May 15, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 19
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
As I've
indicated to this hon. House, a few weeks ago I told you our ratings are up, and
as evidenced by our full gallery of visitors.
I'm very
pleased today to welcome to the public gallery students from grades 10 to 12
from MSB Regional Academy in Middle Arm. They are accompanied by their teachers,
Stephen Boone and Chantelle Bowers and bus driver, Charlie Bursey.
A great
welcome to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd also like to welcome a
very special group as well to my left, also in the public gallery, from Mary
Queen of Peace School in St. John's. They're here with their Principal, Kimberly
Leonard.
Both
groups will be mentioned in Members' statements this afternoon.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd also like to welcome Ms.
Heidi Applin, who's a fourth year archeology student at Memorial University,
who's from Happy Valley-Goose Bay down here escaping winter.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today, for Members'
statements we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of
Conception Bay East - Bell Island,
Placentia West - Bellevue, Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, Virginia Waters -
Pleasantville, and Baie Verte - Green Bay.
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell
Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand to recognize a group of volunteers in my
district who have excelled as champions for addressing the issue of mental
health and addictions. I speak of Heal Bell Island, which is comprised of
concerned citizens who have as their major objective, better awareness of mental
health and addictions issues on the Island, but also to help foster the
development of services that address the issues and give those dealing with
mental health and addictions an avenue to get control of their lives and become
more productive in our society.
I had the pleasure to attend the first annual Mental
Health and Addictions fair hosted by the organization and held at St. Michael's
High School this past weekend.
Some 25 presenters from all sectors of our society set up booths to
outline the services and supports they offer to assist those facing challenges.
Information was distributed by the Canadian Mental Health Association, Al-Anon,
Eastern Health, Planned Parenthood, Choices for Youth, Thrive St. John's, Spirit
Horse stables, Turnings, RCMP, Unity in our Community, Let's Talk Cannabis,
private businesses and many other organizations. This was a great example of how
a volunteer community group can coordinate and facilitate connections between
those who need services and those who can provide those services.
While
many worked to make this information fair a reality, I have to single out lead
coordinating volunteer Susan Boone who did a remarkable job to make this a
reality.
I ask
all Members to join me in thanking Susan and all those who made the first annual
Mental Health and Addictions fair a great success. Good luck in the future.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Placentia
West - Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Mr. Speaker, the gift of
music is a treasure to behold and does wonders for the soul. Nowhere would you
hear better the voices and instruments of talented musical performers than at
St. Gabriel's Hall in Marystown last week at the eighth annual South Coast Music
Festival.
Hundreds
of entries, dozens of categories ranging from classical piano to musical
theatre, renditions of scores of the Broadway musical
Come From Away to the traditional favourites such as “Saltwater
Joys.” As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, our cultural and musical heritage is
distinct, which is why events such as this are so important, particularly for
young people.
I
commend all participants, volunteers, organizers, spectators and well-wishers
but, particularly, wish to congratulate and thank Patsy Green, the local music
teacher whose vision and perseverance led to the creation of this musical
institution on the Burin Peninsula.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join with me in thanking Ms. Green for her
contributions and congratulating all those involved in creating, sharing and
cultivating this gift of music through the South Coast Music Festival. It is
truly a gift to behold.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to deliver accolades to Mr. Reginald Farrell, our
newest inductee into the St. Alban's Community Park Pathway of Heroes. Born and
living in St. Alban's since 1923, he is a pillar of the community and very dear
to all his family, friends and neighbours.
Reg's
long career with the town council has made him an integral part of our
community's history, fixing the town roads, hooking up water and sewer and
garbage collection. He also operated Farrell's Sawmill and was very well known
all along our South Coast for his travels on
The Maude Foote, his schooner named
after his mother, delivering products such as lumber and fish casks during World
War II.
Residents have tremendous respect and admiration for this strength and vitality,
and are proud to recognize his distinct contributions to the town's growth and
the great quality of life we all enjoy. His labours and volunteerism are at the
core of our strong roots, and we celebrate his distinct honour of being the
town's very first fire chief who took possession of our very first fire truck,
and he was also our very first ambulance driver.
I ask
all Members of this House to join me in recognizing Mr. Reginald Farrell, our
hero and friend, for his commitment to our people and community life.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to bring attention to a wonderful partnership between Young
Adult Cancer Canada, which was founded by Mr. Geoff Eaton, and Mary Queen of
Peace Elementary school.
For the
past five years, YACC has brought Shave for the Brave to the students of MQP.
Shave for the Brave has been Young Adult Cancer Canada's longest annual
fundraiser and, for the past 13 years, this fundraiser have provided funds to
support digital, local and national programs to help young adults live with,
through and beyond cancer.
The
funds raised go towards supporting great programs like the Survivor Conference,
Retreat Yourself and Localife. These programs give young adults the tools,
resources and life-long connections to help them overcome cancer-related
challenges they may face such as chronic fatigue, fertility issues, returning to
school or work and facing the end of their lives when they are just getting
started.
For
every cancer at every stage, YACC has the backs of these young adults, but only
because those who support Shave for the Brave have theirs.
Since
getting involved, MQP raised over $97,000 and shaved 254 heads – some of the
heads are up here. This year alone, they raised over $22,000 and shaved 48
heads.
Congratulations to the students and Geoff Eaton for their dedication to raise
awareness around Young Adult Cancer.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte - Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to
acknowledge a successful fire, food and music festival that takes place on the
Baie Verte Peninsula. The Gathering, hosted by well-known comedian Shaun
Majumder takes place this year August 23-25 in Burlington.
The
Gathering is part of a larger, not-for-profit social enterprise known as 'ome.
The purpose is to rewrite the rural story by creating a sustainable micro
economy through tourism by building small businesses and reinvesting in the
communities of Burlington, Middle Arm and Smith's Harbour.
The
annual festival includes comedy shows, chef hikes, shed crawls and traditional
Jiggs' dinner. The first phase for accommodations started out with prospector
tents, and now 'ome sweet 'ome is one of the most unique accommodations on the
Island of Newfoundland. Logs for the tent frames are locally cut and processed
at a family-owned, decades-old sawmill in Middle Arm. Local carpenters construct
the tent frames using traditional hand tools and one can choose a single or
double occupancy.
I'm
sure, Mr. Speaker, that the students of MSB Regional Academy, who are visiting
the House of Assembly today, join me in welcoming all my colleagues here at The
Gathering 2018.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this
hon. House to highlight the field work being undertaken by the Geological Survey
this summer.
In
total, researchers will conduct nine field projects; two in Labrador and seven
on the Island portion of the province. Field programs will focus on bedrock and
surficial geology mapping, and mineral deposit studies of base and precious and
industrial minerals.
Budget 2018
invests $4.5 million in the Geological Survey which regularly releases research
on the geology and mineral resources of the province used by prospectors, junior
mining companies and investors for exploration activity.
The
province's Geological Survey is the foundation for mineral exploration and
mining development in Newfoundland and Labrador and helps strengthen the
province's economic foundation as committed to in
The Way Forward.
Information from the Geological Survey tends to provide a catalyst for claim
staking with 40,000 claims staked in 2016 and 2017. This is approximately the
total number for the previous four-year period combined. Staked claims generally
coincide geographically with public data released by the Geological Survey.
Mr.
Speaker, field work, and the subsequent analysis and interpretation of results
that occurs over the fall and winter, leads to the development of new
publication which contributes to the geoscience knowledgebase. Geological data
encourages investment by reducing the risk for private sector initiatives.
Mineral exploration, with the potential for discovery and mine development, is a
significant economic driver, especially in rural parts of the province.
We wish
our researchers from the Geological Survey much success in their field work this
summer and look forward to seeing the results of their efforts and the
continuing development of the mining industry.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. We, too, are
pleased to recognize the start of Geological Survey summer research program
again this year. We all acknowledge the tremendous opportunity that exists in
the province with regard to our natural resources.
The
mining industry plays a leading role, contributing significantly to our
province's economy. Certainly, the information and scientific data gathered
through these surveys are invaluable. This field work and analysis has the
potential to lead to significant finds.
Discoveries across Newfoundland and Labrador have significantly transformed
parts of our province, bringing prosperity and employment, in many cases, to
rural areas. Government must remain committed to supporting such valuable
research and exploration.
On
behalf of the Official Opposition, I would like to wish all those participating
in the research program a safe and successful summer in the field.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister. We also wish the workers on the Geological Survey every success
because their success benefits us all.
Providing reliable geological data to the mining industries is one of the most
important industry subsidies this province provides. The data gathered saves
companies thousands and possibly millions in field work and analysis, and opens
possibilities.
Publicly
funded data allows government to better manage our resources and then allows
mining companies to better identify and then exploit our mineral resources,
which generates employment in rural areas and royalties back to the province.
I wish
them a good summer.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
May 7 to 13 was Mental Health
Week. This year's theme was #GetLoud about what mental health really is. We
joined schools, businesses, community groups, organizations, municipal
governments and people in communities throughout our province to get loud.
Mr.
Speaker, to start the week, Newfoundland and Labrador became the first province
in Canada to launch the MindWell-U 30 Day Mindfulness Challenge province wide.
The challenge is an online program specializing in mindfulness training
available in English and French at
bridgethegapp.ca.
This
training, which has been offered successfully through Memorial University's
Student Wellness and Counselling Centre since 2016, is an evidence-based program
clinically proven to benefit mental and physical health. Mindfulness training
has been shown to maintain wellness, reduce symptoms of anxiety, depression and
chronic pain, and assists in the treatment of problematic substance use.
This is
the latest service added to the province's suite of online mental health and
addictions supports which includes Strongest Families, Bridge the gApp,
BreathingRoom and Therapy Assistance Online.
Mr.
Speaker, our government's vision for improved mental health care means enhancing
care across every level of need. Tools like this training are helping to provide
early interventions, which can help prevent mental health problems, mental
illness and addictions.
Mr.
Speaker, I am in my second week of the challenge and can testify the training is
both therapeutic and engaging. I encourage each one of my colleagues in this
hon. House and certainly all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to join the 30 Day
Mindfulness Challenge through bridgethegapp.ca
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I also recognize May 7-13 was
Mental Health Week. During that week, Members of this House participated in and
supported a variety of events right across this province. I, myself, had the
pleasure and honour of participating in a mental health and addictions forum on
Bell Island, and I was happy to be joined by my colleague and friend, the Member
for St. John's Centre.
I also
attended a touching event in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's where community members,
municipal leaders and local groups came together to light it up green in memory
of those who had lost their struggle or those living with mental illness. Hats
off to the organizers for a beautiful job.
Mr.
Speaker, coping mechanisms and supports are vital. The MindWell-U 30 is yet
another tool available to help support mental wellness. Congratulations to all
those involved in the launch.
Like the
minister stated, I suggest all Members of this hon. House join the 30 Day
Mindfulness Challenge. We all have role to play in promoting and cultivating
mental health. Let's all get loud about mental health.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister. I am happy to hear that the province is supporting the MindWell-U
30 Day Mindfulness Challenge. It is indeed important to offer opportunities for
people to do mindfulness training as a benefit to mental health and wellness.
Apps and
online resources, however, do not replace the urgent need for mental health and
addictions services in our province. We hear from people all the time who have
still been on wait-lists for up to 15 months for mental health services.
Although we have seen improvements, there is still more to do.
Congratulations to all mental health and addictions advocates province-wide for
a job well done.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier, in 2015, stood in front of workers in Labrador and said that the
position of Premier could work out issues causing the IOC strike.
Premier,
have you been successful in getting people back to work? Have you lived up to
your word?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
back in 2015 it was about grievances that we stood up in face of the workers
there, Mr. Speaker, and I have no question and no problem in addressing this
issue today. As a matter of fact, it was just yesterday that I met with
officials from the union with IOC in Labrador, as well as working very closely
with their Member for
Labrador West.
Tomorrow we'll be bringing to this floor of the House
of Assembly a private Member's resolution. I am hoping that all Members of this
House will accept and support the PMR that will be brought onto the floor here
tomorrow.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
BRAZIL:
The
Premier also said it was wrong and disrespectful that 150 jobs were being
replaced.
Premier, you've been in office for three years, you've
already admitted that the Premier is able to fix this issue: Why are you leaving
people in Labrador West without jobs?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As everyone in this House would know, the collective
bargaining process is something that is actually even part of their charter that
we have in our country, Mr. Speaker. So we really encourage people, we've done
so with mediation and so on, to stay at the collective bargaining process. Yes,
in times when it takes a Premier and others to step up, just like our Member for
Labrador West has been doing, the union acknowledged that yesterday in that
response.
Mr. Speaker, we'll be bringing a PMR to the floor of
this House of Assembly, something that you as leader of the Opposition did not
do when you were in the government side.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Mr.
Speaker, PMRs don't solve all the problems here. The Speaker knows that the
Premier has the ability to solve these issues. The exact words in 2015 were: The
Premier is the one person who can get the company at the table, meet with the
union, get this resolved once and for all.
Premier: Why are you not at the table? Why have you
failed to get this resolved?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the parliamentary secretary for the Department of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The situation that's going on in Labrador West today is
very stressful, and if the Member wants to refer to the session in 2015, it was
not about this. The problems that were talked about in 2015 with 150 jobs have
been resolved. They were put back to work, Mr. Speaker.
What we're into today – today marks the beginning of
the eighth week of the labour dispute. I have been working with both the union
president and the IOC president since day one. The way to solve this, Mr.
Speaker, is to get people back to the table, back talking, and that's exactly
what myself and the Premier is working on today.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do agree with the Member for Labrador West, that we
need to get people back at the table. Nothing is being resolved right
now.
I ask
the Premier: You have the ability to get the union and the company to sit at the
table and resolve this issue, will you take the leadership role and do that?
MR. SPEAKER:
The parliamentary secretary
for the ministry of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me
remind the Member again, we have been working since day one to get these two
groups back to the table. Let me also remind the Member, it's not the Premier or
me who get those people back to the table. It's the two parties that must agree
to go back to the table, and that's what we're working on.
We're
encouraging them; I'm talking to the president of IOC on a daily basis, as well
as the president of the union. They're getting close to getting back to the
table, I will say, but it's their issues that have to be resolved, and to get
them resolved we need to get the two parties back to the table and talking.
That's their prerogative and that's what they're being encouraged to do.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do
respect the hon. Member's commitment to try and resolve this, but the reality is
here – and I have to quote again: The Premier is the one person who can get the
companies at the table, meet with the unions, get this resolved once and for
all.
Will the
Premier take the lead?
You said
it in 2015. In 2018, please take the lead and resolve this.
MR. SPEAKER:
The parliamentary secretary
for Natural Resources.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
say it again, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier referred to it, we met with the union
president last night and some of the officials from the union executive. They
know where we stand. We know where they stand. We have a good understanding of
what the issues are, but as the union president agreed with us last night, and
he recognized the fact that we are working to get both sides back to the table.
He will tell you that.
The fact
of the matter is – and he recognizes that – that in order for this to get
resolved we need both parties sitting at the table, talking about the issues and
meeting a resolution that's acceptable to both sides.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The CEO
and co-founder of Sequence Bio is accusing the Health Research Ethics Authority
of acting unlawfully and unethically when it comes to research applications.
Will the
minister immediately get engaged and launch an investigation into these serious
accusations?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
As I
said to the media yesterday, we received a package of allegations, if you like,
complaints, around the process of the Health Research Ethics Board. My
responsibility is to look into that and see if there's any substance to those
complaints.
If the
process is working, then I have no role to play. If the process is not working,
Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to look into what options exist to make that
better.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, it's evident it's not working.
I say to the minister, your department has a representative
on the Health Research Ethics Authority and, like it or not, you are indeed the
minister who is ultimately responsible for it.
How long will you stand idly by while the authority runs
important research and millions of potential funding dollars out of this
province?
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to point out I'm supporting, in my own way, an
arm's-length body which was set up by the previous government to deal with a
problem they had to deal with back prior to 2011. I am supporting the process
they put in place. If there is a problem with that process, I would like to find
out what that is and see what remedies are available.
At the end of the day, my staff and I will make that
determination. We received that package as of yesterday and are currently
looking into it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to
the minister, this is bigger than just one company. These alleged issues of the
authority are denying patients access to leading clinical trials and treatment
for their particular illnesses.
Will the
minister take action on behalf of the countless Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
who could benefit from these groundbreaking treatments?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I think
I'd like to correct some factual inaccuracies in that statement and firstly open
by saying that my aim as minister is to protect the interests and enhance the
well-being of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The issues around clinical
trials, those particularly pertaining to childhood cancers, those are resolved.
Those are approved. Children in this province will have access to the latest and
greatest groundbreaking research.
This is
about a genetics project on human DNA and I have committed to look at seeing
whether the process is flawed. If it isn't, I will stand back. If it is, we will
look at our options, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, we know we're six months-plus into this review process that
normally takes 30 days in any other jurisdiction which has an impact on the
quality of health care that people should have access to, particularly when it
comes to around particular research. From what I understand, this is not an
isolated case.
Has the
minister heard of any additional complaints regarding the Health Research Ethics
Authority?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Again, just to put this in
context, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman opposite is right in that it isn't an
isolated complaint. It's endemic to every Health Research Ethics Authority
across the country. There are always tensions between researchers who want to
move ahead and regulators who are charged with safeguarding the public
interests.
As I
have said, if there is a problem with this process, we will examine that and
determine whether or not that is the case. If there is, we will act to see what
our options are. If there is no problem – to be honest, the gentleman opposite
misleads when he talks about the timelines.
The
process was that they have to be assessed within 30 days, commenced within 30
days, not decided on within 30 days, Mr. Speaker. There's a degree of
liberalness with that statement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
As I had mentioned, in other
jurisdictions it can be completed within 30 days, but here, for some reason, it
gets dragged out. There were over 100 respondents to a survey recently conducted
by the Health Research Ethics Authority.
Can the
minister share any of the data collected from that survey? Were there any
complaints similar to those from Sequence Bio?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Health and
Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
My
understanding is the Health Research Ethics Authority has taken these comments
seriously and has instituted a review. I assume the survey to which the Member
opposite alludes is something that they have done.
Again,
being an arm's-length body and established that way by the government in the
day, the gentleman opposite – being an arm's length body, I don't have any
insights into that. I can make inquiries of the HREA, but currently I have no
knowledge of the nature of that survey.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
'
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
While you may not have any
knowledge of the survey, you did receive a letter from a former employee more
than two months ago outlining some of the major concerns with the ethics board
itself.
Yesterday we learned that the government cancelled a contract with Burry's
Shipyard. The local MHA says the department had options to work with the
shipyard to resolve this issue and have the work completed in Clarenville;
however, the minister says they had no choice but to move the work to the St.
John's Dockyard.
Why the
difference in opinion?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the question. Mr. Speaker, I work with all the MHAs in our
caucus and in this House when it comes to issues in their districts.
Mr.
Speaker, we found ourselves in a timeline issue here with the dockyard. On
advice from senior staff – and independent advice I may add – we had to make the
decision that we made to remove the vessel at this point in time.
Mr.
Speaker, it's important to us to make sure that all of our vessels are available
for our provincial service. The timelines here put us in a situation where we
had no choice at this time but to move the vessel.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
local MHA said the marine railway could have been back in service in a week or
two and the yard was prepared to complete the refit over a period of nine to 12
weeks.
Does the
minister disagree with this assertion?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my
previous answer, on advice of senior officials in the department and some
independent advice, we found that right now the timelines as they were presented
to us didn't fit our scheduling for what we need to do for our ferry system
throughout this entire province.
It's
kind of rich, Mr. Speaker, to see the Members opposite defend shipbuilding in
this province when they were the ones that took jobs that could have been in
Marystown and shipped them to Romania. Mr. Speaker, it's kind of rich.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
I wish the minister would
stick to the reality of – we have a shipyard that's in trouble now and a region
that may be economically impacted. We also have the South Coast that will not
have a reliable ferry service for a period of time.
After
hearing that government cancelled the contract, the local MHA suggested that
this could result in closure for them. The closure of this shipyard would be a
huge blow to Clarenville and the entire region, along with approximately 150
employees.
Is the
minister concerned that this action and lack of willingness to resolve this
issue may lead to local businesses closing its doors and 150 people being put
out of work?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The rich
questions continue, because he wasn't so concerned when he took jobs that could
have been in Marystown and put them in Romania.
Mr.
Speaker, we always take jobs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as very
important to us. The reality is here we need all of our boats into our system.
The challenge that we face here is one of a timeline. Senior officials came to
the department and said, look, we can't meet these timelines. We went out; I
asked for an independent assessment of this, Mr. Speaker. We received that
independent opinion and we were left with the decision that we made.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. BRAZIL:
So it is offside with the MHA
who's trying to promote their district, fair enough.
I do
have to clarify something, too. Nobody more than me would have loved for Kiewit
to have bid on the ferries in Newfoundland and Labrador. They didn't bid. You
can't award a contract to a company that doesn't bid to actually provide that
service.
Can the
minister explain why it took three months to make a decision without
consultation on this shipyard in Clarenville?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, again, the
information opposite is so, so incorrect. It's not even – hardly worth
entertaining.
Mr.
Speaker, we actually went to the shipyard on three occasions and asked for
timelines. On occasion number one we went back. On occasion number two, when the
timeline came in I asked for an independent assessment, which we received. That
independent assessment informed us and we went back to the shipyard and asked
for a third timeline. The same thing again, Mr. Speaker, my senior officials
told me the timelines weren't doable. So again I asked for an independent
assessment of that timeline, which we received and which informed our decision.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
all Members I will not tolerate interruption of the identified MHA.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, foremost, I would like to thank the minister and the Premier for taking
heed to my questions and announcing both the PAAP and the CAP programs two weeks
ago.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LESTER:
But, can the minister explain
the reason for delaying the announcement of both programs and holding back
implementation from farmers and industry?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, a $37 million federal-provincial agricultural agreement is now in
force, in action, and applications are available to farmers, both existing and
incumbent farmers but new farmers. We have provincial government programs that
are available. The applications are available.
As well,
the benefits of those programs will be out in the field quickly. I am confident
that part of the rigor and the enthusiasm to the Member's question is that he
knows of farmers that would be very, very anxious to get access to those
programs, and I think they may be very close to him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
I'd just like to remind the
minister that photo ops, nor media releases will do anything to increase this
province's food sustainability.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LESTER:
This year's announcements
were actually – PAAP was two months later than normal and the CAP program, which
was similar to the Growing Forward program, is already a month into its
inception. This wasn't sprung upon us. We knew this two years ago.
I ask
the minister: Can the minister assure that there will be a continued rate of
acceptance and approval over the summer despite staffing challenges, which
include summer holidays?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BRYNE:
Mr. Speaker, if you were to use the past as the benchmark for normal, what you'd
have to acknowledge is that what is normal for this Member is a reduction in the
number of farms in Newfoundland and Labrador and Labrador in the previous 15
years by 25 per cent. That's their normal.
Our new
normal is that we want to expand that agricultural production by doubling it. We
want to expand agricultural jobs by doubling them, but we also want to establish
the basis for those farms to grow. That is why we have identified 62,000
hectares of agricultural land of interest, Mr. Speaker.
We are
growing agriculture; they are growing rhetoric.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
While I can understand that
the minister may not quite grasp the tight time frames for farmers and the
associated growing season, which we must operate in, I would like to point out
that in the past two years we've seen a reduction of almost 12.5 per cent of
agricultural producers. That is a trend that we are really concerned with.
Mr.
Speaker, how many producers are going to receive product, plants or seed, from
the Wooddale nursery this year?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
What a fantastic opportunity the hon. Member now has afforded me to highlight
that Wooddale – the former forestry centre, the research centre of excellence –
now will continue on with forestry activity, as so important to our province,
but now has a new mandate, a new strengthened mandate for research and
innovation on agriculture.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, colleagues, that didn't exist before under that administration. They
didn't have a centre of excellence in Central Newfoundland to support our
agricultural industry. By the will, by the strength and the power and the
support of this government, we now have the Wooddale centre of innovation for
forestry and agriculture that didn't exist before and will produce results like
you've never seen them before.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
I would like to suggest to
the minister that one of the commodities we may look at growing would be
popcorn. That way, we could all have it here in the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. LESTER:
Was there industry
consultation as it pertains to production levels, varieties and crops? If so,
can you table the results of this consultation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, do you know what? There was lots of consultation about growing
agriculture. I think one of the consultation sessions happened in September
2017. I think the hon. Member might know when those consultations in Mount Pearl
occurred. Another consultation occurred post that.
We
engaged not only the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture, but
the president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Agriculture was the
co-chair of our sector council that prepared the agricultural work plan.
We had
literally dozens and dozens and dozens of plans of key priorities and objectives
that we are meeting. One of those was the Wooddale centre for forestry and
agriculture innovation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Again, I appreciate that detail, but I still don't see the answer to my
question.
Can you
table the work plan and the consultations that were done with industry in regard
to the activities at Wooddale?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, we have done extensive work on the consultations but, as well, we
unveiled this at Wooddale. The agricultural sector plan was produced and made
available to the entire industry with literally dozens of participants in our
agricultural industry. I think the hon. Member might have been invited or might
have been there, I'm not sure.
The
contribution that he could have made would have been there, if it was made, but
what we can inform the House is that there is a significant plan where we're now
growing seedlings for sale to farmers, using the greenhouse infrastructure of
Wooddale, so that farmers in Newfoundland and Labrador, who are the experts in
root crops, can avail of those seedlings to be able to produce crops in their
own ground.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Mount Pearl
North.
MR. LESTER:
I would like to ask the
minister: Does he actually know if those crops are applicable to grow in
Newfoundland? I still haven't heard if you're willing to table those
consultations.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Fisheries and
Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, maybe the hon.
Member and I can get a team of researchers together. We can investigate whether
or not carrots, potatoes, onions and cabbage are applicable for the climate of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I
suspect, Mr. Speaker, that those vegetables, those root crops, those seedlings
that we have in Wooddale, that are currently already on order from farmers in
Newfoundland and Labrador will be very, very applicable to the climate and
growing conditions of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
I still didn't get an answer
to my question whether he will table them or not.
Moving
on, what is the government's plan to deal with the possible reoccurrence of the
spruce budworm in this province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Fisheries and
Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
That's a nice switch, Mr.
Speaker, because it affords me the opportunity to provide information to this
House of the incredible efforts that our government is making to prepare for
spruce budworm. Did you know in this past federal budget the federal Finance
minister, on behalf of the minister of Natural Resources, put in place a federal
program to be able to assist provinces on this occurrence?
Sprue
budworm regrettably is a natural cycle. It is moving east. There are occurrences
now in Quebec, in New Brunswick and in Nova Scotia. We have to take precautions;
we have to be prepared for this. It has not infested Newfoundland or Labrador at
this point in time, which is an important part of the province that the Member
failed to mention in his last question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BYRNE:
But we are on the ready, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Mount Pearl
North.
MR. LESTER:
As the minister confirmed,
outbreaks of the budworm tend to be cyclical every 30 to 40 years, which means
we're likely due for an outbreak. He mentioned funds available in the federal
budget.
Are any
of those funds earmarked for prevention in Newfoundland or control?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Fisheries and
Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, that's why we
engage our federal government, the federal government that has provided these
funds. These, of course, were just earmarked or noted in the recent federal
budget. What I can report to the Member and to this House is that unlike the
previous administration, which acted in a philosophy or a policy of splendid
isolationism, our government is engaging the federal government to ensure that
those funds, those programs are made available to the forest industry of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North for a very quick question, please.
MR. LESTER:
The minister has spoken of
speaking with the federal government. Does that include speaking to Parks
Canada?
Back 30
years ago, there was a big issue with the outbreak within Terra Nova Park.
Will the
control include chemical sprays, biologicals, and has there been any
consultations done with communities that may be affected?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources, a quick response, please.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, thank you for
the question.
The hon.
Member points out, will the federal government be acting on its own federal
lands in parks lands, in particular, for a problem that has not yet occurred. I
appreciate the fact that he is a solution in search of the problem.
We are
acting on the circumstances as they evolve. We'll apply the best prescription,
the best remedy to the situation that exists as it exists. We plan for all
inevitabilities, but we will work for a solution to a known problem.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Government's April 1 minimum wage increase of 15 cents – that's right, 15 cents
an hour – does nothing to lift full-time minimum wage earners above the poverty
line. Research has shown a higher minimum wage does not mean job losses and it
does mean more money going into the local economy. British Columbia, Alberta and
Ontario have all committed to a minimum wage of $15. Economists are clearly
showing that an increase in minimum wage is good for the economy.
I ask
the Premier: Will he bring in legislation lifting the minimum wage to $15 by
2021?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, this past year
we engaged in consultation across the entire province about the minimum wage and
indexing the minimum wage to the Consumer Price Index or some indicator of
economic activity within the province. That consultation was attended, was
participated in by literally dozens and dozens of individuals.
I held a
consultation in a former role that I had here in St. John's. I did not see the
hon. Member there at that particular point in time, but I'm sure her thoughts
and opinions were brought forward through that consultation.
What we
know and what we can be assured of, in Newfoundland and Labrador we will have a
growing minimum wage that will be indexed to an economic indicator and that
people of Newfoundland and Labrador, including our minimum wage earners, will
see increased minimum wage (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, indexing an
already too low minimum wage to CPI, we will never, never catch up to the
poverty rates.
Mr.
Speaker, clearly government doesn't listen to the people of the province,
invoking a 15 cent increase in minimum wage when most called for $15. There are
13,000 minimum wage earners in this province, two-thirds of whom are women
working full-time and half of these older than 25 years of age.
I ask
the Premier: How can he justify not helping the lowest paid people in the
province when it makes good economic sense?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, this government
has enacted minimum wage legislation standards which will reflect an increase in
that minimum wage standard over the course of time. We have also, as a
government, and the Finance Minister – our Finance Minister can speak even
stronger and better to this. But we've provided additional supports to
low-income families, to those that are requiring assistance through our child
benefits.
MS. DEMPSTER:
$280 million.
MR. BYRNE:
We are adding $280 million.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Under the Poverty Reduction Initiative.
MR. BYRNE:
I should let – do you know
what? The next question, I should just simply let the Minister of Children,
Seniors and Social Development be able to speak because she knows this file
better than anyone. We have added additional benefits for families in need, and
they're receiving that benefit as we speak, 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.
Over a
year ago, in response to our private Member's motion, government voted to start
the process to enact pay equity legislation. To date, we have seen nothing from
this government other than a refusal to answer directly questions in the House
on this matter. This is an issue long overdue for fixing.
I ask
the Premier: Why won't he direct the minister responsible to bring pay equity
legislation to this House?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister Responsible
for the Status of Women.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
This is
a very important issue for the women of this province, and we were pleased to
support the pay equity private Member's resolution when it came forward. There
is an intergovernmental working committee working on this very issue, Mr.
Speaker. They've met recently. They will again meet in the month of May, and
we're continuing to work on this very serious issue.
Thank
you very much, 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.
Women in
this province make 69 cents for every dollar a man makes. This is completely
unacceptable and must be corrected. It isn't a women's rights issue, it's a
human rights issue, and women and others have been waiting too long for this be
taken care of.
I ask
the Premier: What does he have to say besides we're studying it, to the
thousands of working women in this province who have been waiting for a year for
him to deal with his commitment to fix this unfair wage gap?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
are several departments within government who have come together, who have
looked at the issue of equity in the province, not only within government but in
general. I can say that as a government we value equity within government.
Many of
our key roles, our management positions within government are held by women. In
fact, there are more women in executive and management positions in government
than there are men.
It is an
issue that is important. It's an issue that we are focused on and it's an issue
that we're working on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Time for Oral Questions has
ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice had been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm once
again very happy to stand and support a petition on universal public child care
and after school care program. These are the reasons for this petition:
Our
licensed child care system is a patchwork of private for-profit centres,
non-profit community-based centres and family daycare, plus a small number of
education- and workplace-based centres.
It is
nowhere near meeting the child care needs in our province. Affordable licensed
child care is often in short supply in rural parts of the province. Even in St.
John's there are long wait lists for quality child care programs.
Child
care programs have both social and financial benefits for society. Investing in
child care creates jobs: $1 million invested in child care would create 40 jobs,
more than in any other sector.
A
gender-based analysis of the provincial budget would have indicated the need for
a public child care program, as a key way to close the wage gap between women
and men in this province.
Therefore, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly as follows:
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to take immediate steps to put in place a plan for a
gradual transition to a universal, regulated and publicly funded and fully
accessible child care and after school care program.
Mr.
Speaker, other provinces have had the situation that we have here in
Newfoundland and Labrador –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
– when it comes to child care
and they have taken steps to ensure that they have child care programs.
One
province that's probably a good parallel for us is Prince Edward Island; smaller
than us, smaller population, smaller budget, not the resources that we have here
in Newfoundland and Labrador. They, too, had a similar patchwork quilt of child
care in that province. They decided they needed a complete child care program,
funded and regulated by government. They started a transition into the program
that they now have. Those who were for-profit daycare centres, for example,
actually opted to join the government's program.
We have
a model to follow. I urge this government to do that.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
Route 60 is the main highway that runs through the Town of Conception Bay South
and is a vital artery to the provincial road network; and
WHEREAS
Route 60 is one of the most heavily travelled roads in the province; and
WHEREAS
Route 60 has been deteriorating and requires major upgrades;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to allocate funds to upgrade Route 60.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a long list of petitions I've presented on this particular
issue on Route 60. It's probably one of the more important issues that are
brought to me on a daily basis by residents of my district and the town.
As I
said, it's the fifth busiest road in the province. The road is in dire need of a
lot of repairs. I continue to bring this up and I have dialogue with the
minister on this as well. The hope is to get some repairs – instead of
patchwork, some more permanent repairs done to this road.
As we
speak today this road is still a provincial highway, it is part of the
provincial road network and until something changes, it's the responsibility of
the province to make this road be maintained and have it in a condition where
people can safely drive over it, not run the risk of blowouts, tires, rims, you
name it. The road is very challenging. There's a lot of patchwork done in the
last several months, hot patch as opposed to cold patch. There are improvements.
The bottom line is the road does need more permanent repairs.
It's an
issue that I'll continue to lobby on. It's an issue that I still have more
petitions to present actually. There's one thing I promised, I speak to people
and I assure them that I will continue to fight the fight. It's what I'm doing
here today. I'll continue at it and hopefully my persistence will pay off down
the road, Mr. Speaker, hopefully this coming construction season.
Once
again, I do urge government to address Route 60 and get some more permanent
repairs done.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS
opioid addiction is a very serious problem affecting many individuals and
families in our province and the Bell Island area is no exception; and
WHEREAS
the effects of these problems have implications that negatively impact many
people, old and young; and
WHEREAS
supports and treatment programs have been proven to break the cycle of
addictions and have helped many into recovery;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to establish a Suboxone-methadone treatment plan
for Bell Island, which would include a drug addictions counsellor at the
hospital and a drug awareness program in the local schools.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, I've had the opportunity to present this on a number of occasions and
we're making slow baby steps towards getting all players to buy into this:
Eastern Health, the department, some of the officials and some of the
professionals there, as we look at how we best address that.
I had an
opportunity this past weekend, and I spoke earlier about it, to attend a mental
health and addictions information fair on Bell Island, and got an opportunity to
discuss, particularly, with a number of professionals and agencies that provide
addiction services, and identified things that I had seen, things I understood
and things that were relayed to me by residents. Those who are dealing with
addictions issues, people who've tried to support those with addictions and
those who now have the fear that their loved ones may be actually on the cusp of
becoming addicted to a particular opioid as part of a process.
The
common ground from all of the professionals were we have to have services that
are readily available in a geographic proximity so that when the supports and
when the individuals have the mechanism around them, be it their family
supports, be it at that time they want to take stake of their life, they want to
get control again, they don't want to be going through the hardships they are
and having the impact on their family and loved ones, and not being able to be
as productive as they'd like to in society, we need to have them available.
To have
people who have to leave early in the morning, get in a line up, be ostracized
and stigmatized because people know they're going over for opioid treatment,
knowing that they have to access other government funding to do it, go in a
specific taxi or route of transportation that stigmatizes who they are. Then be
away from any supports and take hours to travel from one area to another area to
get some of the basic stuff and then have to come back, relying on a ferry
service and not knowing if it's reliable, knowing they have to get back and have
the supports that are necessary.
So from
an economy of scale, from the moral fibre that we have to be able to do the
right thing, we need to have programs and services available.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll get a chance to speak to this again and hopefully we'll be able to
rectify this.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I call Orders of the Day, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day, Sir.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, from the Order
Paper, I would call Order 4, third reading of Bill 11.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I moved,
seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill
11, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act. (Bill 11)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill is now read a third
time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order
Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Financial Administration Act,” read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 11)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the Minister for Service NL, for leave to
introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting Tenancies Of Residential Premises,
Bill 15, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the Minister of Service NL shall have leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act Respecting Tenancies Of Residential Premises, Bill 15, and that
the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act Respecting
Tenancies Of Residential Premises,” carried. (Bill 15)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting Tenancies Of Residential Premises. (Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 15 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Motion 4. I move pursuant to Standing
Order 11(1) that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Tuesday, May 15.
MR. SPEAKER:
It's been moved and seconded
that the House extend beyond the 5:30 deadline.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I note
your enthusiasm for that motion.
MR. SPEAKER:
Looking forward to supper.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 10, second reading of Bill 14.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Torngat, that Bill 14, An Act Respecting Children,
Youth And Families, be read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 14 entitled An Act Respecting Children, Youth And Families be now read a
second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting Children, Youth and Families.”
(Bill 14)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister for
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is an
honour and a privilege indeed today to speak to Bill 14, An Act Respecting
Children, Youth and Families.
Mr.
Speaker, this has been a long time coming. When I look back over the last six,
eight, nine months in my department and I think about the monumental amount of
work that staff have put in to this bill and lots of late nights, it is a
substantive bill and I'll take the next – I probably won't use the full hour,
but I'm going to take some time to run through some of the high points of what I
think is a fantastic bill.
Mr.
Speaker, this is progressive legislation that we are debating today, one which
will have great benefits for children, youth and their families in this
province. It is my hope that, as we debate this legislation, all Members will
support it and acknowledge that at the heart of this bill it is child and youth
centred, with a very real and tangible focus on families.
Unlike
its predecessor, it is culturally responsive. As an indigenous woman, I can tell
you that I am pretty excited today about some of the changes that are coming and
what this bill is bringing in, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to start first with providing a bit of history. This province proclaimed the
Children and Youth Care and Protection Act
in 2011. This act promoted the safety and well-being of children and youth
in need of protection. Mr. Speaker, that act has served us well. What we're
doing today is building upon some of the groundwork that was laid in that first
act in 2011.
But, Mr.
Speaker, the government of the day recognized that child welfare practices and
legislation are always evolving. That is why a statutory review process was
built into the legislation where we would see a review undertaken every five
years. This process started in June 2016 and consultations were carried out over
a six-month period.
Mr.
Speaker, we had a tremendous response during the consultation process. More than
30 organizations participated, either in-person or virtual dialogue sessions,
focus groups, written submissions. We also heard from many indigenous
organizations and governments in this province. We received more than 170
surveys from children, youth and families, as well as from our own staff who use
this legislation on the ground out in their workplace each and every day.
I told
you we'd been at this a long time and a lot of work have gone into it. Our
intent, when we started, was to amend the
Children and Youth Care and Protection Act;
however, as we continued through the process of reviewing all the
recommendations from the consultation process, conducting a jurisdictional scan
of child and youth protection legislation across the country and reviewing child
welfare literature, it quickly became clear to us that significant changes would
be required to the act. As a result, Mr. Speaker, it was determined that the
best course of action would be to introduce new legislation to incorporate all
the changes that were deemed necessary.
This is
not to say, as I said in my opening, that the
Children and Youth Care and Protection Act
is not a good piece of legislation. It is and it has served us well. But to
reflect where we need to be today in child protection, as recommended through
the consultation process, we needed to develop new legislation.
Mr.
Speaker, the staff in my department, Children, Seniors and Social Development,
have worked very hard in developing this legislation in consultation with
Legislative Counsel. They have taken all the information and have developed what
I believe, what we have before us in this House today, is a new progressive
piece of legislation which will serve our province very well. Although it will
replace the Children and Youth Care and
Protection Act, I would rather, Mr. Speaker, like to think that the new
Children, Youth and Families Act build
upon the principles.
Our
focus remains on protecting children and youth and supporting their families. We
understand fully the responsibility that lies with our staff when it comes to
child protection. Over the course of the last 10 months, as minister in this
social department, I have seen how hard our front-line social workers, zone
managers and other management work. They are passionate and dedicated to the
safety and well-being of children and youth. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, while
this department deals with very challenging and difficult situations, there are
many rewards.
Mr.
Speaker, I've gone out and about to maybe close to a dozen offices, I've been on
a couple of First Nation reserves, I have been on the North Coast with my
colleague, the Member for Torngat, out around Central, the West Coast. It's when
you get out in those offices that you hear a different perspective than you do
in here in the boardroom while those senior executive staff does a fantastic
job, but there's no substitute for on-the-ground experience.
I have
just learned so much. I've seen the passion. They work hard. It's challenging.
Mr. Speaker, time won't permit me today to share some of the really powerful,
positive stories that happen in this social department, but I will share,
quickly, one that speaks to the dedication of some of the social workers we have
on our team, and it speaks to the rapport that our social workers build with
their clients.
That was
of a young man who was on our protection list, working with a social worker. He
didn't have a date for his graduation. And what did the social worker do, Mr.
Speaker? He invited her as his date to the grad. She obliged, she bought him a
corsage and she went. That's the kind of people that we have working out in the
field, in the trenches, doing challenging work in our department, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
So many wonderful stories
that make it all worthwhile.
Every
day we are continuing to build a child protection system that is responsive to
the priority needs of our children, youth and families; we are continuing to
make significant progress in creating a culture of accountability, excellence
and consistency across all programs in all regions. Today, beginning debate on
the new Children, Youth and Families Act,
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my opening, is a monumental step in this process. The
new act will be the cornerstone now from which all decisions are made.
The
proposed bill will improve information sharing; enhance the focus on maintaining
children and youth in their family home; expand permanency options for children
and youth in foster care; identify and support youth in need of protection; and
strengthen service delivery to indigenous children, youth and their families;
and develop a licensing regime for out-of-home placements.
So I'm
going to take you through briefly, Mr. Speaker, each of these six points that I
mentioned covered here in this new bill today. Information sharing: The new act
enhances what information can be shared in order to protect the safety and
well-being of children and youth. During our consultations, we received a lot of
feedback about existing barriers that prevent effective information sharing
between departmental staff and others who are involved in the lives of children
and youth.
It is
critical that all relevant information is available to protect the safety and
well-being of children. It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that we value the
relationships we have with the families that we work with. So we seek consent,
whenever possible, before disclosing that information.
New
provisions will allow a director or a manager to share information for the
purposes of case planning and integrated service delivery and when it is in the
best interest of the child as opposed to only when it is necessary to ensure the
safety, health or well-being of a child. This will provide clarity on when to
disclose information as the act outline the best interest principles.
Essentially, this provision provides clarity that a director or manager can
disclose information when it is in the best interest of the child. The current
act did not provide an interpretation on necessary which could have limited case
planning. For example, Mr. Speaker, a social worker may want to share
information about a child that is not necessary to ensure the child's safety but
it is in the child's best interest to share the information as it could help us
access additional services for that child.
This
provision also allows us to formally share information for a criminal court
proceeding, an investigation by the chief medical examiner and the child and
youth advocate. I want to be clear here, Mr. Speaker, that to date we have been
fully co-operative with the advocate whenever the office needed information as
it has carried out investigations or reviews. This just enshrines our practice,
what we're doing here today, Mr. Speaker, in our legislation.
The
advocate, as you would know and Members here in the House would know, is
independent of this House and carries out very valuable work, and anytime she
brings forward recommendations we embrace those. Anything we can do to improve
the lives and the safety of children and youth is something that we take very
serious, Mr. Speaker.
As well,
the right to information and information sharing section allows for a social
worker to obtain relevant information about the parent if it is required to
determine if a child is in need of protection or remains in need of protection.
This has a direct impact on a child's safety and well-being.
In
practice today, social workers are already obtaining information about a parent
under the current Children and Youth Care
and Protection Act. The new act
once again clarifies and confirms that this information can be obtained under
the Children, Youth and Families Act
if it is required so that we can determine if a child is in need of protection
or remains in need of protection.
By
clarifying and confirming – sometimes, Mr. Speaker, we have things in an act
that are a little open to interpretation. What we've done is try to provide some
clarity around that important piece. This provision will better equip staff with
the tools they need when working with families and partners to develop the best
plan for the protection of children.
Mr.
Speaker, the third bullet of the six: Preserving the family unit. We would
always want children to remain at home with their families whenever it is safely
possible. When a child or youth is in need of protection, social workers work
with families so that children and youth can remain living in the home where it
is determined safe to do so.
In fact,
Mr. Speaker, sometimes we spend a lot of time talking about the number of
children and youth that are in care, but most of the children and youth who have
interactions with the department remain in their family home. Approximately 80
per cent that we work with remain in their family home. Sometimes we don't talk
about the value around that piece and the important work that staff does.
The new
Children, Youth and Families Act
clearly highlights the value of family, as evidenced by the addition of the word
“families” in the title. My department not only works with children and youth,
we also work with families. We place tremendous value, Mr. Speaker, on keeping
families together. This act enshrines this and puts an emphasis, I believe,
clearly on the direction of where we want to go in the future.
Promoting the safety and well-being of children and youth means ensuring there
are the appropriate supports in place to preserve families. Yes, the children
and youth in these families need protective intervention but, Mr. Speaker, we
all need to challenge ourselves to provide better services to the family unit as
a whole, to reduce risk and to make home a safer place for the child.
These
are some of the conversations that happen in my boardroom every single day. We
have many, many staff and social workers working hard every day to ensure that
children and youth in need of protection are kept safe, but to never be
comfortable, Mr. Speaker, with the status quo.
Often
I've said in here – and the Minister of Health sometimes says I fashionably use
quotes. Another one I like is that the biggest room in any house is the room for
improvement. I like that. Every day, all of us, because of the important work we
do, need to challenge ourselves to provide better services. The answer is not
always placing a child or youth into foster care or some other alternate living
arrangement.
As I
noted, Mr. Speaker, just a couple of moments ago, 80 per cent of children and
youth who have interaction with our department remain in their family home. Many
of these families need support and services. By providing services like
counselling, behaviour management, parenting programs, we can provide the
supports needed to help children, youth and their families.
In 2017,
my department first started providing Triple P, Positive Parenting Program. Mr.
Speaker, this is a program that is considered one of the most effective parent
programs worldwide. Tripe P is an evidence-based education and support program
for parents that have been – the program has been extensively evaluated. It has
demonstrated effectiveness for families with complex needs and those who are at
risk of child maltreatment.
It is
available in most Canadian jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker. We've had 200-plus peer
reviewed research articles on this Tripe P parenting program. Everything that I
have learned since I've been at the department is that we are getting very, very
positive feedback.
I think
this Triple P parenting program is a good example of government using evidence
based and then implementing something that there's been research done and we've
seen the results and now we are using it, rolling it out here at home in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Although
we've only had this program in place for about a year, the feedback from parents
and social workers has been overwhelmingly positive. We are finding that by
providing these supports to reduce risk, we are enhancing safety of children and
maintaining children in the family home wherever that is possible.
A lot of
families need support from time to time and by placing a greater focus on
providing the resources necessary, we can help those families so that in many
cases they are no longer on the child protection system. That's a success story,
Mr. Speaker. That is a success story for everyone involved, but especially the
children.
Sometimes for various reasons, parents struggle, not that maybe they love their
child or children any less, but they struggle and they need that little bit of
extra support with parenting. So that's what Triple P parenting is helping us
do, Mr. Speaker.
My
department is also exploring services for vulnerable families not in need of
protection. I want to be clear here. Currently, our child protection program
focuses on tertiary services. That is helping the children, youth and families
that are in need of a protective intervention; however, as we carried out our
consultations into the Children and Youth
Care and Protection Act, secondary prevention services came up time and time
again as a way to help vulnerable families before there was an issue with child
and youth maltreatment.
Another
quote for you, Mr. Speaker, but I think about them all the time. They come to me
as I'm reading my notes. As my grandmother would say: An ounce of prevention is
worth a pound of cure. So if you can get in there and you can help that
vulnerable family, look at what you're going to save, not in terms of monetary
but what you're going to save for that child, prevent that child from being
taken from the home, which is always a last resort, and prevent those parents
from having to go through that terrible experience.
There
are opportunities to provide services to vulnerable families before they ever
enter into a Protective Intervention Program, thereby reducing even further the
number of children that are in our care.
For
instance, Mr. Speaker, in Towards Recovery: A Vision for a Renewed Mental Health
and Addictions System, one of the major areas for improvement is around early
intervention, including parenting skills and child development. There is a
working group my department sits on, which is addressing supports for new and
young families. There are also a tremendous number of parenting and program
services available across the province, like healthy baby clubs, educational and
support programs and Family Resource Centres, which do amazing fantastic work.
There's
a Family Resource Centre in my community where I grew up. We have a road
connection now, but in complete isolation in a very small community dotted along
the Southeast Coast of Labrador. We didn't have a lot, but I'll tell you that
the family resource program, I took both my children to that program and it
provides a service for birth to 12 and it was absolutely fantastic.
Sometimes young individuals may have children and they may not have really
received the parenting skills themselves. There is no manual that really comes
with being a parent. Sometimes we learn as we go. So you just need that little
bit of extra support and guidance, and that's what some of these programs are
doing. We want to build on that. We want to have more programs so we can get in
there early. We can prevent children from coming into care and the ones that do,
we can start working with them as early as possible to reunite them back at
home.
Mr.
Speaker, it is important to note that although the act acknowledges the role
that families have in the care and upbringing of children and youth, our acts
did vastly remain child and youth centred. If we are in situations where there
is a conflict between the safety, health and well-being of a child or youth and
the family unit, then the child or youth's safety, health and well-being will
always prevail. That is and always will be our primary focus.
The
fourth bullet, Mr. Speaker, is around permanency planning, where we plan on
going with permanency planning. Child protection is a critical and challenging
area of service delivery. Every day, child protection social workers in our
province work to assess the safety of children and make decisions, sometimes
difficult decisions, Mr. Speaker, often difficult decisions, to ensure their
protection. Most times it is safe to provide important services for children
while they remain at home but there are other times when, for the safety of the
child, that is not possible.
This
legislation expands and supports permanency efforts where the child or youth
lives with a relative or another person significant to them as opposed to
remaining in foster care. This means they have a chance to grow up with a
continued connection to their family. It is very, very important stuff we're
talking about here today, Mr. Speaker, about our children and youth.
All of
us I think will agree our children are our most prized possession in life. So we
have a responsibility for those that are vulnerable, as a government and as a
department, to ensure those that are in care or are on a protective intervention
list are getting the best service and that we can do everything we can to set
them on the right course for later in life when they become young adults and
branch out on their own. This will also allow for those relatives or others
close to the child or youth to obtain permanent custody of the child or youth
much more quickly than before.
Essentially, as an example, if the permanency plan for a child or youth is to
remain with a grandparent, the court may decide, based on a social worker's
recommendation, to transfer permanent custody to the grandparent without having
to wait for all the temporary custody orders to expire. I think sometimes, Mr.
Speaker, the way it was before this was taking maybe up to two years. You had to
have two temporary court orders, another custody order. Now, after six months, a
social worker may be able to recommend to a judge.
I'd be
remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I didn't mention here – and some of my colleagues,
especially those in Labrador will get this – we have large, large families, so
it was not uncommon for a child to grow up with grandma or with auntie.
Actually, myself, my own story, my grandmother had seven boys and two girls and
pretty much everyone else who went through. Doctors and dentists, they all came
to the house as well. Then I became the 10th child. At four years old, I went to
live with my grandparents in a home of 12. They were both seniors when they
actually took me in. I think I turned out okay, Mr. Speaker. I had a wonderful
upbringing by my grandmother. The values they instilled in me were tremendous.
Many
times we have children that grandma is caring for. She may not want to go
through all of the court process of adopting for various reasons, but she would
be willing to accept taking custody of the child and raising them. So that's
what we're talking about here today, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes I just share things
to put it into a little bit of context.
This is
also a really positive option in situations where either a child or youth or the
family or kin caring for them do not want to pursue adoption. Mr. Speaker, some
families prefer to have legal custody. This is another option to achieve
permanency for the child or youth. I believe the Member for Torngat will attest
we often see this as an option that indigenous families would prefer in those
large families. Rather than have a child leave the community, the child, if they
can't remain safely at home with mom and dad, will go to live with a kin.
Mr.
Speaker, I did mention that some of our children and youth in care have adoption
as their identified permanency plan. What that means is some of the children
that come into our care, they're never going home. Once they're assessed we
know. It's sad, it's heavy but it is reality in the world that we live in. For
those children that we know won't be going home to their families anymore, we
have to put a permanency plan in place.
Although
the adoption process has not changed with this new act, I am very pleased to
share with this House that in Budget 2018
we have committed $395,000 over the next two years to expedite children through
the adoption process, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
We have many children – too
many children that we know won't be going home. Social workers, there are so
many different competing priorities, demands on their time; they just sometimes
don't get to do those profiles and go through the adoption process. So we will
be focusing some extra resources there and it is our hope and intent that more
children will be adopted and will be placed into loving homes.
Mr.
Speaker, I talked about earlier, when I got up, about some of the challenges in
this department but also that there are rewards and success stories. Since we're
talking about adoptions, I also would be remiss if I didn't share a story that
happened, early days, when I was in the department. We had these two siblings –
16 and 17 I believe – and they had been in our care for a long, long time. Then
one morning, when we were about to start a meeting, one of my staff said: Guess
what? A family came forward and chose to adopt those two. Not easy to take on
two teenagers that hadn't had a home.
I'll
tell you, Mr. Speaker, that was a good day in our department, and we certainly
celebrated. I think about that young person, the elder that was just about to
age out of the system and what it must feel like to age out and not have a home
connection. Things that so many of our own children take for granted.
Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, I think that we are too good to them, if there is such a
thing as being too good to your children. Times have changed. Back in my day
when you grew up, you had your little chores and things to do and now we do a
lot of our children, but not every child has that. Not every child has the
loving home. So we applaud those people and I think there's a special place for
them that reach out and open their homes and their hearts and adopt. I certainly
appreciate them, as I know many of our staff and all of us here in the House do.
We want
to ensure we match children who are eligible for adoption with loving and
supportive families. By adding those dedicated resources, the $395,000 over two
years, we will hopefully allow more children eligible for adoption to be adopted
much more quickly. Right now, we know the wait time is too long.
Now I'm
going to talk about something that is also really near and dear to my heart, and
that is the youth services piece of this bill. I spent 23 years as a career and
employment counsellor before coming into public life, so most of my adult life
was working with young people. I definitely have a spot for young people,
tremendous respect and I am endeared to them.
Mr.
Speaker, when I was appointed Minister Children, Seniors and Social Development,
one of the actions the Premier directed me to carry out was to deliver a youth
services program that meets the needs of vulnerable youth in our province. In
fact, it was written right in my mandate letter.
I am
pleased to say the new Children, Youth and
Families Act delivers on this commitment. We have made changes which allow a
youth under a youth services agreement to receive services up to their 21st
birthday, regardless of whether or not they were in care on their 16th birthday.
During
consultations, we heard repeatedly that the youth services program was too
restrictive. We heard it prevented youth from receiving important services they
needed because of age and eligibility restrictions. So what do we do, Mr.
Speaker? We fixed that.
The
legislation is now more open for youth so they can avail of important services
that we offer. It also allows for greater protection for youth, as the duty to
report maltreatment now includes youth age 16 and 17. It is our intent that with
these changes to the program we can help youth transition more successfully into
adulthood and give them the tools they need to be active, productive members of
our society.
Sometimes it's hard to measure the tangible results with the types of things
that we are talking about today, but if you can provide the supports to youth at
that vulnerable time in their life where they're somewhere between adolescence
and a young adult, there can be tremendous savings realized in other areas.
They're not ending up at Her Majesty's Penitentiary and they're not ending up on
income support and things like that. That is the intent and spirit of this bill,
Mr. Speaker, providing the extra services as you are a little older that we will
see fruitful outcomes from that.
The last
piece is around indigenous children and youth. That is a significant part of
this bill, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure if I mentioned it in the press conference
or since I was speaking here today, but my staff have made numerous trips to
Labrador, in particular, during the consultation process so that they could sit
with the indigenous governments and organizations.
Some of
these communities – it's no secret – are dealing with really complex issues. We
know right across the country there is an overrepresentation of indigenous
children and youth in care. I travelled to Ottawa in January where myself and my
colleagues across the provinces and territories spent a couple of days
discussing that very topic with federal Minister Philpott.
I was
thinking about this a lot the last few days, and even thinking about my own
experience of growing up where I did so far from this Legislature and from where
bills and laws are made around the province. I think a lot of times decisions
were made here with not as much understanding of reality on the ground as maybe
could have been.
I also
read something somewhere that the closer decisions are made to the people most
impacted by them, the stronger the likelihood of them to succeed. I think
there's a lot of truth in that. Mr. Speaker, I'm really pleased with the level
of consultation that was carried with the indigenous governments and
organizations as we prepared for this bill.
The
overrepresentation of indigenous children and youth in care is a serious
concern, Mr. Speaker. Not just for me as the minister in this department and I
would venture to say not even just for my colleagues on this side of the House,
but all Members in this House of Assembly. We are working hard to address this
issue, including our commitment to work co-operatively with both the inquiry
into the treatment of Innu children in care and the Child and Youth Advocate's
review of child protection services in Inuit communities.
We also
highlighted the need to make significant changes to our legislation with respect
to indigenous children and youth. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that through direct
consultations with the indigenous organizations and governments, we have
included substantial changes to the new Children, Youth and Families Act which addresses indigenous
involvement in service coordination and planning, information sharing and, very
importantly, inclusion of cultural and community connections in decision making
regarding an indigenous child or youth.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to stress to this House today the significance of this
recognition. The current act does not directly mention our indigenous
governments or organizations at all. This is a first for child protection
legislation in this province. This inclusion is meaningful for indigenous
children, youth and families. These are meaningful changes, Mr. Speaker, which
acknowledge the uniqueness of indigenous cultures and ensure that whatever
decisions are made for indigenous children and youth, they are done with culture
in mind. It also ensures indigenous representatives are aware of protective
intervention hearings and other hearings pertaining to the supervision and
custody of indigenous children and youth.
We have
extensively reviewed legislation from across the country and this new
legislation is now in line with others in Canada. I am very pleased to be able
to say that and to share that with this House. The fact that the current act
made no mention and this act is so focused in that area, Mr. Speaker, I believe
it means we are moving in the right direction. I hope it will show the
indigenous governments and leaders around the province that we've certainly
listened to the feedback and we have incorporated and weaved into the bill,
wherever possible, that feedback.
There
has been much discussion over the last several years about truth and
reconciliation. Our own government, I am proud to say, supports the calls to
action. With this legislation, we will be addressing several action items,
particularly those addressing children in care being placed in culturally
appropriate environments.
I was
just going to take a moment, Mr. Speaker, the four calls to action in the truth
and reconciliation that are woven throughout and we have addressed in this act,
include: Keeping Aboriginal families together where it is safe to do so; affirm
the right of Aboriginal governments to establish and maintain their own child
welfare agencies; require all child welfare agencies and courts to take the
residential school legacy into account when making their decision making;
establish, as an important priority, a requirement that placements of Aboriginal
children into temporary and permanent care be culturally appropriate.
Those
are the four calls to action in the truth and reconciliation related to my
department and that are woven throughout this bill. I'm pleased that I believe
we have addressed all of them, Mr. Speaker.
Another
provision I am especially proud of is this legislation will provide authority to
delegate functions and services to indigenous governments and organizations.
This is something that is happening in other regions of our country and ensures
indigenous agencies deliver some or all of the child welfare services in a
community directly.
Mr.
Speaker, it ensures indigenous agencies deliver some or all of the child welfare
services in a community directly. I know this is something that the Nunatsiavut
Government, the Mushuau Innu Nation, Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation and Miawpukek
First Nation are especially interested in delivering. I look forward to working
with these indigenous governments and organizations to move forward on this
particular provision.
Mr.
Speaker, as an indigenous person, I am proud that I am the Minister of Children,
Seniors and Social Development who is bringing forward these provisions. I
didn't keep it quite all together in a press conference earlier. Like you put so
much work into this, you know some of the challenges, the sad stories. Every day
you wish you could fix all the problems – you can't. I often say to staff, let's
fix one today, let's fix one.
There
are so many sad stories, Mr. Speaker, but there are also very positive stories.
I wish I had the time on the clock to share some of the positive ones about the
tremendous people, about the community partners we work with and do what we can
to help improve the lives of those children and youth.
Mr.
Speaker, here in this particular case, I have been afforded a tremendous
privilege that I will never forget. I got to be this person to bring forward
this particular bill, Bill 14. I truly believe the provisions for indigenous
children and youth are a tremendous step forward for our province. It shows our
commitment to work with indigenous governments and organizations to address
these very serious issues. These provisions are an important step forward in
reconciliation and ensuring indigenous children and youth involved in the child
protection system retain those all-important connections to their families and
communities.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm reminded all the time when I travel back and forth on the weekends
to my district, it's a world away from here. It takes me a whole day to get
there and a whole day to come back. Then you think about children that get taken
from some of these communities and are taken so far away and what they
experience. So I'm very pleased we're going to be able to address and hopefully
minimize some of that, help keep children in their communities and with kin.
Mr.
Speaker, I believe the final point in this bill is around licensing and
regulation. I have spoken in this hon. House about the need for foster parents.
Although we work hard to recruit more foster parents, the reality is there are
too few foster homes to meet the needs of all children and youth in care.
I was
giving this some thought as well, Mr. Speaker. Times have changed today. When
you look back to maybe fostering a decade or two decades ago, maybe you had one
parent that was in the home and it was easier to take in children. Now most
families, you have two people that work outside the home. We have more children
it seems with complex needs in society, and so we're always challenged.
Before I
move on, I do want to just toss a bouquet out there in this province today to
anyone who has ever taken on fostering. I don't think I could do it, Mr.
Speaker. My hat goes off to them and my heart goes out to them. It's very, very
important work they do.
Last
fall, I got to sign a proclamation and declare Foster Families Week. Some of the
stories there, you talk to people who have been fostering for 25 years. Then you
have someone that quietly says over their shoulder: I do it because someone gave
me a chance. I was in foster care, I bounced from home to home and then someone
took me in and kept me until I aged out. It's powerful stuff, Mr. Speaker.
We're
not talking about roads, infrastructure and capital works. I say it all the
time, those things are important. We have lively, spirited debate here in the
House, as it should be, about those things. We all put our name forward and we
want to do our part to make our little corner of the world better, but at the
end of the day it all comes down to relationships. Life is about the places
you've been, the people you met and the memories you made along the way. It's
the relationships with colleagues, with family and with community. Sometimes,
Mr. Speaker, it must be daunting for children to feel they don't have anyone,
they don't have family.
In my
district, Mr. Speaker, I know a family who has been fostering for at least 25
years and here are the kinds of things they do. When the man in that household
was going through a very difficult time medically, some health issues, they
thought we won't foster right now because we're not sure about his health. They
had taken three children in. Three young boys they had taken in as an emergency
placement, but they did not keep them because of the health issues of the
individual.
Once
they were taken out of Labrador in my district, the family didn't know where
they went. They get a call from this boy, the oldest boy. He was not very old,
10 or 12. Somehow he got the phone number and he called this lady. He said:
They're going to separate us. He said: You know you can take us. The end result
of that, Mr. Speaker, they took those three boys. They had them for 10 or 12
years until they all graduated, one by one.
That's
the kind of things that foster families do. I want to welcome those from Foster
Families Associations that are here today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
It's important to mention
that, Mr. Speaker. Most of us, we get so busy in our lives we don't have time to
visit your aunt down the road. Then you have these people who gave so much so
that other children would have a chance at life.
That's a
story that's near and dear to my heart. It was in my district. I know the people
very well. They had these issues and they took these three boys. I remember when
the first one graduated and was going off to the Army; he didn't know what he
was going to do at Christmas. That family said: You will always have a home to
come home to.
Those
are the people, Mr. Speaker, the unsung heroes behind the scenes. They're not
out looking for accolades, but they are to be commended for the work they do,
and I appreciate each of them.
Under
the licensing, because we don't have enough foster homes, this means some
children and youth are placed in least-preferred residential placements such as
group homes. We have looked at what other jurisdictions are doing in this
regard, and we can make provisions which improve upon our current practices.
The new
Children, Youth and Families Act will
contain provisions which licence agencies to recruit, assess, train and approve
foster homes on behalf of the department. It will also licence non-governmental
entities to establish and operate family based and staff residential placements
to provide care to children and youth in foster care. While with the family or
with a kin is the preferred option if the child can't be reunited with their
family, and if not in a family based, last resorts are group homes or individual
living arrangements. We don't want that, Mr. Speaker.
It was
not so long ago, I remember a time in this province when children were living in
hotel rooms. We had a lot of children that were out of province. We had more
than 50 children out of province at one point. We have brought them home, Mr.
Speaker, thanks to the hard work of staff within the department. We have now
probably no more than a dozen children and children are no longer in hotel
rooms.
We are
making strides. We're making progress. This new bill, this new piece of
legislation will allow us to continue to build upon the success that has already
been made.
It's
important to note that the responsibility of the health, safety and well-being
of children and youth in care remains with our department. This provision, the
provision of reaching out to an agency and having them be able to recruit foster
homes – I was asked one of those questions related to that after the press
conference earlier today, but I want to stress, Mr. Speaker, the responsibility
of the health, safety and well-being of children and youth in care will continue
to remain with our department. This provision just helps us to increase the
number of foster homes.
Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, those groups that are closer to the ground, they have
that local knowledge. They might be aware of foster homes or spaces that we may
not have.
As a
matter of fact, I was on a flight with my colleague for Lab West in March maybe,
we were heading up to Cain's Quest. I was sitting next to a brand new baby that
was going to a home. The lady said she had been contacted. I'm not sure if she
was on a list, but someone contacted her and said we need a home. That's the
kind of local knowledge, that's the stuff that will allow us to build more
foster homes which is definitely the preferred option for the child if they
can't be with family or kin, certainly more so than group homes and ILAs and
things of that nature, Mr. Speaker.
We will
also develop regulations which will support this licensing regime and provide
accountability. We have already explored part of this model with a pilot
project. To date, it has shown early signs of success. By enshrining this in
legislation, we can provide more family-based placements to children and youth
which is the preferred option always when a child or youth cannot stay with
their own family.
Mr.
Speaker, these are the major substantive changes proposed for our new child
protection legislation. As we get into the bill, there are other minor
legislative adjustments but I believe, or at least I hope, I have captured the
spirit of the new Children, Youth and
Families Act here today.
This is
a proud moment, Mr. Speaker, for me. It really, really is. In my dining room
there's a big plaque, some of my colleagues here that's been there will have
seen, that says: We do not remember days, we remember moments. This is a proud
moment for me.
The
staff in my department have worked very hard putting this bill together, lots of
late nights. I certainly appreciate the efforts of the staff. They have produced
a truly comprehensive piece of legislation which builds on the principles of the
former legislation to promote the safety and well-being of children and youth
who are in need of protective intervention.
It will
have tremendous positive impacts for children, youth and families in our
province who are in need of our programs and services. It's good I'm nearly
finished, Mr. Speaker, because I'm out of water. As I mentioned earlier, this
legislation is child and youth centred, family focused and culturally
responsive. It is my hope indigenous governments and organizations will be
supportive of the new focus – wonderful colleagues I have in the House – which
ensures their direct involvement with respect to children and youth in care.
Mr.
Speaker, this new legislation is extensive. There will be much work to complete
if it receives Royal Assent. For this reason, the legislation will come into
effect 12 months from Royal Assent. This will allow us time to put in place new
policies and procedures, provide training to all our staff and develop the
necessary regulations. I look forward to debate on Bill 14, An Act Respecting
Children, Youth and Families.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll end with something that I heard the premier of Nunavut say in
January. He said: We measure the success of our community now by the well-being
of our people. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that if we use that here, this act will give
us one gigantic step forward to helping the health and well-being of our
vulnerable families and youth in care. So I hope hon. Members will join me in
supporting this important piece of legislation.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS.
PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's certainly an honour and a privilege to rise in
this hon. House, in my role as critic, to respond to the second reading of Bill
14, the Children, Youth and Families Act.
I concur with the minister that this certainly is a very significant piece of
legislation and it has a lot of components that we feel will be very beneficial
to children and youth of this province.
I'm going to spend some of my time talking a little bit
in second reading about the background on the
Children and Youth Care and Protection Act. The first act was
implemented on June 30, 2011. This act governed the conduct of social workers,
managers and others in the child and youth protection division of Children,
Seniors and Social Development.
The act outlines processes as it relates to child
protection. Included in this legislation is a clause which required a statutory
review in five years, and that review commenced on June 30, 2016. The statutory
review was quite extensive. It included feedback from over 30 organizations,
stakeholders and children, families who received services and youth who received
or have received services. There were 170 surveys undertaken with employees,
including social workers, and a What We
Heard document was posted on April 17, 2018, a few weeks ago.
The bill we have before us today, Bill 14, will repeal
the existing act and replace it with a new act, as the minister explained, An
Act Respecting Children, Youth and Families. This bill has six broad principles,
Mr. Speaker. The first being improving information sharing, and this includes
formal information sharing arrangements with indigenous leaders; two, enhancing
the focus on preserving the family unit; three, expanding permanency options for
children and youth who are in foster care; four, service delivery to indigenous
children and youth; five, identifying and supporting youth in need of
protection; and the sixth broad principle is the implementation of a licensing
regime for out-of-home placements.
With
respect to information sharing, during the consultations the department heard
that there were barriers to sharing information and that although information
sharing could be in the best interests of the child or youth, it could not be
facilitated. This legislation specifies that a director or manager can disclose
information when it is in the best interests of the child or youth for the
purpose of case management planning, integrated service delivery or for criminal
court proceedings. That information can be shared with the Child and Youth
Advocate or the medical examiner, Mr. Speaker.
This
legislation also clarifies that when a social worker can obtain information
about the parent to determine if the child requires protective services – so it
would clarify when the information would be made available to them or
circumstances in which they would be able to acquire it. In policy and practice,
the social worker will ask for consent ahead of using the legislative
provisions.
The act
recognizes that it is ideal to keep children and youth in their homes with their
families; however, the safety of the child is paramount. The act clarifies that
the safety and well-being of children and youth is more important than keeping
them with their families. First and foremost, the safety and well-being of the
child will be paramount in this new legislation, Mr. Speaker.
In terms
of permanency planning, when a youth is removed from their family, planning must
begin and focus on returning the child or youth to their home or placing them in
an alternate family home. The preference is to have more children or youth
reside with a relative or a significant person as opposed to remaining in foster
care. The goal is to achieve permanency in a timelier manner.
One of
the tangible changes in this legislation is that instead of issuing temporary
court orders, if a social worker believes that the permanency solution is found,
then he or she can make a recommendation to the court to award legal custody,
Mr. Speaker. That, again, is another significant piece, I feel, in this
legislation.
As the
minister has already outlined, indigenous children and youth are also a very
huge focus of this new legislation. It includes a definition of indigenous
children and youth and acknowledges the uniqueness of indigenous culture.
The
legislation has new provisions that were not included in the existing
legislation which require that children and youth who are in care have a
cultural connection plan, and this must be filed with the court. It requires
that when considering placements for children and youth in care, that a
connection to their culture and their community must be maintained.
It
requires a notice of protective intervention hearings and other hearings to be
served to the indigenous representatives. They may be given the ability to be
heard in court. As well, it enhances the sharing of information with indigenous
governments and organizations. This legislation also includes the provision that
the minister can delegate functions and programs to the indigenous governments,
with the approval of Cabinet, for them to carry out directly.
The
youth services program will continue to be voluntary under this program.
Currently, youth can receive services until the age of 21, as long as they are
enrolled in an educational or rehabilitation program; but this legislation is
going to remove that requirement that they be in an education or rehabilitation
program and it will allow the youth to continue to receive services until the
age of 21. They will still have to have individual work plans, which will help
them with their goals and aspirations.
The age
for which mandatory reporting of youth in need of protection is required will
increase from 16 to 17. The option for youth to leave custody before the age of
18 will be removed. That certainly helps. In the past, there has sometimes been
an issue with having children fall through the cracks between the ages of 16 and
18, in particular. So the new act is addressing that as well, Mr. Speaker.
Currently, there are two streams of programming within the department. If a
youth was receiving services on their 16th birthday, they would be entitled to a
different level of programs than a youth who is not receiving services on their
16th birthday.
This was
referred to by departmental officials during our briefing as two streams. The
legislation would remove the two streams, making it a one-program stream. So the
youth will be able to receive services up until the age of 21, regardless of
whether or not they were receiving services at the time of their 16th birthday.
Licensing and regulation is an area of the bill that will probably have the most
questions when we get to Committee of the Whole; although, we still have a
significant number of questions that we will pose during the Committee stage.
This
legislation will set up a legislative framework for the department to implement
a regulatory framework for private agencies to have the ability to licence
foster homes. These private agencies will be able to obtain licences to recruit,
assess, train and approve foster homes. Non-government entities will be licensed
to operate family-based and staff residential placement to provide care to
children and youth in foster care.
We don't
have a lot of the details at this stage, Mr. Speaker, from the bill itself.
Future regulations, we are told, will provide much more of the detail in
relation to this aspect of the bill. What we do know is that there is currently
a pilot project ongoing with a private company called Key Assets. In this pilot,
a child is placed into a family home and Key Assets provide supports around the
family. This is the type of program which the legislation and regulatory regime
will be promoting. Like I said, we do seek some more information and clarity
particularly around that component of this bill.
In
comparing Bill 14 with the definitions which currently exist in the
Children and Youth Care and Protection Act,
most are the same or have some very minor changes to them, but definitions are
added for indigenous child, indigenous government or organization, indigenous
representative and indigenous youth.
With
respect to the general principles of the bill; in the first act there was
reference to indigenous cultural identity but in – no, indigenous cultural
identity, I'm sure in the first act wasn't there, I'm sorry. The clauses that
have been added are indigenous – I'm trying not to say that word clause, Mr.
Speaker, in second reading – reference to indigenous cultural identity (f) and
the importance of the preferred environment section (h) are added.
It also
defines new and specifies that the safety, health and well-being of a child is
always more important than having the child remain with their family. That's a
major shift in policy, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the legislation itself. I would
think it has always been a practice and a policy, but this certainly enshrines
that first and foremost the needs of the child are what takes precedence. I
think all of these changes that are being brought forward are going to indeed be
beneficial to the children and youth of this province who really need our
support and our care.
In terms
of duty to report; as I said a little while ago, all citizens will have the
responsibility for reporting any concerns or abuse they may witness. That duty
to report was for children up to the age of 16, and this new bill increases that
to the age of 17.
I'm not
sure, Mr. Speaker, prior even to my time in politics, issues like duty to
report, you were aware but you didn't fully understand, I don't think. I think,
Minister, in terms of going forward, one of the things we can do in terms of
increased awareness around this act and how we promote our children is increased
emphasis to the public at large in terms of duty to report. It's certainly
something everyone should know and be aware of what their duty is if they see
anything that causes concern for the well-being of the child.
In terms
of determining the need for protective intervention; this new act expands the
provision to include youth in addition to child, and it allows a social worker
to determine whether or not a youth is in need of protective intervention.
The
order to prohibit conduct has been added to this legislation as well. This
section allows a judge to make interim orders which remain in effect while the
hearing is taking place.
I
certainly do commend the minister and her staff for quite an extensive,
extensive amount of work that has been done on this significant bill. Like the
minister has said, it will impact on each and every one of our children in this
province, and certainly enhance the lives of those at risk.
There
are many other components as well to this new bill, protective intervention
hearing. This section will give the judge the ability to permanently transfer
custody to a person, other than the child's parent. This is done with the
consent of the person who will get custody, the child if they are 12 years old
or older, and if the child has been residing with this person for at least six
months, Mr. Speaker.
There's
another section in the bill that will deal with subsequent orders. In this
piece, as the minister has outlined, the inclusion of notifying indigenous
representatives of the hearing is included here as well. As the minister has
already explained quite well, this is a huge component. The culture of our
indigenous children is something they should always have access to, Mr. Speaker.
I know,
myself, living close to an indigenous community – for example, their justice
circle as a different method, but a cultural method of dealing with issues of
concern they have with respect to the law, Mr. Speaker. It works so very, very
well. The success rate of their programs is absolutely phenomenal. Who knows
best what a child needs other than the ones who love the children the most, and
that would be their families, their extended families and their communities at
large.
Another
quote that's quite common is: “It takes a village to raise a child.” That is
certainly very, very true. We should be making every effort to keep our
indigenous children in close connection with their culture and indigenous
communities where possible. These are all aspects of the bill that we, on this
side of the House with respect to the Opposition Party, are certainly strongly
supportive of. We see these as good changes that are being brought forward here
today, Mr. Speaker.
In terms
of permanent transfer of custody after the continuous custody order, this
section applies to a situation where a child is in the care of a manager under a
continuous custody order and the manager or social worker believes there is
another person – for example, a family member or an adult significant to the
child – in which the child should be placed with. This will allow the social
worker or manager to apply to have custody transferred to this individual and
permanency custody may be transferred by the judge. This is also an option which
social workers can use to help children and youth in care find permanency in a
timelier manner.
Mr.
Speaker, in my time since I've become a parliamentarian, this is one of the
issues that has been expressed to me. Many very fortunate children have found
some wonderful, loving homes, and one of the frustrations for their new families
is how difficult it is to acquire permanent custody. So this process, we feel,
should help in that regard as well.
At this
point in my life, I'm getting long in the tooth too, so I might be too old, who
knows when I finish; and being in politics, I'm away from home far too much; but
foster parenting is something that has always appealed to me and, in particular,
for the older children.
Even in
looking at this bill, as a critic, I'm thinking to myself: My gosh, there are a
whole lot of wonderful things in this bill that will enable people like me who
are considering becoming foster parents to really feel comfortable that there is
strong legislation in place that will help support foster parents as well as the
children, and any people who are caregivers for the children. Be they
significant people, extended family, grandparents, but certainly a greater level
of comfort that if the placement seems to be an ideal permanency placement then,
hopefully, it should be facilitated a little easier with the passing of this
bill, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
flipping my pages now kind of quickly because most of these are questions that
we will have once we get to Committee of the Whole. The other piece that I did
want to talk about before I conclude my commentary is again back to the whole
delegation section; that's the last part of the bill. It will allow the minister
to delegate programs and services to the indigenous governments or organizations
by way of an agreement with Cabinet approval.
This is
something that I understand from the What
We Heard document and various discussions that we've had with indigenous
communities, some even during our time with the mental health and addictions
committee, that the local governments of the indigenous communities sometimes
can offer their own unique solutions that may work better in some circumstances,
Mr. Speaker. This really opens the door to those conversations and to those
types of agreements coming forward.
One of
the things that, I guess, as an Official Opposition we would like to say, with
respect to this piece of the legislation, is to ensure that adequate resources
and funding are allocated to ensure the implementation of this bill is
successful. There may be components of it which will require additional
resources. We certainly would like to see government strongly committed to
ensuring whatever resources are needed to carry out the amendments to this bill
and are put in place.
The last
part of the bill pretty much deals with regulations. There will be a vast
regulatory authority for the minister and the Lieutenant-Governor in Council,
Mr. Speaker. Those regulations we haven't seen yet and they will be forthcoming.
That's an area where all persons interested in this bill will want to take
another look as well and ensure that the regulations are also meeting what has
been expressed in the What We Heard
document.
Overall,
I have to say we often get up in this House and it is our job and our role as
Opposition to point out issues and concerns where they exist, but it's also our
job, Mr. Speaker, to point out good things that we see. From time to time, we do
see good things. I would have to say with the exception of a few questions we
still have outstanding that we're looking for some clarity on, I can safely and
confidently say that overall we're pleased with this bill; we're pleased with
the changes that are being brought forward.
We do
think it will have a very positive impact on the children and youth of
Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the families of Newfoundland and Labrador,
Mr. Speaker, the families of these children and youth, the foster families who I
know dearly love the children that come into their care. Overall, hopefully this
will make Newfoundland and Labrador a better place for our children, youth and
their families.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for
Lewisporte - Twillingate.
MR. D. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm honoured to stand here in this House of Assembly today to speak to
Bill 14, An Act Respecting Children, Youth and Families.
I'd just
like to thank the Member opposite from Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune for all of her
kind words. I'm glad to see her today at the media release when the
minister spoke and that she had the opportunity to speak to media after and
showed her support towards it. I'm sure all Members in this hon. House will be
doing the same today. It's a great bill. A lot of work and time and effort have
gone into it. What you see here today, since I've been here a little over two
years, it's probably the thickest bill that has been passed in this House of
Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to recognize our friends up
in the balcony from the Foster Families Association and to thank them for all
the great work that they do in our province, uniting children with the families.
I wish them much continued success and we appreciate everything that you do, so
thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
D. BENNETT:
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development spoke so
elegant and passionate earlier. She highlighted that the staff have done such an
outstanding job of putting this document together. She also did an excellent job
explaining what this legislation we are going to be debating here today. I've
been honoured to serve as the parliamentary secretary to the minister since
2015, shortly after I was elected.
I have supported the minister and the department
throughout that time and I've experienced first-hand the dedication, commitment
and tireless advocacy that our social workers carry out for the children and
youth in our province each and every day, Mr. Speaker. The protection and care
of vulnerable children and youth is a core value of our government. Unless
you're emerged in this field, it is very hard to appreciate the type of issues
that come forward. I certainly garner a whole new respect for the many social
workers who assess risk on a daily basis and make the best decisions for the
children or youth at risk.
The backbone for the work is based on this legislation,
Mr. Speaker. Currently that is the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act but will be replaced with
the new legislation: Children, Youth and
Families Act. The new act does not change our focus; it remains children and
youth centred. What this means is that it is the guide by which all social
workers with the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development will
conduct their work.
These social workers investigate allegations of
maltreatment and provide necessary interventions, supports and services to
families. Then, together with the family, they develop a plan to reduce the
identified risk. Safe, stable, nurturing relationships and environments are
essential to prevent child abuse and neglect, and to help all children and youth
reach their full potential. As a government, we recognize the child protection system cannot remain
static. We must ensure it evolves so that it continues to meet the needs of
children, youth and their families.
Today's
legislation came out of extensive consultation with the Department of Children,
Seniors and Social Development since 2016. The
Children and Youth Care and Protection Act clearly indicates
under section 80 that a statutory review shall be completed every five years and
shall include public consultations. I'm happy to note that in the new
Child, Youth and Families Act remains
this statutory provision under section 102.
It is by working with our families, stakeholders and social
workers in this matter that we can enhance child protection legislation which
benefits children and youth. As a collective, we need to work together to help
children grow up to be healthy and productive citizens so that they in turn can
build stronger and safer families and communities for their children and youth.
Mr. Speaker, every accomplishment we make in the field of
child protection can be credited to the input, hard work and co-operation from
everyone in our province who is committed to enhancing our child protection
system. Every stakeholder and individual's voice must be heard. It is these
voices which have formed the new Child,
Youth and Families Act.
The consultation process was lengthy and comprehensive. We
worked closely with the Office of Public Engagement to develop and design a
consultation process that would ensure all those interested in providing
feedback on the child protection legislation, including those directly impacted
by any changes made in the act, would have every opportunity to do so.
Mr. Speaker, this included directly seeking input from
stakeholders and the general public on the current act through a comprehensive
engagement approach that included targeted in-person and virtual dialogue
sessions, focus groups and questionnaires. A discussion guide was also posted on
the department's website for interested individuals and groups to send written
submissions directly to our department.
We had over 30 stakeholder groups participate and we
received over 170 surveys from children, youth, families and staff of the
Department of CSSD. I hope that all these groups and individuals will be able to
see their impacts in this new legislation. I personally want to thank all those
groups and individuals for taking the time out of their busy days and providing
some very thought-provoking and constructive suggestions to our department. Together, we have worked
hard to produce what is a positive and forward-thinking legislation.
As the
Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development mentioned, this new act is
progressive and builds on the principles contained in the current
Children and Youth Care and Protection Act.
It may not have been the original intention to create a new act from the offset;
however, taking into account the changes which resulted from the consultation as
well as the jurisdictional and child protection legislative reviews, it
certainly evolved into a new legislation.
The
Child, Youth and Families Act, as the
minister said, is child and youth centred, family focused and culturally
responsive. It is about doing what's best for children, youth and their
families.
Mr.
Speaker, substantive changes to child protection in this legislation include: an
enhanced focus on maintaining children and youth in their family homes by
recognizing the role of family in promoting the safety and well-being of
children and youth; by identifying and supporting youth in need of protection by
increasing the scope of duty to report to include youth; by removing
restrictions so that all youth under a youth services agreement can receive
services until they reach the age of 21, which was previously the age of 19;
expanding permanency options for children and youth by establishing a process so
that children and youth who are declared in need of protective intervention by a
judge can be placed in permanent custody of a person, such as relative or other
significant to that child or youth; by improving information sharing to assist
in the protection of children and youth; establishing a licensing and regulatory
framework for agencies, family-based placement providers and residential
placement providers to increase accountability and provide options to increase
the number of foster homes.
Also, by
strengthening support deliveries to indigenous children, youth and their
families, requiring that a cultural connection plan for an indigenous child or
an indigenous youth who is removed from his or her home will be included in the
plan that is filed with the court for the indigenous child or indigenous youth.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, establishing the ability for indigenous representation of
prescribed indigenous governments or organizations to be heard in the courtroom;
thirdly, requiring specific placement considerations for indigenous children and
indigenous youth who are in care or custody of their manager; also requiring
that notice of hearings relating to the supervision and custody of an indigenous
child or an indigenous youth be served to indigenous representation; and,
finally, providing authority to delegate functions and services under the act to
an indigenous government organization.
Mr.
Speaker, as the minister mentioned in her speech, there has been much discussion
over the last several years about truth and reconciliation. Our own government,
I'm very proud to say, supports the Calls
to Action. With this legislation, we will be addressing several action
items, particularly those addressing children in care being placed in culturally
appropriate environments.
Changes
to the act support the following four
Calls to Action: provide adequate resources to enable Aboriginal communities
and child-welfare organizations to keep Aboriginal families together where it is
safe to do so, and to keep children in culturally appropriate environments,
regardless of where they reside; secondly, to affirm the right of Aboriginal
governments to establish and maintain their own child-welfare agencies; third,
to require all child-welfare agencies and courts to take the residential school
legacy into account into their decision making; and, finally, establish, as an
important priority, a requirement that placements of our Aboriginal children
into temporary and permanent care be culturally appropriate.
Mr.
Speaker, the minister has gone into these areas into depth, but I would like to
focus a little more of my time to speak to the youth services provision. As part
of the CSSD minister's mandate, the Premier provided direction to review the
Youth Services Program to ensure that the program is responsive to the unique
needs of our youth. Because a statutory review process was already scheduled to
take place, the department decided to incorporate the review of youth services
into this process.
We had
heard from a number of our partners that some of our young people need extra
help as they transition into adulthood. The program did not have the flexibility
needed as it was too restrictive and it prevented youth from receiving necessary
services because of age and eligibility requirements.
Changes
brought about in the new Children, Youth
and Families Act will remove some of these restrictions and will mean that
all youth under the age of 21 will now be able to avail of these services. This
is regardless of whether they were in care on their 16th birthday.
We will
increase the scope of duty to report maltreatment to youth so it is mandatory
for the public to report youth, ages 16 and 17 years old, in need of protection.
We will remove the requirement for youth to be in an educational or
rehabilitative program in order to receive these services. This will be changed
to a requirement that the youth engage in an individualized plan that will help
address the youth's strengths and also their needs.
Another
change to increase the support provided to youth will remove the option for
youth to leave continuous custody before their 18th birthday. Thus, ensuring the
youth continue the support received by a social worker, these important
transition years, as they move towards their adult years. These are positive
enhancements which I feel many of our stakeholders will be very pleased with.
During
my time as parliamentary secretary with this department, I've had the
opportunity to address several of these groups such as Choices for Youth, Foster
Families Association and they do tremendous work in helping youth within our
communities. We are proud of the relationship we have with these groups. These
legislative changes will do much to help vulnerable youth in our province and
give them the extra tools that they need as they move into adult years.
Mr.
Speaker, in closing, I will be supporting Bill 14, An Act Respecting Children,
Youth and Families and I ask all hon. Members in this House to also support this
legislation. It is progressive and, more importantly, it keeps the protection
and care of children and youth at it's very core.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I am
very pleased today to stand and speak to Bill 14, which is called
Children, Youth and Families Act and
especially pleased because I was here in the House when the current act came in,
in 2011, and I remember at that time not being happy with the new act. One of
the reasons that I wasn't was because the act in 2011 had lost the emphasis on
the family unit and supporting parents and helping them keep children in the
home, if it was a safe place to be.
That was
a real concern of mine and of ours – our caucus at the time. To now see this new
bill, which is before us today, recognizing that a family is an essential part
of what needs to be considered if we're going to help our children, it really
pleases me very much. I want to thank the minister for giving that direction
because I'm sure she did give that direction. Not only do we hope that family is
going to be considered, family is actually in the title, as I said a minute ago.
It's the Children, Youth and Families Act.
Children
don't exist in isolation. We all know how important it is, the relationship
between parents and children. It's very often that parents are not at fault for
not being able to parent. We sometimes take for granted that parenting comes
naturally. I think we all, in this House and anybody watching, have enough
experience to know that in actual fact it don't come naturally. We all parent in
different ways, but we have enough experience in our community to know that very
often people need help with parenting. That happens specifically, I think, in
our current situation because of the fact of the changes in how community has
developed over the years.
We, for
the most part, don't have the same sense of family community and family being
broader than just the immediate family. The extended family is not as strong as
it used to be, and I think that parenting gets learned through extended families
in many ways. Now, bad parenting can get learned that way as well, but I think
we do have a responsibility to make sure that parents and those who are charged
with taking care of children do understand good parenting.
So I'm
really pleased that the bill today is putting family back in. Again, the focus,
of course, is the safety of children; that children are secure, that they're
safe, that they're being taken care of. We don't want children in situations
where they're not safe.
The
realization that sometimes it's not the fault of the family, it's not the fault
of the parents if they don't have the full environment that's needed for the
child – and experience tells us that working with the families can really
benefit both the parents and the children. That's why I was really pleased to
hear the minister talking about the Triple P program, Positive Parenting
Program, which has been introduced into the province. She did talk about how
successful this is in other places. I'm sure we're already experiencing that
it's successful here as well.
There
are so many ways in which families need support; the Positive Parenting Program
is one way. Sometimes we'll see that parents may need access to mental health
counselling, addictions counselling and family therapy. There are so many things
that are necessary to help parents, but we do know that here in the province
right now we have waiting lists. There are parents who need supports, who need
assistance, but waiting lists become a barrier for them. I think this is a
concern that we need to keep in mind. It's wonderful to have on paper what we
want to achieve, and that's what an act is about, but we also have to make sure
that everything is there so that what's on paper becomes operative.
Later
on, when we go into Committee, I will have some questions about some details
like that, but the theme that I'm going to keep coming back to is the need for
resources. We can have everything on paper but if we don't have the resources,
if we don't have the human resources, if we don't have the resources to be able
to offer parents and to offer it in a timely way, then what we have on paper
will mean nothing.
There's
a key role for social workers in keeping children in the home. You have to have
people who are working on a regular basis and get to know the families to help
them in the practical ways that they need help in order to make sure that the
environment is safe. Social workers have a key role there. It can be a very
positive role because it can be a preventative role, a role in even knowing
families ahead of time, dealing with families before children exhibit sometimes
by running away or whatever, a need.
Social
workers who develop relationships with families can play a preventative role as
well as a role in times of crisis, as well as a role in working with the
families as parents move in the direction of better parenting.
Right
now, I know some social workers on the front lines and they never stop. They are
overworked. I know social workers who at 10 o'clock at night are doing their
paperwork and they're tired. They burn out.
What we
have in this bill, in order to make it operative, in order to make sure the high
principles that are in the bill, and they are wonderful principles, that those
high principles can be acted on. That concretely what's here can happen.
Families
have a lot of stress. There can be financial hardships, and that's not just with
people who are on income assistance. You can have families where both parents
are working and still the stress of trying to hold everything together,
especially as the cost of living goes up, as salaries do not move with the cost
of living.
You also
have addictions issues that parents have, you have health issues. Sometimes you
can have a family where everything has been going fine and all of a sudden
there's a crisis, and in that crisis children become caught. The role of social
worker is to be able to help people find their way out.
We also
very often will have families where the families are badly housed. We can't just
have the Department of CCSD, all by itself, dealing with the issue because we
need to look at what are the infrastructures that are needed for family. Like in
the case of adequate housing and good housing, sometimes you need another
department involved. So you do need interdepartmental co-operation I think with
some of the issues that are here. Certainly, I think there's a role for Health
and Community Services with some of the concerns that are here in this bill.
An
interdepartmental approach is extremely important. I think that approach was
taken in the consultations but I think it also has to be taken in the way that
the department operates, a need to work together to make sure that all systems
are working together because it's systemic issues we're talking about here. The
whole system needs to be responsive to vulnerable families. The Department of
Education and Early Childhood Development comes in as well. Anywhere that
children are impacted, any department that deals with children needs to work
with CSSD.
I do
understand the bill that we're talking about is dealing with children who need
protective care. I realize that, but sometimes making sure that families are
healthy, making sure that families have adequate housing, making sure that we
have families whose income is adequate, that will ensure, or at least help to
ensure, that children don't get into the situation of needing protective care.
That's why I think the ministry needs to look at the whole interaction piece,
the whole thing of the departments working together. I don't see exact reference
to that in the bill. I do understand that it is dealing with protective care,
but these other pieces need to be a part of that.
We were
told during Budget 2018 Estimates
about the situation with regard to foster families. The minister mentioned the
issue of foster families. My colleagues have recognized – they're not there now
but the members of the Foster Families Association have been here. It's a
wonderful association. Over the years I have supported them and gone to their
events, et cetera. It's just wonderful every time I go, to meet the families who
are there.
We do
know there are problems in finding situations for families, especially if you
have large sibling groups, if you have two, three or four children and you want
to try to keep them together, or children with complex needs. There are major
issues and challenges in getting foster families.
We were
told in Estimates that in 2017 there had been an increase in the growth of Level
4 placements. Level 4 placements are residences run by agencies. While sometimes
these are necessary, I don't think they are the optimal thing to go after. An
increase in Level 4 placements can become problematic.
Again,
we were told this in Estimates, that there was an interdepartmental committee
formed to work on that. I like that, the fact it's interdepartmental. Because of
the work of this interdepartmental committee, the number of new Level 4
placements is going down. This is extremely important. It's something that
really made me feel good when I heard it. The other thing we've learned is that
the number of foster homes has increased. We know there's been extra money by
government put into helping these things happen.
We also
have pilot projects supporting the foster homes. The money for these pilot
projects is also in this year's budget. I think we're going to see an
improvement when it comes to foster homes, where they're necessary, and less
reliance on Level 4 residences. We only want children in that kind of a
situation if it's absolutely essential.
The
other thing that's really important is the whole thing of kinship custody. This
is something I think the minister referred to. It sort of had been the way
things went in our communities in the past. If a mother died, for example – and
we know in rural Newfoundland and Labrador over the years, we did have a lot of
women who died in childbirth, giving birth. It would sort of be automatic,
another relative would take over. The sister of the woman who died, for example,
might take over. Children were taken care of by their families.
Then
there were children who didn't get taken care of by their families. In those
days we had orphanages and children ended up in orphanages. I think what's
really good now, something that happened naturally in many communities and,
certainly, continues to happen in communities in our province right now –
especially in indigenous communities, but not only in indigenous communities –
social workers are going to be able to move forward with recognizing that maybe
there's a relative that can help with children.
Excuse
me; I think a number of us are having cold problems here in the House.
So this
is a whole new thing that's so important. It extends the notion of family, that
there's more to the family than just the parents. And being able to recognize
that maybe there is an aunt or an older sister, whatever, but people there who
are blood relations who love these children as well and could have custody of
the children. This is really a step forward.
Right
now, there's a lot of red tape around that, a lot of court procedures that we
have to go through. But now you will be able to have social workers recommending
to the court that there be a kinship connection, and that children be taken over
through kinship custody. I think that's a wonderful move forward, Mr. Speaker.
I know
that speaking to people in the community – and I think it happened in the
consultations – this was something that was talked about and looked for and it
is seen as a positive move. Social workers who are working with family members,
they get a good sense of the families. They get a good sense of what the overall
environment is. So they can really make wise recommendations. To see the
importance of their role, I think, is really good.
I only
have a couple of minutes left and I don't want to sit down without talking about
the whole new approach with regard to indigenous children and youth. Besides
having a section under delegation, the section called delegation, besides having
a whole section on that, you also have the presence of indigenous government and
organizations recognized throughout the act as well.
As one
social worker – whom I was talking to actually today – said to me: It's so good;
we have to be gotten out of there and the indigenous communities themselves,
they have to be given the right to continue taking care of the children. We have
to move out.
So the
recognition that indigenous governments and organizations are the ones to not
only be consulted, but to be involved in taking care of the children is really,
really important. The first priority has to be keeping those children in their
communities. We know that's been a problem – not only in this province, but in
this province it has been a problem. The minister alluded to it as well. So
being able to keep them in their communities is number one.
The
provision, for example, for an indigenous representative identified for any
indigenous child is really, really important and the provision for the minister
to delegate functions to indigenous organizations through an agreement. The
agreement is important in that you have the department working with the
indigenous organization or the indigenous government, the indigenous community,
but an agreement that we ensure that the children are going to be taken care of,
that they're going to be safe.
Once
again, as I said earlier, resources are the big thing. There has to be adequate
resources. For the indigenous communities, in particular, to raise their level
of services, they are going to require resources. They're going to require more
training, more training for those who will be in professional positions,
training so that parents can be trained as well.
Again, I
say to government, what we have on paper is wonderful, but we're going to have
to make sure that resources are put in place to make it happen. I look forward
to Committee stage, Mr. Speaker, when I can get at some details.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
certainly feel privileged to rise on my feet today and speak to Bill 14, An Act
Respecting Children, Youth and Families. Mr. Speaker, 5,520, that's how many
children in our province are under that responsibility of the Department of
Children, Seniors and Social Development; 900 of those are in foster care; and
in excessive of 300 of that 900 are Aboriginal children that have been removed
from their homes.
I'm a
former foster parent, Mr. Speaker. I know what it's like to have children and to
have foster children, and how you task yourself with living up to their
expectations of you. When you say that you can't love a child that's not your
own, that's not true and certainly, all around the province, we've seen that.
There is
another side to this story, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about. I often say that
in my position as an MHA for the District of Torngat Mountains that I work for
two departments. I work for the Department of Children, Seniors and Social
Development and I work for the Department of Advanced Education, Skills and
Labour.
Mr.
Speaker, it's not a good feeling when you get a call from a mother that you know
that is saying to you, blunt face, social services is taking my kids. What can
you do to help? Now, Mr. Speaker, that's the task that I would not wish on
anyone.
Under
the old bill or the old guidelines, there was an interest in the protection of
children, but the guidance that social workers operated under, under the old
act, was exactly that: the protection of the children. In my conversations with
front-line workers, with social workers, they feel the frustration of having to
act on what guidelines they're given. When you look at this bill, you can tell
by the 77 pages that's involved that it took a tremendous amount of work by the
minister and the parliamentary assistant and the staff at CCSD.
A lot of
the work came as a result of consultations throughout the province with
different groups, with the Foster Families Association, with the Aboriginal
groups and with many other entities that had input, and from children
themselves.
Mr.
Speaker, once you try and compile all that and you try to bring it forward, it
takes a lot of time and it takes a lot of energy and it takes a lot of work. But
what you get, when you get a bill that's totally different than what social
workers had to act on in the past, it's a game changer when you look at care for
our children in our province.
For the
312-plus children that are removed from their community, in a lot of cases
they're also removed from the region. I've actually travelled from my hometown
to Roddickton and picked up a foster child and brought them back. You kind of
place yourself in two worlds: one, as a parent losing a child; it's not a good
feeling. And the social workers have to operate in that capacity. You have to
look out for the protection of the children; that's under the old act. But you
also have foster parents who are kind, who are receptive and they grow attached
to children. Believe me, I know; I've been there.
When
that person carries on in their life and goes out of our life, Mr. Speaker,
there's a void there. There's an emptiness left there, a sense of loss that I'm
sure many, if not all, foster parents in this province feel that.
The one
thing the old act brought forward is that it didn't look at family connection.
Being an Aboriginal person, like any other family, you have to look at extended
family. Extended family goes through a long list of family members that have
never been asked, had never been consulted before when they looked at care of
the children other than maybe adoption. What this act does is it allows for
sharing information which I think – and the minister spoke about this in quite a
bit of depth – is one of the most important factors when you're looking for a
solution to solve or in child intervention.
Back a
long time ago, Mr. Speaker, before there was any intervention by a child care
agency, it was the families that took it upon themselves to make placements for
children that needed care. In a lot of cases there were tragedies where children
were left without any care. Care was provided; it was done through the families,
through the family tree and the family connections.
The old
act that was proclaimed, I think, in 2011, Mr. Speaker, took that away. It
allowed intervention. The intent there was to certainly care for the children,
but in oversight they saw that removal of children was the way to go. You look
at some of the issues that have arisen out of concern around child care. We have
an inquiry into child care with the Innu Nation; we have a child care review
with the Child and Youth Advocate. Maybe – just maybe – if this bill would have
been brought forward a long time ago, we could have avoided that.
When you
look at some of the reasons why children are removed – and I know my hon.
colleague across the way, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, touched on
some of those issues, some of the tragic events that lead to it. When you look
at the Truth and Reconciliation report and the
Calls to Action, the minister said we just hit four in one shot,
which is very commendable and speaks volumes to the content of this bill.
You had
children that were removed from home, not for their own protection but for their
education. We saw the dark side that came through that, the dark period in our
lives. Mr. Speaker, these kids had kids. Once you're removed from the family
component of how knowledge is passed down through family first, how do you
parent? How do you become an effective parent? This is just one, I guess,
oversight that was placed on some of the Aboriginal people in the best interest
of delivering an education. It certainly had its faults.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, the other thing this bill focuses on is taking into account the family
factor doesn't have to be in the same community. I've had foster kids, while I
was living in Makkovik, from Nain, but you still had that connection because of
your culture and what you have to offer, but when a child is removed – and
sometimes, as my hon. colleague mentioned, out of the country or out of the
province.
I
actually worked with a family that were looking to get custody of their
grandchildren in Alberta. When you work with two provincial jurisdictions that
operate differently, this is a family of four that were going to be split up and
distributed to foster families in Alberta. It took a lot of work but we actually
did get that family back. They're now living with their grandparents and
certainly enjoying life; whereas before, the family unit would have been
non-existent.
My hon.
colleague from Lewisporte - Twillingate talked about the youth support
structures. Although I'm going to go primarily on the Aboriginal component, it
is an important mechanism for dealing with children as they get older and their
needs change. For example, they can voluntarily stay in the social system now
under award or under a social worker's guidance until they're 21 years old,
which means they will go through secondary or high school education which mean
they will go through post-secondary probably, and they will be better geared to
take themselves and their future into the future.
I think
that's a really important mechanism. I'm certainly glad to hear the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune say that she's standing and supporting this bill.
I know
the minister was very passionate, and certainly when you're working with
families, you can't help but become emotionally involved, emotionally attached.
Sometimes it's emotions of joy and happiness, but sometimes it's not. It's
emotion of loss and the sadness that goes with it.
When I
talk to social workers, sometimes in the opinion of parents they're the most
hated people in the world – but they're doing their job – because of what they
have to do. They're the picture of child care if you may want it, but to some
families they're the picture of child removal.
I think
this act gives those social workers more tools to work with the community, with
the extended family and with other caregivers so that the care for the child is
not just child protection, it's family care. More often than not, you walk
around in our small communities and you hear people say: It takes a whole
community to raise a child. Mr. Speaker, this bill certainly opens that avenue
up so that the community can become more involved.
I find
myself sometimes as a go-between or caught in the middle with provincial
jurisdiction and NunatuKavut jurisdiction because I work with the deputy
minister of health and social development. We talked about this for the last
seven years. I know they're glad to see this bill coming because it opens up
communication between the department and another government. It opens up
communication between the department and the Innu Nation, NunatuKavut, the
Miawpukek, the Qalipu. Those avenues have now bought into resolution, whereas
before it created conflict.
So I'm
really glad this bill has finally come forward. I know it's a long time coming,
but it takes a lot of work. I'm certainly hopeful that every Member in this
House will stand and support Bill 14.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to adjourn debate on Bill 14, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the debate do now adjourn.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 9, second reading of Bill 13.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Jury
Act, 1991 be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991 be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991.” (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand here today and speak to the
Jury Act, 1991 and an amendment that we are proposing for this piece of
legislation. What I'm hoping to do is maybe give some context and background as
to why we're doing this and it might even be a bit of an education as to juries
in and of themselves.
If one
were to look at the bill itself that we have here, the amendment, what we're
amending is section 9 of the current act is being repealed and the following
substituted: “9(1) A person who is (a) 75 years of age or older; (b) mentally or
physically incapacitated; or (c) suffering from an illness which may reasonably
be expected to be permanent shall, on application, be exempted permanently from
serving as a juror.”
Now
previous to this, that age, instead of 75 it had been 65. If you were above the
age of 65 you could be exempted and were exempted from serving as a juror in a
criminal trial.
I want
to talk a bit about perhaps just jury trials in and of themselves. Under our
Charter, is any person who is accused and going to trial on a criminal charge,
usually it's indictable offences, but anything that has a possible jail time of
five years or above has the right to a trial by a jury; a jury being made up of
their peers. That's found under section 11 of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. That excludes military tribunals, people that are charged under
military law.
Just
some background into jury trials; these are held in our Supreme Court. Right now
we have Supreme Courts in Corner Brook, Gander, Grand Bank, Grand Falls-Windsor,
Happy Valley-Goose Bay – which I know the Speaker would be familiar with that
court – and St. John's. When we talk about juries, we'll get into some
interesting details here.
The
Jury Act, 1991 provides that each
Canadian citizen resident in the province, at least 18 years of age or older,
has the right and duty to serve as a juror unless they are exempted or
disqualified under the act.
Persons
disqualified under the act include: – again, this is interesting, these people
cannot serve as jurors – a member, officer, or employee of Parliament, Privy
Council of Canada; House of Assembly, Executive Council of our province; an
officer or employee of Justice Canada, the federal Solicitor-General; the
Department of Justice and Public Safety; a judge, lawyer; court official; a
sheriff or sheriff's officer; police officer; warden, correctional officer or
person employed in a penitentiary, prison or correctional institution; a spouse
of any one of the aforementioned individuals; a person charged with an
indictable offence; a person who has served a sentence for an indictable offence
in the last five years and who has not received a pardon; or a person who is
unable to speak or understand the language in which a trial is to be conducted,
and person who is disqualified cannot serve on a jury.
The act
also sets out a number of exemptions and grounds for exemption which would
relieve an otherwise qualified individual from requirement to serve on a jury.
There are several grounds there, including where it would cause serious hardship
or loss to the juror or others.
For
example, that would be a person who during the day provides care for a child
who's not in school under a certain age; or if you're caring for an aged or
infirm person who requires care during the day; mentally incompetent
individuals. It may conflict with a juror's pastoral or religious duties or
beliefs, and there is also an exemption for age.
So,
these are the people that cannot serve on juries, or the people that may make
application and ask not to serve on juries. Now, you might say, why is that
important? Well, what I want to do is give some stats right now on where we are
in this province as it relates to jury trials.
In the
last five years, we've had 129 jury trials scheduled. To make sure there are a
pool of jurors able to be selected for these matters, there were 47,570
summonses to appear for jury duty issued for those trials. Out of the 129, only
50 actually proceeded. Now, there are a bunch of reasons why it might not
happen. The accused could change their plea. There could be a change of counsel.
You can opt for a different – you can go from judge and jury back down to judge.
Either way, the work that's done by the High Sheriff's Office, which controls
the Jury Act basically, and controls
the pool of jurors, they still have to do the work. They have to create the list
and they have to send the summonses out to individuals.
What
we've seen, I want to get into – we've seen that there have been a substantial
number, 129 over the last five years is a high number. Fifty of those have gone
ahead. Right now, I believe, for this calendar year or the next couple of years,
we have 14 jury trials scheduled. That's a large number. Each one of those – I
might have it here in my notes somewhere – there's a huge pool of people that
are brought in and then put through the challenge.
I will
say part of this debate that won't happen here, there have been some talks,
especially on the federal level, about changes that need to happen to jury
selection. We're not talking about that here; when we talk about pre-emptory
challenges and the constitution of juries, that's a very big discussion and one
that is happening across the country. We've seen, especially in many cases – we
saw a case from out west recently where there was a finding of not guilty. That
was a jury trial. That led to a significant amount of discussion and debate
throughout the country on how juries are selected. That's not the purpose of
this particular amendment here.
Since
2014, 6,050 people who have reached the age of at least 65 years old have been
granted a permanent exemption on the grounds of their age. Over 6,000 people,
just by virtue of the fact they're 65, are permanently exempted. That amounts to
about 953 people a year or roughly that's about 10 per cent of the people
receiving summonses. That's not a small number.
Although
the age profile of these people is unknown, what we can say is approximately 63
per cent of our population who are at least age 65 are between the ages of 65
and 75. It's reasonable to do an estimation that over 3,800 of the people that
were granted a permanent exemption previously, based on age since 2014, were not
at least 75 and wouldn't have gotten that exemption. That's a significant
number.
We get
into some more demographic stats here which I think are important. Twenty-one
per cent right now of our population is 65 years of age or older. We all know
that is a number that's going to get larger. We all know that demographic is
growing; in fact, it's supposed to hit 25 per cent in the not-too-distant
future.
Grand
Bank, Corner Brook and Grand Falls-Windsor area has had the highest percentage
of the population for these courts within the 65-to-75 age bracket at 15 per
cent, 13 per cent and 14 per cent respectively. In Gander it goes down a little
bit. In St. John's it's down to nine and actually, in Happy Valley-Goose Bay
it's, I think, 6 per cent.
In 2036,
in this province our population aged 65 or older will be at 30 per cent. That
number continues to rise. I think people see where we're going with this
amendment and the need for it.
Basically, what we're suggesting here is we need to amend our act to be
responsive to we have an increase in the number of jury trials. Again, I don't
have to get into the fundamental importance of individuals being able to have a
trial and being judged by a jury of their peers and making sure that we have
people that can do that. I don't think there's going to be any questioning that.
We also have to look at the demographics of our province and the age of
population that we have here.
A couple
of things that we took into consideration here, in case people have questions;
we put a significant amount of work into this. One might say well, we look at
the jury pool. When we look at the distance, there's a 25-kilometre radius
around these courts for where these people must fall into this. So we're not
going to have people above the age of 75 who have to drive a significant
distance to do that. They're already out of it. These people are not expected –
we are drawing from within that radius that's already there.
What I
did do also is I wanted a jurisdictional scan done to show if that's what we're
requesting here, where do we rank amongst the other provinces? Right now, Nova
Scotia is actually at 70; New Brunswick is at 70; PEI and Quebec are 65;
Ontario, there's no cap, none; Manitoba, 75; Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC, 65;
the Territories and Nunavut, no limit; and the Yukon is 65.
Now,
each province has their reasons for having these ages. This is an issue now that
we've talked about over the last little while and it's obviously something that
we feel is important now based on where we are right now at this time as it
relates to our population and as it relates to our justice system and the needs
that we have within.
On that
note, Mr. Speaker, again, I'm looking forward – I don't think I have much else
to say as it relates to the amendment or the purpose of the amendment. I think
it's quite self-explanatory. There might be a question as to why we have no cap
at all, but there was a train of thought that again, (a), we can always come
back to reassess this down the road, depending on need; and the second part is
when you don't have a cap, to me, there is the possibility that you're going to
have more challenges and then you have to do more examinations of whether a
person should be granted the exemption or not.
Again
when we talk about the age limit, even for judges in cases, in provincial court
it's actually age 70, I believe. In the Supreme Court, it's age 75; I think I
have that right. There a bunch of questions that could come out of that, but
what I'll do is I'll leave it to the debate. I look forward to the commentary
from my colleagues across the way and hopefully I'll do my best when we get to
the – again, there may be questions asked during this stage, which I'll do my
best to be prepared to answer them and obviously when we get to the Committee
stage, I'll do my best to be able to answer those as well.
What I
would say prior to sitting down, Mr. Speaker, is that this doesn't get done
without the hard work of people within the department. There are a lot of policy
analysts. We've reached out here. This work would have been involving people
like Dan Chafe, the High Sheriff, people like Megan Collins who's in policy
analysis, people down at the courts. This is something we've consulted around
and I think it's a need and a necessity.
I want
to thank those individuals for the work they've put into this. I think this is a
necessary amendment going forward; it puts us still well within line within the
rest of Canada. Given the statistics that I've put out there I think it's
absolutely necessary that we do this.
On that
note, I take my seat and thank you for the opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Thank
you for giving me an opportunity to speak to this bill this afternoon, Bill 13.
I'd just like to start my commentary by echoing what the minister just
referenced in expressing his appreciation to staff. We all know that staff,
quite often, work very, very hard behind the scenes to make things like this
happen.
As well,
they made a briefing available in the department. Officials made a briefing
available to us for late last week. I wasn't able to attend but one of our staff
did attend as well – so I thank them – and brought back and shared information
on the basis for the bill, as much of what the minister just outlined himself.
Mr.
Speaker, I've had some experience in my previous career with juries. Not a lot,
to be honest, because there doesn't seem to have been many back in those days as
there are today. When I was thinking about preparing to speak to this today I
thought about the history of juries and how they all started because they go
back quite a long time.
They
actually go back to the Anglo-Saxon days of England when the Viking occupation
was taking place in England. There was a Danish town in England, and was quite
known, and had, over a period of time, what was known as principal officers.
There were 12 of them who earned the right to be principal officers by their
hereditary appointments, so it came down through the family. Then the history
goes into the 12th century when Henry II as well, wanted to find a way other
than being the decision maker – giving the order, making the decision and
deciding the outcome.
In
Canada today in our system of democracy, in our system right here in our own
Legislature, as is mirrored in many respects based from the English system, we
have three branches of government, as you would know, Mr. Speaker. We have a
legislative branch, which is where we are here in our Legislature, where the
government brings forward bills. They're debated, passed and then become the law
of the land. We have the Executive Branch, which executes the policies that are
determined here in the Legislature, and it's their job to run the province and
execute according to the law and the policies as passed here in the House.
And then
we have the judicial branch, which when someone doesn't act or when a question
of law or the conduct of someone or a difference of opinion occurs, then it's
the judicial branch which is given the mandate and requirement to deal with such
matters.
All
three are intended and are supposed to operate completely independent of each
other. So the judicial branch can't give direction to the Executive Branch on
creating law – benefit at times for consultation and asking for their experience
and so on, but they can't dictate. Executive Branch can't dictate to the
judicial branch. And also the Executive Branch can't dictate to the House of
Assembly or to the Speaker on decisions that would be made by the House of
Assembly or how conduct occurs, or we can't be told what to debate or what we
say, as long as we do so within the rules. So they're set up separately.
The jury
process comes out of the judicial branch, obviously, where people have a right,
as the minister referenced, to be tried and to be heard and a decision by a jury
of their peers, as is quite often referenced.
Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting that people in Canada, to serve on a jury, you don't
need to have any legal background or expertise; you just need to be a citizen,
as outlined by the minister during his commentary. There are exceptions to who
can serve on juries; he's listed some of them. He's listed members, officers and
employees of Parliament, or the Privy Council, the House of Assembly or
Executive Council here in Newfoundland and Labrador. So you can't be a
provincial Member of a legislature or a federal Member of Parliament – and I
know the law here, the Jury Act, is a
Newfoundland and Labrador law. So in this case in our province you can't be a
Member of the House of Assembly.
You
can't have Supreme Court and Provincial Court judges, court officials, sheriffs
and sheriff's officers, barristers or solicitors. Members of police services
cannot be jurors.
I don't
know, Minister, maybe later, because it dawned on me earlier, I wonder if peace
officers are permitted to be jurors or not, because they are a little bit
different than police officers. Maybe the minister, if he recalls, he can
mention in his closing, or we could ask about it in third reading. I'd be
interested to know where that line draws because there are municipal enforcement
officers now throughout our province more than ever before who have enforcement
responsibilities. And there are others besides direct police who do different
levels of law enforcement in our province as peace officers: officers or
employees of the department of Justice, provincial or federal; the Solicitor
General of Canada; wardens; correctional officers; employees of correctional
institutions.
What's
really interesting too, Mr. Speaker, is spouses of any of the ones just listed.
It's interesting, because we know we have – in today's society, we respect
independence of individuals more than we ever had before. A person can choose
their spouse. Generally speaking, a person can't be confined from a
responsibility or job or duty because of their spouse. There are some occasions,
and this is one of them, where a spouse would be prohibited from acting as a
juror of a spouse of any of the ones that are mentioned.
A person
charged with an indictable offence is also an interesting one as well, mentioned
by the minister. A person in our country is presumed, a presumption of innocence
until proven guilty. That's an interesting one as well. I don't know if that
ever comes up.
Then
there are also exemptions. The minister mentioned another one I didn't have on
my list. He talked about a person who is unable to speak or understand the
language in which a jury trial is being held. I wasn't aware of that one, but
that's the other one. Now, there are also exemptions to that. That may be
applied for a person to serve on a jury in cases of hardship or serious hardship
or loss to that person.
Mr.
Speaker, I've seen it in the past where a person gets a summons for jury duty
–we have it in Canada. Part of our citizenship is you have a civic duty to
respond to a summons and to attend on a summons if you are so summonsed to be
part of a jury panel or to be potentially selected as a juror.
I've
seen lots of cases where people have said: Well, I can't serve on a jury because
I have a job or I have to care for someone or I don't have transportation. I've
seen lots of people who have reasons they shouldn't. My experience has been that
there's usually a fair amount of leniency in cases like that, but there are
times as well when a person says: I can't serve on a jury because, and their
request for an exemption is not acceptable.
There
are persons providing sole care during the day for a child seven years of age
who's not in school; a person who is infirm or aged; a person who is mentally
incompetent; conflicts with the juror's pastoral or religious duties or beliefs;
or language difficulties, which was mentioned by the minister, are all reasons
to be exempted from jury duty.
The act
also provides permanent exemptions, as the minister had referenced, and this is
relative to the bill. Under clause 1, which deals with section 9 of the act, it
repeals the current act and replaces it, as has been referenced by the minister.
“A
person who is (a) 75 years of age or older;” – currently 65 – “(b) mentally or
physically incapacitated; or (c) suffering from an illness which may reasonably”
– on reasonable grounds – “be expected to be permanent shall, on application, be
exempted permanently from serving as a juror.”
In
paragraph 2: “A person who applies for an exemption under paragraph (1)(a) shall
provide proof of age satisfactory to the sheriff or the deputy sheriff.” That's
essentially what the change in the bill is. It's to increase the minimum age
where a person can apply for a permanent exemption.
Mr.
Speaker, I remember many years ago speaking to a judge, who's now deceased. We
were talking about the history of trials and how they've become more
complicated. I remember the conversation quite well. It was a Provincial Court
judge; actually, he started as a magistrate and then became a Provincial Court
judge as magistrates were phased out.
I
remember him talking about early days in his law career and in his career as a
judge. I think he was actually a judge before he became a lawyer, which used to
happen in days gone by. A person could be appointed as a magistrate and then
there was a period of time of transition and many of the magistrates went and
obtained their law degree.
I
remember the discussion and talking about how more complex trials had become.
Some trials, which had been seen as the simplest, easiest, less complicated
technical trials to take place, were becoming more complex and more difficult,
more advanced, more creative in-depth challenges and legal challenges to some of
the law in order for a defence lawyer defending persons accused of offences.
Of
course, when that happens, the Crown has to become more elaborate, more
extensive and do more work in the presentation of a case. If that's the case,
then the police have a higher standard to follow as well. The rules have to be
followed and be done more extensively. The investigations become more complex,
prosecution becomes more complex and the defence becomes more complex. As that
happens with jury trials, Mr. Speaker, it can create more challenges for people
who serve on juries.
We heard
earlier this year of a case in Toronto where a juror found that the exposure
they received as a juror was very difficult for them. I think there was actually
a diagnosis of PTSD or maybe an action. I was having a quick look for the case
earlier. I couldn't find it. There were some articles in 2017 where jurors were
finding challenges post trial where they were trying to shake off what they had
been exposed to. Many people in society never expect or never trained or
understand sometimes what they may be exposed through the most difficult cases –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank
you.
MR. P. DAVIS:
– that may be heard through
trials.
When I
first read this and I saw the extension of the age from 65 to 75, the first
thing I thought about is how much more difficult on an older generation it may
be. I listened very carefully to the minister's comments today and I listened to
the numbers that he talked about with the large number of jury trials that take
place today, and the number of people who have been summoned in recent years to
attend as a panel and chosen or had to participate in a jury.
To go
back to my conversation with the former magistrate and Provincial Court judge,
he talked about homicide trials could be done in a day or two days or three days
at one point in time. Then they became a week and two weeks and six weeks. Now
they can be months and months and months. It can be significantly taxing and
challenging for a person to sit on a jury in a case like that.
In
Canada, when an offence is punishable by five years or more, a person has a
right to elect how they want to be tried. If there's an offence that's
punishable by 10 years or 15 or 25 years, they can elect to be tried by a
Provincial Court judge alone in some cases. Some automatically go forward. They
can go to Supreme Court; judge without a jury or judge with a jury, depending on
the severity of the offence and how it's outlined in law because there is a
variety.
A person
can elect to be heard by a judge and jury, and it's not unusual. Many will elect
that because you can always change your position after and move it down, but my
recollection is you can't move it up. So if you pick to be tried by a Provincial
Court judge without a jury, you can't get into the process and decide now I want
my jury trial. You can move them down rather than up. That sometimes happens and
starts the process of needing people for a jury.
If you
have some of those cases that happen today that can go on for months and months
and can be full of technical evidence, can include photographs and videos and
audio recordings, surveillance photographs and closed captioning TV cameras
which exist in so many commercial spaces, and sometimes in open spaces and
public spaces as well, all of that evidence can be presented or shared with a
jury. I'm not surprised that we'll see some of those circumstances, but I also
understand the challenges of trying to have a pool of a sufficient number of
jurors.
I don't
know if it's still done, maybe the minister can comment on it. I don't know if
it's still done or not, but years ago when you brought in – sometimes you bring
in 60 or 100 or 150 people to a jury, now sometimes you bring in thousands, but
you bring in several dozen people to sit as a jury. You try and find your jury,
and if you didn't have enough the court could send a sheriff down on Water
Street and say go bring in to me five people. The first five people you see,
bring them into court and we'll review them to see if they can serve as a jury.
If they couldn't get enough from that five, they might send them down to do
more. Send them out the door – you go that way, you go that way and bring back
people to me who are going to serve as a jury. We do have a civic
responsibility. As citizens, we have a duty to serve as jurors. Sometimes that
would happen as well.
As time
goes on and cases get more complex, I can only imagine how more difficult it is
– we've heard some of the stories and seen some of the media coverage on jury
pools. I think there was one gathered at the Arts and Culture Centre some time
ago because that was the only space large enough to bring the pool together.
Mr.
Speaker, advancing the age is more in line with what we see in other provinces,
while still including those exemptions, seems like a very reasonable approach to
try and alleviate some of the challenges that our justice system has in trying
to put together juries knowing that they are more complex, that there are more
of them and that sometimes it's hard to find a pool of people to serve as that
jury. It certainly seems reasonable to me.
I would
ask the minister what consultation they've done with people of the seniors
groups or what discussions they've had on that. If he mentioned it earlier, I
apologize, I never caught it. I don't think he did, so I may ask about that when
we get to Committee about any kind of consultation that may have been done, or
if there's been any work done with health care providers about impacts and so on
of that age group.
Other
than that it just seems like a reasonable change to make in the
Jury Act. Moving the requirement for satisfactory identification
from what used to be in section 23 right up to this particular section, I think,
is a proper and appropriate thing to do as well. It makes it clear. Hopefully,
this will help to improve jury processes in the future.
I should
say as well, I meet lots of people and have met lots of people over my lifetime
who would love nothing more than to serve on a jury. They would love the
opportunity to be called to sit on a jury. I say to them, yeah, you'd love it
until you serve on a jury. But there are lots of people I know that would be
intrigued and would like the opportunity to serve as a jury as their civic
duties say we should and we have to, unless you meet the exemptions to say why
you should not.
There
are lots of people who have done it and there are people who have sat on juries
who have enjoyed the experience as well. It's not all doom and gloom. I
certainly don't want to leave that impression with anybody because there are
people I know of who served on juries who said it was a great experience; they
learned so much. It was difficult, it was challenging, they had an important
task to do, but they enjoyed it.
I'd love
to sometime have some insight inside the jury rooms in how they operate, but we
don't get that privilege. What happens in the jury room is confidential and kept
there. I respect that. I do know people who have said that they've enjoyed the
experience as well. Serving on a jury can be rewarding to people and it depends
on individuals, but it's important to do. Broadening the pool seems to me like a
reasonable solution to benefit society because this is about society and a
person's right to trial and a trial by a jury of their peers.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand to speak to Bill 13, the
Jury Act, 1991. Basically, the point of this amendment to the
Jury Act, as we know, as we've heard
from my colleagues here in the House, is to expand the age of those who can seek
a permanent exemption from serving on juries from 65 to 75. I don't know if that
means now that 65 is the new 75 or 75 is the new 65, but something like that.
We know
that people are very, very active in their 70s; very, very active in their 80s.
I'll be curious to hear from the minister as to why this change is happening
now. Is it because there is a shortage of people who willing to sit on a jury or
where the request came from to actually change this age of exemption? I have no
problem with it, but I am curious as to the origins of this and why now and who
was requesting this.
We know
that the jury process is so very important – one of the pillars in our justice
system. I have never personally served on a jury. I know how difficult that
would be because it really is about making decisions on people's lives and
decisions that can affect people's lives in such a major way, but I am very
grateful for those who are willing to serve on a jury.
Some
people out of a sense of civic duty, some people out of an interest in the law,
some people perhaps out of a sense of curiosity. I don't know anyone personally
either who has served on a jury. I also realize that in some cases, particularly
in cases where there has been murder or extreme abuse, how difficult that might
be. Again, I'm very grateful for those who have been willing and continue to be
willing to sit on a jury and to serve our justice system in that way.
In our
criminal justice system, an accused person can choose to be tried by jury. That
is a choice. Again, our jury duty is a very important part of our legal system.
Supreme Court Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dubé called the jury the conscience of
the community. And that's why it's so very important to be able to have a very
diverse pool to be able to choose from when selecting a jury. She also wrote
that it can act as the final bow work against oppressive laws or their
enforcement. So it's not even just in a particular case.
I like
that description of a role of a jury. Again, it shows how important it is, how
important it is to our justice system, how important it is to our community and
to our whole democratic system.
We know
that juries are comprised of 12 people for criminal and six for civil cases –
although civil cases by jury are very, very rare. People's names are drawn from
the MCP list. So if you don't have an MCP card, with a valid, current address or
phone number, you can't be called for jury duty.
Now, I
can't remember – it was only recently, not so long ago, when we had to call a
jury. When the sheriffs went out in downtown St. John's because there was a need
for a jury and something happened and they didn't have enough people; they
hauled people in off the street to say we need you to be part of this selection
of people from which a jury would be called or selected.
That was
kind of an interesting time, and I don't believe that was very long ago. I think
that was in recent memory. Although, my recent memory isn't specifically
recalling it, but I'm sure somebody here in the House might remember that. Maybe
even my colleague here across the way.
People's
names are drawn from the MCP list; they are drawn from a radius of 25 kilometres
from the court where the trial is to be held, because it's really tough if you
live much farther than that to be able to get back and forth. So it is not a
secret that many do not want to serve on juries, as they can seriously interfere
with a person's day-to-day life. Many will try to get an exemption, if possible,
because for some people, some juries sit for a very long time.
The bill
that we have before us here today appears to close the door to one of those
exemptions for people who are looking for exemptions. Currently if you have
reached the age of 65, you can ask for a permanent exemption from jury duty and
now we have raised that to 75. That does not mean that somebody who's 75 can't
sit on a jury. That does not mean if somebody is 95 they can't sit on a jury;
however, it gives them the choice. It gives them the option.
Also,
there are ways for people to have permanent exemptions. There are also ways for
people to have exemption from a particular jury call. That is 10 per cent of the
6,050 people who've been chosen for jury duty where people had permanent
exemption based on age, previously.
The
statistic also indicates that by 2036, 30 per cent of the population in
Newfoundland and Labrador will be over 65 years of age. Now, of course, that's
true unless we change the issue of affordable child care, affordable housing so
that we do grow our population. When we look at the issues of sustainable
employment in our province, hopefully we'll be able to do that and then in fact
30 per cent of the population will not be over the age of 65 years of age. It
could be that this amendment is to address the issue of our aging population in
order to be able to expand the number of people who can be considered for jury.
I won't
say much more than this, Mr. Speaker, but I am curious. I will be curious to
hear from the minister as to why this, why now, who requested it. I'm sure he
will have an answer to that. I have no reason to object to this bill and we will
be supporting it.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
just take a couple of moments to speak to Bill 13, An Act to Amend the Jury Act.
I'm not
going to be too repetitive, but, Mr. Speaker, we're lucky to be living in a
democracy. Certainly, besides your right to choose who represents you, one of
the pillars, I would suggest, of a democracy is rule of law. I think it's one of
the things that separate countries like Canada from other countries perhaps that
are not so desirable to live in, the fact that we have rule of law.
Sometimes the rule of law can be frustrating, no doubt about it. There are times
that there are people who perhaps get charged with certain offences and they get
off on technicalities and stuff, and sometimes you scratch your head and say, my
goodness, why did the law work that way? Why did someone only get such a minor
sentence for an offence, or how could they have possibly gotten off because of
such a minor technicality. It's built upon the system we have and it's created
that way so that all citizens are treated fairly and equally and we can all have
assurances that whether we're guilty or we're not guilty, that we all receive
fair treatment.
Part of
that system, of course, is the ability to be tried by your peers. It's not
always the case. You can be tried by a judge. You can be tried by a jury. You
can be tried by a judge and jury. What we're speaking to here particularly is
the piece on a jury.
There
are exemptions currently that people can apply for to be exempted from jury
duty. If memory serves me – and perhaps the Member for Topsail - Paradise can
confirm – if you're a police officer or something like that or someone in law
enforcement, I think you can get exemptions, or you used to be able to at one
point in time, from being on juries. It's an automatic exemption.
There
are exemptions for medical reasons. There's a whole host of reasons why you
could be –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LANE:
There you go. They went
through the list.
There's
a whole host of reasons why you can be exempted from jury duty. What's being
proposed here, as has been said, is to change the age from 65 to 75 in terms of
automatically being able to be exempted from jury duty.
I would
sort of echo the comments of my colleague from St. John's Centre in terms of –
just for information more than anything else, I'm curious as to why the change
is being brought about now. I would assume it's because of the aging population,
as has been referenced. I would assume it's probably because there's a lot more
serious crime. I don't think anybody can argue with the fact.
Maybe
the stats would prove me wrong, but it would seem to me there are a lot more
high-profile cases and cases involving homicide that's happening in this
province. I suspect it's related to drugs and organized crime and all those
scourges that we've seen more and more in our province. Perhaps it came along
with the oil wealth, I'm not sure, and people's incomes, but there's no doubt
that drugs is definitely a big issue in this province and organized crime around
those drugs. I think that's what's led to a lot of these serious crimes and
homicides, serious assaults, armed robberies, all these types of things.
I would
suspect, as a result of that, we have a greater need for juries than we had in
the past. Combine that with the aging population, I can see where we could
possibly have a problem in terms of getting jurors.
With
that said, I really don't see a problem with what's being proposed here. Some
people might think: My goodness, now we're going to take senior citizens who may
be not well and everything, we're going to drag them out of their houses or out
of the seniors home and stick them in juries. That's not the case, because under
this revision it says 75 years old, but it also says: “mentally or physically
incapacitated; or suffering from an illness which may reasonably be expected to
be permanent.”
If
you're a senior and you have health issues, you can still be exempted. I think
the point is that before someone could simply say: I'm 65 years old; therefore,
I don't want to serve on a jury. That person may be of perfect health and
fitness and wellness and everything else but they could just automatically be
exempted by virtue of their age.
What
we're saying now is the only way that can happen now is at 75. I think there are
many, many people who are quite capable of serving on juries who are 65 or
older. A lot of them probably got the time because, generally, they're retired
and so on. So they probably have more time to do it than younger people who are
working just to try to pay the bills and raise families and so on.
I don't
see any issue with it. So I'll be supporting the bill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety speaks now, he will close debate.
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to close debate on this. I appreciate the commentary from my colleagues on
the other side. I appreciate what they had to say. I think we're all of the same
mindset. I don't think there are any objections to the amendment we're putting
forward. If anything, it's more sort of curiosity and questions as to the why
and certain aspects.
I'll try
my best to answer some of the questions that were put forward now, but if I
don't cover them off, I can do my best during Committee to answer those.
I think
one of the questions was: Why? The why is fairly simple. Just a few things I
would suggest: (a) between 2013 and '17 we had five jury trials. This year
alone, we have eight scheduled. The demand is going up.
The
second part is we look at the population. When we look at those numbers I
provided, we have the increase here. We have to increase that pool. The last
part, I would suggest, is that the High Sheriff, when they do this they
generally, depending on the complexity of the trial, will come up with a larger
or a size of the pool based on the complexity of the trial. Some matters are
more complex than others.
What I
would say is that now more than ever, you look at trials, I think the Member
referenced different trials. A number of years back you had on counsel on each
side; now you have two counsels on each side. You have more scientific evidence
and online – there's a greater depth, in many cases, to the evidence.
I'll
never forget, perhaps one of the most famous trials, one that really brought the
televised trial into this was – nothing to do with the Canadian system but when
we first watched the OJ Simpson trial. It was really the advent of things like
DNA evidence, which you can imagine trying to explain that to juries, but we see
that now, things like DNA are commonplace.
When we
look at disclosure of information, one of the issues we have in our criminal
trials now – not in our criminal trials, but the criminal justice system is the
fact that disclosure, giving all the evidence out is a much more complex matter
now. There's more of it. It takes longer to produce and we have to get it out in
a more timely fashion. I would suggest that's the reason why.
One of
the matters brought up is, in fact, the High Sheriff can do what they have to.
In fact, there was one trial a few years back where they ran out and, in fact,
the High Sheriff had to go to the mall. They went to the mall and pulled people
out of the mall to have them ready for jury duty. That is very rare and unusual,
of course. Again, that was before the time of current High Sheriff. In fact,
now, I think there's more work than ever that goes into preparing a pool of
possible, perspective jurors for each matter. They do a very good job of making
sure it's ready.
In fact,
we had one recently for a matter that you'll recall, they went outside the norm
and had the Arts and Culture Centre ready because this is very lengthy, time
consuming; we don't want people waiting out in the streets. In fact, we had one
recently where they did have it down at the courthouse and they brought them in
to make sure that the weather wouldn't affect them. They had a roof there. They
provided food. The High Sheriff and his team go out of their way, realizing that
it's a long and difficult but necessary process. They try to improve the comfort
level. So I want to thank them for that.
One of
the questions was the difference between police officers and peace officers.
There are a couple exemptions. Police officers are exempted. Peace officers not
specifically because, depending on the peace officer, (a), if they're an
employee of Justice and Public Safety, they are exempted, but if it's municipal
enforcement, no. There's no need because there's no relationship with criminal
justice and criminal law and court, as there is with a police officer.
It's one
of those things where you have to have that balance between wanting to have an
exemption there for everybody but, at the same time, making sure that we cast
the net as wide as possible and as fairly as possible. A lot of this depends on
the complexity of matters.
When we
talk about consultation, there was consultation with the High Sheriff and his
team, who's responsible for this, but we also consulted with the Seniors'
Advocate. The Seniors' Advocate was quite supportive of the step that we are
taking.
I think
you have some people that may be very interested in being able to provide this
duty, if summoned, and would not want the age limit to get in the way. There are
also some people that if that age limit is there and they have a different
reason for exemption, there are grounds for which they can apply. But just
putting that cut-off at 65 is not what we think is in the best interests of our
system going forward.
On that
note, I appreciate the support from the Members opposite. At this point, I look
forward going into the Committee stage.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 13 be now read a second time?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against?
This
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Jury Act, 1991. (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991,” read a second time,
ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill
13)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, seconded by the
Minister of Health and Community Services, that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider the
Jury Act, Bill 13.
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?
The
motion is carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 13, An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Jury Act, 1991.” (Bill 13)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Chair, I can assure you
this won't take very long, from my perspective anyway. I can't speak for anybody
else. I mentioned during second reading debate, I wondered if the minister and
his staff did any consultations with any groups, organizations or authorities
knowledgeable in aging, and if there was any consultation done in changing the
age from 65 to 75. I understand a jurisdictional scan took place, and I
appreciate that. But I'm just curious if there were any consultations or
discussions done to determine age appropriateness or any barriers, or
impediments or considerations that may be made in changing the age.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
We did
do consultations, as I mentioned. We consulted with the High Sheriff and we
consulted with the Seniors' Advocate on the amendment that we're bringing
forward. Looking at the jurisdictional scan, we can see that we're certainly in
line with other provinces, but the Seniors' Advocate I can say – again, I would
qualify her as an expert, given her background; it's something we debated here
in the House. I would qualify here as an expert in aging. She was quite
supportive of the move so it was good – again, it was something that was
necessary and we needed to do but when you have that backing as well, it's
certainly positive.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clause 2 and 3.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 and 3.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 and 3 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows:
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Jury Act,
1991.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee and report Bill 13.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 13.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 13 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed him to report Bill 13 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
Thank
you.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
call from the Order Paper, from Orders of the Day, number 3, Concurrence Motion
on the Government Services Committee.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Earlier
in budget debate, I reported to this hon. House the Estimates of the Government
Services Committee. You learn a lot of information through Estimates. The
questions asked are the good questions and good answers given, which is
sometimes contrary to what the other side of the House has to say, especially in
Question Period.
The
Government Services Committee is responsible for the Estimates of several
different categories, and I'll run down through them briefly. The Consolidated
Fund Services, Department of Finance, Executive Council, Public Service
Commission, Service NL, Public Procurement Agency and the Department of
Transportation and Works.
There
was something a little bit different that was done this year, Mr. Speaker, and
that is the Estimates of Executive Council. Now, in the past – well, since my
time in this hon. House, the Estimates of Executive Council was usually done
through Committee of the Whole, but this time it held its own session in
Estimates.
Under
the Executive Council we supplied the Estimates for the Women's Policy Office,
the Human Resources Secretariat, the Office of the Chief Information Officer,
Intergovernmental Affairs, Indigenous Affairs and Labrador Affairs Secretariat.
The questions that came out, Mr. Speaker, were answered to the best of the
ability of the ministers and the staff. These sessions are sometimes long,
especially in the evening.
A big
thank you to the minister and the department, his or her staff, that come
forward and does the best to answer any questions. They actually do a good job
in answering the questions and, certainly, to the Members of the Government
Services Committee themselves who took the time to sit through some of these
sessions. Like I said, they are timely.
The one
thing I want to talk a little bit about before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, is
the questions that are asked and the answers that are given sometimes make their
way back to Question Period, which is standard operating procedure. When I hear
the Members opposite, especially the Member for Conception Bay South, stand up
and say they asked a lot of questions but they don't get any answers, I sit
through this hon. House during Question Period; I think in order to get an
answer you probably have to listen for it.
The
answers are there. I can see the Members are more concentrated on the next
question rather than the answers and sometimes they get confused. I can
understand where the answers are given quite clearly, but they're not received.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd just like to point out that in order to get a question answered,
you ask it but, more importantly, you listen. Somewhere in the midst of all your
concentration you could very well find the answer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. EDMUNDS:
The other thing, the crowd
across the way, the PCs, have a history of not being very good at math, Mr.
Speaker. We've seen it when they were in government, and the Third Party has the
same issues with math this year.
I just
want to point out that on New Year's Eve there are a whole lot of traditions.
Actually, one of the traditions I take part in is I like to go out and take my
shotgun and ring off the new year with a few shots fired into the air. Mr.
Speaker, I'm sure – and I stand corrected here – on the 31st of December the
year changed to 2018. The crowd across the way, I'm sure they still think it is
2016 because they keep going back there.
The
reason why they go back, Mr. Speaker, especially the Official Opposition, is
they know where we went in 2016 because they caused it. They were the reason we
went through very challenging times.
I think
it was David Cochrane who probably made the best quote that best describes them:
They're like the fox who broke into the chicken coop and ate all the chickens,
now they're looking for the eggs. Mr. Speaker, that's how they work.
We've
come a long way since 2016. It's two years ago now. They talk about going into
2016 with the $2.7 billion deficit. The Premier did a wonderful job of telling
them how they said it was $1.1 billion, and that's more than double of what the
reality is.
The
first question the minister of Finance at the time had was: How are we going to
do payroll? That's a tough question coming into a new government. Unfortunately,
when you form government, you don't get to start with a clean slate. Even if you
look ahead to 2022 or 2023, we'll still be doing damage control. We have nobody
to thank except the crowd across the way.
When you
look at how far we've progressed, I think the Minister of Finance said in his
Budget Speech that when we come to the next budget we'll be under $600 million.
That's a far improvement from $2.7 billion which the PC government left us with,
Mr. Speaker. I think it's important to realize that.
When you
get up and condemn a budget that's had so many improvements – and what we're
still doing is reacting to a deficit they caused, that they tried to hide from
the people of the province. It shows a marked measurement when you go from $2.7
billion in the red to just under $600 million in the coming year.
Mr.
Speaker, we're on track for a balanced budget in 2022-23. We've had to take the
criticism along the way but the facts show for themselves that we're doing the
job. We're getting the job done and it's no thanks to those across the way, Mr.
Speaker.
With
that, I'd just like to point out that the Estimates were conducted in a very
good fashion, very few replacements, good questions were asked, good answers
were given and it's a part of the process. Sometimes we cringe at going into
Estimates, but we do go there, we get it done, we come back, report and look
forward to a bigger and a better budget in the coming years.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the
Member for Torngat Mountains for that inspiring speech and the positivity he
exuded indeed, yes. Some of the comments he talked about, he talked about
economic indicators and talked about doing things better.
The
things you see in this budget, expenditures are up by a little over 2 per cent.
When you couple that with some of the economic indicators, it's caused some
concern in regard to the overall plan that's laid out for '22-'23 and some of
the strategic direction that's taken by this government in terms of getting back
– or as they allegedly say getting back – to surplus at that particular time.
There's
been some concern expressed in regard to that plan by the Auditor General last
year, some of the bond rating agencies recently in regard to some of the
initiatives that are in here. But we have seen in the last little while – and I
think the gentleman before me spoke and talked about oil and some of the things
we're seeing in regard to the price of a barrel of oil increasing.
We're
seeing things happening around the world, just recently the Americans pulling
out of the Iran nuclear agreement. People speculate that's driving it and will
continue to drive it because the economic sanctions could look at less volume of
oil coming out of countries like Iran and, therefore, driving the cost, as the
amount that's on the market could be reduced.
That
will continue to drive, I think, revenues for the province which, in and of
itself, is good. Even though we had the Premier some time ago saying oil is not
a policy and berated us at some time and some length about depending on oil.
Success that will be retained, I think, or improvements in any financial
position in this particular year, as we've seen in prior years, will be related
to oil and related to oil markets, and surplus over and above what's estimated
by the barrel of oil and what's estimated in a particular budget. If so, that's
good.
Our
natural resources are a huge part of our economy – are today; oil and gas being
no different. I think if you look at the seismic work and geological work that's
been done off our coast and off Labrador, some speculate that not even 10 per
cent has been tapped yet. We have huge potential off our coast and off our
shore, a lot of potential long term in regard to driving the oil and gas sector
and started in our time, as well, driving the support services for that industry
and what importance that is. So not only did they develop here and they support
the industry here and they employ people, but that gets exported. That's the
intellectual knowledge that gets developed and gets exported around the world.
If you
look at countries like Norway and what they've done in developing their oil
fields, beginning in the early '70s, not only developed their oil fields but
reaped the benefits from it, they also developed an inventory of expertise and
companies all over the world. Some even work here now, work in our industry, and
that's where Newfoundland certainly is working towards with some of our local
companies.
Now,
with that as well comes the ability to innovate, the research to be done. I know
in our time we developed the Research & Development Corporation, which the
current administration has basically gotten rid of; it's defunct. One of the
main roles of that was working with the oil and gas sector and others, in
particular, but certainly looking at through the Atlantic Accord, through the
obligations of companies here involved in the oil and gas sector and the
operators, the requirements and monitoring through the C-NLOPB to be directed to
a part of that revenue and royalties to be directed to things like education,
things like research and development, things like innovation, new technology
directed at the industry. Applied technology is important as well because that
looks at immediate returns to the industry and to us as Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians and to government through royalty regimes.
I
remember back – there was a research chair that was appointed at Memorial,
through work with the RDC and with the various partners of, I believe it was,
Hibernia. That research chair was looking at particular – I'm not sure what the
exact name was, but looking at how you extract greater oil content from a seabed
and in the earth where that volume of oil is stored and how you extract more of
that. That technology was developed, improved and enhanced.
As they
get down prior to that, down to extracting so much of that oil, they got to a
level where there was a high water content and they couldn't extract any more.
Through that innovation and new technology, they were able to extract a greater
amount from that oil field, so that benefits all concerned. Obviously, you're
developing new technology that can be used elsewhere, can be used off our shore
or used anywhere else around the world. It looks at greater royalties because
we're taking greater oil from that oil field and it's a greater return to the
province.
So those
are the things, in terms of research and development, that are important and
certainly helps the industry as it grows, which is required and continues to be
required. Now, I know there's InnovateNL, which the current administration
brought in. One of the main issues we had tried to improve on was the amount of
money that's been leveraged from the private sector.
When it
started out first, initially, it was a high public percentage content that was
used. That has grown to the point of over 50 per cent where new dollars coming
in were private sector dollars that were being leveraged for that applied
research, and that's where you want to get. You want to be able to extract that
private sector dollar to drive opportunity and drive that R & D.
I know
at Memorial as well and the Marine Institute, a lot of work went into helping
with that research; state-of-the-art facilities at the Marine Institute that are
often used by the various oil companies in terms of research they're doing,
testing of equipment and all kinds of things.
So the
research that's going on – and as we certainly supported in our time and
invested a lot in it – to build that basis to partner with industry, academia
and R & D, that's where you get a return back in new technologies for various
industries.
We went
through Estimates and had discussions on various parts of Natural Resources. One
was – and we brought it up and discussed – the $20 million that was discussed
that Nalcor was asked to come up with, I guess, through various reductions in
their expenditures for their 2018 budget.
Curiously enough, on budget day there was a Minute of Council – I'm not sure
whether it was an OC – that was issued directing government to send back $20
million to Nalcor. We had asked in Estimates and we asked the Minister of
Natural Resources, as well as the Minister of Finance, what particularly
happened there. Was there a direction to them to cut $20 million? It was cut
from a seismic program, which is kind of unique when you think about it because
government had come out with Advance 2030
in regard to the oil and gas sector and how you're going to grow the industry. I
think it was projected maybe 100 new exploratory wells and different activity,
which is all quite positive. We certainly recognize that. That's what you need.
Exploration is key because that starts the process.
The
seismic work and the investment, we started at our time in government, that's
been continued on, which is key as well because that provides data when you go
to land sales off our coast to entice companies to have some basic information
on what actually is there. We can provide that. That allows them as well to make
some decisions on where they want to invest, how they want to invest.
From our
perspective, as well, through the public entity of Nalcor, we have some
understanding of what's there as well. We're not going into it blindly in terms
of putting up land sales. We also have some knowledge and technical data of what
really exists before we put those land sales.
So all
of that is very important, but interestingly enough, in this budget, our
understanding was that we were told the board of directors or the CEO of Nalcor
– we're not sure who – cut $20 million from this program. Even though
Advance 2030 was announced by the
current administration which needed seismic and exploratory work to continue
what the directives and strategic direction was of that document. Yet, that $20
million, I guess the CEO of Nalcor or someone over there decided they were going
to take $20 million out of probably one of the most – one of many important, but
certainly an important program for that corporate entity. Then it was put back
at some other point at some time after the fact.
We're
not sure why. We asked questions on it. We got mixed reviews in regard to where
that's coming from. Obviously, they didn't save $20 million because they reduced
it and then government sent them over $20 million. So, actually, it looks like
they made $20 million during the process that was invested in them. When we
asked where this was going to be made up there were questions and answers given
to us, well, it could be, we'll see how the revenue is going and what they're
producing, that kind of thing and we'll see how that goes but not very
affinitive on what actually transpired there. We may get some further details on
that as we move ahead in discussions here, but we certainly asked questions on
it here in the House as well.
Another
issue that came up, not in Estimates – I'm not sure if we had discussion on it
again – and we asked the questions here in the House in regard to water
availability related to natural resources. Some of the challenges last fall we
were hearing in various areas of the province where Hydro has generating
capacity was water levels, and some of the issues related to almost 40-year lows
in regard to hydrology and some of the data that was available. What that was
meaning for hydro development at that time and as well leading into the winter
and into the spring.
We were
told at that time there was some recognition of it, everything seemed fine. Just
recently, I spoke to some people about Hinds Lake, 75 megawatts, and some of the
challenges they're having there in regard to low water level; Cat Arm as well,
in regard to reduction in water capacity. All that ties in to, obviously, if the
water is not available it can't flow through those generators and produce the
electricity that's required. Some concern in that, in regard to the overall
capacity.
We are,
based on the line the Maritime Link, bringing in the power to offset what it
cost to burn – actually, I think it's bunker C oil at Holyrood and what that
actually means in terms of reduction of costs. If we can bring it in at a
cheaper price than what it is to run that facility, obviously that's a positive
and provides less cost to the consumer in regard to expenditures we have to make
in bringing that power in.
As well,
related to Holyrood, we've also asked questions – I think it was in the Finance
Estimates and, as well, in Natural Resources. We asked about the carbon tax
related to what's being proposed by the federal government. The way the federal
government had it arranged I guess, or the directive they give to the provinces
is you had your homemade type of carbon tax that you had to develop, or if not
they'll implement it. The big hand from Ottawa will come down and say this is
what you're going to do. That has to be in place for the final quarter of this
fiscal year.
Why I
relate it to Holyrood and Come By Chance, it's related to the emissions coming
from that particular facility and what that means. Obviously, if you had a
$10-a-ton carbon tax that's initiated in the first quarter of 2019, and over the
next number of years I think it goes to $50-a-ton carbon tax, it's a significant
cost that needs to be paid for that. That's not in a general sense in terms of
transportation emissions that you might pay on gasoline that's then trickled
down to all elements of society, which I'll come back to, but that's just doing
with the facility there in Holyrood and what that costs to people.
We
asked, has there been any allocations made – we asked the Finance Minister – for
the final quarter in this fiscal year, which will be the first quarter in 2019?
Again, no indication that there's been any accommodation, any look at if Nalcor
is going to pay that, who pays that and what the cost would be.
My
colleague, who's the environmental critic, has talked here and asked in the
House about the carbon tax. A great question is – the average family in the
province today with two kids, looking at their purchasing power, and goods and
services they need with at least a $10 carbon tax coming in per ton and that
trickles down through the economy. What's that average family going to pay?
What's the extra cost?
We hear
across the way there are no new taxes. It's status quo. Well, the 300 taxes that
were increased and new ones added in 2016, this carbon tax is coming and it's
going to be part of that and it's going to be significant.
We
asked, and my colleague asked to the minister, and maybe a couple of ministers:
What's the effect going to be on that family in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Again, we have no answers on that. There are no details.
There's
been a report done by the parliamentary officer just recently that talks about
the tremendous increase and effect on GDP that the carbon tax is going to bring
if you look at rolling it out to '22-'23, and the cost that's going to be passed
down to Canadians, and certainly Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and what it
means for income, and for cutting into disposable income that's in people's
pockets.
Something like that too, it's not just – it's the whole economy that feels it.
It's municipalities that have costs. It's small companies; large companies. It's
goods and services. It's the retail sector. It's everybody that feels that,
because that's going to be passed on. It's important that we have some
information on it, but to date we have none. Who's going to pay it and what it's
going to look like, there's no idea.
When you
look at the taxes I talked about and the fees, what's that doing for the
economy. Look in the government's own documents,
Economic Outlook 2018, which is in the budget documents, and look at
the indicators and what the projections are, they're all pretty well going in
the wrong direction. Because we need to talk about investment, we need to talk
about creating an environment where small businesses want to operate.
If we
look at the current cannabis issue that's gone on lately in regard to producers;
we have Canopy Growth that was given an opportunity to come here and basically
create a monopoly and in the process get over $40 million worth of remittances
towards that. As well, I understand they have the ability – actually, guaranteed
four retail sites, I think it is, that they can use to distribute as a producer
that cannabis, which discourages local entrepreneurs, local small businesses to
do that.
There
was suddenly a concern – I had two individuals in my district who contacted me
about getting involved. We got them hooked up with Health Canada in regard to
applying for the actual licence. The cost, and based on the return of 8 per
cent, which the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, I guess directed by the current
government, is allocating, there were huge issues in making it profitable, the
amount of product that would need to be sold and those types of things.
We've
also seen some very large corporations that have been given the ability to sell
cannabis. It goes against the small employer, new entrepreneur, if someone want
to enter in to build right here, and really keep the money here in the province.
Certainly, at this time we'd want to support business and economic activity that
see new dollars generated, but those dollars stay here in the province and not
exited to other large corporations outside of the province. There's been a lot
of discussion about that and we'll see where it goes.
We even
had some national discussion these days about whether the target's going to be
hit for the legalization of cannabis; but, whatever the case, it's important
that we give every opportunity for entrepreneurs, for small business, to be part
of this economic activity. As a way forward you would want that, so it's
difficult to see why an exclusive monopoly would be set up for producers and
remittances of $40 million given to just one company.
If
someone else comes in, do they get those same benefits? Where does it end in
terms of going down that road and how many gets it? Once you get that monopoly
established, the real concern is that once it's there it's operational, you have
those controls, you've got the volume and you have the amount of production. It
develops and entrenches that monopoly which will inhibit new companies from
operating, setting up and being part of the economic opportunity that exists.
As we
know, small business, everybody heard the statistics. Up to 90 to 95 per cent
just in Canada and in Newfoundland and Labrador is small business. That's hiring
one, two, three, four people, making a livelihood for people in a community.
I just
heard today, I spoke to the owners of the Trepassey inn. They've attracted
people to come work. They've made tremendous investment to take advantage of the
region. Based on staff they've hired just in the past year, they've seen
anywhere from four, five or six new kids come in and attend the school. That's
enormous for that area because they've seen tremendous reductions in the past
number of years.
Their
school is going from probably K to 12, 28 kids, probably up to 36 or 37. It may
be a small number but it's huge. It shows the benefit of economic opportunity in
advancing and recognizing that something like Mistaken Point, small business and
driving economic activity and sustainability. It's a great example of that.
I
certainly applaud those entrepreneurs and all the people in the area, non-profit
groups that have helped in terms of driving economic activity and wanting to dig
in and make a difference. That's really important for here. It's great to see.
I'd like to hear further debate as we go forward in the budget.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Placentia
West - Bellevue.
MR. BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly an honour to stand and speak to Concurrence on these matters with
relation to the budget of this year, Mr. Speaker. I do want to wish
congratulations to my colleague from Conception Bay East - Bell Island, the new
leader of the Official Opposition. I congratulate him on his role and wish the
Member for Topsail - Paradise all the very best in his future endeavours. I
certainly wish my colleague from St. John's Centre well in her new role as well.
Mr.
Speaker, I also want to wish special greetings to my colleague from the District
of Exploits. It's his birthday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BROWNE:
I certainly say happy
birthday; nifty-nifty, plus some, I believe. Anyway, I won't digress.
Every
time you have an opportunity to stand here in this Legislature, it is indeed an
honour and a privilege to speak on behalf of those who have elected us.
Last
week, as those who are listening at home would know, we were not sitting in
these chairs last week. We were spread across the province in our districts. It
was constituency week. Mr. Speaker, I have to say it was a welcome time back in
the district, engaging with constituents, getting meeting done throughout the
district. I believe I went up and down the Burin Peninsula Highway eight times,
trekking back and forth to different events.
I had
six graduations. I spent some time with the Member for Bonavista in Trinity at
the Regional Heritage Fair where I was so delighted to present the overall
winner of the entire fair with his certificate and award. He was from Tricentia
Academy in Arnold's Cove, William Martin. He did a project on the Battle of the
Boyne, a very interesting project.
As a
student of history myself, it was something that was unacquainted with. I
encourage Members to look it up. Apparently, it is something that happened quite
some time ago and decided the fate of this Island, whether we would be French or
English.
I also
had the pleasure at the fair to present the certificates and awards to the best
project in the World War I category to Hannah Bannister of Come By Chance, who
did a project on the role of women in the First World War. She will now be
travelling with the Royal Canadian Legion and fellow students from across the
province to France and Belgium for the July 1st Trail of the Caribou trip. I
certainly wish them all the best.
I thank
the Member for Bonavista for the fine hospitality in his district in Trinity and
the Rising Tide Theatre, on the cusp of celebrating a big anniversary for them.
I'm sure I will be back to celebrate with them, but Rising Tide has certainly
become a cultural icon on the Bonavista Peninsula and we recognize that, Mr.
Speaker.
I want
to discuss and take my time today to talk about innovation. This is Innovation
Week. I have the great honour of being the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue,
but I also enjoy my role as the parliamentary secretary for Tourism, Culture,
Industry and Innovation.
As of
late, our department's focus has been squarely put on innovation, on technology,
on the many facets of the innovation sector to grow this sector, to grow jobs,
to grow economic activity. Just this morning, the Premier and I and the minister
and the Member for
Virginia Waters - Pleasantville, visited Quorum data
solutions on the former Little Dale campus. They have 89 permanent employees.
They develop software for car dealerships and that's being done right here in
St. John's.
Just a few months ago, we hosted the first ever
technology industry summit. We've also hosted the Agriculture Industry Summit,
the aquaculture industry summit and what we're hearing from the industry groups
is that they've never, never seen the kind of level of engagement the
departments are making with these industries, not only talking, Mr. Speaker, not
only engaging, but focusing on result-oriented plans with specific
action-oriented items that can be followed up and tracked and progress can be
reported.
We hosted one of those at Verafin for the technology
sector. For those who are unacquainted with Verafin, they do online banking
security also right here in St. John's. There's so much happening right
underneath our noses that oftentimes Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we may
not recognize that. We obviously know ourselves to be peoples of the sea, we
know ourselves to be an oil-faring province as well, Mr. Speaker, but technology
is on the rise – technology is on the rise.
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
BROWNE:
I'm
getting to mining, Mr. Speaker.
We were also visiting recently Empowered Homes. They've
developed a software application, a thermostat called Mysa that you can monitor
and control your temperatures in each room from your phone, Mr. Speaker. You can
set it for when you're on vacation and when your flight will land, you
anticipate returning home to a pre-set temperature. This was started by two
young brothers – they're in their early 20s –from their parent's basement. Now
they have an office downtown. They have a number of employees; I believe it's 11
employees that they have.
The technology jobs in this province, they're
better-than-average pay, they're highly specialized and skilled and it's keeping
young people right here at home, Mr. Speaker. I have a great interest in
expanding the technology sector and expanding our knowledge resource pool here
in the province.
It's not only software development, Mr. Speaker, where
innovation is at play. When we look at Anaconda Mining in the Baie Verte
Peninsula, in the mining sector we're seeing great, innovative strides being
made. Recently InnovateNL made a financial commitment to Anaconda and they are
doing great things on the Baie Verte Peninsula, which I'm sure the Deputy
Speaker can inform that House on, Mr. Speaker.
I
certainly don't want to give the impression that it's all software and
computers, Mr. Speaker. There's a lot of innovation happening across the
province. These are just some of the investments we've made recently.
Last
summer we made a decision that we wanted to shine the light on innovation in a
very focused and laser-targeted way, Mr. Speaker, and we created InnovateNL.
InnovateNL is designed for kind of one-stop shopping. An ability to reduce red
tape, to bring synergies together within the department and ensure the money
that is being expended in the name of innovation in this province is going
directly into research and development and into private sector investment.
The
former Research & Development Corporation, by remodelling the model that we are
using now in InnovateNL, that saved government $3 million, Mr. Speaker. By
making that change and creating InnovateNL, not only were we making government
more administratively efficient, but we were freeing up more dollars for
innovation. That's critical, because what we hear from in the technology sector
particularly, the biggest challenge they face is talent recruitment and
retention. The more that we can put into programs and the more that we can
partner with the private sector to help them achieve their goals, the more
successful we will be.
This
ties in of course, Mr. Speaker, with the Business Innovation Agenda that we
launched. The superclusters are something else I want to discuss because I don't
think it's something that we talk enough about. There were five superclusters
announced by the federal government across the country. The private sector
stepped up. They formed their own partnership. They're putting their own money
on the table and the federal government is then matching that.
The
supercluster for Atlantic Canada – we all worked together as four provinces and
with four private sector communities in each respective province – is for
oceans.
Just
yesterday, at the launch of Innovation Week at Memorial University, the
parliamentary secretary to Minister Bains was in town for the launch. He
commented in his remarks, Mr. Speaker, how fitting and perfect the Ocean
Supercluster was in a way that wasn't the case for the other four across the
country. Each had their own merits I'm certain, but the natural synergies that
exist in Newfoundland and Labrador, in the other three Atlantic provinces when
it comes to oceans, is phenomenal.
We see
so much activity occurring in Holyrood, Mr. Speaker, in the District of Harbour
Main. The Member has been such a fervent advocate for that. We've had so many
announcements out there as well with the Marine Institute and other entities.
There is so much happening, Mr. Speaker, with the Ocean Supercluster.
We also
have to bear in mind when we look at the economic prospects for the province –
I've mentioned that we've hosted industry summits for agriculture, for
aquaculture, something the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, I'm certain, can
tell us of the benefits of aquaculture. I had the benefit of travelling that
area for quite some time when I worked for the former MP there.
There's so much economic rejuvenation that has occurred
in the Coast of Bays region as a result of aquaculture. The people of my
district and the people on the Burin Peninsula and the Placentia Bay region are
hoping to see some of those same results.
We've also, as I mentioned, had the technology sector
industry summit but we've also launched
Advance 2030. The Minister of Natural Resources has done a fine job, Mr.
Speaker, a fine job. I have to commend the minister, such a fine minister and a
capable hand at the wheel of Natural Resources.
Advance 2030 seeks to double our oil
production by 2030 amongst other things.
It's important, Mr. Speaker, that we set goals. It's
important that we set benchmarks so we can set sail on where it is we want to
go. We have such opportunities in the oil and gas sector. We have such
opportunities there that we will continue to pursue because we must continue to
pursue them.
Equally important, Mr. Speaker, we have taken note –
and since forming government in 2015, we have made a concerted effort through
the Cabinet Committee on Jobs that the Premier formed to ensure that all sectors
are being looked at adequately and sufficiently to determine what supports can
be made by government to the industry in partnership with them. That is what's
so important, Mr. Speaker. That's what's so important, is partnering with them.
It's not merely releasing a plan from the bellows of Confederation Building for
the industry; it's working with them in partnership in the communities and the
industry and ensuring that we get that right.
I also want to mention, Mr. Speaker, our department has
so many economic facets to it. Tourism last year saw record non-resident and
resident spending, over $1.1 billion as we work to get that up to $1.6 billion.
We're getting there, Mr. Speaker. We had 575,000 non-resident visitors come here
for the first time last year,
generating $553 million worth
of new money into the economy. It is phenomenal. We've seen employment rise from
18,000 people to 20,000 people in the tourism industry. It is phenomenal.
While I
was in Trinity last week, Mr. Speaker, attending the regional heritage fair, it
was amazing to see the number of start-ups and businesses in that area
surrounding tourism. I had an opportunity to drop by the Port Rexton Brewery.
There are a whole host of opportunities there. One draws from the other. You
start one and another pops up next to it. They build on each other's successes.
I think
one of the beauties, Mr. Speaker, if I will, of the tourism industry is that
people are really pulling together. People know that my success is your success.
It's not so much competing against one another as it is a high tide floats all
boats.
I also
noticed in Trinity East there's a new spa going up. People are making
investments; they recognize what's happening in the economy. These are all
positive things.
When we
look at that area, I just think back to
Maudie, the film that had much of its filming done on the Bonavista
Peninsula, Mr. Speaker. That film alone generated $400,000 worth of taxes back
to the province. It generated a $9 million total economic output. You can't buy
that kind of economic activity. It's strategic investments through our Film
Development Corporation that allow for this type of investment here.
Maudie is a terrific example on the Bonavista Peninsula; it did a
lot of filming there. We're very hopeful and very optimistic that more
production work will be done here in the province and also for post-production
work that can be done here in the future.
I also want to touch on, before I sit down, mental health.
Mental health is something that – you can have all the economic foundations, Mr.
Speaker, that you wish, but without good physical and mental health, it is hard
to enjoy what investments are around you and the jobs that are created as a
result of it.
I have to commend the Minister of Health and Community
Services, my good friend, who has impeccable driving. I have to say, he has
driven his department in the right direction, Mr. Speaker, in a way that focuses
on mental health finally as a substantive policy issue for government to tackle.
How proud I was to be there at the announcement for the replacement of the
Waterford, for a new mental-health facility that will no longer be called the
Waterford. It's a facility
that has been long sought after and something that we have committed to do.
I look
no further than the Burin Peninsula – and the Member for Burin - Grand Bank can
certainly attest to this, Mr. Speaker – the Roots of Hope initiative, the first
in Canada that has taken place on the Burin Peninsula. When I came into office
the wait-lists were at 70, 75, 80, even up to 100 to get in to see a mental
health counsellor in the Marystown Eastern Health clinic. Today that number is
at zero. There is no wait-list anymore. Strategic investments and partnering
with community has gotten people better services. We see that. I see that. I
talk to people. I know that people are feeling better about themselves. God
willing, they will seek the services that they need.
I know
the challenges of mental health, Mr. Speaker. My uncle died by suicide. I
understand the impacts it has on a family. The questions that are lingering:
Why? What could we have done differently? Did we know? Did we see the signs?
Those are questions that are difficult, questions to which you never get the
answers. All you can do is pledge to fight another day and try to help others
from getting in that situation.
I will
never forget that day in 2005, Mr. Speaker. Many families on the Burin Peninsula
have experienced that type of day. When we see wait-lists going from 175 down to
zero, I can tell you it makes the role that you play and the reasons why you
sought political office worthwhile. I can tell you sometimes it doesn't require
a large investment, sometimes it is about changing how you're doing things. I
commend the Minister of Health and Community Services and I commend Eastern
Health for having an open mind on how we deal with mental health issues in my
region and across the province.
We also
saw the implementation of the secure withdrawal legislation for youth, Mr.
Speaker. We saw the implementation of the prescription drug monitoring act. Many
concrete steps have been taken to address mental health issues.
Although
we will always continue working on the economic files like the Marystown
Shipyard, which is something that I continue to work on – I had conversations
with the relevant parties as recently as yesterday on that file. I'm very
hopeful that we're going to have some good news on that soon. I'm very hopeful
that we're going to have news on the Grieg project, Mr. Speaker, very soon. I'm
a fervent supporter. I know where I stand. I can't speak for Members of the
Opposition. I can't speak for them. I hope that they will stand with the people
of the Burin Peninsula and the Placentia Bay region to support jobs and the
prospect for greater economic activity.
I can
tell you with all my heart, Mr. Speaker, I care very deeply for the region I
represent. I care very deeply for their economic needs, for their social needs.
I take great pride and pleasure in working with the Member for Burin - Grand
Bank, the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's and the Member for Terra Nova, who
are all neighbours of mine in various regions of the district, in working
together and collaborating to ensure that we have the strongest basis for
success in the future.
I have a
Premier whose door has always been open, who works and supports us to ensure the
people of our district are well represented, and my colleagues who sit in
Cabinet are always there to support the initiatives that the people of the
province feel are important. It's not to say that we are always correct or
always quick enough to address a solution, but I can tell you, we always have
the best of intentions at heart and we'll continue working for the people of
this province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives
me pleasure once again to rise and speak to Concurrence. I guess the first thing
I have to address is the transfer of funds from the department in the
administration of agriculture to Transportation and Works in reference to
agricultural road construction.
One of
the biggest issues to the development of the 64,000 acres – which again, for the
record, has always been on this Island and has always been there, so it's not
something new that this administration has brought up – is the access to the
64,000 acres.
Many of
these parcels or areas of interest are in extremely remote locations. There's
over a half a million dollars of provincial funds that have been moved from the
department of agriculture again to Transportation and Works, and I'm really
concerned that there will be an active communication between the two departments
that won't hamper the development of this agricultural resource.
As I
said, many of these prime pieces of agricultural land, which could add to our
food supply, are in remote locations. Even the construction of the access roads
is going to take a considerable amount of time and an extraordinary amount of
funds.
We
really need to prioritize which area this funding is going to be spent on. The
tendering process for the road construction is another issue in itself. My fear
is that there will not be sufficient time within the agricultural program to
identify, engineer, tender and construct these roads that are now the
responsibility of Transportation and Works.
My
suggestion would be to bring the funds back to agriculture. They were doing a
great job of administering the roads and the access funds and now, all of a
sudden, we have to deal with a different department. Trying to make things
efficient, it's almost as if it's been made more complicated for the developers
being the producers.
Another
thing I would like to speak to is the energy audit. I would like to see
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation conduct an energy audit on all of
its units. Prioritize the renovations versus the benefit of savings on a
priority list and put an active plan in place based on where we can save the
most energy. Not only would it reduce the cost of operating these units, it
would also do a great favour to our environment and reduce our impact of carbon
production in the form of heat or electricity, whatever it may be, on our
fragile planet.
Energy
audits should also be carried out on all our public buildings. Maybe we could
even look at our suppliers having to have an energy audit on their business or
their facilities as part of a tendering prerequisite. It will go a long ways to
making more power, more energy available to business development and industry
expansion, but the biggest benefactor would be the impact of our existence on
the environment.
Another
issue that I'd like to speak to is the legalization of cannabis. I've kind of
really listened to it because the production of any plant interests a farmer.
I'm not happy, nor comfortable, with the way that we have chosen Canopy
international. There was no competitive process. Unlike other jurisdictions,
which had a competitive process in which they had numerous interested parties to
bid on the supply, we chose one and we gave them an advantage over everybody
else. That's not industry creation, that's monopoly creation.
The same
thing goes on down to the retail outlets. For the life of me, I can't understand
why there's a concentration of outlets in the CBS area while there are none in
the Northern Peninsula. There are none, to the best of my knowledge, down on the
Burin Peninsula. I think that's not only partially government's responsibility
to see that we are geographically dispersed, the retail outlets, but I think
that's what the intent is to – not to control, but in the legalization process
we want to be able to provide Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with a safe
supply of this recreational material.
By
dislocating it so far away from areas such as the Burin Peninsula, the Great
Northern Peninsula and parts of Labrador, I think we're only actually going to
encourage more black market sales. Because as others are using this as a
recreational material, all parts of our province are going to want to do the
same and have the same opportunity. Just like any business people, the
illegitimate portion of the world, they're going to recognize the business
opportunity and they're going to concentrate their sales efforts in those areas
that people cannot get legalized material from legalized retail outlets. I
really think that was the second misstep.
Another
part of it is we don't have the legal ramifications of the legalization of
cannabis figured out when it comes to workplace health and safety. In my other
career as a farmer, I have a big concern with anybody who may be under the
influence of recreational cannabis. Agriculture is actually the most dangerous –
well, not most dangerous, but most likely industry to incur an injury in Canada.
We're using machinery every day, we are around animals, we work long hours.
There's a lot of responsibility. Judgment can in no way be impaired by anything
and not compromise the safety of one's self or people around you. That's going
to stem out to other industries, such as the construction industry,
transportation industries.
We'll be
able to arrest people. There's no doubt that a peace officer will be able to go
up and arrest somebody, but when it comes right now to actually charging and
administering punitive measures, it's just going to be a legal nightmare for the
courts. There's going to be so much, I guess, interpretative evidence that is
going to be subject to interpretation by juries, by judges, by lawyers and it's
just going to plug up our system.
I know
we say we're being force fed the legalization of cannabis, but, as I've said
before, we are still ultimately responsible for the safety of our people. We, as
a province, we, as a Legislature, have been elected to maintain that
responsibility and ensure the safety of our people. I don't think we're in a
position, anywhere near in a position to do that yet, and by no means should we
be allowing the federal government to force feed us and impose a date of
legalization. I think that's just not a – there's no way I can argue with myself
to make that a reasonable ground to say that we have to do it. We'll do it when
we're comfortable. That's what we have to say, when we can guarantee the safety
of the people.
I am
hearing a lot of excitement about the technology sector, and by no means am I a
detraction of that because the technology sector does provide opportunity for
industry development and economic activity and income, but the reality is that's
based on people. Given the rate of our province's outmigration, for different
reasons; one of them being our taxation system is probably gone from the most
favourable to one of the least favourable in the country.
Our cost
of living here, between the increased fees, the infamous levy, the taxes on
basic items such as insurance which are a must to conduct any sort of activity.
I know we've talked about reducing it in two years' time, but it's only by 2 per
cent, and given the fact that inflation will continue to rise, that 2 per cent
will not be noticed on the bottom line or on the amount of money that people of
Newfoundland and Labrador have in their pocket.
Yes, the
technology sector does provide huge opportunity, but, as I said, we need people
to participate in that technology sector. If there's another jurisdiction
throughout this whole entire beautiful planet, they will move there and they can
set up the exact same technology sector there. In order for us to develop the
technology sector, we have to make this province a more affordable place to
live, a better place to live. Then we can look at encouraging the technology
sector.
If we
throw money into the technology sector now – we've seen this in the past, in
other previous administrations, where there was subsidization given to call
centres which are basically similar to technology sectors. Those call centres
are no longer here. Yes, they do depend on people. They have a different output
but they're still people. Once that government funding dried up, those companies
went elsewhere where it was more favourable for them to set up. That's the glory
of being a movable species.
When we
talk about unemployment numbers, I just did some quick calculations. Given that
the majority of the people who left this province in the past couple of years
and the people who are projected to leave in future years because of lack of
employment opportunities, our real unemployment rate will be about 24 per cent.
While it's only 13 per cent now, if you look at just as many people who are
unemployed that are living here in this province are now going to leave the
province, our unemployment rate is technically double what it really is. That's
a big concern, because some of the most mobile people in this province are the
most educated or the most skilled. They're the ones who have the most mobility.
That's going to further create a deficit of opportunity here in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
When we
are counting on the doubling of oil production, yes, I would love to say we're
going to double oil production, but that is entirely dependent on world markets.
As we've seen in the past decade or so, there's an increased walk away from oil
consumption; better technology, better efficiencies.
The
United States to the south of us, they're actually now a net exporter of
petroleum products, whereas they were always an importer. Doubling oil
production, yes, it's a lottery if it happens. Yes, it's a lottery if we can
capitalize on that, but I think there are better things we can invest our time
and money in; more sustainable industries, more sustainable ideas and more
sustainable concepts, environmentally and socially, for the people of our
province.
In
reference to WHSCC – I think I got that right – I kind of had a second thought
on the increase of benefits. The increase of benefits is only permitted because
of overpayment by the employers. This overpayment and this surplus that
currently exists in that account is quickly being eaten up by these increased
benefits.
There's
no doubt that our injured workers need to be taken care of, but when this
surplus is eaten up, what is going to happen? Is government going to step in and
compensate for the increased demand? Or is government going to go back to the
employers and say, unfortunately, in order to maintain a self-supporting
corporation we have to take more money out of your pockets. We have to take more
money out of employers' pockets.
So, not
only will that compromise the financial ability of an enterprise, it will
compromise our ability as a province to encourage businesses to come in and set
up in Newfoundland and Labrador. That's something that needs to be addressed.
That's something that needs to be addressed before we get into that situation,
that we are in a deficit process and it falls on the backs of employers.
Employers are stressed enough as it is between the depressed economy, increased
costs of doing business –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Muskrat Falls.
MR. LESTER:
Muskrat Falls is a great
concept in principle, and –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. LESTER:
I know everybody laughs at
that. It is a great concept in principle because I think everybody really
appreciates being able to turn on their light switch no matter what time of year
it is. The reality is, we as a province have been devoid of infrastructure
upgrades and improvement in the past 40 years and now it's time to do that.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) got hoodwinked.
MR. LESTER:
Hoodwinked? I can go back to a hoodwinked concept. I think the most common one I
hear that on is the financial position of the province, but do you know what?
I'm actually tired of hearing that, and I'm pretty sure everybody I talk to on
the street and everybody you talk to on the street is tired of hearing: you did
not know. Everybody in this province knew.
With
that, as my time winds down, I'll go back to my favourite subject, and that's
food production. I would like to see more, as I said in the past, more food
production at home. That means more food production in community gardens, more
food production in people's backyards.
There
should be language and parameters put within our housing units that if someone
does want to start a garden there should be infrastructure in place such as
tillers, sheds, encouragement by staff that would enable people who are tenants
of our publicly-funded housing, to enable them to get out, get active, produce
some of their own food, take pride in their neighbourhoods. All those things
there would go so far to improve everybody's social perception and everybody's
confidence levels.
As our
population does age, we are going to see an increased need for better quality
food, more activity and increased needs in the subsidized housing market largely
put forth by our own government. Gardening is an amazing thing. It does
wonderful things for the soul, wonderful things for the body and wonderful
things for the community spirit. That's something I really feel strongly about.
I'm
looking at Members opposite; I can see lots of green thumbs over there by the
way they're acknowledging what I'm saying. In your off time, I'd encourage you
to get your hands dirty. Even though I stand here on this side, my advice is
free. So anytime you want to contact me, go ahead and I'll gladly help you.
In
closing, I'm going to speak a little bit further to the agricultural potential
and how our province needs to approach the actual expansion of our industry, and
that is by sustainable development. The lofty target of doubling our production
in two years is only going to put more producers out of business than in
business. We'll have a large influx of new entrants subsidized by government
funding and government initiatives but when it comes right down to it that heavy
funding influx and focus on new entrants is only going to compromise existing
industry.
We need
to basically double the amount of funds that are available to producers if we
want to double the amount of infrastructure and production capacity. What's more
important to the production capacity is the marketing end of it, and that's not
just coolers, harvesters, graders. We need to continue to culture the demand
within our people, the demand within the local consumer to ask for agricultural
products that are produced here in Newfoundland and Labrador. They're the ones
who are going to really drive the production increase. They're the ones who are
going to hold the retailers to the fire and demand they carry local products.
That's really who controls our food system, it's the retailers.
We can
have all the product we want available, but if the retailers are not willing to
carry it and not willing to pay the farmers or producers a reasonable price,
those farmers are soon going to find themselves out of business. It will be a
continued waste of government investment because there's no market or no
viability for those products.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member's time has expired.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand up and speak to this Concurrence for the Government Services
Committee and to talk about the work that went on through the Estimates phase.
For
those that may be watching out there – and I have no idea if there's anybody
watching – the fact remains that generally during a budget debate you're allowed
to talk about anything. Whenever we talk about something called a money bill, it
doesn't have to limited to the bill and the good thing sometimes – because if
you were listening to the Opposition, it also doesn't have to be limited to
facts.
It's
really unfortunate because when I speak about the Member for Mount Pearl North –
who I think is obviously quite committed to his district. He takes the time to
speak and I appreciate his commentary. The fact remains that there's a lot of it
that's just really suspect. It comes down to – I hear some of the comments from
Members opposite sometimes and it doesn't take long to show that they may not be
accurate in their comments.
For
instance, the leader of the Opposition, who I think is a fine gentleman, got up
once last year, I'll never forget because –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Which one?
MR. A. PARSONS:
The current leader of the
Opposition
AN HON. MEMBER:
There were a couple.
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, the current one, the
Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island. Congratulations on the new role.
He realizes this is not personal, it's simply business.
What I
would say is he got up one time – I think it was last year or the year before –
and he was going on about the budget of 2016, which is roughly the same as now
because it's 2018 and they're still talking about the budget of 2016. I'll talk
about the budget of 2016, too, because that came after their last budget and
their decade. Really, when you think about it, it was the decade of a lot of
lost opportunities.
What I
want to do is talk about facts. He had talked about with this budget there's
decreased consumer confidence, there are less trucks being sold, there are less
cars being sold. You only have to talk to any dealers.
This is
where I love sometimes the media and facts, and Stats Canada showed – and right
there, I just happen to have it from a couple days before. I have a subscription
– that's a free shout out now – to a group called allNewfoundlandLabrador. They
do a great newspaper. It's an online subscription that gets sent out every
night. I recall, I said: I remember reading something that's the exact opposite
of what he just said. So I actually took it up and referred to it. That year
there were actually increases in just about every type of car sales. What that
showed was that – many times, as we see here in this House, facts and evidence
show that what they are saying is simply not true.
I take
that to go back to the Member for Mount Pearl North who – I wasn't going to be
speak and he stands up. I'll get to the cannabis part now, but the first part
was he talked about the population, outmigration. The good news for Marine
Atlantic is they're going to be filling up all their voyages and vessels going
out of the province. They're going to be filled up because everybody's leaving.
What I
wanted to do is I come back to this wonderful thing called facts and evidence.
What I did is I went to this site called stats.gov.nl.ca. The funny thing is we
just have to look back through actual recorded statistics to show that what he's
suggesting is simply not true.
In fact,
if we talk about population numbers. Do you want the low point in terms of
population in our province? It was actually in 2007, 509,000 roughly. Now that
may be a coincidence because that's also the year when you look at the spending
charts – and the Minister of Finance can talk about this. When you look at the
spending charts of the province, they go along sort of like this and in 2007 it
goes right up.
In fact,
they had to build a new parking lot on the Confederation Building here. It's
true. It's out there now. They had to build that for the increase in the civil
service. It ballooned. What's the percentage, I ask the Minister of Finance?
What did it balloon? They increased it by – I'm not sure if it was 30 per cent;
30 or 40 per cent. It went up a significant amount. The funny thing is when they
stand up now they talk about the fact that we need to cut costs. Well, I would
say, that's not how you felt just a couple of years ago.
I go
back to this, the stats and the facts and the evidence. We look at the fact that
in 2015 the population was 528,815. They said: When you bring in this new
budget, that number is going to go down. It's down. They're all leaving. They
can't wait to get out of here; packed up, everybody gone.
The next
year, actually, the population went up. The population went up, and it's still
at – right now, the last recorded number in 2017 was at 528,800. It's still just
about 20,000 higher than 2007. The statistics and the facts just don't bear out
what they're saying. It's because what they're saying is not geared at the
truth, it's geared at trying to create an impression that actions that we've
taken are driving people out of the province. That, quite clearly, is not a
fact. It's not true.
The fact
is the steps we've taken are to ensure that people can stay here in this
province because if we did not, the fact is this province probably faced their
greatest look at bankruptcy ever in the history of the province, since the
Commission of Government. Through the steps taken by the former minister of
Finance, the current Minister of Finance and all the staff that work with them,
we've taken a number of steps to make sure we get back in the right direction.
They
talk about the doubling of production of oil. Now, I cannot remember what we
budgeted oil at this year. I think it's $63. I think actually right now, as of
yesterday, it's at around $78. The previous administration – even if oil is at
$100 or $110, they spent at $150 levels. That's the difference, but we're going
to take a prudent approach here. We realize –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) at $120.
MR. A. PARSONS:
They budgeted at $120; it's never going to go down again. Well, we saw how that
played out. I want to talk about the fact that sometimes what they say has no
bearing in reality, and that's the sad part here.
The
other thing I want to address, because it's one thing to say it and it's another
thing to do it. The Member opposite talked about cannabis and talked about how
we shouldn't just let them do what they want. We should put our system in when
we want to put it in. Well, what I would say is the unfortunate part is it
simply doesn't work that way. There are certain things that fall under the
purview of the federal government that they have every right to change and we
need to change.
What we
can do is we can do nothing and let the feds come in and put their own regime in
place, put their own system in place. If we did that, we would hear no shortage
of criticism from the other side saying: My God, you guys are in charge, why
don't you put some laws in place? That's what they would say if we did that, but
we're not doing that. We're doing the opposite of that, which is we are going to
be ready during this session of the House to bring legislation forward to be
ready for the impending legalization of cannabis. The federal government has
every right to impose rules and make changes to legislation.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
There it is.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yeah. The next thing you know
if we didn't take the steps that we do to make sure we have a supply here, we'd
have all the supply coming in from outside. There are a number of things there
that we've taken, I think, positive steps in the right direction.
The
other thing I want to contradict is the Member opposite says the legalization of
cannabis will see a clogging up of the courts. That is simply not true. That's
one of the main reasons the change is actually happening is that we have an
overrepresentation of individuals incarcerated and going through the justice
system because of the criminalization and the illegal nature of cannabis. To
suggest that the legalization is going to lead to an influx of people within the
system is simply not true. There's no evidence whatsoever to back up what the
Member is saying.
I said
this when I was in Opposition, I hate to use the word – it makes me sick – “fear
mongering” because every time we suggested something like when we talked about
the fact that Muskrat Falls was going to be an albatross around our neck, we
were fear mongering. When we talked about the different steps and changes that
they were taking were going to be bad for the people of the province when we
were in Opposition, we were fear mongering. Everything we do is fear mongering.
In this
case maybe it's not fear mongering, but it's a deliberate attempt to put
information out into the public sphere to confuse people when they know that it
is not true. There's empirical and statistical evidence to show that's not the
case. The reason we are doing this, the reason the feds have brought this in, as
we've seen in other jurisdictions, is there is not an increase in crime. What we
see is a reduction of the number of people going through the system.
The
other thing the Members opposite said – the former leader of the Opposition a
few months back said he supported the move. That's documented in the news. Then
he changed his tune as we get closer and said: I don't know if I support this.
He actually referenced an MLA in Nova Scotia and about psychosis and I don't
know if we're making the right move, which is a fine time. We've been talking
about it for two years and now you wait until the last session, a couple of
months before the anticipated start date, to talk about your fears when you
already said a couple of months back that you thought it was fine. That's a
flip-flop at the greatest.
What I
again say is that they talked about there's going to be everybody, once you
legalize it – in fact, I heard the comments, I referenced this before in a
speech. Look at Colorado; they can never get their state back. They can never
get it back, as if the State of Colorado had been ruined. The facts show that in
many cases, (a), there may have been no uptake or increase in the number of
people that are using cannabis; and number two, in some states that did go up,
actually we saw a decrease after. You're not going to see this huge surge in the
number of people that use cannabis. But now, a little news flash to people out
there, people in this province right now are using cannabis.
MS. ROGERS:
No.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes. I said to the Leader of
the NDP, I know, I'm shocked too – I'm shocked too. I didn't believe it, but
people are using cannabis. And the fact is that some of those people are kids.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
All right, take it easy.
Anyway,
the fact is that cannabis usage in this province, even amongst the youth, is
actually higher than it is in other places in Canada. We have people that use
cannabis, and the fact remains that some people, as they do with alcohol, they
use cannabis and drive. And that's one of the bigger concerns that we have now,
is the safety on our roads.
But if
you listen to the Member opposite, he's saying that now you're going to have
everybody smoking cannabis, and they're all going to drive, and the police are
useless is basically what they're going to say; and that evidence is going to be
all tossed out, we are going to have a clog up in the courts, it's going to be
madness – going to be madness.
The fact
is, Mr. Speaker, to quote – actually, I'm not going to use the quote from a
former Member, because I don't want to bring that person's name up in the House.
Maybe I could. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact remains that
right now people do use cannabis and people do drive, and we have police that
are trained and getting the same training as they get across Canada, across the
States, standard field sobriety test where they can detect impairment and people
get charged. We know that.
We also
know that there are going to be challenges, new to us, new to everybody that you
get when you have a new policy change like this. Do I think that the change from
illegal to legal is going to be 100 per cent seamless, absolutely perfect? No,
of course not; there will be challenges. Every province will face them. You tell
me a new public policy initiative of any kind in any department or any company
that worked without some form of, well, we're making a change, we got to get
used to this. I have no doubt.
What I
can guarantee is that we, as a government, have taken every step we can to be
prepared for this change. We have taken every step possible. In fact, we've had
significant meetings recently on the different pieces of legislation that we
have to bring in, and I'm quite confident in the pieces of legislation that we
have.
I also
have, contrary to some of the Members on the other side, I'm confident in the
work of our police forces who will enforce road safety. I'm quite confident in
their ability to do this. Now, do we have challenges? Of course, there is no
federally approved screening device yet as there is for a breathalyzer, but that
will come. Again right now, as I said, it's not like there's nobody out there –
unfortunately, we have people who drive on our roadways and they do drive under
that influence. It's illegal – it's illegal then, it's illegal now and it's
going to continue to be illegal. That's not going to change. What we're going to
do is bring in steps to make sure that we reduce that.
I have
to come back to the crux of my speech, which is sometimes what Members on the
other side say, it might sound good, but you just got to sort of scrape beneath
it to realize that there's no basis in truth, in reality, in facts, statistics
and evidence. Again, those are generally what I rely on when I try to make
decisions; I try to rely on fact and evidence and try to look at other
jurisdictions.
There
are probably Oppositions in other provinces that are asking the same questions
and make the same uniformed remarks that the Opposition here ask – again, sorry
I'm not going to say Opposition because that's an insult to the Members of the
NDP and the independent party. That's the Official Opposition in this case.
That's an insult; I didn't mean that, my apologies.
What I
would say is that the PC Party in this province – if you just check out, if you
want to see something interesting, go to some of the Google comments for PC
Party comments from Nova Scotia by some of the MLAs over there. It goes beyond
uninformed; some of the comments are racist in nature (inaudible). Now, I've not
seen that from these Members which is good. I'm not seeing that. What I'm
saying, though, is I'm seeing the same level of uniformed commentary when it
comes to this. If they have actual concerns and questions, there can be
briefings lined up at any point in time to discuss where we are as a province.
Those
briefings are done by civil servants, good public servants of this province,
many of whom I would suggest also – it's not like they were all hired by a
Liberal government, many of them worked for the previous administration. They
are non-partisan. Their job is to work for the people of this province and they
do it well.
What I
would suggest is if there are actual comments and questions, fears, concerns, by
all means ask them, bring them forward and we will make sure that you have the
evidence. But to go out in make comments as if they were factual when, in fact,
they are nothing close to it, is really unfortunate, especially when we do it in
this House and people are relying on us for the truth and relying on us for what
they can expect, especially when it comes to something like this for which there
are many questions.
On that
note, I appreciate the opportunity to speak again to
Budget 2018.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm very
happy to stand here this evening and to speak to Concurrence. There are two
particular issues I'd be interested in speaking, let's see if I can get to both
of them. I may just cover one this evening.
One of
them is that I had the pleasure of attending Municipalities NL in Gander a few
weekends ago. There was something called the World Café. World Café is where
there are experts or a host at each table. There are a number of tables in the
room. You go to that table for 20 minutes, you hear what that person has to say
and you have a discussion. There are maybe about eight or nine people at your
table. Then after 20 minutes, you go on and move to another table with another
facilitator, with another level of expertise on a different subject. It was
great.
I was
lucky enough to go to the table that was facilitated by John Norman. As many
people know, John Norman is the mayor of Bonavista. As a matter of fact, I
believe that John Norman is a superhero. If I could knit, I would knit him a
superhero cape. He talked a little bit about what was happening in Bonavista
because we –
MR. LANE:
What about the MHA? Is he a
superhero?
MS. ROGERS:
Oh sure, the MHA is a
superhero too. If he knows how to knit, maybe he can knit a cape for John Norman
on my behalf.
MR. KING:
I'll get mom to knit one.
MS. ROGERS:
Okay, let's do that. It's a
good idea. That's a great idea.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. ROGERS:
Good. Who does? You do? Who
does?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS. ROGERS:
I'd be willing to take a
superhero cape sewn by yourself, Mr. Minister, there.
Bonavista is going through a renaissance and it's a very, very interesting
renaissance. It takes a few champions to help facilitate this, but it's really a
renaissance that's totally embedded in the community. It's a renaissance that
happened –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I'm having a
little bit of a hard time hearing myself here. I think everybody wants to get in
on this conversation. They might in fact believe that they are at the World Café
right now and at a table where we can all speak together. I tell you once the
House closes I'd be happy to get together with all these Members and talk a
little bit more and brainstorm some of these ideas.
The
interesting thing about the renaissance in Bonavista is that it wasn't a
government plan, it wasn't inspired by government, it didn't happen from the
Premier's Cabinet Committee on Jobs up on the eighth floor or the ninth floor,
wherever that Cabinet committee meets, it happened on the grassroots level from
the people in the community. It actually flies in the face of all the plans that
government would try to lay over it. It has increased its tourist activity in a
four-year period from 24,000 visitors a year to 61,000. That's amazing. That's
absolutely amazing,
Now
people may think that, in fact, what happened is that Bonavista decided to get
itself into tourism, but that's not what happened. That's not what happened at
all. What happened is that Bonavista decided to look at, what did they need as a
community? How could they make their community more liveable? Because like many
towns in rural Newfoundland, they too were experiencing an exodus.
Young
working families were leaving. Seniors were leaving to be closer to services,
and the town was really experiencing the effects of that drain on their
community. So what they did, their goal wasn't to create tourism. We'll hear a
little bit more about their tourism. They simply used tourism as an engine for
growth, but they weren't twisting and manipulating their town to appeal to
tourists. They actually were building a more livable town for their own
citizens. That's what they were doing.
They
thought if we make our town really livable for the people in our community,
where we build a fully sustainable community, where we build a happy community,
then the tourists will come. Their goal was to increase the livability of their
own town, of their own community.
He said
they had been losing – in Bonavista alone they had been losing between 30 and 40
per cent of their population. That is significant, and leaves towns very
vulnerable and unsustainable.
He said
in the late '90s, Bonavista took an inventory of their assets. The concept of
assets for Bonavista was very, very broad. They looked at some of the historical
buildings in their town. They looked at the assets of the different types of
people in their town – those were assets. They even looked at the assets of
isolation and how that's something that appeals to people.
Then
what they saw, they made a list. They made a list of the assets in their
community, and what we must think of is they viewed assets in a very broad
manner. They saw they had cheap buildings. There were a lot of less expensive,
cheaper buildings in the town. They had a lot of infrastructure.
Then
what they wanted to do was they wanted to brand their town as a good place to
live which then becomes a good place to visit, but predominately their focus was
on the people who are living in their town and also ways to encourage people to
come and live in their town. Every decision they made was about the livability
of their town. Every decision they made was about making their town more
responsive to the needs of their people who lived in that town.
Some of
the spillover effect of that, because there were funding opportunities but
funding opportunities mostly for doing tourist activities. That's not what they
were looking for; however, their tourist season now in Bonavista is seven
months. In most places in the province it's four months maximum.
The
shoulder season in their town has expanded their tourism season, but they were
enhancing livability first. They knew by enhancing the liveability in their
community that would attract tourists, and they also knew what would happen with
that is they would attract more people to come and live in Bonavista.
For
anybody who has been in Bonavista in the last year or two you can see the influx
of new people into that town, young working families who are setting up
businesses, young entrepreneurs. So they had to say, what is it in the assets in
our town or what assets do we have to build in order to attract more people?
Because the only way Bonavista was going to survive is if, in fact, they
attracted more people; not attracting more tourists. That's a secondary thing
but attract more people to come and live in the town.
For
instance, the Garrick Theatre; they wanted to get funding from ACOA to renovate
the Garrick Theatre. ACOA said to them, we can give you some money to help you
renovate the Garrick Theatre as a tourist attraction. They said no, that's not
what we want. In fact, we want to renovate the Garrick Theatre for our own
people and we want it to be a year-round asset where we can have live shows,
live musical entertainment, film screenings, et cetera, year-round so that we
are going to do it primarily for the people who live in our town. ACOA wasn't so
sure about that. ACOA said, no, it has to be about tourism.
Bonavista said, no, this has to be authentic; our town has to be authentic. That
means it's for people who live here, who live here year-round. We have to build
community. What we will do, everything we do has to be good for the local people
and then tourists will come. It has to be year-round. They managed to convince
ACOA for funding to renovate the Garrick Theatre for the people of the province.
The
other interesting thing they did is they developed an organization in their town
called Townscape Foundation. The Townscape Foundation would apply for money from
ACOA. What happened is the Town of Bonavista would give some money to Townscape
Foundation which then would help them leverage federal funding and provincial
funding.
What has
happened now that they are so stable and much of their infrastructure is in
place, money that they get for tourism activities through the Townscape
Foundation actually is paying for their infrastructure, like boardwalks and
sidewalks and those kinds of things. They said they needed the locals to be able
to restore homes.
What the
Townscape Foundation does as well, Mr. Speaker, is that the money comes from the
town into the Townscape Foundation, ACOA money comes into the Townscape
Foundation, provincial money comes and other pockets of federal money come into
the Townscape Foundation. Then local people actually apply to the Townscape
Foundation for grants or loans to be able to do really interesting projects.
What
happens, then, is they're able to use the money in a way that is best for their
community. Decisions are embedded in their community by local people who are
managing the Townscape Foundation. How great is that? It's reminiscent of the
gambine bank, where the gambine foundation would give money to small lending
circles in communities in Southeast Asia. Then people would apply for money to
the people from their own community because the people from their own community
knew what would be effective. That's what the Townscape Foundation has done.
One of
the things is that they needed locals to be able to restore their homes and to
create a critical mass in the town. So the Townscape Foundation, in fact, was
able to do loans or grants to local people, to fix up their heritage homes, to
fix up the infrastructure of their town and that has been part of the real
success of Bonavista.
The
local college created a heritage carpentry and window construction course in the
local college, which meant that everything was working in concert. Everyone knew
what the goal was. Everyone was able to bring their particular skills, their
particular resources to the goals and objectives that the town itself had
developed for Bonavista.
The town
started making policies that would also help foster the goals and objectives
that were designed. For instance, the town will not let anyone tear down any
old, abandoned buildings. How interesting is that? Some of the buildings that
have abandoned for years, in fact, are getting renovated and young families are
moving into them, particularly young families from away. Again, they not
temporary, seasonal accommodations; they are actually houses for people who are
living in that community year round.
He spoke
about a lot of millennials who are really cool with moving to a place that
appeals to them. That's what they're seeing. They're seeing millennials coming
from all over. He told us that last year alone – this is a different story for a
rural community in our province right now – they had dozens of couples move in
to live full time in Bonavista. Not people just coming for the summer; these
were young folks in their late 20s and 30s. They're having children. Some of
them are bringing children with them and there are number of young families,
working families, who are having children.
The
Bonavista crowd, coordinated by John Norman, are having, the later part of June,
a four- or five-day conference on revitalization of rural Newfoundland and
Labrador – a conference about sustainability. I'm looking forward to going to
some of that. It looks very, very exciting. I think we have a lot of learn from
Bonavista.
I
believe one of the things that's very important for this House is that they came
up with a plan that worked in their community. It wasn't about government saying
here's some tourist dollars and this is what you have to do with them; they are
talking about an authentic, sustainable community in rural Newfoundland.
He also
talked about working and visiting different parts of the globe, talking about
his own experience in Bonavista, but also learning from other countries and
their experiences with revitalizing rural areas. He talked about, for instance,
the Country of Ireland. They have a 911 system. Do you know where that's
operated out of? It's a surprising thing; their whole 911 system for the Country
of Ireland is operated out of a small village of 300 people. That's what saved
that village. That they embedded that work and that contract in a small village,
helped trained the people in that village and that village deals with all the
911 calls in Ireland. That was pretty exciting.
Again,
the key for the success of Bonavista was looking at making their town more
liveable, and they called it: liveability first and then the tourists will come.
They have a happy, sustainable community where people have work, where there are
services, where there are schools, where there are medical services, there's
child care and there are a lot of independent businesses run by independent
entrepreneurs. They will never let a MacDonald's, they will never let a Tim
Hortons or they will never let a Walmart in there. They want their money spent
locally and kept in the local economy.
They
said they had to start with taking an asset inventory of their community. He
said if it's a happy town, people will come to live, their population will grow
and then the tourists will come too, because they will hear about that happy
town. Also, entrepreneurs will take great risks because they know it's worth it.
That
asset inventory is so important: commercial, residential – see how their assets
can be reused. Unlike what's been happening here where we see schools are being
sold off, rather than looking at really what is a way to use them in a benefit
to the community.
Residential real estate in Bonavista has gone up by 57 per cent in the past few
years, yet residential real estate in St. John's has gone down by 7 to 11 per
cent. That's a real indication of a successful town. Did they strike oil? No,
they did not. Did they open up a mine? No, they did not. Did they open up some
kind of new government service sector? No, they did not. They did this on their
own.
What he
said is that Bonavista found their brand and that people are moving in. What is
happening in that town is not making it a Newfoundland and Labrador Disneyland,
but it's an authentic town that has a high quotient of livability. He said, in
the last year alone, 31 new businesses opened up in Bonavista. In the Town of
Bonavista, 31 new businesses opened. Over 12 businesses are doing manufacturing
and exporting to Canada and the US from Bonavista. The young folks who have been
moving in there and setting up businesses are actually exporting to the US and
to Canada.
They've
done great work. There's a lot that so much of us can learn from but, again,
it's really about looking at what is real in communities. What can we do to help
communities in a way that is real and authentic to who they are? Rather than
making up our policies and our plans in an office somewhere here in
Confederation Building, what is it?
We must
really listen to the people in particular communities around the province and
ensure that any of the work that we do helped them build sustainability in their
communities in a way that is real for them, in a way that is authentic and in a
way that is based on what they want to see themselves for their communities.
Bonavista really is an example of that. I recommend that people look at the
conference they're going to do in the latter part of June, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
thought there was somebody else speaking ahead of me. Sorry for the delay.
I am
happy to stand tonight to speak as we do on the Concurrence debate around the
Government Services. It will be sort of the last time I get to speak in any
depth with regard to the budget and the direction in which this government is
moving with its fiscal plan.
When you
read the Budget Speech and you listen to this government every time they talk,
they very proudly talk about their goal of getting rid of the deficit that was
left to them by the past government. Every budget since they came in two years
ago, the main goal is getting rid of the deficit. They keep insisting the
deficit is a problem.
While
this government is doing that and while they're saying that, other problems are
being created or are increasing because of their focus on the deficit. When you
focus on the deficit, so many other things become threatened. In the period of
time that this government has been focusing on getting rid of the deficit, I'd
like to point out that our employment rate has gone down.
It's in
the government's own book from all the budget documents. This is the book that's
called The Economy. These are the
statistical indicators. While they are getting rid of the deficit, since 2015 to
2017, in those two years we took the biggest jump downward in employment that
have been taken in a while. That's what happened because of focusing on the
deficit.
Let's
look at the unemployment rate. In that same period of time – surprise, surprise
– the unemployment rate jumped up at about the same rate as the employment going
down – not a surprise – while they're concentrating on getting rid of the
deficit.
Let's
look at the housing starts. Well, starts since 2014; a big jump down in 2015,
and 2016-17 staying down, not going up. No growth. Our gross domestic product
has gone down.
These
are the things that are happening because of this government's concentration on
getting rid of the deficit. I would be much more concerned if I were sitting in
the seat of the Minister of Finance or the Premier's seat, about the rate at
which our unemployment is going up than I would about the rate of getting the
deficit down.
When I
look at some of the good pieces of legislation that are coming into the House,
and some of it is good, I have to say what's going to happen with this
legislation? You take, for example, the bill that we've been dealing with here
earlier today, Bill 14, the bill on children, youth and family, that is a good
bill, but it's based on the need for an increase in resources. The goals that
are laid out in that bill, the principles that are laid out in that bill, what
that bill wants to accomplish can't be accomplished without input, without more
resources.
If we
say we really care about our children, we really care about our youth, we really
care about our families and we are going to have services – for example, our
young people now, if they're in care when they're 16 years old, now they can go
on until they're 18 – they will be going on until they're 18, and if after 18
they still need assistance, they can get services until they're 21. Well, you
can't do that without increased resources.
It also
says in the bill the role of the social worker is key, it's so important. Well,
our social workers are swamped with their work. They are swamped, and you can't
find a front-line worker anywhere who would tell you they're not. They're doing
their paperwork after hours at home on their dining room tables because they do
not have time during the day to do it.
So if
we're going to have an increase in services – which we need – if we're going to
do that, then there have to be more resources put in. If this government keeps
concentrating on we got to get the deficit down, got to get it down to zero –
what '22 is it, looking at 2022 – then what's going to happen to what this bill
is going to require?
A really
important part of this bill is the section on indigenous children and indigenous
families. What they're laying out, if this government starts getting into
agreements with the indigenous governments and organizations – which they should
– if they get into these agreements, these agreements are going to mean more
resources, more resources and they should mean more resources, but if this
government stays focused on getting rid of the deficit, then that's not going to
happen. We'll have wonderful stuff written on paper, but going nowhere because
we don't have the resources.
Look at
what's happening to our university. Another $9.3 million this year cut from
their operations, Mr. Speaker, and the university is over there crumbling. We
have wonderful people in that university. We have wonderful programs. The
infrastructure is falling down around their neck.
The
government talked to me about the new multi-purpose science building that's
going up. That's one building. That building is needed because the building
they're trying to do the science in right now is falling apart, but that's all
over the university. Number one, here they are cutting operations and then also
not putting adequate money into just the regular maintenance.
What's
happening is if you wait until something completely crumbles, then it's going to
cost so much more to rebuild or build something new, whereas if you're doing
regular maintenance it's much more logical. But if you're focusing constantly on
getting rid of the deficit, that kind of thing gets put on hold. As it gets put
on hold, it becomes more expensive down the road. As you get more buildings
crumbling more, if you get roads that aren't in good condition – I know they
talk about their five-year plan. I love their five-year plan. There's nothing
wrong with the five-year plan except there's not enough money in it to really
take care of all the roads that really need to be fixed.
I have a
road that I can hardly drive on. You talk about the road to Burgeo, for example.
That's one but they're all over the place, roads that you can hardly drive on.
You can say: Yeah, you're in the plan for year four. What does that mean if
you're driving on a road that's so dangerous that people's lives are at risk? We
don't have enough resources going into that five-year plan to have enough roads
be taken care of when they're needed to be taken care of.
That's
what you're going to get from focusing on the deficit. It's really startling to
me that this government doesn't see that fiscal policy is not a policy for
growth. For example, if more money were going into our infrastructure and
maintaining our roads, only one aspect of infrastructure – when they say
infrastructure it seems roads are all they mean. There's much more to it.
Even in
roads, if more money went into that and more people were hired – because that's
what would have to happen – we had more people working, then you wouldn't see
our unemployment rate going up and our employment rate going down. You'd see the
opposite because you took your eyes off the necessity of getting rid of the
deficit.
Do I
mean you don't worry about it at all? Maybe you do a little bit, but not what
they've done. Not this goal of setting the length of time at which you are going
to completely eradicate it and not care about what's happening to the people in
the province in between. I mean, that's the thing that's maddening. That's what
I don't understand. That's what economists all over the place would say to them.
They've come here from outside. Economists in the province tell us it's a basic
economic fact that it's been proven over and over again that if you concentrate
on deficit and you don't look at growth and you don't look at how the services
you put in place and the programs you put in place can add to the economy, if
you don't look at that, then things are going to fall apart, which is what is
happening.
When you
look at the statistical indicators, you see that's what's going to happen. Yet,
government has set goals for itself for five and six and seven years down the
road with regard to growth and population, for example, without any concentrate
facts that back up that population is going to go up.
When it
comes to immigration, oh yes, that number is going to go up astronomically in
the next five years. Well, not if they continue to focus on getting rid of the
deficit and there's no employment for immigrants who are here. The international
students who are at our university, we want to encourage them to stay here in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, guess what? The door is opening for more of
them leaving again. That's what's going on. We had a slight period of time where
it looked like maybe that number was settling; it's not. They're starting to
leave again because there's no work here for them.
It
becomes very frustrating. You look at people across from you and you think,
well, they have brains, they can think things through the way I can and the
proof is there in their own book. The statistics are there. The labour force is
not growing. Our labour force is going down.
Look at
it in terms people. Labour force going down; fewer people working. Employment
going down; fewer people in paid jobs. Unemployment going up; more people
without work and having to be first on EI and then on income support. They only
think about it in terms of maybe these stacks in the graph. These stacks in the
graph are people. These are people.
Housing
starts, that's industry. That's people who don't have jobs because houses are
not being built now. The housing starts are down so much that means people in
that industry who build don't have jobs. So where are they going? They're
probably leaving the province. Guess what? Our population is going down. So yes,
they are leaving the province. The population is going down not just because of
debts. The population is going down for a number of factors and one is more
people leaving the province.
I get
very, very frustrated; I've said that two or three times now. I can't see any
other way to be but that. This government keeps saying: Give us ideas. We keep
giving them ideas. If they had started putting a plan in place two years ago
with regard to putting in place a child care program that was under government –
that was a public child care program under government and that plan they started
two years ago – we'd be close to having that plan in place now.
Putting
a child care program in place means, number one, more parents employed because
there are parents who are having to stay home and not look for work even because
they have to take care of their children; number two, you'd have more people
working in this new industry which is now developed into a really fine industry
with well-paying jobs. That takes vision. It takes not being afraid to say we
have to plan for five years and we have to set those plans in place. The only
plan they've set in place is getting rid of the deficit. It's such a negative
attitude, it just blows my mind.
Here we
have roads that, in some cases, are so dangerous. The roads up the shore from
St. John's, from here to Trepassey – you get past Calvert, I suppose, and on to
Trepassey and around St. Mary's Bay – is unbelievable. It's disgraceful. It's
hard to believe that you're in a developed country when you're on that road. We
have other roads like it; as I said already, the road to Burgeo.
These
roads are roads that people are driving on a regular basis. They come up from
Trepassey to go to the hospital. The same way in Burgeo, that road is used
because people have to use the road. Yet this government only sees it as a
liability. Fixing them is only a liability instead of seeing hiring more people
and having an aggressive plan put in place for fixing the roads that are really
in terrible state. Maybe that would have really helped the employment situation.
Maybe the economy really would have been helped if there had been a really
aggressive plan –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
– put in place for just fixing the roads that are really dangerous for people to
be on. The same way with our ferries, we have people who are relying on ferries
and you have other people going around saying why are they living on those
islands anyway. That's not the kind of attitude we want here in this province.
We want people caring about the people who are living on islands. They have a
life on those islands, a life that has a long history. Yet, going on for a while
in this province it was being generated in the media: Why are they living on
Bell Island? Why are they living on St. Brendan's? Why they are living in these
isolated places?
I have
family in BC. Over the past 40 years, I've spent many visits out in BC; I lived
there for a year and a half. Nobody complains about the islands off the coast of
BC. Nobody complains about the people who choose to live in isolated places,
where in some places it's only a walk-on flatbed almost that you're taking over
to an island, but nobody says they shouldn't be living there.
The
government realizes it's our responsibility, no matter where people are living,
to help them live there because they are most likely – and I'm not aware of any
cases where this isn't true, they are in their own way also contributing to the
economy. This government doesn't see things that way. They don't see that taking
care of people through the services that are required is not a liability, it's
something that's part of the economy and the more we do that, the more vibrant
the economy we have.
So when
you look at places like Scandinavian countries and some European countries where
you have free university, where you have universal child care that's there from
the time children are six months old, where you have corporate taxation that
really makes the large corporations pay their due, you have vibrant economies.
You have vibrant economics in the Scandinavian countries, but we don't have
that. This government just cannot think that way.
It's
very, very frustrating. When you look through all of these documents that we've
received as part of their budget, you know that really people in the Department
of Finance are good people. They're good people. They know how to think, but if
you have a government, because it's this government's policy that drives the
budget, it's this government's policy that makes the budget go the way it's
going.
So when
you say to the people who are putting your plans together, getting rid of the
deficit is our number one requirement, and that's what they have to go towards,
that's what they aim for, then it's not because they don't know fiscal policy.
It's not because they don't know how to put a good budget together to take care
of people. It's because they are being driven by the government's agenda.
It's
like the government putting the university under the strain that it is now
under, the university having to make decisions which they know are wrong, having
to make decisions which they fear will hurt the students and which will hurt the
quality of their education, but having to do it because this government has
said, sorry, the money is going down – and not going down because they don't
need it, but going down because this government wants to get rid of the deficit.
Mr.
Speaker, as usual, the last year, the year before, that's when the map was laid,
was in 2016. The map was laid for the direction in which we are going and this
government hasn't changed its direction with this budget. Their prognostication
for the next three, four years is to continue down this path, but look what will
happen. They'll have no deficit, but we will have more roads that are in
terrible condition, we will have more people who don't have jobs, we will have
more people who will have left the province.
These
economic indicators that I've referred to, wait until next year and see where
they are. Each year the key ones that I've spoken about have gone down, except
for unemployment, that's gone up. So that's the situation we're in, Mr. Speaker.
It's not a good situation. It can be turned around, and that's what people need
to hear, it can be.
When you
get a government like this that says to a huge company like Canopy Growth, come
in and take over, boys, come in and take over because we haven't got people who
know how to do this. Well, we do have people who know how to do it. We had
people who were planning for the cannabis industry and their plans are out the
window because of this Canopy Growth giveaway by this government.
MS. ROGERS:
Forty million.
MS. MICHAEL:
Forty million. It's
disgraceful.
I'll
leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. Once again, a budget that nobody can support on
this side of the House, because we already voted against it.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to have a final opportunity now to speak to budget concurrence.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to start off on a positive note, I suppose. In terms of the
comments made by my colleague from St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, I do agree with
her. I do share her disappointment with the way in which the Canopy Growth was
handled. I do agree with her on that one. I really think there was a lost
opportunity there. I really believe that, and I don't think it should have been
given to Canopy.
I think
we should've secured a supply for a couple of years like every other province
did and then we should have worked with our local entrepreneurs and make sure
they have the monopoly, not Canopy Growth, for a few jobs. We definitely
shouldn't be giving them $40 million in tax breaks, considering no other
province did that either. So I will agree with her on that point, but I have to
say that I do – and this not a personal slight, but I guess we see the world
differently. We do. We see the world differently.
I have
to say that in terms of her commentary about the budget – and I understand, I
agree with her. I voted against the budget because of the heavy taxation that
was put on that has not been relieved. That was my reason, particularly the
levy. That was the big one for me. The whole concept that my colleague just
spoke about, that we shouldn't be concerned about the deficit, that's where we
have to part ways. That's fair enough, because we don't all have to have the
same views on things.
It's not
just about the deficit. My God, the deficit, we're talking about 2022, I
believe. Even with government's plan now is seven years to get to surplus – if
you believe those numbers, seven years, 2022, to get to surplus. What about the
debt? That means that every year between now and 2022 we're going to continue to
run deficits. It's going to be added to the huge crippling debt we already have.
Yes, I do agree with her in the sense that we'd all love to see every road
paved, absolutely.
As she
indicated, we passed a bill today – or we haven't passed it but we're still
debating the new child protection bill. Yes, arguably if you're going to do some
of the things there it's going to require additional resources and so on. I
understand that, but at the end of the day who's going to pay for it all? That's
always been my fundamental issue with my colleague. How do you pay for it?
That's the question I've always had. I could never understand. That's why we
could never see eye to eye on that issue.
It's all
wonderful to say we need this, we need that, we need more resources here, we
need to pave the roads, we need this, this, this, this and this and we can't lay
anybody off, we can't cut – what are we going to do? Everybody can't work for
the government. At the end of the day, when you look at – and this is my view of
it, government is put there to provide services for people. Government is there
to provide services for people. In an effort, as they do that and they provide
those needed services based on the money coming in, employment is created.
My
colleague would, I believe, infer that really government's job is to create
jobs, is to hire people to work for the government. I do not believe we are
hiring people to work for the government. We're providing services. As a result
of doing that, people get hired. It's the same thing as the private sector. The
private sector's job – when someone opens a business they do it to make a
profit, to make money. That's why they're in business, to make money. The
by-product of them making money is the creation of jobs and the creation of
wealth, which hopefully leads to more jobs. That's how it works, isn't it? At
least that's how I understand it to work. That's how it should work.
I cannot
get my head around the fact that we have a huge – we're running deficit after
deficit after deficit. We have a huge debt and we're supposed to ignore that,
forget about it. We were told we couldn't make payroll. We were told a year ago
or whatever it was – if we want to believe it, I'm only taking the minister at
his word – we couldn't make payroll. So we were in a situation we couldn't make
payroll. We're running deficits until 2022, which is piling on to the huge,
astronomical debt.
Then we
have Muskrat Falls and the overruns and what that's going to cost. Arguably,
that's going to take an infusion of taxpayers' money to subsidize it. I mean one
or the other. If the ratepayers are not paying for it, the taxpayer is going to
pay for it through subsidies or something. At the end of the day, it's more
money we're going to have to come up with. People are already paying more taxes
than they care to pay. More than they can afford, in a lot of cases. We need to
get that down.
The
solution is hire more people, pave more roads, do more, do more, do more, more
resources, more resources, more resources. My God, it's just not realistic, is
it? I don't understand how it's – I would love for the Member to be able to show
me how that works. I really would, and I wish it was that simple. I really wish
it was. If it was, sure that would be perfect. Keep on spending and spending and
the debt goes away. The deficit goes away and everything is fine. I wish it was
that easy. I do.
I don't
mean to be critical of the Member. That's just our opposing views, and I hope
she understands that. That's just our opposing views of how the world works.
MS. MICHAEL:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LANE:
Fair enough. No, and the
Member is free to say whatever she wants to say and I'll say what I want to say
but I just don't understand it. I do not understand the logic.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I have to move on. I just want to very quickly – I'm not going to take
the full time. I do just want to reference an issue that I have a concern about.
It relates to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, Nalcor I guess, and the division
of Nalcor that was in the budget. I hope I'm wrong. I say to the minister, in
all sincerity I hope I'm wrong, but I have concerns.
My
concern from the very beginning, when this happened, was that this wasn't about
providing focus to oil and gas as much as it was about separating the company,
because we have bigger plans for the hydro side, whatever those plans might be.
That's my concern.
One of
the things that came to mind was privatization, selling off assets and so on.
There was an article in The Telegram
last week – I think it was last week – by Ashley Fitzpatrick; I forget the name
of it. She was talking about Mr. Perry who is the CEO of Fortis. He was saying
that he was interested in purchasing for a fair price – whatever fair price is
and I would ask fair for who – assets from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro,
transmission assets. The minister said, in the article at least, was quoted as
saying that everything was on the table and she wasn't closing the door to that
idea. He said it would help deal with the Muskrat Falls situation and so on.
So it's
a concern I have. I don't want to see us in a situation where because we're in a
vulnerable situation with Muskrat Falls that we're going to start privatizing or
selling off stuff out of desperation. If that's not the case, great, I hope it's
not; but I just want to pay for the record that it's a concern that I have,
that's all. It's a concern that I have.
Then, of
course, when you look at that, I also have the concern and I wonder: Is there
anything else going on with Emera, with Fortis, with Hydro-Québec and so on? Are
there any other discussions and stuff going on that we're not aware of? I just
think it's something we have to be cognizant of, something that we have to be
mindful of.
I will
also say, in terms of this discussion with Mr. Perry and so on that was in
The Telegram and quoted on it,
potential deals or sales to Fortis, Newfoundland Power, from Newfoundland Hydro,
I will say again, I have concerns, as I've had from day one, that the CEO of
Nalcor is permitted under his contract to have 5 per cent shares in Fortis.
We were
told there's no conflict because it's in the contract. I still have a real
problem with that arrangement. I have to be honest, I do. Now, particularly when
you're hearing about Newfoundland Hydro possibly thinking about selling assets
to Fortis while the CEO of Nalcor has shares in Fortis, then I have concerns. I
have concerns about it.
I went
to the former Auditor General, almost two years ago now, and I asked that he
investigate that matter, that he look at this arrangement to see if he saw any
issue with this arrangement with the CEO under his contract being allowed to
have shares. He committed to me that he would investigate it. I followed up with
him a number of times. He said they were in there and they were investigating
it. He said a report would come out in the spring, then he said the fall, then
he retired. So then I went to the new Auditor General and she said it's still on
the table, and I'm still waiting.
So it's
been almost two years now and I'm still waiting to get an answer as to if there
is any issue with that arrangement, that the Auditor General thinks there is any
issue. But while this is happening, as I said, we have discussion publicly in
the media between Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Fortis about potential
sale of assets. I just say, for the record, it's a concern. Maybe it'll all work
out fine; maybe there are no issues. I hope there isn't. But for the record, for
Hansard, it's a concern that I have.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to take any more of my time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
to address my colleague's assertions that he just made, Mr. Speaker. Allow me to
say that Fortis currently owns 63 per cent of all transmission – that's
transmission and distribution lines – and 79 per cent of distribution lines. So
they currently own a significant amount of transmission lines in this province.
So when
I was asked if I have a problem with them owning transmission lines, of course I
don't, Mr. Speaker. They have owned transmission lines in this province since
the very beginning of electricity in this province. Now, Emera – and the Member
opposite, of course, was part of the government that allowed Emera to come into
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and buy transmission lines, bring in
transmission lines.
So
clearly, he doesn't have a problem with a company owning transmission and
distribution lines in this province, because he was part of the government that
brought them in. I certainly have no problem, because they already own
transmission lines in this province.
That was
a comment that I made to The Telegram
when I was asked about Mr. Perry's comments about whether or not he might be –
he was speaking as part of his annual general meeting in response to a comment
by the media or question by the media. When I was asked about this comment, of
course they already owned a certain percentage, majority percentage of the
transmission and distribution lines in this province and certainly we would be
supportive of a Newfoundland company in doing anything that they can to support
the province. Fortis is a huge company, a very successful company, globally not
just in Newfoundland and Labrador.
But, Mr.
Speaker, I can inform that there are no ongoing discussions. I think the Member
alluded to the discussions between Hydro; none to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, in a general sense, everyone in this House, or we certainly would
have been discussing it before now, supports Fortis. It's a very, very fine
company and they currently offer, through Newfoundland Power, great service to
the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I wanted
to correct the Member opposite on some of his statements and make sure that, for
the record, it was noted that Fortis, since the very beginning of Newfoundland
Power, the very beginning of electricity in this province, have been involved in
transmission business, have been involved – and, as I said, 63 per cent of
transmission; 79 per cent of distribution.
They
certainly have a record and I think, overall, a very good record, Mr. Speaker. I
don't hear too many complaints about Newfoundland Power and none about Fortis,
for sure. A fine Newfoundland company with a lot of Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians doing very good work for the company; proud to have such an
international company listed on the New York Stock Exchange, headquartered here
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Seeing no further speakers,
I'm going to call the question.
The
motion is that the report of the Government Services Standing Estimates
Committee be concurred in.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
On
motion, Report of Government Services Estimates Committee, carried.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper to continue second reading of Bill 14.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
to have an opportunity to speak to his bill. I'm not going to speak long. I
certainly listened to the minister and she did a good job when she brought this
bill in this afternoon. I listened to the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune as well in particular. I just wanted to say for the
record –
MS.
MICHAEL:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
LANE:
The
Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi asked if I listened to her and,
unfortunately, I was over to the Premier's athletic awards. I stepped out for a
little bit there – I had some constituents – or I would have listened intently,
I can assure you.
I just want to say, for the record, we all had a
briefing; it was a very good briefing. There's nothing here that I have any
particular issue with. I think it's time that this was done and I think that
everybody did a good job with it. I'll be supporting the bill.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
If
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development speaks now, she will
close the debate.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll just clue up with a few comments that I've heard
from colleagues in the House. I want to start by thanking all of the speakers
today who spoke to Bill 14, An Act Respecting Children, Youth and Families – a
very important act; I think a historic day in this province as we move forward
and work toward Royal Assent and then the implementations of the policies and
the regulations that I believe will make life better for children and youth in
this province.
So I want to thank the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La
Hune for both attending the press conference today. She had some nice coverage
this evening on the evening news I saw. I want to thank her for her feedback on
this bill. I want to thank my colleague, the Member for Torngat. As a member of
Nunatsiavut, NG, and living up there on the North Coast it certainly brings a
pretty solid perspective to how things are in the area that he represents, has a
good understanding of that and does a good job representing them.
I want to thank the Member for St. John's East - Quidi
Vidi for speaking to the bill. She's always very interesting to listen to and
brings a lot of experience into the House. And my parliamentary secretary, the
Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate, who did a great job today speaking to Bill
14, but does a really good job every single day in that large department. There
are lots of things that I can't be at or do, and he picks up a lot of the slack
and I really appreciate him, more than I let him know, that's for sure. And he
works very hard every day for his district as well.
I want to thank our independent Member in the House for
speaking to the bill and for the input that he had. I don't think, Mr. Speaker,
at this hour in the evening I need to go into
too much of reiterating the
purpose of the act. There were six main points. It's getting a lot of coverage
out there in CBC and NTV. Everything from what I could see – it's interesting
when you bring in a bill, introduce it in the afternoon and then you go into the
evening, tonight, you get to see some feedback before you stand to close debate.
That's not always the case with bills.
From
what I have seen thus far, it's been really humbling when you see people like
Sheldon Hollett who does really valuable work down there, working with youth,
many youth that are in challenging circumstances, who is optimistic about this
bill and where it may go and what it may mean for how we do business with
children and youth in our province. That was very encouraging, Mr. Speaker.
We will
continue to work with the stakeholders going forward, continue to engage them in
the policy development piece. As we move into Committee in a few minutes, I
welcome some of the questions. I am really pleased with the support for the bill
in the House. I absolutely understand that even when you speak and say you
support the bill in principle, that you would still have questions, and I'll do
my best to answer those questions, Mr. Speaker, when we move into Committee.
I know a
couple of the speakers mentioned the licensing regime. I saw a little bit of
that in the media. I just wanted to say – and I will still take questions, but I
wanted to put on record, Mr. Speaker, we will not be cutting social workers
through the establishment of agencies and family-based care. That is not the
intent here at all; I want to clarify that. Mr. Speaker, CCSD, the social
workers in our department will have a greater opportunity now to focus on the
monitoring of children and youth, and it is our intent that this will lead to
more positive outcomes.
I think
some people were asking about privatization. Mr. Speaker, no, that is not the
intent here at all. That will not happen. This will add to or complement what's
out there already. It will not replace the ongoing, the recruitment, the
assessment and the approval of foster homes, but it will add to – there's a
tremendous need, as I think all speakers here today recognize, for things like
more foster homes.
Social
workers will continue to carry out these tasks of recruitment and approval of
homes, but licensed agencies will add to the total number of foster homes
available. I also want to stress and I did say this earlier today this is a
very, very important point that I probably cannot reiterate too many times, and
that is that the monitoring of the safety, health and well-being of the children
will always remain the responsibility of the Department of Children, Seniors and
Social Development and the social workers that work there.
Mr.
Speaker, once again, I'm quite humbled to have brought in a bill that has the
potential to have such a positive impact on the lives of what I think is our
most valuable resource in our province: our children and our youth.
With
that, I will just thank everyone again and I'll take my place.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 14 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act Respecting
Children, Youth And Families. (Bill 14)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting Children, Youth And Families,” read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 14)
MR.
SPEAKER: The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS: 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 14.
MR.
SPEAKER: It is
moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME
HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR.
SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Motion
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 14, An Act Respecting Children, Youth And Families.
A bill,
“An Act Respecting Children, Youth And Families.” (Bill 14)
CLERK:
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.
Am I only allowed to ask questions on Clause 1 or
anywhere?
AN
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MS.
PERRY:
Okay, because clause 2 is where I want to start.
My first question pertains to definitions. In comparing
Bill 14 with the definitions which currently exist in the
Children and Youth Care and Protection Act,
most are the same or have minor changes to them.
The only question I have here is the definition of
youth is: a person who is at least 16 years of age but under 18 years of age.
Yet, a future clause in the bill, 88(3), talks about providing services up to
the age of 21. Can you clarify that for us?
Just to confirm, Mr. Chair, will we go question for
question? I'll ask a question and then the minister will respond?
CHAIR:
Yes.
MS.
PERRY:
Okay.
Yes. Can you just give some clarity around the
difference?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the Member for the question. There are a couple
of different things here. In one part we're talking about youth that are in our
care that could choose to opt out at the age of 16. What we have done in this
bill, we have now made it mandatory that they cannot opt out until the age of
18.
There's that critical period in your life, 16, 17; what
we have been finding in the department, and the social workers around the
province, is that the youth who needed the most support were the youth that were
choosing to leave at the age of 16. Now they cannot opt out until the age of 18.
Aside from that, we have youth around our province that
need various services. We can provide things like rent and board and lodging.
Those youth can now receive services up to the age of 21; so a couple of
different things there.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm looking at clause 2 as well, the definitions.
Minister, I'm going to be sort of dealing with numbers together: (n), (o), (p)
under clause 2.
The definition under (n): “'Indigenous child' means (i)
an Inuit child, (ii) a Métis child, (iii) an Innu, Mi'kmaq or other First
Nations child, (iv) a child who has a parent who considers the child to be
Indigenous, or (v) a person who is at 12 years of age but under the age of 16
and who considers himself or herself to be Indigenous.” It's very
inclusive. It's excellent.
Then
(o): “'Indigenous government or organization' means the entities prescribed in
the Schedule.” The Schedule is at the back of the bill, of course, and it's the
“Miawpukek First Nation, Mushuau Innu First Nation, Nunatsiavut Government,
Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation.” That's very clear also.
Then
when you come to (p) it says: “'Indigenous representative' means a person
designated by an Indigenous government or organization.” So that means the
indigenous representative can only be designated by somebody from the four,
government and organizations, in the Schedule.
My
question is: What happens to the children under the definition of indigenous
child who are not covered? The children of Qalipu, for example, and Métis
children, who is going to be their indigenous representative? Because according
to this, there is nobody appointing an indigenous representative for them.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the Member for the question; it's a very important one. As she would know, I'm a
member of NunatuKavut Community Council so we wouldn't want to leave them too
far behind.
What I
will say is going through this process, and I talked about it earlier today, we
had extensive consultations around the province; but, in particular, with the
indigenous groups and organizations, dialogue with all of them including Qalipu
and NunatuKavut.
We had
to put a schedule in place for something to start with, in terms of for court
proceedings and things like that. NunatuKavut and Qalipu, right now, seem to be
more economic, more focused on working toward securing their land claim.
We are
happy; we invited them: If you decide that you want to be on this list, come
back and have dialogue with us. We're going to take 12 months to put this
through, to get the training done, to get the policy developed. They may come
back even within the 12 months and we would certainly be receptive to adding
them to that list.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
Just to
follow up, Minister. With regard to Qalipu, they're a landless band. They're not
going to ever have land. So I hope that wouldn't be a consideration to stop them
from joining this.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you.
No,
they were consulted. They were aware. We've reached out. We've had dialogue and
they're quite pleased with not being on this list right now. Yes, we certainly
wanted to make sure that everybody who wanted to be there was there.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm
going to move ahead now to clause 6. If my colleague wants to pick up for me
afterwards, I'm jumping ahead to six. This clause appoints directors within
child protection. The Children and Youth
Care and Protection Act directs the appointment of a provincial director of
protective intervention and in care and it also lists their duties. The new act
is a bit more vague and it just lists directors.
My
question in this clause is: Why was the specific name of the director removed
and left open as directors? How many directors are now in the department which
are responsible for the children and youth protection activities? That would be
clause 6.
Clause
25, actually, I'm up to now. Where a child is not removed under that section –
clause 25 outlines the timeline for holding a protective intervention hearing
where the child has not been removed from the home in the current
Children and Youth Care and Protection Act.
The timeline for the hearing is 30 days, but in the new bill the timeline is
going to be shortened to 10 days.
My
question on that is: How will the Family Court adjust to this? Does the court
have adequate resources available?
Another
question that I have pertaining to this clause is: What feedback was received
from the families who were consulted about the timelines for protective
intervention hearings? Were there any considerations given to change any of the
other timelines for hearings?
I also
notice in this clause the provision is added where notice is served to the
indigenous representative, where the child is indigenous under section 25(3)(c).
Are there any situations where this would not occur, where the indigenous
representative would not be notified of a protective intervention hearing
regarding an indigenous child or youth?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To
answer the Member's first question about the number of directors, there are
currently two. I won't speak to court resources or if there will be more court
resources; I'll leave that to my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Public
Safety.
What I
can tell the Member is there are a lot of provisions in this bill to circumvent
and save time on a number of things, how it existed today in terms of temporary
court orders and things like that. Things that normally took about a
two-year period, we should be down to about a six-month time frame now.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I'm looking at clause 10. Clause 10 is quite
extensive because it talks about when a child is in need of protective
intervention, and it goes on and gives the whole list of this. It includes also
in subsection (2): “For
the purposes of paragraphs (1)(c) and (f), the indicators of emotional harm
exhibited or demonstrated by a child may include” and you have another list.
So it's
quite inclusive, but it doesn't indicate who is it that determines this. Is it
the social workers? I've actually had a social worker say to me: We feel left
out. Who is it that is going to make the determination? Under all of this, what
would be a child who would need protective intervention?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the Member for the question. So it is the social workers who make the decision,
but they have a lot of tools at their disposal to assist them in doing that. We
have social workers – 350 in the Department of CSSD, thereabouts, out and around
the various places. Most places we have teams of social workers that work
together and then they report to a zone manager that reports up to a director.
We just
recently implemented a new tool that's being received really well in the
department across offices, the integrated structural management, a
decision-making tool to help them when they're making those decisions about
really challenging circumstances. The Member is right. So is this child in need
of protection? Maybe we just need to keep them in the home, provide wraparound
supports.
There
are a lot of different things, a lot of different tools to help the social
worker in making that determination.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just
have a general comment in regard to her question. In your closing of Bill 2, you
referenced the capacity issue and licensed agencies will add to that capacity.
I
wonder if you can give an indication of what you estimate that under capacity to
be right now, which these new licensed agencies will fill.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I've
been speaking to a number of times today, when it comes to children in care –
and we have children right now that, unfortunately, are in, what we call, ILAs
in some cases, independent living arrangements. Maybe some of those children
could be in foster care, but we do not have a sufficient number of foster homes
in our province because the demand exceeds the space that we have.
When we bring in some of these people – and there are
two different things we're talking about here – we will work with agencies to
recruit and find more foster homes. In some cases, we will work with groups to
find placements for children within the communities and hopefully move more
people out of these independent and group homes and things like that.
I don't know if that answers your question.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the minister. In this particular instance,
these new agencies, there would be a fee structure set up for them and for the
services they provide, I assume, based on that under capacity. How would that
work in regard to the fees paid to these licensed agencies and the work they do?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Generally, if we work with a third-party agency, there is an agreement that's
worked out and put in place. That's how we proceed.
The monitoring, safety and well-being of the children
will always be left with the department. I don't know if that answers your
question.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you.
Yeah, I'm just trying to get to the point of these
agencies will provide a service to the department in regard to the care for
children. They will be new, my understanding, in regard to the service and
oversight they provide.
There will have to be a structure in terms of how
they're paid and what the cost will be. I just want some insight into what that
would look like, what it would be and what the cost would be, that kind of
thing.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, some of what we will be doing is not new; we
recently had a pilot with a couple of third-party agencies. All of the early
indicators of that, not only was it more an efficient way to do some of the
important work that we do, there was savings, but all early indications back are
very, very positive in terms of that it was best for the children.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS.
PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going into clause 28 now, Minister, and that is
when the 16th birthday intervenes. Language is added in this clause which
clarifies what happens if an order has been filed and a child turns 16.
Can the minister explain what happens when a child in
care turns 16, or if a youth who is the subject of a protective intervention
hearing turns 16 during the course of a hearing? Can the minister outline what
changes are being made with respect to how the 16th birthday is going to be
treated by the department?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not sure if I entirely understood the Member
correctly, but what we are doing here with Bill 14 is we are now increasing the
age. So a child could opt of care at 16; now we are making it mandatory so that
they do not have the option to leave care, even if they desire to, until their
18th birthday.
Speaking with my colleague – grabbing a bite at
suppertime –from Stephenville - Port au Port, who has tremendous knowledge in
this area and worked for about five years with youth, he too was echoing today
what we have heard from many of the stakeholders and groups that are very
pleased with children not going to be able to opt of care until their 18th
birthday. There'll be a couple of more years of maturity and maybe focused on
school and, hopefully, done high school by that age.
As I alluded to earlier, any youth that's out there
that requires services what we will do now with this plan, I say to the Member
for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, we are going to work with the individual and put
together an individualized plan for that youth so that if they needed things
like room and board and whatever, they can receive services up until they're 21.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS.
PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We always get excited and jump ahead.
In the case then of a protective intervention hearing
that's underway, for a child who's 15, and their birthday happens, they turn 16
during the course of that protective intervention hearing, would that be treated
any differently by the department? I guess just add some clarity to what I was
asking.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you.
We would certainly continue on with that care.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I'm now looking at clause 32 subsection (9)
and (10); page 33 of the bill, if you're using the same one.
It's about the order for supervision. “Where a judge
makes an order for supervision under paragraph (2)(a) or an order for temporary
custody under paragraph (2)(b) and a person fails to comply with the order, the
manager or social worker may make an application to the court to vary
the conditions of the order
or request another order under paragraphs (2)(a) to (e).”
Then the
next subsection: “The date set for the hearing of the application under
subsection (9) shall be not later than 5 days after the application is made.”
I've
heard from some social workers who are delighted with the bill, as I am myself.
But they say – and I know you made some reference to the legal system a couple
of minutes ago – sometimes they have to wait so long to get to a judge that they
said the five days is just not going to be realistic. They have concerns about
it's not recognizing that the system as it works right now, even sometimes when
it's very urgent, they don't get to a judge in a timely fashion and they have
real concerns about it.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The
Member makes a valid point. I hear it. We hear it from our social workers.
Sometimes we're a little bit challenged with the courts. The wait times also
seem to vary because some courts across the province are busier than others.
Nevertheless, all I can say is we will attempt to comply with this new measure
that we're implementing as best that we can.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I guess,
Minister, then, what I'd like to ask is let's say you get an area where maybe
they can never meet that five days and they feel awful because they can't
comply. Number one, I'm assuming there will be no penalty on their part because
of that, but would there be any – I guess if an area went to you and said we
can't meet this, that's something you would take under advisement?
MS. DEMPSTER:
(Inaudible.)
CHAIR:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
The Member for Fortune Bay -
Cape La Hune is not the only one excited here tonight about Bill 14. I'm jumping
ahead. It's been a really long day, Mr. Chair.
We are
discussing a very important bill here, Bill 14, in Committee answering questions
for the Opposition Members on An Act Respecting Children, Youth and Families.
Yes, there are challenges, there are many. Our social workers on the ground, the
zone managers, we work very closely with the courts. We will just attempt to
make our way through that and deal with the barriers and the challenges as they
come forward.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Clause
29 – I'm going to go back just two clauses, Minister, the plan for the child.
This clause outlines the plan for the child which must be filed with the court.
Added to
the legislation is 29(3)(e)(iii) which notes that “a description of the
arrangements made or being made for the child's stability and permanency” must
be in the child's plan and filed with the court. In other words, permanency
planning must occur earlier, and it must be on file with the court.
Also
added is 29(3)(e)(iv), which notes that “a description of the arrangements made
or being made to recognize the importance of the child's identity and cultural
and community connections, or, where the child is an Indigenous child, a
cultural connection plan.”
The
cultural connection plan is a new element to this legislation. Can you elaborate
for us on what is expected to be contained in a cultural connection plan? What
are the elements of the plan? Who will be expected to write the plan, and will
indigenous representatives be engaged in the writing of it?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the Member for the really important question. She's right, preferably two things
that you ask about, permanency planning, the earlier we address that I think the
better for the child. That's one of the things that I see really positive in
this act. Some of the stories I've heard just since I've been in the department,
you might have a baby, an infant that's born and they've been waiting kind of
two, three years and those first early formative years of their life waiting for
a permanency plan. Some of that is going to be changed now. It's going to be
expedited through the system.
The
cultural connection plan is something that we heard again and again when we were
doing consultations with the indigenous organizations and governments. It's
something they wanted, because where possible we keep the children in their
communities with kin, or if not with kin at least in the community.
In some
circumstances children have been removed from environments that they were very
familiar with, that was home to them and they've gone to other places. Now they
will have to have a plan. What that plan will look like, we will work very
closely with – for example, members of Nunatsiavut will be very involved, the
indigenous groups. They will say this is what we believe is best for the child,
and we will put together a plan in direct consultation with them.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
This may
be my last question. There might be another one, but I think this one I have, I
know I definitely want to ask. So we're looking at clause 88 on page 58, Youth
Services Agreement section.
I didn't
get to say this in second reading, but I'm delighted with the Youth Services
Agreement. It's wonderful, because you've mentioned youth 16 to 18, well a lot
of them even 19 and 20 are still mixed up and confused and not stable. I'm
really delighted with this section.
Looking
at subsection (3): “Where the youth is engaged in a plan approved by a manager
or social worker, an agreement under this section may be extended until the
youth reaches the age of 21.” Meaning, of course, they would have services until
they're 21.
Subsection (4), and this is the one I'm questioning: “Where a youth is provided
with services, the cost of those services may be recovered and an action or
other proceeding for the recovery of the cost may be commenced.” It doesn't give
any provisos. I have spoken to some social workers about it and they say
personally they have never seen it happen. I'm assuming, and one of the social
workers said to me: well, you know, if you have a child whose parents are
millionaires this probably would be quite valid. It doesn't say it has to
happen, it may be recovered.
I'm just
wondering why it's even in the legislation.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That is
an important question. I'm pleased to hear the Member opposite say she's happy
with the Youth Services program as well. I think we all agree there's a lot of
youth out there struggling and we need to do what we can to help them get on the
right road and provide the support.
That was
put in the bill because in some circumstances maybe a parent could pay, but if a
parent cannot pay the services we offer certainly will still be available to
those youth up until the age of 21.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I may
not have all my facts now on this one, Minister, but it follows. It is a direct
follow-up and I think I am satisfied that it leaves the option there if parents
can afford to pay it but I also understand that if a youth is earning money
there's a clawback of $200. Now that's not in legislation, that's in practice I
think. Am I correct on that?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not
sure if the Member might be referring to something under the Department of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour. I'm not familiar, but I'll try and get
some clarification for you in the next couple of minutes.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm now
up to clause 32 but it's a different question than my colleague from St. John's
East - Quidi Vidi asked. Clause 32(2)(e) is the new addition. It gives the judge
the ability to permanently transfer custody to a person other than the child's
parent. It's done in consent of the person who will get custody, the child, if
they are 12 years old or older, and if the child has been residing with this
person for a period of at least six months.
This is
the option for a social worker to recommend permanent custody in order to help
find permanency in a timelier manner for the child. The social worker can apply
for this option if there is evidence that this placement or individual is the
best person or persons for the child's well-being.
My
question is: How will a social worker or manager determine when it is
appropriate to ask the judge to award permanent custody under this provision?
What information will be used in the decision-making model? Is the judge's
decision final or is it subject to appeal?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the Member for the question. I'm going to take one moment to respond to the
Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi and say you were accurate in your
information, but that is a part of what is currently under review in the
department, in response to that.
Around
the custody and the period of six months, there are so many stories and examples
that I could share with the Member of how we would know and social workers would
know. When a child is born and they're placed with a significant other, you can
know very early that the child may never be able to be placed with the parents.
I'm thinking of a conversation I had with social workers over in Cordage Place,
actually, when we proclaimed Social Work Month.
Unfortunately, sometimes you have generations of people who – you have parents
that have children and they end up in child protection and their children end up
in child protection. Sometimes we have a responsibility, as soon as the child is
born, to take that child into our care to keep it safe.
We know,
based on those years of history and sometimes decades of history – and if all of
their children they've had to date are placed in care – that it's probably not
in the best interests of the child, which is a very significant focus of this
legislation, to kind of hang around and wait around for years to see if we can
place the child back. If they're with a significant – especially another family
member, we believe it is in the best interests of the child to get them settled
somewhere as soon as is possible.
All of
this in the bill is based on feedback that we have heard from our consultations
around the province, from indigenous groups, but also from the hundreds of
social workers who use that current legislation day in and day out. They
provided some really valuable feedback on that as well, based on how they're
doing business with the 2011 act.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank
you, Minister. I'm moving ahead now to clause 35 when time limits expire. This
clause outlines what happens when the time limit placed on a temporary custody
order expires. When this occurs, a judge has a number of options that he can
choose from, one of which is to place the child in the continuous custody of a
manager. The current Children and Youth
Care and Protection Act notes this order may not contain conditions,
but the new legislation notes that it may contain some reasonable conditions.
Can the minister explain why this change is being made and
what impact this change will be expected to have?
CHAIR: The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to go back to the question the Member asked earlier –
I think she might have asked three in one; I answered two. I missed the third
one. She asked a question around the courts. Once there's a permanent court
order, can that be changed?
I want to say once the court has ordered permanent it is
permanent unless it is changed by the court. Today we're discussing the bill;
we're looking for Royal Assent. Over the next 12 months, we will be working out
the policy and the policy will outline the process for that.
I'm trying to remember what the second part of her question
was before I sit down. It was on the conditions. The judge will put in place
conditions that are reasonable. They will want us, the social workers, to go
with a reasonable plan and some of those details are being worked out as we go
forward.
CHAIR: The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY: Thank
you, Mr. Chair.
Clause 42, when continuous custody order ceases to have
effect; currently a youth can make a written request and have the order removed,
but under the new legislation I think that option has been removed. Youth is
defined now as 16 to 18. This means most youth
now, it will be mandatory to stay in care of course until 18.
At what
age can a youth or young adult now remove themselves from care? What happens if
a youth who is in care in Labrador wants to attend university or school or work
elsewhere outside their current placement?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That's a
good question that the Member asked. As I said earlier, a youth cannot, even if
they want to, opt out of care prior to the age of 18. We have all kinds of
wraparound supports that we provide and that we would continue to provide. In
some cases, Mr. Speaker, we support the youth with providing them with
educational options. We would certainly do that for them and work with that
individualized plan that I was referring to earlier, regardless of where they
live.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
I did have one more, Mr.
Chair. Thank you very much.
Minister, clause 40, which is another part of the continuous custody – so the
continuous custody, under that the manager becomes the sole custodian of the
child and has the right to make all decisions regarding the child. The manager
of a social worker may consent to the provision of health care for the child and
the manager may consent to the adoption of the child.
Under
subsection (b) that seems to be fairly narrow by just saying the provision of
health care for the child. Could you imagine that there are other supports that
the child may need as well? Or do you have a very broad definition of health
care?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank
the Member for the question. Many of the needs of the child, because of the very
nature of the work that we do in Children, Seniors and Social Development, are
already being addressed. Health, in particular, was an issue because you may
have a child in your care that you have not adopted and the child might break
their leg. You go to the hospital and you need consent and things like that.
I look
back to when I was raised by my grandmother I don't think there were too many
formal agreements. Whatever happened to me, she took me to the hospital, those
needs were dealt with and there were no questions asked, but we are now living
in a different time.
The
social worker or the manager in this case has to act in a parental role. They
have to make those decisions, yes.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Clause 54, Application to be heard; this clause
outlines who can be heard at a court proceeding and the legislation outlines
that “a person significant to a child; and (b) an Indigenous representative …”
if the child is indigenous can be heard.
How is significant to a child defined? Will this
include teachers, babysitters, neighbours, family friends, and does it include
siblings?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When we speak about a significant other, and I'll wait
for support from this, but it's my understanding that we are talking generally
about a family member, about a kin. In most cases it could be a parent, it could
be a step-parent, it could be an auntie, it could be a grandma or someone like
that.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS.
PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In terms of placement considerations under clause 65,
this clause outlines the considerations which a manager or social worker must
look for when placing a child who's in care. The bill contains language
pertaining to indigenous children: where a child is an indigenous child a social
worker must first consider placing the child with kin in his or her own
community, but if that is not in the best interest of the child then the social
worker can place the child with a non-relative foster parent with the same
cultural background within the community or with kin outside the community. If
this cannot be done, then a foster placement which supports the connection with
the child's culture, heritage, traditions, spirituality and language will be
found.
I have two questions under this section. The first is:
How will foster homes in indigenous communities be recruited, and how many
foster homes currently exist in indigenous communities? As well, if a child has
a close family member who is willing to foster the child but they live outside
of the province, would that be considered?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank the Member for the question. One of the aspects
of this bill, one of the things we will be implementing is the provision to add
to complement the recruitment, the assessment and the approval of foster homes.
As I talked about earlier today, we will now go out and
develop an agreement with a third party agency. There may be someone close to an
indigenous organization, for example, because we know the reality is there that
we have an overrepresentation of indigenous children in care. They have that
local knowledge, they have contacts on the ground that we do not have. I don't have a
number of how many foster homes we have around the province right now or how
many are in those indigenous communities. I'm sure we could find that number for
you.
This
bill that we are bringing in, Bill 14, I think will go a long way in terms of
helping us to increase the number of foster homes that are out there through
this licensing piece we are doing that you spoke about earlier. That will be
going out and having somebody that would be focused on just that one thing,
because when we think about the social workers in our offices today and all the
competing demands on them and they're very busy, they're not focused on one
area. If you get focused and you only deal with one area you could become an
expert pretty fast in that field. So hopefully we're going to see positive
results from that.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, I'm right now to clauses 71 to 87. So some questions around the agency
piece in terms of recruiting foster homes.
In the
briefing we were told that the department will be implementing a regulatory
regime to allow non-government entities to licence the foster homes.
My first
question would be: When will those regulations be available? Another question
is: What standards will these licensing entities have to follow? What will be
the reporting expectations? When it comes to safety and inspections, what do you
anticipate some of the regulations will be there?
I have
more questions, but I won't ask too many at a time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I sat
down without answering one earlier question that the Member had. It is possible
for a child to be placed with a family member or significant other outside the
province, but that is something we would work out an agreement with very closely
with the indigenous organization if that child was indigenous or something like
that.
The
question about the rules and the regulations; well, we are taking 12 months to
put all of that in place. I can tell you, to bring everyone in the House back to
what we're talking about here today, we're talking about the safety and the
well-being of children and youth that are in our care, and their protection is
paramount.
We know
we're not dealing with a restaurant down the road, we're talking about children
in care. The standard will be very, very high. It will be transparent, and the
monitoring – whoever we go out and develop an agreement with, the monitoring
will always rest with the Department of Children, Seniors and Social
Development.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Is the
decision to allow agencies to recruit foster homes expected to result in more
foster home availability as opposed to having government recruit foster homes
directly?
Another
question related to the agencies is: Will these agencies receive any payment or
financial incentive to recruit foster homes?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want
to say to the Member opposite that social workers will continue to carry out the
task of recruitment; they will still do what they can. The work that we will be
reaching out and doing with the licensing regime – that will complement, that
will add to. The social workers will still continue to do that work.
We
recently had a pilot program with Key Assets, I believe, for example, Mr. Chair.
Indications came back in the very early days of that pilot showing us that we
were on the right road. Monetary and efficiently is not the primary thing, but
it showed efficiencies that way early signs. It was the most cost effective way
for government, in terms of taxpayers' dollars, around the province.
It is
absolutely the best for the child to be placed. If they cannot be with mom or a
family member, foster care is better for them than the ILAs or the group homes
and things like that. We did a little pilot; we have an enabling clause here now
that will allow us to extend beyond the pilot with the work we've done. We're
pretty excited about that because the feedback has been good.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're
getting there. In terms of the pilot then, what types of payments or financial
incentives were offered to the agencies during the pilot phase?
CHAIR:
The Minister of Children,
Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I
said earlier, we work out an agreement and a dollar figure. To my knowledge,
there is no incentive based on numbers. That would be like a commission kind of
thing. I'm not sure what the Member is referring to.
With the
pilot, there was an agreement that was put in place and an amount that was
reached. They carried out the work, and so far the results of the work they're
doing have been very favourable.
CHAIR:
The Member for Fortune Bay -
Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
So as this moves beyond the
pilot stage and into being open to, I guess, all agencies, will there be a
standard payment system or will you negotiate different rates with different
agencies? That will be my first question. My other question is: What insurances
will the agencies have to hold?
So to
recap my first question: Will there be a standard payment mechanism or will they
have individual agreements with different agencies? What insurance will the
agencies have to hold with respect to liabilities?
Clause
79 allows a manager or social worker to act as an inspector for the purpose of
this act. Will the inspector be the same social worker who has the child or
youth on their caseload, or will this be a different independent person?
Another
question is: How often will investigations take place? Will inspection reports
be made public? Will they be subject to ATIPP regulations with identifying
information removed?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
The Member asked a lot of
questions there, Mr. Chair. I'm certain I'm not going to hit every one this
time. I may have to sit down, given it's getting late in the day; we started
early. I'll do my best.
Around
the cost piece, what I wanted to say is that we will have regulations on the
rate of pay, the method, the time and the manner of payment. It's not a secret
that some of the independent living arrangements that we have out there around
the province now could be very, very expensive, like over $300,000 a child. The
work we did with our pilot, Key Assets, that cost was significantly less, around
$150,000, around $175,000 for the child.
What I
want to say about the workload of the social workers – I think you might have
asked a question about that – is we have this ratio in place: one in 22. There
are certain areas around the province where we continue to be challenged with
that workload, in Labrador in particular.
Mr.
Chair, there are a whole lot of things happening to try and bring in extra
supports. We just recently went over and met with the students at the School of
Social Work; we did 12 interviews as a result of that. We have a team of social
workers that fly in and out of Natuashish, for example. We are ready to bring
another team in, because we've got a heavy workload there right now and we will
deploy those social workers to where they're needed in those communities.
So
there's always ongoing recruitment, retention efforts and we have been trying to
be really creative, given some of the challenges in that area.
I know
that there are more questions, so I'll sit down and I'll wait – I don't think I
hit them all.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS.
PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm sorry, Minister, I do realize I included a lot of
questions in that round. One of the questions that I had asked was: What
insurances will the agencies be required to have? And if you have any indication
at this point in time as to how often investigations would be required to take
place in the case of outside agencies doing the placement.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Social workers do investigations whenever necessary,
but I want to say those children and youth that are in our care and on our list,
there is ongoing, all the time, contact between the social workers and those
children and youth. They do also go into the homes and carry out inspections as
well.
Around the confidentiality piece, as Members will know,
the current act from 2011 was because of privacy concerns of children and youth.
The privacy of that act overrides the ATIPPA and that will be the exact same
thing with this bill, Bill 14. It will not be subject to ATIPPA, as you can
appreciate, because of the very nature of the work that's involved here.
Insurances will be covered under the regulations, I say
to the Member.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS.
PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Can the minister tell us how many staff are currently
engaged today in recruitment and investigations, and if you think additional
resources are going to be required in the future?
I guess this question is a bit more general: Why was
the decision to set up a regulatory framework to allow non-government entities
to license foster homes made, in terms of your rationale for moving outside of
government staff to use non-government entities?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Two things – around the recruitment and retention,
I've been there for about 10 months now and I've really seen a team effort
around the recruitment and retention. We get in that boardroom, a dozen of us,
and we try to figure out where we can go next. We do jurisdictional scans, we
look at other Northern areas and what they're doing and we have had to be very
creative, as the Member for Torngat knows some of the work that we're doing up
in his area.
I will
say recruitment and retention – all staff can do that, all staff with their
contacts, no matter where they are. What was the other question? Why did we go
down the road of licensing? There has been tremendous need. We've had children
out in independent living arrangements. That is not the most ideal setting for a
child if you are in a home that is being rented and you have the staff that come
and go for 12-hour shifts and things like that. Sometimes we find ourselves in
that circumstance because we have children that have very complex needs.
My
colleague, the Minister of Health, has been doing a tremendous amount of work
around Towards Recovery, mental
health, addictions. We hear about things like the opioid crisis and things like
that. I realized sitting here in the House one day that many of the parents –
many of the young adults that the Minister of Health would be working with on
various files, we have their children in the Department of Children, Seniors and
Social Development.
We've
seen an increase – the number of children coming in and going out of care has
remained relatively stable. I want to make that point here before the House.
When we look back over the last number of years, the number coming in, the
number going out has remained relatively stable, but we've certainly seen an
increase in the complexities of the children that come in.
I
mentioned earlier today years ago foster parents, often one parent in that home,
stayed home so they could take in a couple of children. Now, most people, there
are two parents that work. We have been really hard-pressed to find the number
of foster homes that's needed. Based on our consultations, based on our dialogue
that we've had with indigenous groups, various agencies and organizations, we
felt right now that this was the best road for us to go down.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Minister.
Just two
more questions on these clauses and regulations. Are there any agencies who have
expressed a concern about getting licences to recruit foster homes? Also, on the
flipside of that, are there any agencies who have expressed an interest in
getting involved in the business and becoming a recruiter of foster homes? Have
you had people express concerns on both sides, I guess?
As well,
if an incident takes place in a foster home that is licensed by a
non-governmental entity, who will be responsible, the licensee or government?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, when we work with those third-party agencies, we put agreements in
place. There are standards that they have to comply with, the highest of
standards because we're dealing with children and youth in care. I would say,
Mr. Chair, when we become aware, if an agency is breaching a part of that
agreement, then we would be in there and we would have no choice but to take
action if that was the case.
I may
have missed a question. I'll let the Member ask again.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Minister.
That was
good information, but in terms of if an accident actually took place in the home
that's licensed by the non-government entity, who would be liable, the licensee
or government? Where would the liability be?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So while
we're out, we're going to develop agreements with some of these agents to help
us in the recruitment and retention and things like that of more homes. We are
responsible. The responsibility always rests with the Department of Children,
Seniors and Social Development, with the social worker to do due diligence.
As I
said earlier today, I've been out in about a dozen offices around the province;
they are professional in their field. They have a lot of clinical supports to
help them carry out their assessments and base their decisions on. In addition
to that, they work in a team setting and they're constantly doing their case
file follow-up and things like that to always ensure that the child or youth in
our care is safe.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Final question on licensing agencies: Have you consulted with the union about
the fact that you will be using outside agencies as well as government employees
for this service?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I can
tell the Member that the Human Resource Secretariat has certainly discussed this
issue with the union, prior to this bill coming to the floor of the House of
Assembly. I also want to say, on this topic, that we will not be cutting social
work positions. That is not the intent here. There's a tremendous need. Social
workers are out there, they have a very heavy workload. We will not be cutting
social workers through the establishment of agencies and family-based or
residential-placement operators.
Mr.
Chair, what we're talking about here by developing those agreements with
third-party agencies, helping us increase the number of foster homes we need and
things like that, this will allow our social workers to have more opportunity to
focus on the very valuable work that they do, which will provide better outcomes
for the children and youth.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS.
PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You'll be saying that in your sleep tonight.
Clause 88, Youth Services Agreement, question – this
new bill makes a number of changes relating to how a youth is treated based on
their age. This bill will take a year to implement. So during the interim period
for the next 12 months or the period between Royal Assent and when you have to
get the regulations in place, how would the youth be treated? Which set of rules
will apply? And does this mean that youth will not be able to stay in care if
they are not in educational programs now, even if staying in care would be to
their benefit? Will we have some children that will fall through the cracks
during this time or can the new rules apply immediately to the children who are
going to age out of services?
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Minister of Children, Senior and Social Development.
MS.
DEMPSTER:
Mr.
Chair, we will be working with youth within the legislation and we will
certainly – while this will take 12 months, this is a very substantive piece of
legislation here. It's a pretty thick bill, so it's going to take us about 12
months to work through some of the policies and the regulations. During the
interim, during the 12 months that the Member is asking about, we will work with
any youth that comes forward seeking our services, for sure.
CHAIR:
The
hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS.
PERRY:
Thank you, Minister.
Clause 94, disclosure of information; this clause
outlines when a director or manager may authorize the disclosure of information
without consent. This would only be done, of course, in the best interest of the
child or youth for case planning purposes. There would be disclosure permitted
to indigenous representatives for case planning purposes, research and
evaluation, criminal proceedings or investigations.
My
question there is: Has the Privacy Commissioner been consulted on this clause?
What were the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, you're getting
tired. I know you're an early riser so it's probably your bedtime after 9 at
night. Bear with us, we're working through this. That's on record now.
Yes,
certainly, I can say to the Member that the Privacy Commissioner has been
consulted on the information-sharing provision. We have made revisions based on
his feedback and there is no issue right now with anything.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's the
100 clauses in the bill that's keeping us here so long. It's a very important
bill and a very valuable bill, so I'm certainly enjoying the information
exchange, Minister. Thank you very much.
Clause
95 speaks to information-sharing agreements. This clause will allow government
to enter into information-sharing agreements with indigenous governments or
organizations.
My
question under this clause is: What safeguards will be in place to protect
information when it leaves government and is given to an indigenous government?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, there are
circumstances now where some of that information is being shared when it is
necessary to ensure the safety of a child. Some of that is happening. What we
have done here with this bill, sometimes you have certain pieces of legislation
or parts of the act, like the 2011 act, that might have been open to
interpretation depending on the person reading it. This has just provided some
clarity around that. Again, I cannot stress that the highest measures of
accountability and mechanism will be in place.
Mr.
Chair, the staff that work in Children, Seniors and Social Development, yes, we
have some new social workers on staff, but many people in that department have
been around 25 years and more doing this really valuable work. We all know some
of the really sad stories, some of the circumstances, some of the reports that
have been released. Those were all moments that allowed us to build upon,
lessons learned, sometimes tough lessons, sometimes maybe many things out of our
control.
It's
because of all of those stories, circumstances and situations that there are a
lot of checks and balances in place just because we are dealing with the lives
of children and youth in our province.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And
thank you, Minister.
Clause
105 speaks to Delegation. Are there any discussions ongoing now, presently, with
indigenous governments that want to transition these services into their
responsibility? Can the minister outline how she envisions all of this to occur,
and which services do you anticipate would most likely be delegated?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Chair, when you look
across the country at other jurisdictions, different provinces have different
things happening between the departments and the indigenous groups and
organizations.
What we
have done here – I will say to the Member, to date there's no discussion on
this. What this bill is doing, Bill 14, is there will be an enabling clause so
that if some indigenous organization were to come forward and say we want to be
responsible for providing this service regarding our own children and youth,
they would be able to do that.
We work
really closely with our indigenous governments and organizations. We really,
really value that relationship. We have things like the Innu round table, we
have a working relationship agreement. We already have a lot of things happening
across our department, our social workers and those. So if they reach a time
where they feel they want to maybe even take a tiny chunk of that and take that
on and try it, then we will work with them through that process, but as of right
now that discussion isn't happening.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just
have a few questions now with respect to implementation. We talked a lot today
about we're anticipating it will be approximately a year before the legislation
is implemented after it receives Royal Assent.
What is
the minister's target date for the implementation of this legislation? What
steps must the department take before it is ready to implement? My final
question is: How will the long implantation period impact children or youth who
are in care or receiving services?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I
said earlier today, this will take one year. There will be a tremendous amount
of work that will have to happen. All of our hundreds of social workers will
receive training.
Mr.
Chair, we can't rush this. We really have to get this right because of the
nature of the work they do. While we are working our way through that process of
Bill 14 with all of the substantive changes, I want to say to the Member that
what will happen to the children today is they will continue to receive the best
care possible because the protection of children and youth in our care is a core
value with us, as I'm sure it is for all Members in this House. That won't
change.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just
rose this time to say thank you, Minister.
A lot of
times in this hon. House people look at us and say: What are they at in there?
Well, this is the type of good work that we do as parliamentarians; a very
important piece of legislation.
Thank
you, as well, to your staff who've done incredible work here, and to all the
people who care for our children.
Thank
you, Minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER: I
won't repeat anything that's been said already this evening, but I cannot sit
down without tossing another bouquet to the staff in the department who have
worked tremendously hard, to the legislative writers, that's a pretty massive
piece, and thanks to everyone who participated today in helping us get Bill 14
to where it is.
Thank you.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 133
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 to 133
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 133, carried.
CLERK: The
Schedule.
CHAIR: Shall the
Schedule carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME
HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those
against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, Schedule carried.
CLERK: Be it
enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session
convened, as follows.
CHAIR: Shall the
enacting clause carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME
HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those
against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CHAIR:
An Act Respecting Children,
Youth and Families.
CHAIR: Shall the
title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME
HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those
against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR: Shall I
report the bill without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME
HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those
against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 14.
CHAIR: The
motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 15.
Shall the motion carry?
CLERK: Bill 14.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Bill 14.
CHAIR: Fourteen;
I'm sorry.
The motion is that the Committee rise and report Bill 14.
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR: All those
against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask
leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Member for
Baie Verte - Green Bay, the Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MR.
WARR:
Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred
and have directed me to report Bill 14 without amendment.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered
the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 14 without
amendment.
When shall the report be received? Now?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Now.
When shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered
read a third time on tomorrow.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, given the hour of the day, I was going to have the Member for
Mount Pearl - Southlands second my motion but what I'll do instead is have the
Member for Virginia Waters second my motion to adjourn.
MR.
SPEAKER:
It
has been moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.
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 House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
o'clock in the morning.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until
tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.