Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 22 March 2012 (47th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLVII No. 12)
2012-03-22
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 22,
2012 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.
XLVII No. 12
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
I am very pleased today to welcome to the Speaker's gallery, a former member
of this House and currently the Member of Parliament for the riding of St.
John's East, Mr. Jack Harris.
Welcome, Sir, back to our galleries.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: I thought by now he would have been long gone to Toronto.
Welcome, Sir; I hope you enjoy the Assembly proceedings this afternoon, and you
will note that they probably have not changed much since you left.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Today we will have members' statements from: the hon. the
Premier; the Member for the District of Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi; the Member for
the District of The Straits – White Bay North; the Member for the District of
St. John's Centre; the Member for the District of Terra Nova; and the Member for
the District of Burgeo – La Poile.
The hon. the Premier; I understand she has leave for the member's statement
today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in this House
today to recognize the extraordinary efforts of a school community in my
district. The students, teachers, and parents of Roncalli Elementary School in
Airport Heights demonstrated community-minded compassion and commitment to
others with their fundraising results for the Canadian Cancer Society's Shave
for the Brave.
On Monday, March 19, Roncalli Elementary hosted its first Shave for the Brave
and it was an outstanding success. Mr. Speaker, forty-eight people participated
in the shave, including forty-three students, two teachers and three parents,
raising over $24,000.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: That amount raised, Mr. Speaker, makes Roncalli
Elementary the leading school for money raised by schools all across Canada
participating in this year's Shave for the Brave.
To introduce the idea of holding a Shave for the Brave, each grade level was
read a children's book based on a true story of a little girl named Alex, who,
when faced with cancer decided to help herself and others by setting up a
lemonade stand to raise money for her local hospital. This young girl's courage
was contagious and now there is a foundation set up in her name with over $1
million raised!
On the day of the Shave at Roncalli Elementary, they held their own lemonade
stand with all proceeds going to Young Adult Cancer Canada (YACC), an
organization supporting people aged fifteen to thirty-nine facing cancer
challenges. Mr. Speaker, from the lemonade stand alone, $584 was raised with
Kindergarten to Grade 6 students donating their spare change for a cup of
lemonade.
A very special seven-year-old that I know – my own grandson, Jack – will
participate in the Shave for the Brave on Monday in memory of his poppa.
Mr. Speaker, with this example of caring for and giving to others in
compassion and human kindness I am uplifted, encouraged and inspired once again
by the children of this wonderful Province. I know our future is secure, not
just because of our natural resources and our good governance but because of
people these children are and the adults they will become.
I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating all members of the
Roncalli Elementary community.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, I experienced a fine night of entertainment at
the LSPU Hall on Victoria Street in St. John's – part of my constituency, of
course. I cannot tell you how many such nights I have enjoyed over the years.
Since 1975, The Hall, as it is fondly known, has been home to the Resource
Centre for the Arts. RCA received the Southcott Award in 1984 for its
preservation of The Hall. As you might expect in a building that was built in
1922 – and indeed, parts of its foundation date back to the original 1789
building – there has been continuous upkeep. A major two-year renovation saw The
Hall emerge in 2010 newly refurbished and even better suited to meet the needs
of St. John's performers and audiences. I am happy to say The Hall now is fully
accessible.
Mr. Speaker, there is hardly an artist in the Province who does not credit
RCA and the LSPU Hall with some of his or her success. I will not begin listing
all the artists who have performed there because we could be here all day
celebrating them.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating RCA on
almost fifty years of nurturing the artistic community of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the volunteers of my
district who keep our homes and businesses safe.
I commend the members of The Straits Fire Department for the commitment they
have shown to firefighting and search and rescue. Like volunteer fire
departments everywhere in the Province, the people at The Straits Fire
Department never know when they are called upon to risk their lives to save
other people.
Their thirty-two active members are a committed team that, although they are
volunteers, maintain a professional attitude about all the work that they do,
including ongoing training. Of course I could not commend the firefighters
without also paying credit to groups like the Flower's Cove Lioness Club, who
work to raise money for the essential gear and other supplies used for
lifesaving volunteer work.
The Straits Regional Fire Department takes a regional approach to serving its
thirteen communities, operating under the Northern Peninsula Regional Services
Board.
Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members to join me in congratulating The Straits
Volunteer Fire Department and other community organizations that raise funds to
keep them going.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute an extraordinary
organization headquartered in my district. THRIVE Community Youth Network, St.
John's, connects youth, social workers and volunteers. They are building
networks and community at an amazing pace.
I recently attended the launch of CASEY, a coalition challenging youth sexual
exploitation. This and other programs of THRIVE, St. John's are making a real
difference to at-risk youth.
Street Reach targets youth with multiple issues, helping them break down the
barriers that keep them from asking for help, and connects them to programs that
can help them.
Youth at Promise is a basic literacy program that provides a supportive
learning environment for youth facing significant barriers to the regular
education system.
The amazing Velocity Program focuses on life skills and personal development
through adrenaline-based adventure activities for teenagers. Youth learn to
overcome adversity while creating and enhancing connections within the
community, and increasing healthy lifestyle choices.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in celebrating the ongoing
contributions of THRIVE, Community Youth Network, St. John's. They are
instrumental in not only redirecting but sometimes saving the lives of our youth
at risk, and they deserve our support.
Thank you, THRIVE and bravo!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. S. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize and congratulate a personal friend and former
classmate of mine, Dana Cox, wife and mother of three beautiful children who has
been battling cancer since she was first diagnosed in June of 2010.
Last night at the Delta Hotel, I attended A Night for Dana. It was a concert
organized through sheer miraculous faith. After Paula Tessier, Development
Officer for the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation had heard a song Dana had
written on the way home from her radiation treatment, she arranged a meeting
between Dana and a company from California looking to get involved and help
raise funds for the foundation.
Mr. Speaker, from that meeting the rest is history. The concert was fantastic
and so inspiring. Dana sang, No Time For You , a defiant song written to
her cancer. She then went on to perform alongside the band, Abbey Road and
Canadian Music Hall of Fame's legendary rocker, Rik Emmett- much to the delight
of the hundreds of Dana's friends and family in attendance.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in recognizing Dana's
fighting spirit and her recent accomplishments. Keep up the fight Dana, you have
so many people in your corner cheering for you.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to congratulate Lieutenant Lloyd Rossiter, of Ramea, upon his
receipt of Cadet Instructor Cadre Lifetime Achievement Award on December 12,
This award is presented annually to recognize members who have made
outstanding contributions to the Canadian cadet movement. Lieutenant Rossiter
was one of fourteen persons from across Canada to receive this award in 2011.
Lieutenant Rossiter enrolled in the cadet instructor list in 1968 with
29Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corp Churchill in Ramea, where he served in various
capacities including Executive Officer and Commanding Officer. For his service,
Lieutenant Rossiter has received the Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal,
the Canadian Forces Decoration and numerous distinguished Navy League of Canada
awards.
In addition to his contributions to the sea cadets, Lieutenant Rossiter has
had an extensive and lifelong involvement in various organizations in his
community, including his current duties as Mayor.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending
congratulations to Lieutenant Lloyd Rossiter on his receipt of this prestigious
award.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to highlight our government's
significant investments in cardiac care. Since 2008, we have provided
approximately $15 million to Eastern Health for advanced cardiac care services
and diagnostics, and infrastructure enhancements. These improvements to our
cardiac care program benefit all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Our substantial investment in cardiac care has helped to ensure timely access
to cardiac bypass surgery in this Province. Since the establishment of national
benchmarks for cardiac bypass surgery in 2005, our Province has consistently met
the wait time benchmark of 182 days.
Mr. Speaker, having the best tools available to diagnose and treat
cardiovascular disease is essential to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
As noted in the Throne Speech, our Province is now considered a leader in
cardiac care. In fact, health care professionals are travelling to our Province
to learn best practices. We have invested in the latest in new technologies,
which are key to recruiting cardiologists. I am also pleased to say that this
past year we successfully recruited two new cardiologists.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Our overall provincial investments in capital equipment and
renovations have allowed for the purchase of new cardiac monitors that will let
cardiologists in St. John's monitor a cardiac patient anywhere in the Province.
These investments have also allowed for the opening of a third cardiac
catheterization laboratory at the Health Sciences Centre, which became
operational in February 2012.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the recent successful completion of
the Health Care Foundation's Give from the Heart $10 million capital campaign.
Our government provided $4.5 million toward this goal to assist in the
redevelopment of two of the cardiac catheterization laboratories and the
addition of the third.
The Health Care Foundation was established to support the adult hospitals of
St. John's. I commend the foundation for its dedication and commitment to
helping us improve our health care services through initiatives such as the Give
from the Heart campaign. Our focus on cardiac care further illustrates that we
will continue to make strategic investments to enhance vital health care
services throughout this Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While I recognize the fact we have made significant investment, and I am
happy to see we have attracted many professionals, especially in cardiac care;
simply because we have the highest rates of heart disease, heart attacks, and
bypass surgeries, I am sure those two new cardiologists are going to be quite
busy.
As we tout the cardiac care program today, we still have to recognize the
fact that there is a petition still at Health Sciences, though, where we have
100 cardiac care nurses, with their names. They are not quite so happy with the
level of safety today and they are still expressing those concerns to us. In
actual fact, we have seen a decrease in morale, because they feel that no one is
actually listening to them. We still have Dräger
technicians that are on site since the install, Mr. Speaker.
So, the experiences that we are seeing today with some of this equipment are
causing some concerns – but before I sit down, I do want to recognize the fact
that we have met the benchmarks of 182 days. We do see that as a positive, but
we cannot forget the fact that we have some wait time areas, especially in joint
replacement and in emergency room wait times, that we need to address.
I also want to recognize the fact that we have many foundations across this
Province that are doing some great work, and we need to recognize and thank
those volunteers that are making significant investments in equipment across
this Province on a day to day basis.
So, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.
Obviously, I am pleased with the way things are going in cardiac care, and we
all recognize that our record regarding wait times, diagnostics, is really
improving, and our equipment has improved. However, Mr. Speaker, I am really
surprised that the minister is not acknowledging the significant problems with
the new cardiac monitors – I was shocked she put them into her statement –
particularly the fact that the false alarms that are coming from them –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the false alarms that are coming from them,
which the minister is not acknowledging, are real. They are causing stress among
the workers, and they are causing stress for patients. With hundreds of
occurrence reports having been filed, she cannot talk exclusively about the
success of this piece of equipment, and she should not do so until the problems
are fixed. We need assurance in this House – as do the health care workers –
that if that problem is not fixed in short order, they have to look at the
results of these cardiac monitors, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to highlight the
Province's well-known East Coast Trail, which has been named one of the world's
top twelve adventure destinations by the National Geographic Society.
This is, in fact, the second time in two years that an area of the Province
has been recognized by the National Geographic Society. In 2010, the Avalon
Peninsula was ranked as the world's number one coastal destination.
This renowned society is now praising the East Coast Trail system as a "prime
spot for adventure tourism, one that delivers hikers to a world of sea stacks,
oceanside headlands, icebergs, and deep fjords." We are delighted that they have
discovered the trail and are helping us promote the trail throughout the world.
The 260 kilometre East Coast Trail system passes through more than thirty
communities and has contributed to the development and sustainability of tourism
businesses along the trail. As well, use of the trail system extends beyond the
peak tourism season into fall and spring hiking and winter snowshoeing.
This accessible trail is thoroughly enjoyed by residents as well visitors to
our Province and encourages active, healthy living.
Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the East Coast Trail is a provincial gem
which provides both recreational and economic opportunities.
I invite everyone to experience our world adventure destination by hiking
along our incredible East Coast Trail.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I am not surprised
at all to hear that the East Coast Trail has been named one of the world's Top
12 Adventure Destinations by National Geographic. I have had the opportunity, on
many occasions actually, to walk parts of that trail; I will admit not all 260
kilometres, though. The development of trail systems around our Province is
something that we all recognize as an important opportunity as it supports
community growth. Even in the minister's own district, he has some fantastic
walking trails, and in my district as well.
All of this supports a healthy and active lifestyle for the residents and the
people who visit our Province. We all know that as a tourism opportunity it
promotes our Province as an adventure destination.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, this is a terrific honour well earned by the East
Coast Trail Association. The trail itself is a result of the many years of hard
work by countless volunteers of the association.
I would like to remind the minister, however, that the association is raising
alarms regarding the very serious threat of encroaching coastline housing,
putting the trail at risk. There have been very well attended public meetings
this week alone in Torbay on this very issue. The minister needs to act
immediately with legislation to save this international treasure from
encroaching developments.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Question Period.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The utilities board in Nova Scotia will hold a review of the Muskrat Falls
Project once the commercial arrangements are finalized. They will evaluate other
options to meet the energy needs and will focus on the cost to Nova Scotian
ratepayers. Emera will file with the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board late
this year and the review will take between six and ten months to complete.
I ask the Premier: You have already said that you have examined other
options, so given the delay in finalizing the term sheet with Emera, why not
give our PUB the same opportunity to explore other options to satisfy the power
demands of our Province? Give our ratepayers the opportunity to know what else
is available.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I keep coming back to the most basic principle surrounding Muskrat
Falls. We need power, as indicated by Manitoba Hydro International, so what are
the options? The options are, Mr. Speaker, Gull Island, Muskrat Falls,
refurbished Holyrood with small hydro wind, wind itself or natural gas.
Gull Island is not possible because we cannot get through Quebec, Mr.
Speaker, wind is not an option and we know that natural gas is not an option. I
say to the Leader of the Opposition: What options are you talking about? What is
it you want us to explore? We have explored everything. Muskrat Falls is the
lowest cost and best option to secure the future of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: On behalf of the people of the Province, I think we have a
right to know what the other options are. Let's table it, let's see what the
report says. They are not in that box.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. BALL: They were not allowed to ask those questions, remember? That
was the restriction that government put on them. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the
matter is that the Premier would not allow the PUB to look at other alternatives
or even discuss the effect Muskrat Falls will have on ratepayers in this
Province.
I ask the Premier: Why are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians getting less of a
review of the project than Nova Scotians when we have the most to lose?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the past on numerous
occasions, Muskrat Falls and the Lower Churchill development have been reviewed
for forty years. In 1980, Vic Young, then Chair of Newfoundland Hydro,
recommended to proceed with Muskrat Falls.
Our PUB, Mr. Speaker, began their work in June and if I look at that, that is
six or eight months, whatever period of time. During the Decision Gate 2
process, Mr. Speaker, wind in terms of more than just the eighty megawatts of
wind was screened out by Nalcor as not being an answer to our problem, as was
natural gas.
Mr. Speaker, you do not need to do extensive studies, you do not need to go
out and pay thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars to see the obvious.
The other obvious here, Mr. Speaker, is that Muskrat Falls is the best option.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today is World Water Day. We have 230 boil water advisories affecting 162
communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, 120 of those have been in effect for
more than two years.
The question to the Premier: Given your proposed budget cuts, how does your
government plan to help municipalities address issues around safe drinking water
that continue to exist?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad the hon. member has brought up this very important day, World Water
Day, today because it is an important matter for not only Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians but for all Canadians and people throughout the world. Mr. Speaker,
it is also a good opportunity to highlight some of the good work that this
Province has done and this government has done in addressing the needs of water
supplies in this Province. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that over the last eight
years since this government came into power more than $200 million has been
invested in water treatment and water distribution systems throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: The drinking water safety initiative introduced in 2008 was
that drinking water supplies in 114 communities were deemed a very high
priority.
My question to the Premier, many of those 114 communities identified in 2008
are still on a boil water advisory today: Why have you not provided them with
the necessary resources to fix their unsafe drinking water problem? Why not
resolve it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Service Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, this is a very important issue for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
and I am glad we have this opportunity to discuss this, this afternoon. Again,
there have been significant investments done in this Province to address the
issue that is raised by the hon. member opposite. I would like to also point
out, there are also training opportunities that this Province leads for
municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador. We provide training opportunities
that occur in classrooms where there is a formalized process for municipalities
and the operators of their systems to learn how to use them properly. We have
hands-on training where a mobile unit would actually travel to municipalities
and work with them and help them, assist them in development and operation of
their own water treatment processes. Just coming up, very soon, Mr. Speaker, is
the annual Gander workshop whereby experts are brought into the Province to meet
with municipalities so they grasp a larger understanding of these systems.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL: Well, I am pretty sure today that the people in those 114
communities are going to have a lot of confidence if there is a workshop in
Gander.
Mr. Speaker, Environment Canada has identified 186 waste water outfalls in
Newfoundland and Labrador; 185 deemed to be high risk and must be in compliance
with waste water systems approved regulations by 2020. The total cost to address
those outfalls is estimated to be $410 million.
I ask the Premier: Now that this problem has been identified, what is the
solution?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, we will work through the issues. As a matter of
fact, these regulations - and they are not clear at this particular time because
they have not been vetted by the federal government. We have been in
conversations with our federal counterparts with regard to those but in regard
to dealing with the issues, we will deal with them the same way as we dealt with
all the other issues in Newfoundland and Labrador, by investing in our
municipalities in the tune of, since the last eight years, about over $500
million with regard to municipal capital works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday I asked the Premier questions on her lack of efforts to pressure
the federal government to keep the sub-centre for search and rescue
in St. John's. Rather than accept her responsibility for her
lack of effort, she lashed out at the Opposition MPs from Newfoundland and
Labrador, and went on to say that the Prime Minister's office said that the
Quebec centre would be closing.
I ask you today, Premier: Who is advising you, because what we are hearing
out of Ottawa is that the Quebec centre will remain open for the next year, if
not indefinitely?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I need no lectures from the Opposition House Leader on what my
responsibility is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a privilege
to serve in this position, and I have dedicated my best efforts to the people of
the Province and that will remain so until I leave here.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if she does not believe what I say that I heard from the
Prime Minister's office, then I refer her to the transcripts, the Hansard out of
the Parliament of Canada, where it has been stated quite clearly that the Quebec
SAR centre will close in the spring of 2013. Most of the services will be
relocated to Trenton, and some to Halifax, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It might be a privilege to serve, but it also requires action, I say to you,
Premier.
What I am saying is absolutely accurate. Quebec is not closing next month,
but Newfoundland and Labrador's sub-centre next month will not only see its
workers laid off or transferred, it will see its doors locked and it will see
the safety of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians being compromised because that
service is no longer there.
I ask you today, Premier, because you have rejected an all-party committee,
you have rejected getting involved with the coalition, and you have rejected any
actions we have put forward on behalf of the people of this Province, saying
that you would do it yourself. Tell us: What is it you are doing to stand up for
the people in this Province to make sure that centre does not close next month?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am doing a number of things, as are my ministers. Mr. Speaker, we make
representation to the federal government at every opportunity, underscoring how
important this service is to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,
particularly those who earn their living on the water.
Whatever it is I am doing, Mr. Speaker, it must be a heck of a lot more
effective than anything that is being done over there or in Ottawa, because she
wants to join in with our efforts. If her own were effective, if her own MPs
were effective, she would not want to be hooking up with us, surely.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not have to stand here and remind the people of this Province that it
was this Premier who stood shoulder to shoulder with Stephen Harper and stood
there, Mr. Speaker, talking about how we were going to see the goods delivered
to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Where are the goods, Premier, when the
safety of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is going to be compromised because
our centre is going to close –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: – while Quebec's stays open?
I ask you today, Premier: Are you now prepared to accept an all-party
committee of all political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador, including the
Members of Parliament in Ottawa, to come together and to stand shoulder to
shoulder to fight for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, while I may have supported Mr. Harper,
the members opposite certainly did not. They did not go out and say vote for the
Conservative candidates, Mr. Speaker. What they did was say vote for our Liberal
MPs, because they can do the job for you; they can lobby more effectively for
you in Ottawa.
What are they doing? What are they doing, because, Mr. Speaker, we are doing
everything that we can at every opportunity and we will continue to press this
matter every day on a go-forward basis, as we have every day since the decision
was announced.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the Premier that the Liberal MPs in Ottawa are
standing up every single day, as are the NDP MPs, on search and rescue.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: It is the Conservative MP, Mr. Penashue, and Mr. Harper and Mr.
MacKay, who are closing down the centre in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask you again, Premier: When are you going to be prepared to bring all the
political players, all the leaders in Newfoundland and Labrador together,
including our Members of Parliament, to fight for the search and rescue centre
to be saved in Newfoundland and Labrador before the locks go on the door at the
end of the month?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If it is one thing that the Liberal Opposition has down, as well as their
MPs, is political posturing – shouting and roaring and having a racket here at
home. We do not need a racket here at home, Mr. Speaker; you are talking to the
converted when you are talking to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the federal
government have a responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: They have a responsibility to the people who earn
their living on the ocean, Mr. Speaker. We are holding them to that
responsibility. I suggest that the members opposite do the same and they
encourage our representatives in Ottawa to do the same, because the only time we
hear from them is on Open Line shows here in Newfoundland and Labrador. What
kind of an impact are they having in Ottawa? That is what they are paid to do,
Mr. Speaker; that is their job – do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier today, it is –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Speaker acknowledges the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, closing that centre – is
that commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Face the reality,
Premier; your efforts are not working with Stephen Harper and his government.
Your efforts have not been able to deliver the services to the people of this
Province.
I ask you today: Are you ready now to gas up the bus, Premier? Are you ready
now to go to the Capitol Hill and to go to battle for the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador to keep our centre? Our lives are just as important as the people
in Quebec.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to play political games with this issue, not like
the Opposition House Leader. I am not interested in that. What I am interested
in is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and that the federal government
live up to its responsibility. I am not letting anybody off the hook and I am
not suggesting that anybody else in this Province do it. I do not care if they
represent Conservatives, NDP or Liberals; we all have a right to demand that the
people who represent us in Ottawa stand up for us in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker,
because the Progressive Conservative Party and Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador is certainly doing that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier has already let the federal government off the hook because she
is choosing to take up the fight with opposition MPs and not the Government of
Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, many people from our Province are traveling out of this country
to receive the liberation treatment in hopes to treat MS. On September 13, 2010,
your government committed to an observational study for MS patients who choose
to undergo the liberation treatment. The government committed $400,000 to that
study.
I ask the minister today: What is the status of this study and when can we
expect to see a final report?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, that study is currently ongoing. We required forty patients in
the study in order to be able to have a good, comprehensive study completed. The
last of those patients actually joined the study in, I believe, just March of
last year, March 2011. We are looking forward to the review process happening,
and as soon as we have something to report back we certainly will, Mr. Speaker.
It is a very important issue for us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, last year, following a report by the Office
of the Citizens' Representative describing psychiatric service at Her Majesty's
Penitentiary as unreasonable, unjust and oppressive, the Minister of Justice
finally committed to a peer review.
I ask the minister: Where is this peer review, has it started, and when will
you release it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That is correct. Late last spring, Mr. Speaker, we commissioned a peer review
of the psychiatric services in our correctional institutions. Mr. Speaker, that
was a peer review and a peer review is not something you can go out and do in a
couple of weeks. We needed someone to do a peer review; we needed a consultant
who practised psychiatry in a correctional setting. We could not take a
psychiatrist out of the City of St. John's, or anywhere else for that matter,
and do that peer review.
We had to work with the health authorities to identify a person across the
country who operated as a psychiatrist in a correctional setting. It took a
little while to find that person. That person had to consent to do the job, had
to free up his schedule, or her schedule, make themselves available, and that
has been done. The review has been done. We are waiting for the report.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Assembly, the Minister of Labrador
Affairs spoke about how wonderful the Northern Strategic Plan is working. Mr.
Speaker, the Joint Review Panel for Muskrat Falls said that health services in
Happy Valley-Goose Bay cannot meet current needs, let alone accommodate an
influx of people with the project. The Labrador-Grenfell Regional Health
Authority agreed saying resources are needed now to ensure a timely response to
increased service demands.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Is her government committed to expanding
hospital and health care services in Happy Valley-Goose Bay to meet urgent needs
now?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in terms of health care in Newfoundland and Labrador I do not
think anyone can chide what we do at all. We spend more per capita than any
other region of this country.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: At $4,752 per person in this Province, Mr. Speaker, we have
40 per cent of the Budget. So obviously our commitment to the health care needs
of Newfoundland and Labrador are very, very significant.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I encourage the minister if she is going to answer questions to stop throwing
money around and answer the question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hospital at Happy Valley-Goose Bay is overcrowded as it is now, and this
area will be the site of many more industrial workplaces than at present. Mr.
Speaker, this hospital is not big enough to deal with a major industrial
workplace accident, were one to occur. There is a limit to how many people can
even be medevaced out.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What is her government doing to address
the current and future expansion needs of this hospital?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to mention any money that we
might commit. I do not know if we do not need to commit any money to Labrador or
what; however, I will tell you that we will continue with the significant
investments that we have already made in Labrador to see to it that the health
care is the best we can possibly deliver.
That has been our history, that is what we are doing, and it is what we will
continue to do in terms of health care in Labrador and in Newfoundland, Mr.
Speaker, but I will not give you a dollar figure.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House since 2006 and I have been hearing
about hospitals in Labrador. Labrador West still does not have its new hospital.
It is still in the process, even though two additional mining projects were
announced this year, bringing in more industrial workers.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Can they tell us when the new hospital is
going to be opened in Labrador West?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minster of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, work has been ongoing at that hospital and it
is still ongoing. From what I understand, Mr. Speaker, we are nine months ahead
of
schedule –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: – in terms of the completion of that hospital. Now, I do not
know if she wants us to rush it and do half a job with it. I am not sure what
she wants but, Mr. Speaker, what we are committing to is a first-class facility.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will tell the minister one of the things I want, Mr. Speaker: I want to
know, given the amount of heavy industry going on in Labrador West, will this
hospital be equipped for the contingencies such as major workplace accidents? We
have never told been what programs are going to be in that hospital.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the services in any hospital are dictated to us by the medical
profession, people who understand how it is to deliver medical service and what
services are required, what services are needed. I am not going to make a
decision as to what services are needed out there in the hospital. I am
certainly not going to micromanage to that level. However, I will certainly take
the advice of medical experts and the medical professionals who will be
operating in a particular area.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
It is very interesting to hear the minister not even acknowledge that
community needs are not going to be looked at by this government in determining.
Community needs are part of what determine what is going to happen in the
hospital.
Mr. Speaker, government is facing patient flow problems across this Province.
They have had a patient flow study – albeit from Eastern Health – for over two
years, that clearly outlines the lack of home care and long-term care as a key
problem. Mr. Speaker, in Happy Valley-Goose Bay alone, the hospital is full of
older people in need of long-term care.
I ask the Premier: When is the government going to reveal to the people of
this Province the long promised, long-term care and home care strategy?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in a Province with an aging demographic, as we have, in a
Province with chronic disease, we recognize better than anyone the need to
continue to focus on the needs of our seniors and the need to continue to focus
on long-term care, and that is precisely what we have done.
Now, while we have not yet given a strategy for them to criticize, Mr.
Speaker, what we have done is we have continued to invest in long-term care.
Four hundred and – I am not allowed to mention numbers, but I have to – $440
million, Mr. Speaker, every year in terms of long-term care, an additional $140
million since 2006.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Canada Water Week is
ongoing with celebrations from coast to coast. Knowing that the Province has 160
boil orders still in place, 120 for more than two years, Mr. Speaker, can the
minister tell the House what his department –
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE: – has undertaken to protect water resources for these
communities and the many other unreported, unincorporated communities that do
not fall under the confines of the Municipalities Act?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, my hon. member across the House has only been
here for a short period of time and I guess he does not have his homework done
in regard to the significant investments that this Province, this government has
made to municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador for the last eight years.
The poor man needs to do a little bit of research before he gets up into the
House of Assembly and talks about investment in water and waste water in this
Province. When we have over $500 million gone into municipalities over the last
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. O'BRIEN: Oh, they do not want to listen to numbers do they, because
that does not mean anything; that does not mean anything at all to the hon.
members across the House. This is what it takes, it takes investment. As well,
we have invested in a comprehensive look in regard to water and quality issues
in water issues in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have invested in water systems
(inaudible) as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, there is a sign at the beginning of Route
432 from Plum Point to Roddickton that warns there is twenty-six kilometres of
rough road ahead. Mr. Speaker, residents say this is the worst road in the
Province. Mr. Speaker, tourism operators tell me the road is so bad that
tourists are starting to turn back, abandoning their plans to visit tourism
sites at the end of the road.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation: What is
the point of award-winning tourism ads if your government has no plan to provide
safe roads for visitors and residents?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, roads on the Northern Peninsula. When I went
up, I think it was in 1999 or 2000, I can tell you the state of the roads up on
the Northern Peninsula; they were not roads to begin with. Since that time this
government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in roads in this
Province, including the Northern Peninsula.
I say to the member opposite, what are you looking for? We have invested, we
continue to invest and it is making a tremendous difference. You talk about safe
roads, that investment is making those roads safer than they ever were before in
the history of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, last year government announced roadwork in
my district which was not done. Mr. Speaker, the fact is little work was done
according to the residents. What little work was done has been washed away. They
refer to it as a Band-Aid solution which was a waste of money. Mr. Speaker,
penny-wise and pound foolish is not a plan.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: When is his
government going to provide a reliable road network for the people of the
Northern Peninsula?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many ways I can say this,
but this government invests a quarter of a billion dollars in roads every single
year - a quarter of a billion - and that is in new road construction, let alone
the maintenance money that we put into the hands of our workers. The roads in
this Province – we have replaced, for example, over the last little while, when
we talk about bridges, in the last four years we have replaced 190 bridges at a
cost of $122 million, and someone can get up on the other side and say we are
not investing in roads? I say, check the facts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, a new study from the University of Toronto shows
again that students who attend full-day Kindergarten classes are better at
reading and mathematics than our students who participate in half-day
Kindergarten classes.
I ask the Minister of Education: Why is there no plan for full-day
Kindergarten in this Province –
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. KIRBY: Why is there no plan for full-day Kindergarten in this
Province when the benefits are so obviously clear?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We as a government and the Department of Education are always exploring the
options that we want to bring forth and engage our young children in. One of the
things, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite seems to have missed – he probably does
not research this at his level at the university, but the imperative years, Mr.
Speaker, for investment in children is that critical zero to three age which we
have invested in. Mr. Speaker, $4.8 million over three years to be invested in
the zero to three age, Mr. Speaker – one of the best investments we will make in
education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Most five-year-olds in Canada now attend full-day Kindergarten and many
jurisdictions are expanding to four-year-olds.
I ask the Minister of Education: Why is this government allowing our primary
education system to fall behind the rest of Canada?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
You have time for a quick answer.
MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I certainly take objection to what he is
saying, that we are falling behind the rest of Canada – certainly not, Mr.
Speaker. The research around the investments that we have put into the zero to
three years, Mr. Speaker, came from support from researchers at Memorial,
teachers in the field. Mr. Speaker, we are exploring all of the options,
full-day Kindergarten being one –
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Pursuant to
section 5 of the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 2005, I wish to
table the annual report of loan guarantees provided to local governments to
enable them to arrange interim financing for capital projects. I am pleased to
report there were no new guarantees issued on behalf of local governments during
the fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, the last report under this act was tabled on April 7, 2011, and
included guarantees issued up to and including March 31, 2011. This current
report covers the period from April 1, 2010, to March 16, 2012.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 49.(2) of the Financial Administration Act,
I wish to table the attached list of temporary loans that were raised under
section 48. of the act since my last report to the House on April 7, last year.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 55.(3) of the Financial
Administration Act, I wish to report that there were no guaranteed loans paid
out by the Province since the last annual report on April 7, last year.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 55.1(2) of the act, I wish to
report there has been one guaranteed debt of a Crown Corporation or agency,
assumed by the Province since the April 7, 2011 annual report. Therefore, I wish
to table the attached list of details of this particular payout.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.
Notices of Motion.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador. This is the sixth time now that I have entered this petition. This
is a petition regarding needed changes to the Department of Education's school
bus transportation policies.
It reads as follows:
WHEREAS school district restructuring has resulted in longer bus travel times
and more hazardous winter travel for rural students of all ages; and
WHEREAS due to recent school closures, children living within 1.6 kilometres
face increased barriers of congested streets and busy intersections in the walk
to school, and parents without cars are having more difficulty getting children
to different schools on foot; and
WHEREAS only those child care centres outside the 1.6 kilometre zone and
directly on bus routes are included in the Kindergarten noontime routes, causing
hardship for working parents; and
WHEREAS the 1.6 kilometre policy has been in place since 1975, and student
transportation policies have not been reviewed through consultation since 1996;
and
WHEREAS parents are expressing the need for flexible policies for student
transportation and school restructuring to meet the current needs of school
children;
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge the government to
conduct a review of school bus transportation policies and school restructuring
to ensure safe and quality education for all school children in the Province.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
As I mentioned several times before, I took this petition on in response to
concerns of constituents in my district, but now I have been getting petitions
from all across the Province in support of this. Today we have petitioners from
Noggin Cove, Carmanville, Aspen Cove, Frederickton, and St. John's as well.
I feel like I am making some progress here, Mr. Speaker, because I get up
each day and I see the Minister of Education over there listening intently to
what I have to say. He is nodding his head in quiet agreement with what I am
saying. I really feel like I am managing to get through to him, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe, with time, he will see things the way of these petitioners and the
Members of the House of Assembly will see fit to have this policy reviewed and
have new policies enacted for the twenty-first century.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER (Verge): The hon. the Member for the Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition. I will read the petition:
WHEREAS the current Animal Protection Act was enacted in 1978 and is woefully
inadequate; and
WHEREAS it has been almost two years since the Animal Protection Act was
passed in the House of Assembly and has not yet been proclaimed; and
WHEREAS the inadequacy of the current animal protection laws is of grave and
immediate concern to the SPCA; and
WHEREAS the new Animal Protection Act would ensure much more severe
punishment and ultimately reduce instances of these crimes;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to
immediately proclaim the new Animal Protection Act.
Mr. Speaker, this was brought to my attention well before the provincial
election. There are some people – and one in particular is Evelyn Hancock with
the SPCA, and she was adamant that this act should be proclaimed. A lot of
people could not understand why.
We need this act to help protect the animals. We need this for enforcement
and we need this also as a deterrent for people who are abusing animals. We all
agree in this House, and I am sure every member agrees, that we have to do
everything we can to stop animal abuse in this Province. We understand that the
majority of animal owners are responsible animal owners, but there are some who
are not. This is why we need this act proclaimed. It has been almost two years –
a little over two years now, Mr. Speaker, since this act was passed in the
House. From my understanding it is held up on the regulations of the act.
I just urge this House to urge the government to proclaim this act
immediately so that we can get on with the responsibility of giving the law
enforcement and the people who are protecting the animals the tools to do their
job, Mr. Speaker. I just urge the House to urge the government to proclaim this
act as soon as possible so that we can help out with the animals and help out
with the people who are protecting their animals.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a petition to this hon. House
in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled. The
petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS there is no cellphone service in the Towns of St. Pauls, Sally's
Cove, Cow Head, Trout River, all of which are enclave communities in Gros Morne
National Park; and
WHEREAS there is either very poor or no cell service in most of Gros Morne
National Park; and
WHEREAS visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than 100,000 annually,
expect to use cellphones when they visit the park; and
WHEREAS cellphone service is an important safety feature for numerous
travellers, hikers, and others in the park; and
WHEREAS cellphone service is necessary to modern business development;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to partner with the private sector to extend cellphone
coverage throughout Gros Morne National Park and the enclave communities within
the park.
Mr. Speaker, Gros Morne Park is a fabulous tourism treasure for this
Province. It is widely advertised by Parks Canada. Many of the shots that we
see, particularly with Western Brook Gorge, are from Gros Morne National Park.
If you travel to Gros Morne National Park – and I certainly hope that members
who have not, will, and members who have will travel again. If you drive to the
Western side of Bonne Bay and leave through the Discovery Centre in Woody Point,
you drive through the Trout River Gulch; there is absolutely no cellphone
service in Trout River Gulch, approximately twenty kilometres long which ends in
Trout River. When you are in Trout River if you go to the Seaside Restaurant, it
is a very popular, world-renowned seaside restaurant. When you look at some of
the names of some of the guests who have signed the guestbook and had their
photos taken, you will see people like Dr. David Suzuki. Dr. David Suzuki will
come to Gros Morne National Park, go to Trout River and not be able to make a
phone call. It may be a nice nature trip but it certainly does not help promote
our Province when people come to the Province. Advertising encourages them to
come; they have a good time, except they do not have cellphone service.
In the western side of Bonne Bay there is some cellphone service, but very
little. All of the people who attend the annual event for writers, the writes
festival in Woody Point, tens of thousands of people attend every year, no
cellphone service. There is limited cellphone service in most of the park
communities. Cow Head has Theatre Newfoundland and Labrador; productions are put
on for weeks on end in the course of the summer, no cellphone service. It is
absolutely critical that we have cellphone service in Gros Morne National Park.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I present a petition for the removal of the Englee fish plant. It is a public
safety concern and an environmental concern.
To the honourable House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly showeth:
WHEREAS the provincial government has not acknowledged that they have a role
to play in the removal of the condemned Englee fish plant; and…
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
WHEREAS the Town of Englee has exhausted all avenues
over the past seven years, lobbying government for removal; and
WHEREAS inaction has resulted in economic loss for the town, delay in new
infrastructure and has become a concern of public safety as large debris has
fallen into a major shipping route;
We, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to
immediately order full removal and environmental cleanup of this condemned
property, former fish plant, in order to restore public confidence in the system
and settle land issues to permit new wharf development, providing residents of
Englee with a mechanism to revitalize a presently devitalized community.
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
This is a very important issue and it really needs immediate action from a
number of government departments to take ownership on this issue. This is
something that happened in 2004. It has been a problem, it has been an issue.
Something that this government has failed to address since it has been in power
for the last eight years. It is ignoring important health and safety, the public
issues of the people of this town. This being Canada Water Week, we really need
to look at the concerns around public safety around the water supply and the
potential contaminates that are involved around potentials of ammonia.
There was a federal government environmental assessment which reported that
there are potential contaminants of ammonia, cancer causing agents, all kinds of
oils and things like this. It is right on the waterfront there. This eroding of
things can have impacts and can cause major contaminants to the sea life and the
people who are living there. I ask that the government take this very, very
seriously. It could be your town, and we need to move forward on this.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I bring forward this petition to the hon. House of Assembly in the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the
undersigned humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS there is no cell service in Nunatsiavut; and
WHEREAS many individuals travel in close proximity to their respective
communities; and
WHEREAS cell coverage could well have prevented and saved the life of young
Burton Winters;
We the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of
Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to work with the
appropriate agencies to provide cellphone coverage to the people of the Labrador
Coast.
Mr. Speaker, the need for cell service in Northern Labrador is a must, and we
saw this need magnified when we hauled a BlackBerry from young Burton Winter's
pocket.
Mr. Speaker, I have stated in this hon. House before, lives will depend on
what this government acts on search and rescue. This is no longer a political
issue, Mr. Speaker, because I have witnessed every member of this hon. House
stand and support a real lobby effort for search and rescue. It is time to
represent our Province on this issue, and to act now and to act accordingly.
I was very disappointed yesterday, and I put this mildly, Mr. Speaker, to
hear the Member for Virginia Waters passing the buck on to our federal MPs. I
must point out, Mr. Speaker, that our MPs are in Ottawa, and they are fighting
for search and rescue in our Province and I commend them for it.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier of our Province has a duty to take the lead in
protecting lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I urge the Member for
Virginia Waters to step up and take the lead. As long as we are in this
Province, Mr. Speaker -
MR. KENNEDY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KENNEDY: This is a petition, Mr. Speaker, not a speech. This is full
debate. It is outside the realm of the petition.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
I go back to the Member for Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, as long as we live in this Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, lives will be lost. The least we can do, Mr. Speaker,
is to try and minimize this loss. The issue on search and rescue will not go
away.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of Education, to ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997, Bill
13, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Education shall have leave to introduce a bill. I do not have the title to the
bill.
MR. KENNEDY:
An Act To Amend The Schools Act.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Government House Leader –
An Act To Amend The
Schools Act, 1997, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
It is the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to
introduce the bill, and that the said bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To
Amend The Schools Act, 1997", carried. (Bill 13)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Schools Act, 1997. (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER: The bill has been now read a first time.
When shall the bill be read a second time?
MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not
adjourn at 5:30 o'clock on Thursday, March 22, 2012, and I further move, Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00
o'clock on Thursday, March 22, 2012.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that the House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock
on Thursday, March 22, 2012, and it has been further moved that this House not
adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 22, 2012.
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Order 7, second reading of Bill 7,
An Act
To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works,
that Bill 7,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a
second time.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that Bill 7,
An Act To Amend
The Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act,
1991". (Bill 7)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 7,
An Act To Amend
The Provincial Court Act, 1991. Mr. Speaker, a court is one of the three
foundations of a good justice system – an efficiently run and effective court.
Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to providing individuals with a court
system that is both efficiently run and effective. To that end, Mr. Speaker, we
have done a number of things over the last number of years to develop such a
court to a level of effectiveness and efficiency that does justice to the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
For example, Mr. Speaker, we have amended the Small Claims Act to limit the
amounts of $5,000 to $25,000. We have amended the Judicature Act to expand the
jurisdiction of the Family Division to Western Newfoundland. We have introduced
revisions to allow court clerks to act as Justices of the Peace. We have amended
the Provincial Court Act so that the complaint process is taken away from the
judicial council and now to a complaints council, which is really what this bill
is all about. We have amended the Court Security Act to allow for perimeter
screening at all court levels currently in the provincial court. We have adopted
the Public Trustee Act, which removed the role of the estates administration
from the courts and established an independent Office of the Public Trustee. So,
Mr. Speaker, we are always committed to making sure our court system is
efficiently run and as effective as possible, because it is the cornerstone of a
good justice system.
Mr. Speaker, the amendments that we are bringing forth today would clarify
when a judge may be removed from the panel of part-time judges and would also
correct a number of cross-references that have resulted from amendments made in
previous sessions.
Mr. Speaker, during the spring 2008 session, the House of Assembly's
amendments to the Provincial Court Act, 1991 were adopted. They provided for an
appointment of a panel of part-time judges to the Provincial Court. Mr. Speaker,
part-time judges serve an important role in the functioning of the Provincial
Court as they can be called upon in short notice when the need arises. That is
important to ensure the continuous functioning of our courts without undue
delays.
Section 5.2 of the Provincial Court Act sets out the process for when
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can establish that panel of part-time judges.
Mr. Speaker, these are judges who have retired from their position as
full-time judges, but wish to stay on in a part-time role. They let the chief
judge know that and then the minister is made aware of that. The
Lieutenant-Governor in Council appoints a panel of part-time judges that the
chief judge can draw from any time he wants to. It allows for continuous
functioning of the courts and provides for an extra judge to be available when
the chief judge needs him.
Section 5.2(7) of the Provincial Court Act, 1991, Mr.
Speaker, sets out the process to be followed by the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council to remove a judge from the part-time panel. Just as there is a process
to appoint judges to a part-time panel, there is a process to remove them.
Specifically 5.2(7) states that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall not
remove a person from the panel of part-time judges except upon the written
request of that person to the chief judge; upon the person reaching the age of
seventy years; upon the death of that person; or, upon the order of the judicial
council under paragraph 23(b). Mr. Speaker, it is that last provision, upon the
order of the judicial council under paragraph 23(
b) that leads to one of the
amendments here today.
Mr. Speaker, the judicial council of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador is also constituted under the Provincial Court Act, 1991. It is
constituted of four members: the bencher of the Law Society; two persons
nominated by the minister; the president of the judges' association; and the
chief judge who is the chairperson of the judicial council. The main function of
the judicial council, Mr. Speaker, is to consider applicants for judicial
appointments and make a recommendation to the minister with respect to those
applicants, and also to consider any proposals for improving the services of the
court.
One of the functions of the judicial council under the act, Mr. Speaker, was
"to receive and investigate complaints made to it by a judge relating to that
judge's judicial duties and to make recommendations to the minister or the chief
judge as it considers appropriate". Mr. Speaker, the reference to a judicial
council in this amendment 5.2(7) that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council cannot
remove the person from the panel except upon the order of the judicial council.
That judicial council is incorrect – the reference to the judicial council is
incorrect. The amendments to the Provincial Court Act, 1991, in the fall of the
2008 session of the House of Assembly changed the function of the judicial
council so that it no longer receives and investigates complaints against a
judge or the chief judge, nor does it have the authority to reprimand, suspend
or remove a judge from the court. That was taken care of, Mr. Speaker, in the
amendments in the fall 2008 session.
These responsibilities are now shared by the Complaints Review Committee.
That amendment in the fall of 2008 set up a Complaints Review Committee which
receives and investigates complaints pursuant to
section 23 of the Provincial
Court Act, 1991. It is the Complaints Review Committee now which receives and
investigates those complaints, not the judicial council. It is the adjudication
tribunal, which was also set up in 2008, which is empowered to reprimand or
suspend or remove the judge from the court pursuant to certain sections of the
act.
These sections were put in, Mr. Speaker, because they allowed for an
independent mechanism by which judges can be held to the highest standards, as
opposed to being dealt with by the judicial council. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker,
the phrase judicial council now should read adjudication tribunal because it is
the adjudication tribunal that is now the body invested with the authority to
remove a judge from the court.
The reference of paragraph 23(
b) is also incorrect in that this paragraph
states that the Complaints Review Committee may, with the consent of the
complainant and the judge, attempt to resolve the complaint. The reference of
paragraph 23(
b) should read, instead, paragraph 25.1(2)(
d) and paragraph
25.2(3)(
d) because these are the two paragraphs now that specifically refer to
the ability of the adjudication panel to remove a judge from the court.
Mr. Speaker, the judicial council then no longer has – and has not since the
amendments that were made in 2008 – the authority or the responsibility to
remove a judge from the panel. That is now the purview of the Complaints Review
Committee which receives the complaints, investigates the complaints, and it is
the adjudication panel which makes the decision with respect to the judge.
Mr. Speaker, the other proposed amendments are really cross referencing
errors and they are necessary in order to fulfill the intention of the
legislation. For example, the reference to paragraph (2)(
a) to (2)(
d) in
subsection 16.(5) needs to be amended to reflect that there are only two
paragraphs in that section, not three. The reference should read paragraphs (
a) to (c), not (
a) to (d). These are just cross referencing errors.
Mr. Speaker, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council appoints four members to the
judicial council, as I mentioned earlier, one of these is a bencher of the Law
Society. The reference in paragraph 16(2)(
b) needs to be amended to reflect that
a bencher of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador is appointed under
paragraph 16(2)(
a) as opposed to 16(2)(b) – cross referencing errors.
There is a significant one that needs to be changed, the reference to justice
as opposed to a judge. Not to insult anybody's intelligence, but the official in
a Provincial Court is a judge; the official in a Supreme Court is a justice. We
are talking about Provincial Court judges in this case and there is reference in
paragraph 24.(2) to a justice, which is an error. That needs to be amended to
reflect that it is a judge in the Provincial Court appointed chairperson of the
adjudication panel. That paragraph deals with appointing a judge of the
Provincial Court to be chairperson of the adjudication panel.
Now, just a little bit of elaboration on that, Mr. Speaker. The
Lieutenant-Governor in Council appoints the complaints panel. Two members of
that complaints panel have to be judges from Atlantic Canada – either New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, or PEI; two of them come from the Atlantic Provinces.
One of them, Mr. Speaker, has to be appointed chair of the adjudication panel.
So, it is a judge of the Provincial Court that should be referenced, not a
justice of the Supreme Court.
Section 25.5 states that "An action for damages shall not lie against" … "a
person appointed to conduct an investigation under subsection 23.(2)". This
again is the wrong section. It needs to be amended to be subsection 23.(4),
because that is the
section that authorizes the appointment of a person to
conduct an investigation.
I am going through these very quickly, Mr. Speaker, because they are only
cross-referencing errors.
Section 31.(4) refers to a order issued under
subsection (2), that should read subsection (3). These amendments are technical
in nature, but the public and the stakeholders will benefit, Mr. Speaker, from
these amendments, and they are necessary to fulfill the objectives of the
legislation.
So, Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Court is the Province's court of first
instance for all criminal and regulatory matters. Trials of the vast majority of
such offences are concluded there. Provincial Court also serves as youth court,
traffic court, small claims court, and outside of these areas, covered by the
Family Division of the Supreme Court. It deals also, which people do not
realize, with family law matters, most family law matters other than divorce
matters or division of properties under the Family Law Act, which of course is
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Our Provincial Courts are the busiest courts in the Province. Consequently,
we are continuously working to make improvements to ensure that it operates with
the utmost efficiency. Last December, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to announce
they started perimeter screening at the St. John's location. That is to ensure
the safety of the staff and the public – the users who use that court. That is
the busiest court in the Province. It was never designed as a court; it was
designed as retail office space. We had to do considerable modification and
adjustment to that building to make it safe and enhance security as much as
possible. This perimeter screening, at a cost of $300,000, is getting great
results. We have installed two perimeter screening stations, developed new
policies around screening; we have developed regulatory authority to conduct
screening, physical searches, and had to amend, of course, the Court Security
Act to do that.
It has been well received and been of tremendous benefit, safety, and social
comfort to people using that facility.
Mr. Speaker, these are the amendments we are requesting in Bill 7. Thank you
for the opportunity to discuss these amendments. I look for other members to
take
part in the debate.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, I thank the minister for his comments. Again, it is a pleasure and
an honour to be able to stand here in this House and speak to legislation,
especially legislation that I was near and dear to during my previous practice
in law. Again, being from Port aux Basques, we had only a Provincial Court and
the circuits around my area were all handled – there was Port aux Basques; we
had the circuit court in Burgeo, and the closest full-time court was in
Stephenville.
We used to have a full-time court in Port aux Basques courthouse, but that
was shut down sometime ago and they moved to a circuit. I guess that tells you
the tale of out-migration and decline in population. I guess the good news is a
decline in the crime rate back from the 80s. But, that being said, my main
concern has always been that we had an access to justice, especially when we
deal with the Provincial Court, which is the first line of the court system; it
is where the majority of people start off, whether it be regulatory matters,
fish matters, wildlife, small claims, criminal or family.
That is why I think it is so important that we have Provincial Courts that
are accessible to the public, as opposed to the Supreme Courts, which are again
– there are only seven of them, I believe, and they are more spread out. The
closest Supreme Court we have is in Corner Brook; then you have to go into Grand
Falls.
Again, I understand that this amendment suggested here today is more of a
housekeeping amendment. I appreciate the opportunity for the justice department
to sit down with me and take their time to brief me on what this act proposes to
do. It is not as substantive as the piece of legislation we discussed the other
day, but it is still important nonetheless. Again, the minister made reference
to the improvements in law and in the different, I guess, areas of law that
there have been, but there are still some concerns out there when it comes to
our Provincial Courts. One of them would be – I look at my own stomping grounds
out in Port aux Basques; we have a circuit court that has gone now to basically
three days per month that it sits. You have to hope that it is good days in the
winter, or else they are not going to have a court until – they will skip that
circuit and go to the next month. I have seen times when there was no circuit in
December, January circuits cancelled due to bad weather; we have to sit in
February, which again, is a long time when we talk about this principle called
access to justice. We all deserve a fair and equal access to justice. Again,
that is entrenched in whether it is our Charter or it is a constitutional thing.
Now, going back to the courthouse in Port aux Basques again, if you are ever
out to the courthouse in Port aux Basques, number one, it is one of the few
public buildings in this Province that is not wheelchair accessible. Whenever
there is a matter involving a person with a physical disability, we have to have
that matter heard at St. Christopher's Hotel. This can cause scheduling issues,
which again is already an issue when we only get three days per month. I am not
going to get too much farther into that. I could talk about the other lack of
amenities in this building, but it is an old building. Again, I have had
complaints to me while I was practicing. I had clients who had mobility issues
and they did not like the fact that they could not have their matter heard in
the proper courtroom.
We also look back to a few years ago. We had the one staff person who was
only a seasonal staff person. They were only for the circuit. They worked three
to four days a month, but that was taken out. Now we have staff coming in with
the judge from Stephenville or Corner Brook, what have you, wherever the matter
is heard. I do not know if there have been any savings in that. If there are, I
would be interested to see the statistics, but again, another issue.
One funny one, actually; I wrote to the current Minister of Finance on this
back when he was serving in his previous role. I asked about getting some
high-tech equipment in our courthouse. What I wanted was a photocopier. I wanted
a photocopier in a courthouse because at that point we were still using a fax
machine to get copies of cases and different documents. We still have not gotten
that photocopier out there, but they have put in a new computer system. The ones
before were kind of dated. I do not know if they were Tandy's, but I am putting
it out there. They still used the paper that had the sides you tear off. That is
the kind of paper they were using. It was really, really impressive to come in
after going to law school and learning all the new changes, and I come back to
using Tandy computers and photocopying with a fax machine. That was really good.
The air conditioning was opening up the window; that was the air conditioning we
had out there. It is nice in the summer when we get good weather out our way.
Again, going back to one of the big points of this, we are talking about
part-time judges. I certainly agree with the minister wholeheartedly, that
part-time judges are important. We need them. We need to make sure that whether
it is reason of sickness, legal conflict - or even if these judges have to take
vacation, too, they are like the rest of us. They certainly deserve it and are
entitled to it. It is nice to have a roster of judges who have done their time
and put their time in, but are still willing to serve their Province and make
sure people have access to justice.
I know Judge Robert Smith comes out to the Stephenville circuit quite a bit.
He is a fantastic gentleman. He comes out and serves whenever this judge is
taken away. It was one judge. We have just had a new judge appointed to
Stephenville. I have already been in touch with her to congratulate her on this
appointment. I am confident she is going to do a fantastic job out there. The
fact is when you are in a small area, and if you have practiced law in a small
area, you are undoubtedly going to have a legal conflict. You may have some ties
with that family or represented somebody on the other side. It is nice to have
this backup conflict judge who can come in and handle the matter. The purpose of
this piece of legislation is to make sure that we have clarified and amended the
law, just to bring it up to snuff and make sure we eliminate any discrepancies.
A housekeeping exercise really.
I do not know if there are any plans to get more part-time judges. I hope
that is something we can consider when any of the current judges who are near
retirement age, ready to retire, maybe they will consent to having their names
added to the list. It is funny, if you look at one of the proposed subsections
they are talking about the adjudication tribunal and being appointed and taken
off that panel. One of the things is: They shall serve for three years during
good behaviour. Now that is one of the things I certainly hope is not an issue
when we are talking about judges, is whether they have good behaviour or not. I
have not seen it yet, only once have I seen it. Actually, a few years ago the
justice department went to appoint a judge up in Labrador but after they went
through the vetting stage they realized this judge had some issues in his past
and that appointment was quickly turned around. I guess the vetting process in
that case did not go so well. Usually when these judges are put on the stand
they do their job, they do it well, and their goal is to uphold the laws of this
Province and certainly of this country.
I just have a few more notes made here. When we talk about provincial courts,
one of the things we can go back to is this access to justice. One thing we do
have, I believe it is ten provincial courts but we have a huge number of
circuits. I have a serious concern that there is an active effort to reduce the
number of circuits. That is a serious concern. If you look on the West Coast, we
have circuits in Port aux Basques; we have a circuit in Burgeo. If you go up the
Northern Peninsula, in the Member for St. Barbe's district, St. Anthony is a
circuit, Plum Point is a circuit, Rocky Harbour is a circuit, and Port au Choix
is a circuit. If we think about what the cost is, they probably could use a
fulltime court up there; maybe a bit better system set up there. We want to make
sure people have this access because at the end of the day it should not cost me
anymore so that I have access to justice than it should cost somebody in a
larger centre. It should not cost me more to have to travel two-and-a-half and
three, three-and-a-half hours to have my matter heard and a person in Corner
Brook can have their matter heard and they just have to walk over to the
courthouse. That is a necessary cost that must be always maintained. We have to
make sure everybody is treated the same.
I have seen cases now recently where we had the number of circuit days cut
down. What is happening is we are saying, well, let's have it heard in
Stephenville; lots of time in Stephenville. Let's have it heard there.
That is not fair to these people. If they have to travel into Stephenville,
that means they have to take time off from their jobs and then they have to pay
to get in there. Any practising lawyer will tell you a number of times where
they go in for a 9:00 o'clock matter but their matter is not called until the
afternoon, it is just the way it works. When this happens to a person, they have
to take a full day off. Depending on where they are coming from they might have
to take a night off, they might have to stay in a hotel. It is an issue, we need
to maintain that and that applies all over this House. There are members across
who deal with this issue, members on this side deal with this issue. We need to
make sure that people are on the same level playing field.
I will put that out there. I know the Justice Minister is aware of this
issue, and we are going to make sure we do not do anything to further cut this
system so that the only way you can have fair justice is if you live in a big
centre. It is the nature of this Province that we have a very large and diverse
geography. That is a fact. It is always going to cost a certain amount to live
in this Province, so the government needs to make sure that if you are living in
Port aux Basques, if you are living in Bonne Bay, anywhere, you are getting the
same treatment.
Going back to the Provincial Courts, talking about the importance of what the
minister is putting in here. When we talk about Provincial Courts, some of these
judges have a very, very heavy caseload.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. KENNEDY: An hour-and-a-half a day, Andrew, really, really important;
an hour-and-a-half a day (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS: I would say to the Government House Leader, it is longer
than an hour-and-a-half a day out in Port aux Basques when they have the matters
all backed up. I would say that we deserve an equal access to justice here.
We talk about the big caseloads. I know in Stephenville the previous judge
who was there; she handled a lot of matters. I know there are times when she
could be a bit – she was writing her judgments on the weekends. This was a
judge, like many, they have families and want to have time. We need to make sure
that we have these part-time judges there who can go and fill in and make sure
that all the matters are heard in as quick and expedient a manner as possible.
Going back to the circuit courts that I am talking about, it can also present
an issue when we talk about the Charter rights, to have your matter heard as
quickly as possible. If you are getting circuits cancelled due to the judges
being unavailable or due to weather cancelling the circuit - nobody wants to
drive out over the Wreckhouse in the middle of winter. We need to make sure we
have these judges here who can sit back and take over and make sure that we have
time there so people can have their matters heard. It is a matter of human
rights when you really think about it here.
We do need more court time in some of these rural areas. I know the courts
here in St. John's have been plugged lately. Out our way we might not have as
much time but those days are certainly filled. I am sure the Member for St.
Barbe can tell me, when we get the court there she is busy all day, from 9:00
o'clock right to 5:00. I have had matters where, because I wanted to get them
done during that circuit, I have had four-day trials. After four days and we are
not done, we will sit after supper because we want to get that matter done. If
not, I might have to wait two months to conclude my trial or give my closing
submissions. That presents an effect on my ability to prevent a defence on
behalf of my client. That is why I say the extra time is there. I know there is
pressure when it comes to monetary concerns, but it is my duty to put that out
there.
I would commend the minister on one of the things he noted in relation to
courts, and that comes to the Small Claims Act. That was a long overdue thing.
To raise the limits on this from $5,000 to $25,000 made a huge difference.
People who might be just over that $5,000 threshold - and they have to go to
Supreme Court, which has increased costs, increased time and increased
procedural wrangling - and now we have increased that. I am happy with that. I
know a lot of people are taking advantage of this change.
To be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, I do not have a whole lot more to say on
this issue. I think it is procedural in nature. I am hoping we do get some more
part-time judges. I hope we continue to make sure that the complement of judges
are always maintained and that we are taking the best possible people for those
jobs who are on that list.
Those are my comments here today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice, if he speaks now he will –
okay, I guess we will recognize the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very grateful for the work of part-time judges. They bring experience
and expertise and continuity to our court system. The other thing they bring to
our court system is that they can be a benchmark for change and they can bring
with their experience and their many years of serving the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador, they can bring both tradition, but also they can be the bridging
link to modern practices. Our justice system and our courts must be a dynamic
and evolving system and we would hope that is what is constantly happening in
our justice system and in our court system.
One of the things that perhaps must be considered is the whole modernization
of our justice system, of our court system. We know that basically what we are
dealing with here is the procedural issues and cleaning up some legislation.
One thing that we really need to look at, and that we have heard from judges,
and that we have heard from people in the justice system, is the somewhat
antiquated state of the infrastructure of our court system, both in our
infrastructure and then also the way that we conduct our business in the court
system, in terms of our handling of information, and the administration of the
processes in our court system. Our main Provincial Court building in St. John's
is over 100 years old, and it is a beautiful heritage building, but proves to be
very – aside from being predominantly wheelchair inaccessible, it is
overcrowded, and was built initially to house three judges and staff, and it has
more than doubled in that.
It is one of the busiest courts in our Province, and we find many people that
– although there have been some modifications made in the past while, where
there is now a wheelchair-accessible washroom on the first floor, the rest of
the building is virtually inaccessible if you were to use a wheelchair. This
impacts not only our citizens who are seeking justice, our citizens who need to
use the court system, it also impacts who can work in our court system. It
impacts whether or not a judge who uses a wheelchair can work there. It impacts
whether or not lawyers can work there. It impacts whether or not clerks who may
use wheelchairs can work there. This is not accessible justice, and it is not
accessible employment.
We also know that in modern thought in courts and in justice, there is an
understanding that the architecture and the structure of a court building must
reflect the purpose, must reflect the activities, must reflect the stature of
our court system in the Province. So, it is very evident that what we need in
our Province is an overall master plan for new infrastructure
for our court system, that we need reform in our
infrastructure. There is no plan at this point. There has been no plan tabled
that is a long-term plan to address the inadequacies of the
infrastructures province-wide for our court system. We need to see a long-term
plan. Without a long-term plan, we do not have benchmarks to see where it is we
are going or whether we have made any progress.
The Court of Appeal in St. John's on Duckworth Street is a building that I
have toured. It is basically inaccessible. There is a door that you go down a
long pathway, you go down a driveway in around to the back of the building, then
the big metal door that is not even regulation size for wheelchairs – somebody
has to open it from the inside – and then you are pushed in. Then you go through
aisles of files of the court filing system in the basement. Then you come to a
very antiquated elevator. Again, we love our heritage buildings and they serve a
purpose, but for our courts of justice that should be accessible to all, they do
not serve that purpose well.
We know that there have been improvements made, but they are simply band-aid
solutions because of the problems that are presented and because of the
architecture and the age of the existing buildings. We do need a new court
complex. We need a new court complex that is accessible to all, that is safe,
and that is functional.
Courts are about our social stability. It is about how we live together and
how we make decisions about what to do when people violate the rules and laws
that we have. Aside from the actual infrastructures, there is also the
management of information and technology. We have not in the Province modernized
that. We need a new system that handles information. We need a new electronic
system that not only makes it more efficient for the court system, but then
consequently makes it less costly for litigants and would reduce
costs for court procedures.
It is incumbent upon the government to remove as many barriers as possible to
justice for all the people of the Province. I would like to say that we are
grateful for the work of the part-time judges who bring this expertise and
continuity to our court system.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice, if he speaks now he will
be closing debate.
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pass my thanks along to the members of the other
parties for their comments with respect to this bill, and note the concerns that
they raise with respect to matters of access to justice and court
infrastructure. These are ongoing issues, Mr. Speaker, with the Department of
Justice. Some of these are in the purview of the chief judge who controls
schedules and access to courts and so on – and circuit courts as well.
We are certainly very much aware of our infrastructure needs in corrections,
especially with the need for a new court precinct in the City of St. John's, but
we have also court needs in other parts of the Province. We have situations, Mr.
Speaker, where court is being held in Lions Clubs and in rooms up over bars and
clubs and so on. So, the need is there. We also recognize with respect to our
heritage building downtown the infrastructure deficiencies in that particular
building.
Mr. Speaker, these are issues that are ongoing in the Department of Justice
and we are committed, as I have said earlier, to ensuring that we have the most
efficiently run and effective court system that you can possibly have in this
Province because it is a cornerstone of an effective justice system.
Mr. Speaker, with that I move this bill and I move to second reading.
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read the second time.
Just one moment, please, to confer with the Clerk.
[Speaker confers with Clerk]
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you to the Clerk.
It has been moved and seconded that this bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
Provincial Court Act, 1991, be now read the second time.
All those in favour, ‘aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.
Carried.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991. (Bill 7)
MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been read a second time.
When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. KENNEDY: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991", read a
second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow.
(Bill 7)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call from the Order Paper, Order 8, second reading of Bill 8,
An Act To
Amend The Family Violence Protection Act.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I moved, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 8,
An Act To Amend The Family Violence Protection Act, now be read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Justice shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The
Family Violence Protection Act, Bill 8, and that the said bill be now read a
first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister shall leave –
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: No, I think I am –
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Family Violence
Protection Act". (Bill 8)
MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, to the Minister of Justice.
MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 8,
An Act To Amend
The Family Violence Protection Act.
Mr. Speaker, family violence has devastating consequences for families and
communities throughout this Province, and in order to put an end to this cycle
of abusive behaviour, this government continues to make family violence
prevention one of its top priorities.
Mr. Speaker, this government, in 2006, put a lot of teeth into the Violence
Prevention Initiative program, and that strategy that focuses on the prevention
and early intervention of violence relating to those in populations most as
risk. These strategies, Mr. Speaker, were outlined in our document in 2006
called Taking Action Against Violence 2006-2012 . That Violence Prevention
Initiative, there are nine departments engaging in that. The Department of
Justice is only one of the nine departments, along with representatives from
community-based agencies that comprise this Violence Prevention Initiative.
In addition to all the work that our Victim Services division does in the
Department of Justice, Mr. Speaker, some of the actions that have occurred
underneath the Violence Prevention Initiative, we have done a number of things
developing victim services and learning resources on the court preparation for
children, for example. We have revised and delivered the RNC's program, STRIVE
program, to empower students to take ownership of the issue of youth violence.
We have ads on television with respect to "Respect Women". We have delivered
training on family violence legislation in forty inter-agencies in the Province.
We have implemented a Family Violence Protection Act, which was drafted with
input from community and justice system representatives and proclaimed in 2006.
We have conducted research and an analysis on specialized family violence
courts and, Mr. Speaker, I have implemented a Family Violence Court in the
Province, currently in its fourth year. Mr. Speaker, we have continued the
minister's Committee on Violence Against Women, which my hon. colleague the
Minister of Finance – when he was the Minister of Justice – established; that
minister's Committee on Violence Against Women meets quarterly.
Mr. Speaker, we have developed information packages on court procedures for
shelter staff. We have made improvements to courtroom facilities to accommodate
the needs of vulnerable witnesses, including investment in closed-circuit TV. We
have improved translation services and
interpretation services for Aboriginal
people in the justice system. We have had joint training with police and social
workers on family violence and the investigation of child sexual abuse. Mr.
Speaker, we are committed, this government, to the family violence initiative
and invested heavily in family violence prevention in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, some of the guiding principles which direct the work of the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador Violence Prevention Initiative are:
People have a right to a safe and secure environment. Health, well-being and
productivity are enhanced in a violence-free environment. Violence is a choice
and is preventable. There is strong evidence that effective intervention can
reduce and prevent violence.
Mr. Speaker, prevention of violence is everyone's responsibility. The
elimination of violence requires a comprehensive response, including prevention,
public education services and enforcement of the law. Criminal and other acts of
violence and abuse require effective consequences, including punishment under
the law.
Mr. Speaker, as part of our work on this important issue, The Family Violence
Protection Act was introduced in December 2005 to help protect family members
who were affected by family violence. Mr. Speaker, the legislation provides a
speedy and accessible process to allow a victim of family violence to obtain an
emergency protection order from a provincial court judge without having to give
notice to the alleged abuser. These applications, Mr. Speaker, are made ex
parte, meaning without having to give notice to the other side; they are quick,
effective, and accessible means to get emergency protection. Mr. Speaker, it is
around this emergency protection order that this amendment is based.
This emergency protection order, EPO as we call it, can remain in effect for
a maximum of ninety days. It cannot be extended and it cannot be renewed. It
does not replace the other remedies available under the Criminal Code, under the
Family Law Act, or other federal and provincial legislation, but it complements
that legislation. It complements these remedies. It is quick, immediate, and
done in an emergency situation.
An application for an emergency protection order may be made by a person who
has lived or is living in a spousal relationship or an intimate or family
relationship with the abuser and has been a victim of family violence. It can
also be made by a lawyer or a police officer on behalf of that person who is a
victim of family violence.
The emergency protection order, Mr. Speaker, is a way to address the
immediate safety of victims of family violence, as I just mentioned. It provides
legal protection to victims, but is not a criminal charge. It is just a way to
expedite a person's safety. It is not intended to decriminalize violence, on the
other hand. It is not meant to decriminalize a violent act and if there is
reasonable or probable grounds, then a charge can be laid. It is for an
emergency and it is immediate.
Now, an EPO may contain a variety of terms. It can order an abuser not to go
to places where the victim regularly goes, not to communicate with the victim,
and to stay away from the victim. It may allow the victim to stay in the home
and order the abuser to leave the home. It may allow the victim temporary
control over the use of personal property, such as the family car for example,
or the use of the family bank account. It might provide for the seizure of
weapons. There are any number of things the EPO can give for that period of
ninety days.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the legislation also contains a review procedure within
thirty days. Most of the time, the abuser was not given notice of the
application. He has thirty days to receive that notice to look for a review of
the order. He can ask to have the order varied, or terminated, for that matter.
It also provides the opportunity for the respondent, the alleged abuser, with
the right to apply to have the order set aside. There is a review process, but
that review process is also in the Provincial Court. Any application to set
aside an order, to terminate an order, or vary an order has again to be heard by
a Provincial Court judge. The respondent has the opportunity then to review
evidence, to call witnesses in support of his request to have the order
reviewed, or even to cross-examine witnesses who were brought in the first
place. That is a review process, Mr. Speaker, that is available to the
respondent.
Mr. Speaker, what happens, if the outcome of the application for review is
not favourable to the respondent, in other words if the judge confirms that the
emergency order is going to stay in place for ninety days, then that respondent
has no other opportunity for appeal. The same token, Mr. Speaker, if the judge
terminates the Emergency Protection Order or varies it in some way before the
expiration of ninety days, then the applicant has no opportunity for further
review. There is no further additional opportunity beyond the review of the
order. Our Province is unique in this regard, Mr. Speaker, because most other
provinces have another level that they can go to.
Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province have had the benefit of the Family
Violence Prevention Act in place now for five years. As part of my department's
continuous review of the justice legislation to ensure the continued protection
of vulnerable populations and fairness as well in the delivery of services, and
in partnership with the judiciary, members of the bar and the stakeholders, it
is now felt appropriate to propose an amendment to the Family Violence
Protection Act.
The proposed amendment, Mr. Speaker, would provide either party to an
emergency order, their statutory right to seek leave to appeal through the court
of appeal, but only on a question of law or jurisdiction. They cannot review the
facts, cannot review the merits of the case, the possibility is open for review,
appeal on a question of law or jurisdiction.
That is not about rehashing the facts of the case or the merits, but really
it is about ensuring whether or not the Provincial Court judge had the
jurisdiction in the first place to make the order, or whether it is compliant
with the constitution and other paramount principles of law. It allows for an
appellate provision, which is not there now, and which is brought to our
attention that it really needs to be there. It is an assurance that the
Provincial Court does not overstep its legal authority under the current
legislative scheme.
Mr. Speaker, these applications are made ex parte. That automatically
sometimes gives prima facie case for the Charter infringement, a person's
individual rights. Mr. Speaker, it might also conflict with other legislation.
For example, if the judge makes an order that conflicts with the Divorce Act.
The Divorce Act is not in provincial jurisdiction, or the Family Law Act, or the
Children's Law Act. These are Supreme Court jurisdictions. If the order has a
provision that deals with these, then it may be in conflict. Neither can the
Provincial Court interfere in property rights because that is not the
jurisdiction of Provincial Court.
Mr. Speaker, if we ever get a Court of Appeal decision, and if the
opportunity arises down the road after this amendment comes in and Court of
Appeal makes a decision, then that will clarify those issues and establish the
law and clarify the law on Emergency Protection Orders.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has reviewed domestic violence
legislation in other provinces and the amendment that we are suggesting, it
would not be unique at all to this Province. Domestic violence legislation in
Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut specifically
incorporate a provision for a right to appeal to the Court of Appeal on a
question of law or jurisdiction. Other jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, have a
different mechanism in place. When you get an EPO in a Provincial Court within
seven days it has to be confirmed by the Supreme Court, in some jurisdictions.
Then, it becomes the order of the Supreme Court. Once it becomes the order of
the Supreme Court, it automatically opens up an appeal process. It can be
confirmed by the Supreme Court or appealed through the Court of Appeal.
The right of appeal in this case, Mr. Speaker, would be to the Court of
Appeal directly, and this is to ensure that such matters are handled expediently
and the applicants would not be burdened by the unnecessary layers of appeal.
Now, it can be done during the ninety days or it could be brought to the Court
of Appeal after the ninety days. If it is a matter of law to be decided or a
matter of jurisdiction to be decided, it does not depend on the ninety days of
the duration of the EPO, it can be done any time afterwards because it a
question of law or jurisdiction that has to be established, not the merits of
the EPO.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment enhances the objectives of the Family Violence
Protection Act and ensures a continued protection of vulnerable populations,
specifically women and children and guarantees fairness in the delivery of
services. Stakeholders would be much better served as such an appeal process
would be more apparent and accessible and provides a broader range of remedies.
Mr. Speaker, this is a legal remedy, it is a legal issue. It gives equal
opportunity to the responder and the applicant. It is equally fair to both
sides. If the respondent feels aggrieved by the decision of the Provincial
Court, he can appeal. If, on the other hand, the person who makes the applicant
in the first place, the abused person, if she is not satisfied or he is not
satisfied then he or she has a right to appeal.
Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this matter, we have consulted here with the
Provincial Advisory Council for the Status of Women and also with the Women's
Policy Office who are in very much support of this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to present this bill, and I look
forward to the comments from the other side.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, it is an honour to stand and speak to this piece of legislation, the
Family Violence Protection Act, the amendments suggested. I would suggest that
by looking at just the size of the amendment it looks very small and simple but
it is one of utmost importance for a number of reasons. That is certainly why we
are in support of these amendments.
When we talk about family law, family law is probably one of the worst areas
to practice in. It takes a toll on everybody involved. Certainly, the parents,
the children, the extended family and friends, and even the people who are not
directly involved, whether it be court staff or lawyers. It can be hard having
to slog through family cases, especially when they involve issues of violence.
It is really difficult, it is heartbreaking to sit and deal with those. This
piece of legislation specifically presents a very, very quick and timely remedy
to an immediate situation, which is good.
What we are doing here, this suggested amendment is just going to strengthen
it but at the same time present an extra layer of judicial review. That is never
a bad thing to have an extra set of eyes on something to make sure that things
were done right, and that one side was not wrongly prejudiced. That is the
unfortunate nature in many legal matters, or matters where there is one side
versus the other, is that it is my story versus your story. Unfortunately, there
are cases where people do not always say – they say what they have to, and that
is why it is nice to have an independent person to come in after the first
decision has been made – in this case, of a Court of Appeal – to look at this.
Again, it protects the rights of both sides; the applicant and the respondent.
That is the important thing here, because even in cases such as these where we
have facts and scenarios that can be very horrendous, we must always protect the
rights of both sides involved in this. Especially an emergency protection order,
which sometimes there are consequences where we are keeping two people apart is
one thing, but when you are talking about families and having kids gone, it is
just a terrible issue.
When we talk about this section, we have cases where having that – it sort of
ties into the first piece of legislation when we talk about access to justice.
The emergency protection order itself is done in the Provincial Court. When we
talk about places with circuit courts, they do not always have that immediate
close-by avenue to go and make sure they get this emergency order done right
away. Thankfully, there are other organizations and entities that can take
advantage of this for them, whether it is the RCMP or the RNC. A group can make
sure this is done, but in a lot of these cases you are dealing with people at
their lowest points. They are desperate. They do not know what to do. They may
be in a situation of severe abuse. Knowing that they have someone who can go and
make sure this matter gets into court right away and gets the emergency
protection order done is very important. That is a great thing.
That being said, as we all know, especially anybody who has practiced and
anybody who has watched any kind of news, there are cases were justice was not
done. The wrong decision was made. When you talk about criminal cases, there are
people who have been wrongfully convicted. It happens. It is a