PDF Version

December 6, 2017

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 42

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, that the

House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 26.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider the said bill.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

This

motion is carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 26,

An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Child And Youth Advocate Act.” (Bill 26)

CLERK (Barnes):

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's

once again a pleasure to rise and speak to this very important debate as we're

in Committee of the Whole. We have a number of questions here this morning for

the minister.

My first

question pertains to clause 16.1(1). We're hoping the minister can outline for

us today why the Departments of Health and Community Services and Education and

Early Childhood Development are not included in this legislation, if we could

have the basis of the rationale for that decision.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank

the Member for the question as we move into Committee, after going through

second reading yesterday on Bill 26,

An Act to Amend the Child and Youth

Advocate Act, for people that may be watching this morning. I know I hear –

especially from some of the seniors, so I mention that just to let them know

what we're doing, debating a very important bill to make it mandatory on the

reporting of deaths and critical injuries to the Advocate.

Yesterday, there was a fair bit of discussion on why we did not include Health

and Education. Mr. Chair, I will reiterate that how we arrived at what we would

include in this bill was through many, many meetings and working closely with

the current Advocate.

As I

stressed yesterday, the Child and Youth Advocate has a very important role to

play in this province as an independent voice for children. We do not dictate to

the Advocate what she should be doing. The Advocate feels that Children, Seniors

and Social Development, Justice and Public Safety – two departments that are

responsible for providing services to children in care and to families that we

support and to youth – is necessary to allow her to do the job that she was

mandated to do.

Mr.

Chair, I look forward to other questions, but we have mechanisms in place under

Health, under Education. Most of us here are parents; we know that if there's an

incident in school, you're going to be an advocate for your son or your

daughter. If something happens, if your child breaks a foot in volleyball, like

happened to my daughter, you're going to go to the administration if you're not

satisfied. Maybe you'll go to the school board if you're not happy with what

happened.

At the

end of the day, we need to be aware in this House that the Advocate in

Newfoundland and Labrador has a very broad mandate and she can investigate

whatever she chooses. Any child can go to the Advocate, any parent in this

province can go to the Advocate and the Advocate will decide if she is going to

investigate that or not.

I cannot

stress that enough that what we're doing is what the current Advocate is

completely satisfied – I listened to her again this morning on VOCM. Before I

was out the door, I listened to the Advocate being interviewed saying that she

was satisfied with where the amendments of this bill was going. Far be it from

me to try and dictate to the Advocate what she would like to have included.

As a

Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development, we welcome all

recommendations. If we get a few months into this and the Advocate wants

something else, Mr. Chair, she has every opportunity to come back to my office

and we will sit down and we will continue to work with her. As I said yesterday,

at the end of the day, we want the same thing and that is the best possible care

for the safety of children and youth in this province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We seem

to be still bringing up where we were yesterday. I fully understand and

appreciate what the minister is saying and we, too, have every confidence in the

Child and Youth Advocate. This legislation – and for all of us who were around

in those days – was brought forward on the basis of recommendations that came

from the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate, an independent office of this

House.

It was

stated in a private Member's motion brought forward by government when they were

Members of the Opposition, it was stated in the red book and it was stated in

the recommendations, as I said, of the former Youth Advocate and the three

reports that were done. It seems to me like I'm hearing the minister say that

this is not their decision to remove these components. Either way, there must be

a rationale; there's a reason for why for three years there was a strong

sentiment that all departments be included, strong sentiment by –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

– all sides of the House that

all departments be included and that critical incidents be included as well.

We're just looking for the reason as to why today it has changed and why today –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

There was work done on this

for 18 months prior to the Liberals coming in to office and here we are now two

years later. So, really, a bill that has been in the works for 3½ years, that we

still are falling short on based on the recommendations that came out of those

three tragedies that we had.

Can we

just have a reason as to why? I understand you are saying it's because the Child

and Youth Advocate has said that's what she wanted; that's what you've said. But

why is it excluded? What's the basis for that? There has to be something that

justifies your rationale as to why this is excluded.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Chair, the hon. Member

said we keep referencing yesterday, we're referencing yesterday because the

messaging yesterday and the messaging today does not need to change.

The

Advocate – and I cannot stress it enough for people watching and people who may

not understand – is an independent office of this House. We are all here

elected, we represent different parties, we're different colours and stripes but

there are some things that politics do not belong in. In this case, Mr. Chair,

we are talking about the safety of children and youth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. DEMPSTER:

What we are doing is what the

Advocate said satisfies the scope of what she needs to do in her practice. What

the Member is talking about by suggesting that every single incident should be

reported to the Advocate, my concern, even as a parent and as a parliamentarian

and as a member of this province, if we are going to inundate the Advocate with

more than she is asking for with every single incident, what happens with the

serious stuff?

Mr.

Chair, the nature of the everyday work of social workers in this province, they

are highly trained professionals. They are there to support, to provide

counselling, to provide wraparound services when things happen. Unfortunately

every day in this province – not every day, but in this province serious things

happen. We have children that experience very traumatic things, like maybe

seeing a member of their household stab another member – difficult things to

talk about.

I spoke

last night to a large group of grieving people at Eastern Health. So I'm a

little bit close to this, Mr. Chair. I know maybe too much what I'm talking

about. We have people that a child that's killed in an accident. All of these

things need to go to the Advocate, but what the Member is suggesting is if a

child, if there's a little altercation on a playground, and the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety, if his boy is in a scrap with another boy, then that

should go to the Advocate. Well, I say, Mr. Chair, that that Member could be his

own advocate for the child.

This is

so broad and all encompassing. When she talks about watering down, that what we

brought in this House is a watered-down version – I say, Mr. Chair, what we

brought in, working in close collaboration with the Advocate, is something that

will focus on the very serious, difficult things that happen in this province.

If we were to include everything, Mr. Chair, everything in this province, that

would certainly be a watered-down version of the act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

I'm a little shocked at some

of what I'm hearing, Mr. Chair, across the way, in particular from some of the

hecklers.

Mr.

Chair, it's incredibly surprising to accept that as government who wanted the

very, very, very best for our children when they are in government are prepared

to accept something much less today. It's baffling and I have yet to hear

something that satisfies me in terms of an explanation for that. We're not

talking about incidents in playgrounds. To trivialize this is unbelievable.

Let's

use, for example, a youth in an addictions centre, a youth who falls under the

Department of Health, and this youth is being sexually abused during their time

at the addictions centre. There's no mandatory reporting that requires the Child

and Youth Advocate to be informed of that.

And to

say that you're going to inundate the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate

alarms me somewhat. If we need more resources for our Child and Youth Advocate,

then I would think that is something that would be a very, very high priority

and would take priority over some of the other expenditures we would certainly

see.

For

example, we're going to be looking at asking for additional resources for the

Independent Appointments Commission. I would say that our children and our youth

are far, far, far more important than that, Mr. Chair, but we'll move on. I'm

not getting an answer as to why these important issues have been excluded.

Perhaps

the minister can elaborate for us on what mechanisms are in place, specifically

in detail in the Departments of Health and Education, that will be enforced and

that makes you, as government –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

– feel this bill, as it's

presently written, is satisfactory to you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want

to respond to a couple of things. The Member keeps saying what she's hearing is

not satisfying her. Well, I want to respectfully say to her what we're doing

satisfies the Advocate and that's what's important to me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. DEMPSTER:

The Advocate has been out in

the media. We work collaboratively. As I said yesterday, they spend a lot of

time talking about her; we've been talking to her, Mr. Chair.

The

Member yesterday referenced what happens if somebody comes in – and we don't

want to make light of this, Mr. Chair. We're talking about heavy things. I don't

like politics at play when it comes to children and youth. We need to ensure

their safety.

The

Member said: What happens when somebody comes into a school with a gun? I say

call the police, Mr. Chair. We have a lot of services and supports out in this

province.

The

other thing I want to say to the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune: When you

reference a sexual assault or a sexual abuse case not going to the Advocate, you

are wrong. You need to go back and read the details in this bill. The definition

of critical injury is one that encompasses more than a physical injury; it's a

psychological injury.

Mr.

Chair, if there's a child in this province and they are subject to sexual abuse,

that absolutely will be reported to the Advocate. So I want to correct the

record on that.

The

Member has stood several times and said: Why the change? The change is simply

because the current Advocate has a different request than the former one. Mr.

Chair, we are not here today to meet the needs of something in the past. Today,

December – I don't know what the date is – the 6th maybe, we are here to meet

the needs and satisfy the request of the current Advocate.

The

other thing I'll say is, as I said yesterday, we are the fifth province in the

country to do this; we are the first in Atlantic Canada. What we are doing is

completely aligned. When you do a jurisdictional scan, what we are doing is

completely aligned with other provinces and territories in this country.

I shared

this yesterday, but I'll share it again when the Member said: What specifically

do we have in Health? The Minister of Health can speak much more eloquently than

I can. I think he's a brilliant man and I tell him all the time. He's doing some

great work in that large department. One of the things he did, as minister, was

he brought in new patient safety legislation that standardizes and imposes a

legal obligation. Mr. Chair, information will be disclosed to the patients and

their families and they can decide, once again, if they need to take further

action, which may include connecting with the Advocate's office.

Mr.

Chair, what I hear the Members asking for is that every single death of every

child would go to the Advocate. We have to be respectful of the privacy of

parents. I used the example yesterday of a child that may pass away from cancer.

It's not considered a natural death. Do those parents want that gone to the

Advocate and reported?

Mr.

Chair, it's a little bit close to home, to me, some of this stuff. I'm not

assuming that I know everything – and I'm not going to get personal because I've

had multiple tragedies in my life – but I will tell you I have met enough people

over the last 20 years to know that some families are very, very private. We

have to respect that, Mr. Chair.

So, once

again, what we are doing is the Advocate is satisfied that the mandatory

reporting of deaths and critical injuries from those two departments is

satisfied. It will allow her to carry out the scope of the work that she needs

to do, the important work that she does in this province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Perhaps the minister can

clarify for us, then. It's our understanding, based on this, that in the example

I had used earlier of a youth in an addiction centre, yes, this legislation

would kick in if the child were in care, but what happens in the case of such a

situation happening for a child who's not in care?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Chair, if a child is not

in care and the parent wants to report that to the Advocate, they have every

opportunity to report that to the Advocate. The Advocate in this province has a

very, very broad mandate. As I said earlier, she can choose to investigate

whatever she chooses to investigate.

I will

go back again and reiterate that we have highly trained social workers spread

all throughout this province, many that I have met with from Gander right to

Hopedale and Natuashish in my colleague's district, doing very valuable work,

doing important work, but doing heavy work, Mr. Speaker. The nature of the work

they do on a day-to-day basis I commend them and I have tremendous respect for

that.

If the

Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune is aware of something in her district,

anywhere in the province, she has an obligation to report that and at least make

the Advocate aware. Once again, what we are doing is we arrived at these

amendments after close collaboration. This has been a long time coming. As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, those are exactly the words the Advocate said to me

yesterday.

I've

only been in this portfolio, Mr. Speaker, for three or four months. I have a

team that has been working very hard and my predecessor, the Minister of Service

NL, has been working on this for a long time.

We don't

want to bring politics into it, but they're asking questions about something

they had 12 years to do and didn't do it. I'm happy to be a part of a government

that's doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Funny how that commentary

ended with a political swipe, Mr. Speaker. This is not about politics and I

really want to keep this where it's important.

When the

minister started with her introductory comments and said, in the case of a child

who's not in care, it's up to the parent, therein lies the crux of the problem

we have issues and concerns with in this bill. For youth that have natural

advocates in parents, that's absolutely fabulous and that solution will work.

But, as we all know, that's not always the case.

Like the

Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, we don't want to refer to specific

cases, but there are specific cases that we are aware of where children have

fallen through the cracks in this regard. We just feel quite strongly that this

legislation should be a stronger voice for all children in Newfoundland and

Labrador. We will leave it there.

The

minister did allude to bringing the bill back to the House at some point, but I

still hope there is consideration to make the bill stronger today so that today

we can come out as leaders in the country with the best piece of legislation for

the best possible interest of all children in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Can the

minister detail for us why critical incidents – moving on now beyond the

departments – are no longer included in the legislation?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Chair I'm just going to

go back to a couple of points and share with this hon. House that the regional

health authorities in our province investigate all adverse reports. So it's

important this House knows that.

These

are some of the reasons the Advocate, who is much more experienced in this than

we are – this is why she was satisfied with the reporting from the two

departments. The regional health authorities investigate all adverse reports.

Mr.

Chair, in the education system, we have a safe and caring school's policy. As I

said yesterday, in addition to parents being able to advocate for their

children, there are also mechanisms in place within the other departments.

I want

to reiterate, I've said it before but I'll say it again, not only will we be

reporting to the Advocate on something that happens with a child or youth in

care, but on any child or youth that is receiving any services. We have around

1,013 youth in care in our province, but we provide support to around 3,000

families, Mr. Chair.

Yes,

before I sit down, I'll ask the question again: Why, in five years, did they

never legislate any reporting from any department? It just kind of really

astonishes me, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Well, Mr. Chair, it's

something we had started to work on based on the recommendations of 2014. Had we

been in government post-2015, this legislation would have included all of the

recommendations – that, I can assure you.

The

minister's speaking notes talk about physical and psychological injuries. Can

the minister elaborate for us why this was in your speaking notes, but not

specified in the legislation?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

I apologize, Mr. Chair. With

some distraction around me, I didn't quite hear the question. I think she asked

about –

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

I understand, because,

Minister, I'm finding it really hard to hear you as well. It's really loud here

today.

The

minister's speaking notes yesterday talked about physical and psychological

injuries, but that's not specified in the legislation. Can you elaborate on that

for us?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

I apologize to the Member

that I didn't hear the question.

It is

specified, Mr. Chair, right in the definition. I shared it at the press

conference yesterday and I believe I shared it in second reading.

The

definition of a critical injury is one that may result in the child or youth's

death, or cause serious or long-term impairment to the child or the youth. Mr.

Chair, the definition – and its written right here – is limited to serious

physical and/or psychological injury to the child or youth. It's right there in

the definition, so I'm not sure what the Member is referring to.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Where are you seeing it?

16.1(1)(

a) that I'm reading here defines critical injury. It means “an injury

which may result in the death of a child or youth or may cause serious or

long-term impairment of the health of a child or youth ….”

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

I'm going to check, take a

moment, as she comes with more questions, and get back to you. I can tell the

Member the definition of critical injury does include physical and psychological

injury. It's the mandatory reporting of death and it is a policy in the

department, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Yes, and, Minister, we

certainly appreciate that, but our issue is that it's not defined right here in

the legislation. If you could check into that for us, we'd greatly appreciate

that.

Mr.

Chair, this bill is a very, very important bill. Many of us remember the

tragedies that occurred. None of us ever – ever – want to see the magnitude of

those types of events ever happen again to any of our children. We respectfully

are bringing forward an amendment that we hope will be given genuine

consideration by Members opposite.

Clause 1

of the bill is amended in the proposed subsection 16.1(1) of the act: (1) by

renumbering the proposed paragraphs (

a) and (

b) as paragraphs (

c) and (

d) respectively;

(2) by

adding the following paragraph before the proposed paragraph (c): (a) “critical

incident” – so we would like to see critical incidents added as well, as was

originally requested based on the recommendations of 2014 – means an

extraordinary or life-threatening incident that directly impacts the safety and

well-being of a child or youth such as violence, assault, injury or other

serious criminal matters and significant threats of self-injury or harm or

suicidal ideation requiring hospitalization beyond the initial assessment or

treatment; (b) “critical incident and death protocol” means the critical

incident and death protocol of the Department of Children, Seniors and Social

Development which is numbered QA-2014-001.

(3) by

deleting the word “and” from the proposed sub-paragraph (d)(

i) the second time

it appears;

(4) by

deleting the period in the proposed paragraph (d)(ii) and substituting a comma;

and

(5) by

adding the following sub-paragraphs: (iii) services provided by the Department

of Education and Early Childhood Development or by a school board in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and (iv) services provided by the Department of

Health and Community Services or by the regional health authorities.

We have

copies of that for you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

We will

recess the Committee to consider the proposed amendments.

Order,

please!

ahead.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're

having technical difficulties again this morning.

That's

moved by myself as the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune, and seconded by my

colleague from the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.

CHAIR:

As discussed, we will recess

the Committee to consider the proposed amendment.

Recess

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Are the

House Leaders ready?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Yes.

CHAIR:

We are debating Bill 26 and

the amendment that was proposed is not in order.

The hon.

the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's

disappointing to hear, but it is something that we certainly hope the minister

still considers bringing forward herself as a friendly amendment. We just feel

that there's no reason not to have the strongest, best possible piece of

legislation that we possibly can have.

Mr.

Chair, moving on now, I do have a few more questions. Can the minister outline

for us today how the process has been working for the last year or two? In the

absence of the legislation, can the minister outline who is now reporting on the

deaths within her department to the Child and Youth Advocate?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm

going to speak for a moment to the amendment that was proposed. What the hon.

Member across the way proposed in the amendment – in particular I'm looking at

2(b) – she is referring specifically to existing policy. Just for the benefit of

the people in the House, that policy will no longer be applicable. Once we bring

the amendments to the act, then there will be new policy that will be required.

So that's why that is changing, Mr. Chair, and it's not in the new act going

forward.

I want

to say to the hon. Member about a point she made earlier, before we recessed the

House, what is included in that definition that I gave of critical injury will

be operationalized in policy. We will be drafting and we will be sharing that

information out jointly with the Advocate.

I guess

what I also want to say to this hon. House and to the listeners, the points that

the Member is raising are things that were all considered. There has been a

tremendous amount of effort by senior staff in my department and working closely

with the Advocate again. All of these things have been considered over a period

of time.

At the

end of the day, and the amendments that we find ourselves discussing here in the

House, it's the language that we landed on. We landed on the wording that

satisfied the Advocate.

I had a

colleague say to me: I've heard you explain that 10 times this morning. Well, if

I keep getting questions on it, I have to keep responding. What we're using and

where we're going is what satisfied the Advocate to be able to carry out the

scope of the reporting required by her office, Mr. Chair.

Since

2014, there has been a Child Death Review Committee set up. All deaths in the

province – we're bringing in legislation right now, but all deaths in the

province of children in care, children receiving services, are being reported to

the Advocate up to this present time.

Since

2014 we have been reporting that and now what we're doing, Mr. Chair, with the

amendments in this bill is we're broadening the scope of that definition so that

critical injury will also be mandatory to be reported to the Advocate. I look

forward to further questions.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Sorry, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

I'm sorry, I thought you

stood; my apologies.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Once

again, what we are doing here in the House points to the fact that we have a

parliamentary tool and mechanism that allows us to deal with such complicated

and important legislation in our legislative committee structure and that hasn't

been done. This is so important. This kind of legislation is complex; it's

important. What we see happening in the House here today is dissatisfaction

because we haven't used that process.

The

minister stood up and said there has been an enormous amount of work that has

been done to get us to this point. If we had been in a proper committee

structure before this legislation was brought to the House, we would have been

able to work out some of these situations and some of these issues.

I am

sure that the goal and the desire of every single Member in this House is to

come up with the best possible legislation for the protection of our children,

and also information, then that would come to the Child and Youth Advocate that

would ensure that every system, every service and every program that is

delivered in our public services is the best that it possibly can be for the

children and youth of the province. By not doing that process, by not using

those tools that are available to us in this House, violates that principle and

doesn't ensure that we get the best possible outcome in our legislation and it

also makes it much more difficult to work together. I know that every Member in

this House wants to be able to work together on this type of legislation because

it is so crucial and is so important.

I'd like

to ask the minister: Why was that process not used?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank

the hon. Member for the comments, a long-time parliamentarian in this

Legislature. Myself, I've only been here about four-and-a-half years, but long

enough that I appreciate the democratic process and sometimes the spirited and

lively debate.

It's

absolutely necessary in our democracy, Mr. Chair, what she's talking about. So

in response to that what I will say, we are here debating, we are going back and

forth. I'll stay as long as the hon. Members across the way want and answer

questions.

I will

also remind her that it is this government of the day that is bringing an

all-party committee on democratic reform in 2018, because we recognize the

importance of this. It is in the minister's mandate letter that we would have an

all-party committee on democratic reform.

Regarding the bill, Mr. Chair, and the point to where we are today; once again,

I have to go back to the role of the Advocate. We are here today to discuss

amendments to a bill, bringing before the floor to debate. Mr. Chair, it was not

for us in this House to dictate prior to now what the Advocate was requesting in

order to do her job. I see that in a pretty black and white.

Up to

now, the Advocate, as an independent office, told us what she wanted to see. She

told us the reporting she needed in order to carry out her job. Now I, as the

minister, where I have a lot of children in care and we provide services to

thousands of families around the province, it falls under me to bring that to

the floor of the Legislature to say this is what the Advocate has said she

needed.

We need

to go through the legislative process. We need to discuss it, consider things;

but, at the end of the day, Mr. Chair, I don't believe – because that's an

independent office of the House – it is for government or it is for the

Opposition or Third Party or the independent Member to say what we want that

bill to look like. I think we can't lose sight of that.

At the

end of the day, it is absolutely vital to maintain the integrity of an

independent office in this province that we look to her to say: What is it you

need to do your job? What is it you need to keep children and youth in this

province to ensure they're safe and to investigate some of the very serious, sad

things that happen?

Bearing

in mind, every day we have hundreds of social workers who deal with serious

work. That's the nature of their business, maltreatment of children. They're

trained, Mr. Chair, highly trained professionals. They use their experience,

they use the training they've learned in school, their experience on the job to

make clinical decisions. Those decisions they make, Mr. Chair, they make them in

consultation with their supervisors. They're not making them independently.

That's the nature of the job they do.

We're

526,000 people in this province and we work with a lot of families. When you

talk about a watered-down version, Mr. Chair, things would get pretty watered

down. I'm not sure what would happen if everything would go to the Advocate. I

keep going back to that, because what we're doing right now does align with what

the Advocate stated she needed.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Chair, I believe the

minister really doesn't quite understand the structure of the committees, the

standing committees in the House. As a matter of fact –

CHAIR:

Order, please!

I would

suggest the Member stay relevant to the bill.

Thank

you.

MS. ROGERS:

Yes. Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

When we

look at some of the specific issues that we are addressing here in this bill,

about whether it's critical injury or critical incident, whether it's mandatory

requirements reporting from all government departments, that in fact the due

process to get to those agreements on that and to ensure there is respect for

the needs of the Advocate, then, in fact, through a standing committee, the

Advocate can appear at a standing committee and explain what she feels is needed

by that independent office.

This

does not take away or interfere with the independence of the office. This is a

democratic process to ensure it isn't politicized, that the work we do to ensure

that what the Advocate is asking for is heard by every party here in this House.

This is about supporting the independence of the office. That's why we have

those kinds of standing committees. That's why legislation can come before the

standing committee before the legislation gets to the House.

Mr.

Chair, it's not about interfering with the needs of the Advocate. It's about

working with the Advocate, hearing from the Advocate, based on her expertise and

what she feels is needed in that office. That's what that democratic process is

about. That's the democratic tool that has not been used in the process for this

bill, which very well should've, could've and must be.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm

going to stand here – I take great offence to when the Member for the NDP sits

here and accuses one of our ministers of not understanding how the committees

work, this after we had a long discussion last night about how the NDP don't

understand how the Management Commission works. In fact, you had one speaking

against it and one speaking for it last night.

One of

the things I'm going to talk about, they want to talk about the structure here.

That's fine and dandy. We can have that conversation.

I hear

the Leader of the Opposition talking about relevance. Well, listen, you should

have talked about relevance last night, too.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

Member for Topsail – Paradise on a point of order.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Earlier

this week, Mr. Chair –

AN HON. MEMBER:

What

section are we on?

CHAIR:

Quote your section.

MR. P. DAVIS:

I will, Mr. Chair. I was just

wanting for the Members opposite in the gallery to calm down so I could have the

floor.

Earlier

this week, the Government House Leader stood in his place – I stand in my place

under

section 49 – and several times –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

– stood

in his place and pointed out repeatedly the importance of staying relevant. It's

obvious that the Government House Leader is now doing exactly –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. P. DAVIS:

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I'm

just trying to speak without interruption.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Chair, the Government

House Leader is doing exactly that very same thing this morning and throwing out

matters and comments in debate that are not relative to the bill. We're in

Committee. We should be specific to the matter that's before the House.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

There is

no point of order.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again,

the Member talked about he had a hard time speaking again. The reason I was

speaking about this is because he was over chirping from the sidelines there, so

I had a hard time. I was speaking about the fact that we are talking about

committees here. We didn't understand the committee structure.

I'm

going to let the minister continue to do the great job that she's doing,

speaking about this piece of legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS:

Talking about the specific

parts of the legislation. They want to talk about the committee structure here.

Again, we'll have that. We can talk in the Management Commission. We can talk in

Standing Orders. We can continue to do that, but let's keep talking about a bill

that's finally been delivered after years of waiting.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

I remind

all hon. Members to stay relevant to the bill, please.

The hon.

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One

final comment on the democratic piece: There are times and places where the

all-party committee can be used in this House. An absolutely perfect example was

the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. As a result of that,

Mr. Chair, we came out with a report towards recovery with 54 recommendations, I

believe, and that was good; but, in this case, the Advocate is an independent

office of this House.

The

Advocate said this is what she needs: reporting from two departments of the most

vulnerable. Let's not forget, Mr. Chair, what we're talking about today is some

of the most vulnerable children and youth in our province – not just the ones in

care – that receive a service from the Department of Children, Seniors and

Social Development, from Justice and Public Safety.

There

are mechanisms in place, Mr. Chair, in the other departments. In addition to

that, everybody, every parent in Newfoundland and Labrador who has their own

children – I have never met a parent yet – there are many that receive services,

but all of the parents I know and that my daughter went to school with, they're

certainly there pretty quick to stand up for their children when they need to be

an advocate for that.

addition to that, let's not lose sight that the mandate of the current Advocate

allows anybody in this province to bring anything to her and she can choose to

investigate. The definition we're using is very, very similar to the definition

being used right across the country. What we're doing is we're not reinventing

the wheel, we work closely with the Advocate, this satisfies her and the scope

of the work she needs to do and it's certainly aligned with the rest of the

country, Mr. Chair.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I would

just like to respond to what the minister said that the All-Party Committee on

Mental Health and Addictions was a specially appointed committee. It is not, was

not, is not a standing committee of the House of Assembly. The standing

committee, the descriptions of what a standing committee is –

MS. DEMPSTER:

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development on a point of order.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Chair, I just want to

respectfully correct the Member under

section 49 –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Chair, I think

Hansard will show that I did not say that. I understand what

happened with the all-party –

CHAIR:

I ask for the co-operation of

all hon. Members of this House. I actually can't hear what I'm doing here. I

really can't, so I'd appreciate the co-operation from everyone.

Thank

you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Once

again, the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and Addictions is not a standing

committee in the House of Assembly. We have standing committees that are –

CHAIR:

Order, please!

I have

to ask the hon. Member to stay relevant to the clauses of the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

In order

to be able to really support the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate in her

request – for instance, the difference between critical injury and critical

incident – then it's important that everyone in this House, who is tasked with

the job of voting for legislation fully understand what it is she is requesting.

Let's

not forget, this is a bill that is being presented to the House by government.

It's not a bill that's being presented by the Office of the Child and Youth

Advocate; this is a bill that's being presented by government. That's the way we

work. That's fine. We will trust that the Child and Youth Advocate had full

co-operation and was fully consulted and involved, actually, in the process of

the kind of legislation that she needs in order to be able to best do her work

and best provide for the safety of our children, of our youth and, also, to

ensure the services that we provide are in the best interests of our youth and

our children.

believe that's the process that needs to take place. The standing committee is

one that would allow the Social Services Committee, which has been struck, but

has not been used – their role is to ensure that as well and, also, to give

confidence to every Member in this House that that is exactly what is happening.

Mr.

Chair, we are at a disadvantage here. This doesn't need to be happening in our

House at this time. If the structures that we have, the democratic structures

that exist within our legislation, within how we do business were, in fact,

followed so that we could understand exactly why the Advocate would prefer

injury over incident, why just children in care and youth in care – because

those are many of the outstanding issues right now, issues that could have been

addressed in a standing committee and given confidence to every Member in this

House that this is the direction to go in.

Again, I

would ask the minister: Why not use that tool in order to be able to address

those outstanding issues?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Chair, I just want to

correct the Member when she said why is this bill just pertaining to – is it

just going to be reported to Advocate the injuries of children and youth in

care?

I want

to say that is not the case; it's not just children and youth in care. While we

have around 1,013 children and youth in care, we are actually working and

providing services to about 3,000 families in this province. So any child or

youth that is receiving service, I just want to correct the Member there.

I also

want to say to the hon. Member, and I may not know the democratic structure as

well as some people in this House, but I believe she could have asked to send

this to Committee in second reading. I believe that could have been asked. She

could have asked to send it to Committee in second reading and it wasn't done,

Mr. Chair.

I also

just want to let her know that the hon. Member is free to meet with the

Advocate. She's free to meet with the Advocate to discuss. The other thing, Mr.

Chair, when we talk about structure in this House and the Member said what we

have is a government bill and she would have liked to have heard directly from

the Advocate. We are bringing this on behalf of the Advocate. We don't have a

structure in place that allows the Advocate to stand up here and bring a bill to

the floor. She has not gone through the democratic process of being elected to

represent a district and to act as a parliamentarian. So this is the mechanism

we have in place. This independent office came and these were the

recommendations she gave, we worked closely with her, and that's what we're here

debating today on her behalf.

I will

say to the Member we're certainly aligned on one thing, 150 per cent, when she

says we want the best for the children and youth in this province

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. DEMPSTER:

Because, Mr. Chair, I can

guarantee you that I don't know if there's anyone in this Legislature or

province that wants more than I do to ensure that the children and youth receive

the best possible care that they can. I take the portfolio that has been

entrusted to me very, very seriously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Yes,

absolutely, everyone in this House, and I do trust that the minister absolutely

wants this to be the best legislation it possibly can be, and that it will

empower and give the authority and whatever it is that the Child and Youth

Advocate needs in order to do the work that she has been asked to do on behalf

of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So in

light of that, Mr. Chair, I would ask the minister if she would give leave so

that I can request this bill go to Committee, to the Standing Committee on

Social Services to deal with it there.

CHAIR:

The Deputy Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Chair, we've been all

sitting here listening to the Member opposite talk about Committee structure,

democratic process. This is the ultimate democratic process.

You have

a very learned and educated minister who is bringing, on behalf of the Child and

Youth Advocate, a piece of legislation that is very, very critical, that we all

seem to agree is important to the people of this province, important especially

to the children and youth. The Member opposite doesn't seem to understand the

processes of this House and the democratic institution in which we stand.

She

understands very full well we are in Committee of the Whole. Everyone in this

House is having the opportunity to have a discussion and ask questions to the

minister responsible for this legislation. It is the ultimate form of democracy.

Mr.

Chair, what she's referring to is we can sometimes – in various legislatures we

have committees of the House. Not the whole House gets together, committees,

sub-committees of this House get together. I'm familiar with it because it's one

of the tools in the legislature in Canada, in the Parliament of Canada that we

use.

We have

been speaking about, in the Standing Orders Committee, the opportunity of having

sub-committees of this House, standing committees of this House meet on

legislation. But the ultimate form of democracy, Mr. Chair, is that the whole

House has the opportunity to ask questions to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

The entire House has the

opportunity to ask questions of the minister who has been very sincere, open,

honest and dedicated to this piece of legislation.

We've

heard publicly from the Advocate who is saying this is an important piece of

legislation; it is the legislation she requests. So if anyone has questions with

the Child and Youth Advocate, they can certainly meet with her. She will be

happy, I'm sure, to discuss this legislation.

Mr.

Chair, I think we should all take the opportunity to ask the questions that we

need to ask of the minister, to make our points that we need to make. This is an

important piece of legislation. I request that all of us turn our attention to

making sure it is exactly the best piece of legislation.

I have

ultimate faith in our minister, Mr. Chair. I have ultimate faith in the

incredible work of the department. The social workers that are involved in this,

they especially have important work on behalf of the Child and Youth Advocate.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

I thank

the Minister of Natural Resources for that speech. But, in fact, the Committee

of the Whole is not a standing committee. It is not in any way, shape or form.

It doesn't substitute for it. It does not substitute –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Chair, it does not

substitute in any way, shape or form the work of a standing committee. It does

not. I would direct all Members to the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly.

It's very clearly stated, page 41, what a standing committee is and what is the

work of a standing committee.

One of

the things that a standing committee can do is look very closely at what's

involved in this legislation; for instance, the difference between injury and

critical incidents. We can call expertise, we can call the Advocate. Of course,

the Advocate has not been elected and does not take a seat in this House, but

the Advocate can speak to the standing committee. That dialogue is really

important. It's a tool that we have at our disposable and has not been used.

I would

once again draw people's attention to the difference between what a standing

committee is and what Committee of the Whole is. I'm going to assume, then, that

the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Children, Seniors and

Social Development – that she probably understands that as well. So in light of

that, I would ask her again, with leave, will she do the right thing and refer

this legislation, which is so important?

We've

all said how important it is, we've all said how we want it to be the best that

it possibly can. In order for us to all work together, will she refer this to

the Standing Committee of Social Services?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Chair, with all due

respect, the hon. Member, who's been a parliamentarian for much longer than I

have, knows full well she had that opportunity in second reading to refer it out

to a committee.

I'm

going to try to get back to discussing the important matter of this bill. What

we see is someone trying to stall in this House what the Advocate wanted here,

Mr. Chair. I do believe the Member may have asked for some

definitions around

the difference between –

MS. ROGERS:

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre on a point of order.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Chair, a point of order

article 49 of the Standing Orders. To say that I am deliberately trying to

stall this legislative process –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MS. ROGERS:

– really casts aspersions on

my integrity and on the work that I am doing on behalf of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, what I am doing is saying let's do this the

best way that we can.

The

accusation that I am trying to stall legislation is reprehensible. I ask for an

apology on that, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

There is

no point of order; it's just a disagreement between two hon. Members.

The hon.

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Chair, it is really

unfortunate that we are going down this road discussing the safety of children

and youth in our province. What I merely said to the Member was you had an

opportunity in second reading. You had an opportunity. You understand the

process; respect the process. That's what I said.

I do

believe the hon. Member asked for a definition between critical injury and

incident. I will lay that out again for the House and for people that may be

watching today, Mr. Chair.

What I'm

going to do – because I've talked about a critical injury as one that may result

in the child or youth's death or cause serious harm or long-term impairment to

the health of the child or youth, versus a critical incident as an extraordinary

or life-threatening event. We've discussed that, so I'm just going to give a

couple of examples, Mr. Chair.

Under an

injury, as I mentioned, you might have a child that was injured in a car. You

might have a child that takes pills and ends up in the hospital and they're

unresponsive – serious things, Mr. Chair. They're very serious, difficult things

for families to go through, life changing. There might be a child that goes

missing who's a diabetic and then there are additional reasons for concern.

These are the types of things that would fall under injury.

On the

other hand, Mr. Chair, there may be a child who is receiving services from

either the Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development or Justice and

Public Safety and they go missing from a playground and they're found or

something. There are mechanisms in place.

Once

again, I say we have social workers that do very important work every day. They

are very qualified to do their work. They counsel children. They counsel

families. Sometimes the children have to be removed from homes, always with a

goal to reunify, to provide wraparound supports. At the end of the day, we all

want the same thing. We want our children and our youth safe, we want healthy

families and we want healthy communities.

believe, Mr. Chair, the amendments that we are proposing here today takes us –

it's a ginormous step, in my opinion. In my humble opinion, this is a huge step

forward today making it mandatory to report deaths and critical injuries to the

Advocate from the Departments of Children, Seniors and Social Development and

Justice and Public Safety. I think it's going to be a good day when this bill

gets through for the children and youth in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl – Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want

to take a few moments now to speak on this as well. I want to say right off the

bat, though, that as I said in second reading nobody, I don't think, on this

side – and I'll speak for myself, but what I've heard, nobody on this side is

saying that this is a bad thing, that we don't support mandatory reporting of

child deaths and serious injuries. I certainly don't. I support it 100 per cent.

I also

want to say that I really don't believe there's anything political going on, on

any side, to be honest with you. The government brought in a piece of

legislation for all the right reasons, I believe, and it makes sense. I believe

all Members of the Opposition are just simply doing their jobs in asking

questions and raising concerns. I don't see that there's anything political

about it, to be honest with you. I don't know why we want to go down the road of

anybody –

MR. MITCHELMORE:

What's the question?

MR. LANE:

The Minister of Tourism there

wants to chirp. Maybe he can stand up now when I sit down and he can offer some

of his enlightenment because I'm sure he has an awful lot to offer to this

debate so far.

As I was

saying, Mr. Chair, this is not political. I can say I have stood up in this

House now during this session and during the last session and so on, and

Hansard will show I supported the vast

majority of what this government has brought forward.

I said

if they did something good, I would support it. If they did something I didn't

agree with, I wouldn't support it. There have been times when the Official

Opposition or the Third Party have voted one way, against the government, and

yesterday, I voted with the government while the Official Opposition voted a

different way.

So, for

me, this is not political, but this is important. This is very important

legislation. We have a responsibility on this side to bring forward issues and

concerns that we have. I will say that the Member for St. John's Centre does

raise a good point about the process. And I'm here to talk about this

legislation, but she does raise an important point about the process, and not

about this bill, and not about this government either because it was no

different when it was the other way around and there was a different government.

The fact

of the matter is that when we get into it – it's fine when we get into

legislation which is pretty straightforward, minor changes, housekeeping and so

on, but when we get into complex, complicated issues that are so important, then

to not vet it though every system we can to ensure that all Members are

informed, well aware of what the issues are and what the rationale is. You don't

get that, by the way, in a 20-minute or a half-hour briefing up in a department.

In this

case, we are asked to rely on the Child and Youth Advocate that that's what she

wants. I have no issue with that. She's obviously a very qualified person who is

making these recommendations. I have no problem with her qualifications or her

ability and so on, but I will say this, that the former Child and Youth Advocate

who was there for a number of years, in three or four different reports, she

made different recommendations. Some of the things that have been raised here by

the Official Opposition and so on were recommendations that she made.

Now, she

was also a very qualified person. So obviously, you have two Child and Youth

Advocates, two qualified people, who have a differing opinion on what should be

included and what shouldn't be. You can argue they can't both be right. Maybe

they can, maybe it's just a matter of perspective, but because we're questioning

this doesn't mean that we're saying that the Child and Youth Advocate doesn't

know what she's doing or whatever, that we're not supporting her. That's not

what we're saying at all.

The fact

of the matter is that the prior Child and Youth Advocate made some suggestions

or recommendations that are not being covered off in this particular bill. The

concerns she raised are the concerns that are being raised here today. It is

important. This is part of the democratic process. We are parliamentarians. We

are the ones who were elected by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to

discuss these important issues.

We're

not here to rubber-stamp what gets brought forward by the government. We're not

here to rubber-stamp what gets brought forward by any Officer of the House. The

Child and Youth Advocate reports to the House of Assembly. It's not the other

way around. We don't report to that office. That office reports here. We're

ultimately the ones that have the responsibility –

MR. MITCHELMORE:

I don't think there's a

question.

MR. LANE:

I say to the Minister of

Tourism, you'll have your opportunity.

So it's

important that we ask these questions, that we raise these concerns. For me, I

have to agree – now, I'm going to support the legislation because we should've

had this a long time ago and it didn't happen. So I'm supporting it 100 per cent

– don't get me wrong, I do.

I'm just

going to put on the record, as others have, that I have some concerns. I have a

concern about the definition of a critical injury and the fact that it doesn't

say psychological injury. Now, the minister can say, and fair enough, that in

the policy and when the policy comes forward and so on, psychological injury is

part of it. I have no reason to disbelieve her. I'm sure it will be in the

policy, but who's to say that next year or the year after or the year after that

it gets taken out of policy, the policy gets changed. There's no guarantee that

those things are in the policy, unless it's enshrined in here.

If you

have a definition in the act, which is the law, then the policy has to stick to

what's in that. They can't change it, but if you don't include it here in this

act, which is the law, then they can change it. They can not include

psychological damage and so on. Someone can decide for some reason: I'm not

going to include that – and the public would be none the wiser, until something

happened one day and then somebody looked in to it and said: yeah, someone

decided to change the policy. It didn't have to go before the House, was never

debated publicly, it just happened. They were given free will to do whatever

they want. That's an issue, that's a concern.

The

other issue is the fact that we don't have a –

MR. B. DAVIS:

You're grandstanding.

MR. LANE:

No, it's not grandstanding, I

say to the Member for Virginia Waters – I think it is, or whatever the district

is.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. LANE:

It's not grandstanding at

all. It's doing my job, that's what it is. It's doing my job as I was elected to

do. That's what it's doing.

MR. B. DAVIS:

Raise a question first.

MR. LANE:

I'll ask a question, I say,

when I'm ready to ask a question. That's when I'll ask a question; if I decide

to ask a question. I'm not restricted here to ask a question. I can make

comments. I don't have to ask questions. I'll do what I decide I'm going to do

because, guess what? Nobody's going to tell me what to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. LANE:

Anyway, we'll move on.

I have

an issue with the fact that we don't have critical incidents included. There's

no critical incident included here, which should be included, I think. Because

you could have a very, very serious incident involving a child, involving a

youth that did not result in them actually getting injured, but they could have

been killed. If the stars hadn't aligned a certain way it could have resulted in

a death, but it didn't. So to leave out critical incident, to my mind, is a

mistake. I think it should be there.

The

final point I have with this is the fact that we're only dealing with two

departments. We're dealing with the Department of Justice and we're dealing with

– it was Child, Youth and Family Services – Children, Seniors and Social

Development, there you go.

I really

do understand what the minister is saying that Eastern Health, the health

authorities, the Department of Health have protocols. Schools would have

protocols. I get that, but I'm sure if it was the Whitbourne youth centre, as an

example – I just throw it out as a random example – which falls under the

Department of Justice, they have protocols, too. Even though they have their

protocols, it still applies to them.

What's

the difference between something happens at the Whitbourne youth centre that has

protocols, but they have to report it, it's mandatory; something happens in

Paradise at the drug treatment centre, granted they might have protocols, but

they don't have to report it. What's the difference? I don't understand the

difference.

The

other thing – actually, I'm running out of time, so I'm going to take my seat.

If somebody else stands up, then I'll finish.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Chair, I thank the Member

for the points on the issues. I believe it was just a question right at the very

end for me that I will respond to directly: What's the difference with the

Whitbourne youth centre? They have protocols in place, too.

What I

will say to the hon. Member is those two departments are responsible for the

children and youth in their care and that they provide a service to. That's what

makes those two departments different from Health and Education.

We have

a direct responsibility. CSSD has a responsibility to protect children by

intervening with their parents or caregivers and, in some cases, providing

out-of-home care, as I talked about earlier, to ensure the children and youth

are safe.

Also,

I'll say to the Member: Justice and Public Safety also have youth that are in

their custody in the department, maybe youth that might have committed a

criminal offence. Government is, therefore, also responsible for these children

and youth. That's what makes the difference there with those two departments, I

say to the hon. Member.

The

jurisdictional review supports limiting the scope of Children, Seniors and

Social Development and Justice and Public Safety because our mandate gives us a

direct responsibility to the children and youth in care there.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to

be clear, Mr. Chair, for all of us in the House, is the minister saying that the

bill, as it's presently written, is exactly what the Advocate asked for? Is she

saying in particular that the Advocate specifically said she only wanted CSSD

and Justice included?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Chair, she is correct.

The

Advocate, in collaboration with Children, Seniors and Social Development and

Justice and Public Safety, determined that the definition of critical incidents

was broader than necessary for the scope of reporting required to her office. I

have said that a number of times already, so in the interest of time I'm not

going to keep repeating myself.

The

Advocate did say that incidents were broader than was necessary for her to carry

out her important work. That is why we landed on the language that we did,

working closely in collaboration with the Advocate.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In 2015,

following the recommendations that arose that we're trying to finalize now and

get 100 per cent of them in place – and we know in 2016, we believe, there was a

working committee comprised of child, youth and family services, Justice, Health

and Education. This was the working group that was dedicated to drafting the

legislation. Can the minister tell us specifically what date, what point in time

this committee was disbanded?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Chair, that would have

been before my time in this department. I don't have that answer, but I will

certainly try and get that answer for her. I only know that a lot of the

questions that are coming from the Members opposite relate to the former

Advocate. Since I came, I'm working with the current Advocate and, again, what

we're doing today satisfies the current Advocate.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Has the minister reviewed any

of the information in the recommendations that arose in 2014 and, I guess, the

genesis of where all of this came from?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Chair, I can report to

this House that committee has not been disbanded. It has not been disbanded, but

some of the membership has changed under this new current Advocate. Other

departments were left once the scope of what the Advocate wanted was determined.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

The committee still exists,

but it now only has members from CSSD and Justice. Can you tell me when the

Departments of Health and Education were removed from the committee? What month

did this occur?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Windsor Lake.

MS. C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm

really pleased to stand and participate in this debate. I've been listening very

attentively since the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development

introduced the bill. I think this is, no doubt, a very important conversation

for every single Member of this House; hence, the seriousness of the debate.

I will

say, Mr. Chair, while we talk about this in Committee, one of the things I think

is important for us to recognize, as legislators and parliamentarians, is that

there is an urgency, quite frankly, to the need to provide approval for this

bill. The reason I say that, as has been referenced many times in this House,

the Advocate has been without the ability to have this automatic reporting

happening for over a decade.

The

former Child and Youth Advocate, whom I know and have had dealings with before

she became the Child and Youth Advocate, certainly saw the importance. The

current Child and Youth Advocate, who I also have a tremendous amount of respect

for and have known for many, many years – and it was a privilege to be a Member

of this House and ratify her appointment in that very important role that

reports to this House – has also advocated.

I think,

Mr. Chair, one of the things, though, that is important to remember as part of

this piece of legislation is that the Child and Youth Advocate must focus and

should focus the attention and resources of that office, in my opinion, on the

most vulnerable individuals and, in this case, children who are impacted by

tragedy, who lose their lives as a result of tragedy. That Advocate is there to

make sure those most vulnerable children are represented and that their voices

are heard.

Mr.

Chair, I want to take a moment to congratulate the Minister of Children, Seniors

and Social Development, as well as the former minister for the same department;

both mothers, both advocating to this House on a very important issue related to

children. As we have the debate and Members opposite do the work they're

supposed to do as Opposition Members – and maybe it is critiquing the standing

committees of this House – I also want to recognize the efforts of our House

Leader to work on how we use the tools that are available to us under the

democratic process.

Let us

not forget that right now, today, in our province, if there is a critical

situation where a child – a very vulnerable child, without an advocate, without

somebody to be in their corner – loses their life, it is not automatically

reported to the Child and Youth Advocate. I would hope, Mr. Chair, that before

we leave today we can make progress on supporting the work of the department,

the Child and Youth Advocate and the work of this minister.

Mr.

Chair, I stand here not only as a parliamentarian, but also as a colleague of

the minister responsible for Children, Seniors and Social Development, who I

know, like I, has stood at the side of a grave and buried a child. I would say

that while the discussions around the historical weaknesses of the former

administration to act on this make great political fodder, while the intentions

of parliamentarians in this House to improve the discussions around standing

committees, or special committees of this House are important, let us not forget

the focus of what this act is meant to do. It is meant to give the Child and

Youth Advocate today, as quickly as we can pass this bill, the rights to

investigate because she will be informed of those situations that happen to the

most vulnerable children in our province, Mr. Chair.

With

that, I will sit down and allow the minister to do the great job she's doing in

presenting this bill and hope that the Members of this House understand that we

must and need to pass this bill as it is.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl – Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just

want to say to the Member opposite who just spoke that I certainly have no

intentions of holding up this bill. It's not about holding up the bill. It

really isn't. I can't imagine anybody who has had the loss of a child and what

they would have gone through. As a father myself, it must be unbearable. We all

want to do the right thing.

For me,

as I've said, I will be supporting the bill. This is not about not supporting

the bill, but this is about making sure that our concerns are heard. If that

takes a little more time to do it right, then I don't see a problem with that.

We've said we've been 10 years waiting for this, if it takes a few more hours or

whatever it takes – not that I'm planning on standing here for the next few

hours because I don't.

If it

takes a couple of amendments, if that was possible, if government wanted to do

it, and it took a day or two or whatever – I know they're not going to do it,

but if they did, I don't think that would hurt if we made sure that everything

was done properly and covered everything off. Not that what's here is wrong or

bad; it's about making it better and more inclusive. I think that would be my

goal. I think that's the goal of all my colleagues. I would think it should be

the goal of us all.

finish off where I had spoken before I ran out of time, last time I was talking

about the Whitbourne Youth Centre versus the Paradise drug rehabilitation clinic

and so on. I understand and I appreciate what the minister is saying that if a

child is in the Whitbourne youth detention, then he or she is in the custody of

the government – in care, so to speak. It might not be the right terminology,

but I think you get what I mean.

If we're

looking at a facility – and I don't want to keep using the Paradise drug

treatment centre, it's just one that comes to mind. I'm sure everything is fine

there and they're doing a great job. I don't want to make it seem like I'm

making any accusations about them because I'm not. I have no reason to believe

that there's anything only good stuff happening there, but I just use it as an

example because it's one that comes to mind.

You

could have a child go in there, as an example, as I've read it and from the

briefing, who is what you call an emancipated youth, I believe is the

terminology. So, basically, it's a child who was in care, perhaps, and turned

16. They signed a waiver or whatever they do to say I'm no longer going to be

part of the child, youth and family services system, so to speak.

Now, I

understand there's a 12-month period here, but that brings you to 17. So there

still is that gap between adult – in theory, and I know we're talking in theory,

but things can happen is all I'm saying; things can happen. There is that gap in

time where it is possible, in that scenario, where you have someone who is an

emancipated youth, we've gone past the 12 months from when they were part of the

child, youth and family services system and they go into a facility like that –

it doesn't have to be that one – or some other health facility, some other

educational facility or whatever, and something could happen to that child, to

that youth, and that wouldn't be an automatic report.

Granted,

as the minister said, they have their own internal systems, but then again the

Whitbourne Youth Centre has their own internal systems as well. So do group

homes and stuff; they have their own internal. So an internal system is an

internal system. In one case, it's automatically reported and the other case,

it's not automatically reported.

The

other thing is you could have a child who is not part of the system, so to

speak. They're still with their parents or whatever – and I understand that

parents would advocate for the children. That is most parents. That's the

majority of parents, I would hope, but we also know there are circumstances that

have happened, unfortunately, where parents involved were not good parents and

may not have been picked up through CYFS and so on and they still had custody of

the children. In that case, is there any guarantee if something happened that

that parent would be of sound body and mind, whatever the case might be? Maybe

the parents have addictions themselves. Would they report it? So would it go to

the Child and Youth Advocate? It may not.

These

are hypotheticals and all we're suggesting here is to cover those hypotheticals

off. I heard the minister give an example when she talked about a fight at a

school or something, some kid gets picked on or they're having a little scrap

outside at recess time or whatever. That's not what we're saying. It's not what

I'm saying, at least. I don't think it's what anyone else is saying. We're not

talking about that. We're talking about very serious incidents. We're talking

about things that meet the definition in here of a serious injury or a serious

incident, if it was included. That's what we're talking about. That would happen

or could happen in an educational setting or could happen in a health care

setting. That's what we're talking about, for those serious incidents to be

reported.

If the

Child and Youth Advocate don't have the resources to deal with all those things,

then she should ask for more. If that's the issue – I don't know. If that's part

of the issue, if it's a matter of focus and resources, then she should come out

and say: I don't feel that I would have the resources to focus on everything and

that's the reason why we've narrowed it from what the original predecessor,

Child and Youth Advocate Ms. Chafe, said. That's why I've changed this now and

narrowed the scope, because under my analysis I don't believe I would have the

resources to do it all.

that's the case, then that's what should be said. Then we can discuss giving her

more resources if that's what we need. I know there's a cost to that as well,

and that all has to be in consideration, but if that's the issue, then it's a

discussion we need to have.

Those

are my concerns that I have, Mr. Chair. As I said, we knew when the bill came

through, like all bills – and, again, that's not about this government, it's

about the process. We all knew it wasn't going to go to a legislative committee

because we don't do it. We all know that amendments are not going to go through

because they very rarely do. I don't know, I've hardly seen anything since I've

been here, very little.

Tom

Marshall, when he was deputy premier – or maybe he was premier at the time – put

it very eloquently, I always remember it, when he stood up and said: Mr.

Speaker, Oppositions have their say and government has its way. That's the way

it works. It doesn't have to work that way, but that's the way it works.

With

that said, we know it's going to go through as is. I'm going to support it as is

because we didn't have it before and this is a good thing. This is a good-news

story. This is not about trying to, in any way, say this is bad. That's not what

it's about. It's good. We should have been doing it all along. We're doing it.

For me,

I do see those gaps there that I would like, personally, to see closed. The

purpose here is to put it on the record and to say to government, as we have on

other bills from time to time, you have the power, if you want to, that you

could make amendments.

If you

do or you don't, that will be your choice. You'll have your way, but at least I

want to put those points forward.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just

want to go back because there have been a lot of speakers. It's great to see so

many people engaged in this debate here this morning, Mr. Chair, because it is

very important.

I agree

with my colleague for Mount Pearl – Southlands. This piece of legislation has

been three years in the making and if it takes a few extra hours to make it the

best piece of legislation that it can be, then that's a few extra hours very,

very well spent, Mr. Chair, and certainly in the best interests of the children

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I just

want to go back to a question I had asked a few minutes ago regarding the

committee that was struck to draft this legislation and to work with this

legislation. Can the minister inform this hon. House what specific time the

Department of Health and the Department of Education were removed from the

committee structure?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When the

new Advocate was appointed, there were deputy ministers from four departments

that would have met with the Advocate; I believe it was in late March. At that

time, when the conversation focused around what this current Advocate felt was

needed to carry on the scope of her work, it's my understanding that they all

met in that first meeting and then the other two departments left. The Advocate

continued to work closely with the two departments that have a responsibility to

children and youth in care or receiving services, Mr. Chair.

One

thing I didn't mention here this morning is the

Children and Youth Care and Protection Act ,

another very, very important act in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Under the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act , Mr. Chair, we all have a

duty to report any concerns of children needing protective intervention. I think

that serves merit in being put on the record here during this important debate

as well.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail – Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank

you for allowing me some time to enter in Committee debate this afternoon.

I'll

start with a very simple question for the minister. The minister has referred

many times to the Advocate. I'd like to ask her: Other than the Advocate and

officials in core government, who else did she consult with on this bill?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Chair, I mentioned the

deputy ministers, in the departments that have been questioned here today, have

been meeting with the Advocate. I have an ADM in my department, a very, very,

very qualified, competent individual, once a front-line social worker herself;

have spent 26 years dealing with it. She is now the individual that actually

reports the deaths, since 2014, those deaths that are being reported. She is now

the person in my department that reports that to the Advocate. Those are the

people that are working on this and working closely with the Advocate to arrive

where we are today.

I also

want to say again, Mr. Chair, to this hon. House, picking up on some points that

my colleague, the Member for Windsor Lake, made. She did a very good job. I

appreciated the points that she brought to the floor. The Member for Windsor

Lake has met and spoken with the Advocate. I'm wondering, when I look across the

way at the Members, who over there has actually sat down and had discussion with

the Advocate because anybody can. Her door is open.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail – Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Maybe

the minister missed my question. My question was: Other than the Advocate and

officials within core government – other than those, who has she consulted with?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I spoke

on this in second reading yesterday and I won't really go back to many of my

points. I've taken in all this debate today and the back and forth. I think this

is a very important piece of legislation. I think it should not be lost on the

House the importance of this legislation and getting it right.

This was

what I alluded to yesterday and I'll keep to the high road today again. We make

political comments and I'm not going there, I've made that point and I'm

sticking to that point, because I think this is too important. I stated

yesterday on a personal level the minister can look across and ask who has

spoken to the Child and Youth Advocate, but she can never question, I don't

think, any of the Members in this House how much passion, how much importance we

feel this legislation means to our children, our youth, our vulnerable.

We would

not be stood here today, Mr. Chair, debating this legislation if we didn't see

the importance of it. All of us here could ask questions. We have our critic

asking, our Leader of the Opposition and Members of the other parties – we could

all ask questions because we feel it's very important.

On that

note, I'm going to ask a straightforward question, and I think it's a fair

question based on some of the debate that's going on: Can the minister tell this

House with confidence she feels this is the best piece of legislation without

having Health and Education as part of this bill – do you feel this is the best

piece of legislation out there with those two excluded? It's a simple question.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Chair, in response to the

earlier Member for Topsail – Paradise – it's hard to think of it all when you're

on your feet right away. I also wanted to remind him that in getting to where we

are today, we did do a jurisdictional scan and we looked at what was happening

in the other provinces. We're the fifth to bring in this mandatory reporting and

the first in Atlantic Canada. So we looked at that as well.

I also

want to say, I keep bringing it back to working with the Advocate and what the

Advocate wanted. This is not about what individual groups or other departments

might have wanted. That's an independent office of the House. What I take very

seriously is what I need to do in my capacity, as Minister of Children, Seniors

and Social Development, to support what she needs to do to carry out her work.

The

Member for Mount Pearl – Southlands said is this about resources. In our dialog

with the Advocate there was no conversation about resources, because we're

talking about children in care and these things that matter, we'll always find a

way. So right now, this is about satisfying her requirements.

I say to

the hon. Member to answer his question, today I can stand before you and say

that I have every confidence that what we are doing satisfies the Advocate. She

has said that to me and she has said that to the media repeatedly, yesterday and

today. The Advocate has been out there saying, right now, this is what I need to

carry out the important work that I do.

addition to that, what we're doing today doesn't chisel this in stone, Mr.

Chair. If the Advocate comes back in three months' time and says I'd like to

talk to you, I have concerns, our door is open; we embrace recommendations

wholeheartedly. Any opportunity that we have to improve the safety and

well-being of children and youth in your province is a conversation that we will

have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want

to go back and thank the minister for that response, but that's not what I asked

you. I respect that that's what the Child and Youth Advocate wanted and I

respect her, as I said it yesterday. My question is: Do you think, as minister

responsible, this is the best, strongest piece of legislation? Because that's

what we're asking for: the best piece of legislation. Again, it is not being

political. In your opinion, as minister responsible, is this the best piece of

legislation with Health and Education not included in the legislation?

It's a

simple question, but I'm asking you, Minister, not the Child and Youth Advocate;

I want your opinion.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, I would not have

brought it forward if I didn't think otherwise.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail – Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

question just a few moments ago was about who the minister consulted with. I

appreciate her rising to a subsequent question and pointing out that they did a

jurisdictional scan. I appreciate that, but my question is around – and it

really comes back to what my colleague for Conception Bay South just asked about

getting the best legislation. That's what it's about. It's not just doing what

somebody asked if it be an Officer of the House or somebody else or someone

within a government department, it's about coming here – there was a comment

about coming here and bringing in what the best legislation is going to be.

There

was a comment earlier by the Member opposite about discussing it and considering

things. That's what we're doing here in Committee. We're saying: Did you

consider this? Did you consider something else? We're trying to find out why

they went from fully endorsing and backing and lobbying for what the former

Advocate was seeking out to this. This is not what they promised. This is not

what the former Advocate was lobbying for. This is not what they promised to do.

This is not that, Mr. Chair.

I also

have to take issue with the Member opposite who a couple of times I've heard –

the Minister of Health, I heard him say it this morning: You had 12 years to do

it. You were working on it for years. As a matter of fact, their own platform,

2015 platform, says for years the Child and Youth Advocate has been calling for

the PC government to make mandatory reporting.

That's

not true; this is not a truthful statement in here, Mr. Chair. What was in that

campaign is not truthful. I say to the Member over there, it was in the fall of

2014, if you read the Advocate's 2014-2015 annual report the Advocate says: “In

the fall of 2014, the Advocate made a formal request to the Honourable Paul

Davis, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, that the

Child and Youth Advocate Act be amended to include mandatory

notification from government departments and agencies when a child or youth

receiving services is involved in a critical incident or when a death of a child

or youth occurs. Mandatory notification from government departments and agencies

when a child or youth receiving services is involved in a critical incident” –

critical incident, not critical injury, but critical incident – “or when the

death of a child or youth occurs will provide the ACY with the information

needed in order to ensure that the rights and interests of every child and youth

are protected and advanced.” Every child and youth, and they hitched their wagon

to it, Mr. Chair. They campaigned on it.

They

promised to the people in their campaign platform that's what they were going to

do. The reason why we're here today having such a lengthy discussion in

Committee is the bill before the House here today, that's not it – that's not

it. We're asking questions that are not difficult, that are not complicated.

Mr.

Chair, the previous minister had confirmed in April 2016, and I quote from a

CBC news story posted April 26, 2016, at 4:24 p.m. The previous minister,

now the Minister of Service NL – and the story here quotes. The previous

minister had been asked about a time frame. It says: “'I really cannot talk to

the time frame right now,' she says. 'It's a very important piece of work,

reporting critical incidents, and it's a very detailed and deep piece of work.'”

Well, I

agree. That's why a working committee between '14 and '15, when the change of

government happened, deputy ministers from the Department of Child, Youth and

Family Services, the Department of Justice and Public Safety, the deputy

minister of Education and the deputy minister of Health at the time engaged in

hundreds of correspondence, exchanges and discussions about this very matter,

hundreds because we wanted to make sure it was done right, too.

wanted to make sure it was done right; they wanted to make sure it was done

right. There were hundreds of exchanges by those deputy ministers in their

deputy minister committee – hundreds – to get it right. That was of ultimate

importance to get it right. Here today, I still believe, yes, we should do it

and, yes, we should get it right.

Then the

Members opposite get up and say: Oh, we shouldn't make politics about it; you

had 12 years to do it. It's about today and the bill before the House today. The

bill before the House today is about critical injury, not critical incidents.

The

Child and Youth Advocate of the day talked about critical incidents many, many

times. The platform of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, when they

went to the people and asked them to vote for them, talks about critical

incidents. The current bill before the House does not.

Even the

current Minister of Service NL, when she was the minister of Child, Youth and

Family Services – it was referred to in the

article – talked about critical

incidents. Somewhere along the way there are some changes in what was committed.

It was absolutely changed and we're concerned about that, Mr. Chair.

question for the Member opposite – and who she consulted with, she did a

jurisdictional scan. She talked about how important and great people are in the

department. I agree. I agree there are great professionals working in her

department. Long before I came to this House, I worked with some of them on a

daily basis.

I know

the current Child and Youth Advocate; I have known her for decades. On a

professional basis, I have worked with her from time to time for decades. I have

utmost respect for the current Advocate. Absolutely, I thought and I believe,

and still believe today, the current Child and Youth Advocate was a great choice

to be the new Child and Youth Advocate; a good position, good appointment, no

two ways about it.

Just

like the minister herself said, she knows lots about it, but she also is new.

Mr. Chair, she reflected on that this morning here in the House that she's new.

The Child and Youth Advocate is new, but there's a Child and Youth Advocate who

was around for many years who asked for critical incidents – asked and we put

together all the departments.

As a

matter of fact, the Child and Youth Advocate even went on to say, contrary to

what the Members opposite said: “Since this request and throughout 2014-2015

fiscal year” – this is in her annual report – “the ACY has worked in

collaboration with the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, the

Department of Health and Community Services, the Department of Education and

Early Childhood Development, and the Department of Justice and Public Safety on

proposed amendment. The Advocate looks forward to further collaboration with

these departments and to the proposal of the legislative amendment.”

My question for the minister is: The former Advocate

you hitched your wagon to in your 2015 election platform, your predecessor was

continuing to work with the four departments and the Advocate up until a few

months ago. We want to know why the change? Minister, why did you not consult

with the former Advocate, who has a significant depth of knowledge and

experience in this area?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Chair, the Advocate that

the Member is referring to that he has tremendous respect for, I would say:

What's her opinion on this bill? The Advocate that we're bringing these

recommendations forward today, if he has tremendous respect for her, respect

that this was acceptable to her. That's what's more important here.

Mr.

Chair, I also want to say to the House, when the Advocate, who works closely

with other advocates across the country – the current Advocate is satisfied with

the direction we are going in today with what these amendments will bring. She

works closely with other advocates across provinces and territories.

They're

trying to go down a rabbit hole here and make this political. I find it

difficult to refrain. I want to continue to focus on the important work of this

bill, Mr. Chair. Even the Member who was just on his feet, he had since 2011 to

deliver. He could have delivered since 2011. He was minister in that department.

While he was minister, there were three separate investigations. The former

Advocate was calling for it.

I'm not

going to continue to stand and answer and repeat the same thing over and over

again, other than to say when he says: Why do you find yourself where you find

yourself here today, what changed? The Advocate changed. We are working with an

independent officer in this province. We are working with her to meet the

requirements that she said she needed to carry out the scope and practice of her

job, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail – Paradise.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

appreciate the response from the minister – I do. I see she's sincerely trying

to provide the information, but I don't see how she's able to do it with

clarity. Yes, I do – tut, tut, tut, tut, tut, that's what you have to face here.

We stand

in the House, we're trying to have a debate and Members opposite are looking

over like I'm a four-year-old being talked to by my mother. That's the way it

feels like sometimes the way people get on over there, Mr. Chair. It's certainly

not the conduct we'd expect from ministers in the House, I can assure you.

Mr.

Chair, I do respect the current Advocate. I respect her position and I respect

her opinion. I also respected the former Advocate. While we never always agreed

on things, I respected her position. I always respected her opinion. She was the

expert and the professional. There were times I met with her that we had some

very good discussions. It didn't mean that we aligned in our views or our

beliefs, but we certainly had a discussion, could make our arguments to each

other and then go away to meet again at another time and have continued

discussions. That's not a bad thing.

It's not

about an official saying to the government here's the bill to bring forward, go

bring it forward. It's about the government doing what they believe is right.

They believed in 2015 that critical incidents were the right thing to do. They

believed that all government agencies was the right thing to do. They believed

in what the former Advocate started to ask for in 2014 when she asked us to make

an amendment in 2014. It wasn't 2011 when I was minister.

Sometimes it really frustrates me – why didn't you do this 10 years ago, or 20

years ago? Or I don't care when it is. You can do that until the cows come home,

Mr. Chair. If we did all that back then we wouldn't need to be here today. I've

said it so many times here in the House, but that's the way things happen in

life and society and here in the Legislature. Things change, new ways are found,

opinions change, technology changes, people's beliefs change. New circumstances

arise that the previous bill, rules, law and so on didn't sufficiently cover or

deal with and there's a better way to deal with it.

Things

evolve and change; that's just a fact of life. In 2014, there was a lot of work

done between '14 and '15 with four key departments that have contact with

children, four key departments that provide government services to children on a

daily basis. Not just Child, Youth and Family Services or Children, Seniors and

Social Development, not just them, not just the Department of Justice and Public

Safety, but also Education and Health, both of those as well.

listened to the Member for Windsor Lake as well this morning. I listened very

carefully to what she said. She made some points and she talked about the good

work being done and hard work we did. I appreciate all that, but she also in her

discussion when she got to – it was very interesting to me. She talked about,

she said if a critical situation occurred today there's no legislation required

to be reported – is essentially what she said – but she used the word critical

situation.

Well, I

say to the Member for Windsor Lake, after this is passed, if there's a critical

situation, it doesn't mean it's going to be reported. This bill doesn't

necessarily change that, unless the child is receiving services from Children,

Seniors and Social Development. Unless they are receiving services from that

department, it doesn't have to be reported. That doesn't change, is what I say

to the Member opposite.

critical situation is exactly what she mentioned. And I think she did it

honestly because it is just the way she was thinking about it. I think she did

it completely honestly to say critical situation, because that's exactly what

our problem is. That's exactly the serious problem we have over here, is that a

serious situation can occur from a person who is receiving services through

Health Care or through Education, if they're a student in a school or receiving

other extended services or they have a medical service they're receiving. It

doesn't have to be reported.

Now, I

heard what the minister said: there are new processes set up here and there and

so on. Well, the Child and Youth Advocate is the person who is to advocate for

all children, and she refers to that in her annual report. It has been discussed

publicly in the past – as soon as I find it here, Mr. Chair – about it's for all

children, not just for some children.

In the

interest of every child and youth, that's what it's about: in order to ensure

that the rights and interests of every child and youth are protected and

advanced. Well, people come into services under the minister's department. Over

time, there are always new families and so on coming into services. Sometimes

there are families who maybe should be receiving services from her department

who are not, because it hasn't been discovered yet that there are issues or

concerns or something happening within that family where they should be

receiving services.

If there

is a family that should be receiving services and are not, there's an incident

at a school, an education facility, or through Health or any other branch of

government besides Children, Seniors and Social Development, besides the

Department of Justice, which is essentially being detained; if there's some

other circumstance, it doesn't have to be reported. Mr. Chair, that's a

significant hole in this legislation. That's a significant hole.

appreciate what the Advocate is focusing on, those who are known to be

vulnerable and so on. What about those who are not known to be vulnerable? They

are vulnerable, but they don't know about it? They're still children; they're

still youth. It's still important to know that. It's absolutely still needed for

support and assistance and need to find a way for it to be dealt with, Mr.

Chair. There's no two ways about that. I cannot for the life of me understand

why they would go to critical injury and change from everything they've ever

said they were going to do about critical incident.

She also

mentioned they did a jurisdictional scan. I'm glad they did. I remember Members

opposite sitting over here in the Opposition and saying to us: Why can't we be

the first to have the best, or why can't we be the first province to go further?

There were times that we were. We did it with policies that happened while we

were in government. There's some things they're doing over there which want to

see us not to be standard or average, but to be the best in the country.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Chair, we always do that. We've done that

for a long time, especially in recent decades where we've prided ourselves on

being the best of anywhere and we can compete with anyone. There's no reason why

this legislation can't be better than everyone else.

We know

when change and evolution occurs it's something ahead that's dragging everyone

else along. We talked about people in the gallery here the other day that were

here for the opening of a bill, this bill, the

Highway Traffic Act bill. Everyone here praised them for being the

advocates and those that are changing, causing an evolution in change and

changing how we feel about safety on our highways and so on.

Someone

has to lead that change. There's no reason why the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador can't be the government today that changes and leads that higher

level, that higher standard in the country. There's no reason.

The

government promised to do it. This government over here, in their Liberal

platform in 2015, promised to do it. The previous minister was underway to do it

and somewhere over the last two years it fell off the rails. I'm not criticizing

them for taking two years to do it, Mr. Chair, because I know from the year that

we worked on it there was a lot to consider. From privacy, to policy, to

principle, to actually putting it into effect, there was a lot to consider.

There was going to be a lot of work needed to be done to make sure it happened

and that departments abided by it.

One of

the big obstacles, Mr. Chair, was to find a way to ensure that departments had a

reporting system that would abide by the legislation. I don't know if that's

maybe why they didn't. They took out Health and they took out Education. Maybe

it was too tough to do. Maybe it was too tough to put in those processes to make

sure the reporting happened as required by this legislation. Maybe that was it.

I don't know because they haven't given a straight answer as to why they removed

them, only to say we took them out because of the current Advocate.

honestly think, by the way, I have to say, the minister opposite has said so

many times: We're doing it because of the current Advocate. I really think she's

a little bit over the top on laying this at the feet of the current Advocate. I

really think so.

AN HON. MEMBER:

That's a low blow.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Do you think? Well, it's what

you're saying over there. It's what they're saying over there, Mr. Chair.

They're saying: We're doing it because of the Advocate. I don't think it's fair

to do that. The minister is responsible for bringing the bill forward. The

minister is the one to stand on her feet and say: This is the best piece of

legislation that's going to protect all children and youth in our province

today.

I say to

the Member for Bonavista, it's not doing that. It comes up short from what you

promised. It comes up short of what the previous Advocate said should be. It

meets the requirements. The minister said the current Advocate is satisfied with

it. I don't think we should rest on being satisfied. We should achieve to get

the best we can.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to

build on what my colleague from Topsail – Paradise, the Leader of the Opposition

just spoke about, that's what we all feel. I think it's important to build on

that because we're not here to politicize this. We want to get the best piece of

legislation out there. The best piece of legislation we can present to this

House and government can take it as a win. If you want to look at wins and

losses, government can look at it as a win. Make it the best piece of

legislation.

Why

leave stuff to chance? I spoke about this yesterday and it's comes back again

today. I respect the minister –

MR. KIRBY:

(Inaudible.)

MR. PETTEN:

The Minister of Education

likes to heckle. I just want to point that out because we're talking about a

serious piece of legislation, and I'm including his department, his officials. I

believe Education should be a part of this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

Maybe he should give it more

serious consideration and respect while we're discussing this serious issue

here. This bill is a serious issue, Mr. Chair.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I stand on a point of order,

Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader on a point of order.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I'll just refer to Standing

Order 49(2) where we talk about, not the issue of relevance, but the issue of

repetition. We know this is a serious bill, but when every speaker says it's a

serious bill and doesn't actually talk about the issues and continue to repeat

the same issue, we are getting into repetition. I'd just like to point that out

for the record.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

respect points of order and relevance and whatnot. This is what we're talking

about. I'm talking about Bill 26. I'm talking about the seriousness of this

bill. I'm talking about the importance of this bill. I want to make sure there's

no child left out.

We're

all here for a reason. I said yesterday and I'll stand here today, relevant or

not, I'm one of 40: that should be our number one priority. This stuff should be

our number one priority. Our children and seniors – listen, the most vulnerable

people in our communities should be our number one priority. That should be

first and foremost what we're elected to do. Everything else comes with it, Mr.

Chair, these are paramount in my mind. I'm sure other Members feel the same way.

whether you want to call me for relevance or not, I am very passionate about

this. I spoke yesterday – I won't go into the stories. I am personally connected

to a lot of this stuff and I take this bill very seriously. I respect what the

minister is doing to bring this forward. I respect the Child and Youth Advocate.

I know the Child and Youth Advocate. I have the utmost respect, but we can make

this better.

We're

telling, we're here and we're pleading that we can make this bill better. Why

not have Health included? Why not have Education included? What's wrong with

that? You're closing the loops, Mr. Chair. You're closing the loops of the

possibility, I said yesterday, 1 per cent, one child, just the chance – if you

can do something to limit the opportunity for something to go wrong, a child,

for an incident not to be reported, again we'll say the typical falling through

the cracks, why aren't we in favour of that? Government can take credit for it.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I think that multiple Members

of the Official Opposition have made the point. Certainly we understand the

point, but it's being made repetitively. It's not a different point. It's the

same point that's being made. I would suggest that upon multiple repetitive

comments, at some point, it would be in contravention of the Standing Order.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland on a point of order.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Chair, the general

practice in this House has been that in Committee on the calling of a particular

bill and certainly on clause 1, it's a general discussion on the overall intent,

desire and content of that particular bill. There are 40 Members here in the

Legislature and they're free to stand and give their opinions on that bill in

the Committee and then, as it proceeds through Committee, there will be

particular clauses that would be called and specific discussion about those

specific clauses. But it's been my understanding in 11 years here that that

general discussion goes on in Committee when the bill is first called in clause

1 and Members here are free to respond back and forth to discussions that are

had.

Will it

be repetitive at times? Yes, maybe there will be, but that's about the

discussion of the bill that is allowed and has been allowed in the past, as far

as I've seen it.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

If I could just speak very

quickly to the same point of order – and again, my apologies, it's under 48(2).

Usually during clause 1, you have free reign to speak to the entire bill. When

you get into the clause by clause, you have to speak to that particular

section

of the clause, but there's nothing that allows you to be repetitive. The

Standing Orders say that repetition, at some point, has to be stopped.

clause 1 you can speak to the whole bill, you can continue on, but there's

nothing that says you can be and should be repetitive.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will

continue to speak on Bill 26, as my concerns –

AN HON. MEMBER:

As you were elected to do

(inaudible).

MR. PETTEN:

As I was elected to do,

that's right. It's the people we all represent that got a keen interest – they

should have a keen interest in this bill.

The

minister makes reference – and I understand you're taking your lead from the

Child and Youth Advocate, what the Child and Youth Advocate wants, and I get

that. But what's not been clear in this whole process is: What does the minister

want? What does government want?

MS. DEMPSTER:

I answered that.

MR. PETTEN:

It has not been a clear,

stated fact. The minister is saying she answered. I want to be clear. Every time

the question comes back, it's pointed to the Child and Youth Advocate.

What

does the minister – what does this government want? Do you not want – and my

question will be simple, before the Government House Leader tries to get up on

relevance again.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Repetition, not relevance.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

Again, Mr. Chair, it's a very

import piece of legislation and I think it's incumbent upon all of us to be

respectful in this House and let us have our say. I represent Conception Bay

South and I'm speaking for the residents I represent and I'll continue to do

that. Whether I try to be bullied across the way or intimidated, I will not be

intimidated, Mr. Chair.

question to the minister is simple: You're telling us, you're telling this

House, you're telling this Legislature that the Child and Youth Advocate, this

is what she wants, this is a piece of legislation that she believes in, having

those departments not included. What do you feel – and I'll say it again. Do you

feel, clear answer, this is the best piece of legislation possible to protect

our children?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

MR. PETTEN:

Simple question, because that

has not been answered.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's

really loud here now –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

CHAIR:

Order, please!

The

Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The

minister indicated that the Department of Children, Seniors and Social

Development and Justice and Public Safety would have the most severe incidents

to report as part of her justification for not including the other departments.

So I

guess our question to the minister would be: In her opinion, do you believe it

is better to over report or to under report?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Chair, I got a question, too. This is a very important bill that we have here

today. I think it's important that we all get up and speak on this. I know the

Member for CBS talked about his district. All I want, Minister, is to make sure

that we bring the best possible legislation for the children of Newfoundland and

Labrador. I believe that everybody over on that side wants the same thing. We

can say whether it's to do with resources or what it's to do with –

CHAIR:

Order, please!

Given

the hour of the day, I'm going to rise the Committee and report progress.

This

Committee stands adjourned.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

The hon. the Deputy

Speaker, Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of

the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole reports the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and

have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When

shall the report be received?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the Committee have leave to sit again.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

In accordance with

provisional Standing Order 9(1)(b), the House is in recess until 2 o'clock this

afternoon.

Recess

The

House resumed at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

In the

Speaker's gallery today, I'd like to welcome family and friends of the late

Susan Shiner, who will be honoured by a Member's statement today. Joining us are

her husband Rick Page, her daughter Claire and her two granddaughters Margaret

and Elizabeth. Joining them are the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Labour, Mary Shortall, and the President of CUPE, Wayne Lucas.

I'd also

like to welcome in the public gallery friends of Ms. Shiner, including

representatives from the St. John's Status of Women, the Iris Kirby House and

Daybreak Parent Child Centre.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I'd also like to recognize in

the public gallery today – we have two hockey teams from this province. One is

with us and one that's watching us. Their achievements are going to be the

subject of a Ministerial Statement today.

In the

public gallery today we welcome members of the Avalon Celtics Peewee House

League team. We have with us today Eric Butt, Emmett Cochrane, Nicholas Dalton,

Liam Davis, Sarah Gardner, Rama Ladu, Sebastian Milord, Andrew Quinlan, Connor

Sullivan, Daniel Warren, Peter Whelan, Samuel White and Jonathan Whitten.

Also,

before we have a round of applause and, as I said, they're watching us from

home, I'd like to recognize the Grand Falls-Windsor Under-12 Cataracts team who

are watching.

Welcome

to you all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I'd also like to recognize in

our public gallery today Mayor Tony Ryan. He's the Mayor of Port Saunders and

he's acting in his 29th year as the mayor of that fine community. Here for

meetings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we will hear statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of St. George's –

Humber, St. John's Centre, Baie Verte –Green Bay, Windsor Lake and Lewisporte –

Twillingate.

The hon.

the Member for St. George's – Humber.

MR. REID:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize the work and accomplishments of multi-disciplinary visual

artist Jordan Bennett, originally from Stephenville Crossing on Newfoundland's

West Coast.

Bennett

was asked to be part of an exhibit at the Smithsonian and the National Museum of

the American Indian. During his research for this project, he discovered

photographs taken in 1930 by anthropologist Fr