November 5, 2019
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIX No. 13
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
Admit strangers.
Order,
please!
We have
several guests in the public galleries with us today. I'd like to welcome Bill
Tizzard, Cyril Sears and Crystal Hill from the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 1,
visiting this afternoon for a Member's statement.
I would
also like to recognize members of the RNC's Intimate Partner Violence Unit, here
today for a Ministerial Statement, as well as representatives of the Paramedic
Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, also joining us for a Ministerial
Statement.
I also
understand the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development's sister is
here today in the gallery.
Lastly,
I would like to welcome Ms. Delahunty's grade eight class from Amalgamated
Academy in Bay Roberts today.
Welcome
all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we have Members'
statements from the Members for the Districts of Windsor Lake, St. John's
Centre, Topsail - Paradise, Terra Nova and Torngat Mountains.
The hon.
the Member for Windsor Lake.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you kindly, Mr.
Speaker.
Surrounded by friends and family, Denley Stone passed away on October 17 in
Clarenville from complications of diabetes, aged 72. Eulogist Ross Wiseman
mentioned one of Den's final acts, which deserves the attention of all who doubt
the resiliency of our system of government.
In
palliative care and looking eternity in the eye, Den made a profound commitment
to the democratic system of government which defines the Canadian identity, and
in which Den had invested his life as a volunteer and committed pillar of his
community. Two days before he passed, he summoned electoral officials, signed
his name to a special ballot and voted.
No truer
love for our institutions of government and the privileges it brings has any
person. May our younger generation carry his torch.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A spirit
of service defines the work of Branch 1 of the Royal Canadian Legion, and makes
it the heart of St. John's Centre. Whether it's a bring-back-summer BBQ dinner
and dance, an Elvis tribute concert, or a St. Patrick's Day dart tournament,
Branch 1 finds creative ways to bring all members of the community together.
The
first event I attended as MHA was the legion's Christmas in July party. Bouncy
castles, a visit from firefighters, music, games of chance, a Christmas tree,
and of course, a visit from Santa Claus all made for a fun time for the many
families who attended, and I even got to play mummer – not pretty.
Branch 1
also looks after its own. The branch purchased two blanket-warming machines for
veterans living at the Veterans Pavilion and twice a year prepares meals for
them. It organizes events to acknowledge the service and dedication of its
members and veterans, and to award scholarships to well-deserving students. The
branch truly serves its community and country.
As we
approach November 11, it's important to reflect on the other mission of the
legion: to promote remembrance.
I ask
you now to join me in expressing gratitude to the members of Branch 1 for their
service to our community, our veterans, active military members and their
families.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today, I
rise to recognize a number of young athletes from Octagon Pond Elementary who
have had an impressive standing during the Annual Newfoundland and Labrador
Athletics Association Cross-country Running Series for Schools, which took place
this past September and October.
The
school placed first in the boys 2010 category for all three meets, and Ella
Meade placed third in the girls 2009 category. In all three boys meets, Theo
Tocknell placed second. Luke Fahey placed third in the first meet, and Ryder
Mugford placed third in the second meet. A great show by all.
In
preparation for the meets, the students would run in the school gym and the
school grounds and use the beautiful trails of Paradise. Where obesity among
young children is on the rise, it is encouraging to see young children being so
active. The school tries to instill a love of running while being active and
being part of a team which fosters a great sense of community within their
school.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask Members to join me in congratulating all athletes, and Octagon
Pond Elementary school, on a job well done.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
this hon. House to congratulate the Bonavista Bay Search and Rescue team based
in Glovertown, who celebrated their 25th anniversary on November 2.
Volunteerism is never more evident than it is with these organizations. Often,
they embark on searches not knowing what the outcomes will be. As individuals of
the public, we only see happy outcomes. This is not always the case.
These
members undergo extensive training with the RCMP in mapping, compass-reading,
survival training, and some have even received helicopter and dog-search
training. They put themselves out there so that others may live.
I would
like to make a special mention of Alton Reid, who recently passed away, and
thank his family for his 23 years of service to search and rescue.
Having
personally worked with 103 Search and Rescue, I understand first-hand the
sacrifices that organizations like this make. They put their lives on the line
every time they receive a call.
Today, I
would like to thank the Bonavista Bay Search and Rescue team, along with all
other such organizations, for the good work they do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
I rise today to pay tribute
to Tim McNeill, honorary recipient of the doctor of laws degree from Memorial
University in the fall of 2019.
A true
advocate, Tim came from humble beginnings. Born and raised in Makkovik,
Labrador, he had to leave home at the age of 13 to attend residential school in
North West River. He later studied at Memorial University and Mount Saint
Vincent University in Nova Scotia. Maybe it was this struggle that made him such
a strong advocate for Inuit access to education.
In 1990,
Tim became education advisor to the president of the Labrador Inuit Association,
a role he continued until 2005 when he was appointed deputy minister of
Nunatsiavut government's Department of Education and Economic Development.
Tim's
vision helped develop education programs for Inuit including the Inuit northern
nursing program, the Inuit Bachelor of Social Work program, and the Inuit
Bachelor of Education program.
Tim also
helped to develop key training opportunities for Inuit with Voisey's Bay mining
project, Lower Churchill project, and the Voisey's Bay Mine Expansion project.
He also
served on the National Committee on Inuit Education, which led to the creation
of the National Strategy on Inuit Education. Tim continues to be a strong
advocate in advancing Inuit education.
Please
join me in recognizing his contribution to the Inuit of Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
I rise today to recognize
November as National Adoption Awareness Month and November 9 as World Adoption
Day.
These
observances give us an opportunity to celebrate adoptive families for the
incredible role they play in the lives of children and youth.
When
families choose to adopt, they are making a decision that will change many
lives, as a child gains a loving home and the family gains an enriching
experience with a lifetime of joy.
Mr.
Speaker, our government appreciates how critically important it is to have
permanence in children's lives for their healthy development.
That is
why, in 2018 and again in 2019, we dedicated additional resources to matching
children and youth to adoptive families. I am very pleased to say this
initiative is producing many positive results.
In June,
we announced that we are undertaking the five-year statutory review of our
adoption legislation. Later this fall, we are looking forward to hearing from
key stakeholders and the public as we gather valuable input on how the
legislation affects children, youth and families in our province.
We are
committed to continuing to strengthen our legislation and practice in this very
important area.
Mr.
Speaker, I invite all of my hon. colleagues in this House to join me in
celebrating the many families who have chosen adoption, and in doing so, have
created or expanded their families by providing children of all ages with a
permanent home.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want
to thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I join the minister
to recognize November as National Adoption Awareness Month. Families opening
their homes for children and youth are playing a significant role in ensuring
these children are nurtured with love and happiness. We should be thankful to
the key stakeholders engaged in ensuring children receive the best care
possible.
On
behalf of the Official Opposition, our sincere appreciation to our many adoptive
families.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I join in recognizing
National Adoption Awareness Month and World Adoption Day. We, as parents, do not
own our children. We are there to love them and guide them in their life
choices. This is especially true for adoptive families.
In a
statutory review, we hope to hear more about supports for families and progress
being made in placing more children in loving, permanent homes.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to share an experience I recently had when I came upon an
accident while travelling in my district.
In my
previous career, I was used to being the one on the receiving end. The one at
the hospital ready when accident victims and their family members arrived.
On this
particular day, however, the tables were turned. In the midst of upset, I saw
first-hand our paramedics in action. Calm, cool and collected. They displayed
the utmost professionalism and were ready to help in any way they could.
Mr.
Speaker, today on their Day of Advocacy, I want to recognize the Paramedic
Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, and all of our hardworking paramedics
across the province. They play a key role in delivering services with a shared
objective of having healthier people, families and communities.
We value
our working relationship. We will continue to work closely with the association
and our communities as we take steps to improve services province-wide.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Opposition House
Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to join with the minister to recognize the Paramedic
Association of Newfoundland and Labrador on their day of advocacy.
Paramedics provide a critical service in our province. They tend to our friends,
families and loved ones in times of urgent need. They often carry out these
duties in challenging circumstances, circumstances that in some occasions can
mean a difference between life and death.
On this
day of advocacy, I invite all Members of this hon. House to listen to the
concerns of the paramedics of our province. On every single day, they work
diligently to save the lives of others. Let's work just as diligently to
collaborate to improve upon their issues and concerns.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We owe a great deal to our
professional paramedics. When you need them, they are there.
With
respect, I remind the minister, government also needs to be there for them. One
of the many concerns the Paramedic Association has is the need for their service
to remain public and deemed an essential service. None of us want to see profit
introduced in the financing model of the vital service they provide.
We thank
our paramedics for taking such good care of us in our most trying times.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further Ministerial
Statements?
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am
proud today to stand here and recognize three outstanding members of the Royal
Newfoundland Constabulary.
The
RNC's Intimate Partner Violence Unit, consisting of Constable Lindsay Dillon,
Constable Nadia Churchill and Ms. Malin-Enström, received a Public Service Award
of Excellence in September – the highest honour an employee can receive from the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Some of
the initiatives of the Intimate Partner Violence Unit include: a pet safekeeping
program that provides emergency shelter for pets belonging to victims leaving
violent relationships; a lock exchange program that sees replacement locks
installed at homes of women who live in fear; and a cellphone program which
provides mobile devices to survivors who have had theirs damaged or stolen.
The unit
is a small but dedicated team that focuses on building trusting relationships
with survivors and communities. Using a person-centred approach, the team builds
trust between police and the community, helping to break down barriers for
people experiencing violence. The RNC's Intimate Partner Violence Unit helps
survivors feel respected, heard and safe.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank Constables Dillon and Churchill, and
Ms. Enström for truly demonstrating a commitment to building safe and healthy
communities.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
I'd like
to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement, and I'd like to join
him in honouring the members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary's Intimate
Partner Violence Unit: Constable Lindsay Dillon, Constable Nadia Churchill, and
Ms. Malin Enström, who just received a Public Service Award of Excellence – the
consummate honour for public servants.
Interpersonal violence is a nightmare for those who endure it. Without the
assistance of police officers and community groups, where would these survivors
end up? I applaud these three individuals and all of their colleagues and
like-minded individuals who are working with survivors on the very real
challenges they face as they endeavour to escape violence.
As we
debate a bill this afternoon, let's all take time to appreciate those who do
this work, and let's encourage the government to do even more to support the
personnel and programs that keep vulnerable people safe.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I, too, congratulate these
RNC officers and staff on their exceptional work. Anyone can be the victim of
intimate partner violence, and it is important that we provide support for those
in dangerous relationships who make the decision to escape them. All these
programs remove barriers to getting out of an abusive relationship.
I'm also
happy to note that the RNC and groups in my colleague's District of Labrador
West have recently initiated these programs. This is an excellent initiative,
and I look forward to seeing them roll out province-wide.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further Ministerial
Statements?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, under the
equalization system adopted by the Trudeau federal government, Quebec receives
over $13 billion this year, which allows them benefits of a social nature
including the most affordable child care in the country. We receive nothing.
Does the
Premier think this is fair to this province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
no. I've said publicly that I don't think it's fair, but I also don't think it's
fair when the Leader of the Opposition is basically putting this in the lap of
just one prime minister. If he remembers, it was actually the Stephen Harper
formula that we are now working under, Mr. Speaker. That is the formula we're
working under.
I'm
going to be tabling some letters in a few minutes that was asked of yesterday.
I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition must have those since they were publicly
released, and just a Google search would've had those.
Mr.
Speaker, we do not agree with the current formula. That has been very clear.
I've spoken loudly about that, Mr. Speaker. I've spoken to the prime minister,
but it is a federal program, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition. He is
very aware of that, and it was one that was designed by his friend, Stephen
Harper.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, as we seen on
other occasions, the Premier is very fond of resurrecting ancient past history.
The present equalization program was rolled over without any conversation or
discussion by the Trudeau government last year.
The
Government of Nova Scotia has been running surpluses for four years now and
boosting health and education spending and cutting taxes. All the while, they
received $2 billion in equalization yearly.
Does the
Premier think this is fair?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you,
there are a lot of unfair things that happen in our society. One of the things
that is very unfair is what this province is subject to as a result of the
project that you exposed it to.
We're
currently having discussions – and I see your Members over there laughing right
now. Mr. Speaker, I see some there right now. Maybe they're not concerned about
the high cost of electricity rates in our province – nearly seeing the doubling
of electricity rates, Mr. Speaker. These are ongoing discussions we are having
with the federal government right now.
In the
letter that I will table shortly, you will not see any recognition or any
acknowledgement by your leader, Andrew Scheer, of the priority of rate
mitigation to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
The Premier says you, and I'm
not sure who he's talking to.
As for
our leader, Andrew Scheer, the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador is its own
separate party. The Conservative Party of Canada is its own separate party.
This
year, the New Brunswick government tabled a balanced budget that will see the
province's net debt decrease for the fist time in more than a decade, partly
because they received more than $2 billion this year in equalization. They got a
similar amount for years now.
Does the
Premier think this is fair to this province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, no, it's not
fair. It's not fair what's happening in Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick, Quebec,
Ontario and Manitoba right now. It is not fair the way the equalization formula
is designed. We have made that quite clear.
Now,
when he talks about his separate party – although, I do remember the 40 minute
meeting you had with Mr. Scheer out by the airport. So for you to say it's a
separate party, Mr. Speaker, I'd ask you: Why did you even go there if you want
to separate yourself from Mr. Scheer?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Unlike the hon. Premier, I
take every opportunity I'm offered to lobby on behalf of the interests of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSBIE:
I'm glad he brought up his
dissatisfaction with the unfairness of the system, because in March 2017, the
Premier said: “We're going to stand up for this province and … make sure that we
get our share.” But he's sat on his hands ever since.
Does the
Premier think this is finally the time to stand up and fight?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
it's really a political stunt that we see from the Leader of the Opposition, to
suggest I'm not speaking up for this province on things like rate mitigation.
These are discussions that are ongoing with all levels of the federal
government.
Mr.
Speaker, I will say, I have not been silent on issues that impact our province
when it comes to dealing with the federal government – not been silent at all.
There's been over $2.5 billion that has come in from the Atlantic Accord that
you – I would say to the Leader of the Opposition – misled the people of the
province about the value of that to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
There is
a lot of work to be done when you look at the unfairness the people of this
province has been subjected to. Some of those decisions were made by the party
that he is now leading.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Independent commentators, Mr.
Speaker, have valued the Premier's so-called Atlantic Accord deal, the Hibernia
dividend deal, at $66 million a year, while the missing equalization payments to
us that he's failed to secure are worth hundreds of millions.
We
believe that we need, in this province, fundamental long-term changes to the
Canadian system of equalization, and the way to get federal attention on it is
through a referendum.
Is the
Premier going to stand up and fight for equalization reform with the new federal
Liberal minority government, and how does he plan to get their attention?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will
tell you, I will always stand up when it comes to bringing benefits for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we have brought quite a few of those
benefits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are
political stunts the Leader of the Opposition is referring to today. I'm
surprised it took him four questions to get to where he really wants to be.
Mr.
Speaker, when you look at the whole idea of a referendum, number one, it is not
legally binding in our province. Number two, it would not trigger the opening of
any equalization formula change. It just simply would not do that, Mr. Speaker.
We
widely know some of the political stunts the Leader of the Opposition has been
trying lately, and this referendum is just another one of those stunts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the provision of Emergency Health
and Paramedicine Services Act received Royal Assent on December 5, 2018, but
is not in force. The minister said the regulations could be in place within six
months or less, as it was a priority for his department. It is now almost a year
later.
I ask
the minister: When will the regulations be completed?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Again,
I'd like to recognize the work our paramedics do. I see some of them in the
gallery; they were in the department this morning. I'd say to them what we said
this morning: They don't need a day of advocacy to get through our doors,
they're always open.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
We have been working
diligently with the regulation piece. There are a lot of moving parts to it. We
are breaking ground in this province, Mr. Speaker. The important thing is to get
it right.
The
discussions with the Paramedic Association of Newfoundland and Labrador will
continue, and we look forward to getting them right. That's the important thing.
It's on its way.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Opposition House
Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do
agree with the minister that you want to get it right, but time is very
important here. We have professionals who can provide better services with
better dialogue.
Our
caucus met with the Paramedic Association of Newfoundland and Labrador today.
They shared their views on how to improve paramedicine services in our province.
To date, they've been consulted on equipment requirements for ambulances only,
but not on other issues that are important for the regulations under the new
act.
I ask
the minister: Does he plan to consult with the paramedicine association to seek
their input before finalizing the regulations?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Several things in that
question, Mr. Speaker. We went to the paramedicine association today. So, yes,
to the latter half of the question.
In terms
of increasing the scope of service, community paramedicine, paramedicine at the
end of life and these kind of newer approaches to defuse primary care are
already started in this province. We have projects in Lourdes with community
paramedicine. We have over 250 patients at the end of their life enrolled
through Eastern Health's special patient number paramedicine-delivered service,
going to their houses to save these individuals trips that are difficult to the
hospital where paramedics can treat and leave these individuals in comfort in
their own home.
Yes, Mr.
Speaker, it's come, it's here and will get better with time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Opposition House
Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, a provincial centralized medical dispatch was the cornerstone of the
Fitch report and is the key to improving ambulance services. Fitch recommended
in 2013 that it be operational within 18 months. Six years later, it's still not
in place.
Minister, when will the provincial centralization medical dispatch be fully
implemented?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Health
and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I would
point out that the 18-month deadline from 2013 fell clearly in the Member
opposite's rule prior to the election.
Having
said that, Mr. Speaker, Central Medical Dispatch in Eastern Health is up and
running. We are in discussions with the ambulance providers because, courtesy of
the old-style contract arrangement we have with them, we do not yet have the
agreements in place for the private operators to use Central Medical Dispatch.
That is on the horizon and is part of the ongoing work of negotiations with the
private operators. Again, it's nearly there, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, last week, the
community of Noels Pond and the Town of Stephenville were impacted by flooding
caused by significant rainfall. Flooding is not something new to the people who
live in these areas. In fact, they have had their land and their homes held
ransom for way too long.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: Will he immediately take the necessary steps and
action to permanently fix this problem?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the Member for the question. Mr. Speaker, as the Member alluded to, this has
been an ongoing issue for many, many, many years. I think there has been a
bypass road that previous administrations announced a numerous amount of times.
It's something I can assure the Member that we take seriously. There are some
issues around actually how we would do it.
Mr.
Speaker, if the Member opposite would like to sit down with myself and discuss
some of those options, I would be more than open to doing it.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, because of the
continued flooding in Noels Pond and surrounding areas of Stephenville, farmers
are not able to plant crops, so valuable farmland is not being used. This
drainage issue is a man-made problem and requires a man-made solution.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister to commit that he will ensure a solution is
implemented so that the people living in the area do not have to continue to
worry about future damage due to flooding.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Again, I
thank the Member for the question. Mr. Speaker, in 2018 we did take some
mitigating measures during that construction season. Obviously, there's more
that needs to be done. Again, if the Member would like to take the opportunity
to sit down and have a discussion about it, I'm more than open to that
discussion.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development is aware that there's a
child with a physical disability in my district who spends time in a
split-parenting arrangement. While alternate transportation with a student
assistant is provided while the child resides at the mother's home, it is not
provided while the child lives at the father's home.
How can
the minister justify this blatant example of discrimination?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
had conversations with the hon. Member opposite. Certainly, it's a situation
that I've addressed. I sent the hon. Member back an email to that, and I wish
not to speak to specifics with regard to this case, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, we're
in the House of Assembly and the minister said he can't comment. We need to be
able to discuss and debate important issues of public interest like this.
We
understand that the request was originally approved by the Newfoundland and
Labrador English School District, but overturned by the minister's department.
I'm extremely disappointed by the minister's callous disregard shown to this
child, and that he would allow this nickel-and-diming towards the most
vulnerable in our society.
Why is
the minister turning his back on this child with a physical disability?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
I take some exception, Mr.
Speaker, to the hon. Member's comments. I take exception to that. She clearly
read the email that I sent her, even though she didn't acknowledge the fact that
she read it. She asked me for my input, I sent her back an email and she didn't
acknowledge it.
To her
point, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the alternate transportation, the student
lives outside the alternate transportation area. And I'm not going to comment
again to the specifics of that, but she alludes to the fact that the district
approved it and the department disapproved it. That is not accurate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
There appears to
be a strict adherence to a rigid policy here.
I ask
the minister: Is that more important than the right of a child to an education?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, again, I'm not
going to debate this on the House of Assembly floor. If the hon. Member wishes
to meet with me face to face and have this discussion, I'm willing to do that at
any time. But again, I'm not going to speak to specifics with regard to this
issue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just one
clarification: I mentioned yesterday about the school with the model of where
children come first. Maybe we should always look at all policies that we have
and hold dear and really have it that where children come first would be our
primary goal.
Mr.
Speaker, the Newfoundland and Labrador English School District has embarked upon
another five school systems with a review to closing schools.
Can the
minister update this House on what parameters his department has given the board
to find efficiencies?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Reviews
by the school board happen on a regular basis. It's important to note that the
review does not necessarily mean that the school be closed. This is a district,
Mr. Speaker, that are doing their due diligence. It's something that's done on
an annual basis and I'd be disappointed, really, with the district if they
didn't do it.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The last
time the Newfoundland and Labrador English school board conducted a review of
school systems, the Board of Trustees ultimately rejected five of the six
recommendations and only closed one school with no students.
Mr.
Speaker, why is the minister causing stress and anxiety for our students and
parents in Marystown, Stephenville, Pilley's Island, Glovertown and Carmanville
areas if the process is flawed and will ultimately be rejected?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the
hon. Member had pointed out, there are five areas of which there are going to be
reviews. One of those areas, Mr. Speaker, is in my own district. It is a part of
a process that is ongoing. The district, again, are doing their due diligence
and following through on making sure that the policies are adhered to and
they're looking at all schools, Mr. Speaker. These are the five that they've
acknowledged this year and are going to be doing their review.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland
and Labrador English School District passed a resolution in June of 2018 to
postpone any further school review processes, pending the minister's
departmental review of the Schools Act which started well over a year ago.
Again,
why is the minister allowing the board to contravene their own decision in these
communities?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Again, Mr. Speaker, the
school district, they have obligations here to government. They have obligations
to the schools. They have obligations to the province as a whole and they're
just doing their due diligence. There's nothing more, nothing less than that.
They have a fiduciary responsibility at the district level and they're just
carrying that through, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My
question is for the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development again.
Media reports have documented the sad story of a grade 12 student, Alex Mercer,
who has been the subject of harassment and homophobia in one of our schools for
months.
After
bravely facing taunts and name calling for months, the family feels the system
failed Alex and turned a blind eye towards this reprehensible behaviour.
Will the
minister commit to a review of this situation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, it's disturbing
to hear of such incidents. Student safety must be top of mind at all times in
everything we do, whether it's in school, outside of school or in our
communities. Mr. Speaker, we work closely with the school districts to ensure a
safe environment for all our students.
Again,
I'll be willing to sit down with the hon. Member to discuss this incident
further, and we'll commit to the review, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, Alex Mercer was
relentlessly bullied to the point he has left the province and has relocated to
Fort McMurray to finish the school year. Alex stated: I no longer feel safe in
the school.
In light
of this shocking admission, how can the minister assure us that the Safe &
Caring Schools Policy is working?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
I'm glad the hon. Member brought up the Safe & Caring Schools Policy, Mr.
Speaker. We're in a position right now where we're reviewing that particular
policy and, certainly, these incidents that the hon. Member has mentioned.
Again,
safety has to be top of mind with regard to our students. I take that, as do my
government, very seriously and we'll ensure that those policies are put in
place.
Again,
with regard to our educators, Mr. Speaker, it's important to note as well that
we'll put training in the area of being able to recognize these incidents before
they happen.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
I thank the minister for the review.
Will the
minister ask the Child and Youth Advocate to review systematic bullying in our
schools?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
I didn't hear the question, Mr. Speaker.
MR. PARDY:
I'm just asking: Will the minister ask the Child and Youth Advocate to review
systematic bullying in our schools?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
It is our plan, Mr. Speaker, to be sitting down with the Child and Youth
Advocate fairly soon, so I'll make sure that it's brought up.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In a
recent media story on school violence, 9 per cent of boys and 15 per cent of
girls reported having been sexually assaulted. This means that in a class of 20
females, three report having been sexually assaulted by another student.
Mr.
Speaker, what is the minister going to do to respond to this situation?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Again, Mr. Speaker, it's our
intention to work closely with the school district to ensure a safe environment
for all students. School administrators have been directed to report any
allegation of sexual misconduct to the regional assistant director of education.
Mr.
Speaker, again, we're doing a review of our Safe & Caring Schools Policy and,
certainly, this will be part of the review. To the Member's question, we take
this very seriously.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm sure
the minister does, no doubt.
One
thing I would include in a review is that a national recommendation for school
psychologists would be one in 750 students. A part of the review ought to look
at the available school psychologists, for example, in the Avalon East which
would be one for 2,600. I think you can look at school counsellors in the same.
When we
looked at yesterday with the size of Heritage Collegiate where we have 33
students, the number of practitioners we have in our school system is certainly
impacting a lot of the things that the questions evolved around and should be an
integral part of the review.
The
story also documented, the one I referenced recently –
MR. SPEAKER:
I'd ask the Member to ask his
question immediately.
MR. PARDY:
I will.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
The
story also documented troubling stories of a lack of documenting and reporting
of sexual incidents –
MR. SPEAKER:
I ask the Member to ask his
question.
MR. PARDY:
I'm asking it right now, Sir.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MR. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, thank you.
What has
the minister done to ensure appropriate reporting of these incidents, including
notifying respective law enforcement agencies and the Child and Youth Advocate?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
Member for the question.
In the
English School District, incidents of a sexual nature are recorded in Review
360, a program designed to provide data on all manner of behavioural incidents
within the school environments.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the
face of climate change, Equinor, our planned Bay du Nord partner, has a
transition plan to get off oil. The Way
Forward is not a transition plan.
I ask
the Premier: If an oil company can have a detailed transition plan to get off
oil, why can't we?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What we
know about the use of oil in our society today, it is still – from what we've
been told and from what expectations would be is that the forecast is still to
increase between now and 2040. Mr. Speaker, when you look at the GDP in our
province right now, it's about 17 per cent dependent on oil, which is
considerably less than where it was a few years ago.
Mr.
Speaker, what I will say, as I mentioned here yesterday, when you look at
climate change, this is a global problem. When you look at the amount of carbon
per barrel of oil, Newfoundland and Labrador has some of the best in the world.
So it's not unusual that companies like Equinor are looking at places like
Newfoundland to invest, simply because the oil offshore Newfoundland and
Labrador is some of the best and cleanest in the world.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Minister of Justice, will he spare the Auditor General an onerous, costly
and divisive investigation and simply tell us why government did not cap the
Muskrat Falls wetlands?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, I'd love to spare the Auditor General investigation, but the reality
is I'm still wondering why I wasn't called to testify before the Commission of
Inquiry. I'd be happy to speak about it.
Given
the fact it was brought forward to the PAC and it has been moved to the Auditor
General, I think I'm in a position where I will wait to hear from the Auditor
General and I will be more than happy to tell my side.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. BROWN:
Mr. Speaker, in Labrador West
people are couch-surfing, living in cars, using and losing temporary housing.
Homelessness is increasing in the wealthiest district per capita in the
province, and across Labrador.
I ask
the Premier: Is this his idea of the way forward?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member, my colleague from Labrador, for the question. It gives me an
opportunity to talk about some of the important work that's happening with
housing, Mr. Speaker.
Back in
the spring we signed an agreement, the Premier and I, with the federal
government; a $270 million agreement that will represent an historic level of
investment in this province, Mr. Speaker.
What the
Member is referring to is he makes his home in a mining town where a lot of
times we see boom and bust, boom and bust. We're grateful to see that the mining
activity is increasing there right now, but oftentimes that comes with
challenges on the housing side.
I've
been in touch with the Member. We have a number of vacant units in Labrador
West, Mr. Speaker, and we are sending a technician there. We are going to do
whatever we can to get those vacant units open to decrease the number of people
wait-listed in the Labrador West area.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment said he would not
comment on a case before the court, and I was not asking for a comment. I was
asking if he would render the case unnecessary. So this question is for the
Premier.
Given
the environmental disaster of some 2.6 million salmon deaths in Northern Harvest
sea pens and the fact that an additional 2.2 million salmon may be destined for
the same pens, I ask the Premier: Is he seriously considering proceeding with
another costly court case instead of ordering a full environment assessment that
includes the open-net sea pens?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, before the hon.
Member qualifies and dictates that there was an environmental disaster, I would
encourage the Member to seek informed opinion, informed advice. The Department
of Fisheries and Oceans Canada is conducting an investigation under their
jurisdiction. The extent of that investigation should be revealed by them.
I would
encourage all hon. Members and any one who has an interest in this issue to
reach out, as I have done, to the federal government to seek exactly where this
may lie, if there any charges pending under the
Fisheries Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canada
Shipping Act or the Migratory Birds Convention Act. With that information, we can all make better decisions as well,
Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Again, I'm asking not about
the investigation by DFO, I'm asking about the ecojustice court challenge that
will start tomorrow.
I'm
asking, simply by allowing a full environmental assessment of the sea pens, we
can nullify the expense to the province and get some straight answers that might
even help with the investigation that the minister just referred. So, I would
like an answer on the ecojustice case.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. BRAGG:
The case in which the hon.
Member refers to is before the courts and while it is before the courts, we will
not be making any comment on that case. When it comes out of the courts, Mr.
Speaker, we will comment at that time.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, in Question Period, the Leader of the Opposition made reference to
some letters that came back to the province in response to a letter that I sent
to all national leaders.
Mr.
Speaker, I will say before I table these reports – I have them here – they have
been publicly available now for a few weeks. The information is there and I'm
sure it will be interesting reading for the Leader of the Opposition. Especially
the one I would draw his attention to is the one from Mr. Andrew Scheer.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The
Automobile Insurance Act, Bill 9.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, I so
respectfully give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Forestry Act, Bill 10.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The
Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments Act, Bill 12.
Further,
I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To
Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009, Bill 11.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS
many students within our province depend on school busing for transportation to
and from school each day; and
WHEREAS
there are many parents of school-aged children throughout our province who live
inside the eastern school district's 1.6-kilometre zone, therefore do not
qualify for busing; and
WHEREAS
policy cannot override the safety of our children;
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to eliminate the 1.6-kilometre policy for all
elementary schools in the province, and in junior and senior high schools where
safety is a primary concern.
Mr.
Speaker, this has been a petition that has been presented a number of times by a
number of Members. I continue to get requests from my constituents on the safety
issue that surrounds the 1.6-kilometre zone. In my district alone, there are
four K to 6 schools, as well as a K to 4 school. All young children all trying
to get to school in areas in which there are no sidewalks or no place for them
to walk to get there.
I
understand now, or people can just realize, that if you look at the Farmers'
Almanac, we're projected to have one of our worst winters of all. During that
time, you're going to have a lot of snow on the ground; people will not be able
to get to school. Places to walk certainly will be eliminated. I think we need
to step up.
I think
about what the minister responsible said today: Student safety should be top of
mind. That wasn't me; that was across the way – student safety should be top of
mind, and we take this very seriously. This is a student safety issue. Getting
kids to school safely and making sure their pathway there is safe and not
treacherous is something we should be keeping top of mind.
I ask,
on behalf of these individuals, that we, as a government, reconsider this and
eliminate the 1.6-kilometre policy.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for his petition. Mr. Speaker, I'll start off by saying that our
province has one of the best busing policies in the country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WARR:
I'll repeat that, Mr.
Speaker: We have one of the best busing policies in the country. When the House
of Assembly recessed in June, we had 649 courtesy stops. I've taken every phone
calls from every Member opposite; I've taken every phone call from every Member
on this side. To date, Mr. Speaker, we have 705 courtesy stops.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. WARR:
That's an additional 57 stops
where we went and investigated. Every phone call that we took from Members, Mr.
Speaker, I can assure you were investigated.
I've
been working with regard to the safety – and I appreciate the Member bringing up
the safety aspect because it is paramount. I've been working with both the
Minister of Transportation and Works and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Environment on several initiatives around student safety. Again, our current
policy is working and we'll continue to work with the district to recognize
areas that need to be changed.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
present this petition on behalf of the residents of Rigolet, Labrador.
The new
ferry schedule for 2019 cuts our transportation service in half. This is a
drastic reduction.
We are
isolated for seven months out of the year. To have a ferry steam past within a
mile of the dock is doing us great injustice.
We will
lose a reliable and affordable service that can connect us to the south and
beyond. We also stand to lose the Cartwright, NL connection to a highway that
leads us in a timely manner to other parts of the province.
We
utilize the ferry service at every opportunity. It's the only economical means
of travel and freight provision that is provided to our community by the
province for five months out of the year.
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: we the undersigned
residents of Rigolet, Newfoundland and Labrador call upon the House of Assembly
to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the ferry
service to include our community on the South Coast run.
Now, why
is this petition important? This petition is very, very important to the
residents of Rigolet because they are isolated. There are no roads. Not like on
the South Coast where you can get into your vehicle and you can drive, get on a
highway, leave the province and visit family and friends in other communities.
This service is critical.
As this
petition says, the ferry now steams within a mile of the port of Rigolet. There
are family and friends in Cartwright and in Black Tickle that they can't visit.
When I mean can't visit, it's because their only means of transportation is once
per week during the summer the North Coast ferry will take them into Goose Bay.
With all the weather delays and that, they don't even have access to that
anymore.
What I'm
saying is in order for people to be able to travel and visit their friends and
their family in other communities, Cartwright and Black Tickle, right now the
only means for them is to fly. In actual fact, they can fly into Goose Bay at a
cost of $361 but then they have to hitch a ride from Goose Bay to Cartwright or
they can fly standby on a medical flight at a cost of $391.88. So what's
happening right now, if you want to visit your mother or your grandmother in
Cartwright or vice versa, it's going to cost $800, and that's basically flying
stand by.
I think
the reason why this petition is so important is because that's unacceptable. I
talk about erosion of services, and I think what people are saying on the North
Coast is true. Erosion of transportation services is actually a form of
resettlement by this government, and I challenge anyone to prove to me
different.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member for the petition. Mr. Speaker, over recent weeks I've met with
the NG, I think on three separate occasions. I've met with the Innu.
Mr.
Speaker, we know the first year of this ferry service there are going to be some
changes, and a conversation is going to happen this winter. I committed Thursday
past in a call with Minister Mitchell of the NG to actually forming a committee
this coming winter; a working committee to make sure we work out some of the
challenges we found in this system over this season.
Mr.
Speaker, the reality is it's not all doom and gloom. This season, for the first
time ever, we've moved over 10,000 tons of freight up until the end of October;
a 34 per cent increase year over year. If you think about that, in 2018 we moved
8,000 tons of freight. This year we've moved 10,700 tons of freight. Mr.
Speaker, for the first time ever, we've moved over 350 personal vehicles on a RO
RO service that wasn't offered before.
There
are some challenges with this system, but we look forward to an opportunity this
winter to work some of those challenges out.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, the
Adopt-a-Highway program exists in most provinces and provides organizations,
volunteer groups and businesses the opportunity to contribute to local
communities and our province by removing litter from roadsides or interchanges.
Under
the program, volunteer organizations participate in the clean up on the
right-of-way of provincially designated highways. This is consistent with the
province's objective to enhance tourism by beautifying transportation
infrastructure.
It gives
residents an opportunity to engage in a meaningful environmental endeavour which
enhances their communities. After a cleanup our province benefits in many
different ways; instantly the appearance of our province improves, the
environment is aided, tourism is strengthened and wildlife's attraction to
roadways is reduced.
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 Adopt-a-Highway program in our
province to aid in environment and strengthen our tourism.
Mr.
Speaker, this program existed for decades, and for whatever reason it was
cancelled several years ago. Not only does it aid our environment, it also
provides people with the opportunity to get out and feel productive, get
exercise in the fresh air and really make a difference to the possibility of
increasing tourism and improving the environment. It's just a great thing to do.
It's a really feel good thing, and it's beyond me why we can't put this policy
back in place.
The
desire is there from different communities, the desire is there from different
organizations. It's a win-win situation for all.
On
behalf of the signatures underneath, I therefore present this petition to the
minister for his comment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I thank
the hon. Member. Like the hon. Member, I'm not sure when this program was
cancelled or was left or abandoned but it's certainly something I would take
under advisement and go and look at.
Mr.
Speaker, as a government – and I know the previous administration, as well,
invested in cleanups. I know the Outer Ring Road is particularly a problem as it
leads to Robin Hood Bay. This past year I know we did invest in a cleanup along
with Clean St. John's – and Metrobus was also a part of it – to actually clean
up the Outer Ring Road.
Anything
that we can do on our highways and our roadways throughout the province to clean
them and make sure – many community groups throughout the year have spring
cleanups. Mr. Speaker, anything we can be doing to encourage that, I strongly
support.
I thank
the Member for his petition.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 3,
second reading of Bill 6.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Justice
and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Government House Leader, that Bill 6, An Act Respecting
Disclosure Of Information Under An Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol,
be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that Bill 6, An Act Respecting Disclosure Of Information Under An
Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol, be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting Disclosure Of Information Under An
Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol.” (Bill 6)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today,
I'm very happy to be able to stand up here and to be dealing with this act,
which when you read it on the paper, when you read its technical name or its
full name, I don't think quite imparts the magnitude that I think a bill of this
nature will have, nor the common title that's associated with this. The act is
An Act Respecting Disclosure of Information under an Interpersonal Violence
Disclosure Protocol, but it's more commonly known as something called Clare's
Law.
One
thing I will point out to any of those who may be listening or watching or
wondering about this piece of legislation, I would point out right off the top
that this is a piece of legislation that is enabling in nature. The legislation
here itself will not see the implementation of the protocols that normally
accompany a law of this nature. This piece of legislation will allow this
protocol to happen. It will allow us to go to work, to commence the work that is
necessary to make the protocol happen here in this province.
I can
say, after speaking to staff within the department, after looking at other
jurisdictions, the fact is that this work will likely take somewhere in the
realm of 12 months, based on other jurisdictions and what they've seen.
So, I
will go back to the beginning when we talked about what is Clare's Law. Clare's
Law is a law that originated out of the UK. It comes from something that – it's
not just a Newfoundland and Labrador problem, it's not just a Canadian problem,
but, sadly, it's a problem we face all over this world, and that is domestic
violence. That is violence amongst partners, primarily affecting women.
In the
UK, what happened in that particular case was a dad led the crusade after his
daughter was murdered by a partner that she did not realize had a violent
criminal past and previous instances of domestic violence. This was an
individual who had a past, who had a history and had a very strong prevalence of
continuing to take up this type of abusive, criminal behaviour with partners
that he had. In this case, the young woman did not know any of this; did not
know about the past, did not know about the criminal record, did not know about
the abuse until, sadly, her life was taken.
If
there's a silver lining to come out of that is that her father, and many others
in the UK, led the charge to have something called the Clare's Law or this
interpersonal disclosure. What this does is it allows for police forces in the
jurisdiction to release information to those individuals who are prescribed to
have the right to know of a person's previous criminal history when it comes to
certain offences, which sounds very good.
The
reality is – and I'll get into all the different issues that arise from
something like this when we talk about privacy, when we talk about access to
information, when we talk about safety. There are so many different aspects to
this which makes it an interesting but complex piece of legislation and protocol
to put into place. One that we still do not have, even when you look at the
research coming out of the UK and being used by other jurisdictions, we don't
have the full extent of the success of this protocol.
Again,
this would probably be a good segue to today we recognized three individuals
with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary: Constable Dillon, Constable Churchill
and crime analyst, Ms. Malin Enström. They were awarded the Public Service Award
of Excellence. What they deal with is the Intimate Partner Violence Unit.
Ms.
Enström said to me today – we had an opportunity to have a chat. We talked about
their work earlier, and sometimes she said it's hard to quantify the stats
because it's preventative. If you prevent it from happening, there is no stat.
That's one of the things, we don't fully see it.
Again,
to segue back into this, I've read a lot of the research. I've read a lot of the
stories, news commentaries and writings by academics. A couple of the
individuals talked about the success of this disclosure protocol. They talk
about, does it really benefit? My primary question that I would toss out is,
does it hurt? And the fact is, it does not. This will not get in the way of
doing its intended purpose, which is to help save lives, which is to help
prevent women, primarily, from entering into relationships or being in
relationships with those with a previous abusive past.
Now,
that sounds great and that sounds very easy and simple, but we all know – and
especially those individuals here today with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary
know – that just this one piece of legislation is not going to be the cure-all,
is not going to be the be-all, end-all of stopping domestic violence, stopping
violence between people.
We know
that some of these issues exist that are outside of Justice. I look at my
colleague who is responsible for Housing, and we know that housing is an issue.
We talk about it all the time. The fact that leaving a relationship – sometimes,
sadly, people stay in these relationships because, where do they go?
We talk
about the financial impacts. I look at my colleague, the former Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women, the current Government House Leader. I look
at my colleagues, all my colleagues in the House have played a role in this.
We've talked about some of the challenges we face – when we come at the
financial challenge, when we look at children, we look at the court system. We
know the work doesn't end, but this is one thing that I think will have benefit.
It will not fix everything, but I think it will bring some positivity, and
hopefully some productive means to help. Again, it's one step in the right
direction.
So going
back to the legislation itself, Mr. Speaker. The act itself is not substantive,
and anybody who looks at it can tell. A very simple reading of it, it clearly
mentions in the legislation the regulations a number of times. The regulations
are the protocol, and that is what's going to be drafted once this bill is
implemented. Again, I'm assuming there's going to be good debate to this, but
I'm strongly hoping there will be support of this piece of legislation so that
we can begin the hard work of figuring out, how do we implement this concept
into our current system.
The law
itself doesn't fix the situation, it's the protocol that emanates from this
piece of legislation. When we look at it, we talk about an applicant, disclosure
information, protocol, police force, person at risk.
Again,
it's very simple: “3(1) A police force may, in accordance with the … Protocol,
provide disclosure information to (a) an applicant; (b) an individual referred
to in subsection (2); or (c) a person at risk.
“(2) An
individual or a class of individuals ….”
So
sometimes it's not just the individual. Many people have a very tough time going
to police forces reporting this. We all know that for every case that's
reported, there are countless others that go undocumented. They are never
reported, and for various reasons, and that's the sad part here. In many cases
it's the family, the loved ones, the friends of those individuals.
Again,
you talk to social workers, they hear this, they see this, and it places, in
many cases, a duty on them to disclose this. One of the things I like about
this, it's going to enable various classes of individuals to apply for the
information, and also safeguarding that information as well. I would point out,
that in many cases police forces already have a pre-existing ability to disclose
information. That's already there. That's not a new concept. The police have
already been able to do that.
We move
forward; again, it's not huge here: confidentiality. Simple things. Obviously,
the information has to be given out for the right purposes. We want to avoid
situations which – again, something we see so constantly now in every facet,
whether it's financial or health or personal, private information, the
disclosure of it for negative or criminal or malicious means. We see that all
the time.
It
wasn't that long ago we were dealing with intimate image legislation here in
this House, where people were sharing images, sharing information to hurt
someone. The same goes for this. This is information, and all information has
power, the ability to hurt somebody if it gets in the wrong hands or it's used
for the wrong reasons. So we want the information to be disclosed here, but it
has to be done for the right reasons.
We move
forward, and then we get into the regulation side of it. That's where the hard
work is going to come in. Again, I wanted to make quite clear, as we were
talking amongst the department this morning, and in previous weeks and previous
months, we talked about how this is a big piece of legislation, but we want to
make sure the public doesn't think that this law is now in place and that you
can go forward and get this. We wish that was the case, but the reality is it
takes a substantive amount of work, a significant amount of work, and that work
has to happen. There's no point of putting forward a protocol that is not well
thought through or that, in many cases, may cause more problems than it fixes.
That's a
reality when we talk about something so significant as this, when we talk about
situations involving individuals, when we talk about privacy, when we talk about
criminal records. The reality is that safety – one of the issues that comes up,
in many cases what we've seen in the past, the person gets the information,
they're able to be put in a position where they can make a decision. Sometimes
after that decision is made, that's when sometimes the trouble can really start
as well, when we talk about a relationship that ends. This is sensitive stuff
and that's why we've been very careful with this. We will continue to be careful
and do this and do it right.
The
protocol is different everywhere. We cannot do the same as they do in the UK.
There are other jurisdictions in this country; Saskatchewan is probably in the
lead right now. They've brought their piece of legislation into force. It
received Royal Assent, it's been proclaimed and now they're working on that
protocol. British Columbia has done a private Member's resolution on this in
their legislature. Alberta is moving forward with this.
When you
talk about that, one of the big things they talk about: Why are we doing this?
Saskatchewan, I think the stats will show, is in the top three highest rates of
violence against women. It's a startling, startling number and the fact is we
have a significant amount here. Are we in that same range? No, we are not, but
we have too much – we have too much. That is the sad reality is that the
documented rates are high and the undocumented rate, one can only assume makes
that rate higher.
We go
back to what happens here. Well, we have to figure out a number of steps. Who
can apply exactly? Is it the individual who's at risk? Is it the individual who
is on behalf of that individual? There are sensitivities here. Can anybody just
walk in and request information on another person? We have to figure that aspect
out.
What
information are you allowed to receive? Are you allowed to receive any part of
their criminal record? What if they have non-violent crimes? What if the crime
does not show a pattern of harm, maybe it's something different? We have to
figure it out. In the UK they have a list of offences that qualify for this
protocol; others don't.
Every
place is different in terms of their police forces. In this province, we have
two police forces that would be responsible for the safety of our populous, but
that's not the same in every province. In some other provinces – in Alberta, for
instance, they have municipal police, they have city police in Calgary or
Edmonton and they also have their RCMP. Every province is different. That's why
the protocol will be different.
What I
can say to those that might be listening is that I think this is a good
opportunity. We will be reaching far and wide when it comes to the development
and implementation of this. We're lucky to have great police forces. We're lucky
to have good relationships with other jurisdictions to see what the pitfalls
were when they went through this process. What have they learned through this
process?
Saskatchewan, particularly, we've had an amazing relationship with. They've done
good work and it's a chance for us to take that and bring it back here and apply
it here. We'll be speaking to women's groups; we have a department responsible
for the Status of Women. We have so many advocates in this province and I've
been very lucky to sit at tables with many of them. Survivors of violence,
they're going to want to have a say here. There's a lot that goes into it.
Not only
that, we've consulted with the Privacy Commissioner on this because, again, we
are talking about individual's information. Depending on who you talk to, some
would say that safety trumps information, and that very well may be the case. I
can tell you that if it involved my daughter, that's the viewpoint I would take.
But, at the same time, we have to realize that we cannot just – again, we could
go down a rabbit hole here talking about safety and personal protection and the
disclosure of information.
We've
dealt with that, not just in this country but in this continent. It's going to
be a significant process here. I'm happy to be a part of that work and I look
forward to the work that's going to be done by multiple Members of this House,
multiple people in various departments, because it's not just a Justice issue.
Health has been playing a role here. Children, Seniors and Social Development
has been playing a role here. Education has been playing a role here.
The
other thing – I keep going back to this. To me, when we talk about this issue,
talking to the individuals today because we're dealing with reactive, but we
have to deal with preventative. In many cases, we're talking with individuals
who acknowledge and realize what they do is wrong, but we have to find the
resources to help these individuals to fix this problem.
One of
the things I keep coming back to: kids. We have to get them at their earliest.
We have to teach them at their earliest, and I don't think I'll ever get a
dispute over that.
Another
issue that comes out of this: What's the timeline on this process? How does it
work? A couple of things I will point out, that I think are interesting, we
would definitely like to see an online component to this so that an individual
does not need to report to a police station to do this. I think somebody should
be able to do it from the safety and security of their own home or a place that
they feel comfortable. That's one component.
The
other thing is being able to do it in your own language. Labrador – and again, I
look at my colleague for Lab West. We spoke just in the last couple of weeks
when I was up in Labrador and we were over in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. I don't
think there's much point to this if you're being forced to do it in not your
first language. We want to make sure that this is something that's accessible by
all in whatever language that they speak: Innu-aimun, French, English.
This is
something that we're working on. We need to make sure that this is accessible to
people where they are, when they are ready to do it. You only have to talk to
one employee at a women's centre. It's funny, I talked to Tanya Hawco who is the
executive director of the one back in Port aux Basques and she talked about a
person that came in, just as Tanya was leaving for lunch. Tanya said we'll sit
down and we'll talk. This person had driven by five times that morning, parked,
left – driven by, parked, left, because they weren't ready. They were not ready.
So we
need to make sure that we are ready whenever they are ready to talk and to be
ready to move forward. That's a huge component of this. You can't just expect –
this not a 9 to 5, Monday to Friday deal. This is 24-7, sadly. When it comes to
people being able to talk and share their information and build that trust and
that confidence that they need so that they can feel safe and secure doing that,
that's what we need to enable.
That
being said, Mr. Speaker, there's a lot I could talk about, but I would just be
belabouring the point, and I realize that we'll have more opportunity during
debate and we'll have more opportunity during Committee.
I would
like to thank the staff of the Department of Justice and Public Safety who I
understand did give a briefing to Members of government caucus, as well as
Members of other caucuses, and I hope that that was informative. I certainly
appreciate the work that our staff have done moving this forward. I got to tell
you, we're lucky to have them doing this work, doing the legwork behind it, and
I appreciate that and appreciate them. And again, they will be listening to
this, because they have a vested interest in this too. This is work that they
want to be doing, and they want this to succeed as well.
On that
note, Mr. Speaker, what I will say is that I'm very happy to stand up here today
on second reading. I look forward to the forward progression of this piece of
legislation, and, more importantly, once I assume that this bill is passed, I
look forward to the work, seeing the protocol get done, established, and
hopefully one step further in making this a safer province for women and girls.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Bennett):
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
We
commend and support the government for following the lead of Saskatchewan,
British Columbia and Alberta in bringing forward this legislation. Clare's Law
originated, as the minister has stated, in the UK. It is commendable that now we
have four provinces that will be following their lead.
We know
that interpersonal violence is a serious issue in this province, and we have
seen too many cases of interpersonal, domestic and sexual violence here. I could
quote statistics, but the stats would probably be wrong. That's because almost
every authority believes that violence is grossly underreported, and only a
fraction of those who are subjected to interpersonal violence reported to
authorities.
As for
unreported cases of violence, we've heard that only 5 per cent of sexual
assaults are reported to police – 5 per cent. And Indigenous women are 3½ times
more likely to be victims of violence. Nearly 80 per cent of rapes and sexual
assaults go unreported, according to a justice department analysis of
violent-crime stats in the United States; but, again, we know that unreported
crime is far too common. The reality is it's very common, especially for sexual
assault survivors, most frequently women, to decline to report the offence to
police. Survivors cite many reasons for this reality, including worries about
retaliation, fear of revictimization and so on. Again, unreported assaults are
pervasive.
Not all,
but certainly most of the victims or survivors, if they survive, are women and
girls. They may not report these incidents out of fear or intimidation or
embarrassment, or a false belief that they are to blame for provoking the
violence, or because the perpetrators are so close to them – maybe partners,
relatives, people in authority, positions of trust, employers and so forth. They
may already have seen signs of violence but they may be in denial, believing it
could never happen to them or it's not a big deal or it will get better on its
own.
Friends
or relatives of the person may be more aware of the threat they face than they
are. Perhaps the person in the relationship is blinded by love or by something
they believe is love, but they may be at great risk. Perhaps they are at a
moderate risk, but a risk nonetheless. If there is a way to let them see more
clearly whether there is a real evidence-based reason for them to be wary of the
person they are with, then, by all means, we have to protect them by helping
them become aware of it.
Clare's
Law has been presented as a groundbreaking piece of legislation to help protect
victims of domestic violence from their partners. It is designed as a tool for
individuals who think they may be at risk of interpersonal violence or domestic
violence and to get knowledge that will allow them to make those necessary
decisions, those tough, hard decisions, though, that they have to make to
increase their safety, to help prevent trauma and tragedy if someone is seeing
signs of abuse in a relationship.
The
whole point of Clare's Law is to provide a means, a way of showing a person at
risk that they are indeed at risk; but, of course, we are tipping the balance
just a bit away from, for example, the presumption of innocence. We have to be
mindful that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects that precious
presumption of innocence.
There is
a fundamental right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the
prosecution must also prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So we are at
the boundary of competing rights, the rights to privacy and presumption of
innocence. We have to be very cautious.
There
may be good evidence-based reasons for believing a person is likely to be
violent, but if the person has not been convicted of a violent crime and has no
public record of violence, what should be done in that instance, Mr. Speaker?
Should we do nothing, or should we create a means for that evidence to be placed
before someone who may be in harm's way?
Even so,
the consequences of violence are so profound, we must not fail to act just
because the legal landscape is a difficult one. That's why, we understand from
what we've heard in the briefing, it will take 12 to 15 months to develop the
protocol that will lay out in great detail the rules for giving effect to this
law. The other three provinces are also treading very carefully, but moving
forward with determination nevertheless.
Given
the implications of what is being done here, we do impress upon the government
the importance of being completely open and transparent about the protocol. We
realize that the protocol, being fixed in regulations rather than legislation,
will be amendable at the ministerial level outside the Legislature and will take
effect when gazetted. Still, we urge the government to publicize every
development with the protocol, issuing news releases and informing the
Opposition and the public immediately when anything changes so people are fully
aware of the rules.
We will
have the benefit of learning from the UK and other Canadian jurisdictions, which
they have a couple of years lead on us, but this is a new kind of law and we
must ensure that we handle it properly so it serves its purpose without causing
unintended harm. As the minister mentioned there, he indicated that they have a
lot to figure out. So we have to be very clear and very careful that this is
handled properly.
I don't
want to walk through all the possible pitfalls of legislation like this. I
prefer to focus on the positive, on the good that can result when someone at
risk is shown that they are at risk and can take appropriate action.
Obviously, this initiative must be accompanied by community supports. That is a
must. A person who discovers they are at risk may need help taking the next
step. There may be a domino effect of consequences following from that, so we
have to ensure that a person has a safe place to go or someone to turn to when a
risk is disclosed. So vulnerable people will still need considerable support
mechanisms to help them leave risky relationships, because the risk of harm
often intensifies when people try to break off relationships. Victims of
domestic violence must have and require a great network of support.
I also
wonder about the implications for a person who is deemed to be at risk of
perpetrating violence. I'm not sure what the answer is there, but it's something
we also need to be talking about.
There's
also another aspect of this law that we need to consider. We must be
particularly sensitive to the circumstances of women and girls in Indigenous
communities because of the lessons we learned from the recent inquiry into
Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
The
inquiry was commissioned for a good reason, and mainly at the behest of the
Indigenous communities themselves and the families of victims and survivors. It
is imperative to work closely with Indigenous communities and listen closely to
the testimonies and the recommendations that have come from the inquiry. We
simply have to do better to protect people at risk of violence before they
suffer harm, if at all possible.
Many of
our communities are small and closely knit, so we will need to listen carefully
to those in our communities with wisdom to offer about the best ways to proceed.
At the briefing on this bill, we were told that this is one more tool in the
toolbox to protect vulnerable people. This is a tool we don't yet have, and it
will make a difference for some. And, as the minister pointed out, perhaps
saving lives.
But
because it is a significant change in approach, we must ensure we are very
carefully monitoring what is being done and what is happening as a result.
Someone should be tasked with the job and the responsibility of reviewing and
reporting on the impact of what this law is doing.
The
minister pointed out that we don't have a lot of information regarding the
success of the UK scenario. So it might be a difficult task, but we need to know
how often this law is being used, how often the process is informing people that
they are at high or moderate risk of violence. Information is necessary to
create the appropriate checks and balances. And, at the same time, it is
imperative to protect people's privacy to the greatest extent possible.
So let's
talk about privacy. It's a very important piece here. One of the most
controversial aspects, actually, of Clare's Law is that allegations of domestic
violence will be made available to those who request it. Anyone worried about
their own safety will be able to ask the police to disclose their partner's
history of domestic violence. So this triggers the important question of one's
privacy rights.
The
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, through section 7 and 8, afford protection of
privacy interests. And not only the Charter, but our courts, including the
highest court in our land, the Supreme Court of Canada, has recognized that the
value of privacy is fundamental to the notions of dignity, autonomy and
integrity of the person.
We all
understand that. We all recognize that it is fundamentally important that
privacy rights of the individual have to be respected. Regarding privacy rights,
it is important to note that irrelevant past criminal charges, like shoplifting
or impaired driving, would not necessarily be disclosed or discoverable. The
minister pointed that out with respect to criminal offences that are not
relevant.
As
Justice critic and critic for the Status of Women, I will be watching the
disclosure rules closely and carefully monitoring that as well because privacy,
Mr. Speaker, is a right. The presumption of innocence is a right and freedom
from violence is a right. Balancing rights and freedoms is seldom easy, but
protecting people from harm is an obligation we cannot shirk. There are people
in our province right now who are at risk of harm from interpersonal violence.
How far will we go to protect them?
I think
this legislation is a step in the right direction to offer greater protection to
people at risk. We need to be taking these steps. Police protection and
assistance can be an important ally in the fight again an abusive partner, but
we also should be mindful of the fact that Clare's Law is not a panacea for
eliminating domestic violence. Hopefully, it will increase prevention and reduce
the prevalence of interpersonal violence in our communities, but there's no
simple fix here to these problems.
These
problems are complex, they're deep rooted and they're societal. The problem of
domestic and interpersonal violence is indeed a huge one. We, therefore, need to
address it very seriously at every level. We need to examine, and critically
examine, the crucial underlying issues of violence and ensure there is adequate
funding for the crucial services to help victims of this kind of abusive and
violence. We need to have more education about healthy relationships and gain a
better understanding of the whole psychology regarding and around abusive
relationships. There needs to be more public awareness campaigns about violence.
We also need more enforcement of existing laws in relation to crimes of
violence.
So we
need to be taking these steps because the status quo is still not good enough.
Women and girls, and many others in our communities, are still not safe enough.
Violence is still far too prevalent, and that's not okay. We have to find new
and better ways to protect the vulnerable.
This
second reading debate is about the principle of the bill. We support the
principle of the bill. We look forward to working with the government, however
we can, to flesh out the details of the protocol. We applaud the police forces
in this province for being partners in bringing forward this initiative.
We
believe other community groups will complement these efforts to reduce violence
and protect the vulnerable. Let's continue to collaborate on solutions. Let's
continue to think outside the box. Let's not become complacent when people need
our help, but let's hear them, let's listen and let's find new ways to protect
them from harm.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the
Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, I welcome any opportunity to speak
to legislation that improves the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,
especially women and girls. I feel this piece of legislation, when enacted, will
do just that, Mr. Speaker. It is but one example of the fine work being done
through the Minister's Committee on Violence Against Women and Girls.
While we
have been working diligently on the Violence Prevention Initiative and several
initiatives have already been enacted, we will leave no stone unturned, Mr.
Speaker, as we strive to minimize the incidents of violence in our society.
This
past year, we have brought forward several new measures intended to address this
problem, Mr. Speaker. In November of 2018, Premier Ball saw fit to establish the
Minister Responsible for the Status of Women as a stand-alone role. Also,
instrumental to the cause, is the advancement of the work of the Minister's
Committee on Violence Against Women and Girls. This group has been working very
hard on our behalf.
We have
not been satisfied with the status quo. This year, more than $2.6 million has
been allocated for Status of Women Councils, including funding for a new Status
of Women Council in Port Saunders, which I had the opportunity to visit just
this past week.
We are
also implementing new bail supervision rules and electronic monitoring programs
to help lower levels of recidivism and improve safety for women, Mr. Speaker. We
have implemented improvements to the occupational health and safety regulations,
including provisions to address workplace harassment and worker-on-worker
violence.
We have
also implemented changes to the Residential Tenancies Act to allow for early
termination of rental agreements in cases of domestic violence, as well as
changes to the Labour Standards Act,
allowing victims of family violence to take a total of 10 days leave per year,
Mr. Speaker.
We will
not stop here. Our government recognizes there is a need for further tools to
protect those at risk of intimate partner violence.
Mr.
Speaker, our government has taken steps to help create safer communities through
such things as legislative changes, direct investments, accessible housing and
the creation, of course, of the ministerial committee designed to identify and
address the changing needs of our communities and citizens as they arise.
Central to all of this, of course, has been our commitment to working with our
community partners.
Violence
in any form is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. As a society, we cannot and we will
not accept that some of our citizens must live in fear of physical, sexual or
emotional violence. It must stop, Mr. Speaker. It definitely must stop. We must
all play a role in ending violence against women and girls. Working
collaboratively is essential to creating a safe environment for women and girls
in our province.
As we
take another step forward with this new legislation, we are continuing this
progress. In 2017, Statistics Canada reported that over one-quarter of all
victims of police-reported violent crime were victims of intimate partner
violence. This is indeed disturbing, as it reiterates that which we have been
told for some time: Violence isn't always perpetrated by strangers. In fact,
about 25 per cent of the time, the perpetrator is someone we know and trust;
someone very close to us. As the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, I
am alarmed to learn that the majority of these victims, approximately 79 per
cent, were women – women. We must work to change this statistic.
Interpersonal violence disclosure legislation, also known as Clare's Law, as the
minister has stated, Mr. Speaker, was introduced to honour Clare Wood, a woman
who was murdered by her partner and was unaware of his violent past. Clare's
father fought for an initiative that would release relevant information about
prior criminal history to intimate partners who are at risk, Mr. Speaker.
This
legislation is designed to enhance protections for individuals in intimate
relationships who are at risk of violence from their partners by disclosing an
individual's risk based on the relevant prior criminal history of their partner.
The protocol would also provide the person at risk with information for next
steps and support, Mr. Speaker. Introducing legislation such as this would help
further the efforts made by government to help make Newfoundland and Labrador a
safer place for women and girls.
Mr.
Speaker, this is progressive legislation. It has the potential to provide
greater safety to those unaware that are on the cusp of entering relationships
where their safety could be greatly compromised. When it comes to combating
violence, we are all in this together. I ask all Members in this hon. House to
give their support to this very important piece of legislation.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I want
to thank the colleagues across the way, and my colleague, as well, from Harbour
Main on the great work that's been put into this. It's much needed for the
province, I think in my mind, if done right and correctly. And the other
provinces, I think, will show that this can be a tool that can be used for
preventative measures, not after-the-fact measures, which is where a lot of
victims end up going to and when it's too late. So I applaud everybody for the
work that they put into this and I say thank you.
Any sort
of violence in our society should not be tolerated and is avoidable. There are
many forms of violence: mental violence, verbal violence, sexual violence, and,
of course, physical violence. Violence does not discriminate against race,
religion, geography or sex. It rears its ugly head throughout the world,
including right here in Newfoundland and Labrador at home.
We know
that violence can be found in many facets of our daily lives. Violence can be at
work, it can be at school, social settings, but, of course, more commonly,
domestic violence right here at home. Behind closed doors – we've heard that
many, many times when it comes to domestic violence. Behind closed doors you can
use in quotation marks and not as well. It can be interpreted figuratively or,
of course, literally.
Literally, as it happens behind the doors where nobody can see it, it happens in
our province every single day. It happens across the country every single day.
Unfortunately, the people that are behind the closed doors, you don't get to see
what they're going through until often too late.
But just
as important, figuratively, it's never talked about. The victims often sit
behind that closed door feeling hurt, ashamed, embarrassed and, most of all,
abandoned. They feel as though they have nobody. Those that may be embarrassed
or ashamed will not reach out to family or friends, Mr. Speaker. They won't
reach out to colleagues, and of course they won't reach out to any of the police
or anybody within health, because they feel as though they'll be persecuted or
the violence will increase upon them. Of course, we can do better than that.
We know
more often than not, that door opens and the victim who has gone through the
violence will come out with a smile on their face; they don't show their wounds.
Often the wounds can be mental health as well, but they try to cover them up as
best they can and the world doesn't see them. They will face the world with a
smile on their face, whether it be young girls, men or children, these wounds
are not seen by the general public and that's unfortunate.
I think
that's where the statistics fail us. Of course, we know most are not shown
within the public and the stats won't show that there are more people out there
than not that are being abused with violence in our society, and that's
shameful. Stats tell us it's women and young girls who make up the majority of
those victims. If we dig even further, Indigenous women have a history with this
violence put upon them. This is all too fresh as we remember Chantel John from
Conne River just this past year, an Indigenous woman who lost her life from
domestic violence.
I can't
help but think if we had to have a law like this that was passed back then,
would that beautiful young girl still be with us today in Conne River. I know
her family, her friends and the people in Conne River – it could have been used
back then, I think, to that situation possibly, possibly not, but it's a tool
that we need to use if we have it afforded to us.
Mr.
Speaker, as we applaud the steps in the right direction, there is so much more
work to be done with this bill, of course. If we're going to take on a bill like
this, it supersedes such a broad community group such as the Status of Women,
which we talked about and housing. We know a lot of women with their children
and whatnot, one of their main reasons for not coming forward is they're going
to have no place to live. I have no place to live so if I come out against my
husband or my partner or my wife, whatever, they know that this takes me out of
my home and now where do we go.
The
province does have a housing problem with the people that are out there now. I
can't imagine if everybody came forward that needed a new place to stay because
of violence. We have to find a place of these people, a safe place for these
people. So that's something that we'd have to look at as well.
Child
services is another one. In a lot of these homes with women being abused, there
are children present. I also know there are a lot of women out there that won't
come forward and a lot of the reason is because they're afraid they're going to
lose their children. If they brought up their children in a violent home,
they're afraid they're going to lose their children. Whether it be if they
separate from their husband or their boyfriend sort of thing, the possibility of
losing their children will keep them there. Often, that is a threat upon them as
well.
The
police and security services in the province – we can't say enough about them as
well. They do an absolutely fantastic job and we have to make sure that we
coincide with them. There are many facets, many groups there, that we have to
make sure are on board with this bill if it comes through.
Everybody needs to be on side to ensure these people are protected, supported
and feel safe. There are too many reasons victims do not come forward and we
need to break down those barriers. I also believe in the old saying, Mr.
Speaker: Violence incites violence holds true; therefore, we must ensure
witnesses, such as children, have the proper support once removed from that
situation. That's something we have to look at as well. End the cycle, and what
a vicious cycle it is, I'm sure.
Mr.
Speaker, I also think the victims are not the only ones at risk when it comes to
this bill. The perpetrators, too, need help to deal with the problem so we can
possibly save another victim. There is rehabilitation. We can't just throw the
perpetrators to the wolves, sort of thing, and say you move on now to the next
one, and then we'll do a background check again and again and again. I think the
proper supports need to be in there for the people that are committing these
crimes. It's important as well.
If this
disclosure can help prevent violence in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is worth
the time that we are going to put into it. Disclosure can be used as a wonderful
tool to help end violence right here in Newfoundland and Labrador and we need
all the tools we can get at this point. In doing this, we must remember privacy
is a right and it can be a slippery slope once we begin.
I was
just sitting here, Mr. Speaker, taking some notes, and I was just thinking about
the background checks on people and whatnot. My colleague from across the way
for Burgeo - La Poile said the same thing, where do we start it, where do we
stop it sort of thing. Which crimes can go into this? What age can go into this?
Is it a 16-year-old, an 18-year-old? Where do we draw that line for the age?
Who gets
this information? Where does it stop? Does it begin – to a wife, a girlfriend, a
mother, a sister, colleagues, a workplace, an employer? It opens up a whole door
that we have to make sure that we get this right. The 12 to 15 months, I think,
is a good time frame to make sure we get it right because it's something that's
going to stick with us for a long, long time. I think it's something that's
going to help this province and help the people in the province for a long, long
time as well.
Getting
back to the privacy – and 100 per cent, I support the bill totally, but I just
want to make sure that privacy isn't forgotten about here. If we take a
16-year-old person that had one incident of violence in his lifetime, is that
something that's going to stick with him at 45 years old if he is rehabilitated
or if he does go through the process of getting help or not and getting the help
he needs so this does not happen again? I think that's something that has to be
looked at as well.
I urge
all victims, obviously, to seek help that's out there, but it's often too late.
This is the opportunity we have now for preventative measures, which is one of
the best tools. Together, I am sure that we can prevent violence in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
It's
sad, you know, you sit back and you think about the young people who don't come
forward, the women, the young girls that don't come forward – be it sexual
violence, or any violence for that matter, if they don't come forward, of
course, we can't have the stats. So it's going to be hard to judge, sort of
thing.
I think
if we can get this right, it'll serve as a preventative tool. I just want to
touch on that for one more minute. The preventative tool can prevent these
crimes from happening. It can get a person out of the situation before the
situation even begins, Mr. Speaker.
Like we
say, oftentimes it's too late where somebody loses a piece of their life, if not
their life. If we can prevent this from happening, I think it's an absolutely
great idea. I commend the other three provinces for bringing it in. I commend
the UK for starting it. It's something that is needed here. I think it's
something that can work here, and I look forward to working with it in the
future.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
While we're waiting to speak,
Mr. Speaker, we're always working away in our seats. So we're not always on the
ball here as we should, but it's nice to be back in the Legislature, Mr.
Speaker, for the fall sitting of the House.
Yesterday the House opened, and it actually happened to be an anniversary for
me. It was six years ago, November 4, 2013, that I took my seat representing the
good people of Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair for the first time.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Lots of changes, Mr. Speaker,
in the Legislature over that six-and-a-half-year period since I've been in here,
but one thing that never changes is who you work for. So it's always important
that your first loyalty be to those individuals.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm very pleased to stand here today – and I've been listening with
intent to my colleagues talk about Bill 6. I'm pleased to – as the Minister of
Fisheries and Lands would say – enthusiastically show my support for this very
important bill.
Before I
start, I want to throw a bouquet to my colleague, the Minister of Justice and
Public Safety –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
– for bringing in this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I went back six years
and he was one of the guys that was travelling around with me six years ago and
getting flat tires on gravel roads and things like that, so we do go back a long
way. What I appreciate about my colleague, the Minister of Justice – he's
brought in a number of really valuable bills – he has a young family. That makes
a difference, too, I believe. He has a beautiful young girl. This stuff hits
home.
We have
an opportunity while we are here in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, to change the
course of time, to bring in bills that we pass and that become law to make life
better. We're not only making life better for the residents of Newfoundland and
Labrador, it's our family. When we talk about things like interpersonal
violence, it impacts us all and some of us closer to home than others. Many
would know here that my family went through a terrible time with a murder in our
immediate family – my brother, at the tender age of 21. So we know the impact
that violence has on a family, the long-lasting impact of violence.
Also, I
represent a riding in Labrador. I'm from Labrador, a proud Labradorian born and
raised. I say born and raised and my husband corrects me because I was born in
Botwood. My mom is from Point Leamington, but spent my lifetime in Labrador,
pretty deeply rooted. Some of the Members today shared statistics. I'm not going
to go down the road of statistics because we all can look up the same. They're
very startling, they're very concerning and they're very staggering. That's why
we're talking about this bill.
One of
the realities is that the percentage of violence in Indigenous communities, Mr.
Speaker – and I'm a Member of the NunatuKavut Community Council – is
significantly higher. It's not easy to talk about. One of the things I started
doing when I first came to St. John's and I took my seat in the Legislature was
I had heard about the missing and murdered vigil that would happen annually. I
thought, I'm going to go to that and I'm going to show my support as a female
and as a Labradorian.
My
daughter was here in town at that time. She was still in her last year of high
school but she had been in town that time and it was held at the Holiday Inn.
She came with me at 17 years old. So, for people watching or people in the
Legislature who may not be familiar, what happens is there are the names of
individuals who have been murdered, you can participate and you go up and you
read the name, you read the date of their birth and you read the date of their
death and how they died. It's a very, very heavy ceremony, Mr. Speaker.
The
biggest thing that stayed with me from that first fall that I was in town and
attended that was, on the way home, I said to my daughter: What did you think of
that? That's pretty heavy stuff for a 17-year-old coming from a very sheltered
little coastal community where everybody in the town, practically, you're
related to and the ones you're not, you still call them aunt and uncle and you
think you are. She said: Mom, what stood out for me is that those women were not
just killed but they were killed over and over again. I said: What do you mean?
She said: Shot repeatedly, stabbed repeatedly, brutal things.
Too many
of us here in this Legislature – because our province is not that big, 526,000 –
we know families today that are living with the pain, the grief, sometimes the
guilt because they feel like they should've done something, should've seen
something that comes with this type of loss.
Loretta
Saunders, I talked about Loretta when I was in Opposition at some length and I
know her family very well. I still run into her mom and dad from time to time.
They're going to be tremendously pleased with legislation like this.
When I
spent a lot of time around municipalities and provincial boards, I knew a lady
whose daughter was murdered. Mr. Speaker, people who get up every day and they
carry that weight, that loss and, in many cases, maybe it could have been
avoided with something like this.
This
bill, known as Clare's Law, I think about that dad and how he was driven in the
United Kingdom five years ago after the 36-year-old women, a daughter in her
prime, should have had her whole like in front of her, didn't get to see what
she could have become, what she could have done, how she could have left her
mark, how she could have contributed to our society, Mr. Speaker, murdered by a
partner that the police knew had a violent record; taken at the hands of some
else.
We have
to do better. We have a responsibility, those of us who are lawmakers, to do
better. One of the things, Mr. Speaker, when you lose a significant person in
your life, you can't change that, and everybody deals with it differently. There
is no manual for finding your way through grief, but there are people who choose
to want to add meaning to the life and death of their loved one. They want to
add some purpose, so they go out and they advocate for change, Mr. Speaker.
That's what we see here with Clare Wood, not aware of her partner's violent
history and her dad went out and he advocated for this change.
Again, I
want to throw a bouquet to the Minister for Justice. I have sat in this
Legislature and I have been pretty proud of some of the legislation that he's
brought in, Mr. Speaker. We mentioned – it was said today by one of my hon.
colleagues – the intimate partner violence.
I have a
young daughter, Mr. Speaker, and it's a different age now. We say it; we all say
it to ourselves. It's different now than when we grew up, and some of us grew up
in smaller communities where you had that protection. Now we're in a
social-media age, we're in a technological age, and people have devices on them;
they can take a picture and they can do things with that picture, and that
picture could end up anywhere. That young individual who does that, in that
moment, may never know the far-reaching impacts – heavy stuff, Mr. Speaker.
People have took their lives because of things like that that have happened, so
I applaud the Minister of Justice for bringing in the
Intimate Images Protection Act.
Mr.
Speaker, today, Bill 6, An Act Respecting Disclosure of Information Under an
Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol, just for the purpose of the people
watching today, this bill would provide authority for a police force to disclose
information regarding interpersonal violence to a person at risk, or to an
applicant in accordance with an Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol
established by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
Mr.
Speaker, I've talked a little bit about the personal aspects of this, but I also
happen to be, right now, the minister responsible for Children, Seniors and
Social Development – child welfare is housed in there – and Housing and Poverty
Reduction and things like that, and I can tell you, as a government, even at
times when we were navigating through some pretty heavy fiscal conditions in
this province, there was money put aside by the Premier for low-income families.
We did that right out of the gate for Budget 2016.
Over at
Housing, Mr. Speaker, we had questions today about wait-lists. Yes, we have
wait-lists. There's a lot of need and oftentimes there's not enough resources to
meet the need, but I can tell you that when somebody is in a violent situation,
when a young lady with children is fleeing domestic violence, we elevate them up
the list. They don't come in in lines, so we certainly prioritize in housing
those individuals.
I
believe, today, Mr. Speaker, this bill demonstrates our government's earnest
commitment to address intimate partner violence in Newfoundland and Labrador by
implementing new ways of protecting victims. It's been said numerous times, and
it really don't need repeating, but I believe it bears repeating that you are at
a higher risk of being a victim of violence if you are a woman or you are young
or you are Indigenous. We cannot lose sight of that, Mr. Speaker: if you are a
woman, if you are young or if you are Indigenous.
The
recent stats in our province, Mr. Speaker, actually showed that we were slightly
above the Canadian average when it comes to intimate partner violence – slightly
above. There are some things we want to be leading in in our province and we
want to be leading in this country. This is not an area where we want to be
leading in, so we have to put measures in place, like this bill today that we
are debating, the disclosure of information, to change the way that percentage
is moving, Mr. Speaker, and move it back.
Another
statistic that I find very concerning, especially as I represent the people of
Labrador, and I talked about that earlier, is that the rate of violence in
Labrador is significantly higher than on the Island portion of the province with
young women and young girls, once again, being at the highest risk of violence.
I want to give a shout-out to the individuals in Labrador who work in shelters,
who work in transition houses and say thank you for the very important work that
you do.
Mr.
Speaker, this is not infrastructure. This is not roads. This is not water and
sewer. This is about supporting families. This is about helping our families
become healthier and stronger so that our communities are healthy and stronger.
The minister for the Status of Women was just up in Labrador and met with some
of those groups and I appreciated her taking the time to go up there. There are
a number of things that we do around violence prevention grants and things like
that.
As
Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, I am extremely concerned
about the rates of child and youth victims of family violence in our province.
We know those stories as well, Mr. Speaker, very heavy stories of where children
have seen their mom be exposed. I just recently had an experience in my own
district. I had a young lady serve me; lovely young lady, met her son; later saw
a social media post that she had typed and deleted and typed and deleted and she
decided – bold move, took the courage to share it with an effort to keep the
conversation going that violence against women is not acceptable.
I just
could not believe what I read, what that young lady shared publicly that she had
been in a relationship for a year where she was beaten every week. She was
beaten. Sometimes she did not get out of bed for two weeks, Mr. Speaker. That
was by someone known in our community.
So it's
very important that we bring in legislation like this, that we keep the
conversation going. I'm pleased to be a part of a government that takes violence
against women and girls very seriously. I am pleased with that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
I'm pleased that our Premier
saw fit to put the first Status of Women independent stand alone, because that
shows we're not just talking about it. Everybody can talk about it, Mr. Speaker,
but it's about the actions and what you put in behind that.
I want
to make sure that we continue to take every action possible to keep children,
youth, girls and women in our province safe from violence whenever and wherever
we can, and, Mr. Speaker, this bill is just one more piece. This bill is just
one piece of the solution in addressing violence against vulnerable populations
in our province.
As we
often say, forewarned is forearmed. People have the right, Mr. Speaker, to be
forearmed with information about their partner's violent past so they can make
informed decisions to keep themselves, and in many cases, to keep their children
safe. That is why I wholeheartedly support this bill, and I'm so pleased to see
it brought in today.
There
were a whole lot more notes I had, Mr. Speaker, but I'm going to take my place
and give some other folks here an opportunity to speak. But I'll end with a
quote. Martin Luther King is a guy, I follow him a lot. I quite like him. I was
actually sworn in the first time in 2013 in July on his 95th birthday. I don't
think that was a coincidence. He said: Our lives begin to end the day we become
silent about things that matter.
That's a
very weighty quote, Mr. Speaker, that has a lot of meaning for me. We all come
into this House, we ask our various districts to represent us and we put our
name forward, but it's important that we stay true to ourselves, to have the
courage to always talk about what matters to us socially. So violence amongst
women, young girls in our province, the percentage is higher than we want it to
be, but this piece of legislation today is going to help us.
It's a
move in the right direction, and we will continue as a government – I was a part
of ministerial committees. The former Minister for the Status of Women, now the
Minister of Natural Resources, we did a lot of work, Mr. Speaker, around
supporting women, and we'll continue to do that as a government.
Thank
you once again for the opportunity to speak. I'm happy to support the bill.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
commend government for tabling this legislation. It is very important
legislation. I would like to point out the New Democratic caucus will be
supporting this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COFFIN:
I am pleased to hear
officials say the RNC and RCMP are on side with this bill. It's important that
the two main collaborating entities will be taking part in this and that they
will be working with government on developing the regulations and implementing
them in practice. I think it's very important that we focus on what the
regulations look like and how they are actually implemented.
Our bill
sets out a very general context, and I would just like to speak a little bit
about how those regulations may manifest themselves. The legislation will allow
us to learn if individuals are in an intimate relationship with someone who has
a history of violence. This legislation offers police a nuanced tool to be able
to interpret lots of different pieces of information to be able to advise a man,
a woman or a transgender individual, if they are in a relationship where they
are potentially at risk of domestic violence. I think that is absolutely
important.
I think
it's absolutely important that we recognize that while this legislation is
focused – and we've heard many of our colleagues here speak about the domestic
violence and its effect on women, I think it's important to point out that men,
too, are victims of domestic violence, as well as transgendered individuals. I
think it's very important to have on record that their rights are included in
this legislation as well. I look forward to seeing how the legislation is going
to address all three of those different individuals or different groups.
The bill
will set out who the police can provide disclosure to. That is very, very
important. People who are going to initiate this type of discussion could very
well be the individual in the relationship who may feel at risk or may feel
there's something more that they need to be aware of.
Sometimes, as we all know, early in a relationship – sometimes while you're in a
relationship – you can be blinded by that relationship and the charm of the
individual, the newness of the relationship and a lot of the emotion that comes
along with that. Sometimes it's the people who are close to you, who are
watching this unfold, that see there is a need to find out more about this
person who is in your family member or your friend's life. They can do that with
more objectivity and more decision.
Who the
police are or who can go to the police is a very, very important piece. It
should not be just the person who's potentially at risk. It is the people who
love them, who care for them and who are very concerned for their safety. That
will be a very important piece of our regulation in defining who can initiate
this type of disclosure or this type of regulation. So I look forward to seeing
that piece as well.
This, of
course, extends beyond checking a criminal record. Police, of course, can do
that, but not all incidents and not all indicators of a potential violent act is
captured in a background check. Sometimes the police knocking on a door several
times after the neighbours have called, after loud arguments or banging, that
doesn't always get recorded. Those are the types of information that police can
draw on.
Known
associates of individuals, capturing that piece of information with past calls
on an individual who could potentially be a violent person, those are nuance
pieces that the police can now use when they analyze how much risk an individual
is in. I think that's a very, very important piece.
We
realize that the framework of this bill – and, again, it is a framework bill.
There is not a lot of detail in it. So this framework of the bill talks about
the right to ask and who can ask but also the right to disclose and who that
information gets disclosed to. I think both of those are very, very important
pieces as well, because like my colleague for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans
mentioned, confidentiality of information is absolutely vital.
I think
as part of the development of these regulations, I would like to see extensive
consultations with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, just to ensure we
have proper confidentiality and proper disclosure protocols there. That is very,
very important for the individual receiving the information.
If you
receive information about someone that might be negative or might reflect them
in a poor light, the person who's receiving that disclosure information does not
have the right to share that widely and post it on public bulletin boards or
Facebook or make it publicly available. So that piece is very, very important as
well. What type of information is disclosed and how that information is
disclosed, as well as how that information is going to be kept confidential, is
absolutely vital.
How we
define who is a person at risk is very, very important as well. So from my
understanding of the bill right now, a person is a low risk, a medium risk or a
high risk. I think that graduation is going to be very, very nuanced, and it has
to be a very clear graduation. I think the individual who is receiving that
information needs to be aware of what a low risk means, what a medium risk means
and what a high risk means and, if they find that they're at high risk, what is
available to them to make sure that their risk is minimized. These things are
very, very important pieces that we hope to see in the regulations.
As well,
we also see that the bill outlines who can assist in making applications for
disclosure. Those individuals who are close family and close friends, perhaps,
are going to be defined in those regulations. But what if it's a colleague who
sees you coming to work every day with a black eye or bruises? What if it's a
teacher in school, or what if it's someone who sees you at the grocery store on
a regular basis and recognizes that? Is that an individual who can assist in
making an application? I think we need to be very clear about who can be
involved in something that is very, very intimate for anyone in this type of
situation.
What
information is considered disclosure is also quite important. Are we able to
give away, say, financial information? Are we able to give away vital
statistics? Are we able to give away, perhaps, confidential letters that someone
has written to their own friends? The type of information considered
'discloseable' will be a very important piece of these regulations.
As well,
I note there is a piece in the bill that points out that there are provisions
that the act may not apply. So, there are exceptions going to be built into this
bill. Who might be eligible for an exception? Would it be Members of the House
of Assembly? Would it be members of law enforcement? Might it be members of the
clergy? There is a wide range of people who could potentially apply for
exemption. I think that also needs to be very carefully considered.
Again,
critiques of this bill fall under – the details will be in the regulations,
which I would like to point out government will issue, craft and implement
without debate. Even if this bill does pass in the House of Assembly with all of
our support, those regulations, which will get at the very heart of the matter,
will not be tabled in the House for debate. I think that we need to put in place
a mechanism to ensure that the nuance and the regulations and the way in which
this bill is implemented must be addressed. This cannot be let slide. I think we
need to give that very careful examination.
I'd like
to also point out that the minister did note it will take some time to develop
these regulations. I would prefer to take as much time as possible to make sure
we get it right. However, I'd like to hearken back to a conversation we had
during Estimates where I pointed out to the minister at the time that there were
multiple communications individuals; however, there was only one legislative
drafter.
Perhaps
we can reprioritize some of our spending and maybe get another legislative
drafter so we can move this along a little bit more. I would hate to see that
the very important work of our Legislature is being slowed down by the fact that
we do not have enough staff to build the regulations to support this act.
Again,
cautions about the exemptions included in the act. Confidentiality – we need to
consult with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Here are a couple of
questions I had myself. Are there any safeguards in place to prevent abuse of
this particular bill? What privacy protocols are in place? These things are two
that have not been addressed but I think ought to be, once we start developing
the regulations.
I put a
little note in here, I do not know this but there are – and I'm sure in a number
of different ways, but also my colleague for Harbour Main did touch on this as
well. I do not know the statistics for same-sex partners, male, female and
transgender victims but, as my colleague for Harbour Main pointed out, even if
we did look at the stats, so many individuals do not report because of the
stigma, because of the shame, for all kinds of reasons. Even if we were to look
at that data, I would suggest that much of that data underrepresents the actual
issue. Perhaps we need to look at this with a slightly different lens as well.
When we
talk about domestic violence, I know this bill only represents a small piece of
a much, much larger problem. I welcome it, I think it is very important and I
look forward to it being implemented. However, the causes of domestic violence
are systemic and eradicating domestic violence will take a coordinated effort
from many facets of government.
Many of
these violent crimes, of course we know, are intimate partner crime so we need
to focus on those. We do know that one of the key indicators of domestic
violence or one of the key contributors to domestic violence is sexism. In
addition to that, homophobia, racism, classism, ageism, ableism and religious
prosecution also contribute to misinformation or are correlated with domestic
violence incidents. I think that not only do we need to address this bill, but
we also need to address much larger societal perspectives on how we treat one
another.
Research
also suggests that gender equality is associated with more peaceful and stable
societies, as well as overall economic growth. So it only makes sense that we
move in this direction because our province certainly needs stability, as well
as economic growth. I strongly recommend that government move ahead with this
and move ahead with other ways of eradicating domestic violence.
In
addition, there is a link between alcohol consumption and domestic violence. I
will also suggest that financial hardships, addictions, lack of stable and
proper housing and financial instability also contribute to domestic violence.
Ways in
which we can go about addressing this, simple things that will give individuals
greater control of their lives – first thing, education is the key to rolling
this out; education is the key to eradicating domestic violence. In addition to
that: pay equity. If a woman or a man or an individual knows that they had the
financial means to move themselves outside of a violent situation, then they are
going to be more likely to do that.
If they
feel trapped because they have no money, because they have no resources, because
they have nowhere to go, then they will remain in that situation, even though
that is the most horrible situation that they could possibly be in.
Fifteen-dollar minimum wage will provide better financial security and $25 a day
child care – if you know that you are fleeing a domestic violent situation and
you can put your child in safe child care for $25 a day, that is going to help
your decision to leave a violent situation.
Safe
spaces to disclose are important. We need more of those. Emergency shelters for
pets, as we've just seen established in Labrador West, are an excellent idea. A
lock exchange, if you are trying to get away from your partner and that partner
has a key to the house that you're living in where all of your things are, then
it's very hard to lock them out, but if you have a lock exchange, that person
can come bang on the door and they are not getting in. You call the RNC and they
will come get you. These are very simple ways in which we can help individuals
who are suffering or have been inflicted by domestic violence.
I would
like to take a moment to point out that violence against women happens in all
cultures and religions, all ethnic and racial communities, at every age, at
every income group. However, some individuals are more at risk and we also know
that women are particularly at risk. However, I would like to point out,
Aboriginal women, First Nations, Inuit and Metis are six times more likely to be
killed than non-Aboriginal women. Aboriginal women are 2.5 times more likely to
be the victims of violence than non-Aboriginal women.
Rates of
violent crimes against women 15 to 24 are 42 per cent higher than rates of women
for 25 to 34, and they are nearly double that of women who are 35 to 44. So
youth are particularly vulnerable for this or to domestic violence. Rates of
spousal violence and homicide are highest for women between 15 and 25. This is
awful.
Here's
an even more tragic and sad, sad statistic. Women living with physical and
cognitive impairments experience violence two to three times more than women
living without impairments. Sixty per cent of women with a disability experience
some type of violence. That is unacceptable.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
level of conversation is getting a little too high.
Thank
you.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, in conclusion, I'd just like to point out that I would like to see
these regulations capture many of the concerns we've had addressed or we've had
brought up by many of my colleagues here in the House. I think I would like to
see a proper protocol in place where we can look at those regulations, we can
review them, we can debate them before they're being passed, to make sure they
do address our concerns appropriately.
I would
once again like to reiterate my support and my caucus's support for this
legislation.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, it's a pleasure to be back in the House of Assembly once again, and
to get back to the people's business.
Today
we're debating Bill 6, An Act Respecting Disclosure of Information Under an
Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol.
Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I will be – I'm sure, like everybody.
I'm sure it will be unanimous that we'll all be supporting the bill. I put a
little bit of a caveat to it, and certainly the Leader of the NDP has really
encapsulated a lot of my thoughts about this bill. Unlike her, I don't have all
these great notes that she seems to have there. I have a couple of hen scratches
here that I made, but other than that, my notes are sort of stored up here in
the memory bank. So maybe we were doing like a Vulcan mind meld or something and
she was reading what I was thinking or something.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LANE:
Yes. She might have picked my
brain, although some people might say that's pretty slim pickings.
Look,
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, I think we would all agree that anything we
can do in this House of Assembly that's going to end, or at least curb domestic
violence in this province is a good thing. There's not one Member here that
would be against that.
As the
Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi indicated, this can happen to – while
primarily it's male against female, males can be victims of violence. Of course,
we have to consider the LGBT community and some of the issues that may be
somewhat – well, it's basically the same but there may be some nuances.
Certainly, we have to consider the Indigenous community and any of the special
considerations there, but we do know that primarily it is male against female.
We all have women in our lives, whether they be our mothers or our daughters,
aunts or sisters and so on, and there's nobody I'm sure in this House that would
not want to do all that we possibly can to protect them from any form of
violence. In this case, we're talking about domestic violence.
With
that said, in terms of the spirit and the intent of this bill, I'm certainly
glad it was brought forward, that this was initiated – albeit through very
tragic circumstances by that gentleman in England. I'm glad to see there are a
couple of other jurisdictions that have brought it in, or are bringing it in.
I'm glad to see that we here in Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be
bringing in similar legislation to Clare's Law. I commend the Minister of
Justice for doing so and the government, in general, for doing so.
The
concern, however, that I have, that has been already alluded to primarily by the
Leader of the NDP – although, the Member for Harbour Main, I believe, may have
alluded to it as well, to some degree. The fact that all of the meat of this
bill, if you will, is going to be contained in the regulations, or what's being
referred to as the protocol. While I'm not questioning – for one second, I am
not questioning the integrity of this government or this minister to bring
forward the best possible regulations. I'm sure he is committed to doing so. I'm
not questioning that at all.
However,
I have to say that like other pieces of legislation before it, and specifically
this piece of legislation, we're talking about such a sensitive matter when
we're talking about the protection of people from violence. Trying to balance
that with the legal rights we have for privacy and the right to be presumed
innocent until proven guilty and so on – this is a very sensitive matter and
these regulations or this protocol is going to be a fine balancing act, and we
need to get that balancing act right. We absolutely have to get it right.
The only
reservation I have about it is that I vote in favour of it in terms of the
spirit of it, but I really have no idea – I can surmise what I think the
regulations might look like. I guess I can give my opinion as to what I think
they should look like. The Leader of the NDP, I think, raised a lot of questions
that I would have. I have other questions about what the regulations would look
like.
When you
look at the bill itself – and I think this is important here. In section 9 of
the bill we talk about the regulations: “The Lieutenant-Governor in Council” –
which is basically the minister – “may make regulations (a) prescribing
individuals or classes of individuals who may be applicants ….”
The
minister is going to decide who can apply, whether that be the victim or
possible victim. Or persons can apply for this information on behalf of a victim
or suspected victim, whether that be a social worker, I suppose, or child, youth
and family services or the police or whatever the case might be. So trying to
understand who can apply.
Then it
says: “(b) prescribing individuals or classes of individuals who are persons at
risk ….” Who is that person at risk? Who decides who gets to apply? Who is at
risk?
“(c)
prescribing individuals or classes of individuals who may assist with or make an
application on behalf of” that person. Is that an authority figure? Could it be
social services? Could it be a family member? If it is a family member, is it
any family member? Does it have to be immediate family?
“(d)
prescribing an Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol .…” What is that
actual protocol going to look like?
“(e)
prescribing information as disclosure information ….” What type of information
will be disclosed?
One
thing that comes to mind, for example, are we simply saying we're going to
disclose if someone has a criminal record? Is that what we're talking about?
Because in a lot of violence situations that we hear about, domestic violence,
quite often the perpetrator of the violence, if you will, never gets charged. If
you were to look up, I'm sure, a certain individual, for argument's sake, in
this situation, the police could look up their name, and you would see suspect,
suspect, suspect on this date, suspect on that date, suspect on some other date
where there were calls made to the home that there was violence going ahead, and
at the time when the police showed up, perhaps the partner came out and said:
No, I'm fine. Nothing happened, b'y. I just dropped something or they must have
heard that the TV was too loud and they turned it down. There's nothing going on
here.
The
actual perpetrator, if you will, could have a very violent history, but was
never charged, or maybe they were charged but they weren't convicted. Maybe it
was thrown out of court by a technicality; maybe the charges were dropped. I
don't know. But, my point is, when we're talking about the information being
disclosed, are we talking about only when someone was convicted of a criminal
record, or are we talking about every time they might have been charged or a
suspect or a person of interest and so on? So, we don't know, at this point in
time, what the information is that would be or could be disclosed.
I'm not
going to read the whole list, but there's a whole bunch of things here. Really,
the essence of the bill is contained in the protocol or contained in the
regulations, whatever we're going to call it, at the end of the day. As I said,
that's going to have implications. Yes, it's going to, hopefully, improve
safety, and that's a positive thing that we all support; but, then again, there
are also the rights of the other parties involved, and whether their rights are
also protected, whether their privacy is being protected and so on and whether
the presumption of innocence.
Like
others have said, certainly when these regulations are being developed – and I'm
sure this is going to happen, by the way. I'm not suggesting that it's not going
to happen, but certainly the Privacy Commissioner needs to be involved in the
development of these regulations or protocol. I would suggest the police should
be involved, the members of the Law Society, perhaps. The women's groups, like
the Status of Women and so on, should be involved; the Indigenous community, the
LGBT community and so on. There are a lot of stakeholders, and I think that they
all need to be involved, and their input has to be sought in developing these
protocols or these regulations.
I'm sure
that's going to happen, by the way. I say it for the record, I'm sure that's
going to happen. Again, this is not in any way to suggest that the minister or
the government is not going to take this seriously and put in the best effort
and do the best they can, based on the information they have. Nobody is
suggesting that. I'm certainly not, but you have to appreciate, as a Member
voting for a piece of legislation, like we do in other cases – and I know people
will say, well, that's the way it's always been. The regulations are always made
by the minister or the policies are always made by the department and so on. I
realize that, the way it's always been. It doesn't mean that's the right way to
go, but it is the way it's always been.
We're
talking about a very serious piece of legislation here with very serious
implications. We want to do the right thing and we're kind of taking a leap of
faith, in a sense, saying to the government, yes, we agree with where you're
going, in principle. We all want to protect the women or our province, or not
just the women but anyone who could be subject to domestic violence. We want to
make it safer. We want to make it better. There's nobody here saying that's not
that case. We all agree with that I believe, but we are taking a bit if a leap
of faith in the sense that once I put up my hand and vote, aye, then we are
giving the carte blanche authority to the government, to the minister, to
develop these protocols and develop these regulations and we would not see them
until they're enacted and so on.
It's not
coming back to this House of Assembly for any kind of debate. We don't have a
committee system, which I think we should. We just went through a committee
trial piece, I guess, on the real estate act, I think it was, an all-party
committee. I'm not saying that every single piece of legislation and every
single regulation, especially the more minor ones, but for something of this
significance and this seriousness, perhaps those regulations, perhaps we should
have a commitment from the government that before these actual regulations are
enacted, which are going to be the meat of this, what we're trying to do, and
given the seriousness of it, that those regulations would be brought before a
committee, if you will, comprised of all parties and independent Members, if
they so desire, to have a look at what these regulations look like, to ask all
the questions, and to make sure that we get it right, and to make sure it's
something that we can all co-operate, collaborate and agree with.
Because
when this House first opened following the last election, I heard Members on all
sides saying we all got a message, Mr. Speaker, from the people. The people want
us to work together. They want us to co-operate. They want us to collaborate. I
heard it from both sides. And the people do want that.
Here's
an opportunity here where we have something very significant, cutting edge,
arguably, great thing, great initiative – again, applaud the government, applaud
the minister for doing it, good thing – but we have an opportunity now to show
the people who elected us all, to show them that we can actually work together,
co-operate, collaborate and make sure that we get this very, very serious piece
of legislation done properly together. And we can all stand up and endorse it
and say this was a good thing, this was good work that was done on behalf of the
people to protect our fellow citizens from domestic violence.
So with
that said, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to take my seat. Again, I'm going to support
it. I'm going to support it because I agree with the spirit and I agree with the
intent; I absolutely do. But I do so, once again, in emphasizing the fact that
when I support this I honestly – unless government is going to bring forth some
sort of a process as indicated, like a committee or something to look at the
regulations together, then I'm really counting on government to do everything
perfectly, to do it right. And what they do may or may not reflect what I would
support. I hope it would – I'm sure it probably will in the end – but here's a
chance to do it right.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The Minister of Justice
and Public Safety, if he speaks now, he will close the debate.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
appreciate the commentary from my colleagues on both sides of the House as it
relates to this piece of legislation. There are a number of points that were
raised during the debate, and I'd be certainly happy if perhaps it'd be best
during the Committee stage to try to answer some of those. I will point out that
many of the questions were asked and answered during the briefing that was
given, but again, this is why we have Committees, so we can hear and ask
questions.
One of
the biggest things, I think, that I noticed during the debate was the commentary
about regulations, which is a fair point. The fact is, as with any piece of
legislation, you have the regulations and they are going to dictate the actual
practical application of a policy or a piece of legislation. That's a fair
point, and that's why it's going to take time.
There's
a lot of work that has to be done, but it's going to be done, I would point out,
in a non-partisan and non-political way. This is not the Minister of Justice
going to figure this out because I'm not an expert in that field. That's why
we're going to be trusting our police, their analysts and all the other groups
that have been mentioned to have some input and some say on that.
I
usually take a chance to mention it during every session of the House. One of
the things the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands brought up was the talk of
collaboration and co-operation. What I will point out, perhaps just for the
record – and many of us, myself and the Member, have been here for eight years
now. What I will say is I think I'm fair and I'm accurate in saying that our
processes changed a lot in eight years.
Eight
years ago you couldn't sit on that side and suggest change. You could not do
that. There's a Committee structure that's moving forward and there are no
threats, as we used to receive, about you're not getting a briefing today,
that's how this is going to work. There has been progress in this House. I do
remember those times.
I will
point out for the record that the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands was not
delivering those threats, but I think it's important to note, the same way that
it bothers me when the media talk about heckling in this House, the reality is
that – and I look at the Member across the way for Cape St. Francis – what
happens in this House now is much different than it was five years ago and,
certainly, eight years ago. Pointing out this process is – I can tell you what,
the fact is all of our times here depend on the people that put us in these
positions. What I can say is what we do will outlive that, the legislation, the
policy and the decisions.
The fact
is, this is hopefully one that will be here long after I ever have the privilege
of making these decisions, and I certainly don't want to go to bed at night
saying that I was a part of a bad decision. That's why I'm going to let the
experts, the police, the other jurisdictions that have been here and we're going
to – we all want the same thing.
There is
at no point during this debate anybody saying we don't agree on the crux of this
legislation and the to-be-development to protocol. That's the thing that I think
is positive. There have been very good questions raised, concerns raised, points
raised and that, I would suggest, makes constructive debate in this House.
That's their duty to do that, and I appreciate that.
On that
note, I will go to the Committee. What I will promise is this, that if there are
questions I can't answer during the Committee stage, I will endeavour to deliver
the answers during Third Reading or some other way. I think we've proven we're
willing to provide information as it's requested. So I'll try my best to do that
as soon as I can.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 6 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Passed.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act Respecting
Disclosure Of Information Under An Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol.
(Bill 6)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting Disclosure Of Information Under An
Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol,” read a second time, ordered
referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 6)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that the House resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 6.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Passed.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Bennett):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 6, An Act Respecting Disclosure Of Information Under An
Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol.
A bill,
“An Act Respecting Disclosure Of Information Under An Interpersonal Violence
Disclosure Protocol.” (Bill 6)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Simply, I'm asking
that the minister, please, just briefly talk generally about the bill for the
sake of the viewing public and for the record, clause 1.
CHAIR:
Okay, it's on.
Do you
want to repeat the question, please?
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Yes. Just simply
with respect to the short title of clause 1, if the minister, for the sake of
the viewing public and for the record, could just please talk in general about
the bill, briefly.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I think the question from my
colleague was to discuss the bill in general again, but I'm just wondering,
because I just spoke about it earlier during second reading, and I'm happy to
speak about it again. I'm happy to talk about the bill, but my understanding is
when we do the Committee stage, we want to get into the specific points
regarding the bill. I'm happy to talk outside of the bill as to questions,
concerns, regulation, whatever, but I don't necessarily want to get back into a
general conversation about the bill because it would be a rehashing of the
points I made during second reading.
I hope
that's okay, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the Member for Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Okay.
Clause
2, can the minister explain briefly –
CHAIR:
No, sorry, we're on clause 1 first.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Clause 1, okay.
CHAIR:
Any other questions on clause 1?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you.
Minister, I'm just wondering if you can give me your perspective on the issue I
raised when I just spoke, and that's the issue around what you would see as the
type of information that might be released. Specifically, what I want to get at,
as I said earlier, is this only somebody who has been convicted of a crime, or
if someone might have been charged a dozen times and never actually convicted,
or maybe they were a suspect a number of times but there were no charges laid,
maybe there were charges dropped, that information.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's a
good question. What I'm going to do, I will refer to some of the points that the
staff put together. A couple of general points – and again, I'm not being
specific per se because the fact is the protocol hasn't been developed. I don't
want to say something that is black and white. The reality is that the work is
yet to be done. The regulations, I will point out, will be LGIC as opposed to
ministerial, but here are a couple things that stuck out to me when I look at
this.
It comes
down to best interests of the person. So, that phrase, we especially hear it
when we talk about custody involving children: What's in the best interests of
the child? In this case, what's in the best interests of the individual seeking
the information? What's in the best interests of that person?
The
second thing is that there's risk assessment that will be done by the police.
The presence of a criminal record does not necessarily indicate risk, nor does
the absence of a criminal record indicate that there is no risk. So there is a
lot of work to be done here.
I will
point out that in the UK they enumerated specific charges, so it might be
assault or assault with weapon. Again, the charges over there are different than
our Criminal Code, they went through
that way; but, the police already had the ability too, looking at a background
and providing a risk assessment to the individual. So it opens the gamut there
and there's a lot of information.
I know
that's kind of vague, but I think you get the general gist at which we're
starting here. The whole point of this is to prevent violence from happening to
a person. So, we have to look at the situation. Like you say, the police would
have records as to charges laid against an individual that were never pursued.
In many cases, we see charges that are laid and later dropped at the request of
the applicant.
There
are so many things that happen in these situations that all have to be taken
into context. I won't get into specifics, but I think that answers the point you
raised about how we are doing this. I think we want it to be wide ranging in
certain ways, but also specific because there are certain things. You may have a
criminal record but it may be for an offence that carries no violence at all.
There may be a case of you have tax fraud. Is that something that should be
disclosed?
Again,
without saying aye or nay, I will say these are all considerations that will go
into it, but what we do have the benefit of is a piece of legislation and a
protocol in the UK that's in operation, and three other jurisdictions – well,
actually, two other jurisdictions, Saskatchewan and Alberta, that are ahead of
us and we can work and collaborate with them. I think Nova Scotia is actually
doing some work too, as well as all the groups that you named before.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Minister, for
that.
I'm just
wondering, Minister, it indicates here in the act, it talks about if someone
obtains this personal information, whether it be criminal in nature – I guess it
would be criminal nature and not necessarily a conviction though – then they
can't share that information with other people. You can't just take it now and
find out the information, then put it on Facebook and tell the world or
whatever, is what it indicates here. It doesn't say those exact words but it is
here somewhere.
I'm just
wondering: What remedies do you envision that would be in place for the victim
of that type of situation? In other words, somebody obtains information about me
and then, instead of keeping it confidential for their own purposes, they decide
to tell the whole world for whatever reason and now, all of a sudden, everybody
knows about my history. Do I have any recourse against that person or can that
person be charged for doing that? What would you envision there?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
A couple of things to keep in
mind there – and a good point because sometimes we see the provision of
information in good faith which is then used for a bad-faith purpose. A couple
of things to keep in mind: If you have a criminal record, that is, in most
cases, public information anyway. Or even if you're charged, you're on a docket.
If you are charged, you are on a docket. You might have seen a story from the
weekend in The Telegram about that. If
you are charged with an offence, you are placed on a docket which is public
information available online. There's a whole conversation we can get into about
that.
Coming
back to that, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. One part of the
protocol that we've seen elsewhere is that the information is provided verbally,
as opposed to being done in email or written format which can then be put up.
The second part is there are remedies you can put in place to prevent the
disclosure of information for negative purposes which can be a civil offence; it
can be a criminal offence. We've seen that happen in other jurisdictions. We've
seen that happen here in this province as well.
At the
same time, there is the possibility that if I get information about you, then –
and this is where we get into the philosophical debate about I get the
information about you. It poses a risk to me. That's told to me. I may feel that
I have a duty to pass that on to protect that individual. These are the
questions that are asked in the protocol development. This is the problem.
There's a lot of grey area here which is why, again, we're having this
conversation, having this debate.
What I
can say is I don't think there's a single question or point that will be raised
here or that you have raised or that I've raised that hasn't been considered at
some point in time. But again, that's why debate is necessary, because the
possibility is that we can come up with the one that hasn't been considered and
should be considered.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Minister, for
that.
Minister, I suppose there's a million questions I could ask, but the only other
one I'm going to get into – and I'll let some of my other colleagues, I'm sure
they have questions as well. It's on the consultation piece. And I'm pretty sure
I know the answer anyway, that you're going to say, yes. But I would assume,
Minister, it would be safe for me to assume that, as they regulations are
developed, you will be consulting with the police, people in the law community,
the Privacy Commissioner, Status of Women, Indigenous groups, LGBTQ, all those
stakeholders or potential stakeholders.
I would
assume that when you develop these regulations there's going to be some sort of
a consultation process where any of these groups, or even a member of the
general public, perhaps, could have some input as to what they would like to see
in these regulations or protocols.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again,
when it comes to consultation, generally speaking, yes, I think it needs to be
wide ranging. What I would point out, though, too, this is police-driven in the
sense that they will be administering the protocol, not the department, not the
minister, not government – police-administered. So they will, in many cases, be
a lead in the sense that they are the ones that have to formulate the risk
assessment. They are the ones that have to get the information.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm not done yet, either, so
just give me a chance.
So the
police were there, but we have to speak to absolutely everybody. So everybody
will be consulted. Now, do I think there will be some kind of town hall on this?
No, because I think we have the means now. I can tell you that having our emails
available publicly, I get numerous emails from numerous individuals on a daily
basis where we try our best to consult. And we can set up a means for people to
get in touch. Or, in some cases, people want to touch base with a group and
they'll bring that concern forward.
I don't
think there will be any lack of ability or a lack of consultation when it comes
to figuring out what's the best approach with this protocol. But the groups you
named, specifically, police – again, being police-administered – they will play
a large role. Again, do you think I want to walk into this House in a year's
time and have somebody say you came out with these regulations and you didn't
consult with the Status of Women? That's not exactly what I want to be asked.
So I'm
certainly going to do everything I can to talk – I know ATIPPA was brought up
and the Privacy Commissioner. They have been consulted, but they'll continue to
be consulted. We need their guidance moving forward as well. I think that covers
it, hopefully.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Minister. I
understand where you're coming from about coming in this House and having it
said, but I guess once bitten twice shy. I think about the Muskrat Falls
inquiry; I was told lots of stuff and thinking that nobody would ever want to
come in the House and have to face questions and stuff. Anyway, we know what
happened – and I'm not suggesting you're going down that road, but I'm just
saying it does always cause me to pause and ask some of these questions.
The only
other point or question I wanted to ask, based on the answer I just got: Would
there be any willingness, Minister, through perhaps the engageNL – I just throw
that out there – through the engageNL portal or process or whatever to be able
to put this out so that if anyone wanted to have some feedback or input into
these – because this is a very serious piece of legislation that's going to –
yes, it's very important for the protection of the public but also there are so
many questions and concerns I could see that people might have around the
disclosure of their personal information and who can see it and who can share
it, and all these things.
I'm just
wondering, given the nature of that and this protocol, which admittedly – even
you've said through your answers you don't know at this point in time because
there's so much work to be done by the experts and people in the field and
stakeholders, and I absolutely understand that, but given what we're talking
about here: Would there be any willingness or opportunity to put it out through
something like engageNL so that people could make commentary on these proposed
regulations?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
While I appreciate where
you're coming from, and certainly I share that mindset at times, I can't say for
sure this would be something where we're just going to invite the commentary
from anybody just because it's their point of view.
With a
topic like this, I will say that my priority is that there are a lot of experts
out there, a lot of active advocates and groups working on this who've done this
work. We are lucky to not have any shortage of those individuals and groups that
are going to want to contribute. I will take what they have to contribute as
opposed to just putting it out there and opening it up to someone that may not
have a learned point of view, we'll say, is the best term I can come up with
right off the top of my head.
I hope
you get where I'm coming from here, because this is not just a – I have a
general point of view on this. This is something where we've got people that are
studying this, dealing with this; we have police that are working on this, and
there are a lot of people that don't, I think, fully grasp, and you know what? I
freely admit that when I first started learning and listening, I didn't grasp
the impact, the extent, just how big an issue this was and trying to understand
from a victim's point of view.
That
requires a lot of listening, and you know what? We've got a lot of groups out
there. There's Violence Prevention. I'm lucky; I sit down with people like Val
Barter, Georgina McGrath. I sit down with chiefs of police, the Status of Women.
I look at Laura Winters, people like that. First Light are out there. I look at
Odelle Pike. There are a lot of people out there that have some background.
Again,
this is just me speaking now. The fact is maybe through this process they'll go
some way, but this is a tricky subject. As important as it is, I think it's just
as important to have the right consultation and the right information as opposed
to something that just opens it up willy-nilly with no consequence as to the
information that's given.
CHAIR:
Any other questions on clause 1?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Will there be any
options and supports offered to a person who is told that their partner may pose
a violent risk to them?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
One of the issues we're
dealing with and working on is – I've been lucky enough to have some research
here and stories done. It's not just about getting this information. The
information is just one part. It's what do you do with that information.
We are
working so that police can provide some form of information. I have a note here;
we can help people connect with programming, at-risk programming, individuals,
information. That's a part of this as well, that once the information is
provided – again, it comes in different forms, too.
There's
the risk assessment. In some jurisdictions they do high, medium and low.
Depending on which level it comes in at, it might dictate a different response.
There are some individuals, too, that also may get this information and, for
whatever reasons, may not choose to do something with it. That's also one of the
issues we deal with in this type of situation, sadly.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
How much
information can the police already disclose under existing laws?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
I don't
have a specific answer to that. I know there are disclosure provisions that
apply to both police forces. Exactly how much they can, I don't want to overstep
or understate what actually can be put forward, but I will endeavour when this
has third reading that I will be able to stand up and answer that question for
you so that I get it right, as opposed to taking a shot in the dark and getting
it wrong.
Thank
you.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Member for Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
The reason I also
ask that question is to understand what this act will do that the current laws
cannot do. That would be in relation to that previous question as well.
With
respect to the immunity issue, what sorts of immunity is the minister
contemplating or does this legislation contemplate? Why does the minister
believe that immunity is necessary? Is it because there is a concern that
information might be used unfairly against an individual? Are the police
concerned that they might need immunity if they give an applicant a false sense
of security about the risk they face? I'd just like to have some more
clarification on the immunity issue piece.
CHAIR:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Again, my understanding here
is that this is a fairly standard provision when it comes to this type of
information, which is to protect the Crown and their agencies from people being
able to take action against them, basically avoiding any number of Crown actions
when something is done in good faith. It will be up to somebody to determine
whether it's in bad faith or not.
The
reality is this will be contentious, no doubt, to those people who are having
their information disclosed. It would be especially contentious to those
individuals who feel their information should not have been disclosed and there
was some kind of reason behind it. The reality is, as it is in most cases,
whether it's ATIPPA or government handing out information, the vast majority is
done in good faith. Having done that and satisfied that, people should not be
able to just automatically take action and tie the Crown up in unnecessary
litigation or other actions when the reality is that we have a piece of
legislation here. It's similar to the
Proceedings Against the Crown Act in that there are similar provisions.
CHAIR:
The Member for Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Confidentiality;
we were told the government will not impose penalties under this legislation for
disclosure. How does the minister hope to ensure confidentiality? Will a person
have a recourse if he or she believes that the information has been disclosed
about him or her that's false or if a person believes their confidentiality has
been breached? Those are some concerns with respect to that piece of it, if you
could answer.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you.
The
section being referenced by my colleague is section 6: “A person shall not
disclose any disclosure information that comes to the knowledge of that person
under this Act, except where authorized in the exercise of the powers,
performance of the responsibilities or carrying out of the functions of the
person under this Act and the regulations.”
The
reality is that, in many cases, when you think about it, you can put a section
in there and say a person shall not do this, but a person many chose to do that
and face the repercussions that come. What are the repercussions? That has not
been determined through this protocol yet. The reality is, in other
jurisdictions, the legislation has not made it an offence for a person to
disclose that. Again, we're talking about protecting victims and then is there
the possibility of further victimizing a victim who inadvertently – I'm trying
not to put out something so as to allow you to jump on that, but you get where
I'm coming from.
The
reality is that when it comes to this information, there's a clause in here, if
somebody does something – and again, I always come to back to good faith versus
bad faith. If somebody is doing something in good faith, it's going to be hard
to penalize them; whereas, if they do something in bad faith, then they can
prove that. Nothing is stopping anybody from bringing a civil action for some
kind of wrong or tort committed and they can bring that – what is the actionable
cause here? What are they going to do? Who knows how that will happen or if that
will happen?
There's
still some work to be fleshed out on that as we go through this protocol because
that is one of the issues we deal with, is that we have confidential information
and we have private information. But again, I come back to the overriding point
of this legislation, is to protect individuals from individuals who have a past
record of violence, and that's the main point that I keep in mind here. I get
the balancing act that's always got to be maintained but that's one of the
things that drives us forward.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognized the hon.
the Member for Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Could the minister
explain which persons, classes of persons or specific circumstances might be
contemplated as being outside the scope of the act?
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So what
I can point out is what we've seen in other jurisdictions – we have not
determined that exactly here but what we have seen in other jurisdictions where
the protocol has been developed, a person can self-identify or various entities,
like a community health worker or a social worker, can apply on their behalf.
Concerned family members or friends can also identify them as at risk and assist
or make an application to the police.
The
specifics for our protocol would be determined in this development process. When
you think about it, family and friends, what part of family? Is it mom, dad,
brother, sister, spouse, child? Are we going into aunts and uncles? When we talk
about friends, well, who's the friend? Maybe I'm not actually that close a
friend but I think I'm concerned about you. These are the specifics that have to
be fleshed out.
Generally speaking, I don't think it will be limited to just the individual
because it's extremely tough to do. We know that many people – especially when
we look at third-party reporting – have a tough time coming forward; they need
help. What we're trying to do is help these individuals, whether it's a support
person or a family member. We have to keep that in mind, but these will be
top-of-mind considerations as we work our way into it.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Member for Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
One final
question: Can the minister please tell us how closely he expects our protocol to
mirror those of the other jurisdictions you just referenced, the other
jurisdictions which have a slight lead on us?
CHAIR:
The Minister of Justice and
Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I can't say for sure right
now. I honestly can't. The UK is obviously extremely different in various ways,
as you would know, when we talk about just the
Criminal Code, what we have versus
what they have. When you look at the types of offences they have listed there,
in some cases we have similar offences, different wording. The policing are
different there. Obviously, it's a different structure altogether.
We look
at our provinces here where we're more closely aligned; we have the same
Criminal Code. I think they're all
going to be generally close with some differences here and there, possibly, when
we look at the police forces. There may be a disagreement or a change – I'll
give an example, when we look at our SIRT legislation. We did a jurisdictional
scan, what constitutes a serious incident and everybody had the same. They're 90
per cent the same. There might be a 10 per cent change here and there in that
particular thing.
I think
we're going to be fairly similar, because the same concept is overriding here
which guides us, which is providing that individual with the information they
need as it relates to preventing violence against them from an intimate partner.
That's the guiding factor here. I think they're going to be similar but I don't
want to say for sure yet.
BC's is
a private Member's resolution. I'm not sure how far into this Alberta is.
Saskatchewan's is the farthest ahead. Ours is similar but there are some
changes. Ours has more consultation involved than I think theirs did, but they
may also have some changes. Each legislature will do as they think is right.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the
Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, section 8, Non-application of the Act: “Any provision or portion of a
provision, of this Act prescribed in the regulations does not apply (a) to a
person or class of persons prescribed in the regulations; or (b) in those
circumstances provided in the regulations.”
I'm just
wondering: Who would this not apply to? I would think that you can have domestic
violence, it doesn't matter where you work, what kind of a job you do, whatever,
domestic violence is domestic violence. So who could possibly be exempted from
this? Any idea?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Certainly off the top of my
head I don't see anybody as being exempted by matter of course. The reality is
that I'm looking at this from if you're an individual, we're all going to be
treated the same here.
One
thing I do want to point out – and I can't remember if it was your question or
the Member for Harbour Main – some people that are also qualified in this are
the parents of minors are allowed to apply on behalf of a minor. So that's also
going to be included in there.
Again, I
don't know exactly what that applies to, to be honest with you. There's no
provision that somebody's going to be exempted because they're anything.
Everybody should be treated the same here, whether you are a Member of the
Legislature, whether you're a member of – let's just say I don't see any
diplomatic immunity going on here. If you're a police officer, if you're a
regular citizen, doesn't matter who you are, at the end of the day this is all
about getting information out that protects individuals.
But if
there is something different that comes up, I will provide it.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Minister.
I guess
if you don't have the answer there now, that's fine. Perhaps you could get us
the answer, because, like you, I can't think of why anybody would be exempted.
But if that's the case, then why even write it there? Why does section 8 exist?
It exists for some reason. I can't see them putting a section of legislation in
there for something that does not exist. So somebody must have thought of some
possible circumstance which I can't think of what it could be. If you could find
out later, even, that would be fine.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
What I will say is that two
things. Number one, everybody else has this in their legislation. So it's a
clause that is taken from everybody else. The second part is I wouldn't think of
it as much as is there somebody that's going to be exempted from being examined.
What this is basically saying, any provision of this act – so this could be
talking about something benign, as opposed to – where I think you're going with
this is – is somebody going to be exempted from this for some reason. No, that's
not going to happen.
What
it's saying: “Any provision, or portion of a provision, of this Act prescribed
in the regulations does not apply ….” This could be something very benign as it
relates to the non-compellability section as it relates to a police force being
forced to go in. It could relate to a regulation – section (g). You get where
I'm going with that.
As soon
as I get something more substantive, I'll provide that.
CHAIR:
Any other questions?
Shall
clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those opposed?
Carried.
On
motion clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 10
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 to 10 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 10 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act Respecting Disclosure
Of Information Under An Interpersonal Violence Disclosure Protocol.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report the bill
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those opposed?
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move
that the Committee rise and report Bill 6.
CHAIR:
It is moved and seconded that
the Committee rise and report Bill 6 carried without amendment.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those opposed?
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
Order, please!
The
Member for Lewisporte -Twillingate.
MR. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered that matters to them
referred and have directed me to report Bill 6 carried without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole has reported that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and directed him to report Bill 6 without amendment.
When shall the report be received?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bill be read a third time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Considering the hour of the day, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and
Public Safety, that we do adjourn.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
It has been moved and
seconded that the House do now adjourn.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
AN HON. MEMBER:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
One enthusiastic person here.
The
House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.