Motion Under Rule 43 - GOV'T. (N.S.) - FOIPOP BREACH
MS. CLAUDIA CHENDER « » : I appreciate a few minutes to talk about this. I think we've heard in great detail from a number of members - the member for Sackville-Cobequid and the member for Argyle-Barrington - about the facts of how this breach came to happen. We've heard the minister talk about it.
I want to talk about something a little bit different, which I think - to my colleague the member for Argyle-Barrington's point - is the real reason that we're discussing this. I think it has to do with the posture or the attitude or the response of the government at this moment.
As I was thinking about what to say here, I remembered the first day that I was ever in this House. It happened to be the day that the now-Minister of Health and Wellness introduced the budget that the government then ran on. I remember being - I think the only word I can use is "shocked" at the number of times that the government stood and applauded itself in the duration of presenting a single budget.
I see now, having been here for almost a year, that there is a way things are done in this Chamber. This is one of the ways that things are done: a member of the government says something, someone yells out "good, minister," and everyone else applauds. At this point, it's frequent enough that I don't notice it so much anymore, but I have to say that on that day I was so struck by it, partly because what had piqued my interest was the goings-on both with the Film Tax Credit and with education. Even though I disagreed with the government, I think there was a part of me that wanted an acknowledgement that in order to balance the budget, which they did, they had to make hard choices. I wanted to see the making of those hard choices reflected in the presentation of those choices.
I didn't see a single iota, Mr. Speaker, nor have I subsequently. What I really wanted to see, and what I think we all want to see now, is just a little bit of humility. Every once in a while in this House, you'll ask a question of a minister and the minister will say something like, "I'll look into it for you," or "I'm not really sure about that issue, but why don't you come and talk to me afterwards and I'll talk to your constituent." It's like a cool drink of water when that happens, because it's so refreshing and it's so out of the ordinary.
I'm sad to say that that did not happen in this case. In this case, in the last two or three days, we still just hear overwhelming applause by the government's own members every time someone gets up to speak about this. Frankly, it's somewhat shocking. Again, we are talking about something where - which I think the member for Dartmouth North very clearly pointed out - injury has been done to people. Whether or not the government believes that they've handled this appropriately - of course, we'd argue that they haven't - injury has been done. I think the minister has recognized that in her remarks, and I appreciate that, but with the exception of that and a couple of other remarks, again, I think we've heard what can only be described as a lack of humility.
I think this is the exact kind of situation when that lack of humility becomes a big problem. Frankly, I would argue that if this government had a little bit more humility, the choices made might have been different. I think the choices around whether to come clean with the public might have been different. There would be less pride on the line. There would be less of a need to constantly, always, only be making the right decision.
We hear it all the time, Mr. Speaker. This government makes hard decisions. I'll be the first one to say it. They're balancing the budget. They're doing it in a way we don't approve of, but it's the choice that they've taken, and in taking that choice, they're making difficult decisions.
What I would like to hear, Mr. Speaker, is an acknowledgement that difficult decisions are being made, and a forthrightness which I've been searching for since I took my seat in this Chamber. I think that this is the perfect example of why that kind of forthrightness, that kind of humility is required, because I would argue that with that posture, with that attitude, I don't think things like this happen.
I understand that all governments do it. I'm not just picking on this government. I'm picking on the system as a whole, but I'm saying that if we could approach things in a different way, if we could have humility, if we could, in fact, take a moment when we hear bad news, and instead of filtering it through damage control, have the very first point of reference be who is impacted, and how are they hurt, and how can we help that. I submit a different decision would have been made.
Today, and in the days to come, we will continue, as will our colleagues, to press the government to do what they can to make this right. The minister has signalled that they're committed to doing that. I believe that they are, and I believe that they will, and if they don't, certainly, we'll hold them accountable.
Even today, we haven't heard contrition. We've heard contrition for the fact that it happened, but not for the steps that were taken, not for the fact that it took so long for this House, and the members of the public, to be alerted to this breach. I submit that that is simply not okay. It shows profound lack of humility, and I would say, a lack of judgment.
We know that there are hundreds of people, maybe more, who have had an injury done to them. So, step one is to remedy that. I suggest that there is another remedy required for the people of Nova Scotia, and it's one that's a lot harder, I suspect, and that's for a little humility from a government that's made a big mistake. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER « » : The honourable member for Inverness.
Published by Order of the Legislature by Hansard Reporting Services and printed by the Queen's Printer.
Available on INTERNET at http://nslegislature.ca/legislative-business/hansard-debates/