Statements in Debates

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 1st Session (day 4)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had heard the same words spoken in the House yesterday and it, too, did draw my attention to the concern of using the phrase “crimes against humanity.” At the time I actually reached for my trusty green book of Beauchesne’s Rules of Order to think is this proper language in this type of conduct.

I think Mrs. Groenewegen described the circumstances quite right: The everyday person would define crimes against humanity in the context of genocide and other types of horrific crimes that have happened in places like Rwanda that are terribly shameful and are a stain on...

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 1st Session (day 3)

Clearly, the point is being missed or, rather, it’s being avoided. The issue is about the person who the EPO is issued against. That person has been accused falsely in this circumstance. The Minister knows very well of this example. The issue is it’s not about the person who lied. The person who lied, the process is correct, as he’s highlighted. How does the person who has been accused, who has now become the victim of the circumstance, get the EPO removed? They have to take it to court and it costs $5,000 in this particular example. There is no relief mechanism built into the process when it...

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 1st Session (day 3)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement today I talked about emergency protection orders and some concerns highlighted in them. The Minister is well aware of some of the concerns as of late that have had an emergency protection order being issued incorrectly under false information. I’d like to ask the Department of Justice if they are going to review these particular circumstances to see if amendments are required to the emergency protection order process.

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 1st Session (day 3)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said they had reviewed. Now he says they’re reviewing. I’d like to be clear on the record. Are they reviewing it at this particular time and are they taking the example I provided to the House as consideration for this review?

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 1st Session (day 3)

The Minister failed to recognize the fact this issue isn’t before the courts at all in any manner. The Minister further failed to recognize that this was a particular issue that he thought was fraught with problems. All I’m asking the House here today is: Would the Minister be willing to take a look at this particular issue, ask someone within the department to take a look at this particular situation to see if changes and adjustments need to be made if an EPO was issued in error due to false information? The burden of the removal of the EPO falls on the person it’s issued against. It does...

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 1st Session (day 3)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I would like to talk about emergency protection orders and the concerns that have arisen out of that.

The Protection Against Family Violence Act has been in force for about six years now, and I have no doubt that the emergency protection orders that have been issued have been instrumental in preventing violence against many people such as women and children. However, recent events have certainly highlighted potential abuse in this process and it has created terrible consequences that we have seen. The act does not provide relief for people who have been subjected...

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 1st Session (day 2)

Thank you. As I said, in the 16th Assembly the Department of Health was given the mandate to start hacking away at supplementary health benefits, and in no way that was ever discussed in a Caucus discussion and in no way that was developed in Caucus visioning. But yet, the Department of Health was marching to the orders given by the Premier of the day. That’s the concern I specifically have here. So is the Premier saying here today, without any doubt, that there are no mandates issued to any of the departments, and furthermore, is he also saying that all departmental mandates will be developed...

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 1st Session (day 2)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement today I talked about addressing the addictions problem, and perhaps, maybe, we could actually gain ground this particular Assembly and deal with this particular issue. Now, I don’t suspect any Assembly – although it would be nice – or any government ever to fully deal with that particular problem, but the important thing is never to surrender to allow addictions to happen in the manner that it is, as well as the fact of how little it’s actually been happening.

I highlighted the focus of the mandate of a particular department as well as this...

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 1st Session (day 2)

Thank you. The Premier didn’t address the question about specific mandates and I highlighted the point about supplementary health benefits. That was a Cabinet decision mandate handed out to the department to fulfill. It didn’t have Regular Members involved in that type of decision.

Suggesting that we wait for the business plans for these holistic mandates is great, but before you put any bologna on the table, it’s the decisions made in Cabinet that are the ones that are the real meat and potatoes of the government’s marching orders. Those are the types of mandates I’d like to find out.

When...

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 1st Session (day 2)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The other day we’d heard from Mr. Miltenberger that there was a report coming forward to this particular Cabinet regarding recommendations for addictions. I’d like this government to be known as a government that took action on the addictions problem.

Before the Premier hands out the portfolios, I’d like him to seriously consider giving whoever takes the Department of Health and Social Services a clear and precise mandate that they must finally take up arms and deal with the addictions problems.

I don’t need to lecture this House about how closely homelessness is related...