April 25, 2018 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLVIII No. 12
The
House met at 10 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 3,
third reading of Bill 4.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Member for Labrador West that Bill 4, An Act To Amend The Status Of Women
Advisory Council 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
Status Of Women Advisory Council Act. (Bill 4)
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 Status Of Women Advisory Council Act,” read
a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 4)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy
Government House Leader.
MS. COADY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Motion 1, the budget motion.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LESTER:
Good morning, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this House today to speak once again to the budget. I'm the most recent, I
guess, individual to have left the private world and come into public life. I
still have a fair few activities which I conduct. One of them is a collection of
compost from Tim Hortons. Every morning, I go around to the 19 Tim Hortons
stores and collect their coffee grinds. That's provided a great venue for people
to address issues with me. I think it used to take me about an hour and a half
to pick up the coffee grinds and now it's taking almost three hours because,
each store I go to, there is always someone who will get out of their car, or
hold up the drive-through lineup and address some situations with me.
Of
course, one of the biggest things that people are expressing, and one of the
things that I've seen in my own private life, is it is more expensive and more
difficult to live here and to make ends meet. That's going to defy everything
that we need to do in this province, and that is attract young families, keep
people living here even in their retirements, because a lot of the retirements
and pensions that people are now drawing down on are funded by activities within
this province.
As we
all know, it is a huge deficit when it comes to the coverage of these pensions.
We need to keep that money in here to keep our economy going. So we really have
to look at, as a government, we have to find a way to make it more efficient for
people to live here and spend the dollars within our own communities.
I know
in 2015, as I said, I did run but was unsuccessful, so I returned to my private
life. During that time, on our farm we host weddings and weddings are a prime
indicator of the economy. We had 23 weddings booked that summer and, of the 23,
we had nine cancel because they were unsure of the economy or unsure of their
positions. That was really sad.
In 2017,
this past summer, we had a record amount of weddings booked at our farm. We had
over 41 weddings booked at our farm. As I do with all couples, I get to know
them personally and the sad part about this booming business is over half of
those couples were leaving the province. They wanted to get their families
together and get married before they left.
That's a
prime indicator of what we're facing, and I'm sure the government is aware of
it. We've seen the survey come out, the money spent to attract people coming
back to the province, but we have a real big issue with people leaving the
province. Why are they leaving the province? Because they don't see the
financial advantages anymore.
We have
to look at reducing the personal income tax. We have to reduce the cost of
living. It's something that we've brought up – my colleague from Conception Bay
has brought up about the carbon tax. We, as consumers, won't be as fortune as
those in other jurisdictions because we rely on the importation of just about
everything we use for our everyday lives, and food is one of them.
We're
not going to see at the bottom of our grocery bill: carbon tax. The cost of
carbon tax is going to be built into the delivery of our food. Yes, it is going
to encourage a fund to counteract the environmental causes, which I'm very
familiar with. At our farm, we see a huge difference in the weather patterns
from year to year and I think exponentially, in the past 10 years, we've seen
more extreme weather. Our weather has always been variable, but we've seem more
extremes of those variations.
We need
to present a case to the government that Newfoundland needs to be considered,
specifically, and I guess more uniquely than the rest of Canada because we are
on the end of the economic chain. As I said, we rely on everything for
importation. There will be carbon tax assessed on all of those transport
companies, the fuel they burn. That is going to play a big part in the cost of
everyday living and that again is going to complicate the situation of trying to
keep young families here, trying to keep them investing in our province, trying
to keep seniors in our province.
If
seniors have the means and ability to leave and go to another economic
jurisdiction within Canada, the country or the continent, they're going to do
that, and that's something that we, as a population, can't afford to do. We need
to keep everybody here, keep that money that we've invested in people's
education and people's pensions. We need to keep that circulating within our
economy.
The
budget itself, I could not find any reference to a big environmental issue
that's looming off our coast, and that is the ecocide disaster that's looming
within our fishery. That specific reference is to the seal population off our
coast. Within less than a week, the harp seal population could consume more fish
than the total allowable catch to all harvesters within Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Seals
are very industrious. They will go from their preferred species of the menu to
keep going down the line, down the line. They're not going to be restricted to
cod or they're not going to be restricted to capelin or crab. They're going to
eat whatever is in front of them.
A lot of
arguments are that it's a biological cycle. Well, kind of like the rabbit and
the fox. When we see a spike in rabbit populations, then the fox come up at the
same time to bring that population down. Now that only happens in the course of
maybe two or three years, but an explosion of the harp seal population will
decimate all species in our fishery and it will be decades if not centuries
before it recovers. Yes, eventually the harp seal population will crash but
that's only after it decimates all of our food resource found within the
fishery.
As the
population in our world explodes to double what it is of today, I have a big
concern. Because not only will this harp seal herd decimate a large portion of
the protein which we derive from the ocean but this harp seal population can be
harvested for some of the needs of the people throughout the world.
We see
it in other jurisdictions within Canada and North America, when a feral or a
wild population gets out of control or starts to impact the environment
negatively there is a harvest or a cull. You don't have to go too far. You can
look out West, in the western states, in the mid states or in Canada when the
mustang population explodes and causes damage to the environment or to itself,
those animals are harvested or repurposed. That's just a part of our
responsibility to the environment to manage it.
If you
want to look across the world; in Africa, when we think of population management
and I guess the environment, well you think of the noble elephant. Yes, the
noble elephant needs to be protected and preserved but what damage and
overpopulation of elephants does on an environment is extreme. It basically
converts a savannah into a desert in a very short period of time. That's
basically what's happening off our East Coast. We're having seals depopulate our
ocean of the necessary elements to maintain a balanced ecosystem.
I would
hope that everybody within this House, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, has
had the opportunity to sample the cuisine that is derived from the seal or
products from the seal. It's a very good and underutilized food source. It could
be harvested not only for consumption in our industries like the fur industry,
not for the pelt but for food for the animals that we do raise and sell on the
world market but for human consumption. There's no reason why we couldn't be
harvesting seals, using their biomass as protein to satisfy the world deficiency
of protein.
It's
only going to get worse. The Chinese population and Asian population is
projected to almost triple within the next 25 years. That's going to be a huge
deficiency in food quality for one, but in protein. Protein is one of the most
expensive attributes to the food system that we rely on. Here we are with
approximately six million seals and growing, and at the same time they're
decimating our fishery stocks and very, very little control being put in place
for that.
That's
one thing that I think we should really look at. There should be a proactive
approach in the budget to dealing with our issue with the seals but also
marketing products. We don't need to combat the animal rights individuals. We
need to purport the value of the seal population as a food source for the world.
Again,
I'm going to go back to agriculture for a moment. I'm a big supporter of any
initiatives to expand the agriculture industry but the agriculture industry has
to be expanded in such a manner that it will provide sustainable existence
thereafter and is able to stand on its own two legs.
Back in
pre-Confederation and post-Confederation, there was a huge amount of produce
being produced on the West Coast. Yes, the best land is on the West Coast. Now I
don't want to say that too loud because I'm very proud of a lot of farmland
that's been developed in the East Coast. The reality is the population is on the
East Coast and it makes most economical sense to produce food next to the
populations. We need to have more of a focus on doing that.
We can't
just expand the agriculture industry for the sake of wanting to expand the
agriculture industry. We can't keep throwing money into an industry if it's not
going to be able to support itself. In saying that, I would like to see more
emphasis on diversifying and placing industries where they're most economically
viable. Horticulture is one of those industries that need to be expanded on the
East Coast.
I know
of farms in the area that are actually going to reduce their production this
year because of access to property. Reducing production means reducing buying
inputs in the communities and the reduced need for staffing and employment.
That's something we really have jump on and improve.
Another
thing I'd like to comment on is the most recent changes within the level of
compensation to the workplace health and safety commission. I'm a big proponent
of added compensation and increased levels of support, but right now we're only
able to afford that on the surplus that exists within workers' compensation, and
that surplus has been generated by over contribution by employers.
Now,
what's going to happen when that surplus is used up? Yes, we're at a time right
now where we're decreasing the assessments in industry and employers, but pretty
soon that surplus is going to be gone. Is government willing or planning to make
that additional contribution that's going to cover the increased cost of income
replacement, or is that going to come back to the employers? That's a question
that hasn't been asked and needs to be asked.
Employers are job creators, employers are spenders in the community. We need to
create a more favourable environment to have more employers. We don't need more
employees. In some respects we do. Yes, in some industries we do, but the base
of an employee is employment.
It's
government's responsibility to create conditions for growth in the private
sector. This is where economic planning is indispensable. You can't just throw
money out into the economy and hope it will grow. That's like me as a farmer
throwing seeds onto the parking lot and expecting to reap a crop. We need a
plan. Yes, Growing Forward initiatives
are basically high-level theories but we need strategies when it comes to
developing business and creating an environment for business. As of yet, we
haven't seen that. We need to bring those Growing Forward plans to the ground
and actually get industries growing.
The
poverty rate in this province was once the envy of all Canada. We had the lowest
poverty rate in Canada. We went from having over 20 per cent of our citizens in
poverty in 2003 down to less than 12 per cent in 2015. Again, not all of this
has been the government's fault, but it is the sitting government's
responsibility to change that trend that has been occurring in the poverty rate
growing. We've already documented an increase of 2.5 per cent and true numbers
for this past fiscal year, we probably won't see until 2019.
Members
of the House and Mr. Speaker, I see a big, big shift in the amount of poverty
that's in our communities. It was only as recent as yesterday morning, I was out
in a parking lot in one of the coffee shops and I saw a young family, a mother
and two young children get out of a van and walk into the coffee shop with their
toothbrushes and facecloths. It kind of didn't really click into my head what
they people were doing. So I asked the maintenance: What's on the go here? He
said: That's just one of the many families that are homeless and now living out
of their vehicles. They go into the coffee shops in the morning, they get their
breakfast, they brush their teeth and wash their face and the mom or dad dresses
them in the back of the van and puts them in school.
Yes, I
know there are supports there for people like that but when you have a family
who are in a mid- to upper-class neighbourhood and all of a sudden they have no
home anymore, mom and dad have no job, that's a big shock to people's
confidence, their outlook on themselves and they have no idea where to go to get
help or how to get help.
Every
day as an MHA I deal with constituency issues, people in need of housing, and
people in the need of income support. A lot of these issues are people who are
familiar with the system and they've been there for generations. But what
disturbs me is I'm seeing families that are affected by the economy and all of a
sudden they're thrown into the social system.
We went
from, in 2005, people, generations of being on social assistance leaving that
system and coming into our economy and contributing, as a workforce, to now
we're having new families, new people entering in the social system. It costs
$1.25 billion of investment to reduce the poverty level in our economy prior to
2015. As everybody knows in this House, there's not a whole lot of money right
now going around that we can invest, but we've got to continue that investment
because we need to keep people out of that system. We need to keep people
working. That's something that I don't see happening.
We all
know that there are boundless opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador. But do
you know what? They've always been here. The opportunities for business, the
opportunities for resource development have always been here. But what we've
seen in the past two years has been one missing element to capitalize on those
opportunities, and that's optimism.
Optimism
is necessary for any exploitation of opportunity. Optimism is necessary to get
people when they're feeling down, get them back up on their feet and move
forward. We need to continue to push that optimism. As I said before, our
province depends on resource revenues, but do you know what else? Our province
depends on leadership within this House of Assembly to keep going, to keep their
eyes ahead, to keep their eyes on the prize. And be it by purpose or be it by
circumstance, that optimism has been stripped from our people. I see people
every day walking around with their heads down like zombies, just hoping to wake
up tomorrow and it be better.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LESTER:
Hoodwinked is not an excuse
for anything. Hoodwinked is something we have to throw aside because we are all
intelligent individuals. There is no way that we can say that we walked into
this House and knew that we weren't in the position that we're in. We have to
stop using that excuse, and we have to give our people optimism, give them a
concrete plan. Not theory, not high level, it has to be down on their doors.
That's something that I think is lacking in this budget. It's just a carbon
copy, a few little tweaks, and it's something that needs to change.
We have
to reinvest in our people and we have to make it more cost efficient to live
here.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. LESTER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Terra Nova.
MR. HOLLOWAY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a pleasure to stand in the House this morning and speak to
Budget 2018. Like most Members now, I
guess I'll get a chance at least today and maybe a couple of more times to speak
to the things that are in this year's budget.
But
before I do, Mr. Speaker, last week I did not have the opportunity to stand and
to recognize the many great volunteers in my district. Last week was National
Volunteer Week and because of my responsibilities here in the House, I wasn't
able to attend to any of the events that had happened in my district
I did
attend one on Saturday evening at the Royal Canadian Legion in Clarenville. I
certainly want to send my congratulations to everybody that was recognized at
the Royal Canadian Legion: Volunteer of the Year Curtis Skiffington, but also
all the other members, comrades of the Royal Canadian Legion that were
recognized for their long-time service and their dedication to the community.
National
Volunteer Week's theme was: Celebration the Value of Volunteering – building
confidence, competence, connections and community. I think that's really what
goes on in the great Terra Nova District that I represent.
Last
week, there were events that happened in Glovertown. There were events that
happened in my hometown of Port Blandford, as there were events that happened in
the Southwest Arm area. I wasn't able to attend any of those wonderful
celebrations, but I just want to echo the sentiments that were given to those
volunteers at those events and send my heartfelt thank you to all those
volunteers for everything they do to make our communities great places to live,
to work and to raise our families.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd like to get into the budget a little bit and just talk about some
of the things that are in this year's budget. I may reflect a little bit about
some of the other initiatives that have happened in the Terra Nova District in
the last year that are continuing forward into this year.
The
first thing I'd like to talk about is around the Premier's Task Force on
Improving Educational Outcomes. Of course, that report came due – and I see
Members opposite giving me a thumbs-up, so that's wonderful. I think they
recognize there are some great things that have come in that report that came
out last summer.
There
were 82 recommendations in that report. Some of them are very dear to things
that I've certainly worked very hard for prior to coming into this House, in my
previous capacity, working in the community and working in the public service.
The recommendations focus on nine areas. They focus on inclusive education. They
focus on student mental health and wellness, mathematics and reading, indigenous
education, multicultural education and the early years.
People
will have seen that I have stood in this House many times and I've talked about
my long experience working with children with disabilities and also working in a
family resource centre or being on a board of directors for a family resource
centre. So seeing that theme come forward in the set of recommendations is
extremely important.
Career
and co-op education, Mr. Speaker, is number eight, and professional development.
People would also realize, or remember that I sat on a school board. I was a
member of a school board. I was trustee and a chair of the former Vista School
Board. In that capacity, I was always keenly interested in providing
professional development opportunities for teachers and staff.
So to
see that all these themes have come forward in a set of recommendations I think
is a great report. I'm really encouraged now this year, and through this budget,
that we are seeing phase one of the recommendations will be implemented, and to
see that some-40 schools will be a part of the first round of schools that will
get some additional resources to help them deal with many of the challenges that
are going on in our schools.
Many
people would remember that last year we were dealing with a tremendous amount of
concern at Riverside Elementary in Clarenville. It was because of overcapacity
issues, it was around lunch hour space, it was around children having enough
room to be supervised and also to be in class sizes that they were able to – to
be in a conducive learning environment. It's great to see now that through phase
one we'll see some extra resources that will go into schools that will help
address some of those issues.
I'm
confident that as we move forward with the Premier's task force and these
recommendations that our schools and this whole issue of what was perceived to
be the right approach to inclusive education, that we will make some steps now.
We've listened to parents. We've listened to teachers. We've listened to the
school community and now we're going to take steps to put in better approaches,
better strategies so that students have better learning outcomes.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd also like to talk about mental health and addictions. I've stood in
this House and talked about mental health issues in my district, and I've talked
about my dear friend, Victoria Best. Just this past week, there was another
story about Victoria that came out. As we know, Victoria was a New England
Patriots fan. There were some of her friends and supporters who had written the
New England Patriots and talked about who Victoria was and what a great fan she
was.
The
story this week talked about how they finally heard back from the New England
Patriots and they sent up some memorabilia. Victoria, in her house, had a sports
room. She had it decorated in honour of the New England Patriots.
Finally,
Mr. Speaker, we see that organization sent along some memorabilia. They
understood what a tireless advocate she was for mental health. It's unfortunate
that she's no longer with us. I talk to her family all the time. I talked to her
dad yesterday actually, and we were chatting about mental health and addictions
and the need to do something in Clarenville. We need to do something to help our
young people.
I just
reflect back; one of the recommendations or the theme of the recommendations was
student mental health and wellness. I think that's so critically important in
this province and in my district.
In
Budget 2018, we'll see there's more
than $10 million, Mr. Speaker, that's being invested to support the delivery of
home and community care and enhancements of primary health care services. I've
been working with a group in Clarenville who are putting together a
community-based outreach program.
If you
look at the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, in that report
one of the things it talks about is we have to have better connections at the
grassroots. It has to be grassroots driven. Yes, we have professionals. We have
institutions that can help. We're paving the way to build a new Waterford
Hospital but we also need to bring the community into the solutions that we
identify to help people who are struggling with mental health and addictions.
So to
see there is a group that's come together in Clarenville that are looking to
provide additional support to those in need, whether it's our young people,
whether it's adults or seniors who are just struggling with their own mental
wellness – and I'm hoping, I've talked to the Minister of Health and Community
Services, as well as the Eastern Health authority about: How do we find a way to
make the work that this community group is doing, that they propose to do, how
do we make that a reality? We're doing some stuff now as a government down on
the Burin Peninsula and I'd like to see that replicated in my district, in the
Clarenville area.
Mr.
Speaker, as I move on talking about some of the things that are in the budget, I
wanted to talk about – we are keenly interested in building safe and sustainable
communities. It's certainly a priority for us. We'll see an investment of over
$75 million to provide local services and support to local communities.
I'll
reference specifically what we're doing around Municipal Capital Works; $10.6
million, and that announcement was made just previous to the budget. I actually
had some folks come in from my district because contained in the $10.6 million
under Municipal Capital Works was money to help build a new fire hall on Random
Island. It's near the community of Elliott's Cove. There are about six
communities that are part of a local service district.
I
remember, Mr. Speaker, when I first was approached by the deputy fire chief. He
came into my constituency office in Clarenville. He said: you know I'd really
like for you to come down to our fire department. We have an aging truck,
firefighting equipment. We have an old building that was an old school, and we
have mould in the building. It's inadequate. We can't continue to be operating
out of that building.
So I
went there, and eventually I had the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Environment come and meet with them as well. I was pleased to see that this year
we were able to identify money to help them construct a new fire hall.
Last
year, we were able to identify money to provide a new fire truck for them.
That's so keenly important when we think about our volunteers, our firefighters,
our first responders who are the ones who answer that call to keep our
communities safe. Providing that necessary infrastructure to them so that they
can do their jobs, I think is critically important for us, no matter what side
of the House we're on. I was glad to see that we're making that investment this
year.
Mr.
Speaker, under the Municipal Capital Works program waste water and drinking
water – good drinking water is also critically important to our communities when
we think about that infrastructure. I can recall and met with the town council
in Traytown, they didn't have their own source of water. They were relying on
private wells but they wanted to be more sustainable as a community.
So over
the last two years, Mr. Speaker, we provided funds to help them identify a
stable, sustainable water source. This year, we're also providing some
additional monies that will help them conduct well drilling and water testing so
that, hopefully, they will have a system that provides good, clean drinking
water for their community and for the residents that are there.
Mr.
Speaker, as well, in terms of – fire halls in my district seem to be one of the
main themes these days. I know there's a request now with the Town of
Clarenville who are looking to construct a new fire hall. My hometown of Port
Blandford is looking to construct a new fire hall and so is the Town of
Glovertown, looking to construct a new fire hall. So we were able this year to
provide some funds of the Town of Glovertown to help with the design of a new
fire hall. Myself and the minister have been out and met with them as well to
see the facility they have and to understand their needs. This year, they will
start a process to look at some pre-design work for a new fire hall in that
community.
Mr.
Speaker, when we think about protecting our firefighters, in this budget $1.8
million is being allocated to fire protection vehicles and firefighting
equipment. Over the last two years, this budget has been relatively stable in
terms of supporting firefighting equipment in communities and fire protection
vehicles. I just want to reference some of the communities that have benefited
from these funds over the last two years, including this year.
On
Monday evening I was in Charlottetown and I was there to announce that we're
providing some money to the fire department to replace a pump on their fire
truck. When I asked the members of the volunteer fire department, I said: Tell
me exactly what it is that you're going to use this money for. So they opened up
a back door and showed me an old pump and they said: We're replacing this thing
here because it's not reliable anymore. It's good to see the monies that are
coming forward, on behalf of the people of this province, that we're putting it
into real equipment to help people do their jobs.
We
provided firefighting equipment to Glovertown and to the Southwest Arm fire
department in Hodges Cove. We're also providing money to Random Island East fire
department. So bringing forward dollars to help those fire departments do the
work that they need to do is extremely important in my mind.
I just
wanted to reference, there was a comment made by my colleague across the House
about what's happening with seniors and we need to support seniors. I just want
to reference, Mr. Speaker, the things we are doing is not – as my learned
colleague would say – that we are driving seniors out of the province. I mean,
to the contrary.
One of
the things that we introduced in 2016 was enhanced supports to seniors. This
year, again, we're providing $56 million in the Newfoundland and Labrador
Seniors' Benefit. That was, as I say, introduced in 2016 and it benefits – now,
you should pay attend for a second – 47,000 seniors and their families. When the
Member opposite gets up and says that we're doing things that is going to likely
drive seniors out of this province, I think that's incorrect. We are doing
things actually to help seniors. We're also providing $65 million in the Income
Supplement that provides benefit to approximately 155,000 individuals and their
families.
Mr.
Speaker, first, when we introduced this in 2016, I was going out and meeting
with 50-plus clubs and seniors' groups in my district and many didn't
understand, because these cheques are coming on a quarterly basis. People
couldn't understand why they were getting this extra money. They were used to
getting the one lump sum. I'd say to them: Did you get a cheque now in October,
and was it more than what you thought? Yeah, but I didn't know where that came
from, was an answer that I was getting.
So then
in January, they received another one and they were phoning and saying I didn't
get that lump sum that $900-and-something, $968 – I don't know if someone can
correct me on the amount. But I didn't get that. Well, actually you're getting
more than that because it's over $1,300 now that you're getting.
When you
explain that to people they say: Oh, okay, that's great. We thought the federal
government was providing that to us. I said: No, that's what we are doing as a
government here in this province. We recognize that things are tough and we're
trying to bring in measures that's going to support people. So contrary to what
the Member opposite said, I just want to put it out there, Mr. Speaker, and be
on record that it's completely false.
That's
one of the things that we've had to deal with in this House. Consistently, I
hear from Members opposite about this doom and gloom. You know, we were dealt a
very, very dirty card. When I'm out in my district and I'm talking to people,
they consistently tell me that they know how we got in this place. They also
recognize that as a government we are trying. We are trying to right the ship so
that the path forward, The Way Forward
– and I know the Member opposite gets up and says we don't have a plan. I mean,
I hear that from Members opposite all the time: We don't have a plan.
Yesterday we launched phase three of The
Way Forward, with some 30 more
additional actions that are pervasive across a number of industries. The Member
opposite talked about – and I think we kind of agree in one sense that whatever
investments we make in this province, we need to focus on areas that can be
successful. Now, I'm paraphrasing him, but I think that's what he was saying.
You should invest on the Avalon. I think he talked about horticultural
investments.
Actually
in terms of our regional innovation systems, which people will find in
The Way Forward, that is exactly what
we're doing. On the West Coast, we're focusing on forestry. In Central, we're
focusing on agriculture and we're focusing on the aerospace industry. On the
East Coast, we are focusing on technology. So we're building on the strengths
that exist in this province based on the regions.
So I
think when the Member stands up and he talks about let's build on the strengths,
we do agree on that – absolutely. Now, I think he was trying to put a dig
forward that we're not doing what we should be doing, but again, I would say to
the Member opposite that we are exactly doing what we should be doing to build
on the strengths and to build an economy that is sustainable.
Mr.
Speaker, I talk about that from a great deal of experience. My experience is in
community economic development.
I see my
time is winding down, Mr. Speaker, so I will continue on from this point
forward, I will continue on when I get to speak again to the
Budget 2018.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a pleasure to rise this morning and speak to
Budget 2018. People have three opportunities to speak to the actual
budget, so it's certainly an opportunity to speak to the details of the
particular budget. And as well, for Members to speak to issues related to their
district that are related to the budget or not, or just of importance to their
district and an opportunity to speak to those people in their district and
issues important to the people in the province.
As part
of this process – and the people out there know, we go through Estimates where
each department comes in and lays out the budgetary requirements for the next
fiscal year. Obviously, that's related to the policy direction the current
government will take, and those line items in the actual Estimates would flow
into those policy directions or strategic directions the government is taking on
an annual basis or flows into that four-year term and four-year mandate, which
they were elected to follow.
So the
Estimates certainly are for Opposition and for Members on the other side of the
House to ask questions to the ministers and to their officials in regard to
progress made on announced strategic directions or policy directives and the
money that's been allocated for those, what's been spent in the last fiscal year
based on the Estimates and what the actuals were. Those were identified. You can
ask questions on those. Then looking forward, the Estimates for the next fiscal
year and questions on allocations of funding and where it has been spent.
It also
enters into the whole forecast piece in regard to looking beyond that fiscal
year you're talking about but looking at the forecast which is laid out by the
current administration. This administration has talked about a seven year
forecast. They talked about getting back to surplus; talks about the year
'22-'23 in regard to having a small surplus and getting back there.
Now in a
general sense, since this budget has come in and even prior to it, and I've
spoken to it before, there have been some questions in regard to the validity of
that plan. We saw the AG mention it in 2017 in the forecast, in regard to
expenditure reductions, the amount that's been forecasted in regard to the
ability to raise the revenues that were in that forecast. I think it's about
$1.2 billion up to '22-'23. Is it conceivable that will be done?
As well,
looking at inflation and various increases in program delivery and program
resources that are available; when you look at things like increases in
expenditures. We've seen a small increase this year in programs, about 2.1 per
cent. We'll see small decreases, supposedly, in the next few years in regard to
expenditures. About 1.2 per cent in 2020, about 1.1 per cent in 2021, half a
percent in '21-'22 and just a third of a percent in '22-'23.
The
Auditor General in 2017, based on those projections, questioned whether it was
even obtainable. Based on the fluctuations you may have seen in a general sense
in regard to inflationary costs to things like labour, to program delivery. Even
in that period of time there are often ups and downs in the economy. You could
see a small recession which slows the economic activity and which doesn't allow
you to meet your targets related to revenue projections.
In
Budget 2016, we saw there were over
300 taxes and fees. Some of them already existed, some were increased, some are
added. We had to look at things like the levy that was brought in. Most
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians had to pay it initially. Then there were some
small changes made to it, but it's still there. That affects these indicators in
regard to meeting those targets.
It's a
balancing act in regard to the trickle-down effect. You need to tax at a level
or threshold that allows revenue to be raised to meet the needs but not to
disincentive people not to have money in their pockets or not be able to spend.
That's certainly the balancing act.
The
documents of this current budget; if you look at
The Economy 2018, which was part of the budgetary documents, that
looks at the economic indicators and what the projections are for future years,
which ties into the plan, the forecast. I know the hon. Member before me
mentioned having a plan, talked about The
Way Forward, Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3, that's all great stuff. Well,
that plan has to tie in to the economics and to the reality of the day.
I know
my colleague for Mount Pearl North was talking about families and talking about
the effect on families, whether it's seniors or youth. That's really what we're
talking about here. We're talking about young families being able to stay here,
make a living and provide what's needed for their family; activities, all of
those types of things for young kids.
We have
the infrastructure and they want to stay here and build and grow. They pay taxes
over a longer period of time. They contribute to the economy. They're
volunteers. They do the things they need to do in all kinds of our communities
to make sure it's a place that people want to live and stay. So that's extremely
important in regard to creating that environment.
Fundamentally, government doesn't actually employ – shouldn't be the agency to
employ everybody, shouldn't be the agency to create all these jobs. The
government of the day and any day is to provide that environment where there
wants to be investment; it's good investments for entrepreneurs and people to
grow business. It's competitive in regard to taxation, whether personal taxation
for individuals or corporate taxation in regard to investment. So it's
competitive and that's what we need to create that environment and to get to
what's being proposed here in '22-'23 in regard to getting back to surplus.
I
mentioned when I started about Estimates and the process we go through.
Yesterday, we had Natural Resources Estimates with the Minister of Natural
Resources. She had her staff in. I have to admit, we had a very good,
free-flowing discussion back and forth for three hours. We had a lot of
questions and I acknowledge the minister and her staff and the good job they
did. We certainly didn't agree with everything but we had a great discussion and
exchange of information.
As I
said, the budget is the figures in regard to line items and different divisions
within the department, but then flows out of that is the direction you're taking
to meet strategic directions or policy initiatives that have already been laid
out by government.
The
minister was very open in terms of having that discussion about how the budget
relates to those, some of the issues going on in the province with regard to
natural resources and economic development. We were able to ask questions back
and forth with regard to where we're to and what's transpiring in our province,
because all of that flows into driving the economy.
Natural
Resources, as we know, we're very big in the commodity market, not only in
Newfoundland and Labrador but across Canada. It bodes well for our future,
whether that's in the mining sector, whether it's the oil and gas. Obviously,
our fishery is huge in regard to what we're able to achieve and continue; while
we're having some challenges now in quota cuts. As well, you look at our
forestry industry, again, some challenges.
When you
look at some of the initiatives that are going on in the US in regard to NAFTA
and some of the tariffs that have been put on paper that is being shipped out,
certainly related to the operations in Corner Brook, it is extremely concerning;
yet, those are all issues that are important to us in growing our economy and
doing the things we need to do.
When we
had discussions in Natural Resources in the Estimates, we talked about a number
of items. In particular, we talked about Voisey's Bay and Vale related to the
underground mine in regard to the development agreement, where that's to; not a
lot of details in regard to the current government holding Vale accountable and
moving that forward. We certainly hope that it will.
To go
underground to build that mine, in the past couple of years we've been asking
some questions here in the House in regard to the actual agreement. The minister
had indicated, probably a year-and-a-half ago there were issues with engineering
procurement. They had to get that done. There was a business analysis supposed
to be completed in the fall of 2017. We're told it was completed. We're not sure
what the results of that was, and now we're into 2018. Again, we don't know in
terms of the direction being taken there.
When we
look at iron ore, the prices and the commodity prices, when it hit a rough skid
a few years back – obviously, iron ore is used for steel. Most industrialized
countries, places like China, Brazil, India, a lot of building goes on and they
need that iron ore in terms of steel manufacturing a building.
The
commodity we have is driven by the activities around the world. We have seen in
the last year or two, those iron ore prices start to recover and start to move
up. We also heard the minister talk yesterday in Estimates about other iron ore
deposits in Labrador and the possibility for development and investors out
looking for that to develop those sites.
It would
leave one to believe that Vale and the Voisey's Bay underground site, as well,
could continue to grow, and that's important. So we're left to see what's going
on with the underground mine at Voisey's Bay, getting it up and operational, and
making sure that we get this moving, because there is tremendous opportunity
certainly for Labrador, but as well overall for the provincial economy.
As I
said, in Estimates we have some discussion on that. I certainly look forward to
the minister in the very near future and this government giving us some good
news in regard to moving forward with Voisey's Bay.
The
other issue with Voisey's Bay is the cobalt, a derivative, my understanding, of
the processing of iron ore and from that, the price around the world, my
understanding, the commodity itself and the availability of it is somewhat
limited and this is seen as a huge opportunity as a parallel – what will we say
– an advantage of Voisey's Bay underground mining. So we hope that as well will
stir the opportunity to continue to get this project moving and get the benefits
for all concerned.
So that
was a good discussion we had in that particular area. We also had some
discussion on White Rose extension, the Argentia project and that moving
forward. I know we had some discussions when that was originally announced, and
some of the things that in the negotiation the government gave up in regard to
the graving dock, which was originally in the initial agreement, MOU, that was
signed, which would allow ongoing work on rigs and facilities like that that
would be a permanent structure that would allow that activity to go on. So
instead of sending rigs to Scotland or Ireland or sending to the US, we would
have a facility here to actually do that on an ongoing basis. But that was
negotiated out by the partners.
As well
we talked about, at the time there was a $60 million fund announced that was
part of the negotiations that we were – we believe it was $60 million that we
negotiated that would be used by the province to drive innovation and other
activities in the oil and gas, and so it is. But I know when the announcement
was made, we asked questions here again related to that, and that's a $60
million fund that over 10 years – I think there's $6 million that's put aside
that is going to be used for innovation and different activities in the oil and
gas sector. But in questioning the minister, there's no parameter set up yet in
regard to the application process for that, who would oversee it and those types
of things. The minister indicated that's been worked out and been done today.
One
interesting part about the $60 million is that while it's not part of the
capital cost for the partners within the project, it can be and will be
recovered by the partners through the royalty regime, which is interesting
because that means that $60 million, really, the partners get it back. They're
not, in themselves, giving up $60 million as part of the agreement. What happens
is through the royalties – their capital cost can be recovered through
development agreements but this is outside of the capital cost, the
construction, but it would be part of a $60 million fund that they can pull it
back through the royalty regime that's in place, which is interesting because in
fact they're not really giving up the $60 million, they're recovering it at some
point down the road.
We also
talked about geological surveying related to the mining sector and the
activities that are going on there. On a positive note, there are good things
happening in the mining sector in the province – in the Baie Verte region out
there regarding gold development deposits. As well in Labrador, there was a
discussion about the Labrador Trough and some of the things we've heard lately
in the past couple of weeks in regard to meetings with the current Premier and
the premier of Quebec and the developing of the Labrador Trough.
There's
some work going on in regard to I think the northern region of that trough and
looking at partnerships or what could be achieved together collectively. One of
the questions that I asked the minister – we compete with Quebec and it's good
to have relations and to be able to support when it's beneficial to all
concerned. One of the questions I did ask is there was a reference to sharing of
data. Because we're adjacent to Quebec, Labrador obviously, and we compete for
that investment and when you look at investments around the world in the mining
sector it is limited so how do we be competitive and make sure that oftentimes
we compete with Quebec for that investment.
I asked
about that data, the data sharing, how much data we would share, what type of
data we would share, that type of thing. I think the response was they're
working through that and they would be cognizant of the fact that it is
competitive in nature in terms of competing mines and our deposits both on the
Newfoundland side of that trough and Quebec side. From our point of view, we
need to be cognizant of that in terms of moving forward with that.
But
certainly, as I said, there are positive signs in the mining industry in terms
of our reserves of what we have. Commodity markets around the world are starting
to move in some of those commodities and it's certainly positive for
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Many of
it, we talked here in the House a lot about carbon tax, what's coming. At the
beginning, our understanding now is 2019 and what that means for our industries
but as well trickle right down to families, what cost it is going to be to the
average family. I know my colleague the Environment critic has asked several
times here in the House just a simple question: To the average family in
Newfoundland and Labrador, who has two kids, who's doing all those activities
that young families do, what will be the average cost to that family based on
this tax? Because in this current budget of 2018, we hear there is no new taxes,
status quo, those types of things.
In
actual fact, that's not correct. What we have is a carbon tax coming that no one
seems to know what it's going to cost, how it going to trickle down and what
it's going to mean to the pocketbook of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. So
we look for more information and we continue to ask. The federal government
mandated this by 2019. I think the first is $10 a ton in regard to greenhouse
gas emissions and it goes to $50 a ton over the next few years.
Now,
originally, it was supposed to be a made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador program
for carbon tax. We had started here in this Legislature and passed legislation
actually dealing with five on-land industrial users and monitoring their
greenhouse gas emissions over two years. We were going to deal with them in some
way of trying to work with them, whether it's a technology fund to try and
reduce their emissions; but then, shortly after that, the federal government
announced they were moving forward with a mandated carbon tax but on one knows
how much – well, they know how much it's going to be, but don't know how much
it's going to cost industry or cost the average person in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
We had a
good discussion on that and where it would go. There are still not a lot of
details from this administration. There are some jurisdictions in Canada that
have protested significantly to the federal government in regard to this carbon
tax and what it's going to mean for their industries and what it's going to mean
for their families. There has been no protest here by this current
administration in regard to dealing with the federal government and the carbon
tax but that's coming and it's going to play a significant role in our economy
and what costs are going to be paid.
Other
issues we talked about, as I said, was the mining sector, oil and gas. Advance
2030, the minister spoke of that of their indication to develop the oil and
gas sector. There was an interesting – in regard to Nalcor in seismic work. We
heard on budget day that the government had put $20 million – or we learned
after the budget that an OC has been approved to put $20 million back into
Nalcor of seismic work.
The
story is that government asked ABCs to look at their cost. Nalcor looked at
theirs and said we're going to take $20 million out of the seismic program,
which seems totally out of touch with the
Advance 2030 that was announced by the current administration. It's seems
like they're offside with the CEO and board of directors with Nalcor.
Then
they had to put the $20 million back. So based on that, I assume there was no
cuts to Nalcor because the $20 million had to be put back. The message to us was
that $20 million is going to be recovered through possible increases in oil
revenues that are expected over the next year. That would offset it, but still
it's peculiar that you announced it in
Advance 2030 for oil and gas development and the entity that exists to
promote that contradicts it with some of the cuts they made.
Those
are some of the significant things we talked about. It was a good discussion and
I look forward to speaking to the budget again in the next opportunity.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Member for
Baie Verte - Green Bay.
MR.
WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a pleasure to rise in my place today and speak to
Budget 2018 and certainly to represent
the fine District of Baie Verte - Green Bay. A district, Mr. Speaker, I'm quite
proud of, my hometown being Springdale, representing over 40 communities all
throughout the Baie Verte Peninsula and Green Bay.
It's a district, Mr. Speaker, where we're very blessed
with natural resources. When you look at – we're heavily involved in the
forestry industry, the mining industry, the fishery, tourism, aquaculture. We
have a little bit of everything going on in our district.
I had the opportunity to sit with one of the mining
executives a little while ago, and he said to me that if he was to get involved
in politics tomorrow there's not a better district that he'd like to represent
than the District of Baie Verte - Green Bay.
Mr. Speaker, before I get into my comments with regard
to the budget, I wanted to take the opportunity to recognize a couple of
families, I guess, in memory, and that's the Jim family out of Baie Verte. Mrs.
Jim, known as Wong Kim Sue Jim, whose family are: Betty, Quong, King, Jeanie,
Pat, Willie and Patsy.
Mrs. Jim was a pillar in the community of Baie Verte.
Mrs. Jim passed away a couple of weeks ago. I remember going to Baie Verte
playing high school sports as a young boy and we would always make sure we got
ourselves down to Jim's store and Jim's restaurant for a feed of – her French
fries, dressing and gravy was her speciality. Obviously,
Mrs. Jim will be sadly missed. I certainly want to pay my respects to that
family.
Earlier
this week, Mr. Speaker, we heard of the passing of Mrs. Pearl Bailey. Anybody
who knows the mining industry throughout the Baie Verte Peninsula would be
certainly well aware of her family's legacy and business, Guy J. Bailey Limited.
Certainly, I wanted to pay my respects as well to Judy, Donna, Ivan, Scott and
Kent, good friends of mine. Mrs. Pearl Bailey, again, as I spoke about Mrs. Jim,
are both pillars in the community of Baie Verte and will be sadly missed.
I never
got an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, last week to rise in my place to recognize
Volunteer Week, as most of my colleagues did and obviously showed their respect
for volunteers in their own communities. I did want to show my respect for the
volunteers in the District of Baie Verte - Green Bay.
While I
don't necessarily want to single out one particular group, I feel that I need to
recognize our volunteer fire departments. I know my colleague from Terra Nova
did so today as well, recognized the fire departments.
I have
24 fire departments in my district. Of those 24 fire departments, I think we
have 397 volunteer firefighters, both men and women. My hat is off to these
organizations, Mr. Speaker. They do a great duty to our communities. They keep
us safe and, obviously, as I said to some of the communities, the fact that we
do have volunteer fire departments is one of the reasons we are – as communities
and as residents of our communities, and homeowners – able to purchase
homeowners insurance, the fact that we are being protected by a volunteer fire
department.
I wanted
to recognize two new fire departments within my district. They were older
departments that came together to sort of form a regional concept. That was in
St. Patrick's, Little Bay and Beachside, just starting a new fire department,
Mr. Speaker, along with Jackson's Cove, Harry's Harbour and Silverdale. They're
taking, I guess, a piece out of our provincial plan, or our government's plan to
see regionalization being a big part of our going forward program.
I had
the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, on Saturday night to join the fire department of
St. Patrick's, Little Bay and Beachside down in Beachside at the Pentecostal
Church in Beachside for a community singalong. At that particular event we
raised over $2,200 for the volunteer fire department, just with a simple
singalong. It shows the appreciation, I think, of what communities feel about
their fire departments. Like I said, I couldn't be more pleased to see that.
With
regard to the 2018 budget, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance alluded in
his remarks, it's a stay-the-course budget and certainly hoping to lead us to
surplus, as my colleague had mentioned earlier, in 2022-23.
I want
to thank the Minister of Finance, past and present, both ministers have done
admirable work on behalf of our government. I certainly want to take my hat off
to their department as well. It's not easy. I spent 28 years running a family
business and I know all about budgets. I know about budgets in good times, as
well as I know about budgets in bad times. I've had my years of that as well.
Again, zero-based budgeting is something that's not new to me. It's the way I
worked when I was in my own business.
As my
colleague from Ferryland had just mentioned in his remarks, Mr. Speaker, I've
had the opportunity over the last couple of years to chair the Resources
Committee. He just spoke about the fact that we had met with the Department of
Natural Resources yesterday morning. I have to say my hat is off to the minister
as well and to her department, her parliamentary secretary, my good friend from
Labrador West, they did a fabulous job in answering the questions yesterday
morning.
If I can
say, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the budget, I think the process of Estimates is
an education in itself. While it's hard after a full day here at work in the
House of Assembly, the good work that we do here, sometimes it's tiring to be
able to sit down and spend another three hours going through the Estimates
procedures, but I really enjoy it. I really find it educational. I enjoy
listening to the back and forth between the Opposition and a committee who's
representing government at that particular time, and certainly our ministers.
I've had
the opportunity so far to sit through Fisheries and Land Resources; Natural
Resources; Advanced Education, Skills and Labour – which was last night, with
the minister – and tomorrow night, we will be sitting with the minister and his
department from Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation. Mr. Speaker, I look
forward to hearing his remarks and those remarks as well.
Going
back again to the budget, Mr. Speaker, it's amazing; I have spent a lot of time
listening to the people in my district talking about where we are as a
government with regard to our financial position. I think most people realize it
hasn't been an easy time running government when you consider the position that
we are in.
Going
down through the budget document when you look at the infrastructure that
government is responsible for: 9,763 kilometres of roads; 1,317 bridges and
culverts; 260 K-12 educational facilities; 20 public post-secondary
institutions; 189 health care facilities; 13 ferry services. All this for
525,000 residents.
It just
amazes me, and I've actually quoted this to some of the people who came up and
sort of wanted to challenge me on where we are as a government and the budgets
that we've come down with. But when I sit down and explain to them the
infrastructure that we're responsible for as a government, I think they get a
true picture of the big story. Doing it all when we are posting record deficits
– even though, again, I want to go back and say that our minister has said that
we're hopefully going to be back to surplus in 2022. I certainly look forward to
that day.
As I
mentioned 97,063 kilometres of roads, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk about
Budget 2018 with regard to the roadwork and $77 million was allotted for the
provincial road systems. I'm so happy to announce that $5.9 million has been
allocated to my District of
Baie Verte - Green Bay this year. There's lots of anticipation of some new
roadwork happening in my district.
Mr. Speaker, we get an opportunity as a Member, I guess
when the department goes out to try and prioritize the district, we get an
opportunity to lay down our priorities as well. While our priorities are
important, we always don't get our priorities the way that we hope that we
would. We take the priorities of the superintendents of Transportation and Works
in our area, along with the regional office, and I guess that all goes to the
minister and his department and that's where the decisions are made. I respect
the decisions, Mr. Speaker, but my number one priority in my district this year
was the La Scie highway. That's Route 414.
I can't begin to tell you how happy I am to report that
we're going to be doing eight kilometres. We're budgeting eight kilometres to
that road this year. These past couple of weeks especially, Mr. Speaker, my
email, my texting, Facebook has been inundated with complaints from the people
of the Baie Verte Peninsula, and especially people who use the La Scie road,
again highway 414, on a daily basis.
That tender was actually let on March 29. I thank the
minister and his department for recognizing the work that needs to be done on
that particular road. When that road was built, it wasn't designed probably to
take the amount of traffic that it handles today. Again, I talked earlier about
the good things that are happening in my district, and one of them is the fact
that we have two operating mines, that being Anaconda and Rambler, employing
some 350 people from around the district.
From the entrance to Rambler to Snooks Arm Road, which is where the mill is
located, we have 84 single trips, 42 round trips of heavy haulers hauling ore
back and forth from the mine to the mill every day.
In a
good year, we have at least probably $400 million worth of seafood. La Scie is
known as probably one of the largest off-loading ports in Newfoundland. So in a
good year, we have hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of seafood that come
up over the La Scie road as well. Not to mention, Mr. Speaker, I talked about
the forestry in our industry. We have contractors who are working down in that
area as well that continue to use the road. So we're hauling pulpwood back and
forth to the mill in Corner Brook. Then, it's your everyday traffic.
Right
now, I think the traffic counts – while I listened to the Member for Conception
Bay South last week talking about traffic counts on his road and they are a lot
more than what's on my road, Mr. Speaker, but I would suggest that when you look
at the heavy haulers, the fish trucks, the wood trucks and you take the amount
of wear and tear that's on that road with these heavy haulers, it's no
comparison. Again, while we have all this traffic, we're happy to have it as
well. We just need the infrastructure to be rebuilt to be able to handle such
traffic.
Other
things that we look at, other factors I guess when we determine roadwork with
the minister and his department, we look at safety, we look at the economics of
the area and we look at volume of traffic. Again, that road would handle all
three of those factors.
Having
said that, Mr. Speaker, I wonder sometimes about some of the roads –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. WARR:
– that are less used and some
of those determining factors don't play a part. I look at two or three roads in
my area. The one leading to Seal Cove hasn't been touched in a number of years.
I know those people deserve to drive over good roads as well.
Our
previous administration, a few years back, decided to do that Fleur de Lys road,
highway 410 leading into Fleur de Lys, which would be maybe 20-and-change
kilometres; repaved that road and forgot to do the Coachman's Cove road.
Coachman's Cove is 2.2 kilometres off the Fleur de Lys road. I have no idea why
they decided to do the Fleur de Lys road and forget about the Coachman's Cove
road. They had the equipment. They had the engineers down there. I don't know
why we would waste that type of money to go back and do it when we could have
done it in the beginning.
While
I'm on that, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the Shoe Cove road as well. In
2015, there was 10 kilometres of roadwork done on the section from Harbour Round
to La Scie. They decided to do one kilometre of the road going into Shoe Cove.
Mr. Speaker, there's only 1.9 kilometres leading from La Scie road to Shoe Cove.
Why they would choose to do one kilometre instead of doing 1.9, I've yet to
understand that as well.
Mr.
Speaker, we did kick up a little bit of noise and got on the open-line shows and
the radio stations and made our points. Certainly, the government of the day
decided to go down and do that complete road which was the right decision. I'm
certainly glad they did.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to talk about – I just have a minute left – health care in our
area and the effects the 2018 budget had on health care in my district because
there's a lot of optimism in the community of Springdale, and in particular
Green Bay as a whole. I want to thank the Minister of Health and Community
Services. I want to thank the Minister of Public Works as well.
We had a
cottage hospital that was built in 1952, 66 years old, Mr. Speaker. I think that
was the last hospital built actually by the Government of Newfoundland. There
was $6.2 million allotted for the new Green Bay Health Care Centre in
Budget 2018, and I couldn't be more
proud as an MHA when the minister advised me of this spending.
Mr.
Speaker, my time is winding down. I'll take the opportunity to continue with my
remarks on my next opportunity, and as always, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to speak.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Once
again, it's a privilege to rise in this hon. House as we debate
Budget 2018.
Mr. Speaker, this is the second of three speeches that we all have the
opportunity to participate in because there are three phases to the budget and
the motions that have been brought forward.
Budget 2018
while not as harmful perhaps as previous budgets with all of the increases in
taxes, it certainly wasn't helpful. It didn't do anything to advance our
province and its economy. It was really more of a stay-the-course budget that
really didn't do anything to foster confidence in the people of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador to continue to invest in businesses here and homes.
There are still a lot of people, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, who are
contemplating leaving this province.
As I often say when I get up in the Budget Speech, 2019
is around the corner. So I encourage everyone to try and hang in there, better
times are on the horizon. It is we the people who will choose who our leaders
will be, and in 2019 we have an opportunity to once again express our voices as
voters in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will have the
opportunity to vote for the people or persons that we feel are going to best
represent our values, our beliefs and the type of economy we would like to see
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I will say, I do feel many of the voters – in fact, I
know from discussions with many of them that a lot of voters in 2015 were
disappointed. Everyone is going to be taking a much closer look I think in 2019
at what the real policies are and who they think they can trust to deliver on
the policies that are outlined.
This is the third budget now of the Ball government. In
2015, I remember as we were heading into the election, it got to be a pretty
animated place here in this House of Assembly leading into the election. I'm
sure you will experience that again next year. It's a different kind of frenzy
that takes over the place.
In those days I believe
the Premier, who was then the
Leader of the Opposition, talked about Newfoundland and Labrador being the last,
the least and the lowest. In 2015, Mr. Speaker, that wasn't the case. In fact,
we were still revered across this great country of ours as being people who were
on the ball, on the move, and Newfoundland and Labrador was still an up and
coming province that was admired and respected by many others across the country
for having rode through the recession as successfully as we did. We had some
strong procedures in place with respect to attrition and P3s that we were
looking at as methods of reducing spending of the provincial coffers. Oh boy,
were we ever attacked for that.
Well,
attrition was called job losses, and P3s were called job losses. But, lo and
behold, two years and so many months into the Liberals' mandate, they're touting
the merits of attrition and they're touting the merits of P3s. That's because
these are good policies. These are policies that we identified as Progressive
Conservatives as mechanisms for reducing spending and they can work. It's really
interesting to see how that has changed in the last two years, but the reality
is they were good policies. So good, in fact, that the Liberals themselves are
contemplating bringing them in.
Mr.
Speaker, when I look at the budget documents, they're alarming. You look at the
one titled The Economy, and on page 11
of that document we see that in terms of real GDP and employment growth,
Newfoundland and Labrador – tied with New Brunswick, mind you – is the lowest in
all of Canada. We have the lowest rate of GDP and we have the lowest rate of
employment in all of Canada. Two short years of Liberal leadership, and this is
where we are in terms of economic performance.
We hear
politicians get up and say this is great and this is wonderful, but when you
look at the facts and you look at the figures – which all of us as residents of
this province are capable of doing – the numbers tell a very different story
about where we are as a Province of Newfoundland and Labrador under the current
Liberal government, Mr. Speaker. It's not a good change, it's really not a good
change that we're seeing in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Page 13
of that very same document has a list of provincial economic indicators, Mr.
Speaker. If you look at those, you will see that household income for the next
five years is projected to decrease. Each and every one of us as Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians will have less household income two years down the road than
what we have today.
Today,
we have less income than what we had two years ago, Mr. Speaker, because of the
additional taxes which, when you add up 300 fees increases, bringing back the
HST on insurance, raising the HST 2 per cent – which was identified by the
Liberals as a job killer and implemented by them shortly after they got elected.
Trust is
going to be a very big issue I think in the next election, because people
trusted that there would not be an increase to the HST and that was part of
their reason for voting the way they did. Lo and behold, within a year that came
crashing. They did not only have to pay higher HST, but they're out of pocket
with all the additional fees, on average, by about $1,500 to $3,000 per person,
Mr. Speaker.
In some
households where you have multiple members of a family owning vehicles, their
disposal income has probably dropped by $10,000 per household. Mr. Speaker,
$10,000 is a lot of new clothes that people can buy, it's a lot of nights out at
a restaurant that people can have and it's a lot of tickets to the Arts and
Culture attractions that we have in our beautiful province. It's a lot of
vehicles that are not being bought. It's a lot of kitchens that are not being
renovated. It's a lot of new flooring that's not going in people's houses.
People
don't have the money to spend. We see, Mr. Speaker, as we look at what's
happening on the federal level, that by 2019, as a result of all the federal tax
changes under a Liberal leadership, we're going to be hit with an additional
$2,200 per household in federal taxes.
Mr.
Speaker, you take a chunk of about $10,000 to $12,000 out of the households of
Newfoundlanders and it's no wonder why we're in the state we're in, and it's no
wonder why we see things like retail sales forecast to drop significantly over
the next five years. We're also seeing the unemployment rate continue to rise,
and no plan on the horizon as to how we're going to support the entrepreneurs
who create the jobs to drive the economy.
Investors, both within the Province of Newfoundland, investors from the country
or global investors, before they drop their money in any economy, in any
province, in any country, they have to have a confidence level that their
investment is going to be protected and what they're investing in today, the
parameters around that investment remain solid and don't change over the next
five to 10 years. If they can't trust that if they invest today, the rules are
going to change next year, they may be much more leery to come to our
jurisdiction versus another where they feel they can have trust and confidence
in the deals they are trying to make, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
very, very grave concern for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am
happy, I will say, to notice the change in their messaging and their tone and to
hear them talk about the good things that are happening and the good potential
we do have in Newfoundland and Labrador. There's a song Simani wrote. It talks
about the strength of Newfoundlanders and how we're gleamed by the lightning and
strong from the storms. It's absolutely true because we are strong and
resilient. We wouldn't be here today, in fact, if we were weren't so strong and
resilient.
I read a
book one time about the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. There was a point
in our history when they used to come over in the fishing boats that England
started to get worried about how many people were leaving England and coming to
the Island of Newfoundland but not returning. So they actually started to pay
the captains of the boats $25 a head for every fishermen they brought back to
England in the fall. So there was a very concerted effort to try and prevent
colonization of our fine province. We withstood that and we did populate this
wonderful province. We have produced some incredible citizens that have gone all
around the world to offer their skills, their talents, their strengths and their
intellect.
We have
a proud history, Mr. Speaker, and we have a strong, bright future ahead of us, I
do truly believe. I look forward to seeing the emergence of our potential once
again in years to come and moving past this era of doom and gloom that we find
ourselves in.
One of
the things that I do want to talk about, and I truly hope that the executive
council opposite gives some serious consideration to, is the fact that the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador simply cannot afford another tax. To say
well, we raised your taxes on gas already so instead of dropping it, we'll
convert that now to the carbon tax, that's not okay. People are hanging on
because they're waiting for the rest of that tax increase on the gas to drop.
They do not want to see it converted to a carbon tax.
The
other issue I think we have as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is the amount of
output of emissions that we have as a province. With our investment in clean,
green energy, Mr. Speaker, with our potential to truly be the energy warehouse
that can attract the mines to Labrador because we have the power – instead of
shipping it through Quebec to Ontario, the power is right here in our province.
Because we're creating those kinds of opportunities, Mr. Speaker. We're becoming
an even cleaner and greener province. So why should we who are not the major
emitters of the carbon tax be the first to the table paying a carbon tax?
Mr.
Speaker, we still don't even know where this carbon tax money is going to be
spent. There's no clear direction on that, so I think that Newfoundland and
Labrador should stand with the other provinces in this country who have the
courage to push back to Ottawa and say now is not the time for this carbon tax.
With the economy with the way that it is in this province and in many other
provinces in the country, maybe Ottawa needs to stand back and rethink where it
wants to go with this carbon tax and look at delaying. I think they should look
at eliminating it myself, but certainly a delay to help our economies which are
struggling through some rough times, Mr. Speaker.
If our
government doesn't fight for us as a province, if our provincial leadership
doesn't fight for that then we certainly can't expect any change at the national
level. Even to see an effort to try and get some reprieve for Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians would be great, but instead what we see is a government that's
rushing to be the first one out of the gate and first ones to impose this tax.
If
Ottawa is saying well, you know, if you don't something, we're going to make
something up and you'll have to impose our solution, well, let's see what their
solution is. Maybe it's not going to be as bad as the increase in taxes that our
government is looking at converting, who knows; but certainly to just sit back
and say okay, Ottawa, we'll do as you say, Ottawa, no matter how much it damages
us, Ottawa, I think that's wrong. We need a government that is willing to stand
up to Ottawa and to fight for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
When
this third budget came down on March 27, this year's big story that was in the
government messaging is that it's steady as she goes. No big layoffs and a very,
very, very minute bit of tax relief, which we are going to start seeing in
January of next year.
So the
Liberal message was basically relax, everything is in good hands. We have to ask
the question, Mr. Speaker, it's our responsibility as the Opposition and it's
our responsibility as each and every citizen living here in Newfoundland and
Labrador to question them. They're telling us to relax, everything is in good
hands and we have to question: Is that really true? Was this the budget that our
province needs, The Way Forward, or
was it really a step backwards in the wrong direction?
Mr.
Speaker, some people are going to say wait a minute, you're a PC, how can we
trust a PC to have a fair, unbiased assessment of a Liberal budget. They're your
political opponents. That's what some people will say. I hear it from Members
opposite – fair statement, but it is our job in Opposition to hold the
government to account, and we are doing that.
AN HON. MEMBER:
We like our job.
MS. PERRY:
We like our job, indeed we
do. We really like our job, Mr. Speaker.
We're
only seven in our crew and three to make up 10 in Opposition, and I think we're
doing an absolutely good job in terms of holding government accountable for the
decisions that they make, and raising the questions that the people of our
province want raised. We're going to continue to do that on their behalf and
we're going to continue to get stronger in that regard.
It's our
job to raise the concerns honestly, with integrity and based on solid evidence.
That's the only way that we're going to earn the trust of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess this side of the House is truly an
alternative for the province to get back on track. We really think that when
2019 comes, the people of this province are going to have the opportunity to
make a decision for better leadership.
I am
running of time here this morning, so I'm going to take my seat shortly. Again,
where this is a budget speech and we do have the opportunity during a budget
speech to speak about any issue whatsoever, there are no limitations and no
restrictions on relevance, Mr. Speaker, I do want to end today by talking about
the PC Leadership Convention and to throw a bouquet out to two fine gentlemen
who have had the courage to put themselves forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
To put themselves forward to
lead, as options for leadership for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Each and every person –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
– who put themselves forward
for politics, I think – and I was a regular citizen like everybody else, Mr.
Speaker, and I had my opinions of politicians. And now that I'm here in this
hon. House, my eyes are much wider open than they used to be, and I have a much
greater understanding.
People
who are willing to make the sacrifices to really try and improve the greater
good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should all be commended. I
truly believe that and I truly believe that we have two phenomenal individuals
who have put themselves forward to lead the Progressive Conservatives and
present us as a viable option –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
– in 2029 election, so hats
off to all of them, hats off to every politician for trying. We have to continue
to try, Mr. Speaker, to make this a better place. We owe it to our children, we
owe it to our grandchildren, we owe it to all the fine men and women, the
seniors, everybody in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to truly try
and make this place a better place and, in fact, the best place that it can
possibly be.
Mr.
Speaker, we do have the resources. We're nowhere near bankruptcy –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
If you look at our balance
sheet and you weigh our assets against our liabilities, we're nowhere near
bankruptcy. Such fear mongering, I'm glad they finally stopped it. This province
has potential. We're well on our way, 2019 is around the corner, budget 2020 can
be much better than what we're seeing produced.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion of non-confidence, the budget
amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is defeated.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Whips
and House Leaders, please call in your Members.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion of non-confidence, the budget amendment?
All
those in favour, please stand.
CLERK:
Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Brazil,
Ms. Perry, Mr. Petten, Mr. Lester, Ms. Rogers, Ms. Michael, Mr. Lane.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Ms.
Coady, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Kirby, Mr.
Mitchelmore, Mr. Warr, Mr. Bernard Davis, Mr. Edmunds, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Letto,
Mr. Browne, Mr. Bragg, Ms. Haley, Mr. Derek Bennett, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr.
Finn, Mr. Reid, Ms. Parsley, Mr. King, Mr. Dean, Ms. Pam Parsons and Mr.
Holloway.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes: eight; and the nays: 25.
MR. SPEAKER:
In my opinion, the nays have
it.
The
budget motion is defeated.
We will
now return to the main debate on the main budget.
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure to get up once again and speak on the budget. It's always good to stand
in your place in this House and speak about the various aspects of the budget. I
guess various aspects of everything that's affecting each one of us in our daily
lives, which pretty well starts in this House and spreads out.
I'm not
going to be belabour it, but I have to go back to one issue. I spoke about it in
my other two times up and I just wanted to quickly point it out again. I've
asked numerous times in the House for the roads – I go back to the roads. I know
Members opposite they'll – I made the comment to take politics out of paving and
I've yet to see that happen. I'm waiting – hopefully, I will see that eventually
but right now, to date, I haven't.
I want
to be on record one more time. I know I'll have other times, probably, but this
is my third speaking on this budget, I have to say I think it's incumbent upon
the government and Minister of Transportation and Works to provide that
comprehensive list to the people of the province because it's only right. It's
something that they promised that they'd provide comprehensive scores of all
roads in the province, where you landed; people would know when the road is
going to be paved.
It's
something that was promised. It's something I'll keep asking for and I'm being
on record here again today of asking for it once more. I look forward to,
possibly, one of these days, or one of these days soon, that information will be
provided. We'll keep asking, Mr. Speaker. It's our job to do that and I'm
looking forward to finally hearing something on it.
The next
issue I'd like to discuss is something that I've asked a lot of questions in
this House about and that's carbon pricing. We ask questions. I understand
there's a plan in the works that the minister refers to, and that's fine. It's
supposedly this federal tax and that's fine, but I've said before and I'll say
it again, we're elected in this province to represent the people of this
province. I feel strongly, and our caucus and our party feel strongly, that
another tax is the last thing the people in this province need.
In
saying that, and I've spoken a lot, there have been a lot of conversations about
it and I've spoken out a lot on it. I think the bigger piece that not a lot of
people are talking about, is the dynamics that are happening across the country
with carbon pricing. You have Ontario, which we all know the power Ontario has
in the federal government – it's huge. You have a person right now, the Leader
of the Official Opposition up there, Mr. Ford, who's very outspoken on the
carbon pricing. He's going against it.
It
doesn't take a genius to figure out the dynamics of what's happening there. He's
going to garner support within most of Ontario, people who live in Ontario,
because they don't want extra costs. They don't want extra prices put on them.
Right now, he's well out in front, and the way things look anything is possible.
If he is successful in June, that's going to throw a big wrench into the Prime
Minister and the federal government's plan for carbon pricing.
I think
you can go ahead, and the Prime Minister can forge ahead and Minister McKenna,
they can go ahead with the carbon tax plan, but not having Ontario on your side,
well caution to the wind. It's something that I think is going to cause them to
have to reconsider their full plan, because I think it's a non-starter. If you
haven't got the bread and butter of being elected Prime Minister of this
country, if you don't have Ontario you don't get elected, and we've seen that
over and over again. They carry an awful lot of weight in the federal
Legislature.
When we
talk about carbon pricing, we can play on it all we want, and we can go back and
forth. That's part of what we do here in this House, go back and forth on lots
of issues. I really feel this strongly, I think a lot of people are not really
registering fully – I think it's getting out there, because the more we talk
about it I think is better, it's a good conversation – how it affects them.
There's still, and there has always been that perceived notion.
When you
talk about emissions, you talk about carbon pricing, you see these big polluters
but you don't see the family at the supermarket buying groceries off the shelf
paying more. You look at the stacks, you look at – around here we look at Come
By Chance, we look at Holyrood. We don't look at the day-to-day stuff.
Like, we
don't look at the person who's going to the funeral home paying for a cremation.
There's an actual fee built into that based on carbon pricing. That's not fear
mongering, that's true. That has actually happened.
I've
said it before, I think I said it in this House, it happened in Alberta. The
cremation at funeral parlours were actually putting a line item there on the
bill when people had cremations done. It caused a huge uproar, and it's no
longer there. It's still there, but it's not there in a line item. People found
it very insulting, and there was a big outcry over it.
Again,
I've spoken to people in Alberta who've told me some stories. They are presently
under carbon pricing, and it is mixed reviews. I think out there as well, with
the political climate out there, it looks very much like the Conservative Party,
whatever they have themselves called now in Alberta under Jason Kenney. They
look like they may very well take over in the next general election out there.
Another person who's against the carbon pricing.
You can
park Newfoundland and Labrador where we are with our seven seats and our
influence federally and nationally on the scene. You can't deny the power of
these big provinces and the weight they carry around the federal table. They're
not in favour of this. Saskatchewan is another one to throw in there. They're
already out there against it.
Carbon
pricing is far from a done deal if you ask me, Mr. Speaker. I think there are a
lot more shoes to fall on this issue but it's the issue of how it affects the
day-to-day lives of every person in this province. That's never been relayed.
It's just like a bogeyman, the word carbon pricing is there but no one really
grasps on to what carbon pricing really means.
It
sounds great. We're reducing emissions. We're protecting the environment. No one
on this side is against that. No one on this side is against climate change and
doing stuff to improve it. We just don't feel a tax is the answer. Punishing
people because there are emissions or they're being considered polluters. I've
heard people say the polluter pays. A lot of polluters in this province, if you
want to call every man, woman and child in this province, can't afford to pay.
They're at the max of paying now.
There
are ways we can deal with carbon emissions. There are lots of things we can do.
Do we have to tax people more? I don't think so.
I use
this example. If you have a furnace in your home, you burn furnace fuel. So
you're burning fossil fuel, your chimney is creating emissions. The polluter
pays. Is that going to stop me? Is that going to make me go into a $20,000
investment to get rid of that and probably bring in another heating source in my
home because you're going to charge me an extra three or four cents on my
furnace oil as a punitive measure to carbon pricing? No, because the upfront
cost to replace that is just too much, and most families won't. They'll suck it
up.
You had
this gas tax that was brought in in the 2016 budget. People complained about it.
It hurt people and it hurt the economy. People still never got electric cars.
They still never carpooled. That's not the way our population is designed and
the dynamics of the way our communities are. They still drove. They paid the
extra cost and it affected other things, other purchasing power.
Carbon
tax will have the same effect on people, Mr. Speaker. It's not going to change
their behaviour. That's not the answer, but it will hurt the economy and it will
hurt individuals. All the while, where does this money go? You hear of these new
innovative, creative ways that you can bring it into innovation to help reduce
emissions. Provinces will get this money back.
That all
sounds fine in theory, Mr. Speaker, but I personally think, at the end of the
day, that may be all right for a short period of time. I think at the end of the
day, you're going to see it going into general revenues. It will be just like
any other tax. They have the GST. As people will remember, that came in. A tax
is a tax.
They say
the first tax came in to pay for the war a long time ago. We know how long ago
the war was and we know how long taxes have been around. That was a temporary
measure to pay for the war and we're still paying it.
I feel
the reasoning given for a tax – I'm not talking about emissions and I'm not
talking about climate change. The reason given – this doesn't answer the
question. Taxing is not the answer to this, Mr. Speaker. I think there is lots
of research, there are a lot more things we could do to deal with this issue.
Taxing is not the answer.
We feel
strongly about it and I think that a lot of people – the more you speak about
this, I find, the more that it's brought out in the public domain, the more
people start paying attention to it.
I'll go
back again. I love talking to the common people because I feel that's where we
all need to be. As recently as last week, people are starting to ask questions
about carbon pricing. What does it mean? I heard you speak about this, or I read
this or I read that. What does it mean?
I'm not
for one second saying: That crowd, the government over there, they're doing
wrong. I'm not saying anyone is doing wrong. I don't think this is the right
answer.
I
understand carbon pricing. I understand petroleum emissions. I understand our
climate change. I understand all of that, and I'm in support of most of it. I
just don't feel this is the answer to our problems. When you talk to most
people, they get it. They agree, too. Most people cannot afford more taxes.
That's what it comes done to. It's another tax. Any way you cut it, it's another
tax.
You take
the four cents, as the minister referenced the other day, taking the four cents
off gas. That's good, but there's still going to be another cost come in.
Whatever way that's manoeuvered into our system, that's still going to be
another cost, Mr. Speaker, and people have to absorb it. Right now, I feel that
people are pretty much at their limit of taxation in this province. I don't know
if many people in this House can disagree with that.
It was
brought in in 2016 and we're in 2018 and it's still there. So we may very well
go – maybe next year during the election you might see some adjustments made. I
somehow doubt it, but you never know. That seems to happen in those years. I'm
not sure people will pay much attention then, though, Mr. Speaker.
Another
issue I'd like to mention is something we haven't talked about in a while now.
It's kind of coming to the end of the school year but I think it's still a very
valid argument and it's one that's going to resurface in September. Most people
are winding down now, but it's the 1.6 kilometre policy. That issue, we brought
it up here in the House through Question Period, through PMR and what have you.
I met with a lot of parents in my district. They had their own organized
protests. I met with school councils. I presented numerous petitions as my
colleagues have done the same. This policy has been around forever. Our family
models have changed; our communities have changed. No longer are we living in
those little, sleepy communities where a scattered vehicle would pass by and
children were used to walking long distances. Society was different then, Mr.
Speaker.
I used
to walk two or three miles to get to my school, elementary school, but that was
accepted. There was no such thing as bus coming to pick us up. I don't think the
bus could get in where I lived to actually turn around. It's the way we all
lived, but in today's day and age – I have children in my district who actually
walk to and from school and they're walking on Route 60. That's a four-lane
highway. It's up to 20,000 vehicles a day, as I've said in this House many
times. It's not safe.
I have
schools that are right on that road; they're on that four-lane highway. Under
this policy, they have to walk to school. Again, the school district will say
it's not a walk zone, but if you have no other choice it becomes a walk zone.
You have a single mother who has no vehicle, living on her own with a small
child at home, another child is in elementary, grade one – primary, I should
say. These are the most vulnerable people.
I've
argued to this for elementary students. You're looking at five- to 11-year-olds;
they are your most vulnerable. When you get into the high school, junior high
and high school, busing is never usually an issue there because it's a different
culture. They get in high school, a lot of them drive, they get rides, they
don't mind walking and they can walk the roads. They walked the roads when they
were hanging out with their friends. It's a different society; not when you're
looking at your most vulnerable. Your five- to 11-year-olds are the most
vulnerable and that's who I've spoken out for, because one life is too many.
After
all the debate that we go on about here in this House, it's unimaginable. I
wouldn't want to think about that but the reality is there are some people who
really struggle. They can't bring their child to school. They are home, they
have a small child home, they have no way of getting – there's a real stress
placed on them. People try to help them out and whatnot, but I've seen it
first-hand and I know my colleagues have as well. This puts people in a real
predicament. This really affects people.
The
costs have always been thrown out. There's a cost. It's a lot of money, Millions
of dollars for this and millions for that, but I don't think you can be accused
of wasting money on our youth, on our children, for their safety. Safety has to
be paramount. Policy cannot override safety, Mr. Speaker. I've said it here in
this House many, many times and no one will be critical of any government that
brings in a policy or makes changes to an archaic policy that's going to protect
our youth and our most innocent. It amazes me, to be honest. I've often thought
government would be applauded for it. They would be absolutely applauded it.
Sure, it's going to cost money but the money is found for lots of other things.
I think money could be found for something like this. This is too important to
place a dollar figure on, Mr. Speaker.
It's
something that we will continue to lobby for in this House and even outside this
House. It's too important an issue for us just to give up on. I know we're
pushing the end of April and the school year is coming to an end, but rest
assured come September when the new bus routes get out and new children start in
school, I'll be dealing with a lot more parents again. It's a ritual every year.
I
understand their points loud and clear. I will continue to advocate for them
because it's something I strongly believe in. It's something that's very
important to me, not just as an individual, as a parent, not only as a Member
for the district but it's a huge issue. I think a lot of us face it around here.
The Northeast Avalon is a growing area, the family models change and our
roadwork and our population has changed.
Mr.
Speaker, as my time is starting to wind down, I'd like to just make a couple of
reference points. I don't actually talk about this topic that much and for no
reason other than I try to zero in on some real stuff that really affects my
district and my critic roles.
I
listened intently and I hear a lot of commentary that comes across the way every
time it comes up, the response, a lot of times, to questions I may ask or stuff
I may say. I always hear Muskrat Falls, Muskrat Falls, Muskrat Falls. Muskrat
Falls is here. It's soon going to be completed. It's going to be online next
year.
The
critics are out there, there are proponents and critics. That's all fine. The
debate, sure, will be out on that and we have an inquiry coming, all that is
going to happen and that will run its course. I can't help but think when I sit
down and I start listening there's so much politics being played with such an
important project, important issue to the people of this province.
The
power rates are going to double; you heard that over and over again. Not so much
lately but now people are starting to realize are they really going to double or
is that the reason they're going to double. Then you're going to find a
government that's going to come in when it comes online: Oh, we saved the day,
the rates didn't double.
That
stuff causes fear amongst people. I don't know, I personally think there are
mitigating factors to preventing that from doubling. There are others built into
this project that could – I don't think the rates will double. I personally
don't think it. They shouldn't. All of the rhetoric sometimes moves away from
the bigger picture.
I've
said this many times and I'll be on record here again today, I know a lot of
those people, the previous people that were involved in the inner workings of
this project and had a lot of say in it. A lot of them are pretty credible
people. They will say it and I believe every time they say it, I fully believe
them, their decision was based on the best available information. Given that
same information today, those same people would make the same decision. I think
anyone in this chamber probably would agree and do the same thing, based on the
information you have before you.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Is it a bad project? I'm not sure; I'm still not
convinced it is a bad project. I think that the media, the beaten up this has
taken publicly it's amazing that some people still think that the project is a
good project. It will make us 98 per cent green energy. It has created thousands
and thousands and thousands of jobs. I mean, there are a lot of jobs being
created; good-paying jobs that when this project is up and running next year, a
lot of those jobs are not going to be there. There's going to be a void there in
our economy and in our tax base.
It's not
all bad, Mr. Speaker, and people can be critical and that's fine and that's what
this is all about. That's why I bring up this Muskrat Falls debate because it's
something that I don't talk a lot about, but I do feel that there's more
politics being played with this and it's a real punchline than really the true
project. I think this inquiry will shed better light on the project and on the
decisions that were made and, hopefully, that will elevate those, I guess a lot
of falsehoods and misdemeanors that are out in the community, out in society
now. People will understand this project. They'll get a clearer picture of how
this came to be and what decisions were made.
Right
now, there's a lot of rhetoric and, really, there's not a lot of substance to a
lot of the commentary. I guess that's it, that's the world we live in and
sometimes a lot of stuff happens through partisan politics sometimes and trying
to get one up on people.
My final
part there, Mr. Speaker, the economic indicators. So when the budget is
released, every economic indicator is pointing down. A lot of that is a result
of 2016. Those effects are really starting to come home. When we spoke about the
2016 budget in this House, I remember speaking about it – a lot of the effects
in 2016, I said here myself, you wouldn't see them until 2017, maybe even 2018.
Some were immediate; some were more long term.
You look
at all of these economic indicators, whether it be your household incomes, your
domestic product, your retail sales, they're all trending downward. It's in
their own documents –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. PETTEN:
It's in their own documents
and I think that pretty well sums up the 2018 budget, I just think it's a
variation of 2016.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member's time has
expired.
Thank
you.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burin
- Grand Bank.
MS. HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I always
welcome an opportunity to address Members on both sides of this hon. House. It's
been more than two years since I was elected to represent the wonderful people
in the beautiful District of Burin - Grand Bank. It's been an interesting two
years, to say the least.
During
those first two years serving as Government Whip, I learned very quickly most of
the intricacies of how this hon. House works, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Premier,
once again, for giving me that opportunity, as I do for the new role he has
entrusted me. I knew before taking on the role as parliamentary secretary to the
Minister of Health and Community Services that this was a large and complex
department, but I didn't realize just how large and complex until I actually
started in the role, Mr. Speaker.
I've
been in that position now since last summer, since last August and with every
day that passes, I have a deeper appreciation for the men and women who make our
health care system work. I have a deep, deep appreciation and much respect for
the Minister of Health and Community Services. Oftentimes, in fact, I refer to
him as a walking library, a very knowledgeable individual.
If I've
learned anything about this department, Mr. Speaker, over the last several
months it's this: The Department of Health and Community Services is staffed
with hard-working and dedicated individuals. The health boards, agencies and
various interest groups throughout the province are equally staffed with
hard-working and dedicated individuals, many of them volunteers, Mr. Speaker.
The department and the boards and agencies with which it works and collaborates
are interested, first and foremost, in the health and well-being of all
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
It has
been my pleasure to represent the minister at several health-related events, Mr.
Speaker. Everywhere I have gone, I have been greeted openly and warmly, and have
been struck by the high degree of professionalism in which the issues are
handled. Mr. Speaker, I am also struck by the dedication of the many volunteers
who are part of health boards or involved with the various advocacy groups.
Their work truly makes a difference in the lives of practically every
Newfoundlander and Labradorian, and I thank them for all that they do.
My new
role has given me an opportunity to do more than represent the minister when
he's not available, Mr. Speaker. As is widely known, the Burin Peninsula has
been facing a crisis that has brought much grief and despair to many families –
many families in my district. With the alarming number of suicides over the past
couple of years, it was critical that something be done. I was very pleased to
be able to work with the stakeholders in looking for answers.
It was a
good day on the Burin Peninsula when the Premier, along with the Minister of
Health and Community Services as well as the CEO and officials with Eastern
Health, travelled to the Burin Peninsula in January and announced the province
will be implementing a new Roots of Hope program, becoming the first province in
Canada, in the country, Mr. Speaker, to sign on this new national initiative.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. HALEY:
I am confident the new
program will offer those suffering with mental health issues hope and a pathway
to a better future.
Of
course, Health and Community Services is just one of the many departments,
boards and agencies that are staffed by dedicated individuals. I think I've
dealt with practically every department and many of the boards and agencies
since being elected. Every time I have approached the department, I have
received prompt and professional service. Of course, I could say the same thing
about the ministers leading those departments. So it's nice to lead by example,
Mr. Speaker. Ministers have busy lives and I am grateful for their willingness
to listen to my concerns when they come up and get back to me in a timely
manner.
It goes
without saying that as the Member for the District of Burin - Grand Bank, issues
related to the district will always be a priority for me. I believe all
assembled would agree that we assumed government at a time of economic decline
in this province. We have committed ourselves to the task for rebuilding our
economy and I believe we are well on the road in doing that.
I can
certainly speak for what is happening on the Burin Peninsula, after a period of
economic woes, the area I share with the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue is
finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. There is a general feeling of
positivity on the Burin Peninsula right now.
For some
years now, Mr. Speaker, the residents of St. Lawrence and the surrounding towns
have been waiting for the revival of the mining industry in the area. When I
became elected, it was certainly a priority of mine. After months of
negotiations and hard work, we were finally able to broker a deal that was not
just good for Canada Fluorspar Inc., but a deal that took into account our
fiscal situation and was ultimately good for the province as well.
I, along
with the Premier, and several other Members of our caucus, recently visited the
site and everyone was tremendously impressed by the magnitude of the operation
there. I am happy to report the construction phase at the faculty is complete
and soon Fluorspar concentrate will once again be leaving for markets around the
world. A shot in the arm for St. Lawrence, a shot in the arm for the Burin
Peninsula and a shot in the arm for the whole province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. HALEY:
Mr. Speaker, since becoming
elected, I have also concluded a new deal with Ocean Choice International that
will see the company operate the plant in Fortune for four more years, with an
agreement widely supported by the workers at the plant.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. HALEY:
The Husky oil project that
was announced last year will see work carried out at the Cow Head facility in
Marystown.
AN HON. MEMBER:
In Marystown.
MS. HALEY:
In Marystown yes, while work
continues on finding a new operator for the shipyard.
We have
a trained and skilled workforce on the Burin Peninsula. Give it to us to build
and we will build it, and build it as well as any workforce in any part of this
world, Mr. Speaker.
Despite
developments last summer, I am confident the Grieg sea farms project will soon
become a reality – a project which has a potential to bring many jobs to
Placentia Bay and the Burin Peninsula; a project that has the potential to
impact people in every town in the area, Mr. Speaker.
There is
no hiding the fact that we need to create jobs in this province, but we need to
be mindful of environmental impacts as well. I am confident this is a project
that can provide those much-needed jobs, Mr. Speaker, and do so in an
environmentally responsible way.
We are
also looking at an opportunity that is just now cropping up, Mr. Speaker. I use
cropping up both figuratively and literally in referencing new entrants who are
working hard on proposals to allow them to participate in the growing and
marketing of cannabis for the recreation market.
Mr.
Speaker, I am hopeful that the former fish plant in Burin will soon be the site
to which employees again head to earn an honest and good living for their
families. I have been working along with the town and an eager entrepreneur to
make this new project a reality. Hopefully, this new venture will become a
reality in the very near future.
It's an
exciting time for the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, with the initiatives I just
outlined, but there are many other opportunities as well. It seems every region
of Newfoundland and Labrador has something unique to offer, and the Burin
Peninsula certainly has uniqueness in abundance and seldom does a tourist visit
our area and leave disappointed.
I'm very
pleased that the minister responsible for Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation has been able to visit us on several occasions now, Mr. Speaker. He's
very aware of the tourism potential for the peninsula as a whole, and I believe
I am correct in saying he is quite impressed with the work that has been done
thus far.
There is
no better example than the beautiful Town of Lourdes Cove, Mr. Speaker. In the
summer of 2016, he visited Sandy Cove and we supported the efforts of the Town
of Lourdes Cove to develop the area. Development in that area is ongoing and I
know I speak for the minister when I say the work that has been completed to
this point is quite impressive.
We were
told last summer there were tourists throughout North America at Sandy Cove and
there was nothing but positive feedback.
As I did
mention, our government did give some financial support for the Sandy Cove
project, Mr. Speaker. Of course, there are those out there who would balk at
such support, as looked at as being a waste of money. However, the reality is
because of that increased tourism, an enterprising couple opened a combination
convenience store, café and a bar, all under the one roof in Lord's Cove, Mr.
Speaker, and have done extremely well since opening.
This has
been more than a convenience for tourists, Mr. Speaker. Prior to this business
taking root, the residents there had to travel to another town to even buy the
most basic items. The Town of Lord's Cove didn't have a single convenience
store, Mr. Speaker, not one single store. In addition to offering a convenience
for locals, during the tourist season this enterprise also employs four or five
people from the area who are now contributing to the economy of the province. In
rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, every single job counts.
I will
continue to support such developments, as will this government, because we
recognize the need to diversify the economy. That will happen through large
projects, medium-sized projects and through small ventures like the one I just
referenced.
Sandy
Cove is just one place for visitors to explore on the Burin Peninsula. Every
nook and cranny has a hidden gem or two. If natural beauty is your thing,
Fortune Bay East is sure to leave you in awe, as is Burin and the surrounding
inlets and coves. A treasure throve of scenery for the budding photographer, Mr.
Speaker.
If you
are into history, we have lots of that to offer as well with the Heritage Run,
Mr. Speaker. It's an area that was long desired as a base for fishing by several
European nations, Portugal, France and England. Place names play homage to that
rich French past, Mr. Speaker. Some obvious, like Bay L'Argent, Port au Bras and
Jacques Fontaine, some less obvious like Lawn and Lamaline. Then there's Fortune
which takes its name from the Portuguese, but our history can be seen in more
than road signs, Mr. Speaker.
Grand
Bank is home to an array of sights which harken back to its seafaring past
during the bygone days of schooners. There you'll find a seamen's museum laden
with artifacts related to all aspects of working at sea. There's a stunning and
moving memorial to lost sailors. Located on the grounds of the restored Harris
House, you'll find a café that in itself is a mini museum, Mr. Speaker, and
houses that are still topped with a widow's walk, a stark reminder of the
dangers of the fishing industry.
For
those who don't know, the widow's walk harkens back to the day of the schooner
fishery, Mr. Speaker, when communication between vessels and shore were almost
non-existent. The widow's walk was a small platform, accessible from the inside,
but on the very roof of the house. With the husband at sea, and at a time
approaching the anticipated return of the vessel on which he served, it was
there that the woman would go in anticipation of seeing the vessel approach the
harbour, and in dread of seeing the black flag that indicated the loss of life
during the voyage.
Mr.
Speaker, St. Lawrence offers a miners museum that pays tribute to the fluorspar
miners of St. Lawrence, many of whom died due to accidents in the underground
mines, or years later due to lung disease resulting from poor ventilation and
airborne contaminants.
The
museum also has an exhibit commemorating the USS
Truxtun and USS Pollux disaster,
Mr. Speaker. For those who are interested in the events that unfolded in the
area on February 18, 1942, there is always someone on hand to narrate the tale
of tragedy and heroism that is still commemorated every year in both St.
Lawrence and Lawn. If you want a true feel for the area where that disaster
occurred, you can now access the trail to Chambers Cove, where the USS
Truxtun ran aground.
Well, a
volunteer group, in fact, Mr. Speaker, in Lawn is busy raising funds for the
construction of a trail to Little Lawn Point, very near the sunkers where the
USS Pollux was lost. Of course, if
you're a culture buff, you'll find your share of uniqueness in that field on the
Burin Peninsula.
Some
mistakenly think that all of the nuances of our culture are as a result of our
proximity to the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The interaction between
those French islands and the Burin Peninsula cannot be overstated. For the last
two centuries we have been interacting with the people of the islands sharing
ideas and customs.
During
the summer you are almost as likely to see a vehicle with a St. Pierre and
Miquelon licence plate on it as you would of our very own province. The ties
have been strong for generations, with many families, including my own, Mr.
Speaker, having relatives on the French islands. Many of the family names in
places like Point May and Lamaline are also a reminder of this link. However,
some of that for which we are known had little to do with St. Pierre and
Miquelon, rather it was a result of our seafarers heading via trading schooners
to the ports of the Iberian Peninsula and the Mediterranean Sea.
Soccer,
or football as it's known by our other residents even today, was discovered
during voyages that was brought to the Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker. Not so long
ago, practically every town on the Burin Peninsula had both adult and minor
soccer programs. There was almost a religious zeal with which it was played, and
rivalries between towns could be fierce, Mr. Speaker. The arrival of new sports
or technologies that offered other ways to be entertained have quietened many of
the soccer pitches in the area, though there are still towns where it remains
the sport of choice.
Several
years ago, Mr. Speaker, as an economic development officer, I took on the task
of compiling some of that history and culture and presenting it throughout the
district on storyboards for residents, of course, and visitors alike to visit.
That history was sometimes shrouded in pain and loss of life, such as the story
of the tsunami that hit the bottom of the Peninsula in 1929. Twenty-eight lives
were lost, Mr. Speaker. The most ever recorded in an earthquake-related incident
in Canada, with towns from Lamaline to Port au Bras suffering great hardship.
Yes, Mr.
Speaker, a lot of history. A unique culture. Thanks to the efforts of authors
such as Robert Parsons and Randall Pope, as well as the efforts of volunteers at
the many museums and historical boards, a history and culture that is being
preserved for those who want to reminisce, and for future generations.
Mr.
Speaker, the Burin Peninsula is indeed unique, but it is not uniquely unique.
Every Member of this House can attest to the uniqueness of the area he or she
represents: The sand banks in Burgeo; the fjords of Gros Morne Park; the Torngat
Mountains; Quidi Vidi and the Battery, right here in our capital city; and, of
course, the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis. There are too many to
mention, Mr. Speaker. You can literally take a map of Newfoundland and Labrador,
randomly point to any place, and you'll be pointing at a place with something
unique to offer.
I have
to acknowledge the terrific work being done by the tourism section in the
Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation again, Mr. Speaker. Not
long ago, in a gala in New York City, that great work was recognized when the
department was awarded no less than eight Adrian Awards, including the Best in
Show Award for its Off the Beaten Path marketing campaign. Those catchy ads,
which have been rolled out over the last few years, are obviously being noticed,
Mr. Speaker. We have a province worth seeing and the message is out there: Come
visit us, you won't be disappointed.
If those
ads aren't enough to shine a positive light on the province, anyone who saw the
beaming and smiling face of Kaetlyn Osmond during the Winter Olympics, had to be
impressed, Mr. Speaker. What a wonderful ambassador for this province. She
returns with two medals, but even if she hadn't medalled we would have been
proud of her. A talented skater for sure, but as nice as she is talented, as was
evident during her visit back home here in Marystown.
One day,
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue will rise, I'm sure, and
mention her in a Member's statement again.
As
important as it is to entice visitors to our province, I think it is equally
important that we get to know our province better. I'd encourage anyone and
everyone to spend at least part of their vacation each year exploring a part of
Newfoundland and Labrador they haven't yet visited. I'm sure you will be as
amazed as those who come from away.
The only
way to really get to know a region is to visit and explore, Mr. Speaker. Every
region offers things that help define it. An added bonus to an interprovincial
vacation, you'd be contributing to your own economy.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to change the course now and touch on an area that is already
starting to impact our province. We have just gone through a winter where, in
most parts of the province, there has only been on occasion one or two in which
we had to do any real snow shovelling. This is becoming the norm as our winters
become milder and milder. Unless you're into winter activities or have a $10,000
snowmobile parked in the shed, with never the chance to use it, you probably
appreciate the reprieve from the white stuff.
Mr.
Speaker, I have lots to say but I see my time is winding down. I want to say
thank you so much for this opportunity today. I have touched on quite a few
topics but they are topics I feel passionately about.
During
the spring sitting of the House, I hope to speak more broadly on some of those
topics or on other important issues that are raised.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, given the hour of the day, I believe the House should recess until
2 o'clock this afternoon.
MR. SPEAKER:
A mover and a seconder.
MS. COADY:
A mover and a seconder.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue, noting the hour, that we
recess until the hour of 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those in favour of the
motion?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
In
accordance with Standing Order 9(1)(b), this House stands in recess until 2
o'clock this afternoon.
Thank
you.
Recess
The
House resumed at 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
On
December 7, 2017, this House of Assembly unanimously passed a resolution
requesting that the Speaker travel to Turkey as an emissary of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador to advance discussions toward a shared goal of
establishing a monument commemorating the experience of the Royal Newfoundland
Regiment at Gallipoli during the First World War.
I
travelled to Turkey from January 21 to 26, 2018, and it was hosted by His
Excellency Mr. İsmail Kahraman,
Speaker of the of the Grand National Assembly of the Republic of Turkey and the
Deputy Speaker, the Hon. Mr. Yaşar Tüzün.
The program consisted of meetings and events to foster new relationships and to
advance discussions with key decision makers to establish the monument.
I am
pleased to report to the House of Assembly today that relations between our
jurisdictions have progressed positively during my visit. I was honoured to
receive a proposal from the Minister of Culture and Tourism for the Republic of
Turkey, the Hon. Professor Numan Kurtulmuş,
for the installation of a caribou monument, commemorating the Royal Newfoundland
Regiment, in Gallipoli National Park.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The proposed site is adjacent
to Hill 10 Cemetery and it is of particularly emotional significance as it is
the resting place of many Royal Newfoundland Regiment soldiers, including
Private Hugh McWhirter, the first casualty at Gallipoli.
I would
like to express my sincere gratitude for the warmth, respect and friendship
extended to me during my visit to the Republic of Turkey. I would also like to
thank the Turkish Ambassador to Canada, His Excellency Selçuk Ünal;
and the Canadian Ambassador to Turkey, His Excellency Ambassador Chris Cooter.
The
mission to Turkey also discussed the objectives of a Turkish delegation visiting
Newfoundland and Labrador. I am pleased to welcome to this House of Assembly the
following members of that delegation who are guests in the Speaker's gallery
today.
With us
we have: Mr. Nihat Değirmenci, Director at the Directorate General of Fine Arts of the Ministry of
Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Turkey; Mr. Ayhan Yilmaz, he is a
sculptor and lecturer at Hacettepe University, Faculty of Fine Arts, Department
of Sculpture. We also have Mr. Taylan Özgür Aydın from the Embassy of the Republic of Turkey in Ottawa;
and a repeat visitor, Ms. Derya Serbetci, Director of Cultural and Tourism
Affairs from the Turkish Consulate in Toronto.
Merhaba ve
Hoşgeldiniz Newfoundland ve Labrador. Seni burada görmek güzel. Teşekkürler
arkadaşlar.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Later in today's proceeding,
I will be tabling a report with further details of my visit to Turkey.
Also in
the Speaker's gallery today, I would like to recognize Mrs. Marina Smith of
Bishop's Cove, who will be mentioned in a Member's statement this afternoon.
Mrs. Smith is joined by her daughter Joan Dove, son-in-law Israel Dove,
grandsons Jeremy and Jordan, and friends Kimberley Powell and Rachelle Pope.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
We also have with us the
daughter of the Deputy Chair of Committees and the MHA for St. George's - Humber
District, Ms. Katherine Reid. She's here today on a school project.
Welcome
to you, Katherine.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Up at the public gallery, I
would like to recognize Ms. Barbara Cadigan, her sons James and Daniel Cadigan,
and her brother-in-law Mr. Gerry Cadigan, as well as their family members and
friends. They are associated with a Member's statement here today.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
And filling most of the front
rows in the public gallery to my right, I also would like to welcome students
from the Northern Lights Academy in Rigolet. They are accompanied by teachers
Sherry Maher and Alexis Palliser. And students from the B.L. Morrison School in
Postville. They are here with their teacher Howard Worthman. They will all be
the subject of a Member's statement today.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
One more.
Also,
I'd like to welcome Mr. Cyril Hayden and Mr. Ken Hopkins, who are the Chair and
the Executive Director of the School Lunch Program. Their organization will be
the subject of a Member's statement today.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today, we will hear statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Cape
St. Francis; Harbour Grace - Port de Grave; Conception Bay East - Bell Island;
Conception Bay South; and Torngat Mountains.
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I rise
today to honour the late Ronnie Cadigan – accomplished athlete, loving father,
husband and a true gentleman. A native of Logy Bay, Ronnie was well known for
his athletic talents, but also his tremendous dedication to his family and to
his community.
For
years, Ronnie organized successful hockey camps and offered his skills, and even
his equipment, to the youth of the community. Ronnie had a firm belief that all
children should have the opportunity to experience sports with their peers and
that the lessons learned through sports would help guide them into adulthood.
Ronnie's
determined and generous spirit was evident throughout his courageous battle with
MSA – a rare neurological disease. To continue Ronnie's legacy of helping
others, the Ron Cadigan Foundation was established to help children get involved
in sports and to provide funding for MSA research.
The
first annual Ronnie Cadigan Memorial Hockey Tournament was held last weekend at
the Jack Byrne Arena. It was a great success, raised over $10,000, and a fitting
tribute to a special man who touched the lives of many. I know his friends, the
community and particularly his wife Barb, sons James and Daniel are comforted
with many proud and loving memories.
I ask
all Members of this House, remember Ronnie Cadigan, and I encourage everyone to
honour his spirit by showing kindness to others.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, I
would like to welcome and introduce my constituent Mrs. Marina Smith of Bishop's
Cove. We recently celebrated National Volunteer Week. Well, Mrs. Smith is one
outstanding volunteer. She was born in Upper Island Cove in 1938, and not long
after, Marina started volunteering. She became a member of the local ACW where
she still serves today. She is also an alter guide at her church.
In 1989,
Marina went back to school, learning how to read and write, when she received
her level 2. She then obtained a seat on the provincial literacy board and was
later chosen to represent our province at a conference in Saskatoon.
Mrs.
Smith enjoys public speaking and promoting literacy. She also has a flare for
politics. In 1983, she was elected to the Bishop's Cove town council and served
as mayor for four years, and she is still currently an active member.
Among
all of this, Marina makes time for healthy living. She's an active participant
at the Fun & Fitness Club in Harbour Grace, where she works up a sweat twice a
week.
Mrs.
Marina Smith is a dedicated wife, mother, grandmother and is an excellent
example of a strong dedicated volunteer. And, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to call
her a role model and a friend.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to recognize a local organization who as a
registered charity for nearly 30 years, has as its mission statement the
operation of a non-stigmatizing program that provides a hot, nutritious lunch
for school children, regardless of their family's financial situation. I speak
of the school lunch program.
The program serves over 5,400 meals each day, almost a
million meals a year in over 30 schools with a budget of nearly $3 million from
all sectors of our society: the business sector, government, trade unions,
charitable groups and particularly the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The program employs 60 individuals who play a crucial role
in the delivery of hot meals on a daily basis. I would be remiss if I didn't
recognize the valuable contributions that the volunteer board members play in
not only maintaining this important program but their diligence to expand to
other schools, as was the case at St. Augustine's Elementary on Bell Island only
a month ago.
Tomorrow, the school lunch program will endeavour to expand
the services to other schools by holding their first annual radiothon at the
Avalon Mall and broadcasting live on Coast FM Radio and Rogers Television. The
anticipated support from the residents, business and service organizations will
go a long way to bring valuable services to as many schools as possible.
I ask all Members to join me in congratulating the school
lunch program board and staff and wish them luck with their radiothon tomorrow.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, on April 18, my colleague, the MHA for Topsail
- Paradise and I attended the Conception Bay South volunteer ceremony. During
the event, Dr. Adrian Power was presented with the 2017 Citizen of the Year
Award and Emma Jacobs was awarded the 2017 Youth Volunteer.
Dr. Adrian Power is the founder of the Coats for the Needy
Program providing contributions to those in need for over 15 years in
partnership with the CBS Food Bank. He has continued his efforts to make curling
available to local residents, as well he's a lead volunteer in his parish and
this past year Dr. Power volunteered his time providing free dental services in
Haiti. His self-funded efforts provided dental services to those in need making
a positive impact on thousands of Haitian people. Dr. Power's volunteering
efforts and humanitarian work has made a positive impact on not only his
community but at an international level.
Emma Jacobs gives back to both her school and her
community. Emma is a member of the Queen Elizabeth Student Council, CBS Leo Club
and Students for Change group where she has arranged fundraisers for such groups
as Beagle Paws, Ronald McDonald House and Mental Health initiatives. As a member
of the Refugee and Immigrant Advisory Council, she helps teach English to break
down language barriers faced by new immigrants.
Congratulations to Dr. Adrian Power and Emma Jacobs for
their commitment and achievements. I ask all hon. Members to join with me in
recognizing their contributions to our community and to the province.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. EDMUNDS: Mr.
Speaker, I would like all Members to join me in welcoming students and teachers
from my district to this hon. House today.
Students and teachers from Northern Lights Academy in
Rigolet and B.L. Morrison School in Postville are in St. John's this week to
attend a Let's Talk Science event at the Convention Centre. Let's Talk Science
motivates and empowers youth to fulfill their potential and prepare for their
future careers by supporting learning and skill development using science,
technology, engineering and mathematics.
While they are here for the Let's Talk Science Challenge,
in true Labrador fashion they are also taking advantage of their trip to gain
insight into their future education by visiting Memorial University, College of
the North Atlantic and the Carpenters Millwrights College. I had the pleasure of
joining the students with their teachers earlier today for lunch, and they are
certainly an enthusiastic bunch.
I wish students John Palliser, Mackenzie Palliser-Flowers,
Megan Allen, Taylor Shiwak, Brittany Shiwak and Amber Blake from Northern Lights
Academy, as well as Madison Ford Goudie, Erica Jacque and Andrew Tuglavinia from
B.L. Morrison School in Postville, an enjoyable trip. I also thank teachers
Sherry Maher, Alexis Palliser and Howard Worthman for ensuring the youth are
exposed to opportunities that are available to them once
they graduate and pursue a
post-secondary education.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, our government
is committed to safe and sustainable communities, and a key component is
improving accessibility and equity. I rise today to remind the people of our
province that the amendments to the Buildings Accessibility Regulations under
the Buildings Accessibility Act came
into force on April 23.
The
amendments include a number of changes related to the requirements for all new
buildings to have automated door operators; improved accessibility in public
washrooms; van-sized accessible parking spaces; an increased percentage of
parking spaces required to be accessible; increased number of accessible units
in an apartment complex with more than four units; and clarification of counter
height requirements to ensure counters in public buildings are accessible.
The
amendments were the result of recommendations brought forward by the Buildings
Accessibility Advisory Board, the Provincial Advisory Council for the Inclusion
of Persons with Disabilities, disability community organizations, Engineering
and Inspection Services Division of Service NL, and individual advocates. The
outcome of decisions of the Buildings Accessibility Appeal Tribunal also
informed some of the changes.
Mr.
Speaker, we are working to create environments that promote greater
participation in our communities, employment opportunities and public services.
A comprehensive review of the Buildings
Accessibility Act is also underway with a view of bringing proposed
legislative changes forward that further promote inclusion.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. Mr. Speaker, we are
very pleased to see amendments made to the Buildings Accessibility
registration coming into force. We are very supportive of any action that
will improve accessibility and promote inclusion throughout society. These
changes included are very important ones and have tremendous impact on many
individuals.
Mr.
Speaker, there are more changes to be made and I look forward to seeing the
results of the new review of the Buildings
Accessibility Act in the near future.
Thank
you.
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, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. It's great to see
these changes to the Buildings Accessibility
Regulations regarding accessible parking spaces and some accessibility
features in buildings. Congratulations to the community organizations that have
worked so hard to make our environment more accessible.
I say to
the minister, I'm looking forward to the long-overdue review of the
Buildings Accessibility Act which I
understand is being worked on and which must be done to bring our legislation in
line with the best standards in Canada.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, this morning I was pleased to join the hon. Premier as we announced 22
organizations, representing a broad cross-section of society, have been selected
to participate in phase one of multi-year funding.
This
announcement follows through on the commitment made in
The Way Forward to deliver one-window, multi-year funding in a
phased approach for community groups. In our province, these groups touch the
lives of many of our citizens through the hands-on work they carry out each and
every day.
Mr.
Speaker, through this process we will provide funding for three years up to $20
million maximum per year in total to selected community groups and each group
will have just one point of access.
By
initially moving forward with these 22 community groups as part of phase one, we
can approach this initiative in a fiscally responsible way. All these groups
have clear social mandates that directly benefit individuals in need and they
have solid records of financial and program delivery effectiveness.
Mr.
Speaker, I am confident that once we have completed a full evaluation of phase
one, we will be able to extend multi-year funding to more community groups in
the future. It is our intent that this process will result in more stability for
community organizations and assist them in longer-term planning. This multi-year
funding approach will allow them to focus less on writing yearly applications
and more on the incredible work that they do.
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 thank the minister for an advance copy of her
statement.
Mr. Speaker, we are very fortunate in this province to
have community-based organizations who contribute to society through culture,
recreation, social causes and helping others. These organizations rely on the
funding they receive each and every year from government.
The creation of multi-year funding has been highly
anticipated by community groups for several years. This is a positive
announcement for our community-based sector. Not only will this give community
groups the ability to budget and plan years in advance, they will also have to
spend less of their precious time writing grant applications.
However, I ask the minister to ensure that funding is
staggered so that a community group who is not awarded funds in one year can
apply in the following year and not have to wait a full three-year cycle before
they can apply again.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
I'm
pleased to see government finally acting on multi-year funding for community
groups, which we have been advocating for years. This action does provide
stability for these groups, who will be able to do longer-term planning.
The
benefit of multi-year funding is so self-evident I wonder why all community
groups currently funded by government couldn't be included upfront. I also point
out to the minister, and to the Minister of Finance, that most of these groups
have not seen an increase in funding in more than three years. Such an increase
would also be welcome.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, here yesterday in Question Period when asked questions about harassment
and intimidation complaints made to the Premier or the Premier's office, the
Premier stated and I quote: “I have not received any allegations or complaints
from Members of this caucus or my Cabinet.”
I ask
the Premier here today, Mr. Speaker, it's a day later: Does he still stand by
those comments?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
stood in this House yesterday and said, any allegations or complaints that would
be made would be taken very seriously. This issue was raised yesterday in the
House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, as a result of that, we took some immediate
action. There was no complaint lodged yesterday, up until yesterday, none at
all.
I just
spoke with the media prior to coming in, spoke to my caucus. This morning there
was a complaint that was lodged to me by an MHA, Mr. Speaker, and so we took
immediate action. Yesterday, no allegation, no complaint was lodged, but I
encouraged people to step forward yesterday, as I always do, and a complaint was
lodged this morning.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier also said yesterday – as he's confirming today that he was not aware of
anything. He said: I am not aware of anything. He also said: I don't believe
this information out there. He said: There is no allegation.
Premier,
to be clear, do you still stand by those comments? Have you or your staff
received any complaints by any Members of this House of Assembly prior to this
morning?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
said yesterday multiple times in this House of Assembly, there were no
allegations that were made at all. These were my comments yesterday.
The only
thing that's different between yesterday and today is that this morning I
encouraged people yesterday to reach out, as I have done in the past. My door is
always open to our caucus and all MHAs. My door is open. I encourage people to
reach out. It's important that we raise those issues. They're extremely
important. This morning an MHA reached out to me and lodged a complaint.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
been a day since this matter was first raised. The Premier has had numerous
opportunities to speak to his own staff. My questions were asking if the Premier
or anyone in his office had received any complaints. He's said they haven't.
I'll
just check again and ask the Premier: Has anyone in your office received any
complaints from any Member of this House of Assembly regarding any minister in
your government?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to clarify what I said. I spoke with staff last night. No, there are no
complaints, no allegations that were lodged in my office. I'm very clear about
that, no allegations, complaints lodged with me as Premier of this province.
Yesterday, as you know, I encouraged people to speak out. As I've said so many
times, silence is not an option. This morning an MHA reached out to me, we had a
discussion and there was a complaint that was lodged.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier said the allegations have been made. He has indicated there's going to
be an investigation into the allegations.
I ask
the Premier if he'll remove the Cabinet minister while the investigation takes
place or will he leave the minister in place in his role with his full authority
during the investigation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I had a
conversation this morning with the person that lodged the complaint. The
commitment that I made is that we would look at the necessary steps that we
would take to deal with this very sensitive issue.
I will
say, with the consent of the person that I spoke with this morning, this is not
sexual by nature. This is not sexual assault; this is not any physical assault
in nature. This is really about conduct and behaviour.
We've
made a decision today that we will act with this very swiftly. I've made it
clear to the person that lodged the complaint that whatever the next steps would
be, we would sit and have a discussion to determine what that would be, making
sure that people are comfortable, Mr. Speaker. This is extremely important to
me.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With all
respect to the Premier, he didn't answer the question. With all respect to the
Premier's comments, I say –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. P. DAVIS:
I say to the Premier any
action that causes a level or feeling or belief of intimidation, bullying and
any form of harassment can be as serious as any physical assault, Mr. Speaker,
and can be as damaging, hurtful and harmful to a person's respectful workplace.
My
question is: Is he planning to leave the minister in place during the
investigation or will he take the minister out? Simple – are you going to leave
him in his role and his responsibilities with his full authority or are you
going to remove the minister? It's a simple question.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
remind the Member opposite, that this is not a political – I'm making every
effort to not make this a political response but I will remind the Member
opposite that it was just yesterday in the media that he said he was aware of
this about two weeks ago.
Mr.
Speaker, we acted swiftly. I have met with the person that lodged the complaint
this morning and we will look at necessary steps, but I can assure you this. We
will act swiftly and we will take the appropriate measures, Mr. Speaker. We will
do that.
I never
once said that this was a minister – that this is really about behaviour and
about conduct right now. I need to deal with this making sure that the person
that lodged the complaint is very comfortable with the process and we will deal
with this swiftly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate all the answers from the Premier but, with all due respect, Premier,
it was a very simple question and you haven't answered it.
I'll
reiterate my comments. You reiterated yours and I'll reiterate my comments; that
conduct of a Cabinet minister and the behaviour of a Cabinet minister to the
level that requires a Member of this hon. House to file a complaint is a very
serious matter.
My
question is very simple: Is your intention to leave the minister in place, in
his role with full authority, or is your intention to remove the minister during
the investigation?
That's
all I'm asking Premier. What's your plan?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, as I said, this was an issue that came to my attention this morning
and we are currently dealing with this. I need to reach out to the officials and
look at what the steps would be. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we will move on
this swiftly. This is not something that we will be sitting on for weeks, that I
can guarantee you.
The
Member opposite made it clear yesterday that this was something that he claimed
to be aware of about two weeks ago. We will work with this swiftly and we will
take the appropriate action.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, it sounds like
the Premier – this is so early in this matter from the Premier's perspective,
they haven't reached that decision point yet.
Premier,
when do you expect to reach that decision point where if you're either going to
leave – let's say the Minister of Justice –
MR. A. PARSONS:
I didn't say anything.
MR. P. DAVIS:
I never said you said
anything.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Address
your remarks to the Speaker, please.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My
question for the Premier is very simple: When does he think he's going to reach
the decision point? Will he inform this hon. House and the people of the
Province of what his intention is when he does, in very short order, sometime
today?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL: Mr.
Speaker, when you deal with these issues there are a number of things that you
need to consider. Number one,
the environment must be comfortable for the person that's lodging the complaint
and you must deal with this in the appropriate fashion. This is the way we will
react.
So, the
question is really about timing. How long will it take me to deal with this?
When I get the individual to the point where their comfort level is where they
need to be, that's when we will deal with it. But, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you
this, it's won't be two weeks.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In
respect to what we know about what the Premier is dealing with, which is very
limited at this point in time, only to conduct and behaviour of a minister. I
would suggest it would be very appropriate in the best interest of the
respectful workplace that should exist in all aspects of government, that the
Premier at least remove the minister from his role and his authority and his
position as a minister until he can further determine exactly what's taken place
and the gravity of the complaint filed today.
I ask
the Premier: Will you remove the minister until at least you can determine the
seriousness of this very recent allegation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
All these things, as a Member opposite, are things that
will need to be considered in whatever the process, once it gets established. As
we've mentioned before, this is unchartered waters for this government. We will
deal with this as swiftly and as appropriately as possible, but my main concern
right now is to make sure that we get to where there's a comfort level that we
can deal with this with the person that lodged the complaint.
Once again, to reiterate, this was not something that was
physical in nature. This was not a sexual assault, Mr. Speaker. This was really
about conduct and behaviour. Mr. Speaker, I'll speak to this when we get the
steps established.
I just reached out to the people of the province, reached
out to the media and informed them very proactively of a complaint that was
lodged just a few hours ago.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I hope the Premier doesn't put the complainant in the
position to have to make that decision. I hope the Premier makes sure he does
everything to protect her and the complaint that she has made. I hope that's
what the Premier does. He should step up and make the decision on this.
I ask the Premier: Who will conduct the investigation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL: Mr.
Speaker, I will guarantee you one thing, we will do whatever it takes to protect
individuals in this caucus and we will not be sitting on information. I want to
be very clear about that.
Right now, what we're seeing with questions on the floor of
the House of Assembly – whatever the forum is I appreciate this. Information
comes forward to me as Premier, I deal with it. I deal with it swiftly and I
will deal with it appropriately, Mr. Speaker.
It's very important, as I said, to protect the individual.
I agree with that, but it's
also very important that we put a setting that we can agree upon. Given the fact
that we have a safe workplace, safe policies in place, Mr. Speaker, and we're
going to deal with it, and we will deal with this swiftly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
I ask
the Premier, if he would agree that it would be appropriate to ensure that this
investigation is truly independent, independent from anyone within government,
independent from anyone within the House of Assembly, independent from anyone
within their party, someone independent and who is to the satisfaction of the
complainant because it's important that she's satisfied with the process as
well.
Will the
Premier commit to ensuring a fully independent process?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, as I said, this
must be a process where not to be determined, yet we need to know that the
person who lodged this complaint is actually comfortable with it. That's
extremely important. The independency and all of this is extremely important.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a number of options that will be available. We want to make
sure we explore all those options and we will do that. The importance in all of
this is how we put in place a safe workplace, one where people are comfortable
in coming to work in a very safe environment. That is where we want to be once
this review is completed, Mr. Speaker, but we must work together on all of this;
all of us in this House of Assembly. We'll be working very closely with the
person that lodged that complaint.
I think
that is the fair thing to do, given that this is essentially just a few hours
ago that this was lodged.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Premier, if he believes it would be appropriate, as part of a review and
investigation into such a serious matter, would it be appropriate to ask caucus
Members to produce their cellphones for review?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, it's an
interesting question but one right now that's not one of the options we've
explored, but all of those things I'm sure as part of a very thorough, detailed
review of the situation is something that can be explored; but, right now, as I
said, we very proactively came out and explained to the people of this House,
explained to the people of this province that there was a complaint that came
forward. It is very early hours, I say, Mr. Speaker, and we will deal with this.
The
objective here is to make sure that we improve the working environment for
everyone in this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Premier: Before this complaint was made today, were Members of his caucus
asked to produce their cellphones?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I have not asked
caucus. I've met with caucus now twice today. This is not something that I've
asked caucus to do: to produce their cellphones. Mr. Speaker, we've been focused
on the complaint that was lodged this morning and how to appropriately deal with
that, and that's where our focus has been so far today.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I never
asked the Premier if he asked caucus to produce them. I asked if Members of
caucus were asked to produce their cellphones.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure
where the Leader of the Opposition is going with this line of questioning of
producing their cellphones. We also know that throughout this whole process,
there is a protection of privacy that we need to make sure that we're fully
aware of.
I will
say this, coming forward with information, I commend individuals that come
forward with situations that they were not comfortable with, and that's what has
happened, Mr. Speaker. That's what happened today. We didn't need people showing
up and putting cellphones out there so that we can review those.
But, Mr.
Speaker, listen, at the end of the day, what we need to get is a very thorough
review of the complaint that was lodged. Mr. Speaker, we will do that, and it
will not take us a couple of weeks to get there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Sometimes this stuff happens closer than we think.
Mr.
Speaker, the Premier also went on to say in recent commentary that silence is
not an option. He said: We listen to our caucus. This is the first time it's
come to me, the Premier went on to say.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Education has now issued an ultimatum in an email to
the caucus regarding an MHA voicing concerns – and the minister himself said in
the email, “There is no greater violation of trust” in relation to someone
disclosing and raising concerns.
So I ask
the Premier: Is it a violation of trust for a Member of this House to try and
put a stop to harassment and intimidation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KIRBY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the opportunity to respond to this question. These are extremely
serious allegations that the Leader of the PC Party has been – well, he dragged
into the House of Assembly here yesterday, clearly trying to make it political.
He sat on the information, through his own words, for two weeks without
reporting it.
That is
a violation of trust for any Member of this House of Assembly, and especially I
find that particularly despicable since he is a former police constable himself,
to allege to have information and to not provide that. We tell children, we tell
anyone in our workplaces that if you see something, you hear something, you
report it. Instead of that, this is the road that the Leader of the Opposition
wants to go down.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My
question was for the Premier on this matter. I'm going to get to the Minister of
Education shortly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Please
proceed.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, it's
not interrogation; it's Question Period. My question for the Premier was very
simple: The Minister of Education, yesterday – he is right; he's the minister
responsible for educating our children. He's the minister responsible for Safe
and Caring Schools and he issues an email to his own caucus after someone is
known to have been speaking out and he condemns them for doing so. No greater
violation of trust, he said in his email, Mr. Speaker.
My
question is for the Premier: Is it a violation of trust for a Member of this
hon. House to try to put a stop to harassment and bullying?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. KIRBY:
As I said, Mr. Speaker, these
are very serious allegations. Yesterday, the Leader of the PC Party came in here
and said that he had information about alleged harassment that was taking place
amongst Members of this House of Assembly. He knew about that for a period of
two weeks. That is a violation of trust.
I
reached out to my colleagues to encourage them to come forward with the
information and to reveal it, if that indeed was the case. It is an absolute
violation of trust to not report this information.
We tell
students, we tell people in workplaces, if you see harassment, if you witness
harassment and bullying in the workplace, you should report it. The Member did
not do that. He decided to sit on the information.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to
be clear, yesterday, I came in the House of Assembly and I asked questions. I've
made no allegations. I've asked questions to the Premier and to ministers of the
government on – the Minister of Education is right – a very, very serious
matter. I was very surprised to see him in his email saying there is no greater
violation of trust when someone wants to report intimidations and harassment,
when he should be encouraging and protecting those people.
I ask
the Premier: Is it okay for your minister to be more interested in identifying
the people, the complainants, the people who have an issue with intimidation and
harassment, or is it more important to be protecting those who need assistance
and support?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
I've made is quite clear that we will put as much support as possible at all.
I'm more than willing to do that and we will do that. The email the Leader of
the Opposition is referring to, I think, really speaks to the level of
frustration that we see in dealing with matters like this. Mr. Speaker, we are
going to put the appropriate measures in place, but, as I said, my door is
always open.
I have
to say that yesterday, as the Member opposite asked the questions, I was
extremely disappointed to be quite honest with you, very disappointed that
someone, a Member of this House of Assembly, would sit on information that would
be impactful and impactful like we're seeing here today and did not bring that
forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
information I had was that the matters had been brought forward to the attention
of the Premier's office and had not been properly acted upon. Mr. Speaker, those
efforts had not been made.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I know the
Minister of Education is trying to defend his poor choice of words. We have to
remember as well it's the same minister who not that long ago accused a
volunteer trustee of not being honest. He's also the same minister that the NLTA
in our province, our provincial association, also called for his resignation.
I ask
the Premier: Do you condone this email by your minister?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I
just want to remind people in this House and who are listening to these
questions today, it was the Leader of the Opposition who made it clear that
there were direct – so these were not all indirectly. He made comments that
there was direct involvement by him and also indirect involvement by him.
At no
point in two weeks, an issue as serious as this facing Members in the House of
Assembly, at no point did the Leader of the Opposition reach out to me on this
issue at all. This was his own words yesterday: There were direct and indirect.
So it's no good for the Leader of the Opposition to say today that there was not
a direct message to him because that's what he said yesterday.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, in my lifetime
I've had the unfortunate – I say unfortunate with the greatest respect –
experiences where I've dealt with people with numerous matters where they've
been victims of abuse or assault, or intimidation or bullying and I would never
force a person to make a complaint or speak out publicly or against their will
or their wishes. I make that known. I would never do it. I would never do it,
Mr. Speaker, and I will protect anyone in that particular circumstance.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Premier: Do you condone the actions of your Minister of
Education?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, once again, I
will say that this is an email that I saw last night. The Member opposite makes
mention that he read the email. I think right now it speaks to what is a very
high level of frustration that exists as we work our way through this, which is
something that is, as I said to the media today, really unchartered for us as a
government. This is something that is new to us, but I will assure you, Mr.
Speaker, that we will make sure the person that lodged this complaint is very
comfortable with every single issue that unfolds. If it's emails, if it's
messages, direct or indirect, we will deal with it and we will get to the point
where we get a very thorough review, independent review of this issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, during Question Period today we've heard reference to frustration. I
can't help it, I have to raise this; the frustration that's been experienced by
Members in this House, the lack of response by the Premier and the Premier's
office.
It's the
frustration that we should all be concerned about. It is the persons who have
had to work in an environment that's been much less than respectful that should
be focused on here.
I ask
the Premier: If some other Member of this hon. House has a complaint and a
matter to bring to his attention, what process should they use? What assurance
can you give them there will not be repercussions for speaking out?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I will assure
you there are no repercussions. I will assure you of that. As I've said many,
many times, my door is always open. We take these issues as they come, as they
are presented to us. That's when we respond.
Today,
we proactively disclosed to the people of the province about a complaint that
came forward this morning, just a matter of hours ago, Mr. Speaker. It's now
disclosed, which is the appropriate thing to do and the right thing to do.
I said
so many times here today that we must now look at the next steps for any single
Member in this House of Assembly. No matter who comes forward, if there are
other complaints or allegations and so on, we will do so in a respectful way
without consequence.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, last session this House passed legislation that would deal with
harassment in the public service.
I ask
the Premier: Will he engage that particular process that has a very clear,
identified protocol? Will he use that in this case?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When the
complaint was lodged this morning, we discussed what the next steps would look
like. The Member opposite raises a good point because we are in kind of a
transition to where we are.
My
preference, as I just said publicly, would be to follow the new harassment
policy that would be in place in June of this year that outlines at least four
steps – a number of steps, options – that would be available to anyone that
lodges a complaint. That would be my preference.
Mr.
Speaker, I have to make sure the person who lodged the complaint is very
comfortable with whatever the next steps and the process would look like.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Third
Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to
stress again that I believe it's not incumbent upon those who have lodged the
complaint to have to come up with a solution.
I also
want to address the issue, Mr. Speaker, that there are a number of rumours
flying around this House and in media, out there in the public agenda, about
issues of harassment in this House.
I ask
the Premier: What is his plan to address those rampant rumours now and the
attitude that is being shown here in the House.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, rumours and the rumour mill, of course, are always churning. What I
can say is that once a complaint is officially lodged – I would think that when
you look at the responses and the action that I'm taking today, we take those
issues very seriously.
We've
proactively now went out with the confidence of the person that laid the
complaint this morning. We've done it very proactively and we will deal with it,
as I've said so many times today, swiftly.
Just to
look at things that could occur out there publicly, you can only deal with the
complaints when they become official and when people are in a state where they
are comfortable in coming forward. From my point of view, as Premier of the
province, I encourage people to come forward and I commend those that do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for the
District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
In the
processes that I'm aware of that are involved when somebody puts forward a
complaint for harassment, et. cetera, one of the things that's important is that
the persons who continue to deal with the complainant are people who are outside
of the process. While a complaint gets brought to the person who maybe is in
charge of an employee for example, initially it then moves outside so that those
involved are external.
How
quickly is the Premier going to move to make sure this becomes the process for
this complainant?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you.
I thank
the Member for raising this again. Of course, when you look at the new policy
that we put in place, there are a number of mechanisms that the individual would
have available to them; one would be the individual intervention and seek a
resolution. You could have management involvement.
Typically, that's probably the best way to explain what we're dealing with
today. Or the Respectful Workplace Division could get involved. Then, of course,
there's a formal resolution option which explores a much more detailed review.
Mr.
Speaker, we need to get comfortable, get the complainant comfortable with
however that individual feels in this particular case. That's kind of where we
are today; we're just really hours into this. But we're going to work on this,
making sure the person who lodged the complaint is very comfortable under the
number of options that we'll have available to them and making sure that we get
the thorough review, independent review that's required (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Oral
Questions has ended.
MS. MICHAEL:
There is just one aspect of the Premier's language that bothers me.
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm sorry, Oral Questions has
ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
I am pleased to present to
this hon. House a report on the Speaker's visit to Turkey as emissary of the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador dated April 25, 2018.
Further
Tabling of Documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, these are the
reasons for this petition:
The
Adult Dental Program coverage for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador
Prescription Drug Program under the Access and 65Plus program were eliminated in
Budget 2016.
Many
low-income individuals and families can no longer access basic dental care, and
those same individuals can now no longer access dentures leading to many other
digestive and medical issues.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:
We, the
undersigned, call on the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the Adult Dental Program to cover
low-income individuals and families to better ensure oral health, quality of
life and dignity.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of the
constituents of my region. Many –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Three years ago.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
No, it's not three years ago,
I say to the hon. Member, not at all. Very few come from that side over there,
I'd suggest.
Mr.
Speaker, the reason for the petition is related to the Witless Bay Line, Route
13; a significant piece of infrastructure. It's a main highway and it plays a
major role in the commercial and residential growth of the region. Therefore, we
petition the House of Assembly as follows:
We, the
undersigned, urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and
perform immediate maintenance to this significant piece of infrastructure, which
for the safety of drivers and improve the flow of traffic to and from the
Trans-Canada Highway.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a piece of infrastructure, the petition indicates, that has
been presented by the people of the region; residents, as well as those who
commute from the Trans-Canada Highway to the Southern Shore in regard to work.
It is certainly a key piece related to the tourism industry and as well related
to the fishing industry and the transportation of fish products, particularly
crab, back and forth for processing. So it's an important piece of
infrastructure.
We've
had over the past couple of years done some upgrades to various parts of the
section of road. I know I've spoken to the minister and we've had some work done
in regard to the asphalt, reuse of asphalt and putting in some potholes and
doing some work. There's certainly more required.
I know,
I've been in touch with the officials because it's such a busy piece of highway,
and certainly in the nighttime with large potholes and those types of things
that are there, it certainly causes concern in regard to health and safety and
the driver traffic at a particular time.
It is an
issue that still exists. I call on the minister to continue some of the work
that has been started and look at – it's not in the Roads Program but, as I
said, there have been a couple of sections done. Even a middle section for an
upgrading would help.
I know
the minister said they've even looked at that for the possibilities it might
occur in this coming season. I certainly look forward to that and certainly look
forward to an opportunity to upgrade the worst section. We can do it over a
period of time and make it as safe as possible as we can.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
MR. OSBORNE:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
It's not a petition.
The hon.
the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has a motion or a
request?
MR. OSBORNE:
Yes, I ask for leave, Mr.
Speaker.
I was
involved in something else and overlooked the Tabling of Documents.
I ask if
I can have leave to table a document.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Leave.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I thank my colleagues
opposite.
Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to section 26(5)(a) of the
Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one order-in-council
relating to a funding pre-commitment for the fiscal years 2018-19 through to
2028-29.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
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
there are many families who face scheduling challenges to get their children to
and from school each day; and
WHEREAS
because of these challenges these children are required to go to a child care
provider before and after school each day; and
WHEREAS
current policy and practices does not allow the children to be dropped off via
school bus stop where their child care provider exists.
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to allow children to avail of courtesy busing and
to enable parents to indicate an additional drop-off location in addition to
their own.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, while there's been some movement over the last number of years about
courtesy busing and because of the backlash from parents and realizing that kids
to be safe after school, particularly that you would have to avail of them, and
obviously there's been a decrease in the investment in our busing process. So
the 1.6 kilometre ruling has had a dramatic impact, particularly in communities
that are in growth areas, where more kids are travelling or parents themselves,
in two working family members, are having to travel to and from various areas.
Because
of the geographic locations of some of the providers, when it comes to the
daycare providers, or after school providers, particularly in these communities
where there's not any public transportation, it's almost impossible, unless you
allow the courtesy busing to be able to give a second stop.
The way
it works now, if you get a courtesy bus stop, you're only allowed to have one.
It depends on where you get on in the morning and where you were picked up,
versus going to who your after school care provider would be.
There
are a number of groups: the school council association, school councils
themselves and parent groups have all lobbied that the courtesy busing, which is
an added incentive and has been in play for the last seven years, has been a
godsend in a lot of cases. Unfortunately, not everybody can avail of it, but
built into that, for those who get it, there should be an ability to stop.
The
buses are passing these facilities. It doesn't make sense, particularly when
you're stopping at these facilities. You have an individual, a staff person or a
co-ordinator who will come out and meet the buses. This becomes even safer than
our normal bus stop process we have.
Not
taking away from the fact that we're providing a service to ensure that parents
who are at work not having to leave early, keeps our productivity up, the
stresses within the family and the kids get to integrate in another social
environment and a learning safe and conducive to education. So it's an incentive
too.
It
doesn't cost anything. I understand in government, in education and in any of
our programs here, finances have to become an issue.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll get a chance to speak to this again. I know it's time that we move
on to the next part of our private Member's resolution.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
MR. SPEAKER:
This being Wednesday, I now
call on the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay to introduce his resolution
standing in his name, Motion 8.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port, that the following motion:
WHEREAS
restorative justice processes are rapidly being adopted within Canada, as
well as internationally, as a way of responding to crime and victimization; and
WHEREAS in
2009, the United Nations recommended to adopt Basic Principles on the Use of
Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters;
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED that this hon. House urges the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to explore the benefits of adopting restorative justice practices in
the province, in consultation with outside organizations and Aboriginal groups.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Baie
Verte - Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's my
pleasure to introduce such a relevant private Member's resolution in this hon.
House today. I'd like to begin again by reading the text of today's private
Member's resolution:
WHEREAS
restorative justice processes are rapidly being adopted within Canada, as
well as internationally, as a way of responding to crime and victimization; and
WHEREAS in
2009, the United Nations recommended to adopt Basic Principles on the Use of
Restorative Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters;
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED that this hon. House urges the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to explore the benefits of adopting restorative justice practices in
the province, in consultation with outside organizations and Aboriginal groups.
Mr. Speaker, restorative justice is commonly defined as an
approach to justice that focuses on addressing the harm caused by crime while
holding the offender responsible for their actions by providing opportunity for
the parties directly affected by the crime, the victims, offenders and
communities to identify and address their needs in the aftermath of a crime.
Mr. Speaker, restorative justice is based on an
understanding that crime is a violation of people and relationships and the
principles of restorative justice are based on respect, compassion and
inclusivity.
Restorative justice encourages meaningful engagement and
accountability and provides an opportunity for healing and reintegration. With
the assistance of a trained facilitator, restorative justice often involves a
face-to-face meeting between victims and offenders after a crime is committed
where they collectively decide how the offender can make amends; for example,
paying for stolen property or community service for a crime. Sometimes when a
face-to-face meeting is not the best way forward, the victim and offender will
communicate via letters, recorded interviews or video.
On that point, Mr. Speaker, I just want to recall a
personal account when I spent
some time, actually 28 years of my life back in a family business in Springdale.
We had a retail concept, which I managed –
AN HON. MEMBER:
Very thoroughly.
MR. WARR:
Yeah.
And I
remember taking a phone call from a parent one day who felt that one of her
children had shoplifted from my store. I asked her to bring the young person in
and we would sit down and have a chat over what had happened. Mr. Speaker, I
remember quite well actually that the mother of this person, this child, came in
– and actually the person was probably 15 or 16 years old at the time. His
mother told him, you tell the gentleman what had happened, and he did. I sort of
try and take a positive approach to dealing with offenders, especially given my
past as being an RNC officer for a number of years; I know what the benefits of
restorative justice can bring to situations.
Mr.
Speaker, I remember speaking to this young boy and we had a chit-chat over what
happened. When I explained to him that the items that he took from me may have
cost $100 for instance, I made him see the point that not only did it cost me
$100 or what was taken was $100, it took me four times the sales to recover the
actual $100 when you base it on a margin, say, of 25 per cent. I had to sell
that item four more times just to recoup back the cost of the item.
When he
realized exactly what this was costing a business, Mr. Speaker, I can't begin to
tell you how much merchandise started coming back to my store. It was
unbelievable actually because I think what had happened he had gone to some of
his friends as well who had probably taken the opportunity to take things from
my store without paying and started returning it back to the store.
There
were no questions asked. I accepted the merchandise back. But that's where we're
going with this particular statement, Mr. Speaker. Restorative justice is
entirely voluntary and meetings take place in a safe and neutral venue. It could
be in a police station, a probation office or a local community centre. If the
offender is in prison, then the conference could take place in a suitable room
in the prison.
Restorative justice is effective. Research has indicated that it can provide an
opportunity for victims to talk about how the crime affected them in a safe
place. They have an opportunity to ask the offender questions, have their harm
or loss acknowledged – as it happened to me – and have a say in how the matter
is addressed. It's a chance, Mr. Speaker, for the offender to truly understand
the impact the offence has on a victim.
It helps
victims have their needs and concerns addressed as well. It provides an
opportunity for victims to receive restitution depending on the restorative
model being used. It gives offenders an opportunity to be accountable for their
actions. Offenders get to tell their side of the story, too. This can help
victims understand why this has happened to them.
It
involves the community in supporting victims and finding other ways to address
crime. Communities are able to get a better understanding as to why crime is
happening and to find alternative solutions to dealing with offenders rather
than putting them in jail. It contributes to the safe reintegration of offenders
after incarceration, and there is a reduced likelihood that offenders will
reoffend when they have gone through a restorative justice program. This will
ultimately help reduce the burden on our criminal justice system in this
province.
It is
important to note that restorative justice recognizes the many people who are
impacted by criminal activity. The primary victim is the person who was directly
harmed by an incident. Secondary victims can include family members, friends and
community members.
We have
to also remember that each case is unique, Mr. Speaker. Within the criminal
justice system, restorative justice provides an opportunity for victims,
offenders, community members and others to have a say in how a crime should be
addressed.
Restorative justice can take place at any point in the criminal justice system.
For minor offences, the police sometimes deal with the offence without going to
court. Restorative justice, Mr. Speaker, can be a part of this. If the case does
go to court and the offender pleads guilty, the judge can sometimes decide to
delay sentencing so restorative justice can happen. In most instances, however,
they are likely to proceed with the sentencing and restorative justice can form
a part of the community or suspended sentence.
If the
offender is sent to prison, Mr. Speaker, restorative justice can take place
while they are in prison or after release. The important thing is that it can
happen at any stage. Restorative justice measures have already been a part of
Canada's criminal justice system for over 40 years through the
Criminal Code and the
Youth Criminal Justice Act. The
processes that are used in restorative justice are in line with the traditional
indigenous views of justice. In fact, there are currently two justice programs
in Newfoundland and Labrador: the Miawpukek First Nation Healing and Sentencing
Program and the Sheshatshiu Innu First Nation Community-based Justice Program.
The
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador believes in restorative justice. The
province recognized November 19-26, 2017, as Restorative Justice Week. Also,
last November, my colleague, the Minister of Justice and Public Safety took part
in a panel discussion at Memorial University that explored the use of
restorative justice approaches to address challenges in the province's legal and
education systems.
The
event was organized by the Relationships First: Restorative Justice in Education
Consortium, which includes the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of
Women in collaboration with the Public Legal Information Association of NL, the
Newfoundland and Labrador Sexual Assault Crisis and Prevention Centre and the
YWCA here in St. John's. The panel explored the use of restorative justice
approaches to addressing challenges in the province's education and legal
systems, including access to justice, increased demand on courts and
correctional facilities, the well-being of youth and the need for safer and
healthier communities.
The
Department of Justice and Public Safety has been exploring initiatives to
improve people's interactions with the justice system. The Minister of Justice
and Public Safety will discuss some of the work being done in his department
relating to restorative justice sometime later this afternoon.
People,
Mr. Speaker, have the right to live in a safe and peaceful society. Communities
and governments must work together to address crime. Crime rates are rising in
this country and in our province. The Minister of Justice and Public Safety has
stated publicly that we need to find innovative ways to address the number of
people in prison, look at how they got there and find ways to lower the risk of
reoffending. More restorative justice measures can help.
Restorative justice gives victims a chance to meet or communicate with their
offender to explain the real impact of the crime. It empowers victims, Mr.
Speaker, by giving them a voice. It also holds offenders to account for what
they have done and helps them to take responsibility and to make amends.
Many
victims feel the criminal justice system does not give them a chance to get
involved. Restorative justice puts victims at the heart of the justice process;
it gives them a chance to ask the offender any questions that they have and to
get anything they want to say about the impact of the crime off your chest.
Restorative processes create an environment where offenders can take
responsibility for their actions. Offenders who have participated in restorative
processes can be accountable to victims and communities in a number of
meaningful ways, depending on the restorative model used. This may include
acknowledging the harm done to the victim, providing an apology or fulfilling
the conditions of an agreement between participants. These agreements sometimes
include conditions such as having the offender pay restitution, undertake
community service work or participate in counselling and treatment programs.
Many
people find that after they have been a victim of crime they have a question
they want to ask or things they would like to say to the offender. When the case
goes to court there's rarely a chance to do this after. Restorative justice can
help to address this by giving victims the opportunity to have your say, ask the
questions you have and potentially receive an explanation and an apology.
Mr.
Speaker, I certainly look forward to listening to the rest of my colleagues here
this afternoon. I look forward to them going along with the private Member's
resolution today as read earlier.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm pleased to speak in support of today's private Member's resolution.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. PETTEN:
Restorative justice is an old
concept that's been gaining traction in recent years. People are looking for new
approaches of justice that will work more effectively and help us build a safer
society.
Over the
ages, societies have tested many approaches to crime. One approach is
retribution – an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth – to even the scales of
justice by imposing punishment in proportion to the offence. Another approach is
to lock people away in prisons. The intent is to keep the community safe while
punishing the offender with a loss of freedom. Another approach is
rehabilitation, which is based on the idea that if you change the offender
through programs and training, you can help them turn their life around.
There
are various other approaches as well and they are not mutually exclusive. No
matter what approaches the authorities try, crime remains with us and people
continue to get hurt. Some of those are property crimes like theft and vandalism
and some are violent crimes where people get hurt or killed.
What do
we do? Do we lock people away for longer or do we try to divert people down a
different path away from crime? What about the person who's already been injured
or traumatized by a crime? How do we help them?
Restorative justice is about looking at a crime in a completely different way.
Instead of seeing a broken law or an offender who needs to be punished,
restorative justice sees our society as a series of relationships between
people. Crime often flows from broken relationships and crime does its own
damage to relationships. The important thing is to focus on healing and
strengthening the relationships because that will lead to a more harmonious
society where everyone can feel a lot more safe.
It's not
surprising that restorative justice has its roots in indigenous traditions and
spiritual communities like the Mennonites and the 'quackers.'
AN HON. MEMBER:
Quakers.
MR. PETTEN:
Quakers, is it? Sorry.
These
communities were often relatively small and relatively isolated. More indigenous
communities moved around with the seasons. Many Mennonite communities were
isolated on vast farms. In such a community, it is imperative to find a solution
to crime that would keep the community whole and cohesive, while at the same
time promoting safety and order.
To send
an offender away from the community for a small crime could mean sending that
person to his death, while tolerating the crime without an effective punishment
and deterrent mechanism would lead to a breakdown of order. In both kinds of
communities, one solution was to come together in a solemn and orderly way as a
community with the elders presiding, and work out a path forward.
Victims
are given the opportunity to let offenders know the impact of their offences.
Offenders were given the opportunity to face those harmed and own up to their
offences. It is never about being soft on crime; it's about bringing home the
full impact of crime and finding a way toward restitution for the benefit of
everyone: the victim, the victim's fellow community members and the offender. It
is a powerful way of making offenders see their offence through the eyes of the
person they have hurt.
Insights
like that can deter people from offending again. When the victim and the
community see the offender acknowledging the impact of the offence on the
victim, the pathway opens up healing and restoration. The victim may be able to
find peace and feel less vulnerable; the offender may find a path to personal
growth and transformation. We are all human; we all make mistakes. Some mistakes
are reckless, some are selfish and some have terrible consequences. Restorative
justice is not about making excuses. It's about owning up.
Placing
the responsibility where it belongs is important for the healing of the person
harmed. It's educational for those looking on. It's therapeutic for the entire
community. In fact, those who have participated in such a process may be the
ones best equipped to lead the healing circle in the future because they know
how it works and why it matters.
A
society that can deal with difficult matters in such a way is exceptionally
mature. It's not surprising that these communities that have adopted practices
like these are also societies where elders are held in high regard and listened
to.
When
those with the maturity of years and experience chart the path, the entire
society benefits from that wisdom. The question is whether these small community
approaches to restoration can be applied effectively in larger society where
people do not have their natural family and community bonds and may not have
connection with their neighbour whatsoever. That's precisely the issue at the
heart of restorative justice. The entire premise is that we are too disconnected
from one another and that creates a breeding ground for crime.
Proponents believe that fracturing our society and the isolation of people from
one another is at the heart of anti-social choices by people at its margins. The
best solution is to bring people together and weave new and stronger
relationships. The challenge of course is that restorative justice intervenes
after some sort of break has already happened, a crime has already occurred,
someone has been already violated. It's reactive rather than proactive.
After a
crime has happened, of course there are wounds, and it is the most difficult
time to work on relationships. Some people who have been harmed are not ready to
enter a relationship of any sort with the person who has caused that harm.
Restorative justice is not the solution for every situation, but the reason it
is worth considering at all is that it can help the healing process for some of
those who have been harmed.
Think of
the traditional justice system. Crime is reported; the person is charged with
committing an offence; the person harmed is called upon to testify about the
damage done and to demonstrate the impact of that damage; the justice system
acknowledges that the violation has occurred and imposes a penalty on the
offender. But how does that help the victim heal? How does that help the victim
deal with the fear and vulnerability they may be feeling?
The
wound may be left wide open and the victim may be unable to move on. In fact,
the victim may be afraid the offender bears some resentment for having been
accused. Meanwhile, the offender may see the victim only as an accuser and not
fully as a person who has been harmed by his actions.
Justice
may have been served, but lives remain in tatters, and the door is wide open to
crimes yet to happen. Victims continue to live in fear; offenders stew in their
thoughts of revenge. This is not healthy. Restorative justice comes at the
challenge in an entirely new way. It deals with the whole person and not just
the law, violation and the penalty. It treats the victim as a whole person. It
treats the offender as a whole person. It seeks to get beyond the
victim-offender labels and help people move beyond seeing themselves defined by
and forever locked into the event that occurred. That's its power. In fact, it
may have the greatest power when it's applied long before serious crimes happen.
Often
when you hear of serious crime in the news, you hear the phrase “known to
police” in the description of the offender and you wonder: Why are they back in
trouble? Why is the system not diverting people from crime? If you could divert
people who are known to police, how much safer would it be for all of us and how
much better off would offenders be if people had been in trouble with the system
before, make is less likely that they will be in trouble again?
The best
use of restorative justice may be the first offenders in the cases of the
pettiest crimes; maybe for the first offenders. In fact, maybe it's better to
begin even earlier. Restorative justice is being used in the school system to
address bullying and other anti-social behaviour.
If you
can divert a person from a pattern of bad, anti-social choices very early in
life, you may be able to divert people from crime. Bringing bullies together
with those who have bullied can only make the school system safer, but also help
troubled kids get on a better path. In the school system, this philosophy can
actually be applied in a way that's proactive rather than reactive. If we can
get kids before they have crossed the line and weave stronger relationships
before they have fractured.
Mr.
Speaker, in August 2012, 17 educators in Newfoundland and Labrador embarked on a
two-week long institute to explore possibilities of Relationships First:
Restorative Justice in Education. Beginning with an exploration of their core
beliefs and values, the educators dug deep to reflect on many relationships that
make up the school community and began their journey toward creating and
sustaining healthy, inclusive relationships in schools. Since then, many others
involved in education in Newfoundland have discovered the benefits of
restorative justice in schools.
In 2014,
in Relationships First, a restorative justice and education consortium was
formed and engaged a wide variety of education stakeholders within and outside
the traditional schooling systems. This approach may help us recognize some of
the social underpinnings of crime such as poverty, neglect and violence in the
home. If we can address precursors of crime, we may be able to keep people from
going down that road to begin with. If we catch them when they are taking just a
couple of small steps down the wrong road, maybe it's still not too late to save
a life.
When
young people engage in petty crimes like stealing something small or doing petty
vandalism, restorative justice may be more effective than the slap on the wrist
that they would otherwise receive for such an act. Years down the road, instead
of seeing that person heading to court for a burglary or a violent assault, we
may see the person getting an education or a new job.
Mr.
Speaker, we refer to some severe crimes. But when we're talking severe crimes,
what about when the crime we're talking about is truly violent and particularly
severe? Does restorative justice apply to those circumstances as well? Maybe it
can. What about if someone was murdered?
Take a
look at this. There was a story a few years ago about a women in the United
States whose three-year-old son was killed in a drive-by shooting that targeted
someone else. The story was published in
The Denver Post on July 9, 2012. The story follows the woman's path as she
engaged on a restorative justice process with a man who killed her little boy.
You can only imagine how difficult this must have been, as she says she froze
before she walked in the room with the offender. Nevertheless, she chose to move
forward because she had tried every other coping mechanism and they weren't
enough.
It is
important to note in Colorado the offender is not offered any leniency
whatsoever in exchange for participating in the process. There was no incentive
to put on a show of remorse; the process was designed so it would be genuine. As
the mom froze in the doorway, she saw the offender drop his head and shake it
with such sorrow that she knew he was aware of her pain and the pain he had
caused. The mom admitted that at times, as the process moved forward, she was
intensely angry – and who wouldn't be given the circumstances – but she needed
to see the offender acknowledge in front of her what he had done and what it had
cost her in human terms. Not just what it cost him in terms of freedom lost but
what it cost her.
That
acknowledgement had a profound impact on her and I believe it also had a
profound impact on him. It is said that offenders who participate in such a
process are better able to change the way they see themselves. They are better
candidates for rehabilitation and reintegration. If that means less recidivism,
then all of us benefit but, most importantly, it's about healing of the person
who has been traumatized and victimized.
This mom
has actually become a strong advocate for restorative justice. Her advocacy is
compelling because she can speak with authority as someone who knows how the
process works. She is not speaking about it in theoretical terms; she's talking
about personal terms, someone who bears the scars.
Some
people say approaches like this are soft on crime. There really is a risk and
there could be, if they are applied improperly and vulnerable to manipulation or
driven by purposes other than helping the victim, but those who have benefited
from restorative justice see the potential for good.
They
would say that restorative justice is not softer on crime but extremely tough on
crime. The process is designed to bring the offender out of the shadows and deny
that person a chance from responsibility for his actions. It forces the criminal
to stare at all aspects of his crime right in the face and bear responsibility.
This is
how Aboriginal restorative justice remedies are described in the national
Justice Education Society website, quoted: “The process is intensive and in many
ways more difficult than a passive jail sentence since offenders are made to
face and accept the harms they have caused. Victims often find the process much
more satisfying and empowering than conventional justice procedures as well.
They often report feeling less fear and trauma after taking part in a healing
circle.”
“A
restorative justice remedy is one that places the emphasis on healing the harm
done by the offence and rehabilitating the offender to avoid future harms. Such
processes are in line with traditional Aboriginal views of justice. In addition
to similarity in principle, there are severely uniquely Aboriginal elements that
can be used in a restorative process.
“The
core of an Aboriginal restorative process is generally a healing circle, which
aims at developing consensus on how to repair harmful results of the offence.
“A
healing circle: Will include members of the community including the offender,
elders, and often the victim if they agree to participate; will discuss the
offence and how it is has affected the victim and the community and the
relationships between these and the offender; in addition to healing community
ties, the circle focuses on the offender and the underlying causes of their
offence ….”
Mr.
Speaker, as my time winds down, I just want to reiterate that we do support this
private Member's motion. As I've laid out some things, there are a lot of
benefits to restorative justice. It may be a secret to untapping some of the –
locking people away is probably not the answer. Maybe this is the key to curbing
some of our crime, lowering our crime rates and for that, we will be supporting
this motion.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to begin by thanking my colleague, the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, for
introducing today's private Member's resolution, which will hopefully lead to
this government exploring in more detail the benefits of adopting restorative
justice practices or alternatives to justice in this province in consultation
with organizations and Aboriginal groups.
Mr.
Speaker, in our country, it's sad to say but 26 per cent of those incarcerated
are Aboriginal people. It's surprising because the Aboriginal population only
makes up 4 per cent of the country's population. The numbers are staggering and
it leads to problems with – and we hear this almost every day – overcrowding in
our prisons, things that need to be worked on and improved around the justice
delivery programs that exists today.
I guess
the question is: Is the current application of justice failing us as Aboriginal
people? When you look at why people are incarcerated, you have to look a little
bit further than the crime committed to get yourself incarcerated. What are some
of the underlining problems?
My hon.
colleague, the Member for Conception Bay South, spoke about some of the
interventions that could be designed for a school, for bullying, and I commend
him for raising that.
As an
Aboriginal person, I guess I'll spend a few minutes talking about the Aboriginal
component of restorative justice. The simple fact that the Aboriginal
populations in this province, in this country, go a lot further back than our
current justice system and how it's applied.
There
have been different models that have been implemented and adopted. Some work,
some don't. The Miawpukek First Nation, for example, have a healing and
sentencing program that was started with the objectives to provide youth with
the opportunity to show respect for traditional methods by encouraging them to
participate in the sentence circle process.
The Innu
Nation has implemented the sweat lodge ceremony, which provides you access to
cleansing your soul and your body. It teaches how to be a better person and how
to better manage your anger.
Just to
talk a little bit again about the models of restorative justice. Some have been
applied but have been adopted from one ethnic group in country or in province
and applied to another. In some cases it worked. People followed, bought into
the process, sat down and went through the process and brought some resolve to
the situation and kept it out of our existing court process.
But, Mr.
Speaker, some of them didn't work. Some of them have been unheard of in an
Aboriginal community. It may work good for the Haida in BC or the Maori in New
Zealand, but it wouldn't necessarily work for the Inuit in Canada's North
because it's a different concept and a different history of evolution when you
look at the healing process.
My
forefathers, Mr. Speaker, were nomadic people. I was thinking about this just
last night. We value our lives on currency and current judicial processes, but
in my forefathers' day, the only currency that was good to you was knowledge.
We're talking of a people that lived in the harshest environment in our country
and there were crimes but more often than not, the justice system was based on
survival and a lot of it was based on the (inaudible) or the chief or the tribal
leader of a population. I'm not saying there were communities of 1,000 people.
We're talking groups of three or four families led by a chief or an elder, and
if this person made a wrong decision, Mr. Speaker, people died. It's as simple
as that.
There
were times when crimes were committed, where the elder actually banished a
community member or a community family and they had to move on. It doesn't
necessarily mean a crime, Mr. Speaker. In some cases where a group of families
ended up, it was determined that the land could not provide enough to keep this
family going for the length of time they were there. So they forced families,
sons, daughters, cousins; they forced other families to move on.
Just to
go back a little bit to our history and how things evolved – I'm actually going
to cut my time short to allow for some other presenters, Mr. Speaker. I just
talked about customary law and how it was applied. Then I think in the mid-1700s
we saw the arrival of the missionaries. They established missionaries all up and
down the Coast of Labrador, across the north and throughout the world.
It was
in their customary law, Mr. Speaker, where what the church said went and you
couldn't argue. As a matter of fact, in 1958 and 1959 when they announced the
closure of the communities of Hebron and Nutak and made them relocate to Nain,
Makkovik, Hopedale and Northwest River, they made the announcement in the church
because there could be no debate, such as we have in this House. It was final.
There was no argument. To the people who lived in their homeland, they had to
move to a totally foreign land and carry out their lives.
In
Natuashish, Mr. Speaker, and I spoke about this in this House earlier, the
church in their wisdom took a nomadic group of people and they settled them on
an island. When you do that to an Aboriginal community and you introduce other
negative influences, what you see is a loss of pride, a loss of culture and a
loss of self-esteem.
Then we
advanced to, I guess, the current forms of government we have now. We have
community councils that make laws in the community. We've had provincial
governments since 1949; the federal government for 150 years. All these
governments come with laws. We actually make the laws in this hon. House.
Then in
2005, Mr. Speaker, and 2010, we say the formation of a
Nunatsiavut Government, which is a
regional government that looks after its own. So in a sense, we've gone kind of
full circle and we're going to look at alternatives to justice. Some work, some
don't, but it's certainly a forward step.
I'm glad my hon.
colleague brought this private Member's resolution forward because it gives us
the possibility or the opportunity to explore some of these other options, but
it has to be adopted, it has to be modified and it has to be bought into by all
groups involved.
Mr. Speaker, I'm
talking about the offender and the victim and the community because if you look
at some of the reasons for crime, a lot of it comes from how a child was raised.
We always say in small communities up and down our coast, it takes a whole
community to raise a child and we stand by that.
Mr. Speaker, I
certainly support this. I'm glad to hear my Members across the way say that
they're going to support it. What it does is it opens up a venue and it could
even advance to a time when the Nunatsiavut Government could look at devolution
and incorporating their own justice system, which would, I'm sure, be more
people applicable and more people to buy into it.
I certainly support
this PMR. I look forward to hearing anymore comments.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay
East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's indeed an
honour to speak to the private Member's resolution presented here by the Member
for Baie Verte - Green Bay. It's a unique private Member's resolution. We have
all kinds of distinctive ones that we bring in here about programs and services
or encouraging government, but this is at a different level. It's looking at a
new approach to an enormous issue but it's looking at an old, effective,
workable approach that comes from – more than decades – centuries of people
looking at the justice system and ensuring that the best result is what's
important here; one for the victim but also for the person here who commits a
particular crime. It's about a whole inclusive process here.
I'm going through
it and trying to get my head around it because it's a whole process that I
haven't heard a lot of in the last number of years, but I do remember
years ago when I did some work in Labrador – as a matter of fact, I spent some
time in Sheshatshiu with the former Leader of the Third Party. We worked with a
particular group up there and sitting around with the elders, and I guess my
responsibility was to work with the younger people, and talking about some of
the challenges up there and some of the criminal activity on how it was being
addressed and getting an education, and that's what it was, a thorough education
about approaches that the Aboriginal community would use and how they would be
effective.
I
remember being intrigued and asking questions about, what would happen if
somebody had committed a particular crime? How would you address that? What
would be the process with the victim itself and the perpetrator? What would
happen there is there would be an open discussion and elders or a set – open
practices were already outlined in a lot of cases. Things may not have been
written down but they were written down in people's minds of practices that went
on.
It was
amazing to see how somebody would be so remorseful for something they had done
at the spur of the moment or had done it out of anger or done it because of
under influence or for what other reason had done it. There was a discussion,
particularly around elders, and there was a realization that they had victimized
somebody. There was a realization here that they were part of a community. It
was a bigger entity here, and their actions reflected on everybody else. The
inaction of the community reflects on everybody else.
The
community had to take a lead in ensuring that there was restitution of some
form. There was a whole process, and I was amazed at how it worked. I knew in
what we call modern day, the criminal justice system might be a little bit
different or a little bit harder to implement that on the scale of our court
system as part of that, but I could see – as when I came back and I would keep
my ears and eyes open when I'd hear stuff, documentaries on television, or I
would go to conferences where people would talk about particular interventions
or particular ways of addressing unacceptable behaviour, criminal behaviour,
criminal activity within communities.
The
restitution, or the punishment for want of a better phrase – I don't think they
ever used the word punishment. I think that was one of the things that I thought
was amazing, that it was never about you're punishing somebody for something
they did. It was about restitution of some form and that whole type of dialogue.
I
remember over the years, 30 years in my career travelling to different parts of
the province and different countries, discussions would come off – I was always
intrigued. When there'd be a workshop I'd go. Alternatives to the justice
system, and a lot of it was around how we do restorative justice and how do we
get back to the basic ways of ensuring that justice is done, but that the whole
process is engaging enough that there are no victims at the end of it; there are
victims at the beginning because somebody has obviously committed a crime, but
there are no victims at the end of it. It becomes a solution that everybody buys
into and it meets the needs of everybody as part of a holistic approach.
I
thought that was amazing. You heard my colleagues here speak to it and now I
have a better understanding of where it is. I've read some of the notes that we
researched to get our heads around where we are with the whole process. I think
it's a great process. Is it the ultimate solution to everything? Of course it's
not. Is it particularly useful in particular areas, in particular crimes and in
particular approaches? Sure it is and that's been outlined here by a number of
speakers of the benefits of how that could be put into play.
There
are some limitations to a system like this and we have to be realistic on how we
do it. We could jump on board and say, you know what, our justice system, as we
see it, doesn't really work in the way that we want. Our system is based on you
commit a crime, you get arrested, you get a trial system, you're convicted and
you get a punishment that's relevant to it as part of that process. Part of that
punishment is that it's rehabilitation. Somebody, then, is rehabilitated enough
to be back into society and be a contributing member of society. It's five or
six steps that if one of those goes astray, the end result of rehabilitation is
sort of lost.
This
process adds a little bit more to it. It eliminates a couple of steps because it
includes a different dynamic. So it does, from an outsider looking in, see the
benefits of it. I think we do it without calling it part of our justice system
or restorative justice. We do that in issues within organizations and that,
particularly youth organizations if somebody hasn't followed the rules and there
has to be some form of acknowledgement of that, and restitution for what it is
they did or haven't done.
I ran a
group of organizations at one point where members would damage property. Instead
of charging them or instead of kicking them out, there would a dialogue between
their parents, the organization and the youth council who would come up with
what their restitution would be. In a lot of cases, it would mean they would
have to come in with one of their parents and repair it, if they'd broken a door
or broken a desk or something to that effect, and/or then write an apology or
speak to the membership.
There
are processes here that have been in play for a number of years that do come
from some of the more traditional historic cultures that we have in Newfoundland
and Labrador, in Canada and in the world that are based on more explicit ways of
the communities addressing the needs of solving and dealing with issues. Rather
than just going through an encompassing, costly court system and guaranteeing,
in a lot of cases, better outcomes because there's a better acknowledgement of
it.
There
has to be some understanding of limitations. While I wholeheartedly support this
and will be voting for it, there has to be awareness there so people don't think
this panacea – that we can bring this in. This will be the new solution, our new
justice system. There are some, because at the end of the day there has to be –
make a pathway available to victims as one of their options that can be freely
chosen.
This
can't be imposed, that this is the only way we're going to deal with the
situation that you're facing. The victim themselves should be the first
individual who has a choice whether or not this is the process they want to use.
In some cases, people are victimized and it's so traumatic they want to have
very little, if anything, to do with the person who's committed the crime or the
act against them. That has to be a choice there.
Once we
get to that point where the victim is comfortable and understands that
restitution would have to be in the best interests of everybody, then you can
move forward on that. There are some things here just to keep in mind as an
umbrella process as we do that. It's particularly important not to pressure
people to participate when they're not able or not ready.
As I
talked about, this has to be a volunteer process because the victim has to be
the one who comes out of that process feeling that justice was done, but not at
the expense of somebody else. You don't want to also victimize, after the fact,
the person who committed the particular crime either. There has to be a balance
there of ensuring that everybody is happy with it. You don't want to traumatize
people any further, different things like that.
There
are concerns about applying this process in circumstances where there are power
imbalances, where those who have been harmed are not given the proper supports
they need. It depends on the level of crimes that you're going to deal with
there. There are some across-the-board standard ones that you can fit in
pigeonholes, that you can come up with a process that is less intimidating, less
harassing for the victim until they're comfortable that justice has been served
here.
You have
to be able to come and find where it is there because there are certain crimes
against individuals that will have an everlasting effect. As a result, they need
to have those particular supports in play. Forever and a day they may need
supports, they may need particular counselling. There may be some things there.
We need to get cognizant of where the balance is on those and I think there's an
ability to do that. It's already been proven by societies, by other
jurisdictions on how this would work.
I think
here in Newfoundland and Labrador we could develop that. I think there's an
ability here to do it. I would think, from my conversations in the general
public and talking to those in law enforcement, and particularly those
not-for-profit groups who deal with victims of crime, there is an appetite to
come up with a better process here. A policy like this or a particular program,
restorative justice would be another avenue to use. It is not the only one but
it's another tool in the toolbox to deal with our justice system and make it
more inclusive, but make it more rehabilitative for those who are engaged in the
whole process.
There
are things there that we have to be realistic about. We also have to look at and
have the support mechanisms to assess these. The person who commits the crime,
what are the particular issues relevant to them? If it's a mental health issue,
if it's a PTSD issue, is it a personal abuse issue they have themselves? What
caused it as part of that?
That
would have an effect on how you would offer a service for that because now
you've got a victim who was victimized by those who committed the crime, but you
also have the person who committed the crime is a victim in their own right. You
have to be able to have the supports and the proper approach to ensure the
outcomes you want are obtainable. Not everything is going to work perfectly.
There are going to be left and right channels you're going to have to take to
get back on the straight and narrow, but there are ways to do that.
As we
move this forward – and we invest hundreds of millions of dollars in our justice
system here and we have, by far, some of the best qualified people to be able to
do that – we need to ensure we also have the proper supports. If we're going to
bring in this program – which would be, again as I mentioned earlier, another
tool to ensure our justice system is fluent and addresses particular needs, and
doesn't bog down the administrative system we have now or the court system we
have that is better used for more complex crimes or at a certain level when we
set where that trend is there as part of those.
We have
to ensure that at the end of the day this is truly beneficial, from a
therapeutic point of view, because it's about healing. My hon. colleague from
the Big Land had noted that in the Aboriginal communities it's about healing.
It's about healing the community, it's about healing the victim, but it's also
about healing the individual who has committed the act. That's what it's about;
it's a holistic approach here.
I did
some research, looked at it and talked to my colleagues. Then, I realized at the
end of the day this is an umbrella process here. It's not just about justice.
It's a bigger picture here than just the justice. The umbrella of justice is
where it fits under, but it does better things within the community because it
helps heal the community and find better directions to move things forward.
That was
one of the marvelous things I learned in my days of working with Aboriginal
communities. They have a different approach, a more holistic and a more
even-keel approach, particularly when they look about how every stage of
somebody's life and every level of community leaders have an input into what
goes on. The respect levels go up there, as we have in our justice system a
respect level if it's a police officer, to a prosecutor, to a lawyer, to the
judge in these types of things and to a jury.
But the
Aboriginal communities here have the holistic approach; everybody in that
community has a stake in what goes on. Particularly, some of the elder states
people in those communities, their wisdom, their knowledge of how to deal with
it and the respect that the community has. I think that system that's already
been in play, that tradition that's been there has been effective.
There
are nuances in that and processes in that which can be taken and implemented
into the same system we have here, the justice system, to put a system in place
that works with dealing with the victims of crime. Particularly, making it more
inclusive but, particularly, more solution-oriented, at the end of the day that
we know that our end results are more beneficial to all involved: the victims,
those who committed the crimes and, particularly, the community as a whole.
We've already set the trends here. We set it because we have the natural ability
to do it there.
The fact
that this is going to take on a new approach here – but I like the fact there
are agencies here who have already been engaged to look at how this should be
done. We have some of the key ones here, when I look at Choices for Youth, I
look at the Constabulary, I look at Turnings and all these agencies here that
would understand some of those people who have committed crimes are not what we
would consider – and for want of a better phrase – hardened criminals, by no
stretch of the imagination. They need some guidance, but they also need to take
responsibility for their actions. Their actions have had an impact on a victim.
That victim has to feel comfortable that justice has been done, yet society is
better served by this new integration of how we do things.
I'll end
again by thanking the hon. Member for bringing this forward and saying that I
will be supporting this private Member's resolution. I look forward to see how
this gets implemented in our court system and no doubt using what we have here
to benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for St.
John's West.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I think
this is a very important topic this afternoon. I'm proud to stand here in
support of this private Member's resolution. I thank my colleague for giving me
a few moments just to speak to this. I thought the words from the MHA for
Torngat Mountains were very poignant and important. I thank him for allowing me
a few moments of his time to have a couple of words.
This is
an important issue, of course. Restorative justice really does focus on
addressing the harm caused by crime while holding the offender responsible for
his or her actions, by providing an opportunity for parties directly affected by
crime, victims, offenders, community to identify and address their needs in the
aftermath of a crime. I thought it was very poignant to listen to my colleague
talk about how this has been in place in his community for millennia, I guess,
if you want to use that, as long as time.
As a
government, we must always been seeking alternatives to the established way of
dealing with offences and look to justice reforms, and we need to find a way to
address these higher levels of incarceration at its source. All relevant
departments need to start looking at an approach to see why they are there in
the first place and what we can do to prevent incarceration.
Mr.
Speaker, I know that Linda Ross, who is the president and CEO of the provincial
status of women organization, and we spoke yesterday how important that
organization is to this province and to ensuring equality and justice for women.
I know that she has been critically active in this area, and very vital to
ensuring that restorative justice is on the agenda of the provincial government,
but also being actioned. I thank her for her efforts, and I thank the provincial
status of women for all their work in this regard. I know they have done
tremendous work.
I thank
the Minister of Justice as well for all his actions. Initiatives such as the
Drug Treatment Court, the restorative justice programs, the adult diversion
programs are all things the Department of Justice and Public Safety has been
working on, and I certainly support and really encourage continued work in this
area.
To be in
a position to establish restorative justice programs such as bail supervision,
we need to work with stakeholders. We have been able to establish strong
relationships with our community stakeholders, which will help us to move
forward on many of these initiatives. Government strongly believes in
restorative justice and recognizes we need to find innovate ways to address the
numbers of people incarcerated to look at why they are incarcerated and
determine how to reduce the risk of reoffending.
I know,
Mr. Speaker, that my colleague at the Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development is an active member of Relationships First: Restorative
Justice in Education consortium. The department has been working very closely
with Dr. Dorothy Vaandering of Memorial University regarding restorative justice
in education and how it can be supported through the Safe & Caring Schools
Policy. I think that's to be supported and encouraged.
The
policy recognizes restorative justice as a proactive or preventative practice,
not as a response to conflict, but a school-wide practice that will develop a
culture in which conflict is less likely to occur. And that's critical, Mr.
Speaker. We have to be pursuing ways to eliminate violence. Mr. Speaker, if we
can have an opportunity to impact and make sure that conflict is less likely to
occur, it's certainly to be encouraged. It's something that we all strive to
have less violence, less bullying, less harassment. This is something that this
government – and I know everybody in this House – strives to have.
I'm
encouraged to hear this private Member's resolution. I'm encouraged to hear the
actions of the Minister of Justice. I'm encouraged to hear the actions of the
Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning in this regard. I think we
all need to support this and I'm glad to hear the Members opposite talking in
favour of supporting this resolution.
I know
that, for example, in the Department of Education and Early Childhood Learning
they're developing guidelines for restorative practices in education, a
procedure to the Safe & Caring Schools Policy. I know the department has
contracted Dr. Vaandering to provide professional learning for the Newfoundland
and Labrador English School District safe and inclusive itinerants who are
responsible for supporting implementation of safe and caring policy and,
therefore, restorative justice.
Mr.
Speaker, we all hope that in the future we can have a society that really is
more responsive to the needs of having a caring environment, a safe environment
where violence is lessened and harassment is lessened, where bullying doesn't
occur; and the only way we can do that, the only way we can ensure that is if we
shine a bright light on the actions, if we shine a bright light on this problem
that we have in our society, and make sure that we have the type of restorative
justice, the type of programs to address root causes.
I know
in the department, in the Women's Policy Office, as Minister Responsible for the
Status of Women, we work day to day, day in, day out, to address violence in our
communities. I know that the Minister of Justice is consumed with this, I know
the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Learning, the Minister of Health
and Community Services – I happen to be on a committee to address violence in
our society and I really want to continue to encourage all of us to work in this
regard.
I thank
the Member for bringing this private Member's resolution forward and I thank the
House for having the opportunity to speak a few moments to this very important
issue.
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
happy to stand and to speak to this private Member's motion that encourages
government to proceed in looking at implementing programs of restorative justice
province-wide.
Mr.
Speaker, every one of our correction facilities, whether it be HMP, the
Clarenville Correctional Facility For Women, Stephenville, Bishop's Falls, Happy
Valley-Goose Bay, every lockup in the province is filled. They are full and
overcapacity, and oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, with folks who perhaps need not be
incarcerated. Perhaps there are alternatives for some of the folks who are
incarcerated. So I support looking at this, encouraging government to look at
implementing a restorative justice program here in the province.
I'd like
to commend and thank my colleague from Torngat Mountains who has very clearly
identified the power that restorative justice can have in communities.
Particularly when we see the restorative justice programs that in fact are at
play in indigenous First Peoples communities here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have much to learn from that way of doing justice. Everywhere from the
community involvement to healing circles to having a whole different focus on
what does justice really mean.
We've
heard from many victims of crime where they feel left out of the justice
process. We know with our particular type of justice system that we have here in
Newfoundland and Labrador, that the role of the courts is not primarily to
ensure that victims are compensated, whether victims feel they have received
justice, it's really about applying the law and dealing with the perpetrator or
those accused of a crime. Often victims feel really cheated. They feel they
haven't somehow achieved justice.
One of
the great roll outs and benefits of a restorative justice program is we know for
the most part that crimes do not happen in a vacuum. They happen in our
communities. Sometimes they happen in our homes. Sometimes they happen in our
schools. Sometimes they happen in our places of work or they happen out in the
marketplace, they happen in our streets. Crimes affect not only individual, what
are seen as targeted individual victims, but our community as a whole. The
community has a role in addressing what is happening in the area of justice
because it's about justice. Our justice system is how we decide how we will live
together peacefully and respectfully. That's what restorative justice is about.
I'm very
excited about this potential. I had the honour of attending two of the Minister
of Justice's Justice Summits so far. At each summit, I was lucky enough to be at
tables with indigenous leaders who talked about restorative justice, who talked
about healing circles, who talked about other ways of restoring justice in their
communities.
I
learned a lot, and I think we all can learn a lot from the work of indigenous
communities. Particularly, when we look at what's happened in New Zealand and
Australia. Particularly, in New Zealand with the Maori community and the work
they have done around dealing with family violence issues, dealing with child
abuse issues and dealing with the whole area of restorative justice. They have
done incredible work. There's a lot that we can learn from them by looking at
the work they have done.
Again,
when we look at our prison system and our justice system, we see a whole lot of
recidivism. We're not dealing with crime in a way that's beneficial to our
community. If we see people are repeat offenders – and part of restorative
justice is looking at not just the particular offender and then the particular
victim, it's also looking at what can we do to ensure: (a) the healing of those
who have been offended, but also (b) the rehabilitation of the person who has
done the offence.
We know
what happens. There are a number of people who we see are incarcerated, maybe on
remand for a really long time, waiting for their day in court when they may –
after their day in court – not be sentenced; yet, they have spent a lot of time
being incarcerated. What does that mean?
We
basically have ostracized somebody from our community. We haven't really done
much in the way of rehabilitation, and because of our current way of dealing
with issues in our justice system, we're seeing high rates of recidivism. We are
not seeing high rates of healing. We are not seeing high rates of
rehabilitation.
The
whole approach of restorative justice offers us increased healing and a feeling
of satisfaction on behalf of the victim, but also it looks at perhaps a decrease
in recidivism. Because what is being said in a healing circle in restorative
justice is being said to the – because what happens once you're incarcerated?
When you come out you are still seen as a social pariah.
If
you've had a criminal record, try getting a job. How many of our young people
have been incarcerated and then they have come out – perhaps they have been
incarcerated because of drug issues and addictions issues and then they come
out. They're no longer using. Maybe they've gotten a little bit of schooling at
Her Majesty's Penitentiary – certainly not enough.
There
are certainly not enough rehabilitation programs in our prisons across the
province, but maybe they come out and they're ready to work. They're ready to
re-enter society. They can't get work because they have a record, because
they've been incarcerated. So they continue to be excluded from our society,
excluded from our communities. They can't get work. They can't be fully
integrated. Sometimes landlords want to know whether or not you've been in
prison. It's hard for them to re-enter, to feel part of their community again.
These
are some of the issues that really restorative justice addresses. How do we, as
a community, deal with someone who has offended? How do we make sure they aren't
excluded from community? Because we know that once people are incarcerated, for
the most part, they re-enter community. If we make that really difficult for
people, that's when we see the high rates of recidivism.
Restorative justice is really about empathy. It asks the offender to take
responsibility for what they have done. That takes empathy. It asks the offender
to step inside the shoes of those who have been a victim of his or her actions.
Then, it
also asks for empathy from the community. It asks for the community to say we
understand what you have done, we do not condone what you have done, we accept
that you take responsibility for what you have done and we want to restore your
standing in community. We do not want to exclude you from our community. We want
to say you are welcome back into community but on these conditions.
So it
honours the needs of the victim, it honours the needs of the offender and it
honours the needs of the community. Again, the goal is to have a greater sense
of healing, a greater sense of rehabilitation, true rehabilitation, and a
greater sense of safety within the community, so that the community has a say
again in how we live together, how we deal with some of the problems that pop up
as we live together. Restorative justice is really also about our community.
Again, we have much to learn from indigenous communities who have practised this
for years.
I'd also
like to raise one particular issue about restorative justice. We know that Nova
Scotia has 32 programs. There are approximately 400 restorative justice programs
in Canada for adults and youth. We've done some work with youth in the area of
restorative justice. Many are run by indigenous organizations, by provincial
governments, by the John Howard Society and some other equality and social
justice groups.
Nova
Scotia has 32 groups; New Brunswick has 22 groups, including a provincial
Alternative Measures program for adults – and that's what we're talking about
because we really have nothing for our adults right now. We had similar
Alternative Measures program but the previous government in 2010 cancelled it. I
don't know why they would have done that, Mr. Speaker, because it was really
taking root and it was doing some very good work.
In
Newfoundland and Labrador, we really do need to develop more programs here. We
have some measures for youth and, again, there are two specific indigenous
programs that are listed by government, but we really need to look at what we
can do as an alternative measure for restorative justice.
The NDP
and my caucus supports the implementation of restorative justice practices in
accordance with UNDRIP, United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, that calls for restorative
justice and healing circles in the traditional indigenous manner. The Truth and
Reconciliation Commission, their Calls to
Action, also calls for restorative justice. In the Truth and Reconciliation,
Calls to Action, it's items 31, 32, 35, 42 and 50.
The
United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, in Article 5 they call for restorative
justice. Relationships First Newfoundland and Labrador are also calling for
restorative justice. I would like to say that as the NDP, for years we have been
calling for restorative justice as an alternative mechanism for dealing with
issues. A lot of this as well, when we look at restorative justice measures, we
can do work in conjunction and collaboration with indigenous communities who
have been leaders in our province in this area.
One of
the issues, though, I would like to raise is that a report from the Federal
Ombudsman for Victims of Crime – in 2016 Canada's Federal Ombudsman for Victims
of Crime made a submission to Status of Women Canada who were working on a
federal strategy to prevent and address gender-based violence. The ombudsman
ensures that the federal government meets its responsibilities to victims of
crime.
One of
its roles is to ensure that victim's voices are heard. That's one of the things
that victims often speak about in our mainstream justice program. Victims often
say they feel they are not heard, that their voices are not heard. We know how
important it is – particularly for victims of sexual violence, gender-based
violence, victims of domestic violence – that there's a strong need to be heard,
there's a strong need for a witness to hear the effects of the violence in their
lives.
One of
its roles again is to ensure that victims' voices are heard and that victims are
informed, considered, protected and supported in the criminal justice system and
in federal laws. We know there are some very particular issues around whether or
not restorative justice should be used in areas where there has been sexual
assault or gender-based domestic violence. Those are issues that women's groups
who have been working in the area of justice for victims really should have a
say in how we operationalize and roll out restorative justice in these ways.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
extremely happy to stand up and speak to this motion today. Unfortunately, I
won't be able to use all my time. There are so many people on this side that
have actually wanted to speak to this that we're trying our best to accommodate
everybody.
First of
all, I'd like to thank my colleague from Baie Verte - Green Bay for bringing
this in today. This is something that's not just work for me, it's a passion.
It's something that I'm very interested in. To see that it's a passion amongst
our caucus here is a great thing, and my other colleagues that have spoken.
I'll
just start off. When we think about restorative justice, basically, to me, it's
such a huge concept but one that in many ways is so simple. I don't think for a
second that we will not be able to accomplish the goals of restorative justice
here in this province; I think it requires a mindset change. I think it requires
people partnering and working together to make this happen, but I'm so confident
that we can do it.
When we
talk about restorative justice, it's basically taking a different approach to
the system that we use. It's one that is very much based on the victim. What I'm
going to do is I'm going to just talk about, basically, my introduction to this,
where we are.
One of
the big stories that's resonated with me from other provinces – and finally I
have some shout-outs that we have to give. There are a lot of good people
working on this in the province – a lot of good people. I've had the pleasure
and the benefit of working with them. I want to recognize them as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
When we talk about
restorative justice, I was actually introduced to it back when I was in
Opposition by a gentleman named Ken Templeton. He came in; I can still remember
the meeting very vividly where we talked about it. It was such a different
approach to how we do things.
I'd like
to think in this province that sometimes we have a crime-and-punishment
mentality. Not just in this province, it really exists in much of North America
where we look at people who have committed a wrong doing, a criminal wrong and
we think: Punish them, punish them. But we don't look at many other things that
are principles of sentencing like rehabilitation, deterrence and denunciation.
In many
cases, we also don't look at the person that the wrong was done against. We
don't look at what these people want. It's a change in philosophy, and one that
accomplishes all the goals that I set out, but also takes into consideration
maybe what the victim wants.
That was
brought up to me. Quite frankly, we're behind in this province, but we're not
behind due to the people that have been interested in it. I would imagine that
restorative justice – this is the first time that really it's been brought up by
government. That's because in the last two years our government has committed to
this, we've invested in this and we have a team approach to doing this. The good
news about that sometimes, being behind has one positive and that is you can
look elsewhere, see what's working and you can take that and make it yours.
There's no need to reinvent the wheel.
We've
had that benefit of looking to other provinces, jurisdictions and leaders and
saying we can do that. That's just within government because the fact is some of
the leaders in this movement are from here, are living here, are working here
and we're sending them elsewhere. Again, I'll get to that now in a second.
Perhaps
the greatest thing I can say about restorative justice is when you see it.
Somebody once told me that what we take in is basically 80 per cent visual. If
you can watch something it's a lot more powerful then reading it or hearing it.
That's why I would suggest to everyone – I wish I had the link here today that I
could put out. The Government of Nova Scotia has a really powerful small video –
very short, about five minutes – that talks about restorative justice.
If I
could sort of give you the takeaway or paraphrase the video in words, basically
it talks about a situation over in Antigonish, a real-life situation where we
had a young girl, a college student, got intoxicated one night – as many people
have done and will continue to do, that's very human – and did something out of
character. Had never been in trouble but damaged a local small business's
property, I think. Smashed in the gate and went in and then took some of the
money from the till.
Obviously, this was very upsetting to the small business owner. The usual
practice is we find the individual, we investigate, we charge, we bring them to
court and we penalize them, but that doesn't benefit the store owner. In many
cases they don't want somebody to be punished in the traditional way of jail,
they want to know why and they want to know how. In some cases, they just want
to feel reassured that the situation was fixed. Why did this happen?
What
happened in this case, they were brought together. How is a criminal record
going to help this girl's case? Out of school, not able to contribute in her
community, working, anything else, volunteering over a simple human mistake? To
err is to be human, to be human is to err. We do it. We all do it. None of us
are perfect. In this case, the person made a bad decision. It didn't involve
harming somebody else physically; it involved making a stupid decision under the
influence of alcohol.
What
happened was they brought them together. This person just wanted to be
apologized to. They wanted to feel safe. They brought them together and that was
more difficult than any court process. This person could go in and give
testimony. This person is going to go in and deal with it, but that's not going
to help these people. What happened, this person actually came and volunteered
in the small business, worked there. To make a long story short, the wrong was
righted. The victim felt 10 times better with this process than any regular
court process.
I would
say to those out there that might question it: Who did it hurt? It didn't hurt
anybody out there. The provisions are there in the
Criminal Code to allow this. We've been doing it for years,
especially in youth criminal justice. In this case, it was a win-win for
everybody.
To those
who suggested we should have penalized this person and put them in jail, I say
fine. To incarcerate one person is roughly $110,000 per year, per person. So
let's jail everybody. Your taxes are going to have to go up to pay for it.
AN HON. MEMBER:
How much?
MR. A. PARSONS:
It's $110,000 a year, per
person. Incarceration is not the right approach to everybody.
Lest it
be confused and some people say soft on crime – I heard it mentioned here –
there's nothing soft on crime. It's being smart. Some offences can't go this
route and some offences can. It's a case-by-case basis. It's working elsewhere.
Before I
end, Mr. Speaker, we've done a lot in the two years we've been doing this. There
is a lot of work going on in the department, different steps we want to take.
We're working on things like bail reform. We're working on different forms of
courts, drug treatment courts. We're working on expanding the Family Violence
court. We're looking at providing advice to those who have been sexually
assaulted. These are just some of the things. Some of it is restorative and some
is not.
I
visited the court in Conne River. I went down and talked to Chief Misel Joe
about what they've done. He said it's amazing, some of these offenders will tell
you it was a lot worse to sit there with your family and community around you
than it is to appear in front of a judge. It works and we can continue. It's
already been here, we just have to take and expand it.
In
ending, I do want to toss a shout out. I've been lucky to meet with some great
people doing this work, people like Linda Ross, Dorothy Vaandering, Ken
Templeton, Rose Ricciardelli, Jennifer Mercer, Kevin O'Shea, PLIAN and the
Status of Women. We have the community champions out there doing the work and
they're working with us. They're not working two separate silos going forward;
we're going together hand in hand. We're going to make it happen. It's for the
betterment of everybody.
I was
just down at HMP again this morning visiting with workers and inmates. We can
keep building a bigger box, but if we don't look at the underlying reasons why
people are there, we'll never address the issue. That's why restorative justice
will work because we're working with offenders but, mostly, we're working with
victims and we're working at making the wrongs right.
On that
note, I appreciate the time to speak to this. I'll be supporting it. Thank you
to my colleagues for bringing it up today.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the Member speaks now he
will close debate.
The hon.
Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a pleasure to rise. I took several notes along the way, so they're all
scattered. I want to just make sure that I get this in order.
I
certainly appreciate the comments, Mr. Speaker, of all my colleagues on both
sides of this House. I listened attentively to all that they said and most, if
not all, I agree with.
I want
to thank the following Members; the Member for Conception Bay South who talked
about a mother, a parent, who had gone through a terrible incident in some part
of the US, but through the restorative justice program, actually became an
advocate for it in the end. A good-news story came from that terrible incident.
I want
to talk as well and thank the Member for Torngat Mountains who spoke, Mr.
Speaker, about the Aboriginal methods of restorative justice and their customary
laws. I appreciate everything that he said. He just brought it to a whole new
perspective when he stood in his place and talked about the indigenous community
and about their Aboriginal methods. It's something that I won't forget.
The
Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island, I certainly want to say I
appreciate his comments as well. He talked about an inclusive approach and the
intervention. He talked about the alternatives to the justice system and really,
Mr. Speaker, getting back to the basics. He touched as well on the limitations
to the system. He spoke about the volunteer process in restorative justice as
well. He talked about persons with mental health and PTSD issues and how to deal
with those certain situations as well.
I want
to talk and thank the Member for St. John's West and the Minister Responsible
for the Status of Women, who talked about restorative justice and dealing with
the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. She talked about
the fact that their policy recognized restorative justice as a proactive or
preventative practice, not as a response to a conflict but a school-wide
practice that would develop a culture in which conflict is less likely to occur
and when it does can be responded to in a manner that is inclusive, respectful
and obviously an opportunity for learning. I certainly appreciate her comments
as well.
I want
to thank the MHA for St. John's Centre who talked about the focus on what the
Justice system can do to help communities restore justice within their own
community. She talked about offenders re-entering the community, and she talked
about restorative justice is about empathy. I certainly concur with her thoughts
on that as well. She talked about we have so much to learn from the indigenous
community and the importance of developing programs. She talked about the
importance as well of the fact that victims will have the opportunity to have
their voices heard.
Last,
but not least, Mr. Speaker, the MHA for
Burgeo - La Poile and the Minister of Justice
and Public Safety who's recognizing the people and the groups in the province
who are working on restorative justice programs. He talked about the fact that
our province is just adapting to restorative justice and the programs, and the
fact that it's a benefit to us that we can see what's working elsewhere within
the country.
He talked about the young girl – I think his comment
was to err is to be human, and talked about the young girl from Antigonish.
Something like the personal story I shared in my opening comments about my own
personal opportunities, that I had to speak to people who have offended. Like I
said, it was a good exercise from where I sat and it's something that I
certainly wouldn't hesitate to do again if I had the opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I missed a few comments in my opening, but
I want to talk about restorative justice in schools. In 2012, 17 Newfoundland
and Labrador educators spent two weeks exploring the
possibilities of
Relationships First: Restorative Justice in Education. Their goal was to work
towards creating and sustaining healthy, inclusive relationships in schools.
Relationships First: Restorative Justice in Education Consortium was formed in
2014. The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development has been an
active member as part of its Safe & Caring Schools Policy. The policy views
restorative justice as a proactive or preventive practice as opposed to a
response to a conflict.
Mr.
Speaker, in the UK, schools have introduced restorative justice practices in
order to try and reduce the number of expulsions from schools. By changing the
approach to discipline in schools, they are hoping to change the way kids and
teachers deal with conflict resolution.
Restorative justice processes in schools are said to move towards understanding
why incidents that would normally result in punishment happen in the first place
and work to remedy the situation if possible instead of blindly punishing the
individual. Research has suggested that the zero-tolerance policies which result
in suspensions and expulsions have been linked to long-term mental health issues
and future criminal behaviour.
I think
that says it all in that statement, Mr. Speaker, of where we are going with this
private Member's resolution. Again, I certainly want to thank my colleagues on
the government side here for giving me the opportunity to raise this important
Member's motion, given me the opportunity to speak to it. I thank all Members in
the House today who have spoken to it and who have supported it.
Mr.
Speaker, I will take my seat and respectfully ask for your support in going
forward with this private Member's resolution today.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
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.
It being
Wednesday, and in accordance with Standing Order 9, this House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 1:30 o'clock.