NTV - CJON - Saturday, May 25, 2024 - 05:00 p.m. (ET) - Segment #1

but on saturday a repatriation ceremony will be held here at beaumont hamel and one of those soldiers is coming home from st john's to even the most remote outpost. There was hardly a family that did not experience the pain of loss and the sacrifice made here in beaumont. Hamel and a quiet lingers a silence that comes from an awareness of the enormity of loss of unimaginable tragedy silence that only birdsong can penetrate. >> So just imagine for a moment what would have went through those men's minds. Men who were about to run into an inferno of gunfire as they stood here in the trenches waiting for word to advance into no man's land. >> But despite whatever fear they felt, the newfoundland bears leapt from the trenches. Nearly 700 were killed, wounded or missing after the attack. But now one of the royal newfoundland regiments owen is coming home. >> It's to experience the moment of reflection a quiet moment of reflection with just my family and and the casket in the room. Just a couple of minutes ago it really hit home. >> Premier andrew furey, his wife and his 13 year old son were able to see the sealed casket today an emotional experience for the premier who is the unknown soldier's next of kin. And a sobering realization. >> Furey says the soldier may not have been much older than his son is now. So standing there with him was it was very reflective of of the tragedies of war, the sacrifices that this young man made so that we could stand here today with the freedoms that we enjoy. >> And it wasn't just beaumont hamill where the newfoundlanders fought for that freedom. It's there in the quiet french village of marshall where just over 600 people live that more newfoundland regiment soldiers died than any other battle not named beaumont hamill. It also grew the legend of the men who saved munchy ten men mostly newfoundlanders staved off an attack of more than 300 germans. Those ten men, nine of whom were newfoundlanders stood near this spot where the caribou now stands guard. They were all that was left between this small village and hundreds of enemy soldiers. By the time reinforcements finally arrived after 11 hours the village had been saved and the men who protected it were heroes. >> Ten person verses read. >> Uh, german. German soldiers is is amazing. He's uh uh and quiet and incredible. >> That's the mayor of marseille opera. And in his town, the newfoundland and labrador flag waves proudly look a new long blame. You realize? Uh huh. >> It's events like these that will happen leading up to saturday a day when the unknown newfoundland comes back home. >> I don't know how how to describe where we come from since we started this project to actually going in and be able to tap the coffin and say you're going home son. But I can't talk to emotional. >> Uh huh uh huh. >> From northern france, ben cleary news and ben cleary will have more on the unknown soldiers arrival in st john's on the ntv sunday evening news hour. And this has been our look back at this week's top news stories. >> Thanks for watching and enjoy your weekend God guard thee, God guard ... You're watching Canada's Superstation, ntv! Newfoundland! God guard thee,

God guard thee, God guard thee Newfoundland! Ndtv's eyewitness news starts now ntv's eyewitness news with david salter. Hello and welcome to the latest edition of eyewitness news. >> I'm bailey howard filling in for david salter. We start today with some controversy in the house of assembly this week when a bill that was only seen by the first reading was leaked to the media. Minister john horgan shares how the leak may lead to an investigation. And lawyer lynn moore shares how the bill as written will change the limitations act when it comes to those who have faced physical abuse. >> So notice was given that amendment was going to be made to the limitations act first reading was done on that as well. >> Opposition members have been briefed which is usually which is not usually it is what happens before we debate a piece of legislation in the house and government members were briefed as well. That briefing took place. Both those briefings took place yesterday. So normally what happens is after the briefing takes place usually following the next day we will debate the second reading in the house. And just so everyone knows, second reading is really to talk about the pros and cons of the piece of legislation and really zero in on what the purpose of that legislation is in this in this case what the purpose of the proposed amendments would be. And then it would move to committee where questions can be asked to a minister why are you doing it this way? What about this section? Why didn't you include this? And if anybody wants to make amendments that could be done at the committee stage. >> So that's where we are with that bill. And as this is a process, a reasonable practice. >> Yeah. So just back up to what happened yesterday, all that process was normal. The briefings were done. I don't attend the briefings that are done by officials in the department of justice and during question period yesterday I received an email from someone in the department who had received an email from someone in the media with a copy of the bill attached the bill was distributed to members and I and staff I assume that attended the briefings or caucus for government members and opposition members. >> They had the bill and the someone in the media had a copy of that bill. And I had to raise a point of privilege yesterday when I found that out because members in the house have certain privileges. >> One of the privileges is that is one of the privileges that we have as members of the house is to see a piece of legislation, a proposed piece of legislation, a bill before members of the public. >> So that's usually what we've been doing here since I've been government house leader and really since I've been a member is that it's tabled before we do a second reading that hadn't happened yet and so there are members in the house that did not have the opportunity to see that bill yesterday and members of the public had seen it. Certainly the person that sent the email with the attachment had seen it at a minimum. I don't know how that bill got out but I raise the point of privilege and the process then is is there a prima facia case of breach of that privilege debate whether there is or not? The speaker said there is. And then the house voted to send that issue to the committee on privileges, elections and privileges to determine if they're going to do an investigation and what the investigation's going to look like if they find anything out what to do next. >> So it's a long winded answer to say that through a little bit of a wrench in the proceedings. >> You know, it's I don't really want to talk specifically about the consequences of that bill, but there can be dire consequences when a bill is leaked before it gets to the house of assembly. So some members may and have argued, you know, not a big deal. What's wrong with the public seeing it? I understand that argument. I'm all for people having input in debate and the people who had the bill any bill can still consult with members of the public or experts or lawyers or whoever they want to give input. >> The point is that the exact wording of that bill can't be released to the public until it's tabled in the house and that is a privilege that everybody has regardless of the consequences and the speaker rule in favor of that yesterday and agreed with that position. >> Do these proposed changes to the limitations act as they stand? >> Would they help people like jacqueline or your client at all? Well, they would help my client minimally in that there was three major incidents that my client was subjected to, one of which involved blood and a broken bone. But the requirement under this legislation is for there to be bodily harm. So a second incident where his father put a loaded shotgun under his chin and pulled the trigger which was deeply

impactful and traumatizing for a seven year old child. That would not be compensable under this regime because this new amendment requires bodily harm and he did not suffer bodily harm even though he was terrorized by that. Jack whalen having spent 730 days in solitary confinement in a dungeon like circumstance, he would not fall under bodily harm either. So this legislation doesn't account for psychological harm which is traumatic. It doesn't account for physical harm which is traumatic but does not lead to physical injury. And in the rest of the country there require there's no requirement for bodily injury. >> They allow for physical abuse. They that's what's exempted from the limitations act. So this legislation does not solve the problem. My client is arguing that he was so impacted by the abuse he suffered as a child that he suffered a mental disability arising from that abuse and he is now being discriminated against because of that mental disability and is was unable to pursue his claim in time and that the law which discriminates against him is unconstitutional. So that challenge will continue if these amendments aren't made. >> But I think that there will be amendments made because it seems like the whole of this province it seems like every member in the house of assembly knows that the current situation is not right. The premier I have found his interviews on this. He is leading the charge in many respects. He spoke to jack whalen himself and told him that this was going to be solved. And the way it's written now it's not solved. And but I think with you know, everybody working together in the house of assembly that a couple of small amendments can be made and we can bring ourselves up to where the rest of the country is with that traumatic responses to childhood abuse. >> I guess there are a couple of elements to this story now. >> One is the legislation but the other is the fact that it leaked and now the government wants to do an investigation and there's questions about the privilege of the house and whether this could delay the legislation. Do you have any thoughts on that issue? >> Huh? Well, I mean that's a bump in the road that you know that the information was leaked. But I think that those procedural type issues should not take away from the government's good intent here which is to right a wrong which has been around for decades in this province. You know, the original limitations act was amended in 1992 to allow for people who suffered sexual abuse of children to proceed at any time. And so we're really behind in terms of the rest of the country and where they are with trauma informed practices in the legislation and you know, I'm a lawyer. I can tell you about the legal rules of procedure. I don't know about parliamentary procedure but it seems to me that if all hands are working together that they should be able to get this legislation in into the kind of shape that it needs to be in so that people who were deeply traumatized to children can seek access to justice. >> I guess maybe on that point maybe it's less procedural but just like philosophical the opposition argues they don't get enough advance notice of this legislation to study it and really debate it properly. So all of these changes like you say can be made. >> Do you think something needs to be done there? Well, I believe that having time to prepare and to engage is a good thing. But as I say, I'm a lawyer. I'm not a parliamentarian so I leave it to the politicians to figure that out. >> You mentioned the changes that were regarding sexual abuse in 92 because of course that you know things and things like this kind of call to mind something like mount cashel. I mean what would you know with this legislation precluded something like mount cashel being reviewed back in the early 90s or was that already covered with the sexual abuse changes? >> Well, all the more casual claims are for sexual abuse. There are no mountcastle claims for physical abuse and I recall instances where when I was very early in my career I sat through some of the criminal trials and one child was held out of the third story window of mount cashel by his ankles upside down hanging over the ground so that person would not have been able under the sexual abuse amendments to proceed with a claim. But if that person is struggling today and if this legislation is amended then they would be able to. Now it's time for a quick break here on eyewitness news. When we return, we'll talk about the federal senate committee on fisheries and oceans deal study (Sentimental instrumental music) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Need help reducing the look of your dark spots? New nivea luminous630

Copyright protected and owned by broadcaster. Your licence is limited to private, internal, non-commercial use. All reproduction, broadcast, transmission or other use of this work is strictly prohibited.

Transcripts