaces?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thanks
to the Member for the question. As I was just mentioning, we are on the cusp of
signing a three-year agreement with the federal government to get some $22
million for a variety of early learning and care programs.
We
inherited a 10-Year Child Care Strategy from the previous administration. It has
a lot of very meritorious aspects to it. We continue to implement the ones that
are well done. We continue to make modifications to the areas that will need to
be changed. We have increased the number of spaces available in the child care
system. We have implemented a very popular, a very successful full-day
kindergarten program based on a play-based learning pedagogical approach.
A lot of
positive things are happening. We recently changed the subsidy for parents. I
could go on with another question, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Premier: Where is his pay equity legislation this House unanimously supported in
my March 8 private Member's motion?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is
a very important issue to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and,
indeed, all women, especially in this province, but I think everyone in this
province. Mr. Speaker, a woman makes about 66 per cent of what a man would earn
and that's not acceptable.
The one
thing I will say, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was pleased to
support the Member's motion on pay equity. Since that time, the Women's Policy
Office I know has been seized with this. A jurisdictional scan has been
completed, working with my colleagues across government, to determine how we can
move forward on implementing.
Mr.
Speaker, pay equity is something that's very important. As I said, we want to
ensure that women have equality in this province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
I ask the Premier: Will he
commit to provide multi-year funding to women's centres in this coming budget as
they have promised?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Department of Finance and the Department of CSSD and multi-department levels
that we would have that provide grants and funding to various community
organizations around the province that do some great work providing services and
supports to communities. That is a project right now that many departments are
involved in and we're making our best efforts to make sure that we get that
project done and in place as quickly as possible.
We
understand how important it is for those individuals, especially the management
within the associations, how important it is for them to have the certainty that
it's just not one-year funding, that indeed it expands many years. That gives
them the opportunity to focus on the services they deliver.
I say to
the Member opposite, we want them to be able to focus on the services they were
put in place to deliver, not to be worried about fundraising. We're working with
all the departments to put their best efforts to get this done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Oral Questions
has ended.
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
MR. SPEAKER:
This being Wednesday, I now
call on the Member for Bonavista to introduce the resolution standing in his
name, Motion 3 on the Order Paper.
The hon.
the Member for Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to stand here today to bring forward this motion, seconded by the
Member for Placentia West – Bellevue. I'm going to read it out:
WHEREAS
the provincial government recently released the
What We Heard document on social
enterprises; and
WHEREAS
supporting social enterprise development is vital for advancing development
opportunities that benefit the economy, support sustainability, tackle social
and economic issues and encourage entrepreneurial models;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House take action to be responsive to
the feedback received from this document to increase the number of social
enterprises in Newfoundland and Labrador and to enhance services for existing
social enterprises.
Mr.
Speaker –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista, please proceed.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
truly an honour to stand here today to speak to social enterprises when we think
of my district, the District of Bonavista. We are currently undergoing a major
boom right now in our tourism industry and a lot of that has to do with the
frameworks that have been built, footings that have been built by our social
enterprises, non-profit organizations.
What I'm
going to do, Mr. Speaker, is I'm going to start this off by giving a definition
of social enterprise because sometimes it's confused with a non-profit
organization. I'll give you an example of each.
Social
enterprises are businesses owned and operated by non-profit organizations that
have dual objectives, earning revenue and achieving social or environmental
missions. They are one more tool for non-profits to build healthy communities.
This
definition excludes organizations that are sometimes described as social
enterprises. Small businesses with a community focus or co-operatives that pay
out their members are not included. Social enterprises help communities control
their own economic future, fill critical gaps in the economy, bring new ideas to
bear on tough social problems and provide a space for new and entrepreneurial
generation to apply their skills.
Where
this came from, Mr. Speaker, as you're aware, is in
The Way Forward document that was released in October of last year.
We've set our government's mission to bring us back to a sound fiscal footing on
The Way Forward document. Where this
went from, is there was public consultations held in early spring.
Just
looking at my notes – sorry, I'm going back here now – just to give people at
home some examples of social enterprises, you would have the Hungry Heart Cafe
here in St. John's and the Salvation Army and Value Village thrift stores. A
little closer to home you would have Rising Tide Theatre, which has now been in
operation for 40 years this coming year, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to get more into
the details of what we have to offer in the District of Bonavista and why this
private Members' resolution is important to get more social enterprises in our
regions, in the cities and also to help grow established social enterprises.
There
was a consultation process that took place called What We Heard, based on
The Way Forward document. This report,
called What We Heard, social
enterprises, was released earlier this spring. They were with the public
engagement sessions; they were facilitated sessions with partner and stakeholder
groups. That took place from January 27 to March 3 of this year. Eleven half-day
engagement sessions were held in government offices in the Avalon, Eastern,
Central and the Labrador regions. Eighty-six people participated in this
feedback. I'm going to go through some of the things that they hit and what we
heard as well, Mr. Speaker.
There
was a public online questionnaire which ran from February 21 to March 17 of this
year. Forty-three written submissions were received. There were
interdepartmental working group meetings between Advanced Education, Skills and
Labour, CSSD, Education, Executive Council, Health and Community Services,
Municipal Affairs, Service NL, Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation and
Transportation and Works. Now, that's a mouthful, Mr. Speaker. That's a lot of
people to get feedback from, I can tell you that.
These
people that we consulted with, they're experts in their field. They've been
running social enterprises for years. They've seen the economic benefits that
social enterprises bring to our province. That's why we want to focus on this
through The Way Forward document to
grow these social enterprises, to bring revenue to our economy, to build up
social standing within our communities to supply people with jobs and skills
that they can use throughout their lives.
Within
the engagement process the following question areas were asked. We asked them
what their definition of a social enterprise was. We asked them about business
skills and organizational development, research and opportunity development,
policy development, promotion and awareness and access to financing and capital.
The definition of social enterprise is important because, sometimes, like I
said, it gets confused with a non-profit organization. This has an economic
aspect to it or a social aspect.
On the
first one, on business skills development, what we heard is supporting the
sector means ensuring ongoing learning opportunities throughout the province;
build specific business and organizational skills needed to blend financial and
social goals. Stakeholders were asked about required skills to start and grow a
social enterprise, which skills are most challenging to acquire and what the
provincial government can do in collaboration with key partners to support
skills and development in the social enterprise community.
What we
heard is we need greater access to fundraising, financial management, proposal
writing, things that will help them get things off the ground. They have
challenges with human resources, volunteer commitment, board diversity,
especially in rural areas. They wanted delivery of training in partnership with
other organizations, like MUN's Centre for Social Enterprise, CNA, Newfoundland
and Labrador Federation of Co-operatives and industry associations.
We asked
them questions about research and opportunity identification. What they came
back with is they use a model to research opportunities or community needs to
service productions in multiple sectors such as health, immigration,
agriculture, technology, tourism and culture; build self-sustaining social
enterprise development in rural and urban areas; increase awareness of best
practices of existing successful social enterprises – and I'll discuss some of
those as I have in my district – increase the role of post-secondary
institutions. We have a recurring theme there. They want post-secondary
institutions, like MUN and CNA, to get involved.
It
talked a lot about policy development. For the sake of time, because I'm over
halfway through my 15 minutes, this can be found online, Mr. Speaker.
Promotion and awareness – this is important because a lot of the challenges that
social enterprises and non-profit organizations have is getting the word out
there of what they have to offer. They want to work through partners and
organizations to increase the profile of the model as benefits impact
communities, use word of mouth, activate an awareness campaign, develop
presentations for key stakeholder groups, provide networking opportunities,
promote social enterprise via social media platforms and enhance community
benefit. Then, there are a couple more.
Access
to financing and capital – that's a big one because a lot of funding for social
enterprises, Mr. Speaker, does come from government. Through the last 2½ to
three years since I've been on the campaign trails, since I've been an MHA, I've
been meeting with these groups. What these groups are telling me is roll out –
and timely roll out – of funding is key to a successful year, especially in
short seasons such as the tourism industry. We're looking at growing those
shorter seasons, getting earlier into spring and growing it into the fall.
I see
the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation is nodding his head
because we've met with groups in my district on numerous occasions to grow their
operations.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KING:
To be an (inaudible) is
right.
All of
that is how we can help organizations grow. Social enterprises have always been
a big aspect in the District of Bonavista for the past 25 or 30 years,
predominantly. It's created opportunity for people to start new businesses,
created opportunity for jobs.
We're
seeing a boom right now, Mr. Speaker. I've never seen the District of Bonavista
be this busy and I've lived there all my life, except for 10 years when I lived
in Halifax. The amount of people we had go through our communities was
phenomenal.
This
didn't happen overnight. This happened because the social enterprises and
non-profit organizations in the region work together. They don't do things
individually; they work together, as he mentioned in the report, to grow our
economy.
One of
the biggest ones we have is Rising Tide Theatre, which enters their 40th year
this year. It's run by Donna Butt. If you know Donna, she's quite the person and
very dynamic. I enjoy every time I get to have a conversation with her. She came
to Trinity in 1993 with the New Founde
Lande Pageant, otherwise known as the Trinity Pageant to my friend from CBS.
These were a series of dramatized vignettes celebrating our province's history.
What
that did for the people of our area, Mr. Speaker, was it gave them a new
opportunity. In 1992, we were devastated with the closure of the cod fishery and
the collapse. We've seen people work there since then, every year. They've
transitioned from the fishery into the tourism industry.
I was
talking to Donna on Friday night. She told a story about Doug Ballett. He went
with Rising Tide; he's worked several years with the organization. Donna asked
him how he liked his job after the first year. He said: This is the worst way
I've ever had to get my stamps. But he stuck with it and grew a skill set. It's
remarkable.
That
kind of led the way, Mr. Speaker, into other areas. We have the Sir William
Coaker foundation, which is Canada's first union-built town. Its trading company
building was renovated several years ago and now operates. It's leased to the
Iceberg Vodka company where we make the bottles. They're doing remarkable work
upgrading the apartments there and their printing press. We had new businesses
reach out to Edith Samson with the Coaker Foundation looking to find out when
renovations are going to be done because they want to start businesses in Port
Union.
We have
the historic Trinity society which has houses, the Lester-Garland House which
has the cultural craft store, the Green Family Forge, the Cooperage – these are
creating jobs for people who get to use highly skilled trades. Blacksmithing is
something we don't see any more, but they do remarkable work, Mr. Speaker.
Another
one which I'm going to talk about – and I'm getting a little short on time, I
get another 15 minutes at the end so I'll hit the other ones – is Tourism
Elliston, Mr. Speaker. This one amazes me the most. It was formed in 1997 when
the town was forced to turn off their street lights because they didn't have any
money. Imagine that.
The town
had one business. It was a corner store. What they did is they looked at the
tourism route. They looked at the success of the Cabot 500 celebrations, they
looked at the success of what was going on in Trinity and they said: We can do
that.
Their
main focus initially was on root cellars. They were the root cellar capital of
the world. Then it turned to puffins. Now they have a successful Bird Island
Puffin Festival every year; Roots, Rants and Roars, which has a remarkable food
festival, which sees chefs come from not only Newfoundland and Labrador, but
from across the country and within the United States; they have Nanny's Root
Cellar Kitchen and gift shops. What that allowed people to do is – I think there
are 10 or 15 businesses within Elliston. They increased their tax base. That
allowed them to turn back on their street lights.
You have
the Matthew Legacy where you have the replica of the
Matthew. They were instrumental in the Cabot 500 celebrations, which
was not just a boom for the Bonavista area in 1997, but the province as a whole.
You had a replica of the Matthew come
here. There was a replica of the Matthew
built here in Newfoundland and Labrador and it's still housed in Bonavista right
now. That's promoting history. It's giving tours and gift shops.
I could
go on and on – and I will – but what I'd like to see, Mr. Speaker, is have full
unanimous support here today, to support social enterprise, to support
non-profit organizations. We know the PCs started it; we're continuing on.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member's time –
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
pleased to inform my hon. colleague for Bonavista that we certainly do support
today's private Member's motion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
We're very strong believers
in any form of enterprise, be it not-for-profit or private sector, Mr. Speaker.
As Progressive Conservatives, we believe it is the private sector that is the
engine of growth.
It is
the private sector that makes communities sustainable. It is entrepreneurs who
drive the economy. It is the role of government, in our view, to provide the
necessary supports so these entrepreneurs can flourish, Mr. Speaker. We
certainly are supportive of social enterprise in Newfoundland and Labrador.
There's
a phrase, Mr. Speaker, in French that Members opposite might be familiar with
and it's the phrase déjà vu. On Private Members' Day, November 30 of last year,
the House passed a resolution very, very similar to the one we're debating
today. The 2016 resolution was to implement the Social Enterprise Action Plan,
the goals of which include increasing the number of social enterprises in
Newfoundland and Labrador. The 2017 resolution we're debating here today is to
increase the number of social enterprises in Newfoundland and Labrador, a goal
of the Social Enterprise Action Plan, so a lot of similarities.
Last
year's resolution was we should do it. In January and February, the government
held consultations to ask people: Should we do it? The people responded: Yes,
you should do it. This resolution certainly encourages government to listen to
the people and actually do it.
I hope
when we're back here next year in 2018 we're doing a resolution; we're
celebrating we got her done. We'd love to be back here applauding you for
listening to the people and getting it done, for actually moving it forward,
because we do truly believe in the Social Enterprise Action Plan.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm quite proud to say that in my District of Fortune Bay – Cape La
Hune, one of our very earliest social enterprises was born. Many of you are
familiar with the craft enterprise NONIA. That actually came from the ladies of
Pool's Cove who were knitting socks and mittens for people who were fighting
overseas. It's something we're quite proud of to this day.
We also
have enterprises that exist in my region like Pool's Cove Crafts, Yarn Point
Knitters, which provide very meaningful employment for the persons who are
involved. It provides great social activity for people to come together. The
profits are always invested back in the community and back in the people, so
truly, truly supportive of social enterprise in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, social enterprise is not government driven, it's community driven. It
is people taking the initiative to become the change they want to see in the
world. We really have to give people credit where credit is due here. The
applause for social enterprise really belongs, I believe, with the pioneers and
the people of our communities for stepping up, Mr. Speaker.
I have
to say of late I, personally, as a proud representative of rural Newfoundland
and Labrador – thriving rural Newfoundland and Labrador in my opinion – all of
this talk about resettlement has been jarring, I will say, in the last little
while. I'm quite pleased to see voices now starting to speak up and speak out
against this new move towards resettlement and speak up in support of rural
Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the areas they see as potential for
sustainability of these communities is social enterprise, Mr. Speaker.
I
certainly will do everything I can, as an hon. Member of this House, to support
social enterprise in every way I certainly can. I believe, and the Progressive
Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador believes, that rural
Newfoundland very much does have a future. It is the people of rural
Newfoundland and Labrador who will sustain their futures.
We don't
expect Cadillac services. We expect core services. We expect to be able to
access services within reasonable time frames and reasonable distances. But we
don't expect Cadillacs; we expect to be able to continue our way of life that
has produced so many fine people that have become leaders all across our great
globe.
We have
a community called Grey River in my District of Fortune –
MR. BROWNE:
A beautiful spot.
MS. PERRY:
It certainly is, I say to the
Member opposite, my colleague for Placentia West – Bellevue. It's a beautiful
spot. You know, one of today's scientists at NASA is originally from Grey River.
You're not held back because you grew up in a small community. In fact,
sometimes I think you flourish even more because you're raised by the whole
community. I'm pleased to say I can still go to bed at night where I live and I
don't have to worry about locking my door, at least not for humans; bears and
moose maybe, but not for humans.
Rural
Newfoundland is who we are. It's part of our culture and anything and everything
that we can do as a people and as a province to support rural Newfoundland
should be considered. Social enterprise is a very, very big part of that, Mr.
Speaker. I'm glad to see the government opposite continuing on with this
initiative that we commenced as a government and that you continue to recognize
its value.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to talk as well a little bit about some of the successful
social enterprises that some people here in the province may be familiar with.
One of my favourites is the Stella Burry Community Services enterprise. They
have a social enterprise called the Hungry Heart Cafe. I have to say to this day
the best muffins you can ever buy are at the Hungry Heart Cafe; fabulous
service, fabulous enterprise and fabulous people.
The
Shorefast Foundation also operates as a social enterprise. It's based on several
principles. There's an inherent irreplaceable value in the place itself. The key
to sustainability lies in nurturing the specificity of place, in the
intellectual heritage and cultural wisdom, talent, knowledge and abundance that
exists naturally in each place.
With an
initial investment, viable enterprises and businesses can be developed so that
the surpluses from these businesses contribute to the resilience and economic
well-being of a community. Art is a way of knowing, of belonging, of questioning
and of innovating. It is such a way of participating in global conversation and
a way of making sense of the world. As such, it has potential to contribute to
positive social change. Fogo Island and the Shorefast Foundation have clearly
demonstrated a successful approach to community revitalization.
As some
of the Members opposite will talk about again today, as we did last time we
debated this similar motion, we talked about SABRI, St. Anthony Basin Resources
Incorporated, another example of a fabulous social enterprise; the Rising Tide
Theatre; the Battle Harbour historic trust; the Hub. We don't do Christmas cards
anymore as Members of the House of Assembly, but when we did we intentionally –
I, as a Member of the House of Assembly, intentionally went to the Hub because I
wanted to encourage social enterprise and, in particular, social enterprise that
employed persons with disabilities and gave them the opportunity to earn a
meaningful wage, have a meaningful career and be part of everyday life just like
all of us are.
I think,
though, when we speak about community enterprise, there is a very important
organization we must reference and that being the Community Sector Council. For
more than 30 years, the Community Sector Council has been a province-wide leader
in the voluntary community-based sector. One of the province's first social
entrepreneurs, the CSD has been connecting people and organizations to community
resources, mentoring new community enterprises and bringing the voluntary sector
and government together on important issues of the day.
Community Profits is a preliminary inventory of organizations in Newfoundland
and Labrador involved in community enterprise activity. Its listing includes
about 140 groups, some of which generate some level of revenue through the sale
of goods or services on an ongoing, regular basis. Most rely on a variety of
funding sources and almost all have paid staff, although there is still very
much a strong volunteer component involved in sales, even among many
well-established enterprises, Mr. Speaker. We certainly believe volunteers are
the fabric to our communities and a very important part of social enterprise
that we highly value.
Community Profits also involves a number of exceptional organizations to
demonstrate the breadth and ingenuity of community enterprise activity as well
as its impact on the people and the regions of Newfoundland and Labrador. I
certainly would be remiss in speaking about the Community Sector Council without
paying tribute to Penelope Rowe. Certainly one of the ladies that I have always
strongly, strongly admired; incredibly intelligent, incredible energetic,
strongly believes in the activities she pursues, a fabulous advocate and someone
who I have looked up to, certainly, my entire working career.
I have
to ask myself: What would a social enterprise network be in this province
without her leadership? She's a national leader in social enterprise advocacy
and development and has been for decades, before some of the Members opposite
probably were even born. I can't include myself in that any more. She is second
to none in this field and she's done it right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
She has earned every accolade by working for it. She is the one, I think, who
truly deserves a lot of applause for spurring, advocating and driving the social
enterprise movement forward. She's teaching all of us lessons in getting social
enterprise right.
It
certainly is good to listen to the people. We support this resolution for urging
government to listen and to act, to facilitate, remove obstructions and allow
social enterprises to grow and multiply. It's the right thing to do and this
province's pioneers have been doing it effectively for a very, very long time.
I truly
believe in continuing to support their efforts and doing what we can as a
government to ensure social enterprise continues to thrive, to ensure it
continues to grow in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Five hundred years hence,
rural Newfoundland and Labrador will be stronger than it is today and still
around and sustainable.
We're
not going anywhere. We're staying around and social enterprise is going to help
us do it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Member for
Burin – Placentia West.
MR. BROWNE:
Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker,
for hearkening back to the history of the old District of Burin – Placentia West
before the Members opposite played musical chairs with the House of Assembly. So
now it's, of course Placentia West – Bellevue.
I'm very
delighted to hear the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune proclaim that social
enterprises will help us sustain ourselves and move forward, because God knows
we need something after their decade in power.
Mr.
Speaker, she also invoked a French saying:
déjà vu.
I'll invoke my own:
Celui qui oublie l'histoire est condamné à la revivre
– he who forgets history or she who forgets history is condemned to repeat it.
So I certainly hope we have learned from that decade.
Anyway,
Mr. Speaker, I digress. I am pleased to stand in this hon. House today to speak
to this private Member's motion on social enterprises in our province. I thank
the Member for Bonavista for bringing this forward. As the Member for Fortune
Bay – Cape La Hune has pointed out, this subject has been debated here in this
Chamber before and we're very happy to be doing so again.
As hon.
Members would know, the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation
last week released a summary of the key areas discussed during an engagement
process to support social enterprise development in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, as committed in The Way Forward:
Realizing Our Potential, the provincial government is working to increase
the number of social enterprises in Newfoundland and Labrador and to enhance
services for existing social enterprises.
Work
continues on the development of a Social Enterprise Action Plan. Social
enterprises, Mr. Speaker, are operating in sectors such as tourism,
construction, the arts, culture, fisheries, home care and social housing. These
enterprises create employment, reduce poverty, develop entrepreneurial skills
and successfully operate in all regions of the province.
To
inform the action plan, engagement sessions were completed as well as a public
online questionnaire. During this process the provincial government heard views
and perspectives from individuals and organizations about the direction
government ought to take to support social enterprise development.
Mr.
Speaker, we want to thank all participants throughout the province for taking
time to either attend a session or complete an online questionnaire. I'm told by
officials in the department there were a high number of detailed questionnaires,
written questionnaires that were developed. So this enlisted a great number of
responses.
The
document released summarizes the input gathered during the engagement process,
which can be found online. It explored issues and opportunities in the following
areas: The definition of a social enterprise, business skills and organizational
development, research and opportunity identification, policy development,
promotion and awareness, and access to financing and capital, which often, Mr.
Speaker, can present itself as one of the most significant challenges and
barriers.
I'd like
to take a moment to comment on some of these, Mr. Speaker, first, with the
definition of a social enterprise. What is a social enterprise? It is something
that not everyone agrees on what the term means. It can mean different things to
different organizations, to different people. Through this process we honed in
on really what is the general consensus for what the term means. Social
enterprises generally are agreed upon that they are enterprises that produce and
sell goods and services using generated revenues to reinvest in social,
cultural, economic and environmental goals.
We heard
that the aim of social enterprises should be to achieve a social and a financial
return on the investment. Social enterprises, Mr. Speaker, are gaining attention
nationally and provincially, and rightfully so. Increasingly, they are
recognized as key contributors to community and economic development. Such
enterprises can provide a public service which benefits the entire community,
while at the same time playing a lead role in the creation and maintenance of a
competitive economic environment.
Furthermore, social enterprises create employment, reduce poverty, develop
entrepreneurial skills and successfully operate in communities, which can be a
clear benefit for many rural communities such as those I represent, Mr. Speaker.
When it
comes to business skills and organizational development, we heard from
stakeholders that there are opportunities on how best to combine business and
social impact skills training required to operate a social enterprise. We are
listening, Mr. Speaker, and we will ensure the action plan we are developing
will address this issue and other opportunities for skills development.
I make
no apologies – and I'm sure the Member for Bonavista makes no apologies for
bringing this issue to the floor of the House of Assembly because it's showing
progress, Mr. Speaker, and that we're taking it seriously. We've had
consultations; we've had an engagement process. We are now reporting back to the
people of the province and now to Members of this Chamber on what that process
told us.
We
recognize the role various partners are taking to support skills development. We
want to maximize our collective efforts, which will involve working with groups
such as Memorial University's Centre for Social Enterprise, Newfoundland and
Labrador Federation of Co-operatives and the Community Sector Council
Newfoundland and Labrador as the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune alluded
to.
Another
priority is research and opportunity identification. Social enterprise
development should be supported by well-informed research, proactively
identified and appropriately directed to your interested community groups and
partners in social enterprise. During our engagement process, we heard there was
an opportunity to build self-sustaining social enterprise development in rural
and urban areas and in multiple sectors such as health, immigration, agriculture
technology, tourism and culture – very important sectors, Mr. Speaker.
Social
enterprise is not something new in this province. There are many examples of
them, which I'll get into in a moment. Another area is policy. We are looking at
that very closely as we develop the Social Enterprise Action Plan. An
interdepartmental committee within government has been formed, representing a
cross-section of departments within government – nearly everyone, Mr. Speaker.
Having such diverse mandates will ensure ongoing opportunity identification in
areas for social enterprise and development.
Another
issue we need to address is promotion and awareness. We heard from stakeholders
that it's important to enhance access and generate public awareness at the same
time. As we continue to develop our action plan we recognize it will be critical
to work with partners to increase the profile of social enterprise models.
Finally,
Mr. Speaker, also in the What We Heard
document was accessing financing and capital. We're going to consider the
feedback and share it with our financial partners. For example, there was a
clear message about the need for timely access to capital throughout the social
enterprise life cycle, as well as the need to increase awareness of provincial
and national funding programs. In addition to our local engagement process, our
government continues to examine strategies throughout other jurisdictions, as
well as best practices and research developed by various entities such as the
Social Enterprise Council of Canada and the community sector here in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to take a few moments to discuss some examples of social
enterprises that are fairly innovative and beneficial to the people of the
province; one such, of course, would be Project Sucseed with Enactus. The
Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation and I, as well as the
Premier, joined the Enactus team before they went to London for the
international competition.
I had an
opportunity to see one of the most impressive presentations I have ever seen,
Mr. Speaker, and I've never witnessed something of its kind, detailing the
Project Sucseed which is a partnership between Enactus and Memorial and Choices
for Youth which, of course, is a social enterprise. It's addressing food
sustainability in the north and it's, of course, placed in numerous competitions
around the world.
If you
look on the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, the St. Lawrence Miner's Museum has a
group that mines fluorspar on the surface, small samples. The group is led by
persons with disabilities. They make jewelry from the fluorspar and they end up
selling it in the gift shop of the museum. The Minister of Service NL actually
put her hand to this, in fact, the Premier put his hand to this while in St.
Lawrence over the summer and I believe the Minister of TCII as well. It's been a
raving, raving success. That's the kind of success we see with social
enterprises.
If you
look in my District of Placentia West – Bellevue – formerly Burin – Placentia
West, as you've aptly pointed out, Mr. Speaker – the St. Gabriel's Hall itself
offers itself as a cultural space for performing arts. It's a wonderful idea and
concept that really brings together the artistic community and ability for
performing. It's having a social and a financial consequence that's very
positive to the community.
Finally,
I wanted to mention the Placentia West Economuseum, Mr. Speaker, where the
minister and I have dined. They have a wonderful restaurant; it was a former
resettled house out of Placentia Bay that was towed in. It is right on the
highway of the Burin Peninsula. I encourage all the Members to come to the Burin
Peninsula and taste the wonderful food that I think would be enticing to them at
the Placentia West Tea Rose.
They can
witness also the crafts that are there that are mostly all made right in the
facility. They have a gigantic rug-making facility, they hook and they do
everything. This is another example of a group, the Development Association.
They lead this social enterprise. It provides jobs, it provides a service and it
provides a restaurant for tourists. There are so many opportunities.
So, Mr.
Speaker, with that I will go on to conclude. I will just say that as
parliamentary secretary for Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, I am very
pleased with the work our department has done with social enterprises to date.
It's very important to continue monitoring our progress to ensure we extract the
best value for every sector of our economy, which is what we are planning to do
through The Way Forward and many, many
other means.
So thank
you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member for Bonavista once again for bringing
forward this motion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East – Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour again to stand and talk to the private Member's resolution. I
think we've had four or five since we've come back in the House for this
sitting. I've had the privilege to speak to each one of them because they were
relevant to things that were important to me and, no doubt, important to
everybody in this House of Assembly, but things that I may have at least a small
bit of background in that I could feel comfortable talking to or something that
I was passionate about.
This is
another one of those. It is indeed an opportunity for us to speak about the
importance of social enterprise and what it means. I've found social enterprise
to be one of the few things in Newfoundland and Labrador that we can bridge all
gamut of geographics, cultural backgrounds, social backgrounds, economic
backgrounds, the geographic differences between the Island and the Big Land in
Labrador, because it has that ability there to draw out the talents and the
resources in particular communities. That becomes the positive things that I
think are very important.
I have
to go back; 35 years ago I got my start as an employee in the social enterprise.
For those who may be able to remember, back in those days the economic
development coordinators, rural economic development coordinators, there were
52, and they had at one point 422 social enterprises between them. They were in
from agricultural to craft, to tourism, to the fishing industry, to the hunting
– massive, massive amounts. There were 17 youth-oriented ones that were solely
ran by young people, and these were business enterprises.
Some of
those still exist today. A lot of these organizations in rural areas still
exist. They may not exist in the same traditional social enterprise, but they
exist because there's a bridge there, too. There's a bridge to going to the
other business sector, the for-profit business sector.
People
get their expertise, they get their training, their talent and sometimes they'll
spin off into their own independent business, which is all healthy, purely
healthy for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because it drives the economy. It
ensures that no matter where your geographic location is or whatever skill set
you may have, or whatever resource is available, you can develop an enterprise
that's profitable. Profitability all determines on where you are.
Social
enterprise profitability is a little bit more fluent, because the plan is to
make a sustained living. If you do generate some additional monies you put it
back into the business, expand it, bring in more people to be part and parcel of
it; or, in some cases, people get their training and move off to start their own
independent business, which is a good segue to us being able to ensure that
small businesses still drive Newfoundland and Labrador and is one of the good
key components of being able to ensure that rural Newfoundland and Labrador that
may not have all the basic larger infrastructures that the urban centres would
have, but would have a built-in infrastructure. Its own built-in infrastructure
is it has a skill set, it has a qualified group of citizens, it has a committed
group of citizens and it has a supportive mechanism to make those things work.
Over my
lifetime, I had the privilege of working with a number of social enterprises,
including the community sector council – which was the community services
council at the time – in trying to find ways that we would open up opportunities
for citizens out there, particularly in smaller areas, to give them the skill
set. Because people in Newfoundland and Labrador, we're second to none when it
comes to our skill set.
What we
may need is some basic inherent supports or extra training in certain areas. We
have people who have – their hands itself are a very viable business, but they
may need someone to help them with a business plan, a marketing plan, a physical
location and how to do it. They may need to be partnered with another individual
or group of individuals, but in a lot of cases what they need is support.
What
people feel more comfortable about is in a community setting where there are a
number of people who are not only taking charge of that business entity, but are
taking also some of the risks. Because if you come and you have minimal ability
to invest from yourself, but what you have is a talent, you need other people
who can help you develop that business. If there's a group coming together, you
know you all have a vested interest. If it's the community that has a vested
interest, then you know there's much more of an opportunity to be successful and
make it work.
In the
early '80s, I started as the economic development officer in this region. It was
a lot of rural areas then, which took in the beautiful District of Cape St.
Francis. In those days Portugal Cove-St. Philip's, Paradise and Bell Island were
considered rural and remote at the time. We would look at enterprises there as
part of the whole process. There were a lot of good businesses that got started,
particularly around farming, fishing and in the crafts area.
To this
day, if you look at, particularly in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's, some of the
entities that are existing there now, the farming ones that now are part of a
private sector, were quasi-private to social enterprise, they came out of that
whole process. So there are all kinds of things there that stem from different
levels that went to all the different components that are very important to
social enterprises.
On Bell
Island, they still exist over there. The Community Development Co-operative; the
bakery was founded 30 years ago as part of that process. I was happy to say I
was part of that whole process.
I would
think the acting Leader of the Third Party, when she gets up she might note
that, because myself and her spent many a day over a number of years working on
making that enterprise, in her previous life, viable and it still exists to this
day.
The
housing co-op that's over there right now is still very valuable. These assets
are worth millions of dollars when you look at the assets that are there.
In the
earlier days, I remember one time as a young man having 74 employees in a social
enterprise in agriculture and livestock and in the fishing industry on Bell
Island, where you wouldn't think would be the traditional entities there.
Unfortunately, outmigration, changing tides, economic changes and lack of
support from various government administrations at the time, not seeing the
vision of how you could invest in a social enterprise and what that would mean
for rural Newfoundland and Labrador, what it would mean for the next generation
– because what I found in social enterprise in my travels around Newfoundland
and Labrador, in my years as a civil servant, if you start a social enterprise
you're more apt that the next, second and the third generation will still be
connected in some way, shape or form. As they advance in education or their
skill set or their knowledge, they add to that social enterprise. They bring in
their thought process, their new innovative ideas to move things forward.
Thirty-five years ago we didn't have Facebook and Twitter and we didn't have
social media to be able to promote what we did, but there were hundreds, if not
thousands of social enterprises in Newfoundland and Labrador. People didn't know
what they were being part of was a social enterprise. They thought it was a
group of people who came together and they knitted sweaters and that, that they
sold at a craft fair or they sold to a supplier who was coming in on the world
market.
We were
producing some of the best things in the world. The Grenfell coats, for example,
all the things that were part and parcel of that. People don't realize the
millions, the tens, maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars over the years
that the social enterprises have developed and, inadvertently, people not
realizing what they were into. That they were into a full-fledged business with
a skill set and an ability to grow second to none.
What at
times, unfortunately, we didn't have was that connecting mechanism. It's gone up
and down. Certain administrations come in and see the value of it and invest
heavily into it and want to make it work. Some other administrations come in and
say: No, that's old school. We're not going to entice that. We're going to stay
solely with the private sector and make that work.
I'm a
believer that there's a connection between the two. The private sector and the
social sector are very important to each other because one can drive off the
other. While there's a business model there that works for both of them, there
are two different types of skill sets that are needed to make that work.
What we
probably haven't done adequately over the years is bridge the two and I think
there's a way of doing that. It's having more collaboration between the private
sector businesses and the social sector businesses. We need to be able to start
that at an early age. I know we do a great job. We know what the university and
the school of business have done and the engineering division, what they've done
for social enterprise and setting up things as collective co-operatives as part
of that process.
I know
at least 20 years ago, the Federation of Co-ops was one of the biggest
employers, it's membership; all the co-op stores it had, all the entities it had
around farming and all the other enterprises that it supported, tourism and
craft development. It's still a very strong force, but still hasn't gotten – I
don't know if it's the support mechanism, if it's the model to be able to move
things forward to keep up with modernized competition from multinational
corporations that move into our business entities.
There's
an entity that has by far the best set-up, the best model for social enterprise
where it's about supportive services, it's about collaboration. It's about
bringing in – if you notice on most boards of co-ops, you'll see they're
independent business people, for-profit business people who support the co-op
movement and are on their boards to give advice to help foster those types of
entities that may work. They've been very successful.
I think
we need to get to a point where we need to start supporting more of that
bridging between the private and the public sector when it comes to the social
enterprises. We need to be more creative. We need to be able to use social
media, from a marketing point of view, to get out what our product is, what our
service is.
We've
gotten to a point where we are into a billion-dollar-a-year industry in tourism.
Look at the spinoffs that are the potential here as people, on a daily basis,
now start to look at Newfoundland and Labrador as a destination. Well, when they
come here the scenery is beautiful, we know that. The people are great, we know
that. The attraction is great, but we also need a way to use other things.
There's
more money in people's pocket that they want to spend. When you go on vacation
you want to spend money. I know that from my own community. It get tens of
thousands of tourists a year. When they go and get off the ferry and I'm
speaking to them and talking, they're saying: Beautiful place, love to go there,
but I still have a pocket full of money I haven't been able to spend. You need
to come up with some other entities.
We need
to be able to support some other forms of social enterprises. That part is
training. It's part education. It's part of coordination. It's part of, as I
mentioned earlier, the bridging between all those sectors there. It's part of
how we foster what this is all about, starting at a younger age in the school
system, making sure that young people are more familiar with financial
management. Financial management is about business management. It's about
understanding the flow of money, being able to make money.
It's
much easier to say you don't have to take a risk as a young person if you've got
four or five of your friends who have bought into it and you're collaboratively
doing that as a social enterprise, or the whole community supports it. There are
ways to do that.
Every
community has one or two, or a number of agencies or organizations that will
foster what happens in a community. There are either tourism organizations,
there are economic development organizations and there are craft organizations.
We need to use the expertise that is there because, again, and I keep
reiterating this, the people who run the volunteer organizations are the same
people who have experience as entrepreneurs and/or are educators or have been
part of other social enterprises.
We need
to be able to take that expertise to be able to move it forward. The
responsibility to a government is to be able to coordinate that. That is the
responsibility. We operate on policy and legislation here. We have programs and
departments. Ours is not to administer programs and services in most cases; it's
to foster the development of them. How do you do that? By putting supports in
play.
The old
cliché of hand up versus a hand out, that's what needs to be done here. Every
now and then government needs to step in and take the lead on the coordination.
Then, when it's successful, move it to another entity, a third-party entity that
runs it because then it's arms-length from government to make it work.
For
years we've done it. Administrations come back, drop it and say it doesn't work.
Some administrations pat themselves on the back because they change the names on
something and they have a different philosophy, they change the geography and
all of that. That's fine and dandy, that's the politics of it.
For
social enterprise and economic development, and survival of not only rural
Newfoundland and Labrador – because you go to the urban centres, they have as
many social enterprises as the rural communities. They may stand out more in
rural communities because that's the hype when you go into that community,
particularly a group that's promoting what it is, the service or the product
that they're selling or providing. In areas like St. John's, Corner Brook,
Gander and Grand Falls-Windsor, there are a number of social enterprises that
provide valuable services or supply a valuable product. So we need to define it.
Having
this here is great. Again, one of my colleagues had mentioned it seemed like the
second time around. I really don't care. Second, third, fourth or fifth, it's
still something that's necessary, something that should be supported, something
that's in the best interests of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Something
that can work to diversify what we do in our society, in our economy. Also, it
can be used to ensure that we don't have massive out-migration.
People
have choices. It also gets a point to be able to foster one of the key things we
have, a skill set that is second to none. So let's take that skill set. Let's
find ways to develop it, support it, bridge the partnering between
municipalities, service agencies, the private sector and the business sector,
develop it into something that is collaborative that works for everybody. That's
not a hard task to do and it's not one that we need to reinvent the wheel.
If you
go back to the late '70s when it was first formed with the economic development
movement in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, then the economic bases in urban
centres that were there, the chambers of commerce, the businesses associations.
If you look at what the community services sector has done and the council over
the last 30 years, they've outlined exactly approaches that should be done. We
just need, at times, to find a way to make the connections work.
We've
got dots all over the place in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and in urban
Newfoundland and Labrador; we need a straight line. The straight line is that
everybody has access to services, everybody has access to be able to use the
talents they have to provide a business plan and be able to put in play those
social enterprises that benefit the communities and foster what Newfoundland and
Labrador is all about and, obviously, outline that Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians have choices here and can take the lead and be the designers of
their own destiny.
I thank
you for that, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives
me great honour and privilege to speak to the private Member's motion from the
Member for Bonavista, which is on social enterprise. What I'd like to say is
that community is the engine room for people-powered change. When it comes right
down to it, the grassroots of a strong community and what they can do in terms
of building social enterprise. I agree with the Member opposite. I'm very happy
to hear that the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island raises the point
that social enterprise is as relevant to urban economies as they are rural
economies because they are all over Newfoundland and Labrador.
One of
the tasks that this government has undertaken is to create an action plan around
social enterprise. In order to do that, we went out and we consulted. We had
stakeholder engagement and we listened to groups and organizations,
co-operatives, the federal government. We did a significant amount of outreach
throughout the province and also people provided submissions.
Some of
the concerns that were raised during consultation were released in a
What We Heard document, some of which
included more supports for business skills and organizational development. That
is very pertinent. I think that was relayed just by the Member opposite, as
well, in some of the conversation around either having adequate training or
finding ways. Because if an organization has an entrepreneurial arm to it or has
an avenue of which it can generate more purchase orders or generate more value,
then it also creates a better ability for a longer term sustainability where
there is less reliance on cyclical, either one-time programming that may come up
and these types of things. So providing somebody with the right organizational
business skills was something that was relayed.
Determining strategic areas of social enterprise development should be
prioritized using well-informed research, proactively identified and
appropriately directed to interested community groups and partners in social
enterprise. You need to have good evidence and you need to have a good base line
in how you make decisions. That's something that came across from people across
Newfoundland and Labrador.
To
explore policy areas impacting social enterprise models that can be applied
throughout numerous sectors and enhance access to information about social
enterprise development, and generate public awareness about the innovative
models that can be used in community. There were numerous ones that have been
highlighted here today. It's very exciting to see what's happening, whether it's
on the Bonavista Peninsula, whether it's in Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, in
Labrador, on the Great Northern Peninsula, or anywhere else here in this
province.
I'm
going to take a moment before I continue going down through to highlight a
social enterprise that's very dear to my heart and it's one that I started after
I started my own business: a museum. In 2002, I got hired part-time working for
the Straits – St. Barbe Chronic Care Corporation, and then I worked with
security there and really fell in love with what the organization was all about.
It was a
social enterprise that was run by a volunteer board of directors. They actually
saw a need for a personal care home, Level 1 and Level 2 care in the region of
which they serve. There was a regional hospital, banking services, pharmacy and
all the other supports in the community, but when people got older and they
needed that higher level of personal care, they had to leave the region. So the
community got together, they worked; they fundraised and made sure that there
was an investment in a 20-bed home in the beginning.
As I
started working there they had just expanded, and going through an expansion
process as well where they got to 30 beds for residents in the area. They also
managed the Newfoundland and Labrador affordable housing unit known as the
Richfell Place and recreation services.
When you
look at the mix of what they've been able to do in providing respite care, when
I moved back to the province in 2009, and having the expertise in business and
business management, I decided to put my name forward for the board of this
social enterprise and got involved and served as the vice-president of the
organization.
We
really saw the value of now they're at 36 beds, employing more than 16 people.
These are good jobs that have impact, that are actually keeping community and
keeping people closer to home, and that's a very important matter. It's a
community being that engine room for people-powered change and the impact that
they can have in making a real difference.
I know
the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune talked about SABRI. There's also the
North of 50-30 Association where they take benefits that are a public resource
and they invest back into people and into the community. They've done some great
examples of regional trail development, broadband Internet, other connectivity
that they've done in scholarships and investment.
The
International Grenfell Association and Dr. Grenfell was probably one of the
great social enterprises, or social entrepreneurs, well ahead of his time when
he came in 1892 to the Great Northern Peninsula and set up his first hospital in
Labrador in Battle Harbour. The investments in co-operatives, in textiles, in
craft development and creating co-operatives – the oldest co-operative in the
province was set up in Red Bay, Labrador. We see now a UNESCO heritage site that
is in Labrador, but the oldest co-op in the province and the oldest retail co-op
in the country is the Grenfell Memorial Co-Op in St. Anthony that bears
Grenfell's name.
But the
International Grenfell Foundation gives back to non-profits, to social
enterprise, and has community impact in bursaries and education; over $1 million
basically every year to residents of Labrador and the Great Northern Peninsula.
These are really important when we look at making the right investments at the
right time and how we can continue to give back to people in the community.
If we
talk about enhancing not only access to information and all of these innovative
models, but to explore financial sources available, revenue from their business
operations to their grants, to loans, to donations and access to capital
opportunities and challenges for social enterprises, such terms and conditions
for loan financing to meet the needs of social enterprises.
I've
talked to a lot of them. I've talked to Rising Tide Theatre. I have talked to
many groups and organizations and they say: We have this idea. We have this
opportunity. Sometimes it's the mix of getting that access to financing. But for
a number of volunteers taking on lending, if there has to be personal
guarantees, or if there has to be different things signed, it can be a real
challenge for that volunteer group to take on that risk. So sometimes social
lending that's in the form of a loan needs to be looked at in that instrument.
I think
these are types of things that we'll explore as we go through our action plan. I
know the Community Business Development Corporations – and here in metro area,
Metro Business Opportunities, their partner organizations, 15 together here in
the province, they lend to social enterprises. There are also credit unions and
commercial banks that will look at that, and government will as well.
We've
done some initiatives where we've worked with the CBDCs to create the Drive
program and that allows access to up to $10,000 for somebody who is a young
entrepreneur – that capital.
But
there are avenues of which we can unlock potential, too, for social
entrepreneurs. I think that's where we continue to have these conversations with
organizations like the Community Sector Council. I'm very pleased that the
Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune had raised the organization and the
executive director, Penelope Rowe, who is so well respected in the sector and
across the province for the work that she does do, and their whole organization,
whether it be looking at the organizations they work with.
The
Member for Placentia West – Bellevue, my parliamentary secretary, raised the
success of MUN Enactus and Project Sucseed. These Memorial University students
are brilliant students, our bright minds. The future is so bright in
Newfoundland and Labrador when you have teams like the MUN Hyperloop team coming
out of engineering; engineering students, business students and others
collaborating on MUN Enactus with Project Sucseed to create a hydroponic growing
system that allows you to sell in northern, rural and remote communities.
They've
had so much success that they have an agreement with Tim Hortons to have these
units all across schools in the country. There have been partnerships with the
Woodward Group that had made a major contribution to look at entrepreneurship.
Social entrepreneurship is very important. They created the Mel Woodward Cup at
Memorial University. They also supported Project Sucseed to make sure there were
units throughout various places in Labrador.
I go
around and I don't have to go too far. In my own district, at the senior's home
we see the Project Sucseed unit at Shirley's Haven; we also see it at the Boys
and Girls Club. This is a whole educational process where food product can be
grown at an affordable rate here in this province using their system. They're
employing youth that will be at risk because they partnered with the social
enterprise Choices For Youth. That is phenomenal.
They're
going to generate over $1 million in sales this year. This is something that was
started by students. They've become their own entrepreneurs, they have their own
employment. They know where they're headed. They've done big things, they've won
the worlds. They placed second in the world this year. We're very proud of their
accolades.
The more
we can use the services of organizations like MUN Enactus and that talent we can
have that kind of activity. We need to continue to have that outreach all across
Newfoundland and Labrador. This is why our government, in partnership with the
federal government, supported the Centre for Social Enterprise. This is a
partnership with Memorial's school of business, school of music and school of
social work. They see that connectivity that brings full circle, that social
side that makes a business and the mix of the arts that exist. Social enterprise
is so diverse in what can be done across our very province.
I have
to say that I'm very proud of the collective efforts that we are doing as a
government. It's great to hear support from the Opposition as well because I
believe, collectively, if we focus our efforts on strengthening, promoting and
advancing opportunities for social enterprise and encouraging entrepreneurial
business models, both rural and urban economies will be stronger. They'll be
better off.
There
are certainly social enterprises that are a testament of time, those that have
been around for a very long time, some that have evolved and some that have spun
off into many new organizations. Then there are others that are not yet created
that have tremendous opportunity to have a job impact, an impact on the economy,
an impact on a social issue or a society. There are various mandates, whether
it's around the environment and training youth at risk.
One
province that's done an interesting job around social enterprise is Winnipeg.
When I was there on an FPT meeting for tourism first when I was elected, I took
some time. There was time in the schedule so I took time to go visit the centre
that they had for social enterprise. They had a hub of activity. It was an old
manufacturing building they converted. They had put all the offices together.
Can you
picture a space where there's a hub of social enterprises or organizations that
are mandated, that are like-minded, that think and support similar issues
whether they're foundations, non-profits, economic development arms of
governments where there's complete alignment. I think once you have
collaboration, you can do so much more. There is a lot that can be done, whether
you're producing or selling goods and services, generating revenues, investing
back into social, cultural economic activity or environmental goods.
I
believe one of the other Members here, one of my colleagues, will get into
talking about a number of other entities that are supported through social
enterprise. I won't go further into that, but our government has committed early
on. It was a commitment in our red book that we would devote and support, foster
social enterprise, support the innovation and diversification of the non-profit
sector, consult with stakeholders of the non-profit sector and develop a Social
Enterprise Action Plan with the aim of enhancing the benefits of this valuable
sector for the provincial economy.
I want
to go back to what I said in the beginning that it really is community that's
the engine room for people-powered change. I've had the opportunity of being
Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation to work very clearly, work
very collaboratively with members of the arts, members in business, members in
the non-profit sector and to work on something.
I feel
there are good things that are happening all across Newfoundland and Labrador.
This action plan can lead to more positive things. It's up to all of us
collectively – collectively as people, collectively as a community – to make
sure that we have the greatest success here in our province.
I thank
everyone who's already contributed to the debate.
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 speak to this private Member's motion, but I'm having a
severe, severe case of déjà vu.
On
November 30, 2016, just a year ago, there was a private Member's motion that
spoke specifically about this. This was from the government side as well, Mr.
Speaker. A year ago the private Member's motion read:
“WHEREAS
Newfoundland and Labrador has a diverse and thriving social enterprise sector,
which is actively meeting social, cultural, economic and environmental needs
throughout the province; and
“WHEREAS
social enterprises can help communities control their own economic future, fill
critical gaps in the economy, and provide space for a new generation of
entrepreneurs to apply their skills; and
“WHEREAS
social enterprise development is another innovation tool for advancing regional
growth opportunities to benefit the economy;
“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador's initiative to implement a social enterprise action
plan, including long-term strategic goals supported by an annual work plan and
certainly it would be tabled early in 2017.”
This is
what that motion called for. We all supported it. I think there was unanimous
support.
“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador's initiative to implement a social enterprise action
plan, including long-term strategic goals supported by an annual work plan and
certainly it would be tabled early in 2017.” We are heading into early 2018, so
I guess they didn't quite reach that goal.
Again,
from the same government, from the same benches: “THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that
this Honourable House take action to be responsive to the feedback received from
this document to increase the number of social enterprises in Newfoundland and
Labrador and to enhance services for existing social enterprises.”
Part of
their PMR is “supporting social enterprise development is vital for advancing
development opportunities that benefit the economy, support sustainability,
tackle social and economic issues and encourage entrepreneurial models ….” Well,
Mr. Speaker, we're sort of at the same place, aren't we? We haven't really moved
forward. I don't know, they may even have moved backwards.
I have
Hansard here, Mr. Speaker, from last
year, from November 2016 when I spoke to this private Members' motion, and I
said: “Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker” – and this is again from November 2016
– “I'm very happy to stand and speak to this private Members' motion which calls
for a strategy and an action plan for social enterprise. We've heard a lot today
in this House about what is a social enterprise and why it would be good. I
agree with all that.” We're hearing all that again today, one year later.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, from 2016 Hansard,
speaking to the social enterprise private Members' motion –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. ROGERS:
I'm having a little bit of a
hard time hearing, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
These are my words in Hansard when I was speaking to the private Members' motion about
social enterprise last year: “It is my hope that in fact this is not just
talking about how great social enterprises are, and it's not just talking about
why we need to do them and what they are, but that actually we will move beyond
simply a strategy or a plan, put resources in place and make sure that we put
the problems – as Shaun Loney, I believe his name has been mentioned here in
this House – in the hands of the problem solvers.”
Mr.
Speaker, here we are again just talking about how great social enterprises are
and wouldn't it be great. We're praising the ones that have already been
established for quite a while, but has government actually moved forward? Are we
just talking? Where's the action plan? Where is that strategy? Where are the
resources? Whether they be financial resources or using some of the existing
resources that we have to actually help and make it possible for social
benefits, for social enterprise to happen.
Now, the
Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation talked about the Boys and
Girls Clubs and the wonderful things that we're doing. Last year, Mr. Speaker,
they cut the funding in half. They cut the funding in half to the Boys and Girls
Clubs just before the end of their fiscal year. Many of them ended their fiscal
years with huge deficits.
The Boys
and Girls Clubs – there are two of them in my district, the one at Mews Place
and one in Buckmasters Circle – are scrambling. They've had to cancel
after-school programs for the older youth and they're really concerned. They're
concerned about what's happening to those kids. They're out, there's nowhere for
them to go after school. They're out forming gangs out on the corners in their
neighbourhoods. They're very, very, very concerned about the impacts on the
cuts.
They've
had more demand on their services, but they've actually had to cut services
because this government cut their budget. The government is also saying it's not
core funding, so there's nothing that's committed that's stable for these
groups. Yet the minister is talking about the great work they're doing and what
they can do around social enterprise. They cut the guts right out of them.
The
other thing is that the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation
said that he visited this great building in Winnipeg. I went there as well, Mr.
Speaker. I met with Shaun Loney and I met with some of the social enterprises
that work out of that building. It's wonderful what they have done.
We have
buildings. Mr. Speaker, we have buildings. We have schools. We have land that
belongs to the provincial government. Look what they did with the school I. J.
Samson in my district. They let it go, for what? I don't know. That would have
been a perfect spot to do exactly what the minister is talking about in terms of
being a hub for social enterprise and a hub for groups that can help
disenfranchised people be ready for work. It would have been a perfect
incubator, I. J. Samson school.
What has
happened? Government threw it away. They gave it to a private developer for
$180,000, who then put it back on the market for over $3 million. He's talking
about the great building in Winnipeg. I've been there; it is fantastic. It's
fantastic, but what has happened, Mr. Speaker, is that the government in
Manitoba supported that. The government in Manitoba supported that effort. This
government has resources and, again, here we are simply talking about how
wonderful social enterprises are.
The
other thing I talked about a year ago was the procurement legislation that was
before the House. I pointed to the procurement legislation out of Scotland –
incredible. All bids to governments –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, maybe my
colleagues here might want to take whatever they're doing outside in the
hallways there. I'm sure they want to hear –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
I'm sure those who want to
hear what I have to say are having a hard time hearing because I'm having a hard
time hearing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I ask
all Members to respect the people who are speaking.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I think
that a year ago in this very same House, and for this very same private Members'
motion, I spoke about what's happening in Scotland with their procurement
legislation, that there are social benefit clauses. They also really, really
push social enterprises in with their calls for proposal.
That's
what we've seen in Manitoba with Aki Energy and also with Shaun Loney's – the
social enterprises he helped set up in his incubator building that belongs to a
number of organizations. For instance, Mr. Speaker, one of the programs that
came out of that building is a bedbug program. It's very interesting to see how
this works.
There
was a huge bedbug problem in Manitoba in a number of social housing units.
Government would pay a private company to fumigate and rid the houses of
bedbugs, but it would just return. So this crowd, knowing that there was a need
for effective bedbug removal and extinction, came up with a much better system.
What
happened with the system before is that people would take all of their
furniture, a company would come and take all their furniture and belongings and
put it in a great big trailer. That great big trailer would go to the bedbug
place. They would unload all the furniture and belongings into their warehouse.
You have to cook bedbugs – intense heat. They would do that. Then, in the
meantime, people would sort of get rid of other stuff in their apartments. Then
this company would put all that stuff back in the trailer and drive it back to
the apartment. The stuff would be re-infested with bedbugs because the bedbugs
were in the trailer.
Shaun
Loney's crowd developed a bedbug social enterprise. What did they do? Well, they
had a trailer, and before they brought their trailer to the apartment, they'd go
and they would meet with the people. They'd help them with a little bit of grief
counselling because people who have a serious infestation of bedbugs, some of
the belongings can be taken care of and the bedbugs can be exterminated, some
can't.
What
they did is they helped people sort out what could and could not be dealt with.
They helped them let go of things they had to let go of. Then the trailer would
come and they'd load up everything into the trailer and then the trailer would
go off to that big old building where there's a hub for social enterprises.
Everything was left in the trailer and then they would hook up a hose to the
trailer and they would cook everything right in the trailer. They didn't take it
out and put it in a warehouse and then put it back in the trailer and get
re-infested. They cooked everything right there with high heat in the trailer.
In the
meantime, workers from the social enterprise would go and help the people in
their apartments, undo the light switches and the electrical plates and
everything where bedbugs can get behind; helped them remove – what are those
things called – baseboards. They helped them really prepare their place for a
full extermination, and it worked.
It
provided jobs for people who had before been unemployable in some ways or had a
hard time getting jobs or getting very precarious jobs. Also, what it did is it
provided a solution and they were able to respond to requests for proposals from
government. They weren't looking for handouts from government. They were
actually responding to goods that government really needed to procure. The
procurement that government did would look at the social benefits and also at
social enterprises.
Really,
what needs to be done, Mr. Speaker, we don't want to just keep talking about how
great social enterprises are. We did that last year and we've been doing it all
through the year, but there are some very specific things that government needs
to do and it doesn't seem like they have done it. I don't want to be here
another year from now doing the same thing, talking about how wonderful social
enterprises are.
Government should implement some of the recommendations of the Community Sector
Council in their November 2016 document. We need loan –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. ROGERS:
I can't hear myself, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. ROGERS:
We need very specific
concrete actions. We need a strategy and an action plan that was promised a year
ago. Here we are a year later, we still don't have it: a loan guarantee program,
social venture capital fund, business management and planning assistance,
linking of social enterprises with private sector purchases, government
procurement legislation.
We had
the opportunity last year, Mr. Speaker, to do the best social government
procurement legislation on the planet and government blew that opportunity. I
hope they'll reintroduce that legislation because they blew that opportunity to
do really good legislation. We need a requirement for community benefit
agreements in our social procurement policy and we need multi-year funding for
community groups so they can plan ahead, so they can be the incubators for
social enterprise.
I want
to celebrate and honour and congratulate those successful social enterprises in
our province, but let's not just keep talking about how great they are. Let's do
the concrete things we need in order to ensure we have them. Let's get a
strategy, let's get an action plan and let's do it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
So the
Member for St. John's Centre doesn't want to talk about how great the social
enterprises are, but at the same time she wants to celebrate and congratulate
them. Awesome!
Mr.
Speaker, we are a whole of government, we are talking a whole of government
approach. We are coordinating; we're collaborating and thus taking more time to
prepare the action plan. Now we have the
What We Heard document, we have a plan. We, as a transparent and open
government, are ensuring all are involved are engaged in our plan. That's how it
works, Mr. Speaker.
The
Minister of TCII spoke here just a short while ago about the details that were
in the plan. It's in Hansard. We all
heard it, Mr. Speaker.
So, Mr.
Speaker, let's bring this conversation here back to social enterprises, what we
are talking about here today in this House. Let's bring it back to Newfoundland
and Labrador social enterprises because the Member opposite just went right
across Canada.
Mr.
Speaker, we're governing here in Newfoundland and Labrador and we're continuing
to invest and build and support social enterprises. Unlike traditional
businesses, companies engaged in social enterprises are driven by a social
cause, putting social impact before profit to create a sustainable business
model for the greater good. They are also rethinking the way corporations work
with the community.
Social
entrepreneurs' primary intent is to create a good impact. By using revenue
streams to improve financial stability, this impact is increased, Mr. Speaker.
The
social enterprise that is closest and dearest to me personally is the Pantry, at
the Elaine Dobbin Centre for Autism. Not only is the food at the Pantry
absolutely delicious, the atmosphere there is welcoming. The friendliness of the
employees is heartwarming and the parking is great. It is a very successful
social enterprise. It serves a delicious meal and the desserts alone are worth
going there, Monday to Friday from 9 to 3.
Since
opening in 2006, it has come to represent not only a revenue source, but it
represents the openness and the value of diverse employers. The current dining
room can accommodate up to 36 people and it caters both in-house and outside to
community groups.
Mr.
Speaker, the Pantry is a full-service cafe and it's a social flagship for the
social enterprise for the Autism Society. It was initially geared towards skill
development and training and public awareness – skill development for
individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder for persons with disabilities. So not
only does it bring a profit into a non-profit organization, it helps families
and individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, I remember sitting as a member of the board of the Autism Society when
the concept of the Pantry evolved. It became a reality. It provides the
employment and the work experience for persons with a disability and 100 per
cent of the profits go back to the community.
Profits
are seen as a tool. They constitute the business model of for-profits and is
contained within the financial dimension of the social business model. There are
key differences, Mr. Speaker, and the Member opposite didn't clearly address the
key difference. The social impact model explains the mission of the business,
while the traditional model defines the value of a business it has to offer to
the market and to the customers. The financial sustainability model generates
enough revenue for the social mission, while the traditional revenue model seeks
to generate revenue at any cost.
Mr.
Speaker, when a social enterprise generates income that exceeds the operation,
they then take the money and invest it back into education and awareness. Our
government is working towards investing and improving social enterprises in
Newfoundland and Labrador. They're working to accommodate the individuals whom
we represent. We're working towards education. We're working towards awareness.
We're working towards employment, Mr. Speaker. For The Pantry, it is individuals
with Autism Spectrum Disorder and their families.
My own
son goes to the Elaine Dobbin Centre every Monday. He goes to bowling offered
through the Elaine Dobbin Centre. No doubt, families pay a nominal fee; however,
it is supported by a social enterprise. It's a reasonable fee, secondary to
support from the social enterprise, in addition to other supports.
Social
enterprises educate, they support and they generate operational income for many
non-profit organizations. So yes, Mr. Speaker, I will stand in this hon. House
and I will talk about the positive impacts of all social enterprises in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
The value of a social
enterprise ran by organizations and the advocating and the supporting of persons
with disabilities is huge. It is a massive impact to the daily lives of persons
who are living in this province with disabilities, and to the families.
The
emergence of the social business is the result of a multitude of converging
factors, which will only increase as technology advances and continues. Mr.
Speaker, as the movement gains momentum, it's intriguing to think about the
consequences: an increased awareness of brand ethics, for example, forcing the
brands of tomorrow to take a political or ideological stance, both to attract
customers and the best talent. One of the key and more important factors is a
rise in the traditional for-profits measuring their social impact.
If you
have a business out there, Mr. Speaker, that realizes the value of a social
enterprise and the impact on the education and society as a whole and the
consumer base and the increase in their business because of what they are doing,
the for-profits are going to see that and they're going to realize and they're
going to also put come forward and put forward an impact to community.
The
awareness that is created when the for-profits realize the value of measuring
the social impact is huge to communities and to individuals involved. There are
numerous success stories, Mr. Speaker, in this province that have a huge impact
on community, and I'm going to talk about some of those success stories: the
Pantry, as I've mentioned here and been talking about, operated by the Autism
Society; Previously Loved, a second-hand clothing store on Kenmount Road. Mr.
Speaker, it's a place where you never have to pay sales tax and 100 per cent of
the profit from the sales at their store stay right here in Newfoundland and
Labrador –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
– where we as a government
are governing, Mr. Speaker.
Impact
Construction. Choices for Youth. I remember Impact Construction and how it
evolved from the Train for Trades. When I worked as the executive director for
the Association for Community Living, I remember going across Canada and
attending a conference where the Train for Trades was explained out and I
thought to myself, wow, what a magnificent idea for at-risk youth in this
province.
Sure
enough, Mr. Speaker, Choices for Youth at the same time they saw the same value,
they adopted the model, they brought it back here to Newfoundland and Labrador
and, today, what was Train for Trades is now Impact Construction – a social
enterprise construction company with the on-the-job safety in construction
training for at-risk youth, ready to secure long-term sustainable employment or
pursue skilled trades training. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, what else could be of
more value than to train at-risk youth to give them a skill set that will make
them employable into the future and for the rest of their lives? That is a
fantastic way to invest in social enterprise.
The
Hungry Heart Cafe on Military Road, another fully serviced restaurant and
catering business – delicious food. I've been there a couple of times, beautiful
atmosphere, employs people again at high risk. Take Two, as I mentioned, a brand
new store opened by the Empower Newfoundland and Labrador, a gently used
clothing thrift store located on Ropewalk Lane.
Mr.
Speaker, based on the feedback that we are receiving as we go forward through
the Department of TCII, we're going to improve and we're going to advance social
enterprises right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is about getting it
right. It's about getting it right; it's about doing it right. It's not about
running ahead and advancing. And yes, we've had social enterprises in this
province for a number of years, but we as a government want to ensure that those
social enterprises continue and they employ people, they support families, they
support vulnerable youth, they support individuals with disabilities and they
continue to serve the valuable place that they serve in society today.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to reiterate that social enterprises create a solid impact
and they improve financial stability. I strongly support increasing the number
of social enterprises in Newfoundland and Labrador, I strongly support what the
Department of TCII is doing and I have lived experience to support my point of
view here.
As I go
about my district and I talk to my constituents and individuals who live in
rural Newfoundland that don't have access to these types of social enterprises
today, they only wish that they could have more for their individuals and their
sons and daughters with disabilities to offer them an opportunity for
employment.
When we
try to address the needs of vulnerable youth, Impact Construction, what else
could you ask for but that type of model that assists persons who are high risk?
So the Department of TCII continues to advance this, Mr. Speaker. As I've said,
I strongly support it. I thank the Member for Bonavista for putting this private
Member's motion forward here today. I thank our government for continuing to
support individuals with disabilities, families and vulnerable youth in our
province.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly an interesting debate and it was great to hear from all sides of the
spectrum. I'd like to thank the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, Placentia
West – Bellevue, Conception Bay East – Bell Island, the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, the Member for St. John's Centre.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. KING: I did.
I said, yeah – and Placentia – St. Mary's.
It was all interesting feedback.
I'm just
going to touch on some things people brought up, and we heard a lot about the
déjà vu. Do you know what? So be it. It's two totally different private Members'
motions, as far as I'm concerned, leading into the one we did last fall, what we
heard, social enterprise in The Way
Forward document wasn't completed. So what we did, Mr. Speaker – and if
people had actually bothered to listen to what I had to say at the beginning, we
would have heard what took place, the results of that, and what we're going to
do on The Way Forward, talking about
that.
So
getting back to the Member for St. John's Centre and bringing in the doom and
gloom on the social enterprises, it never ceases to amaze me, when we talk about
something good they have to bring the negative into it. They talked about, oh
well, it's the same thing as before. Like I said if you actually had to listen
to what I talked about earlier, we would have got into the details – and I'll
say it again, because I want to get it out there. Let me get my paperwork
straight. I want to talk about what we touched on.
So the
engagement process, the first part, there were three sessions facilitated with
partners and stakeholder groups. Those are subject matter experts in the field.
There were 11 of those that took place. We had 86 people attend, participate,
giving us the feedback of what they wanted. So they talk about, oh, it's the
same as before. It's not the same as before. We're getting feedback from the
experts in the field of what they want to see us do with regard to social
enterprises. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I hope we get up
and talk about it again when we fully implement the plan. I know the Department
of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation is working hard on it.
What
they also talked about: We're moving backwards. Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't think
that's moving backwards when you say you're going to do something and actually
do it. I don't know about you, but to me that's moving forward, moving the
process forward. I mean, you take something and you turn it negative all the
time, it's unbelievable.
They
talked about procurement legislation. Well, they bothered to look into that as
well. There's actually a section within that legislation that allows for social
and environmental procurement.
We also
brought in legislation for it last year, Mr. Speaker, that allowed for
multi-year funding for non-profit organizations, including social enterprise.
This is stuff they've been crying out for for years, Mr. Speaker, and the NDP
don't want to hear nothing of that. It is stuff they've been saying for years
and now that we bring it forward, they don't like it.
Anyway,
getting back to my speech; I know I have a few minutes less. I'm glad that we at
least had some positive here today that talked about the benefits of social
enterprise.
The
Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune did bring a good point forward. A lot of
this is private-sector driven with government supports, and I agree with that.
She also brought forward that this is community driven. That was echoed by the
Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island, and I totally support that.
Mr.
Speaker, I didn't get a chance to talk about this when I first gave my
introductory speech because I was telling them about what the process actually
was and what the results of that process we actually got.
The
impact on social enterprises in the District of Bonavista, this is in my own
district, and it talks about community. These organizations, the social
enterprises, I hit on it a little bit when I spoke previously, they built the
foundation for the economic boom that we're seeing right now in the tourism
industry. We've got operators there that have been over 25 years.
I talked
about them working together. The Bonavista-Trinity Regional Chamber of Commerce
just inducted Donna Butt and Rising Tide Theatre in their Business Hall of Fame,
the first non-profit social enterprise to have that designation for that
organization.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
What the Chamber of Commerce
has also done is formed a subcommittee for tourism. Do you know who most of
those members are? They're members of the board of directors or the executive
directors for social enterprises. Myself and the Minister of Tourism, Culture,
Industry and Innovation have met with them on two occasions. We're listening to
their feedback. We're bringing it back. It's ending up in documents like this
and it's going to be implemented based on what we hear. That wasn't done before,
Mr. Speaker.
What
we've also seen is more increases of CEDP funding. I know two organizations
which just qualified for it in my district.
So
what's next? It's going to be the finalization of the implementation of our
Social Enterprise Action Plan. Stuff doesn't happen like this overnight. You
don't just do a report and get consultation in and get feedback from the subject
matter experts in the field and write a document overnight and say here it is –
it takes time.
The
Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation is working very hard on
that. Their valuable staff is working very hard on that and I look forward to
when that gets released.
I do
have eight minutes left, so I'm going to talk about some of the social
enterprises I missed in my district. I talked a little bit about the Matthew
Legacy, but I'm going to talk a little bit about the Bonavista Townscape
Foundation. I will give the former government credit when credit is due.
The
Bonavista Historic Townscape Foundation received funding through the provincial
and federal government and through the Town of Bonavista to do a beautification
of Campbell Street and Church Street. They started it, and when we came in we
continued on.
If you
go up Church Street right now, you look at the beautiful sidewalks. If you go up
Campbell Street, you look at the beautiful sidewalks, the facade of OCI, nice
parking lot there, wonderful street lights. That is what government has
contributed to an organization such as the Townscape Foundation.
The
Townscape Foundation, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you've been there or not, but
they operate the Garrick Theatre. The Garrick Theatre is well-known throughout
the province and that was just lying dormant. It was a nightclub at one point
with a movie theatre. Right now, every Saturday night in the summer there are
live performances.
So you
have a lot of the artists, which the NDP supports – but apparently not social
enterprise – come out and play in the Garrick. They do wonderful performances,
Mr. Speaker. I'm so proud of that organization. They have the Annex, and I
attended an event there. It's a beautiful area. It's a conference room. It's an
area where you can have a Christmas party. I was out with the Chamber of
Commerce, which I'm a proud member of as well, with that venue. It's absolutely
beautiful, Mr. Speaker.
One
final thing and this is very exciting. I've been in touch with a group called
the Discovery Aspiring Geopark. I know most people have heard about the fossils
that were found in Port Union, in the top of the Bonavista Peninsula and area.
So you take the communities from Keels, all the way to Melrose, up around
Bonavista, down through Elliston and Catalina Dome.
What
that group is working towards, and they just had their first AGM – they're
working towards a UNESCO designation for Geopark. They're working; they're
getting all their ducks in a row. They have all the professionals with the
universities, through Oxford, through MUN. They're getting themselves ready to
put an application in to UNESCO so that we on the Bonavista Peninsula, and we
here in Newfoundland and Labrador, can have another UNESCO designated site, and
I'm very excited about that. I know they're working hard on the application.
Now, the
NDP might want the application done right now and not be filled out properly and
not do the proper work because they want things rushed, but that's not going to
happen. They're taking their time. They're going to get that application in next
fall. They're going to do their homework. I'm very proud of that organization
and I look forward to working with them. The Minister of Tourism, Culture,
Industry and Innovation is excited about working with them.
With all
that said, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very, very valuable private Member's
resolution. It talks about what we did a year ago leading up to what we did
after Christmas, and we are giving everyone an update. Here's what we did,
here's what we're doing, here's what the results are, here's what the subject
matter experts are saying, Mr. Speaker.
This
private Member's resolution is going to push the Minister of Tourism, Culture,
Industry and Innovation to get that work done and get it out so we can get our
social enterprises fully, fully funded, fully supported and we get those new
social enterprises that the NDP were talking about up and running. We didn't
forget about those. We're going to get those going to.
I have
full faith in the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation and his
team that they're going to get the work done.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
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.
On
motion, resolution carried.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, and in accordance with Standing Order 9, this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 o'clock.