PDF Version

March 3, 2020

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 27

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Admit strangers.

Order,

please!

I would

like to welcome back two of our Pages: Katelyn Galway and Anna Hutchings.

I would

also like to welcome two new Pages to the House of Assembly: Tanisha

Wright-Brown and Alexandra Joyce.

In the

Speaker's gallery – I don't think he is here yet – I would like to welcome Vince

MacKenzie – he may join us a little later on – who is the subject of a Member's

Statement today.

Joining

us in the public gallery are several members of Team Newfoundland and Labrador

who have just returned from the 2020 Special Olympics Canada National Winter

Games in Thunder Bay, Ontario. They will be the subject of a Ministerial

Statement this afternoon.

Welcome

everyone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will hear Members'

Statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Stephenville - Port au Port,

Bonavista, Cape St. Francis, Lake Melville and Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

The hon.

Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I stand on a

point of privilege.

I rise

today on a point of privilege. O'Brien and Bosc, in the

House of Commons Procedure and Practice , states that a “Member must

satisfy the Speaker that he or she is bringing the matter to the attention of

the House as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the situation.” As per

our discussion on Friday, February 21, 2020, I sought your guidance on the point

of privilege. I have given you notice and a written copy of my point of

privilege.

Mr.

Speaker, the point of privilege I raised on March 4, 2019, was rejected by the

Speaker on March 14, 2019. Under the House

of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition, 2017, procedures dealing

with matters of privilege on page 7 it states, “If the Speaker rules that there

is not a prima facie question of privilege, the matter ends there. However, if

in the future additional information comes to light, the Member who raised the

question of privilege or any other Member may raise the matter again.”

Mr.

Speaker, this information only came to my attention recently and I am providing

a copy of an access to information request – February 11, 2020, document number

1 – and confirmation letter of the date I received the information – February

19, 2020, document number 2. As well, I have provided you with a copy of the

audio for your review. This will clearly show that it's new information recently

brought to my attention and this is my first opportunity to present it to the

House of Assembly.

In our

discussions on February 21, 2020, you informed me that I should include

everything that can help my case and all evidence. Following your direction I'm

presenting evidence prior to the new evidence. On December 24, 2018, during a

technical briefing with the Management Commission, Mr. Chaulk was asked: Did all

MHAs participate? He replied: One, never. When questioned who that was, he

stated: Eddie Joyce. This was false, reckless and he misled the Management

Commission.

Mr.

Speaker Trimper's ruling on March 14, 2019, he stated “With the exception of the

Clerk of the House, Members of the Management Commission are Members of this

House of Assembly. Any questions they had about comments the Commissioner may

have made in the technical briefing could have easily been raised when

questioning the Commissioner or in debate on the reports.”

Mr.

Speaker, I wrote the former Speaker on two occasions. On October 26, 2018, I

wrote to confirm what Mr. Chaulk said in the technical briefing and he

responded: Unfortunately, it is not appropriate for me to comment on the

contents of an in camera technical briefing of the Management Commission. On

November 6, 2018, I wrote the Speaker again, asking for confirmation on what Mr.

Chaulk said in the technical briefing on October 24, 2018, with the Management

Commission. Mr. Speaker responded on November 6, 2018: As the request refers to

an in camera technical briefing of the Management Commission, it's inappropriate

for me to comment on the discussions therein.

These

statements were later contradicted by his own words in his March 14, 2019,

ruling. That was the position of the Speaker until he ruled against the point of

privilege on March 14, 2019, but stated in a response that it was just a

technical briefing. I am confident that the Management Commission Members were

not aware of the emails and the responses from the Speaker who refused to

confirm this statement in writing.

October 24, 2018, when I was informed of these statements by the Commissioner

for Legislative Standards, I approached the Speaker and the Commissioner in

front of the House of Assembly at the Speaker's Chair. When I presented the

letters from my lawyer to the Speaker, his statement was: This is not what Mr.

Chaulk said this morning. You were definitely willing to meet. I turned to Mr.

Chaulk, in front of the Speaker, and produced the two letters from my lawyer and

his comments were: I forgot about these letters I will correct the record. He

never did. On three occasions this was requested, he refused to respond.

Officer of the House refusing to confirm a statement he made in a technical

briefing of the Management Commission is not acceptable. The Management

Commission and the House of Assembly allowed this nondisclosure of evidence.

another meeting between myself, the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, the minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, the Speaker stated: Eddie, I know you are

right, but this is hard for me to do because he's an Officer of the House.

This

confession by the Speaker, with the Deputy Speaker present, confirms that my

rights were violated and Mr. Chaulk made false and erroneous statements to the

Management Commission. This cover-up has to stop and it's incumbent on this

Government House Leader who was present and actually asked the question, did

MHAs participate in interviews, and the Commissioner replied that one did not

participate, should support the point of privilege, as she was present and

confirmed to myself and the minister of Justice and Attorney General that Eddie

Joyce was the MHA who refused to participate.

In March

24, 2019, response from the Speaker he stated: This particular issue was raised

by the Member himself multiple times in questioning of the Commissioner in

debate. This is true, but I want to provide the Speaker with a few exchanges in

the House of Assembly with the Commissioner.

The

following is one of the exchanges with Mr. Chaulk:

“ MR.

JOYCE: Sir, did you make a statement to the Management Commission that there

was one respondent who did not wish to participate or refuse to participate in

the interview?

“ MR.

CHAULK: Again, you're asking a question about a specific report about the –

“ MR.

JOYCE: That's not a report, Sir. That's a statement you made to the

Management Commission. I'm asking did you make that statement. I wrote you

twice; I asked you for the response. You made a statement to the Management

Commission that there was one respondent who refused to participate.

“Did you

make that statement, Sir?

“ MR.

CHAULK: You're asking me about a statement I may or may not have made in an

in camera session of another committee. What I will say is that what I said

before in my

preamble is that representation by legal counsel is authorized by

section 37(2) of the act where the Member can make representations in writing,

in person, by counsel or other representative.

“Whether

or not a Member or a complainant was interviewed or not is not relevant to this

discussion because they are well within their rights to make their

representations in writing, in person, by counsel or other representative.”

Mr.

Speaker, there are two issues with this statement. The Commissioner refused to

answer the question which has a negative impact on me. When an Officer of the

House of Assembly refuses to answer questions to the House of Assembly

concerning a Member of the House of Assembly and their reputation, it should be

very concerning to all Members of this hon. House.

To this

day, almost two years later, the Commissioner has never been ordered by this

House to answer that question. This is a poor reflection on the House of

Assembly and a lack of diligence by the Members which resulted in a rushed

judgment in order to make the issue go away.

The

second issue with Mr. Chaulk on further questioning. “ MR. JOYCE: Part of the process – should anybody who wanted to be

interviewed, should they have been interviewed?

“ MR.

CHAULK: You're asking a hypothetical question about –

“ MR.

JOYCE: It's not hypothetical. If anybody who wanted to be interviewed, if he

or she is a respondent, do they have the right to be interviewed if requested?

“ MR.

CHAULK: Their participation is not – if they made their representation in

writing, totally in writing, then it's not – I can't compel them to come in and

talk and if they are not available – you know, it's a case of when you're in one

of these, if you're being interviewed, you're only being asked questions about

your written testimony, your written response –

“ MR.

JOYCE: So why did you interview other people?

“ MR.

CHAULK: Because a lot of them didn't have written submissions.”

Mr.

Speaker, I'm enclosing copies of the sequence of events for all complainants and

respondents from these reports, and every complainant and respondent did file a

submission. This statement by the Commissioner is false, trying to justify why

he refused to interview myself and making a false statement to the Management

Commission and to justify this action. This cannot be condoned any further.

Mr.

Speaker, 37(2) of the House of Assembly

Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act states: “Where the

commissioner conducts an inquiry under subsection (1), he or she shall give the

member to whom the inquiry relates a copy of the request and at all appropriate

stages throughout the inquiry the commissioner” must “give the member reasonable

opportunity to be present and to make representations to the commissioner in

writing or in person or by counsel or other representative.”

It's

clearly showing that a respondent under the act has the right to be interviewed.

This is not dependent on submissions, but the right to be present under the act.

These rights cannot be dismissed by the Commissioner and a violation of a

Member's rights should be a grave concern to all Members.

Mr.

Speaker, your request for all evidence to prove the case clearly shows that

false statements were made. Management Commission Members did not fulfil their

fiduciary duties. The former Speaker clearly admitted the statement was true but

refused to present it to the House of Assembly. As stated earlier, if new

evidence of the Member who raised the question of privilege or any other Member

may raise the question again.

Mr.

Speaker, on April 11, 2019, in a media scrum a reporter asked the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety and Attorney General several questions in an eight

minute scrum. As mentioned earlier, I have already forwarded a copy of the audio

of that interview to you and I am enclosing a transcript of the information,

document three, for your record.

states, reporter: One last question for you, independent MHA Joyce was out here

explaining about the kerfuffle with the Speaker at the end of Question Period.

He says that in his case he was unfairly dealt with because of the Commissioner

for Legislative Standard, Bruce Chaulk, informed people that he refused to

participate in an interview with Mr. Chaulk. Do you know anything about that?

Minister

Parsons: I think what Mr. Joyce is referring to is a technical briefing that the

Management Commission had with Mr. Chaulk prior to the meeting going back into

the House and I think it came down to a situation where the Commissioner may

have been informed that certain MHAs didn't participate, and, upon questioning,

I think that was refuted. So I know there has been some dispute over that. I

think that's where Mr. Joyce was trying to go, and I know he couldn't get the

questions in because you can't ask Management Commission questions in the House.

The

reporter: But to your knowledge, did Mr. Chaulk want to interview Mr. Joyce?

Minister

Parsons: I know in the technical briefing that was provided the question was

asked: Did MHAs participate or interview with the Commissioner? The Commissioner

replied in one particular case, referring to that particular MHA that he did not

participate. I think that since the MHA refuted that, he never had the

opportunity to give those and to actually do a personal interview with the

Commissioner. The new evidence came to my attention after my lawyer asked me to

do research on a civil matter. I was not aware of this interview and it was

never presented to the House of Assembly.

This

confirms that this statement was made in the Management Commission meeting and

all the documentation on file clearly shows that this statement was false and

the House of Assembly should have been informed before any debate commenced on

The Joyce Report of October 18, 2018.

This is clearly new evidence which cannot be ignored and supports my claim that

I was not given my rights under the act.

Mr.

Speaker, the Premier stated that there are flaws in the process. If having the

former Speaker admit that the Commissioner made a false statement to the

Management Commission, having the Minister of Education and Early Childhood

Development confirming that the Speaker admitted I was right, the Government

House Leader and Minister of Natural Resources in the meeting asked a question

and get a response which was false, now the Minister of Justice and Public

Safety and Attorney General – the highest law enforcement officer in the

province – confirming that this statement was made and proven false, this must

warrant this matter being brought back to this House of Assembly.

If you

make a decision that this is a prima facie case, I'm asking that you refer

The

Joyce Report of October 19 and

The

Kirby Report of October 6 back to the

House of Assembly. I want to make it quite clear, if you decide it is a prima

facie case and this is referred back to the House, we will be discussing the

process. Not the merits of what's in the reports, but the process alone.

Mr.

Speaker, O'Brien and Bosc states: “It is impossible to codify all incidents

which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation

or intimidation and as such constitute

prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be

prima facie include” – and this is

very important, Mr. Speaker – “the damaging of a Member's reputation, the

usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and

their staff and of witnesses before committees, and the provision of misleading

information.”

O'Brien

and Bosc quotes Maingot as saying: “The purpose of raising matters of

'privilege' in either House of Parliament is to maintain the respect and

credibility due to and required of each House in respect of these privileges, to

uphold its powers, and to enforce the enjoyment of the privileges of its

Members. A genuine question of privilege is therefore a serious matter not to be

reckoned lightly and accordingly ought to be rare, and thus rarely raised in the

House of Commons.”

I refer

to O'Brien and Bosc, page 141, where Members include privileges before the House

of Assembly are treated with the utmost seriousness.

As you

outlined, there is a formal process to be followed. I follow that process; I

notify the Speaker of my intentions to raise the issues of privilege at this

earliest possible opportunity.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Apparently we have a problem

with some of the mics, some of the sound system, I think. People are unable to

get the feed from them. So we're going to take a short recess to deal with that

issue. When we come back I'm going to give Members an opportunity, as we often

do in this House, to give brief statements related to the point privilege when

we return, before I deal with it myself.

So we'll

take a few minutes recess now to deal with our sound system issues.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Are the House Leaders ready?

We're

going to resume the session now, but I want to tell Members that the problem

that we have is not fully dealt with yet. Apparently, there's no problem in

picking up Members speaking for the broadcast purposes, but we do have a problem

in terms of Members being able to hear with their earpieces.

It seems

like it's going to take a little while longer to fix that, so rather than hold

up the proceedings of the House, I'm going to ask Members to be especially quiet

this evening while we're dealing with this problem so Members can hear clearer.

I'm going to ask Members to speak up a little when they're talking. I understand

some of the earpieces are working and some aren't. So if you're sitting near

someone and you need to try their one to see if it works, maybe we can work

together a little bit and do that.

We're

going to proceed where we left off. Where we were was the Member had just

finished giving his point of privilege, so now I'm going to ask other Members if

they would like to give a brief comment to the point of privilege.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I tried

to listen very intently to the hon. Member's point of privilege. I know the

Speaker will take into consideration and deliberate and determine on whether

it's new information, but I do believe that every Member of this House should

have and should be required to have due process.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for

giving me the opportunity to say a few words.

I echo

what the Minister of Natural Resources just said. I think what all Members have

to recognize here, Mr. Speaker, is that this situation does not just impact the

Member for Bay of Islands. It impacts all 40 Members in this House of Assembly

regardless what side of the House you sit, because at any given time somebody –

whether it be a Member of the House, whether it be staff or whoever – matters

can potentially come forward – whether it be through the House here, through the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards, through the Citizens' Representative,

whatever the case might be – and it is critical that every Member in this House

has the opportunity to defend themselves and is given, as the Member said, due

process.

course, it will be up to you to rule on whether or not it's considered a prima

facie case and whether or not the information presented is new. It certainly

would appear to be new from what I can gather in listening to what the Member

has said. But there are very serious matters being raised here. One of those

matters, of course – and a very important one, as I said – that the Member did

not necessary receive due process, that every one of us should be entitled to,

but also a couple of other issues that have come up in the submission that I

believe definitely need to be discussed in the House of Assembly.

The

allegation here is that the Commissioner for Legislative Standards gave false

information to a Committee of the House and gave false information to the House

of Assembly in general. That's the allegation. I don't know, I'm not the one to

judge whether that's true or it's not true and I think it needs to be

investigated, but it's definitely an allegation that is of such a serious

nature, considering the fact that this is an individual who's appointed by this

House, who's supposed to be independent of the House and who we rely upon to

follow the rules and regulations and follow the law and to make the appropriate

recommendations. That is definitely being called into question in what the

Member is saying.

Whether

or not you feel it's new information, prima facie, whatever the case might be,

even that as a separate issue is a concern for me, as one Member of this House

of Assembly. It's a very, very serious allegation that at the very least needs

to looked into, whatever venue that should take, whether it's here in the House

of Assembly, whether it's through the Management Commission or whatever the

appropriate venue is, definitely has to be looked into and investigated.

course, the other allegation, if you will, coming from this – what I heard at

least – is a sense that we have a Speaker or a former Speaker and a Deputy

Speaker who, again, based on the allegation – I wasn't there, I don't know but

based on what's in this statement, that we have Members that were aware of the

fact that false information was presented to this House, of which we are all

Members, and sat back and let it slide, didn't speak up or whatever.

Again,

that's the allegation here. I'm not saying that happened. I don't know, but the

fact of the matter is that we have three very serious matters. We have that one;

we have the Commissioner for Legislative Standards allegedly giving false

information; and, of course, we have the actual process itself where, allegedly,

the Member was not given due process.

I see

that as three serious issues contained within this report. I certainly encourage

you, at the very least, that this has to be looked into by the Management

Commission to confirm or to refute what has been said here because, as we move

forward, whether it be with the policy on bullying, harassment and so on, or

whether it be any other matter that could come before this House relating to any

Member of this House on either side of the House, we all need to have a comfort

level and be assured that we're all going to be treated fairly, receive justice

and be given the due process that we should all be entitled to.

This is

a very serious role that we have in the House of Assembly as legislators, as

MHAs. It comes with great responsibility; it comes with great accountability as

well. With that as well, we are also – and we should be entitled to know that

everything is being done properly, above board and that we also receive the

protections afforded to us as Members of this House.

I ask,

Mr. Speaker, that you take that into account as you deliberate on this case. I

would certainly support bringing this forward to look into those matters.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've

listened today to the information that's been provided to the House and I think

as a sitting Member here, I think all of us, regardless of which side of the

House we sit on, we must learn and respect information as it becomes available.

We make decisions in this House from time to time based on the information that

we have available to us.

Mr.

Speaker, today the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands raises an issue and makes

a submission that all the information wasn't provided at the time. One of the

things that I've witnessed – and I think we've all had to deal with as making

decisions in this House of Assembly – there's very little room for appeal on

decisions that are made by sometimes Officers of the House of Assembly. That is

really not something that occurs much in a society. Usually there is an appeal

process.

In this

particular case, decisions are made with the information – very little room to

introduce new information or an appeal process. So in this particular case here

that we're talking about – and I agree, this is really about fairness, this is

really about respect of each other as Members that sit here. I had mentioned

quite early, as been mentioned already by the Member, that there were flaws in

this process. There was little opportunity to actually correct it when it was

ongoing, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we have to ignore the fact.

indeed there's new information, I think the onus and the responsibility on all

Members of this House of Assembly is to seek the advice of you, Mr. Speaker,

because there's a lot of damage that can be done by Members of this House of

Assembly, from reputation – and you can do a lot of good deeds, make a lot of

good decisions in this House of Assembly. If there is an incident that occurs

and a reputation gets damaged, well often that carries with you for a long time.

That is something, I think, all of us, out of respect for each other, must

prevent when possible.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I will not go on much longer, but I will say that you have to make a

decision on new information. But I would encourage you to do so, report back to

the House of Assembly as quickly as possible. Because what it is for us, as all

Members, is to make sure that when we make decisions we have all the

information. If there's new information that becomes available, well that needs

to be considered by you. What we all must keep in mind is that everyone deserves

a right to a fair process, everyone deserves a right to be respected by each

other in this House of Assembly.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further comments by Members

on this issue?

MR. JOYCE:

I'm going to speak briefly on

that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes. So I'll allow the Member

to respond to it.

MR. JOYCE:

(Inaudible) for standing up

and – this is about 40 people in this Legislature. I said it before, this could

happen to anybody tomorrow. I'm definitely not going to dispute any of the

facts. What I'm disputing here is the process. It started on October 24 when I

was informed of a statement that wasn't true, which the letter from my lawyer

proved it wasn't true.

I'm not

saying, Mr. Speaker, anything here – I will not banish or try to tarnish any

Member. I'm going on the process alone. I ask any person in this House of

Assembly, if you had an incident with an RNC officer and they went off and filed

a court case, found you guilty and you never had a chance to present evidence in

person, which person here would not have that appealed immediately? That's what

I've been trying to do for 18 months, appeal this decision. The only avenue I

have is through the court process, except to this Legislature.

I ask

any Member here, if you never had the right to be heard and you were found

guilty, would you stand for it? There's not one person in this House who would

stand for that on their reputation only. That's the point I'm making here today,

is that I was never given due process. And because I wasn't given due process,

the statements that were made to the Management Commission that I tried in this

House on numerous occasions to bring up – even before the debate started, I

wrote the former Speaker, I wrote the Commissioner, they would not respond if

that statement was made. That's the process I had to follow because there's

nothing in place for it right now.

So this

is about me, definitely it is, because I've been trying for 18 months and I will

get to the bottom of it – absolutely, no doubt – but this is bigger than here.

This is a reflection on this House of Assembly, when everybody rushed to

judgment on this thing without even looking at the process. So when you rush to

judgment without getting all the facts and getting the information presented to

the House of Assembly – which it should have been.

I ask

the Speaker once more, everybody in this House, what happens if you found out

somebody stole $20,000, a Statutory Officer of this House? I'm not saying

anybody did; I'm not saying that. What if they did? Do you know what would

happen? It would be in this House and that person would be relieved of their

duties. But what happens if a false statement is made about another Member? Here

we are 18 months later trying to get it brought back to the House of Assembly.

should not take any statements that are made, that are going to affect any

Member, lightly. I just happen to be this Member myself, and Dale Kirby happens

to be the other Member, but it's this Legislature. It's a reflection on the

Legislature, everybody here, excluding the new Members who were elected in 2019,

I have to make that – so I just want people to take that in reflection. At no

time would anybody accept to be going through a court system without being

interviewed, found guilty, being punished without having due process. I just ask

everybody to keep that in mind.

I ask

you, Mr. Speaker, when you have the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice,

the highest person of the courts in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

standing outside this Legislature and saying what I said is true, you can't

ignore it.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Any further speakers?

The

Member for Lake Melville.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

make a couple of careful comments, given I was the Speaker at the time that the

Member for Humber - Bay of Islands is referring to. I was one of those ones

caught with this awkward technological issue. I was trying to listen closely to

the Member in his remarks.

I would

like very much to have a transcript or a copy of what he said exactly before I

offer some other remarks. Given the procedures that we follow, I think this is

my chance to speak and then I'll let you adjourn and make your decision.

Having

been intimately involved with this process for all those months and then

listening to, as best I could, what the Member said, I'm not sure I heard

anything new that would add, in a substantial way, to the conclusion and the

decisions of the House. I'll make that statement out there, but I do regret that

I could not hear completely what the Member said.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member has had two

opportunities to speak.

MS. JOYCE:

(Inaudible) nothing about the report (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

I'll allow – briefly,

briefly.

MR. JOYCE:

Yes, briefly.

I just

sent a copy, a full transcript to the Member for Lake Melville of what I said

and the full documentation, as you requested. You have a full transcript of all

the evidence and the statements I just made.

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay.

Any

further Members who would like to comment on this?

Seeing

no further Members, a point of privilege is a serious matter to come before the

House. It's usually a rare matter. We've had quite a few recently, but it is a

rare matter. Whenever it's raised, it warrants serious consideration.

In some

cases, we make rulings on points of privilege immediately or we recess the

House, go back, consult with the Table Officers, make a decision and come back.

But given the nature of this particular case, there are a number of things I

want to review. I want to review some transcripts from the House, some previous

letters and some other materials to make sure I have a full understanding of the

issues that are being dealt with here and the issues that are important to this

particular case.

In some

situations, we will take matters under advisement and report back to the House

at a later date and I think it's prudent to do that in this particular case.

That's what I'll be doing; I'll be taking this matter under advisement,

reporting back to the House at a later date.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

We're going to move forward

with Statements by Members – again, it's been a while – Stephenville - Port au

Port, Bonavista, Cape St. Francis, Lake Melville and Grand Falls-Windsor -

Buchans.

The hon.

the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a

volunteer with the Piccadilly Central High School council for over 10 years,

Judith Gaudon has increased opportunities for youth on the Port au Port

Peninsula by establishing a scholarship and bursary program in the high school.

The

scholarship program is designed to promote post-secondary education and also

offers opportunities for the school to showcase the educational achievements of

each student receiving one. Scholarships are presented at the Cap and Gown

Ceremony in December in which Judith organizes.

addition, she organizes events such as a variety bingo and ticket sales to raise

money for the school. This, along with the scholarship program, brings the

communities on the peninsula together in support of the school. The entire

school environment is highly enhanced by these activities which trickles down to

the communities in which the students live.

Through

the Port au Port Extrajudicial Sanctions Committee, she helps youth involved in

crime get back on track and successfully reintegrate into society. Judith also

stays active in her community working at the local cadet corps and helps young

people find opportunities within the cadet program and the Duke of Edinburgh

program. For her dedication and commitment to her community, Judith received the

Sovereign's Medal for Volunteers.

I ask

all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Judith on receiving

the Sovereign's Medal for Volunteers.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives

me great pleasure to celebrate Heritage Collegiate's robotics team from

Lethbridge, in the District of Bonavista.

This

school has had a very successful robotics club for nearly two decades and has

sent teams to provincial, national and international competitions. After the

most recent provincial competition at our Marine Institute in 2019, where ROVs,

remote operating vehicles, were required to perform a variety of underwater

tasks, the Heritage team was selected to compete in an international competition

in Kingsport, Tennessee in June of 2019.

The team

of 10 students represented the province and displayed their robot which was

constructed and programmed solely by the students. One of their level III

students was approached by an international official about the

programming/coding design she had written, and another two were approached by

the Marine Institute team to join their team this past fall.

The

school is providing this valuable educational experience through the leadership

of teacher and robotics mentor, Mr. Lyndon Williams. It doesn't happen without

dedicated teachers such as Mr. Williams.

I ask

the Members of the 49th House of Assembly to join me in issuing a congratulatory

note to Mr. Williams and the Heritage robotics team for their achievements and

success in this important area for our marine industries.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, this has been one hard winter, and I rise today to recognize

hard-working and generous people who helped to get us all through the January

blizzard known as Snowmageddon.

beautiful district consists of five towns and, like most of Eastern

Newfoundland, we saw upwards of 75 centimetres of snow, with 130 kilometres

winds, during the storm. Some people lost their power, others were snowbound in

their homes and government had to call in the military. It was definitely a

challenging time, but it also showed the true spirit of our people.

In my

district, communities did everything possible to ensure the safety of our

residents. Town councils and staff worked extended hours. Local volunteer groups

like the fire departments and the Lions Clubs played an important role.

Mr.

Speaker, many residents also stepped up and helped their neighbours. Once one

was shovelled out and okay, they moved on to the next house to make sure they

were okay too. It was a difficult time, but it brought out the best in people. I

felt great pride in our residents and our communities.

I ask

all hon. Members to join with me in extending a big thank you to our mayors,

councillors, workers, volunteers and, Mr. Speaker, to all residents who stepped

up and offered a helping hand during Snowmageddon.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Lake

Melville.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

pleased to inform this House of Assembly that one of Labrador's most active

elders, Dorothy Michelin, turned 100 on the 13th day of February.

This

adventurous woman was born in St. Anthony in 1920. At the age of 17, she

travelled to Labrador to first work with the Paddon family, and later with the

Hudson Bay Company in North West River. Here she met her husband, George

Michelin.

Dorothy

is a firm believer in the adage that if you don't use it, you can lose it. Many

years ago, she learned Innu-aimun and is proud that she can converse with Innu

elders. She uses an iPad to keep in touch with her extensive family of 11

children, 33 grandchildren, 29 great-grandchildren and 10

great-great-grandchildren.

While at

bat during a recent softball game in Nova Scotia, she was asked if she wanted a

stand-in runner. She declined; however, she broke her arm when she slid into

first base, placing herself on the injured list at the age of 85.

Mrs.

Michelin continues to live in her home, plays crib, knits and entertains her

many visitors. Please join me in celebrating a century of active living. Happy

birthday, Dorothy Michelin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

here today to honour Chief Vince MacKenzie. Vince MacKenzie has served as fire

chief of the Grand Falls-Windsor fire department for the past 15 years. As a

member since 1983, he has served firefighting duties to the Central Newfoundland

district and its 15,000 residents for over 37 years.

Chief

MacKenzie is currently the vice-president of Maritime Fire Chiefs Association;

vice-chair, provincial NL911 board of directors; in his third term as an elected

national director with the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs executive board;

and Fire Fighting in Canada columnist.

He has served five times as provincial president with the Newfoundland and

Labrador fire services, where he has lobbied all levels of government as an

advocate for fire services all throughout Canada.

His

leadership and dedication to fire services and community involvement has made

the Grand Falls-Windsor fire department, as well as all of its members, the

standard for fire departments throughout the country. As MHA, but more

importantly as a protected citizen of Grand Falls-Windsor, I ask you all to help

me now honour Chief Vince MacKenzie on a lifetime of achievement in firefighting

and community services.

Stay

safe, Chief, and stay safe to all the firefighters out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to thank the hundreds of health care professionals and

support staff who went over and above the call of duty during Snowmageddon 2020.

behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we are incredibly grateful for

the steadfast commitment and determination displayed despite the challenges of

working during a state of emergency.

Your

teamwork approach to overcoming the obstacles of Mother Nature is truly

commendable. There is a selflessness and sensibility demonstrated by all those

who care for people when they are most vulnerable.

Recognizing the challenges that our health care professionals and support staff

faced, including long working hours and time away from their own families and

loved ones, we are grateful for their focus and unwavering dedication to

patients and families.

While

appreciation for professionals and support staff in our health care system is

important year-round, today is the perfect time to express gratitude and say a

special thank you for all they do.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

Official Opposition, I join with the minister in thanking all health care

workers who provided essential care and service during our recent state of

emergency.

Mr.

Speaker, in this province we are fortunate to have working, caring and

passionate health care workers who continually put their patients and the public

above their own needs. To everyone who worked in the health care sector, I

extend our heartfelt gratitude.

Being

away at work for extended periods of time can take its toll on families of

health care workers. So I would also like to acknowledge the many friends and

family who pitched in to help on the home front.

Mr.

Speaker, now that things have returned to normal, I do encourage the health

authority to work with the unions and professional organizations to see how the

system could have better responded and better supported the front line workers

and those essential workers who found themselves on the job for days.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Health care workers go above

and beyond everyday. During Snowmageddon 2020 they went even further,

sacrificing sleep, time with family and loved ones, and sometimes risking their

safety getting to and from work.

Storms

or no storms, there will be people who need medical care. We are fortunate our

health care workers know that the people in their care must always come first.

That's professionalism.

Thank

you to those workers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Team Newfoundland and

Labrador on their recent success at the 2020 Special Olympics Canada National

Winter Games in Thunder Bay, Ontario – and I thank them for their patience as we

work through some technical issues here today.

From

February 24 to 29, we watched as 44 talented athletes gave their all and made

our province proud.

Mr.

Speaker, Team Newfoundland and Labrador returned home on Sunday, bringing with

them more than 40 medals.

snowshoeing: Bradley Murphy won gold, silver and bronze; Floressa Harris and

Crystal Young each won gold and bronze; Philip Beales and Jessica Summers won

gold; David Horne won two silver; Robert Moore won a silver and two bronze;

Johnny Philpott won silver and bronze; and Zachary Dean won bronze.

cross-country skiing: Michael Budden won three gold and a bronze; Sarah Brown

won a gold, two silver and a bronze; Ryan Drover won a gold, a silver and a

bronze; Jody Lawrence won gold and silver; and Hannah Samelson won gold, silver

and bronze.

In speed

skating: Brandon Park won a gold and two silver.

singles 5-pin bowling: Michael Power, Brian Shea and Kevin Wiseman won gold, and

Kayla Sceviour won bronze.

Gary

Wicks, Kim O'Neill, Tony Kyritsis, Margaret McNeil and Joshua Gardner won gold

in curling.

Congratulations to all the medalists. You have earned these medals through hard

work, skill and determination.

Mr.

Speaker, the Special Olympics motto is “Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me

be brave in the attempt.”

I would

also like to congratulate all the members of Team Newfoundland and Labrador for

their spirit and bravery in competing at the Games. We are all so very proud of

you.

To the

staff and volunteers of Special Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador, the mission

staff, parents, coaches and sponsors, thank you for your commitment to our

athletes, and to the future of sport in our province. You have certainly played

an important role in their success.

I invite

all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to join with me in congratulating Team

Newfoundland and Labrador on a successful Special Olympics Winter Games.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I join with the minister

today in echoing the congratulations to our Team Newfoundland and Labrador

Special Olympics Canada Winter Games team on their success in the Winter Games

in Thunder Bay, Ontario.

The 44

athletes competing in the Games competed to the best of their ability and

brought home 41 medals. This is a great accomplishment. We are proud of their

dedication to sport and for their bravery to compete at the Games.

To the

staff and volunteers of our Canada Winter Games team, parents, coaches and

sponsors, thank you for your commitment to our athletes and to the future of

Special Olympics in our beautiful province.

I invite

all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador to join me in congratulating Team

Newfoundland and Labrador on their success at the National Winter Games.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, I, too, thank

the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

I join

the minister in congratulating Team Newfoundland and Labrador on their many

achievements at the 2020 Special Olympics Canada Winter Games. One of those

members is Johnny Philpott who is a cousin of ours.

Athletes

from our province returned home with over 40 medals, exemplifying their passion

for sport and continued excellence in representing our province at the national

stage. I thank all the athletes, staff, coaches, volunteers and parents, and

everyone involved in making these Winter Games possible. You all rock!

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today in this hon. House to recognize the many schools that go above and beyond

to create safe and caring environments for all students. Each year, 35 schools

are presented with a Safe and Caring Schools Special Project Award.

Last

week, the Premier and I had the pleasure of participating in a Pink Shirt Day

celebration at Elwood Elementary in Deer Lake. The enthusiasm and kindness on

display was truly inspiring.

Students, teachers and staff, all wearing pink, celebrated friendship, promoting

this year's theme: Lift Each Other Up – a simple but powerful message

encouraging us to celebrate our differences and the things that make us unique.

It was wonderful to have the added opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to present the

award to one of the 35 winners, Elwood Regional High School.

Through

the Education Action Plan, we are focused on building more inclusive learning

environments that are responsive to students' strengths and needs. By this

September, an additional 350 teaching resources will be in place, helping to

ensure student success regardless of ability.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the 35 schools

receiving awards and recognizing their work to make our schools places where

students feel safe and can learn and grow.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

like to thank the hon. Member for an advance copy of his statement.

Mr.

Speaker, all of us on this side of the House join the minister in congratulating

all 35 Safe and Caring Schools Special Project Award winners. As a former

teacher and administrator myself, I know first-hand the importance of students

having a safe and secure environment in which to learn and grow. Every child

should have the right to attend school and be free of harassment, bullying or

threat. Mutual respect, understanding and equality must be the guiding

principles.

However,

Mr. Speaker, I note the Safe and Caring Schools Policy is some seven years old

and long overdue for a review. Our society has changed dramatically, including

look at several serious incidents lately in our schools which have shaken

parents, teachers and students.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and join him in

congratulating Elwood Regional High and the 34 other schools that received a

special project award.

Teachers

dedicate themselves to creating a safe and caring learning environment and while

education plans are necessary, human resources that allow teachers time to give

students individual attention are essential. I encourage the minister to

continue to consult with parents, teachers and the Newfoundland and Labrador

Teachers' Association to ensure schools have the human resources needed for

inclusive and safe learning spaces.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Before we move to Oral

Questions, I just want to welcome and note Vince MacKenzie is in the Speaker's

gallery today, who was the subject of a Member's statement earlier today in the

House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Before we continue with

Question Period, I just want to note that the problems with the hearing pieces

are still problematic. We're going to continue, and again I want to remind

Members to keep the noise level down, to speak clearly so all Members can hear

the proceedings.

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll try

to heave it out of me.

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

I have a question for the

Minister of Natural Resources.

Nalcor

says the government directed it to hire the minister's right-hand man for twice

his previous pay. Did the minister direct the award of this fat consulting

contract, and if she didn't then who did?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He did

heave it out of him, so I'll try and be equally as enthusiastic and talk about

how everyone in this hon. House, and indeed I'm sure in the entire province,

wants us to have maximum benefits from our oil and gas industry, Mr. Speaker. We

have developed Advance 2030 through

work with the industry as well as with government and all stakeholders, really,

in the oil and gas industry. We've had eight new entrants, Mr. Speaker, $4

billion in exploration.

I'm

pleased to also tell the House that this year we will be having three drilling

rigs offshore for exploration. That's the most since 1986, Mr. Speaker. I can

say that having expertise available to us to develop that oil and gas industry

is important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

What a stupendous example of

a non-answer, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

going to repeat the question; it's not a tough question, it can easily be

understood: Did the minister direct the award of the consulting contract and if

she didn't do so, who did?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

believe that this has been spoken of quite frequently in provincial news, Mr.

Speaker. As I have indicated, I have not directed Nalcor in this regard. I have

directed them in a number of other things. I have directed them, for example, to

continue with seismic and exploration off our coast. I can certainly table the

directions that I have provided to Nalcor.

I've

also directed, for example, to make allocations for an equity investment in the

Equinor project, Bay du Nord, should it proceed, Mr. Speaker. So I have given

those directions to Nalcor.

you're asking me specifically, and as I've said very strongly, publicly, no, I

did not direct Nalcor to be involved in this contract.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister is clearly in non-response mode, so we'll move

on and put it this way. The minister has claimed in the media that she was

unaware of the direction to hire, but her right-hand man was in such a conflict

that she and her Cabinet colleagues issued an order to waive the conflict.

How can

the minister say she was unaware when she was personally involved in waiving the

conflict of interest so Nalcor could issue the fat contract?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

I know this is political theatre and it's being played at its best here today,

Mr. Speaker. I will say this, and I have said it publicly, I was, in general,

aware of discussions that were happening, but I can tell the Member opposite

that I did not direct the hiring of anyone with regard to a contract.

Now, I

will say this, Mr. Speaker, we're in the process of transitioning and we have

now transitioned to OilCo from underneath a utility. We have moved them out. We

have added responsibility. They are responsible, for example, of effectively

managing our assets. They are responsible for ensuring we have effective geology

and promotion of our offshore opportunity and we've also added supply and

service development to their responsibility.

As part

of that transition, it was determined that they needed additional supports and

that's what was done through this contract, Mr. Speaker. I have asked for a

review of all contractors to the oil company and I have also asked for a review

of their contracts.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the hiring of this Scottish consultant, the minister's previous

right-hand guy in her department, for twice his pay and a $3,000-a-month living

allowance, when he doesn't even live here, is yet another corruption scandal

which has damaged the government, and the minister was either incompetent to let

it occur or irrelevant as minister for not being involved to stop it.

In the

face of this humiliation, will the minister tender her resignation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Oh my goodness is all I'm going to say to that, Mr. Speaker. We are right in the

middle of really moving our oil and gas industry along. We've moved the oil

company from underneath the utility, Mr. Speaker. We have done

Advance 2030 that is supported by the

industry, and I would say all Members of this House if I can because I think

that everybody wants to maximize our benefits, Mr. Speaker.

We have

an international consultant who is world renowned, who is available to the oil

company, in addition to what they have internal to their oil company, to make

sure that we have supply and service development. We know of opportunities

globally, Mr. Speaker. We're going to continue, on this side of the House, to

work hard to grow our industries, to diversify our economy, to grow jobs in this

province. I wish the Member opposite would join us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, we, on this

side, don't know how the minister has the face to stay in her job.

If the

award of this fat contract were investigated by Officers of the House for gross

mismanagement, as happened with the

Mitchelmore Report into the Carla Foote hiring, would the report be called

the Coady report?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

The Member opposite is

starting to tread dangerously over a line – dangerously over a line, Mr.

Speaker. I will ask the Member opposite to tone down his rhetoric, to understand

what has occurred here, to understand that we're trying to grow an oil and gas

industry, to develop and make sure we maximize jobs in our economy.

I would

say to the Member opposite, this is an entanglement he's gotten himself into

where he's questioning the integrity of me, he is questioning the integrity of

some global consultants who are well regarded in this community as well –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MS. COADY:

I beg your pardon? Does

somebody want to stand up and ask me a question? I'm happy to answer it; happy

to answer questions.

The

contract is held by the oil company. I have asked for a review of that contract.

I have asked for a review of whether they require the consultants going forward,

Mr. Speaker, and I'll leave it at that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

We have to move to the next

question.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, we're just going

to let that answer stand for what it's worth.

My next

question: It has been reported that the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources

was convicted for violating the very laws he's sworn, as minister, to enforce. I

ask the Premier: Will he heed calls from conservation groups and remove the

minister from Cabinet?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It is

never easy to stand in this House and to admit that one has made an error in

judgment – either an error of commission or an error of omission. Yes, Mr.

Speaker, there may be Members in this House who have committed errors; some may

be more serious than others. But what is clear is that when you admit those

errors, you still command the respect of the House and the respect of all

Members.

So, yes,

Mr. Speaker, I did receive a ticket for an offence under the wildlife

regulations – a ticketed offence, a

summary offence – for not having a plug in a

lawful long gun. That was an error of omission. There was no ill intent on my

part; however, that does not excuse the action, because it's my responsibility

to ensure that that long gun is properly secured and within regulation. I do

apologize to this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

We're going to move to the

next question.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was

pretty sure that everybody had heard the old adage, people in glass houses

shouldn't throw stones, but it's quite evident one minister in this House did

not.

Mr.

Speaker, in a statement to CBC News ,

the minister confirmed he violated wildlife laws for having an unplugged

shotgun.

I ask

the minister: Where and how did he pay his fine, and will he table the receipt

of payment?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Yes,

indeed, the error of judgment and the

summary offence – the ticketed offence –

was indeed paid because that is, indeed, an omission that an error was made. So

the offence was paid. I believe there was a journalist who had the proof of

recollection, it was paid by Visa through the Justice Department's Fines

Administration.

This was

2½ years ago, Mr. Speaker, so if I've made an error in my recollection, I will

correct it to the House. But, yes, a ticketed offence did occur and, in the same

style or manner that many of us in this House may have paid a speeding ticket,

that ticket was paid for under the means that are available to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister: Was he in breach of any other wildlife laws when he was stopped?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, what I can say

is the wildlife officer displayed the utmost of professionalism and integrity.

If there's an indicator that our system is working – some may say as a Member of

this House that we receive special or elite treatment. The fact of the matter is

that the wildlife officer conducted a hunter compliance test or check and levied

the appropriate ticket. That's a testament, I think, to the wildlife officer

but, more importantly, to the system itself that we adhere to, the rule of law.

There

was only one ticket that was issued, Mr. Speaker, and that's a ticket that I

truly regret.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, we've gotten

calls this morning from individuals with identical convictions and whose gun

improperly was seized.

I ask

the minister: Did you ask for any leniency, given your role? Are you, the

minister, receiving one type of justice while the ordinary citizen receives

another?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I can't speak to

two different circumstances, but what I can say is there was no leniency that

was requested, nor none granted. There was one offence. It was a ticketed

offence. It resulted in the levy of a fine and it was paid.

So, Mr.

Speaker, in other examples there may have been situations where the long gun was

altered or may not have been an appropriate or restricted weapon or a prohibited

weapon. I do not know. What I can tell you, though, is that the law enforcement

– the conservation officer – conducted herself in absolute compliance with her

duties and we can all be very proud of our enforcement officers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, to my

recollection, the minister received a fine of less than $100,

whereas the

maximum fine would be $500. I would think that someone of his stature, to take

this seriously, would be excluded a higher level of fine.

Mr.

Speaker, what CBC reported yesterday and what VOCM also reported the same day

are two very different stories. Could the minister explain what is actually the

truth?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

It's difficult to follow the

train of that question, Mr. Speaker, because it's hard to rebut to prove a

negative. I'm not sure exactly what the hon. Member is referring to in terms of

two different stories. I do know that there was one story or one reality and

that is I was assessed a ticketable offence.

To the

preamble of the Member's question, it is not for any of us, it is for our

Enforcement Division, our enforcement officers and for the justice system to

determine the fine. I recognize, and I think most others would recognize that it

is a difficult challenge for someone to rebut the notion that there was a

leniency that was offered. What I can tell you is that it's not abundantly clear

to me that the officer in question actually knew my identity.

MR. SPEAKER:

We're going to move to the

next question.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, I guess I can

sympathize with the minister's response, because what I'm asking for is the

truth, and that is something that apparently he doesn't understand.

We are

asking for the details of the situation. There are two stories floating in the

public. Please clarify for this House and the people of the province.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, it's very

difficult to rebut what I have said. The Member opposite doesn't provide much

clarity as to exactly the ambiguities that he questions. So for the sake of the

record, what I will provide you and the House, as I've done before, is the

incidence in which I indicated that during the course of a rather routine hunter

safety compliance check it was discovered that there was one single offence that

could be observed, that was observed, and it was ticketed accordingly under

regulation and the fine was paid.

Mr.

Speaker, just as Members of this House may often find themselves –

MR. SPEAKER:

We're going to move to the

next question.

The hon.

the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

recommendation to close two schools in the Stephenville - Port au Port region.

One of the rationales given by the school board to close these schools was to

increase the number of administrative positions – full-time administrative

positions.

So I ask

the minister: Are you in support of closing schools to hire more managers?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the question from the Member.

Mr.

Speaker, it's the elected school boards who have the authority under the

legislation for organizing schools and services, not government. I have

absolutely nothing to do with this process. The board has clearly stated that

it's about ensuring resources are being used to the best and maximizing program

opportunities for students in the region.

Again, I

have nothing more to offer with regard to the Member's statement, other than the

fact that, Mr. Speaker, it is up to the board and the district to assess those

school systems review.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, I can only

assume by the answer that the minister supports the closing of schools to hire

more managers.

In the

fall of 2019, the Department of Education announced that they would introduce

the junior kindergarten program, details to follow. While there hasn't been a

whole lot of details to follow, one of the recommendations of closing these two

schools in the Stephenville - Port au Port region will mean that the remaining

primary school will not have the classroom capacity to accommodate a junior

kindergarten program, if introduced.

I ask

the minister: Will he intercede and ask the school board to withdraw this

recommendation until such time as the total education system can be looked at?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, while the plan

is progressing and still under way with regard to the implementation of junior

kindergarten, I'm not going to comment – I think there's a town hall meeting in

the Member's district within the next coming days.

Mr.

Speaker, families and parents will have the opportunity to assess what's being

suggested here by the district and they have an opportunity, as all members

throughout this province who are in the middle of a school systems review, to

dialogue with the district.

Again,

I've had no opportunity to have any discussion with regard to this and I'll let

the review take place, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, surely the

minister would have knowledge of the implementation of a junior kindergarten

program and the likelihood that it will require increased classrooms in order to

implement. The result of this move will see that not being possible.

Currently, St. Thomas Aquinas, the school in Port au Port East, houses a public

library which, according to the statistics, is the fourth most used library in

the western district out of 29 libraries.

Now, in

2016, we know the Liberal government tried to close several libraries across

this province. The decision was ultimately reversed.

What is

the plan now for the public library should this school closure happen, or is

this a backdoor way to close public libraries?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, here in the

province government continues to provide the lion's share of funding to the

libraries – more than twice the average of provincial governments across the

country.

Again,

the systems reviews, there are no decisions made. The systems reviews are a

yearly process that happens. They happened under their government, as it does

happen under our government. It's a policy that the district has taken very

seriously.

Mr.

Speaker, the systems review is still under way. I'll let the process take its

place and we will deal with it when it's done.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last

week, the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour announced a bus pass

pilot program for Income Support clients within the St. John's metro area. I

think we, on this side, applaud that as a good step.

However,

I have to ask: What is being done to address those in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador who are still struggling with affordable transportation and cannot

afford to get to medical appointments?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Member is right; we announced a pilot project last week to help Income Support

clients break down those barriers that would impede them to getting to

meaningful employment, making attachments to that meaningful employment and

getting to their appointments. It was an opportunity and it's a pilot project

that will be evaluated after a two-year period when that evaluation occurs.

We've entered into discussions with the Corner Brook area to look at the options

that we can do in that area as well.

This is

a pilot project. We'll evaluate it at the end and, hopefully, it will be met

with great success. I think the general public has thought it was successful at

this point. We're looking forward to launching those bus passes in April. It

will be a good opportunity for individuals that are the most marginalized in

society.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

sure those in rural Newfoundland can wait two years for this pilot to be

evaluated.

A couple

of weeks ago, the Liberal government announced a plan for minimum wage

increases, but it did nothing for vulnerable groups, people who cannot afford

such common necessities as transportation, food, shelter and child care.

I ask

the minister responsible: How can the recent minimum wage plan be described as a

balanced approach when it did not address the struggles of individuals trying to

make ends meet?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

As the

hon. Member just mentioned, we did increase the minimum wage. We made an

announcement about that. It's tied directly with the Atlantic harmonization

which happens on April 1 every year. We're happy that the Premier and his

colleagues came to the harmonization schedule; it gives opportunity to tie that

directly to the national CPI.

But we

understood that based on the review that had occurred, that we started in the

fall of the year with an independent group, based on the information that came

back from that group, we looked at that, that was a piece of the information

that we used to decide that we needed to do more. We established that the base

was too low. The balanced approach comes from here. We wanted to give the

balanced approach to allow employers the ability to plan for this, which is part

and parcel of why we've done it in a phased-in approached like we have, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

About a

decade and a half ago, the PC government implemented and introduced the Poverty

Reduction Strategy. It had the goal of reducing child poverty in the province.

At the time, we were the highest in Canada.

worked; it actually reduced poverty rate in the province from approximately 20

per cent down to 11. National anti-poverty advocates have praised this program,

praised this strategy and said it should be done in other parts of the country

as well. But rather than build on our success, the current Liberal government

has gutted the strategy and today we're seeing the fall-out as seniors, the

working poor, vulnerable groups and children are paying the price.

When

will the poverty reduction program become a priority for Liberals focused on

outcomes, as long as there are other parties on this side of the House who

applaud it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Member for the question.

Mr.

Speaker, when we talk about things like poverty, it's very complex; food

insecurity, it's very complex. There's no one size fits all. I've said it in

this hon. House a number of times, when it comes to the money that goes toward

reducing poverty reduction, we are putting, as a government, more money than has

ever been in the history of this province: $286 million.

The hon.

Member mentions we don't have a poverty reduction strategy. We actually have

more than 100 poverty reduction initiatives that are under way, and we're

continuing to do work. We're continuing to do reviews in our province.

Mr.

Speaker, when we talk about food insecurity, there are three different ways that

it's measured. One of the measurements under marginal is when people worry about

running out of food. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about that I think about Muskrat

Falls –

MR. SPEAKER:

We're going to move to the

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. DEMPSTER:

(Inaudible.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I ask the Member to sit down.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Let's get right to the point,

Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier: Who's in charge? Is it the Premier present? Is it the premier

whispered to be waiting in the wings? Is it ghosts of premiers past? Or are we

truly in the shallow state?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you.

I think

the Leader of the Third Party actual answered the question, because she directed

the question to the Premier. I'm actually standing now to answer that question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, we have a great

team here, we have a Cabinet, we have a caucus. I happen to lead this party and

I'm Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will be using the great team that

we have here with us to make the decisions that will need to be made on behalf

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr.

Speaker, yes, after 10 years in politics and eight years as leader of the party,

into my fifth year as Premier, I'll be moving to a different chair, but still

supporting this government and whoever the next leader of this party will be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier: Upon passing Interim Supply and instead of governing, is it his

plan to prorogue our House to give his party time to orchestrate the coronation

of a new premier and drag us all into yet another costly, early election?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the good news out of that question is all Members of this House of Assembly,

indeed, want to pass Interim Supply. I am sure there are a lot of families out

there that depend on those paycheques who will be happy to hear that today. So

that is good news, I think, for people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, we have a House

Leader, we have a Deputy House Leader and we have Members of the Opposition. We

will work with the legislative agenda; we will continue to bring legislation to

this House of Assembly to the benefit of people in this province. I'm happy to

hear today that the paycheques of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will

continue, and I thank the Leader of the Third Party for that support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From the

Fisheries and Land Resources Minister's mishandling of the die-off of 2.6

million salmon, to his cynical accusations of racism and poaching levelled at

two Members of this House, to his use of a racist slur against Indigenous people

and the commission of a firearms offence, to the resignation of two members of

the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Advisory Council as a result of his

inaction, this minister has exhibited a pattern of behaviour – a pattern of

behaviour, Mr. Speaker – that has caused the public to question his judgment,

damaged the credibility of his department and brought shame on this government.

I ask

the Premier: Will he finally acknowledge the Minister of Fisheries and Land

Resources has overstayed his welcome and release him?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have

been some difficult issues like the salmon die-off, but there have also been

some things that I truly regret and have apologized.

There

are Members of this House that still command the full respect of this House, who

have done some serious things themselves in their past, but they still command

the full respect of this House. While they have had to atone for those issues,

we accept them for who they are.

So, Mr.

Speaker, if I do have one – if I have many frailties I have one strength, and

that is the ability to apologize, to say I'm sorry, but also to reflect and to

recognize what my strengths are and what my weaknesses are. So I stand before

this House, not as a victim or as someone seeking consolation, someone prepared

to stand on his own two feet –

MR. SPEAKER:

We're going to move to the

next question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Labrador

caribou are so endangered that federal funds have been allocated for their

survival, but in Labrador West two wildlife enforcement positions have been

vacant for almost a year; and, also, some vacancies in Labrador East.

I ask

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources: When is he planning to fill the

two positions in Labrador West and the remaining vacancies in Labrador to

protect Labrador's caribou?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

question about caribou and caribou in Labrador, I had a conversation just a

short while ago with another Member of this House on this incredibly important

issue. We have some vacancies, but they are being actively staffed.

I want

to thank the hon. Member for highlighting the fact that a $5.4 million

comprehensive conservation agreement has been drafted and signed and prepared

that will create a huge benefit for caribou conservation in our woodland herds.

I also look forward to working with communities and, in particular, Indigenous

groups on enacting this conservation agreement.

I am

also very, very encouraged by the decisions to combine and to expand enforcement

efforts, not only in Labrador but throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. It's

going to make a big, big difference. I can see success on the horizon, and I

pray for success on the horizon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

The hon.

the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. TRIMPER:

If I may, under Standing

Order 7, Order and Decorum, during the Question Period the Leader of the

Opposition addressed the Government House Leader by her last name. It is

convention not to use each other by the name. So he should either withdraw or a

reminder.

MR. SPEAKER:

I'll take this matter under

advisement and report back to the House, unless the Member wants to make a

comment now?

No. So

I'll respond to this at a later date.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

In accordance with the

resolution passed in the House on December 5, 2019, I'm tabling a letter from

the Member for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows to all Members of the House of

Assembly.

I can

further advise that the Member has informed me that he has met all requirements

of the resolution and is currently fulfilling the requirements of his

suspension.

Further

tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Scio.

MS. STOODLEY:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice of

the following private Member's resolution, which will be seconded by the Member

for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

WHEREAS

the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada believes that the

Personal Information Protection And

Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) falls short of protecting Canadians from

privacy risks posed by advancements in artificial intelligence systems;

WHEREAS

an artificial intelligence system is defined as a machine-based system that can,

for any given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations

or decisions influencing real or virtual environments. AI systems are designed

to operate with varying levels of autonomy;

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador residents are protected in the public sector through

the provincial Access To Information And

Protection Of Privacy Act (ATIPP) and in the private sector by the federal

PIPEDA;

WHEREAS

provinces including British Columbia and Alberta have their own privacy

legislation (Personal Information Protection Act) in lieu of PIPEDA, that

safeguards privacy and protection of personal information held by private

companies and organizations;

WHEREAS

other countries such as the UK have comprehensive legislation that protects

residents' privacy and personal information from advances in artificial

intelligence systems in both private and public sector organizations; and

WHEREAS

within the current regulatory framework, advances in artificial intelligence

systems may result in inadequate privacy protections;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the Office of the Privacy

Commissioner of Canada in expanding PIPEDA to include artificial intelligence

systems;

AND

urges the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to investigate expanding

provincial privacy legislation to include protections for the use of

individuals' personal information by public and private sector organizations as

it relates to artificial intelligence systems.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Before I take other notices

of motion, I want to remind Members that we're having some technical difficulty.

The noise level just a few minutes ago, too high. We need to take into account

and respect that some people may not be able to hear what's happening here, so

we need to keep our noise level down.

The

banter back and forth across the floor of the House is not appropriate in this

situation. I understand that in normal circumstances a certain level of noise is

tolerated, but I'm asking Members to co-operate with us here today.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

couldn't agree with you more about respect and decorum.

Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 63(3), the private Member's resolution

entered by the Member for Mount Scio shall be the one to be debated this

Wednesday.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice that I will move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole on Supply to consider a resolution for the granting of Interim Supply to

Her Majesty, Bill 26.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have

lots of motions today.

Mr.

Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled

An Act

To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act,

Bill 24.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Social Workers Act, Bill 25.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you.

I would

just like to present a petition here.

The new

ferry

schedule for 2019 cuts our transportation service in half. This is a

drastic reduction.

We are

isolated for seven months out of the year. To have a ferry steam past within a

mile of our dock is doing us great injustice.

We will

lose a reliable and affordable service that can connect us to the south and

beyond. We also stand to lose Cartwright, NL connection to the highway that

leads us in a timely manner to other parts of the province.

utilize the ferry service at every opportunity. It is the only economical means

of transportation and freight that is provided to our community by the province

for five months out of the year.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the

undersigned residents of Rigolet, Newfoundland and Labrador, call upon the House

of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the

ferry service to include our community on the South Coast run.

This is

a petition that I presented, actually, earlier to the House on several

occasions. As I mentioned, most of the people here now understand that the

communities in my district, none of them are connected to the Trans-Labrador

Highway. So the only means of transportation is by the ferry service in the

summer or by the expensive air travel. I did talk a lot about the high cost of

transportation, which was alarming and shocking to a lot of people here in the

House of Assembly.

The

community that has put forward this petition is Rigolet, Newfoundland and

Labrador. In order for them to get to Cartwright or Black Tickle now for friends

and relatives or to access the Trans-Labrador Highway, they first have to travel

to Happy Valley-Goose Bay and then make their way to Cartwright or to Black

Tickle. To get to Goose Bay is $402 one way. So for them to get back and forth

to Goose Bay, which is nowhere near Cartwright or Black Tickle, is $804 return

for one person.

During

the recent meetings that I attended with the Minister of Transportation, he

actually committed to me – he said that his department will reinstate the

Rigolet community on the South Coast run. Can the minister now rise in the House

of Assembly and make that commitment not only to me, but to the people of

Rigolet, Cartwright and Black Tickle?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. Member for her petition and I thank her for her involvement and what

she brought to the table, I guess, two weeks ago in Goose Bay when we done our

debrief on the North Coast ferry system.

Mr.

Speaker, I have no problem at all standing here and committing that what we

committed to in that room that day of Rigolet being added to the South Coast run

this coming season will actually happen.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, the majority of

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units permit smoking. Currently there are only

two seniors' buildings that are designated non-smoking.

Second-hand smoke from both tobacco and cannabis can seep into multi-unit

dwellings from many places including vents, cracks, walls and floors.

Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the

undersigned, call on the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to designate 75 per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing family units as non-smoking.

Mr.

Speaker, we all know the exposure to second-hand smoke, be it from cannabis or

from tobacco, can lead to serious health problems including lung cancer, heart

disease and stroke, and can make asthma worse in adults and children.

It is

especially dangerous for children as it can result in permanent damage to their

growing lungs and cause respiratory and other illnesses like bronchitis and

pneumonia, ear infections and even sudden infant death syndrome. Based on

several studies, it varied from 44 per cent to 53 per cent of multi-unit housing

residents that do not allow smoking in their house have experienced second-hand

smoke infiltration in their home from elsewhere in or around the building.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of –

AN HON. MEMBER:

Children, Seniors and Social

Development.

MR. SPEAKER:

– Children, Seniors and

Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

You're going to remember that eventually, Mr. Speaker; I have great faith in

you.

I thank

the hon. Member for the petition, Mr. Speaker, on this very important topic. We

have been having ongoing discussions looking at what's happening in other

jurisdictions. As I stand here, we're actually doing a review in Housing –

smoking cannabis is prohibited on the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

properties, where smoking tobacco is also prohibited.

We, too,

are concerned about health. Just a couple of weeks ago, myself and my colleague

in Health joined me and we were happy, as a government, to launch a campaign:

The New Look of Nicotine – vaping. We're really trying to raise awareness of the

dangers of vaping. I think it's well documented the harms of tobacco. So we want

to make a move to improve the lives of children in those Housing units as well,

Mr. Speaker.

We're

certainly reviewing options related to our smoke-free environment policy and

once we've made some more progress, Mr. Speaker, I'll be happy to report back to

the House on those initiatives.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There have been

numerous concerns raised by family members of seniors in long-term care

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering from

dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions,

whereby loved ones have experienced injuries, have not been bathed regularly,

not received proper nutrition and/or have been lying in their own waste for

extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to government's

failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.

Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which includes the mandatory

establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff to three residents in long-term

care and all other applicable regional health facilities housing persons with

dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions in

order to ensure appropriate safety, protection from injuries, proper hygiene

care and all other required care. This law would include the creation of a

specific job position in these facilities for monitoring and intervention as

required, to ensure the safety of patients.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm glad to present this petition again today on behalf of the group

Advocates for Senior Citizens' Rights. As I have stood and said in this House

many times, this is something that should be of serious concern to us all, as we

all have moms and dads, grandmothers, grandfathers and, one day if we live long

enough, ourselves, that may end up at some point in time being in a long-term

care facility.

This

specifically speaks to the issue of persons with dementia, Alzheimer's disease

and so on. We've certainly heard that in terms of the people with Alzheimer's,

that there are an awful lot of people who would suggest that seniors here in

Newfoundland are being overmedicated for that disease in these nursing homes,

not necessarily getting the care they should be getting. That is, quite frankly,

tied to the fact that there may not necessarily always be enough staff to take

care of them.

It's one

thing to provide them with food, for example, but if you just take that tray and

you lay it down next to somebody's bed or whatever, but they're not capable of

feeding themselves, then it's just as well they basically didn't get the food,

even though it was laid there.

If you

have someone who's confused, they shouldn't be tied in to their bed, they

shouldn't be tied to a chair and they shouldn't be overmedicated. There should

be proper areas for these people where they can roam in a safe environment and

that there are staff there to make sure they don't hurt themselves and they

don't hurt other patients.

Again,

these are our people that we're talking about. They're our family members.

What's being urged here is to ensure that in these facilities that we have the

appropriate staff complements at all times to take care of our seniors who find

themselves in this position, Mr. Speaker. I will continue to bring this forward

on behalf of people who are concerned about this very serious issue.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Just to

respond to the Member opposite's issues, staffing in long-term care is done on

an individualized basis. It's done to a personalized care plan. So they are

staffed for need, not for numbers. The results of that care plan show that we

provide, on average, 3.4 hours of nursing care per day. That doesn't include

recreational therapy. It doesn't include music therapy, group activities and

those kind of things.

The

Member opposite mentions specifically about food. From my own experience in

Lakeside Homes in Gander, the food in actually fact is served in relays. It

comes up, it's staggered at half-hour intervals with the units being notified of

which units are going to get in what order, and this occupies an hour-and-a-half

to two-hour block to allow staff to feed patients who are unable to do that for

themselves in turn.

We have

a core staffing review to check that we are meeting and exceeding national

standards, and that's being done jointly with the RNU. So we are on it, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate being back in the House, and welcome everyone back to the House. We

have a robust session ahead of us and I hope to have the co-operation of

everyone in this hon. House to do the people's business.

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Service, for

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Medical Care And

Hospital Insurance Act, Bill 20, and further move that this said bill be now

read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. Minister of Health shall now have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Medical Care And Hospital Insurance Act, Bill 20, 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 Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, “An

Act To Amend The Medical Care And Hospital Insurance Act,” carried. (Bill 20)

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Medical Care And Hospital Insurance Act. (Bill 20)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall it be read a second time?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 20 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Service NL, for leave to introduce a bill,

An Act To

Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 21, and I further move that the said bill be

now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. minister shall now have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 21, and that the bill now be read a first

time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The

Highway Traffic Act,” carried. (Bill 21)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Highway Traffic Act. (Bill 21)

MR. SPEAKER:

The bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 21 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 2,

second reading of Bill 19.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the hon. Government House Leader, that we now debate Bill 19.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 19, entitled,

An Act To Amend The Cannabis Control Act, be now read a

second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Cannabis Control Act.” (Bill 19)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the amendment to the Cannabis

Control Act that I'm going to talk about today is very straightforward. It's

an amendment to enact a change that the cannabis retailers have asked for and

one that we're pleased to deliver.

Mr.

Speaker, the Cannabis Control Act was

first introduced just over a year ago. We knew at the time that the industry and

the legislation itself would perhaps require periodic changes. It was a brand

new industry. We expected some changes; in fact, I said that we anticipated some

road bumps.

I'm

pleased to say that there have been very few road bumps. In comparison across

the country, Mr. Speaker, in the area of cannabis retail and distribution, the

legalization of cannabis, other provinces from across the country have actually

sought advice from this province. We seem to have gotten it right or as right as

you could get it for the largest policy change that our province has seen in a

number of decades.

Mr.

Speaker, when you look at this brand new industry and the fact that much of it

was unknown, in terms of sales volumes demand and a number of other issues, we

anticipated that progression and sort of a learn as you go with this. I am very

pleased to say and very proud of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor

Corporation for how they've handled the legalization and the retail sale and

distribution of cannabis products. This amendment is a progression as we move

forward.

As the

legislation stands currently, retailers are required to report the returns and

gross profit information to the NLC within the first 10 days of the month for

the previous month. This has proved to be somewhat onerous. Retailers have asked

for an extension.

Mr.

Speaker, for example, if retail outlets were to report for the month of March,

they would have had to report by April 10 at the latest in order to meet that

requirement. We're making changes because that was onerous. We've heard from

cannabis retailers and from the NLC that this requirement needed to be changed

and we are delighted to change it.

Today,

we are changing the rule and extending the filing period for returns and gross

profit remittances by an additional 10 days. For example, retailers who are

reporting for the month of March will now have until April 20 as opposed to

April 10 to report on their sales and profits for March month.

Mr.

Speaker, the NLC has indicated that this will not result in any operational

issues for them, so we are happy to change the reporting time frame for our

retailers. We've heard from both retailers and the community and we are

committed to be responsive to the industry as we learn more about it, while also

stewarding an industry where safety is first and foremost. Today's amendment is

one small change, Mr. Speaker, but it proves that we are willing to be

responsive to the industry as these needs arise. We're very pleased to be able

to help the industry in the way that we are helping them.

Mr.

Speaker, as the first year of legalized recreational cannabis came to a close,

we had a positive discussion with the retailers about the challenges they faced

and the opportunities that they saw in the industry. Out of those consultations,

we announced changes to the commission rate for tier-one cannabis retailers, a

change that supported the additional financial cost of operating the tier ones.

They were more expensive to set up at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, and if we were

to see the tier ones have an opportunity to survive, those changes were

necessary.

Rather

than the previous 8 per cent commission at all levels, the rates that began on

January 1 of 2020 include 12 per cent commission for the first $1 million in

sales per calendar year, 10 per cent commission on sales between $1 million and

$1.5 million and then it would revert to the 8 per cent for anything above $1.5

million in retail sales.

Mr.

Speaker, again, this is responsive to the needs of the industry. It was part of

the learning within the first year of legalization of cannabis products, and

we've stated since the outset that we would evaluate the industry and that we

might need to introduce changes such as the one that we're introducing today.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a fairly administrative change but it's an important one. I

think that the retailers in the province would benefit from this, very pleased

to be making this change today and I look forward to debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

indeed an honour, as we're back in this sitting of the House now, to speak to

the first piece of legislation that we will debate here in the House of

Assembly. I suspect, unless there are some major issues this afternoon, that we

will probably move to the next level of adoption.

Mr.

Speaker, we're talking about Bill 19,

An Act to Amend the Cannabis Control Act.

As we know, the last 18 months there has been a lot of discussion, a lot of

issues around the legalization of cannabis and the reporting process, the

financial implications, the process from an administration point of view that

needs to be put in play. I'm glad that the minister had said that they had heard

from the industry because we have had, on this side, conversations with people

in the industry, particularly the providers, the sellers – particularly the

private ones – who were having some challenges in the mechanism when it came to

the administrative process that they needed in play.

Anybody

who have been in business would know, when you do your reporting and you pay

your remittances and all the other responsibilities you have, there's a certain

period of time that you need to put that in play because you have all the other

administrative things, all the other operational things that are important that

you have to, first, make as a priority.

We all

realize that the reporting process, particularly for profits, is a financial

benefit to the province, and that has to be reported in a timely fashion. There

has to be a happy medium to be able to make that work so it's not a burden,

financially, on these individual companies, and a lot of them, particularly the

private, independent ones, are mom-and-pop operations. So they need to be

treated in a way where they can still administratively do it properly and not be

under a time frame that either makes it that it's not being reported properly,

not because of any untoward concept but because the time frames means they still

have to operate their businesses.

The

administrative change here, while it might seem small in changing a number, I

think it's very beneficial to the businesses. I think it might set the trend for

other things we do in other sectors in our society, taking some of the burden

off to ensure they have a timely fashion to be able to report all the revenues

or any other issues around expenditures or operations that would be necessary

for us to operate provincially in the best manner for policing. I say that in

the sense of an administrative responsibility that we would have as government,

but also that there's isn't an extended burden on the individuals.

Mr.

Speaker, we will be supporting this. We hope that this does take some of the

administrative burden off the individual companies that are responsible for it,

but also that it puts it in play so that we do have the best reporting process

possible to ensure everybody are following all the regulations that have been

outlined.

We're

looking forward to passing this as our first piece of legislation and then

moving on to some more substantive things in the House of Assembly.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to rise in support of this amendment. The

Cannabis Control Act was an interesting piece of legislation. It

broke ground in many ways because it actually addressed what is something that I

think is becoming a more increasing issue, which is safe drug supply for people

who have maybe some issues with substance use.

I think

in the first instance this was, if you like, the low-hanging fruit because

marijuana/cannabis was generally regarded as used in a recreational sense. It

was provided through the illicit market and wasn't necessarily regarded in any

great way as a gateway drug. The biggest gateway drug is still, paradoxically,

alcohol, which is far less regulated and far more widely available – a subject

we will be addressing with our forthcoming alcohol action plan in some respects.

So this

speaks to the idea of a regulated industry, quality control, and people

essentially knowing what they're buying. This has actually opened a Pandora's

box further down the road, because now people – particularly the kind of user

communities like you see in VANDU in British Columbia – are now making the same

argument for what are traditionally regarded as prescription opioids or

controlled drugs from different ways.

They are

doing it in a very persuasive way. There is a ground swell of opinion. There's

evidence from Europe. There are podcasts popping up everywhere from people with

some very good communication skills and doing very good advocacy work in that

regard. Really, I think in a sense, they are dragging the debate at a speed that

maybe the medical administration, the medical establishment, and certainly some

areas of the political establishment are really not that happy about going. So

the Cannabis Control Act kind of set

the stage for that.

One of

the issues around it was that this was done in advance of federal legislation so

we would be prepared and, as the Minister of Finance has mentioned, we were

ahead of the curve in this regard. We were used as an area of expertise, really,

even though at the time we crafted the legislation and the act had not yet been

proclaimed because of the federal changes that needed to allow that to happen.

One of

the understandings we had, though, was that this would be like a lot of

legislation – and I think fondly of the

Highway Traffic Act , which is always being revised. If you ever want to look

at an example of a living statute, that's one that seems to be exuberant in its

growth from month to month and session to session, but it would need to be

revised.

One of

the things we heard very clearly was from individuals who had companies, the

suppliers, that the reporting requirements were challenging. So the logic behind

this was to try and address a new industry that we were trying to grow – if you

like that analogy – and to help them with lightening their regulatory

requirements or at least putting in something that was a reasonable compromise.

Again,

doing what we've done before, we scouted around and said: where is that

precedent we can use for this? Within the Department of Finance, the other piece

of legislation analogous to this that the department has relates to alcohol. The

requirements for alcohol are that the reports have to be submitted within 20

days of the end of the period for which those reports apply.

The

cannabis ones, I think from an abundance of caution – a little bit of maybe

trying to look as though we were not being too lax for those people who felt

that was an issue – had been set at 10 days. Even in this age of electronics,

electronic stock monitoring, SKUs, bar code readers and all this kind of thing,

it's been difficult for the suppliers to meet that 10-day deadline. This is a

simple change, but despite it being simple, with it being enshrined in the

substance of the act, it requires a visit to the floor of the House to have a

discussion and to beat it out to make sure due diligence is done.

You can

see on these occasions why sometimes much of the criticism occasionally of some

Members of this House, items like this are put in the act which is a framework

and then regulations are published and altered within that act under the

authority of Lieutenant-Governor in Council. There's always a debate in there

that the usual suspects will get up and tell you that we have delegated the

authority of the House to a select group of Ministers of the Crown to alter and

change as they see fit, but really I would argue that this is a perfect example

of why the current trends in drafting have evolved the way they are.

Legislative time is at a premium and we find ourselves in this situation of

debating a change of one digit in the House because that's all this is. Whilst I

fully support this, and I would encourage the Members opposite to do the same, I

think it is an opportunity to reflect – for us on this side of the House and for

the critics who will meet these bills when they come – that there is a role for

framework legislation and there is a role for regulations under those to be done

in a more nimble and flexible timeline. There is always a debate to be had as to

where that grey area starts and ends, and I wouldn't want to curtail that in

terms of principle, but at some point there's a reasonable person test that has

to apply to this.

again, not to beat this to death for one digit, seven minutes and counting, I

would suggest that this House support the change of 10 days to 20 days.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

like to point out that this is an excellent first step in levelling the playing

field between big business and small, especially when it comes to cannabis

retail.

Certainly, we have seen a disproportionate advantage given to large business,

especially retailers who have been able to have access to funds, the legal, the

accounting and a variety of other expertise that have allowed them to bid on

contracts, to be able to establish retail stores, to be able to have their

returns in on time. In fact, we've also seen big businesses and numbered

companies getting breaks on the part of government.

So,

certainly, it's nice to be able to see small businesses given a little bit of a

break, because as we know, small business owners are the people who do all of

the jobs in their retail outlet. They are the accountants, they are the comms,

they are the front-line staff and they are the store clerks. They do all of that

work, so affording them an extra amount of time to be able to complete that work

is a fine first step.

We do

also need to recognize that small retailers are the heart of business. When we

give opportunities to large businesses, a large share – in fact, a

disproportionate share – of the revenues they glean move outside of our

province. If we want to ensure that we have a healthy province, keeping more

small businesses in business, helping them retain those profits and to circulate

them in our province will result in a healthier economy for all. So the things

that we can do to help enable these individuals to thrive in their community are

absolutely paramount.

I would

encourage the minister to look into helping these individuals gain access to

greater variety and more timely delivery of products. Certainly, I've heard

numerous small retailers say they have had difficulty accessing product and they

often do not get the variety that they require. So that's another piece that,

perhaps, we could debate.

should also look at the difficulty associated with cannabis retailers being able

to access bank accounts. Some retailers are going to be unfairly disadvantaged

because that is their only way of managing their money, and if they can't

operate a bank account, if they can't have a bank account, and they have to have

a safe one, that's a safety concern. They are opened up to all manner of

criminal activity. The other is that they can't access loans and they can't

access a whole pile of services, financial services that would help them run

their business.

So while

this is a very good first step and I support it, I think we also need to look

further into modifying this legislation to help retain small businesses and help

them thrive in our economy.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, it's a mouthful I know.

I'm very

happy to stand here today to talk about the

Cannabis Control Act , Bill 19. My hon.

colleagues in the House of Assembly, I agree with much of what they said. The

Leader of the Third Party, talking about small business, I can't agree more as

the minister of business; I couldn't agree more that we want to try to open up

opportunities for them. Anytime you can improve the ability for reporting and

improve that ability for them to take a little bit longer to do that is a good

thing.

I like

what the Minister of Finance had to say with listening to businesses, which is

important. When they reach back about opportunities and how we can make their

life a little bit easier, we should try to always do that and I'm happy we were

able to do that in this case. Extending the reporting deadline by twice as much

as it was before is impactful, even if it is from 10 days to 20 days, it's still

an important piece that allows them to have a little bit more leniency with

respect to that and allows them to not impact their business as much.

Anytime

we have that opportunity, we should always take advantage of that, from the

business perspective, from my department, but it also gives us the opportunity

to assess and look at opportunities to improve.

We've

always said, as the Minister of Finance said, when we brought in this

legislation in the beginning was it's going to be an opportunity for us to –

it's a new industry, never been done before, legally, of course, it's never been

done before, but what we're trying to do is make it safe for the people of the

province, which is important, but also providing those business opportunities

for growth.

Creating

an industry is important; we've done that, not only from the production side but

now the small business side, which is good. There are many of these retailers

out there that we want to try to support as much as we possibly can.

From

that standpoint, anytime we have the ability to grant them a little bit of a

reprieve, I think we should. Listening to them, in consultation with the

stakeholders that are involved, that just goes to show that when people reach

out and communicate with us we're going to be willing to listen to them and try

our best to fix those little concerns that people do have from time to time.

We're not always going to agree on everything, but in this case it was a great

opportunity for us to take that step further to make that small business a

little bit more – make it a little bit easier for them to provide what they do

in this marketplace.

They are

backbone of the Newfoundland economy for sure, employing thousands and thousands

and thousands of Newfoundlanders each and every day. Every opportunity we can to

try to support them, even in the littlest way, is a benefit to them.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my hon. colleagues for their support of

this slight change to the legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I won't

be speaking long to Bill 19, but as always, I like to have a few words on every

bill, so at least for the purposes of

Hansard , if nothing else, everybody knows where I stood on any particular

issue, so today will be no different.

Mr.

Speaker, I will say that I, too, support this particular bill. As has been said

by others, I think small business is certainly the engine that drives our

economy here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Anything that we can do in this House

of Assembly to support small business, to reduce red tape, to make things easier

for them so that they can succeed, I really think that that's important and

that's something we should be doing.

Obviously, again, as has been said, this is a new industry. I think that, as the

Minister of Finance said, he anticipated more bumps in the road than we've

actually had. That's a good thing. Obviously, the legislation that was brought

in by this administration and debated and passed by all Members of this House of

Assembly, obviously, I'm going to say – dare I say – we did a good job on that

and it's worked out rather well.

Will

there be issues that will arise from time to time that will require us to go

back into the House and make adjustments and so on? I'm sure there will be. If

that's required, then, obviously, we have a responsibility to listen to those

that are driving our economy and to assist in any way we can, while, obviously,

balancing the needs of the population as a whole.

So the

only other point I will make, I did listen to the Minister of Health and

Community Services. I do agree, in this particular case, that perhaps this is

something that could have been dealt with in regulation because it's a minor

change, and then it coul