The Strange and Sad Story of Beatrice Hunter

The Strange and Sad Story of Beatrice Hunter

By: Ryan Young

Like many people across Newfoundland and Labrador, I have been following Beatrice Hunter’s story very closely over the last two weeks. For those who may not be aware, Beatrice Hunter is an Inuk grandmother and Land Protector who is presently being held in custody at the penitentiary in St. John’s for refusing to stay away from the Muskrat Falls site.

On May 29^th, during a court hearing for Protectors who broke an injunction to stay away from the Muskrat Falls site during Victoria Day Weekend, Judge George Murphy asked Hunter if she would promise to stay away from the protest site. Hunter told the judge she could not make that promise and as a result she was remanded into custody.

The story took another turn on June 2^nd when it was learned that Hunter had been transferred to Her Majesty’s Penitentiary in St. John’s. Since then, there has been a large public outcry at Hunter’s incarceration, including protests at Nalcor headquarters and outside of HMP. In Labrador, fellow Protectors have held vigils and rallied for Beatrice’s release, and there is a large rally planned for Thursday at Colonial Building in St. John’s.

For the government, this has become another case of very bad optics. While most people seem to agree that they should not interfere with the judicial system, the fact that the injunction itself came from Nalcor makes the government responsible for Beatrice Hunter’s incarceration. They had they option of telling Nalcor to back off from the charges against the Protectors but chose not to do so. Now, with Hunter’s defiance, they have painted themselves into a corner that can have no positive political outcome.

I don’t think that Hunter intentionally tried to make a martyr of herself, but in many ways, she has become one. Many people across the province were upset with the treatment of the Land Protectors who were charged for standing up against Nalcor, and when Hunter was transferred to HMP, the cries of colonialism out of Labrador began to grow in volume and urgency. When our justice system takes an indigenous grandmother away from her family and her home for exercising her rights to protest, it leaves many wondering just what our priorities are.

Despite the many socio-political issues at play, we can’t ignore the fact that Beatrice did break the law. No matter how much we may not like the law sometimes, we can’t blame those whose job it is to enforce it. She left the judge little choice when she refused to stay away from the site, and under the law he felt compelled to do something. What that something was, however, is the issue at hand.The discussion should not be whether or not Beatrice should be punished under the law, it should be whether or not the punishment fits the crime. Hunter is a law-abiding citizen who has never been in trouble with the courts before and her only crime was protesting what she believed to be an injustice against her people. It does not seem unreasonable to think that there could have been another solution that could have been explored instead of sending this grandmother to the pen.

The whole situation is very, very sticky. In addition to Beatrice’s direct story, it also touches on issues of overcrowding in our prisons and the differential treatment of protesters on the island vs those in Labrador. I understand the importance of not having the government interfere with the justice system, but at this point it seems inevitable that they will have to act in some capacity. Hunter is due back in court on Friday and if she continues to be held at HMP, the disgruntled murmur from the public will soon turn into an angry roar. There are options, and Andrew Parson’s should be exploring every possibility of how to get Beatrice home. Considering all the talk about truth and reconciliation in this country, we need our leaders to take a stand and ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect the rights of aboriginal women.

In a video released by CBC on June 6^th from inside HMP, Hunter expressed the major frustration that she and many other Land Protectors have with Nalcor. A lack of answers to their questions. This highlights the larger issue of the lack of openness and accountability when it comes to the Muskrat Falls project. Despite promising to open the project up to public scrutiny, the Liberal’s have become even more secretive than the previous administration was and are refusing to release any reports from the oversight committee. The message being sent by government via Nalcor to the people of Labrador is don’t ask questions and don’t try to get in our way or you will end up in jail. I don’t think they were betting on the defiance of someone like Beatrice Hunter to turn public opinion against them.

No matter how this story turns out,  irreparable damage has already been done to an already strained relationship between the government and the people of Labrador. The Smallwoodian “develop or perish” attitude seems to be alive and well with the current incarnation of Liberal leaders, and the steamrolling of the Muskrat Falls project without the support of the people living in Labrador will not soon be forgotten. The intimidation of Nalcor will always be seen as the strong arm of government against the people living downstream of mighty Muskrat and the dam will continue to enforce the idea of colonialism that is spreading through the big land like wildfire. There is no political value in having Beatrice Hunter locked up, and the first thing this government needs to do to start repairing the rift is to send her home. The second thing they need to do is start listening to people like Beatrice and start giving them the answers they have been demanding. That doesn't seem like too much to ask for...

Priorities, Journalism, and Justice

Priorities, Journalism, and Justice

By: Ryan Young

Priorities

Maybe it’s just me, but I had a real problem when 28 Labrador Land Protectors were served charges for their parts in the protests against the Muskrat Falls hydro development on the Lower Churchill River. My issue was not with the charges themselves, although I personally think they are unnecessary. The protectors who stormed the gate and stayed on site last fall to protect their right to clean water and traditional food sources knew there was a very good chance that they would face legal consequences for their actions and they made a conscious choice to defy the court injunction and occupy the site.

What really gets  my back up about this case is that just a few weeks earlier, a former RCMP officer  in Labrador who was charged with child luring had his charges stayed because it took an unreasonable amount of time for the accused to go to trial. Judge John Joy noted in his decision that he was bound by legal precedent to stay the charges, and that despite exemplary work by officers and technicians, they could only operate within the limited scope of the resources of their respective offices.

So how is it that the court system in Labrador is too overworked and under resourced to properly manage a high-profile case involving a police officer in a serious breach of trust, but it can handle the load of 28 new complex cases that will use up even more resources and cash in a system already busting at the seams. Is making an example of these 28 a move to discourage more acts of the sort that we saw last October? When such an important case such as child luring against a police officer is thrown out because of a lack of resources and then a few short weeks later we see 28 names of people trying to protect their way of life added to the docket, it has many people asking just what the priorities are at the Department of Justice and Public Safety in St. John’s.

When is Journalism a Crime?

Justin Brake of The Independent is answering to charges for his role in covering the occupation of the Muskrat Falls work camp by Labrador Land Protectors last October. Brake has stated that he believed he was completely within his rights as a journalist to follow the protectors through the gate to document the real story of what was happening during a very tense time for the whole province. Brake’s reporting and live streaming of the events inside the camp often painted a different picture than was being put forth by Nalcor and the government. It allowed the world to see the protectors being welcomed with open arms into the camp and that there was never any talk of violence. While there has been precedent for such charges in the past, such as the Oka standoff in the 90's, many feel that in a case such as Brake’s where a journalist is the sole documenter of a story in the public and national interest, the rights of the journalist to cover the story must be protected.

When the powers that be in our justice system decided to go ahead with the charges against Brake, they began walking a very fine line. The story is beginning to get traction with journalists all over the world who are waiting to see what the outcome will be. Brake is officially facing charges of mischief exceeding $5000 and disobeying a court order. The charges come with a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.   Many in Labrador feel that the charges against Brake and the Land Protectors are an intimidation tactic by the government to ensure that there are no more protests like we saw last fall. What they don’t seem to understand is that they are seeding deep feelings of resentment in the residents of Labrador that might very well inspire more action in the name of justice.

Using the court system to strong arm the people of Labrador is one thing, but when the decision was made to charge Brake for his coverage of the story, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have opened up a can of worms that they will not be able to control for much longer. As the story gains international traction, more and more groups are condemning the government’s actions and demanding that the charges against Brake be dropped. The government, however, seems to be holding firm and letting Gilbert Bennett and the other top Nalcor brass run the show. Muskrat Falls must be protected at all costs, even if it means potentially facing years of expensive litigation against our government for failing to protect Justin Brake’s journalistic rights.

Justice?

We have been talking quite a bit about justice in this province lately. From controversial verdicts, to overcrowded courts and prisons, to the need for new legislation to catch up with our modern times. There is much work to be done, and it will take more than one government to bring our justice system in line with the needs of the people. We have seen several cases where charges were stayed because the accused had not been given timely access to a trial. This has led to much discussion about the R vs Jordan decision last summer where it was ruled that there would be a ceiling of eighteen months for provincial court cases and thirty months for supreme court cases, after which time a defendant may make a motion to have the charges against them stayed. We saw this happen in the case I mentioned about the RCMP officer above, and it has been causing havoc for court systems all across the country who are scrambling to keep up with the new guidelines.

Justice and Public Safety Minister, Andrew Parsons, has said on record that the province will not be hiring any new judges to handle the caseloads, so that means that the province will need to look at other ways to find efficiencies and get cases to court in a timely fashion. It is no secret that our court system is already perilously under resourced, and with the Jordan decision adding even more pressure we can expect even more high profile cases to have charges stayed before they get their day in court.

All of that makes the decision to proceed against charging Brake and the Land Protectors even more curious. Most people I know would agree that if you break the law, you will face consequences, but how does that work when you are up against the people making the laws? It was the government via Nalcor that petitioned the court injunction that denied the Land Protectors the right to protest for their own safety and the very water that they depend on for life and culture. When an MP from town tells the people in Labrador that depend on the river that they should just “eat less fish,” it just emphasises the disconnect between the folks in fancy offices in St. John’s who only care about the economics of the project and the politics behind it and the people on the ground who feel that they are in a legitimate life and death battle with their government.

At the end of the day, the people of this province are feeling let down by their justice system. They are losing confidence in the police and in the courts and they are left to wonder just what the priorities are for this government. In Labrador, people are left to feel that their justice system is being used against them and they have lost all faith that the government is there to protect them. Where is the justice for the people of Labrador?

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas V - Andrew Parsons

The Twelve Rogues of Christmas V - Andrew Parsons

Part 5 of the Twelve Rogues of Christmas takes a look at Burgeo - La Poile MHA and Justice and Public Safety Minister Andrew Parsons.

Click Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFePaOA4_20

Reform the Pensions, But Not for Us

Reform the Pensions, But Not for Us

By: Ryan Young

Is it any wonder there is so much cynicism directed at politicians in this province? While or economy crashes and burns, the big (but short) topic of debate in the House of Assembly this week was pension reform. Last month the Members Compensation Review Committee handed down its recommendations on changes to the provincial MHA pension plan, calling for pensions to no longer be indexed to inflation and that MHA’s not be able to draw from the plan until age 60 instead of the current 55. These recommendations were accepted by the House of Assembly Management Commission, with one very notable change. The review committee also recommended that the new pension rules be retroactive to include MHA’s elected in 2015, but the commission decided not to accept that recommendation, ensuring that all current members would be included in the older, more lucrative plan.

The management commission voted 3-1 to grandfather 2015 MHA’s into what is commonly being referred to in the media and online as “The Gold-Plated Pension Plan.” Liberal Andrew Parsons and PC’s Paul Davis and Keith Hutchings voted in favor while NDP MHA Lorraine Michael was the lone voice of dissent. Siobhan Coady and Mark Browne are also members of the commission but they abstained from voting due to a conflict of interest since they would be directly affected by the vote.

Andrew Parsons defended the decision by saying that it was unfair to MHA’s who have made financial plans based on the previous arrangement. That is looking to be a tough sell for the people of the province who are being taxed to death and cut to bare bones, while our MHA’s will now spend upwards of $3.6 Million to keep their golden trough full. Many might argue that it is unfair that they have to live with a government who abandoned their entire election platform as soon as they were elected in favor of the bad accounting exercise that has come to be known as Budget 2016.

To be fair, there were only a small number of MHA’s that were able to vote on the matter, and I would hope that we would have seen a few more no votes if it had been a full vote of the house. Strangely though the issue seems to have fallen completely off the table in the House of Assembly as nobody in the opposition wants to stand up and make an issue out of something that will take bread off their table.

I don’t blame them. Of course you would want to protect something that you feel you are entitled to after many years of service. I will save the entitlement conversation for another blog, but there is little doubt that such a culture exists within Confederation Building. But it is hard to blame the MHA's for not wanting to speak up against their own retirement plans. They must know how bad it looks though. I think the whole island portion of the province shifted just a bit with the collective eyerolls of 500 000 people when the news broke that the government wanted to exclude themselves from this much-needed pension reform. The old stereotype of politicians only being in it for themselves is certainly hard to break when these types of decisions are made and defended at the same time as we have ministers defending closing libraries or cutting snow clearing for less money than the grandfathered pensions will cost.

It is unfortunate that the commission decided to go this route. Despite our collective anger at government in general, I like to believe that most the people sitting in the people’s house really did get involved because they wanted a to make a difference. They probably had no idea what it meant to be a backbencher who would be forced to watch as cabinet made decisions without their input, that have caused them to be hounded and their faces plastered on poles all over the country and even in the states. The decision to grandfather the pensions may benefit them financially, but it certainly wont earn them any points with the people who must re-elect the 20 rookie MHA’s who will need to win back their seat to be able to qualify for any pension at all.

I don’t begrudge our elected officials their salary or a fair pension. A good MHA works very hard, both in the legislature and in their district. If they do the job well, they deserve to be paid well. If we want to make the job of an MHA a desirable one to attract new blood, it must include a respectful salary. For someone like me, $95 000 a year is much more than a respectful salary, but when you look at the work that a good MHA does, you can make an argument that they deserve it. On the other hand, when you have an MHA who does not do such a good job, or a government that does not respect or respond to the people, it is easy to see why people would think that it is all about the money. The same goes for pensions. Certainly, elected officials should have a good pension plan, but most people would argue that they should pay their fair share.

At the end of the day $3.6 Million is a drop in the bucket and we might very likely a see several rookie MHA’s fail to make the cut next time around, making that number potentially much smaller. But as it so often is when we talk about government, it is all about perception. You can’t ask the people to roll up their sleeves and give you the very sweat off their backs in the name of restoring our fiscal footing, while at the same time voting to exclude yourself from pension recommendations that you all agree are a good idea, but just not for you. I have worked very hard to try to get people to get involved and take notice of what is going on in our political landscape but what am I supposed to say to someone who looks at this story and says; “See, they are all just in it for themselves.” If you don’t want people to think like that, the solution is simple: don’t act like that.

The bottom line is this: People will always grumble about MHA salaries and pensions, for the most part they will live with it and not cause much fuss. But you can’t tell them that you can’t afford to keep their libraries open, or clear the roads at night, or cover their kid’s medication, if you are going to turn around and vote to skip out on reforms that the province desperately needs to save money. If you want us to roll up our sleeves and do the hard work, then you need to lead by example. Voting to keep your lopsided pension plan after handing down a budget like we had last spring, that might just get you a revolution.

Questions, Inquiries, and not Forgetting Injured Workers

Questions, Inquiries, and not Forgetting Injured Workers

By: Ryan Young

I think that I speak for most people in this province when I say that I was pleased to see the announcement today regarding the public inquiry into the death of Don Dunphy. Supreme Court Justice Leo Berry, a man with 26 years of experience on the bench, will head up the inquiry. The terms of reference were also released, stating that the purpose of the inquiry is too determine:

-The circumstances of Dunphy's death;

-The reason RNC officer Joe Smyth visited Dunphy, whether he was directed to do so, and if so, by      whom;

-What information was provided as the reason for the RNC officer's visit, as well as its reliability;

-The reason an RNC officer visited Dunphy in the RCMP's jurisdiction;

-The facts surrounding police operations on the day of Dunphy's death;

-Whether use-of-force protocols were properly followed;

-Whether Dunphy's use of social media played any part in his death.

These terms of reference should give Justice Berry a wide enough scope to fully investigate the matter, and hopefully provide some much needed answers in this ongoing tragedy. With the recent comments by retired justice David Riche circulating in the media, we have even more questions about the case and answers must be forthcoming if the Dunphy family and indeed, the whole province, are ever to have some closure in this matter.

Riche’s comments covered a number of concerning issues in the case and have raised more questions than they have answered. Many people are calling for Riche’s independent report to be released to the public but the RCMP maintains that the report will not be released prior to an inquiry. When asked about Riche’s comments, Justice Berry said that Riche was not acting under the purview of legislation, such as the Public Inquiries Act, and as such his opinions were his own. He went on to say: “I will say that I will be dealing with evidence that's presented under oath.” In other words, if Riche’s report is admitted as evidence and/or Riche is asked to testify during the inquiry, Justice Berry would consider the evidence at that time.

Credit must be given to Minister Andrew Parsons for ensuring that this inquiry be realized and for committing to give the truth to the family and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is important to note that Parsons also announced that the Citizen’s Representative would be tasked with examining the history and treatment of Dunphy’s case with Workplace NL. This should be considered a key part of the inquiry process, as it is Dunphy’s ongoing issues with Workplace NL that caused him to become angry and outspoken. Like so many injured workers in this province, Dunphy felt that he was not being treated fairly and demanded better from our elected officials.

I never knew Don Dunphy, but I know plenty of people like him. People that worked hard and were unfortunate to have suffered an injury that resulted in them no longer being able to work. You don’t have to go to far to find someone in a similar situation. It is a broken system that is set up to treat each and every injured worker like a crook. The sheer number of appeals claims should be evidence enough that the system is not working in the best interest of the workers. The process is long and drawn out, with obstacles and barriers at each step along the way. For many it not only means a loss of income and quality of life, but also the loss of everything they had worked so hard for in life up to that point. Mandatory reviews are completed every few years, with Minister Eddie Joyce saying that his government is reviewing the recommendations outlined in the last review in 2013. I urge Minister Joyce and his government to pay more than lip service to this promise and to ease the burden of those who are suffering under the current system.

We really need to do better for our injured workers. Labeling them all as crooks and scam artists and greatly reducing the amount of funds available to them during such traumatic times is wrong and it needs to stop. I am very glad to see the Dunphy inquiry moving forward but I plead to our government that you remember the cause that Don Dunphy died for and do better for our injured workers. Fix the broken system that Mr. Dunphy and so many others have been speaking out about for so long. A fitting tribute to the life of Don Dunphy would be to ensure that no injured worker in Newfoundland and Labrador would ever again be forced to suffer at the hands of an ineffective and uncompassionate system. We can make it happen, we must make it happen. What are we waiting for?

Where is the Dunphy File?

Where is the Dunphy File?

By: Ryan Young

We all know the story of what happened to Don Dunphy on that fateful Easter Sunday. I don’t think there is a need to look back at the scant details we have of the shooting and the subsequent RCMP investigation. By now we are all ready to look forward to the day when we might finally know what really happened on that day in 2015.

As part of the Liberal election platform a full public inquiry into the Don Dunphy shooting was promised, and according to Justice and Public Safety Minister, Andrew Parsons, that is still the plan. As a first step, Minister Parsons handed the file to the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) in January after the RCMP had concluded their own investigation. The report was due at the end of August and according to a recent article by James Mcleod in The Telegram, the report was handed back to the RCMP on August 31. So why have we not seen it yet?

In an interview with Paddy Daly on VOCM Open Line on August 29^th, Parsons said that he was frustrated that he had not yet received the report and that he believed that it should be released to the public right away. In the Telegram article this past weekend, Parsons places the blame on the PC’s, saying “The PC’s sort of shagged this up right from the start.” Now I wont argue with that assessment, but the point is that Minister Parsons did take the necessary steps to try to restore some credibility to the investigation, and he has promised to make that information available to the public. He is the one that needs to take control of the situation and get the report released in a timely fashion.

I truly hope he does release the information to the public, but those readers with not-so-short memories might remember the minister telling us not long ago that his department would release their findings into the Ed Martin severance scandal. We all know how that turned out. Lawyer for the Dunphy family, Erin Breen, is not expecting information to be forthcoming any time soon and anticipates having to use access to information requests in order to obtain the review. I hope it does not come down to that. Minister Parsons has promised transparency with the public on this file and reiterated on both Open Line and in the Telegram that the government remains committed to a full public inquiry. If he does not release the report as promised it will be another huge blow for a government already on shaky legs.

Maybe someone can fill me in on the process of review when a file comes back from an outside investigator. According to the facts that have been made public, the ASIRT investigation was ordered by the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador. Why then, has the file been handed over to the original investigating force and not the minister who ordered the investigation? At the very least, why were they not given copies at the same time? I understand that reviews take time, but the RCMP had their time with this file and now the people, and more importantly, the family, deserve some answers and some closure. It has been 12 days since ASIRT sent their report back to the province. It’s time for Minister Parsons to get the file and then give us the truth.