PDF Version (Day)

PDF Version (Night)

December 3, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 24

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

The Government House

Leaders are ready?

Admit

strangers.

Order,

please!

In the

public galleries today, I would like to welcome students from Memorial

University's political science 2800 class: Introduction to Canadian politics and

government.

Also in

the public gallery, I would like to recognize Mr. Kieran O'Connell from The

Gathering Place. He has joined us this afternoon for a Member's statement.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we have Members'

statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Lewisporte - Twillingate,

Exploits, Labrador West, St. John's East - Quidi Vidi and Harbour Main.

The hon.

Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.

MR. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

November 22 I had the distinct honour to join with past and present firefighters

and special guests for the opening of the new Lewisporte regional fire station.

This year also marks the 70th anniversary of fire protection services for the

residents of Lewisporte.

Hundreds

of visitors also came out during the open house to tour this magnificent

facility. The new station is equipped with three double and two single bays,

bunker cleaning and dry room, vehicle exhaust system, compressor room, storage

areas and meeting space to accommodate the training programs that Lewisporte

Fire Rescue takes such pride in offering to its members to safeguard our

community.

I'd also

like to thank the local business community who also showed their support by

contributing over $30,000 to help purchase furniture and equipment, including a

new talking Sparky mascot donated by the local Shriners Club to promote fire

prevention and education.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating Lewisporte regional Fire Rescue on the

opening of their new modern fire station and to thank the dedicated firefighters

for 70 years of continuing service and devotion to duty.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

MR. FORSEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize a youth in my district, Rebecca Brent of Botwood, age 10.

Rebecca participated in a recipe contest for Kids Food Nation sponsored by the

Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada, President's Choice Children's Charity, Public

Health Agency of Canada, YTV and Corus Entertainment.

The

contest asked the young chefs to submit original, healthy recipes that

highlighted their culture and Canadian pride. Rebecca's recipe was named the

Nor-Easter Salad, which included crisp iceberg lettuce, topped with cherry

tomatoes, mozzarella cheese, breaded cod fish sticks, complemented with a

homemade tartar dressing.

November 10, Rebecca was among 26 young chefs, ages 7 to 12, and their families

representing every province and two territories that came together at the Omni

King Edward Hotel in Toronto to celebrate healthy eating and healthy lifestyles.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to congratulate Rebecca

Brent on her win with the Kids Food Nation recipe contest.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today

I'm proud to stand and recognize the Alvin Parrill hockey tournament. This is

the 16th year for the tournament, which is held in Labrador West in early

November.

The

tournament honours Alvin Parrill, a dedicated volunteer and hockey coach who

sadly lost his battle with cancer in 2013. Alvin was best known for his love of

hockey and coaching local teams. Players and volunteers loved to be around him,

and they still look up to him today.

It takes

a large group of hard-working volunteers to make such a tournament happen every

year, and they all do it with Alvin's spirit and the players in mind. It's a

weekend where our communities in Labrador West and Quebec come together in the

spirit of friendly competition.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in thanking Alvin Parrill and his family, along with

all of the volunteers and players who have contributed to the continued success

of this tournament every year after year.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Gathering Place was established in 1994 by the Sisters of Mercy and the

Presentation Sisters in response to the needs of those seeking food.

The

Gathering Place welcomes people aged 26 and older. The programs and services of

The Gathering Place are offered primarily to people who are homeless or who live

in less than desirable housing conditions and people who are in need of kindness

and compassion.

Over the

last 25 years, The Gathering Place has provided a caring and nurturing

environment with services that now include three hot meals served Monday to

Friday and a brunch on Saturday and Sunday. As well, they have a medical clinic,

a dental clinic, clothing boutique, laundry facilities, a computer lab, arts and

crafts room, a writing room, garden, music room and much needed community and

social spaces.

Their

programs and services are operated by volunteers who give their time so that

more vulnerable folks in our community will have consistent access to these

programs.

I would

ask the hon. Members to join me in celebrating The Gathering Place for bringing

warmth and kindness to those in need, and I would also encourage all hon.

Members and their staff to volunteer with this crucially important and special

community centre.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I stand

today to recognize a unique volunteer organization which exists in many

communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm speaking of 50-plus groups

and specifically about several vibrant organizations that operate in my District

of Harbour Main.

I am

fortunate to have within the Harbour Main district, four separate 50-plus groups

based in the communities of Clarke's Beach, Makinsons, Marysvale and Holyrood,

which together enhance the lives of hundreds of our seniors in our area.

These

organizations are led by many community-minded and dedicated volunteers who

provide seniors with a variety of activities in which to participate, like

exercise programs, fun and games, friendship and fellowship, meals, musical

entertainment and outings from their home communities. These groups and the

volunteers who support them provide an opportunity for seniors to leave their

homes and socialize.

As the

Christmas season approaches, these special groups play a vital role in making

our aging loved ones live fuller and brighter lives during a time which, for

some seniors, is a lonely time of the year.

I ask

all hon. Members to join with me and acknowledge the great work of the

volunteers who make these 50-plus clubs such a great success.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to acknowledge two of our talented writers from this province

who were recently recognized on the national stage.

Megan

Gail Coles, for her novel, Small Game

Hunting at the Local Coward Gun Club ; and Michael Crummey, for his novel,

The Innocents , were both shortlisted

for the most coveted literary award in Canada, the 2019 Scotiabank Giller Prize.

Mr.

Speaker, this prestigious award acknowledges the very best in Canadian fiction

and brings recognition to Canadian authors and literature both at home and

abroad.

The

shortlist for the Giller Prize is a remarkable achievement and an opportunity to

celebrate the successes of these and other homegrown writers. To be two of only

six finalists shortlisted from 117 submissions speaks to the incredible

creativity and literary talent in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, through our Cultural Action Plan and investment programs, we are very

proud to be a part of raising and advancing the profile of Newfoundland and

Labrador authors and artists in our country, and around the world.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Megan Gail Coles

and Michael Crummey for their shortlist selection for the 2019 Giller Prize.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement.

Mr.

Speaker, we are fortunate in this province to have a number of talented authors

and literary artists. On behalf of the Official Opposition, I offer my

congratulations to Megan Gail Coles and Michael Crummey. It is truly fantastic

to see these talented individuals recognized for their recent novels and

shortlisted for the 2019 Scotiabank Giller Prize.

Megan

Gail Coles is an accomplished artist and novelist. She is the co-founder and the

artistic director of Poverty Cove Theatre Company and has been a writer in

residence at the St. John's Arts and Culture Centre. She has been awarded the

Rhonda Payne Theatre Award.

Michael

Crummey is also an accomplished writer and poet. His accolades are too many to

list, but I would include winning the Gregory J. Power Poetry contest and being

awarded the Bronwen Wallace Memorial Award and the Thomas Head Raddall Award.

Mr.

Speaker, these two artists are a testament to the talent within the province,

and I wish them both the best of luck in the future, and I look forward to

reading their novels.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I join

the hon. Members in congratulating the outstanding local writers, Megan Gail

Coles and Michael Crummey, for their Giller Prize shortlist recognition.

The NL

arts community has fought for years for additional funding, yet this is another

example of the high quality of material produced by our talented writers and

artists in this province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in

this hon. House to announce more than $200,000 in scholarships for 201 recent

high school graduates as part of the provincial scholarship program. The program

recognizes high school graduates throughout Newfoundland and Labrador for their

hard work, dedication and academic achievements.

The

Junior Jubilee Scholarship, valued at $2,500, is awarded to the student with the

highest overall marks in the province. This year's recipient is Elliott

Morrison, a graduate of Waterford Valley High School.

The

Constable W. C. Moss Scholarship, valued at $1,000, is awarded to the son or

daughter of a member of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or the Royal

Canadian Mounted Police with the highest marks overall, other than the Junior

Jubilee Scholarship. This year's recipient is Lauren Bill, a graduate of Mount

Pearl Senior High School.

Mr.

Speaker, 120 high school graduates, three high school graduates in each

electoral district, were awarded with an Electoral District Scholarship and 79

students have been awarded the Centenary of Responsible Government Scholarship,

each scholarship valued at $1,000. A complete list of provincial scholarship

winners is available online.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the 201 high school

graduates receiving scholarships and to wish them every success in their future.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

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

Mr.

Speaker, my colleagues in caucus would like to join the minister in

congratulating the 201 high school graduates on receiving provincial

scholarships. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of

all students in the province who put their best effort forward each and every

day.

Mr.

Speaker, all young men and women should be proud of their individual

accomplishments. This is no doubt the culmination of hard work, dedication and

academic achievement with the support of family.

We must

never forget the importance of home in an individual's scholastic success. As a

former teacher and administrator myself, I can personally attest to the many

efforts of students and families who strive for individual personal excellence,

but may fall short of scholarship criteria. Their efforts are no less

significant.

Mr.

Speaker, I am particularly proud of winners from our own district, in Bonavista:

Brooke Holloway, Leah Peddle, Madison Hayley, Allison Butler and Ben Callahan.

Congratulations!

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 thank

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

congratulating 201 high school graduates who are awarded scholarships as part of

the provincial scholarship program.

I, too,

like my colleague to the left, certainly see the value of scholarships. While

they're not only valuable to those pursing post-secondary education, they also

send a very clear message about the value of education and academic excellence.

Most importantly, scholarships are a recognition of a student's hard work and

dedication. This is an important program and we commend the minister in

maintaining it.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Mitchelmore Report was not tabled before Question Period.

I ask

the Premier: Did he order the minister to hire Ms. Foote at The Rooms, yes or

no?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

No, I did not.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

The minister, now, himself: Did the Premier or any of his staff order him to

hire Ms. Foote at The Rooms, yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I did not order Minister Mitchelmore to hire Ms. Foote, and none of

my staff were a part of this process.

What I

will say, though, is that we look at Carla Foote, someone with over 20 years'

experience, doing work in the private sector. She's worked with me as the leader

of the Opposition. She's worked in the Communications branch with government,

and comes with a considerable amount of experience.

There

was no question that I think many people who would have watched the relationship

between The Rooms and within government, and I can tell you that given the

decision that was made by the minister, that Carla Foote had a great reputation

and was well suited to do the job that she was asked to do, and the job that she

took at The Rooms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the question was intended for the Minister of AESL.

Did the

Premier or any of his staff order him to hire Ms. Foote at The Rooms?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I can listen to

the heckling across of where we are, but I want to say this: I've known this

minister a long time. I've had the option of working with him as a minister for

four years; we worked together in Opposition, Mr. Speaker. He has worked

extremely hard. He's been very meticulous, always prepared, came ready to

meetings and always had valued input, I would say.

What

we're talking about here today is a movement of executives or people – or a

movement of people around government, Mr. Speaker. That happens for a reason. It

is good for succession planning; it is good for professional development.

Mr.

Speaker, we've seen the report. There are areas of concern that we need to

address. The minister has already said that he will apologize for this and I've

already said publicly now that we will do a review of the movement of executives

around government. It is necessary, it's been around for decades and it needs a

review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

We'll pass on from the silent

minister and instead ask – there is an obvious conflict between the facts in the

report from the Citizens' Representative and the Premier's comments yesterday.

The report says that the Premier offered Carla Foote the position of executive

director of marketing with The Rooms.

I ask

the Premier: Who's telling the truth?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, when you look at

the report – and I saw this yesterday, had been doing some reading. As many

people in this province would know, we were very late getting in from premiers'

meetings last night.

Mr.

Speaker, what we're saying here is what would be a non-contradicted opinion and

one that was contradicted. When you look at the evidence that's in the review

there, there is nothing in the evidence that's given to the key findings to

suggest that I was involved in that at all. I wasn't involved in that at all.

I've never met with that board.

Mr.

Speaker, what that was, it was basically based on comments that came from a

phone call that was passed on to the chair of The Rooms. I was not involved in

this, but I will say that Ms. Foote is highly qualified to do this job. What I

do understand, based on what we've been seeing, is that the relationship is much

improved over the last year. This is what we want to see at The Rooms. We will

do a review of movement of executives around government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

This minister, Mr. Speaker,

was found to have grossly violated his obligations in the Code of Conduct.

I ask

the Premier: Will he fire this minister from Cabinet?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, right now – what

I've said we would do is we would do a review, an independent review, of moving

people around in government. The minister, as I said, has been doing a very good

job.

There's

no question we see where there are issues that have been identified here. The

report and the findings suggest that and say that.

Mr.

Speaker, the minister has already said he's willing to apologize. I will tell

you now – and I think the Leader of the Opposition would agree – if it wasn't

for a surname of Foote, or someone that would have worked with me, we would not

be having this discussion today.

There

were three changes that were made in in The Rooms, Mr. Speaker – three changes.

There were extra board members that were put in place and there were two

executive directors that were put in place. Mr. Speaker, no one is discussing

these three changes that have been made, and the environment at The Rooms is

improving.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I'm hearing the Premier say

that a minister who has been found by competent authority to be guilty of gross

mismanagement is doing a very good job.

I would

ask him: He swiftly dumped several former ministers; why is the current Minister

of AESL, who is guilty of grosser violations, being held to a lower ethical

standard?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, what we're

seeing here is based on transparency and accountability that we're seeing within

government, whistle-blower legislation in 2007 that was recommended by Green,

which came into force I think it was some seven, eight years later. So we're

seeing now a greater degree and a spotlight that has shun on decisions –

rightfully so, Mr. Speaker. We put in place the Independent Appointments

Commission. Once again, it opened it up to people in this province.

What we

need to do now is take a review of how we move people around government, Mr.

Speaker. That's important, because we know that there's competition right now,

very difficult to get people to come into government to go to work.

This is

not about Carla Foote, Mr. Speaker. This is about how we move people along the

Executive in government. It's a decades-old approach and it needs a review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, last fall in the House of Assembly, we asked numerous questions about

the gross mismanagement. On October 29 in response to one of our questions, the

minister said: “This is an executive director-level position at an executive

salary that was approved by the board ….” We now know that is this factually

incorrect.

Does the

minister now wish to correct the record?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I think if you

read the report – and it is a lengthy report, very detailed – you will see that

there were five allegations that have been in that report. Two of which there

are some issues with and there was a recommendation about where that would go,

to our resolution.

Mr.

Speaker, the minister has already said that he's willing to apologize and will

be apologizing for what we find there. This is nothing new. This is nothing new

that we've seen in this House of Assembly. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I

would say that if we just peel back the politics on all this, the very person

that's asking this question have had to stand and apologize himself. He knew

this was an obvious spot for us to go.

What I'm

asking for, Mr. Speaker, is let us do the review of how we move people around

within government. We need to take a look at that, how we improve processes in

the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

December 5, also in response to our questions, the minister replied: “… what I

can say is that the appropriate hiring practices were followed ….” And went on

to say: “What the Members opposite have been doing, they have been playing

politics with this particular matter ….” Again, Mr. Speaker, this has been

proven to be incorrect by two Officers of this House.

Again,

does the minister now wish to correct the record?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I will answer

this again because when you look at one of the submissions – and not many people

are actually taking a very detailed look at this – is that the clerk at the

Cabinet Secretariat, matter of fact, had some input into this process that's

been around for quite some time. I would suggest that Members of the prior

administration would be very aware of the way this works.

There

was no question, as I just said many times now, that through the findings that

we have in this report, there are lessons that we could learn. There is no

question about that. The minister, based on where we go with this resolution,

has offered an apology there, Mr. Speaker. What we do need, however, when you

look at what the clerk of the Cabinet Secretariat has said – and I understand

there were some opportunities for briefings to actually go through this process.

It's decades old; it needs to be reviewed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, the Citizens'

Representative concluded that the employment of Carla Foote at The Rooms did not

comply with the Public Service Commission

Act . This legislation charges the commission with the responsibility to

protect the merit principle. Its main purpose is to ensure fairness in the

hiring process.

I ask

the minister: How could he stand by and watch the appointment of Ms. Foote at

The Rooms while it grossly violated the principles of hiring within the public

service?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, when you look at

how you move people around government – and that could happen for any number of

reasons, but in this particular case here, from what I understand about the

report and what the report says, it's simply because this was a contract that

was put in place; therefore, that was actually not something that would fall

under that piece of legislation. That's what I gathered from that, Mr. Speaker.

Then

there was the question about it being open-ended. Mr. Speaker, when you look at

it, if you take a person from one position within government, you move them into

another position, the benefits that would go with that person stays, normally,

with that person. This has been something that's been ongoing historically

around government for quite some time, and I think the clerk would have actually

shared this information with those that would have seen some briefings earlier

today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, on the

department's website, it states that: “Fairness means decisions are made

objectively, free from bias, patronage or nepotism.”

I ask

the minister: How could this province's public service have confidence that the

hiring process will be conducted free from political interference in light of

this report?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, for those that

would've followed and been following The Rooms and the relationship that it had

with government, it wasn't where we needed it to be. This is a crown jewel that

we have within our province. The Rooms does a fantastic job. It's a big

attraction for our province.

Mr.

Speaker, on that day there were two executive directors that were put in place.

Neither one of those had a competition that was attached to that. There was a

contract with Carla Foote to go over to The Rooms. She's well-qualified to do

this job, had the experience to go over under the contract to do the job that

she was asked to do.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the second contract has been put in place, or the second

employee has been put in place as an executive director over there, and I

understand that things are improving at The Rooms right now, which is exactly

what we wanted to do when this process had started.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, the clerk of the

Executive Council made a submission to the Citizens' Representative defending

the actions of the minister, actions that were found to violate hiring practices

within government by the Citizens' Representative, an independent Officer of

this House.

I ask

the Premier: Did he or his staff order the clerk of the Executive Council to

make this submission?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I did read that

submission, and when I look at – not defending the actions – there were certain

areas there that she actually highlighted what – but if I remember correctly,

that she actually identified where there were some exceptions of what happened.

The

clerk of the Executive Council right now, the top bureaucrat that we have in our

province, Mr. Speaker, what they were highlighting was is that this is a process

that has been around for quite some time. The review by the Citizens'

Representative identified a couple of areas there that, Mr. Speaker, based on

the allegations that were brought forth – two out of the five – where the

minister has already offered publicly to actually apologize once we get to this

stage.

But more

importantly, now, Mr. Speaker, what we need to do is make sure that how we move

people around government is actually we do a review, best practices, see how

other provinces, other jurisdictions are doing this. It hasn't been done for

many decades in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, the clerk of the

Executive Council – as the Premier has pointed out – is this province's top

public servant, which is supposed to be a non-partisan position with significant

responsibility to uphold the integrity of the public service.

The

clerk's submission to the Citizens' Representative defends the gross

mismanagement of the minister. The Citizens' Representative disagreed with the

clerk and in commenting even said he was perplexed. Obviously, the clerk of the

Executive Council's ability to be non-partisan has been compromised.

I ask

the Premier: How are you going to deal with this?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, where the

differences of opinion were would have been around some of the things around the

public service act and all that, and how we're going to deal with it.

How

we're going to deal with it is we'll get somebody who is independent of all of

this, that will look at jurisdictions, other provinces and see where best

practices are, Mr. Speaker, and how we got to where we are today. Mr. Speaker,

we want to make these changes.

remember back in 2016, when we brought in the Independent Appointments

Commission there were many people, nearly 600 people right now who have gone

through that process and are now playing active roles on decisions that are made

on our boards, commissions and agencies. Mr. Speaker, many of them are women

that would never have had the opportunity, based on the actions and the

experiences that people in this province would have had with the prior

administrations.

Mr.

Speaker, we have changed it with appointments,

and we'll now change it as we move people around government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, on

June 15, 2018, the former deputy minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and

Innovation, his assistant, called The Rooms instructing the former CEO's

assistant to delete an email sent earlier that day. The email contained a letter

rescinding an unnamed person's contract in order to accommodate Ms. Foote.

I ask

the minister: Is instructing government employees to destroy evidence a common

practice in his department or government?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, by reading the

report there, I think what you're seeing is transitory records. That's my

understanding of this. And, no, if you're not directing people that would lead

into, I guess, the process as it leads to a decision.

I think

if you look at the report there, it explains why the deputy minister – or

whoever was making those calls at the time – would have talked about transitory

records. I think the report itself spells out where that all ended up with the

deputy minister and those who were involved at The Rooms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to speak on this issue.

Who

directed the deputy minister's assistant to call Mr. Brinton's assistant,

instructing her to delete emails?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, what we're

talking about here are the transitory records that would have been – I guess the

emails that would have been going back and forth at the time. What I understand

by reading that report – and it's all there. It's outlined.

certainly wasn't making calls to the executive assistant or the deputy minister

in talking about how records are moved back and forth or how it works. What I do

know is that transitory records, access to information – I will say this, Mr.

Speaker, that this government has more information out to the people of this

province than any other government. I can assure you of that by many, many

times.

The

facts – and, Mr. Speaker, I hear Members opposite laughing and smiling at this.

I really do, which is really too bad that's happened, because right now I see

Members opposite here that are looking at me and shaking their heads. These are

the very authors of Bill 29 just a few years ago that led us to make sure we're

more open as a government.

Look at

the records. We are sharing more information, more (inaudible) than any time in

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

We need to move to the next

question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, I can

assure you we're not smiling over here. When interviewed, the former deputy

minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation said: You knew this was

going to get ATIPPed so I would like to have my records neat and tidy, final

versions lined up.

Mr.

Speaker, we know what happens when important details and findings are purged,

like we witnessed in the Goss Gilroy expat survey report.

I ask

the minister: Is he aware of other examples in his department where evidence has

been destroyed?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, what we were

reviewing here, as I said, transitory records and how, when it comes to access

to information, this stuff gets in the hands of the public – and it should, as I

just said. As a government, we are putting in – I think in my office alone it's

2½ times more information that we've seen in the history of any government.

We are

putting that information out there for the public purview. It's the way it

should be, Mr. Speaker. We'll continue to make sure and look for opportunities

and the way we share information with the public. That is why today we'll be

putting in place – we'll start the process to put in place an independent review

of actually how we move people around government. It's important that we're able

to do that for succession planning, for professional development and how we

attract people to the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Premier, he already has his

independent review. He had the IAC. Bill 1 for this government in 2016 was the

IAC, taking the politics out of paving. This is all smoke and mirrors, Mr.

Speaker, and everyone in the public knows this too.

Mr.

Speaker, the chair of the board at The Rooms told the former deputy minister of

TCII that the hiring of Ms. Foote would be a bad idea and it would have negative

repercussions for The Rooms.

I ask

the minister: Does the deputy minister routinely ignore advice from the board

chairs? Is this common practice in this government?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to

speak to the IAC because that was a bit of the

preamble that just came out from

the Member that asked this question. Is he suggesting right now that nearly 600

people that's gone through the appointments, through IAC, that they are not

happy with the way this is happening? Is he now thinking that the former Chief

Justice of this province was involved in politics and patronage?

Not a

chance, Mr. Speaker, that was not the case. The IAC has done some tremendous

work. It's a game changer in how we see appointments. In the past, I don't need

to remind people in this province what we seen when we saw Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing being used as basically a political post and that you can move

back and inside government.

Mr.

Speaker, that was happening on a regular basis. That is part of our history. We

have changed that and we'll continue to make changes that reflect where we need

to be at this point in time in our history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

going to tell the Premier his actions need to match his words, and we're not

seeing that. The province is not seeing it and we're not seeing it in this

House.

Mr.

Speaker, it has come to our attention that this former deputy minister was

actually the former campaign manager for the Government House Leader.

I ask

the minister: Is this why he was given the job of deputy minister?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, once again, when

the Member gets up and asks the questions about the IAC and he said put your

actions where your mouth is, we have put our actions where our mouth is. Some

600 people that are now in place on boards, commissions and agencies, as a

matter of fact, having a significant impact on the finances of this province,

people now that have the wherewithal.

Mr.

Speaker, we have done this at C-NLOPB. We're seeing it at many of the major

boards in our province. It is effective. It's putting people in place that never

ever thought they had the opportunity to serve for the people of this province.

They're doing it on a volunteer basis, Mr. Speaker, on many occasions. The work

of the IAC, I'll put the actions where my mouth is, Mr. Speaker, just ask those

600 people who are volunteering their time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They do

a great job in trying to deflect; that's the nature of this government. I'm not

talking about the IAC, I'm talking about the very serious issue that the public

are concerned about. We'll continue to ask questions on that.

Mr.

Speaker, it appears that the assistant to the former deputy minister in the

Department of TCII was ordered to destroy government records on his behalf.

I ask

the minister: Will this deputy minister be fired?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, the deputy

minister right now, who is now in Natural Resources, at the time was in TCII,

was engaged in basically communications. If you just read the report, cut the

politics out of this, Mr. Speaker, just read the report and the findings that

report will speak for itself.

Mr.

Speaker, transitory records – for those who would have sat in government, as we

get down to the final decisions, there was no deliberate attempt here to be

hiding key information from the people of the province, Mr. Speaker, not at all.

We've had the review, we've had the evidence, we've had the findings and now we

have the recommendations. We'll come to this floor with a resolution, and the

minister has already said that he will apologize for the allegations under 1 and

3, of all five that are there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, it's bewildering

how the Premier keeps saying he will apologize and then he says he did nothing

wrong. I'd like to know what he's apologizing for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, given a

marketing expert with 25 years' experience was kicked to the curb to make room

for Carla Foote and she's now being paid $50,000 more, will the minister now do

the honourable thing and put this position out to a full and fair competition?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Foote has

been hired and doing a good job, from what I understand, at The Rooms right now.

As I said, this is really part of three things that were done, three changes

that were made at The Rooms.

One was

to add some additional people to the board, Mr. Speaker. That was done; we're

seeing improvements there. Secondly was to put in an executive director that

would be responsible for museums and galleries, and I think that if you speak to

people that are working there, that position is working out.

The

other position would have been that as the executive director of marketing and

development. From all accounts and the feedback that we're getting – she's there

on a contract, Mr. Speaker – doing a very good job. The relationship, I know,

between government and with The Rooms has improved, and we want to continue to

make improvements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the

Premier's 2015 mandate letter to the minister formerly responsible for The

Rooms, the minister is instructed to, and I quote, “… without fail, act with

integrity in all aspects of our service” to the public, end quote.

I ask

the Premier: Will he immediately remove the minister from Cabinet for his gross

mismanagement of his duties and for failing to meet the standard the Premier

personally set for him?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, as I've

mentioned earlier in Question Period here, Minister Mitchelmore, who has been

the focus, of course, in Question Period and this report, has been an extremely

hard worker. He came into government, he brought a unique skill set –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I will say that

the Member for Bay of Islands, when he was a Member of our Cabinet, was an

extremely hard worker and a valued Member of this government as well. I will say

that and I think he knows that.

Mr.

Speaker, the minister that we're referring to here today has worked very hard.

He's always been prepared, he brings a lot of value to the Cabinet table, to our

whole caucus, and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So right

now I think what we're looking at here is basically decades, decades of how we

move people around. Mr. Speaker, he just becomes the poster person for what has

been many decisions made by many (inaudible).

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.

I ask

the Premier: What happened in the Executive Council workplace that prompted this

rushed, off-protocol, mismanaged staffing action by your minister that saw Ms.

Foote moved into a position she was not qualified for and which was already

filled?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, well, I take

exception to the fact of the qualifications. Twenty years' experience, was part

of the communications on Cougar 491, that process. That was some of the work

that she had done. She was actually, when you look at the lead, the number one

person when you look at communications, in charge of communications for all of

government. Lots of employees that would've worked under her.

As a

matter of fact, I know this will get a chuckle out of some people,

The Way Forward , which is about growth

and sustainability for Newfoundland and Labrador, she was a very active player

and a key player in working through all of that, too. So I take exception to the

fact that we look at Ms. Foote and her credentials, her qualifications, that is

not the case.

I will

say, however, Mr. Speaker, that on that day that wasn't the only decision that

we were making. We're having this discussion today simply because of who she is

and the fact that she worked with me, which is extremely unfair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Yesterday the Premier said he

had nothing to do with hiring of Ms. Foote, but the

Mitchelmore Report tabled yesterday

says otherwise.

I ask

the Premier: Why is he letting one of his ministers take the fall for a hiring

that he initiated?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, here we go

again. When you look at some of the politics that are in this, when you look at

all those that provided evidence in the findings of that report, there is one

section in there which happens to be contradicted when you look at it. This came

as a hearsay or third party comment.

Mr.

Speaker, I've never met with that board. There was no direction given to me to

hire Ms. Foote. But I will say having Ms. Foote there has been an improvement.

The Rooms and the relationship with government is much improved, based on the

changes that we've made.

Mr.

Speaker, when you look at the résumé of Ms. Foote, she is qualified for this

position, doing a good job, and she's there on contract trying to improve the

relationship between government and The Rooms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, a quick calculation shows that the placement of Ms. Foote at The Rooms

increased costs there by $80,000 a year.

I ask

the minister responsible for Income Support: How many extra bus passes would

this buy every year for people who most need it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, when you look at

the organization chart and some of the changes that were reflected there, my

understanding is there were three positions that would've been there, now

they're using two. Where the overall budget impact would be on this, we can find

out that information, but it's my understanding it's been insignificant the

impact on their budget there at The Rooms.

What I

do know is where the impact is, however, is that we're seeing a good operation.

The relationship between government and The Rooms has improved, Mr. Speaker. Ms.

Foote is there on contract, and I know the second director that's in place was

one that the board was asking for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, through his

gross mismanagement, has damaged the reputation of the public service,

undermined the board and former CEO of The Rooms and mismanaged taxpayers'

money.

I ask

the Premier: Will he remove the minister from Cabinet and order him to pay the

extra cost related to this inappropriate hiring?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, what we will do

is a review of the practices we've seen that are available to us, and across

other provinces. I will tell you, if you look at where the clerk of the Cabinet

Secretariat was, when you look at the impression that was given there or the

detail – when you look at the report that was given by the clerk of the

Executive Council, she's saying there in that report that this process –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

– is something that's been around for many, many decades.

Yes,

there are things the minister will be apologizing for on the work and his

involvement in that, but, Mr. Speaker, overall I will tell you this is a process

that has been around government for many, many, many years. That is the reason

why it's appropriate that we do a review of best practices amongst

jurisdictions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant

to Standing Order 11(1), I hereby give notice that this House not adjourn at

5:30 on Thursday, December 5, 2019.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I give notice, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works,

that I will on tomorrow move the following motion:

WHEREAS

the Commissioner for Legislative Standards recommended in the

Mitchelmore Report , dated November 13, 2019, that this hon. House

should reprimand the Member for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows in accordance

with paragraph 39(

a) of the House of

Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act ; and

WHEREAS

the practice in this hon. House in dealing with recommendations under paragraph

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS

the practice in this hon. House in dealing with recommendations under paragraph

39(

a) of the act requires Members to apologize to this Assembly.

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly concurs in the

recommendations of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards and asks that the

Member for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows stand in his place and apologize to

this Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to

Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Yesterday, in Question Period, the Member for Stephenville -Port au Port asked a

question about the number of ophthalmologists in the province performing

cataract surgery.

The

answer, Mr. Speaker, is 13. There are three in his region alone. If he requires

a further breakdown by region, I'd be happy to supply it.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further answers to questions

for which notice has been given?

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker,

the Adult Dental Program coverage for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Prescription Drug Program under the Access and 65Plus plans were eliminated in

Budget 2016.

Therefore we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the

undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the Adult Dental Program to cover

seniors, low-income individuals and families to better ensure oral health,

quality of life and dignity.

Mr.

Speaker, low-income families and low-income individuals, particularly seniors,

are struggling with the cost of living and struggling to meet some of their

basic needs. Many seniors and low-income individuals and families can no longer

access basic dental care and those same individuals can now no longer access

dentures, leading to other digestive and medical issues.

Mr.

Speaker, it's with a heavy heart that I stand here today and, once again,

present this petition; especially, considering the information that was brought

forward in the report yesterday. We've had explanation to this petition on

several occasions prior to this on the basis that we are in a time of fiscal

duress and there is just not enough money to go around.

Well,

Mr. Speaker, I just took some quick math myself, similar to that of my colleague

for St. John's Centre. On the average of $250 per dental visit, that's almost an

additional 400 individuals who could be covered annually for a dental visit with

what is being paid in excess to the position we are most often discussing here

today with Ms. Foote at The Rooms.

Why is

it that this administration can continue to find money for issues like that, yet

our seniors who are struggling, our low-income people who are struggling –

largely burdened by the 300 extra taxes and fees which are still mostly in place

– compromise their ability to access basic needs such as dental care.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

petition is as follows:

WHEREAS

there are no current operations at the Bull Arm Fabrication site; and

WHEREAS

the site is a world-class facility with the potential to rejuvenate the local

economy; and

WHEREAS

residents of the area are troubled with the lack of local employment in today's

economy; and

WHEREAS

the operation of this facility would encourage employment for the area and

create economic spinoffs for local businesses; and

WHEREAS

the site is an asset of the province, built to benefit the province, and a

long-term tenant for this site would attract gainful business opportunities; and

WHEREAS

the continued idling of this site is not in the best interest of our province;

THEREFORE we, the residents of the area near the Bull Arm Fabrication site,

petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:

We, the

undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to expedite the process to get the Bull Arm

Fabrication site back in operation. We request that this process include a

vision for a long-term, viable plan that is beneficial to all residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Furthermore, we request that government place an emphasis on all supply,

maintenance, fabrication and offshore workover for existing offshore platforms,

as well as new construction of any future platforms, be they GBS or FPSO in

nature.

This

petition is presented by a group that has formed in the isthmus side of my

region, Mr. Speaker, including towns like Sunnyside, Come By Chance, Arnold's

Cove, Swift Current and Clarenville, which is my colleague's territory. It

encompasses everybody in that area and it gives them an opportunity to live in

the province that they know and love.

This

being International Day of Persons with Disabilities, it's nice to be able to

acknowledge that and know that these people are tradespeople as well and they

would be able to get gainful employment in the Bull Arm fabrication site as well

and not have to, like others, leave the province to have gainful employment.

So it's

something that I have presented before. It's something that we're very

interested in making sure that this site is a world-class site again. If it

takes implementation of putting in the gates, then I think it's something that

the government should consider and get this site back up and running. Because,

obviously, it's a sunken asset and if we bring it back to a world-class

facility, all the province will benefit from it, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

MS. COADY:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Sorry; for a response to the

petition, the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

support the call for continued efforts to ensure the Bull Arm site is as busy as

it possibly can be. I'm very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that there is work in the

Bull Arm site right now with the redevelopment and work on a rig. We're hopeful

for more rigs because we want the rigs to stay in the province, Mr. Speaker, to

do more exploration work.

I have

met with the councils in the area. They have formed a committee, as they have in

previous years. We work very diligently together to try and continue to market

the Bull Arm site. It is a world-class site. It is our intent, as people of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, not just the government, as people of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to continue to drive employment benefits

and opportunities for the people of the province.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

MR. FORSEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Residents of the Exploit's District have a great concern from the result of the

24-hour emergency service cut to the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre in

Botwood. All residents feel that the 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. service does not

adequately and efficiently address the emergency requirements of the district,

affecting both patients and residents, to receive adequate care when needed.

We, the

undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to restore the 24-hour emergency service to the Dr.

Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre immediately.

Mr.

Speaker, this is still an ongoing issue, especially in the outlying area of the

district. I know last week when I asked the minister, he replied about a

20-minute drive from Botwood to the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Centre.

You don't tell that to the people in Leading Tickles. You don't tell that to the

people in Fortune Harbour. It's an hour and a half drive, on the best of days,

Mr. Speaker.

Anyway,

from October 2018 to October 2019, 7,833 people used the emergency department at

the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health Care Centre. At the same period of time, another

additional 4,620 people used the emergency service from the Exploits District at

the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Centre in Grand Falls-Windsor. This is

creating added stress on the system, Mr. Speaker, because we could have it in

one area. That's a total of 12,453 people requiring emergency service in the

Exploits District in one year.

When I

asked the question in Question Period a couple of weeks ago, the minister came

back and said they were going to revisit the Health Care Centre at the Dr. Hugh

Twomey – revisit. The people there wonder what happened to the word “reinstate”

that was used by the Premier six months ago, changed to “revisit” now, only six

months later. People really want to know that. What changed in that period of

time?

Mr.

Speaker, the minister also alluded to the fact that the people used the

emergency service in the Grand Falls-Windsor area when they do their grocery

shopping. I spoke of a lady who lost her hand with a saw axe a couple of weeks

ago. I'm sure that lady wasn't going to go shopping on her way to the emergency

service. I'm sure she wasn't.

So, Mr.

Speaker, the minister also alluded to the fact that after 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. there

are only two people per week that use the ER service. That could be right,

because it's not open anyway. So I don't know where that's coming from.

Anyway,

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Exploits District are really concerned with this

issue, and they'd like to have the emergency services reinstated right away.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

petition considers the illegal development by Lakeside at Thorburn Resort.

Reasons

for the petition – and this petition is as much out of frustration, as anything

else:

The park

has been undertaking illegal developments without government's permission,

despite government orders for the last several years.

The park

has been expanding and developing Crown land at Thorburn Lake since 2014, and

collecting monies from this illegal expansion. Official notices have not halted

these activities.

The park

constructed a road into the lake in the summer of 2018 connecting to one of the

two small islands, which for decades has been a nesting ground for loons, a

protected species which return each year to Thorburn Lake. This road destroyed a

nesting ground, leaving a pair of loons in a frenzy trying to find their young.

A recent

development is a floating cabin located across from this illegal road and

further incursions on Crown land.

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to: Place fines on Lakeside at Thorburn

Resort for the continued destruction of the natural environment and other

illegal activities, including the destruction of nesting ground of loons, an

endangered species; the disturbance of a body of water; and commercial

development and collection of monies from illegal development.

Set in

place a deadline for the restoration of all illegal developments to their

original state and impose further fines if this deadline is not met.

As I

noted at the beginning, this petition is as much out of frustration as anything

else. The people, some of who live around the lake year-round, have watched this

and have complained over several years about the development, with little effect

it would seem. For the people who live there, many of who have cabins and have

developed their property under the proper protocol and procedure, this is about

process. It's about protection of the environment.

It's

easy to see. If you want to look at the government's own Land Use Atlas and look

at a Google map of 2009, you can see the development that has taken place there,

on land that the gentleman is currently applying for permission to use from the

government. In this case, many of the residents are wondering who's minding the

shop, who's regulating it, who's monitoring.

We have

several examples of this in other areas, whether it's Ragged Beach, Manuels

River, development next to the Salmonier Nature Park with the exploration. What

people are looking for here is some measure of protection for the environment

and that a person cannot be rogue and cannot then decide to develop at will.

They are looking for a remedy to this, and it's quite clear they want this

development stopped and, more importantly, the development to be restored.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, the Blue Beach

Harbour Authority wharf and infrastructure is located at Blue Beach near Black

Duck Brook. The road to Blue Beach includes 10 kilometres of unpaved and

unmaintained roadway. The road to Blue Beach is used by more than 20

fisherpersons and their buyers to transport nearly $3 million in product each

year. As well, farmers and tourists use this road to access their farms and to

enjoy the breathtaking scenery of Long Point.

THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows:

We, the

undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to consider repairing, upgrading and maintaining the

10 kilometres of unpaved road to Blue Beach in the District of Stephenville -

Port au Port.

Mr.

Speaker, as I said in the petition, this road is used on a daily basis from

spring to fall by more than 20 fishermen who rely on this road to move their

product in and out, to move their equipment in and out, by tourists who travel

back and forth over that road and by farmers who go back and forth, again,

looking at their fields.

Mr.

Speaker, the cost of this road – we're not asking for the road to be paved,

we're simply asking for it to be maintained; a few loads of fill and a grader a

couple of more times a year. It's done once now. We'd like to see it done three

times a year. I can assure you that will cost far less than the $50,000 extra

paid to Carla Foote.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. 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 with

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 left 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 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've presented this now numerous times over the last year or so on

behalf of the group Advocates for Senior Citizens' Rights. Primarily, the

signatures today are from the Lab City-Wabush area. As was said in the prayer of

the petition and as I've said many times, really what this is about, this is

about our mothers, our fathers, our grandmothers, our grandfathers and maybe one

of these days us, people with dementia, Alzheimer's, other types of diseases

that are in long-term care and require certain levels of care.

What

many, many people throughout the province have indicated through this – there's

a Facebook group and there are many stories here of people who have gone into

long-term care facilities and found their loved ones there and perhaps show up

at dinnertime and breakfast is still on table. It was brought in to them but

they weren't able to feed themselves; or someone left in bed for a long period

of time, someone lying in their own waste, somebody strapped into a chair or

perhaps overmedicated on antipsychotic medication as a means to take care of

them because they don't have the staff in these day rooms and so on to take care

of them.

That's

what it comes down to, and they want to ensure that as we have long-term care

facilities, we have appropriate staffing to care for their loved one. That's all

they're asking for, and a guarantee that there would be certain ratios.

If I

were to open up a daycare centre tomorrow, the government would insist that I

have certain ratios of staff for children. So what makes our parents and our

grandparents any less important to ensure they have appropriate staff to take

care of them? That's what they're asking for, and I will continue to present

these petitions on their behalf.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 4,

Bill 12.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources, that Bill 12, An

Act To Amend The Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments Act, be now read a second

time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that a bill,

An Act To Amend The Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments Act,

Bill 12, be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments

Act.” (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand

now to speak to Bill 12, which is

An Act to Amend the Enforcement of Canadian

Judgments Act. The bill itself is not a huge bill and it's not really a

substantive change, but there is an interesting back story to this piece of

legislation, one that admittedly does not affect perhaps the majority of

citizens of this province, but to those people who are practicing law, to those

people who are in the process of obtaining judgments throughout this country,

this is an important piece of legislation. Perhaps I'm more proud of the –

rather than the legislation itself – just the process by which it's come back

here to the House of Assembly.

I'll

give a bit of history on this piece of legislation, which if you were to

simplify it, this is just a bill that will allow money or other financial

judgments from other Canadian provinces and territories to be registered here in

our Supreme Court and then enforced the same as if the registration had been

done here in the first place. Quite frankly, it's a way that if somebody were to

go to court, takes an action against someone and gets an order or a judgment for

financial compensation, this can now be used all over the country in a much more

simplified fashion than what's been done for the last number of years.

This is

not something that's unique to this province. In fact, many other provinces have

already gone down this route. There is a process by which this can be done right

now, but it is a bit of a convoluted and non-simple process. The steps we are

taking today with this bill and, more importantly, the proclamation, hopefully

in a very short period of time, will make the work shorter and will hopefully,

actually, mean money back in people's pockets instead of putting them into legal

bills.

This

bill first came around in this House back in May 2000, the

Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act . I can't remember what the

name of the minister of Justice was at that time. It's hard to remember. I hope

he was doing a decent job. What I can say, in the 19 years since that time, for

whatever reason – I know this is a question that might come up – since that time

the bill was never proclaimed.

Again,

I've spoken to people in the department; I've spoken to people with some

institutional knowledge, and there's no idea why in the years after that, under

various administrations, that this bill never came to proclamation. Again, it's

not a contentious piece of legislation. It's not something you see a whole lot

of commentary about.

What I

can say is in the last couple of years in this role, I've had an opportunity to

speak to multiple functions and individuals, especially in the legal community,

and one of the things I say to them is if there's ever anything we can do

legislatively that will be for the betterment of their profession, other

professions, citizens, the people they represent, then we're happy to listen.

We're happy to try it.

I'll

give a shout-out now to a gentleman named Joe Thorne. Joe happens to be a lawyer

at Stewart McKelvey here in St. John's. Joe happened one day – I think it might

have been a Canadian Bar Association function. Joe came up and we had a

conversation about the Enforcement of

Canadian Judgments Act . The reality is it's not something I was aware of,

not something I had dealt with. I had never used it when I was practising. It's

not something I was familiar with, but it's certainly something that Joe and

other lawyers that are handling these types of matters were.

brought up the issues and we had a great discussion about it. I can say that was

the catalyst for this bill coming back into the department, conversations

happening and it, ultimately, coming here to the floor of the House and

hopefully soon we'll have unanimous support and then will go on to be effective.

A couple

of things to point out, since that time that conversation happened, is we've

taken the old bill – and there have been some small changes to the one that was

done almost two decades ago. This act is based on a model from what's called the

Uniform Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act which is developed by

the Uniform Law Conference of Canada.

Now,

Uniform Law Conference of Canada, ULCC, is not something many people are

familiar with. It's a fairly big national organization made up of jurists, of

lawyers, of legislators from across the country and their goal is to look at

pieces of legislation that can be uniformly applied across this great nation.

Again,

this is one of those examples of a bill – the fact that it's being used

elsewhere shows how good it is. It's not just a Newfoundland and Labrador issue,

it's a Canadian issue and one that affects numerous jurisdictions.

This is

a bill that these individuals have dealt with and this is a pretty substantive

group, a pretty huge membership. In fact, St. John's, just recently in August,

hosted their national convention. We saw a huge influx of people. It was great

for our province, for the first time in years, to be able to host this esteemed

group.

Again,

their job is to help develop legislation. They then recommend it for passage by

the different jurisdictions and it provides some uniformity. Uniformity not

being a bad thing.

I go

back to the fact that this statute itself, we're about to implement it now. BC,

Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the

Yukon have already adopted and proclaimed this uniform statute.

Now,

during this time there have been other means to deal with matters. We also had a

Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act

which allowed us to deal with other reciprocating jurisdictions to allow for

money judgments to be registered and enforced. Again, the same problem existed;

one that we're remedying with this passage today.

We're

simplifying a process from what was convoluted where you had to reach out to the

jurisdiction from which the judgment originated, had to get a copy from that

jurisdiction. You had to go through a pretty difficult process. One that

eventually ended up into a lot of time and energy being invested in what should

be a simple matter.

People

were spending more money to enforce a judgment they had already obtained. This

process now will be completely simplified and will just allow for one piece of

information and documentation to be supplied to the Supreme Court and then it

will allow for the registration. Then ultimately, hopefully, the enforcement of

that judgment from wherever it comes from.

Just a

few notes here. Again, a big shout-out to the staff within the department who

not only do the work necessary here, not only do they consult with the ULCC, but

they also, from my knowledge, provided briefings on this matter to my

colleagues, both on government side and in the Opposition.

This is

not a bill for which – as I've said, there's not a lot of familiarity with this

bill. It's a bit complex at times, and just the process by which it happens.

It's not something – as I said, I practiced in this and never had many dealings.

I don't think most of my colleagues did either. So I thank the individuals in

JPS for doing the work and providing the briefings to my colleagues, to allow

for what's, hopefully, a better debate today.

The big

benefit of this today is a simplified registration process. That's, point-blank,

the biggest plus that comes out of this today.

Another

thing, a change and an addition to what was done previously, is it will allow

for a registration of a tribunal order. So, for instance, if the Human Rights

Commission from Ontario allows for a judgment for an individual and that ends up

transferring to Newfoundland and Labrador, we now have the means here to do that

more simpler and in a more timely fashion and, hopefully, in a more efficient

manner than has been done in the past.

Again,

what we're doing is simplifying a mechanism. To be honest, Mr. Speaker, there's

not a whole lot else to say about this process. It takes something that had been

contemplated and done before. As I've said, if the question does arise: Why was

it not proclaimed? I simply have no answer for that.

It's

literally the first question I asked myself: Well, if this had been done, why

was it never proclaimed? I don't know why. I don't think there was any huge

reason here. It might have been one that for some reason back at the time – and

when you look at the corporate knowledge or institutional knowledge, there are

not many people still within the department from that long ago that would have

had some dealings with this.

In many

cases, there are good reasons why something would not be proclaimed right away,

whether it's a timing issue, whether it's to allow for the drafting of

regulations, there are a whole number of reasons. In this case, we're not quite

aware.

What I

can say is, thankfully, due to the intervention of Mr. Joe Throne, a solicitor

down with Stewart McKelvey, he brought it to us and from there we end up here on

the floor of the House today, hopefully, with a piece of legislation that will

make life simpler for the people that need it, that are using this piece of

legislation.

On that

note, I will take my seat. I look forward to the comments by my colleagues

across the way. Then if there are questions, we'll have a chat during the

Committee stage of this process.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

When I

review the legislation, I agree with the Minister of Justice and Public Safety,

it's certainly not contentious. It is about simplifying legislation. I would

almost characterize it as a remedial measure or tactic.

The bill

might be described as correcting a long-standing oversight. It involves certain

judgment enforcements, and it's called the

Judgment Enforcement Act . It's a Newfoundland and Labrador law that applies

within our province. Every Canadian jurisdiction has such a law enforcing

judgments made within their own jurisdiction.

That law

is not the actual subject of this bill. The bill is more about the enforcement

in this province of judgments that are made outside our province. So, again, I

think for the purpose of clarification it's helpful to understand what's

happening here. We need to look a little at the history.

A little

over 19 years ago, our House passed the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act.

That was in May of 2000. In the two decades since then, that act, as the

minister has correctly stated, has never been proclaimed. The Department of

Justice and Public Safety, as the minister pointed out, really cannot explain or

give a reason why it was not proclaimed. One conceivable reason is that it is

possible to achieve the principle goals of that act through other legislation

that was already on the books.

Certainly, we can speculate as to why this did not occur, but we do know that

one reason, in addition to the reason that the principle goals of the act can be

achieved through other legislation. The other route is more cumbersome and

costly, but we know that it did work, more or less, and it's been the only

option for 19 years, despite the alternative being on the books ready to

proclaim.

So,

again, we're not really clear or sure about why and what the reason is behind

this lack of having it proclaimed. The department recently became aware, as the

minister has stated, of the status of the unproclaimed act. So they looked into

it, realized it ought to be proclaimed because it will improve the process of

enforcing judgments made in other Canadian jurisdictions. So that's a good

thing. The gap or the inefficiency was noted, and now it's being addressed.

They

also realized, Mr. Speaker, that after 19 years the act needed a little

modernization. That modernization would occur before it could be proclaimed. So

that's why it appears to me that they drafted Bill 12 to update certain

provisions of the act. Once Bill 12 is passed to amend the act, then it's our

understanding that the department will intend to proclaim the act.

What

other route has the government been using for the past 19 years? One might be

curious about that. The minister referenced it in general. He did mention that

there is a piece of legislation called the

Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act and that it applies, but we need to

understand a little bit more about that. That it applies not only to Canadian

jurisdictions, but also to other countries such as the UK, Australia and the

States.

About 30

years ago, just looking back at the background and the history, the Supreme

Court of Canada ruled on the case Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye.

According to review of that judgment, in essence, the court held that the

standard for enforcing a default judgment from a different province is not the

same as if it were from another country. What that really means, in other words,

while differences between countries might be significant, the difference between

provinces and territories within Canada are not all that great.

When you

review the judgment, you will see that it stated that: “The courts in one

province should give 'full faith and credit'….” In other words what that means,

to recognize “judgments given by a court in another province or territory, so

long as that court has properly, or appropriately, exercised jurisdiction in the

action.”

Basically, what that means is that the Supreme Court was recommending in 1990

that a new piece of legislation be introduced in Canada: the

Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act . So that goes back – we have

the Supreme Court kind of suggesting that to us, so that we can apply among

Canadian jurisdictions, instead of the

Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act which would still be used, though,

when we're enforcing judgments of a jurisdiction outside Canada. So that still

will be in place for that purpose.

The new

process is really being applied to what it should be applied to. The new process

is going to be simpler and more expeditious. For 19 years, Mr. Speaker, we have

had this Supreme Court recommended Canadian law on the books, ready to go but

not proclaimed. It would have provided for a better process for enforcing

Canadian judgments across Canadian jurisdictions.

There's

a little bit more here to this piece that we need to understand. This Canadian

law also has another benefit and the minister referenced that with respect to

the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act ,

which is this act. It can also be used – another purpose – to enforce tribunal

orders. For example, orders of a human rights commission or a labour relations

board – tribunals – maybe the Residential Tenancies Board or its equivalent, but

this is not the case for the Reciprocal

Enforcement of Judgments Act . So be aware that this legislation is used for

only certain kinds of judgments. We need to understand that it's not used to

enforce support orders. The legislation to be used in those cases is still the

same: the Support Orders Enforcement Act,

2006 .

I think

it helps to provide examples to fully understand the application of the law.

This legislation would be used, for example, if a person abandons a car in

another province and the loan on that car is not paid off. The company owed the

money may seek an order for the amount of the loan in excess of the repossession

value of the car. The car owner may have left, say, the province to return to

Newfoundland and Labrador. The company, though, may wish to have the order

enforced against the person in Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, what will happen

is this act will now allow that to occur.

The

Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act

would also allow that to happen, but the

Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act will work much better. It's simpler;

it's more effective, expeditious. Hence, that's what we have here today.

Most

other provinces, as the minister had mentioned, have a law on the books that is

essentially the same as the Enforcement of

Canadian Judgments Act . The provinces that don't – Ontario, Alberta and

Quebec – may, from my understanding, be in the process of putting such a law on

the books.

The new

law's application to tribunal orders, Mr. Speaker, is seen as an added benefit

of having this law. It may not be seen, perhaps, as beneficial by people who

have tribunal orders against them, but what's important here is that people have

to own up to their responsibilities and liabilities within Canada when orders

are made against them.

Having

said this, there's also a provision in the unproclaimed act – and this bill does

not affect it – that could limit the enforcement of a registered judgment. That

section is

section 7.

essence, what that

section means, Mr. Speaker, is that Newfoundland and Labrador

would still retain the power not to enforce a judgment against a person in

circumstances; for example, where the judgment is contrary to public policy in

the province. So there's still that opportunity or that caveat there for the

province to not enforce a judgment if it's deemed in the public interest.

The

province, Mr. Speaker, retains the power to set its own laws and policies and to

determine how they apply to people within our province. That's seen as a good

thing and that is included in

section 7 of the law. In general, this is a law

that makes it easier to ensure people own up to their responsibilities and don't

run away from their obligations.

Mr.

Speaker, with respect to this legislation, I can say that as the minister had

indicated, it is not a contentious piece of legislation. Like the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety, I, too, did not have any occasion to deal with the

legislation that was on the books and was not familiar with this legislation,

especially given my predominant practice of criminal law. I never really had

opportunity to be exposed to the legislation.

However,

I would stand and say that I support this legislation; I think the intent of it

is to be applauded. I think anything that supports simplifying and also is

consistent with being expeditious in the handling of matters, I certainly

support. Those are basically the reasons that this is a good piece of

legislation and we will certainly support it.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands – before the Member begins his comments, I just want to say

the noise level in the House is too high. I ask Members to keep the noise down

so I can hear the Member who is speaking.

With

that, I'm going to recognize the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

going to speak very long at all, only a couple of seconds. I just want to say –

MR. P. DINN:

You always say that.

MR. LANE:

I know. The Member for

Topsail - Paradise said that's what you always say, and then 20 minutes later

we're there saying: get down out of it, will you, b'y. Anyway, I actually mean

it this time.

Anyway,

I just wanted to say for the record that I will be supporting Bill 12,

An Act To

Amend The Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments Act.

This

here, I'm certainly no lawyer, don't pretend to understand all the legalese, but

one thing I do understand and believe in, which is the foundation of law in a

civilized society, is that it's important – what's the expression? Justice

delayed is justice denied, I believe is the terminology.

So,

basically, this piece of legislation is making it simpler, quicker and so on

that if there were judgments made in other provinces that it can be enforced

here in this province. By making this amendment, as I understand it, it makes

the process simpler and swifter and to deal with the matter in a more

expeditious manner.

That

obviously is good from a taxpayer point of view in terms of time being tied up

in courts and so on, the quicker we can get through this. Also, if someone has

received a judgment that's enforced in a faster timeline, which is really what

we are trying to achieve here.

So with

that said, I support it. Good bill, Mr. Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

If the minister speaks now,

he will close the debate.

The hon.

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I think that was the biggest

round of applause the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS:

– ever got for his brevity.

On that

note, I will follow suit. I'll say I appreciate the comments from the Members

opposite on this fairly non-contentious bill and we can move forward to the

Committee stage, hopefully.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is that Bill 12,

An Act To Amend The Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments

Act, now be read a second time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments Act. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

second time.

When

shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?

MR. CROCKER:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments Act,”

read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House

presently, by leave. (Bill 12)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that this House now resolve itself

into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 12.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to consider the said bill.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those in favour, 'aye.'

Carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Bennett):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 12,

An Act To Amend The Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments

Act.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments Act.” (Bill 12)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

Seeing

no questions, all those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clauses 2 through 7

inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall clauses 2 through 7

inclusive carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clauses 2 through 7 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as

follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The

Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments Act.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report Bill 12

without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. CROCKER:

I move that the Committee

rise and report Bill 12.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 12 carried without amendment.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.

MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker,

the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have

directed me to report Bill 12 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of the Whole

reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have

directed him to report Bill 12 without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the bill be read a third time?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I call Order 3,

second reading of Bill 11.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that Bill 11,

An Act

To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009, be now read a second time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. A. PARSONS:

Can you ask the heckling to

settle down a bit, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 11,

an act entitled,

An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009, be now

read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009.” (Bill

11)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very

happy –

AN HON. MEMBER:

You have four hours.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Wow, I've been given

significant leeway to discuss this bill and I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

discussing today the Public Trustee Act,

2009 . Again, it's an opportunity to discuss an entity, an individual and, in

this case, a piece of legislation that's not widely known among Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, but one that does have a significant impact on those that do

use the office.

What

I'll try my best to do is prior to discussing the changes here – which are not

significant in terms of size, but I do think it's a positive move for the Office

of the Public Trustee. I just want to talk a little bit more about the Public

Trustee. This office basically administers the estates of deceased persons,

mentally disabled persons, children and missing persons.

For

instance, in many cases people are very familiar with the concept of drafting

their will, and in many cases people understand – that's the example I'm

primarily familiar with and one that I'll use. One would also understand that

you have an executor, you have beneficiaries, but in many cases for various

reasons, whether a person does not have a will, whether the executor is unable

to act or unwilling to act, in many cases we are left with nobody to administer

the act. There are cases where it happens innocently. There are also cases where

there can be contentious issues amongst the family and the matter is best

administered by the Office of the Public Trustee.

They are

responsible and their duties include: the protection of financial assets; the

administration of estates; performing the role of a Trustee acting as a

custodian of property, acting as a guardian of estates, acting as a guardian in

an action in court regarding the estate for a minor. They're basically a last

resort where there is no one else willing or able to handle these matters.

The

office itself, which I think is over in the Viking Building, currently as about

11 staff. There are estates officers, there's a financial officer, there's a

clerk and there's the Public Trustee themselves, which is Mr. John Goodland.

Now,

what I can say is that I've had some opportunity in the past to deal with this

office. The work that they do is amazing – again, you don't realize, it's not

something you deal with and then when you get a chance to talk to them and dig

in, you realize the work that they are doing and the positive benefit and impact

that they have on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. In many cases, where you

have a minor who may be involved in a matter where they are not able to handle

this estate or handle this matter on their own, obviously, due to their age and

falling under the age of majority, the Trustee steps in and, in many cases,

makes money for these estates.

I've

seen cases where they handle estates for individuals and make money. A lot of

people would not realize that the Public Trustee is actually contributing to the

Treasury of this province. For every file that they take, there's a percentage

of that estate that goes to the Public Trustee for their work, somewhere between

5 per cent and 7 per cent. So the Public Trustee, that is an entity, a body that

is contributing to the bottom line of this province every single day.

One of

the things that I've stressed in my roughly four years working in this office

is: What can we do to assist the Office of the Public Trustee in expanding and

doing more? I have to tell you, I really give them credit, they've taken this

opportunity – they've done a significant amount of work. Mr. Goodland and his

staff, the work that they do –people don't realize it until they're involved,

but it's pretty impressive. Again, they have a mandate to handle the files that

they have but to take in as many files as they can handle.

Right

now it would be interesting to note, they have roughly 949 files active or

pursuing right now. Whether it's the guardianship of the finance of a person

with a disability. There are eight matters that involve the

Adult Protection Act , Enduring

Powers of Attorney Act , administration of a deceased person's estates act –

that's the one, primarily, I have an idea of what they do every day; continuous

trust; guardianship of the finances of a minor.

There

are currently 300 of those files ongoing right now where they're entitled to

receive a monetary sum, usually coming from some kind of court-awarded damages.

You might have somebody involved in a personal injury and they're awarded a sum

of money. The Trustee makes sure that that money is there when they reach the

age of majority. It's used for their well-being and protected for them so that

when they reach the age of majority, they will be receiving something.

The

Life Insurance Act , there are files,

guardianship of finances of a minor in the continuous custody of a manager, the

Trustee Act ,

Survival of Actions Act , there's guardian ad litem – there's a whole

number of these files that are ongoing at any point.

What

I'll do is I'll step now into what is the purpose of this piece of legislation,

of this bill that we're bringing forward, that will amend the

Public Trustee Act, 2009 . I have just four points listed here. This

bill will clarify that any orders issued by the court, pursuant to paragraph

4(2)(k) – so paragraph 4(2)(

k) is the relevant part of that bill that we keep

coming back to and those are the ones where you can order that their services be

rendered – be limited to Trustee duties, financial and property matters.

Secondly, “provide that a judge shall not appoint the public trustee unless the

public trustee is given an opportunity to make representation regarding the

appointment or the public trustee consents to the appointment; provide that the

public trustee is not required to act or to accept an appointment by reason only

of being empowered or authorized to do so; and allow the public trustee to apply

to court to rescind or vary the terms of an appointment where the public trustee

has not been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations regarding

the appointment or where the public trustee has not consented to the

appointment.”

You can

see where this has come from. In many cases, the Public Trustee's office sits

there and they are sent an order from the court for which they literally have

had no idea about its existence until it shows up on their doorstep. They have

had no input; they had no idea of the facts involved. Up to this point they've

taken those files, but in many cases they are forced to go to court in order to

get away from the files for which they are not equipped to handle, they're not

mandated to handle or they're not supposed to handle. I don't want to say that

they don't have the ability to handle, that would seem insulting, but it's

beyond the scope of what they want to handle.

I would

point out that this comes here today on the request of the Public Trustee. This

is not something where we proactively said this is something we're going to do,

this is where we've encouraged entities to come forward. We're always looking

forward to legislative change that will improve legislation or processes. The

Public Trustee came forward and said you think about it, these matters go to

court, the courts make an order – and it's not casting any blame on judges

either; they're only following the legislation that's there. But there's an

order granted for which it may fall outside the scope – and this has happened in

the past – of what the Public Trustee is supposed to do.

The

Public Trustee is supposed to look after the financial well-being of its

clients. There have been matters in the past where matters and orders have gone

to them that they end up having to get away from later through a pretty

encumbering process – it's cumbersome – a process that they had to follow. In

some cases, they've been requested to take on matters that do not fall within

the financial well-being; it goes more into a policy direction. Again, not

something that they are mandated to handle. It's hard to get into these matters

because they would all be court matters for which we cannot comment.

But it

seems to, on its face, even if you don't have any background here in these types

of matters, for a person, the Public Trustee and that office, to have some say

in the matters that come their way. That would seem pretty sensible, on its

face, for them to be able to show up. The reality is that this will not change

the vast majority of matters that come to that office that fall under their

direction.

What it

will do is allow them to have some say prior to it showing up. In some cases,

they will be able to contribute and say maybe we can structure the order – or

vary it in this case. You don't want to see orders being rescinded. This is why

I think you should have the ability to step in prior to the order being granted.

But what we want to see is the ability to contribute to these matters so that,

at the end of the day, what's most important here is that the estate, the

financial well-being is looked after by the Public Trustee. That's all the

Public Trustee absolutely wants.

I've

already spoken, again, about where they're located, the number of files, some of

the duties that they handle. So a couple of the amendments here. Right now, the

act has absolutely no requirement to notify the Public Trustee. In this case,

we're adding a provision where a notification when the Public Trustee is being

requested, we're adding that to the legislation.

To me,

that seems fairly standard. It's not something that would've dealt with or

would've recognized or been aware, but you think about it, when you hear the

Public Trustee talking about in many cases they'll hear about matters that are

coming out of courts and then they find out about it the same time as we do.

They didn't even realize that they had been asked to be involved. There's no

notice. There's no duty to let them know we want the Public Trustee to be

involved here.

They

don't know until after the court order has been made. So if they come up with a

concern – maybe they have a jurisdictional concern. Maybe they are able to work

on – perhaps there's another family member that has the ability to perform the

duties who are better suited. The only recourse that they have is to appeal the

court order. To me, that's a process that if we can avoid that and allow the

Trustee to be involved prior to that, that's improving the process for

absolutely everybody involved.

Again,

the structure of this is not set out so that the Trustee can refuse anything.

That's absolutely not the purpose of it. Nor is that what the Public Trustee

wants or intended. It's allowing the Trustee to make representation before the

court prior to the order being granted.

Going to

the next section, paragraph 4(2)(k), which we're doing a clarification. Again,

the legislative duties that the Trustee may perform contemplate trustee duties

related to a state, financial and property. It allows for the proper and solid

management and the financial well-being of these estates.

On some

cases, it's come down to – and, again, without notice to the Trustee. The

Trustee finds out after the fact that they have been ordered to perform duties

which fall outside the scope of their duty, the scope of the act and relate in

many cases to personal care decisions. This is not something they have been

asked to do, it's not something they have contemplated doing, not something they

should be doing. So what we're doing is changing the act to reflect the original

purpose of their duties.

In many

cases, the files they have taken on, they will manage them. They don't have the

budget, they don't have the training and they don't have the experience. In many

cases, they have to go to other departments, like CSSD or to a health authority,

and ask them for help in dealing with these files.

When we

talk about health care, when we talk about place of residence, when we talk

about nutrition, things like that, it's not really appropriate for the staff of

this office to handle these matters. Their expertise comes down to financial

matters, comes down to property matters. That's what we're changing here, asking

for a clarification of.

There

are, I would point out, various other pieces of legislation that have come from

this House that can handle these types of matters more adequately:

Advance Health Care Directives Act ;

Adult Protection Act ; the

Judicature Act ;

Mentally Disabled Persons' Estates Act ;

Children, Youth and Families Act . There are other pieces of

legislation that can handle those matters. The Public Trustee is not the entity

that should handle it. There are other means for these people to have their

matters dealt with, and properly, I would submit, Mr. Speaker.

On that

note, just an opportunity to stand here today and to speak to something that we

don't regularly hear about when we talk about the Trustee's office. I know from

staff that provided the briefing, many of the Members that took the opportunity

to have the briefing had a lot of good questions. Some did not have that

background.

I would

suggest that if anybody ever wants to learn about this, I know the Public

Trustee himself, Mr. Goodland, would be more than happy to educate Members on

the importance of this, because it's information – I would point out – that

comes back to us.

In many

cases as MHAs, especially in rural areas, people come to talk to us about these

types of things. It's one more avenue that we can point people out that will be

for their betterment or the betterment of their family. Again, there's an

educational side to this. We're more than happy to facilitate.

On that

note, I will take my seat. I look forward to the Committee stage and to comments

from my colleagues.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Yes, I

can say that during the briefing we had lengthy discussion. There were great

questions, first of all, about the role of the Public Trustee. We were pleased

to be invited to meet with the Public Trustee to further discuss that role. I

know myself and others intend to take the Public Trustee up on that offer and

really appreciated that co-operation, that spirit of education that was put out

there.

Just

looking at the role of the Public Trustee, I'd like to speak a few minutes about

that, Mr. Speaker. First of all, when we look at the act itself, the Public

Trustee Act was passed in 2009 and proclaimed into force in 2011. Prior to that,

the function was performed by the registrar of the court. Ours, actually, was

the only court in Canada where registrars served that function. That's

interesting information.

These

functions include signing property deeds on a person's behalf when separating

spouses are in conflict. They also include serving as a last resort, as the

minister had referenced, when there's no one there to administer an estate.

Also, include serving as a guardian for a minor who has received monies from the

court until the child is of age. That's the type of work and the functions that

are involved. Surely, when we look at that, it must be a fascinating office to

work in.

We were

also provided with additional information which we had requested by officials,

who were very quick to respond and very co-operative with us. They provided

additional information about, for example, the files that are in existence

within the Public Trustee's office.

As the

minister has indicated, there are actually 949 active files and there are

approximately 14 different categories. This office is responsible for the

client-owned funds, assets and investments contained within those files. It's

interesting to know that it totals just under $73 million.

The

files are managed and processed by the Public Trustee and eight estates officers

who are supported by two accounting positions. It's a relatively small group,

Mr. Speaker, who have to manage almost a thousand active files. That's pretty

impressive, I would say.

The

Auditor General also performs an annual audit of the files and all the major

transactions. Everything, of course, is managed according to exacting standards,

as it must be when other people's money is being administered in this fashion.

As the

minister had pointed out, the particular types – there are numerous file types

that are involved. For example, the main four categories would be: the

guardianship of the finances of adults with mental health disabilities. There

are over 216 files in that category. Then we have about 222 files involving

administration of deceased persons' estates; 300 files are guardianship of the

finances of a minor, and then another 123 active files with respect to

Survival of Actions Act . So those four

categories, in and of themselves, comprise a substantial number of the 949

active files.

The

Office of the Public Trustee is more than willing to highlight the work it does,

and we really appreciated that willingness and that co-operation. It's not just

to MHAs, but also to the public.

When we

requested what type of education is provided to the public with respect to what

the Public Trustee does, the office indicated they've provided briefings to

eight or nine different organizations: the Seniors Resource Centre, the

geriatric psychiatric clinic, provincial social workers, Eastern Health social

workers, Western Health social workers, the Law Society continuing legal

education and Justice lawyers continuing legal education.

So we

can see there's also a genuine and deliberate effort here to educate the public.

I would submit, it's important for all of us to be more aware that these bases

are being covered and also what the office does not do. Sometimes the office can

also help people navigate the system, pointing them in the right direction if

the work is done by others.

Also,

what was interesting to note from the briefing is there are costs, of course,

associated with running the office, but the office may also receive a portion of

the estates they administer as a fee. Those monies may be returned to the

Treasury of the province. The officials there work to minimize the amount of

money taken from estates and to secure the value of the estate they are

administering, all to protect and advance the best interests of the people they

serve.

Mr.

Speaker, so that's sort of a background and just some further understanding of

what the role of the Public Trustee is.

With

respect to the bill, the bill is fairly straightforward. It amends the

Public Trustee Act, 2009 really to

accomplish two things. One, better defining the duties of the office; and two,

requiring the Public Trustee be informed of proceedings involving the office.

I'll

speak for just a couple of moments about better defining the duties. We see that

section 4 of the current act list the powers and duties of the Public Trustee.

The final one listed, which is paragraph (k), is a catch-all. It currently

states that the Public Trustee may “act in another capacity and do other acts,

matters and things that the public trustee is authorized or required to do by

order of a judge.”

We were

told in the briefing, the current Public Trustee, Mr. John Goodland – who

appears to be a very capable and incredible individual who's ready, willing and

able to go above and beyond the call of duty. We were told some of the things

the office does with its relatively small staff. When we look at this, from

things like cleaning up a dwelling after a person without a parent/relative has

died, cataloguing the possessions, getting the house ready for market, doing

investigative work to track down possible relatives, securing the financial

estate of the person in a separate account that can be independently audited.

This

catch-all

section ought to be limited to the scope of things the office is

actually equipped to do, so they are not ordered to do something that is outside

the bounds of their capacity and expertise. That makes sense, Mr. Speaker.

The

first amendment replaces that catch-all paragraph with one that simply reads:

“perform other functions relating to financial or property matters that the

public trustee is authorized or required to do by order of a judge.” So that, in

my submission, would be a reasonable amendment to the current act.

The

second amendment requiring the Public Trustee be informed of proceedings

involving the office. Mr. Speaker, this, in essence, means notice. It means

notice.

What

happened before the act did not require the Office of the Public Trustee to be

notified about proceedings that would eventually end up in the hands of their

office. They should be involved right from the outset, not just so they are

aware of what they're needed to do but so they will be able to inform the

decision to involve them. This bill adds three new subsections to the act to

accomplish that purpose.

When we

look at the Explanatory Notes in the bill, they describe what those three

subsections will do. The bill will “provide that a judge shall not appoint the

public trustee unless the public trustee is given an opportunity” to be heard

“to make representations regarding the appointment or the public trustee

consents to the appointment ….” That makes sense.

The bill

will “provide that the public trustee is not required to act or to accept an

appointment by reason only of being empowered or authorized to do so ….” That

gives discretion to the Public Trustee.

The bill

will also, finally “allow the public trustee to apply to court to rescind or

vary the terms of an appointment where the public trustee has not been given a

reasonable opportunity to make representations regarding the appointment or

where the public trustee has not consented ….” Mr. Speaker, in

summary, these

appear to be reasonable changes to us, to this legislation.

We were

told that under the current protocols, the office might not learn that a matter

is being sent to them until well after the decision to do so has been made. They

need to know, Mr. Speaker. They need to know right from the start what work is

coming their way and be able to inform the decision to send it there.

They

need to be kept in the loop. They should not be required to do work that is

beyond the scope of their mandate, beyond the scope of their expertise and

resources. If that scope is expected to expand, they ought to be afforded the

extra resources to do that extra work. That only makes good sense, Mr. Speaker.

For

those reasons, we support this bill. It's reasonable, it makes good practical

sense and, therefore, we support it.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

normal practice, I do like to be able to record my vote in

Hansard . I will be supporting Bill 11,

An Act to Amend the Public

Trustee Act.

I'm not

going to repeat everything that's been said. Obviously, the Public Trustee has

an important role to play in dealing with any number of financial matters and

property matters.

What we

have been told in viewing the bill, really what we're doing is we're putting in

legislation provisions so that things that perhaps are not best dealt with by

the Public Trustee, would not be directed in the Public Trustee's direction.

Also, if there are things that are going to be directed to the Public Trustee,

that the Public Trustee is aware of it and has an opportunity to make

representation at any particular hearing to be able to speak to it and determine

if, indeed, it would be that office that could deal with it in the best fashion.

So,

again, as my colleague just said, it makes good sense. There is no reason why I

wouldn't support it, so that's what I'll be doing.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Seeing no further speakers,

is the House ready for the question?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Public Trustee Act, 2009. (Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a

Committee of the Whole?

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009,” read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.

(Bill 11)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that the House resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 11.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the bill.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt

the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself

into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Bennett):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 11,

An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009.” (Bill 11)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as

follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The Public

Trustee Act, 2009.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill

without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move

the Committee rise and report Bill 11.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 11 without amendment.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.

MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of