PDF Version

November 12, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 16

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Are the House Leaders

ready? Yes? Opposition House Leader ready? Okay. Good.

Admit

strangers.

Order,

please!

Today in

the Speaker's gallery, I'm pleased to welcome from the Howling Huskies Special

Olympics Team, Susan Lamond and her son, Michael; along with the wife of the MHA

for Lake Melville, Caroline Hong.

The

Lamonds will be the subject of a Member's statement this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

In the public gallery today,

I would like to welcome Ms. O'Brien's grade eight class from Amalgamated Academy

in Bay Roberts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

stand on a point of privilege.

Mr.

Speaker, I've given advance written notice to the Speaker, as required.

This is

the earliest opportunity for me to raise on a point of privilege. Although it

involves remarks that were made in the House of Assembly the last sitting day,

Thursday, it was necessary to first read the

Hansard and view the video proceedings to confirm what had

transpired. The Hansard was still in

partially-edited form on Thursday, and the video proceedings were not available

for viewing until after the House had adjourned on Thursday.

I'm

asking the Speaker to rule that there is either a prima facie case of breach of

privilege or, failing that, contempt of the House, or both.

The bar

for establishing a breach of privacy is higher than the bar for establishing

contempt. I contend that the behaviour in question exceeds both bars.

As the

House of Commons Compendium of Rules and Procedure states: “Parliamentary”

procedures “refers to the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for

the House …, as an institution, and its members, as representatives of the

electorate, to fulfil their functions. It also refers to the powers possessed by

the House to protect itself, its members and its procedures from undue

interference so that they can carry out effectively their principal functions

which are to legislate, deliberate and hold the government to account.”

One of

the privileges of Members is freedom of speech. But this privilege is not

absolute. A Member cannot call another Member a liar, an idiot or a traitor. A

Member shall not be able to call another Member a criminal or a racist either,

or to imply it. In fact, terms like crook and Nazi have been ruled

unparliamentary.

As is

stated, “Members must be able to fulfill their parliamentary duties without

undue obstruction, interference or intimidation.”

elaborate, it's stated: It is impossible for “… all incidents which might be

interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference or intimidation, by either

physical or non-physical means. However, some matters that have been found to be

prima facie include … the damaging of a member's reputation ….”

In the

House on Thursday, November 7, 2019, the Minister of Fisheries and Land

Resources said this about the Member for Mount Pearl North: “I'm sure, Mr.

Speaker, some in this House, somewhere, might appreciate his active defence of

poaching. Dispatching animals, hunting animals at night is a violation of the

Wild Life Act and has been for a very,

very long time.

So, I'm

not sure who the hon. Member for Mount Pearl North is referring to, but if he

has any evidence, any information about poachers and poaching activity, which he

seems to be endorsing, he should report it to the authorities. Then again, maybe

this hon. Member is not always on the side of the law himself. I don't know, but

what I can say is that he really needs to be more cautious and careful about

hunting at night.”

A few

minutes later, the minister said this about the Member for St. John's Centre:

“What I have found a consistent practice from this hon. Member, which I disagree

with, is that he continues to marginalize. He has never phoned Chief Mi'sel Joe.

I just got off the line with Chief Mi'sel Joe, just about an hour ago. I have

had several conversations with him. What I'll say is that that hon. Member right

there has never, ever picked up the phone to phone him to ask any questions.

I've been down to Conne River, I've been down to the First Nation and spoken to

him several times.

“What

I've constantly found from this hon. Member – and it is a pattern of behaviour …

A pattern of behaviour of marginalization of Indigenous, and I will speak to

that.”

The

clear implication of this statement about the Member for Mount Pearl North is

that he may be a criminal. The clear implication of the statement made about the

Member for St. John's Centre is that he is a racist.

This

conclusion is not mine alone. It is a conclusion shared by a great many Members

of the House, and a conclusion that has become a topic of discussion in coverage

by the news media and among the general public.

When

challenged on his words, the minister did not withdraw them or temper them or

apologize for the damage that was clearly caused by them. Instead, he doubled

down.

To state

or imply in this House that other Members are criminals or racists is not only

unparliamentary, it is damaging to the Members' reputations. The damage a

Member's reputation has been ruled to breach that Member's privileges. It is

also contemptuous of this House.

“Contempt of Parliament refers to any action which, though not a breach of a

specific privilege: tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of

its functions; obstructs or impedes any member or officer of the House in the

discharge of their duties; or is an offence against the authority or dignity of

the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands or libels upon

itself, its members, or its officers. While all breaches of” privacy “are a

contempt of the House, but not all instances of contempt are necessarily

breaches of privilege.”

Exactly

a year ago, this House voted to discipline two Members who had been Ministers of

the Crown. At the same time, the House engaged in a vigorous discussion about

the need to raise the bar on the standards of behaviour acceptable by Members

within this Chamber. We decided collectively to hold ourselves and one another

to a higher standard by agreeing not to tolerate behaviour that is bullying or

harassing in nature.

Let me

quote from statements the Premier made during this debate here in the House on

November 6, 2018, almost exactly a year ago. Memories fade, so let us hear the

words – because they will help us establish what the new standard of conduct for

Members should be and was accepted to be. Any breach of this standard, given our

collective decision, would be contemptuous of this House. Let's remember that.

Here's

what the Premier had said. We had agreed at the time these were very valuable

statements and would serve a very good process in ensuring that we got to a

point where this House would act in a respectful manner.

“While

such an ordeal must never be allowed to happen again, neither should people have

suffered in vain. We owe it to ourselves to come forward, to all Members of this

House and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to heed the painful

lessons of this experience and to use those lessons to set us on a course to

establish a new higher standard for dealing with bullying and harassment in

provincial politics. And believe me, Mr. Speaker, people are watching.” These

are the Premier's quotes.

I'll go

on to quote a number of other things that were quoted in the House by the

Premier: “… we need to get it right. And I make this pledge today that we will

get it right. When I say we, I mean all Members of this House. If ever there was

an issue for which we must come together and set aside party politics, this is

it. We owe that to the people of our province. We owe that to young people. We

owe that to the very young people in our province; and, in particular, we owe it

to women in our province.”

Another

quote, Mr. Speaker: “We must send a clear and unmistakable message that this

House of Assembly is a safe place for them to” encourage and “to engage in

public life. Of course, the best message that we can send is to conduct

ourselves in ways that will preclude the need to file harassment or bullying

complaints in the first place ….”

Also

quoted he said: “It is my view and firm belief, as representatives of the people

of this province, we must be held to a higher standard, and we must rise to a

higher standard.

“Now,

I've already stated, I personally believe that the standard must be zero

tolerance; zero tolerance for disrespect and zero tolerance for abuse. Zero

tolerance for harassment, zero tolerance for bullying in whatever form. The

higher standard must be founded on respect and decorum….

“Even in

the heat of political persuasion, we must be respectful and ever mindful that

diminishing another person to elevate one's own position is not acceptable and

will not be tolerated….

“Matters

of harassment and bullying inherently flow for an imbalance of power. The

offender must be accountable and accept responsibility for those words or

actions. Acknowledgement, the hurt it's caused and can demonstrate, not just by

their words but also by their actions, a willingness to address the needs of the

person or the persons” has to be first and foremost.

“Mr.

Speaker, we have an opportunity in the next few days to change and set the

course for making this a safer place to work. I challenge everyone in this House

today, all Members, to let the culture change begin now.”

These

are all quotes from the Premier of today, of which every Member in this House of

Assembly agreed to and realized that we can move forward if we did indeed adopt

these and institute those. These are all direct quotes from the Premier and we

all concurred. Remember again that contempt is defined as an offence against the

authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate

commands.

Our

House has commanded a higher standard of behaviour that respects other Members

and does not harass or bully them. Disobedience of the legislative commands of

the House is contempt. It is not acceptable for one Member to describe other

Members as criminals or racists in this Chamber. It is clearly bullying. It is

clearly harassment. It is clearly damaging to Members' reputation and therefore

a breach of their privileges. It is clearly damaging to the reputation of all of

us collectively and to our ability to do our work properly.

creates an atmosphere of intimidation which is also a breach of our collective

privileges. It deters good people from seeking public office. It is contemptuous

of the House and disobedience of the decision we made a year ago to raise the

standards of behaviour we will tolerate. It is unparliamentary and a breach of

the Orders. It is all of those things. It must not be tolerated. As the Premier

himself stated: “The offender must be accountable and accept responsibility for

those words or actions.”

Therefore, if the Speaker rules that this is indeed a prima facie case of breach

of privileges or a case of contempt, then I give notice of the following motion

which a point of privilege requires:

BE IT

RESOLVED that the House of Assembly finds the behaviour of the Member for Corner

Brook has damaged the reputation of two Members of the House and has therefore

breached their privileges, and is contemptuous of the House and of it's Members

and disobedient of the higher standards of conduct that the House commands all

Members throughout its deliberations in 2018.

BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Member for Corner Brook shall withdraw it completely

and without equivocation his offensive statements with respect to the Member for

Mount Pearl North and the Member for St. John's Centre.

BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Member for Corner Brook shall apologize verbally and

in writing to these two Members and to the House collectively for engaging in

behaviour that was of a bullying and harassing nature in contempt of the House.

BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Member for Corner Brook shall be required to take an

additional 20 hours of anti-harassment sensitivity training, which shall be

arranged and scheduled by staff of the House of Assembly and which shall be paid

for by the salary of the Member for Corner Brook.

Mr.

Speaker, this is the noted outline that I stand on a point of privilege.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, and thank you to the hon. Member for his intervention.

I will

speak to the form of a point of privilege. It is the custom of this House that

two tests must be met in order to establish a prima facie case, Mr. Speaker.

I will

refer to O'Brien and Bosc, from their lengthy treaties on House procedure. I was

very delighted to have received this copy of the

House of Commons Procedure and Practice from Madam O'Brien when she

was clerk. She gave me this copy herself and I'll read from it in the House:

complaint on a matter of privilege must satisfy two conditions before it can be

accorded precedence over the Orders of the Day. First, the Speaker must be

convinced that a prima facie case of

breach of privilege has been made and, second, that the matter must be raised at

the earliest opportunity.” If the Speaker feels that “these two conditions have

been met, then the Speaker informs the House that, in his or her opinion, this

matter is entitled to take precedence over the notices of motion and the Orders

of the Day standing on the Order Paper .

The Speaker's ruling does not extend to deciding whether a breach of privilege

has in fact been committed ….” This is a matter “which can only be decided by

the House itself.”

The

timing, of course, Mr. Speaker, according to our practices and to the rules of

the House, includes the matter of timing. I'm not particularly hung up on this

one, but I will point out that on Thursday in the last sitting in the House, the

Member who just previously spoke rose on a point of order on this very topic

related to the discussions or the debate or the exchange between myself and the

Member for Mount Pearl North.

He said

– and I quote: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. To which you replied: We'll wait

until after Question Period to deal with the point of order. Then you referred

the matter – gave the opportunity to speak back to the Member for Mount Pearl

North. Mr. Speaker, that would identify that there was an awareness that there

was an issue that could be brought before the House in the Member's point of

view, and that you instructed him to raise the matter, in whatever form he so

chose, to raise it immediately after Question Period.

We all

have rights and privileges in this House and, of course, one of the first

privileges and rights that we all have is to have matters raised in a timely

matter. While I respect that the hon. Member did suggest that he did not have

opportune time to raise it at the following of the House, or the following of

Question Period, you did indeed instruct him to raise the matter following

Question Period and he did not. It is now several days later and this is a

matter for you to decide. My position would be that it has not been raised in a

timely matter as per the requirements of our Standing Orders and the practices

of the House, so I'll leave this aside.

The

scope of the issues which the hon. Member has raised is twofold. It's a broad

scope. It's one pertaining to the debate and the exchange between myself and the

Member for Mount Pearl North, as well as a debate and exchange between the

Member for St. John's Centre.

determining whether or not there has been a slur or a matter which is a breach

of privilege because of a characterization of an hon. Member, I will simply

recite the specifics of the exchange as recorded by

Hansard . Mr. Speaker, in so doing it is a matter of practice that

this House honour that Canada is a country of the rule of law. The rule of law

is what defines us and the rules of this House are what help define the House.

Mr.

Speaker, the hon. Member, his subject matter when he raised this point for the

Member for Mount Pearl North, was he took exception to the notion that prior to

2016 farmers could apply for and receive permits to hunt big game animals,

moose, in particular, that were predating on their fields. They could do so day

or night, which would be a correct

interpretation of the policy and the rules

that were in place prior to 2016.

In 2016

there was a change, which did not allow farmers to be eligible for a permit to

hunt nuisance animals at night. It is a matter of the

Wild Life Act regulations, 42(1) I think it is, that specifically

states that the hunting of moose, of big game animals, at night is illegal.

When the

hon. Member said – and I'll quote, Mr. Speaker, from the

Hansard , from the transcript that I have, the hon. Member for Mount

Pearl North: “While the minister may highlight some areas of concern, I'd also

like to point out that people hunt moose day and night ….” That would suggest a

normalization of an illegal act. It's not something I can condone as minister

responsible for the Wild Life Act .

further went on to say: “… a bullet goes just as far in the day as it does in

the night.” Now, I would take exception to that because, of course, while he's

factually correct, a bullet does go as far in the day as it does in the night.

The direction in which it goes may not necessarily be in the full control of the

user of the high-powered rifle or the firearm.

One of

the issues around night hunting, in addition to being an unfair practice for the

purposes of big game hunting for true sportsmen, is that firing a high-powered

rifle at night can result in a very, very serious consequence, an unintended

consequence. It is a significant safety issue, which I think any reasonable

person can reflect on.

Firing a

high-powered rifle at night, the precision of and accuracy, the aim of the

high-powered rifle is questionable. It's why there are avenues that are still

available to farmers in this province to be able to dispatch nuisance animals on

their farms at night. It's by calling a conservation officer and asking the

conservation officer between a half an hour after sunset and a half an hour

before sunrise – I believe that's the precise wording of the

Wild Life Regulations .

Hunting

is illegal, but a conservation officer who is granted authority to do so under

the act, under the statutes and the regulations, can indeed intercede on behalf

of an injured farmer, a farmer who is facing a nuisance moose. That method, by

the way, Mr. Speaker, has been employed 14 times this year. Farmers have called

conservation officers and have sought support and assistance on that.

So, I

will raise this from the context of, the hon. Member did say that people hunt

moose day and night – that seems like a normalization to me – that a bullet goes

as far in the day as it does in the night – that seems like a normalization to

me of an illegal behaviour.

further goes on to say – and I'll point this out from the integrity – the

support for the rule of law. There is a reference that I took particular

exception to, which I didn't give full voice to at the time, where the hon.

Member for Mount Pearl North says, expressing his frustration: “Finally, one

time he called the conservation officers”– this is the Member for Mount Pearl

North; I'm referring to Hansard .

“Finally, one time he called the conservation officers” – referring to a farmer

– “they showed up without a gun, only to leave the farmer with his own devise….

Give me the same gratitude as him, Sir. Only to leave the farmer to his own

devise to take care of that moose, while the conservation officers hid in the

woods only to come out and arrest him.”

Now, Mr.

Speaker, I'm very concerned about this because conservation officers, peace

officers have a responsibility to uphold the law. They have a sworn duty that

when the law is being broken, that they enforce the law and they enact an arrest

or issue a summons or appropriate warrant.

Mr.

Speaker, from the language that we see on its face, it would appear that there's

a criticism coming to peace officers, conservation officers that are within my

department, who I hold a sacred duty to support. It would appear that the Member

for Mount Pearl North is criticizing peace officers for doing their jobs.

I don't

think this is an appropriate way to address the jobs of peace officers on the

floor of this House. Selectively choosing when they should or should not enforce

the laws of Canada and the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador is not a matter for

debate of this House. They should always enforce the laws of Canada and the laws

of this province, no matter what the circumstances are and it should not be

subject to the vagaries of a debate. That, Mr. Speaker, is my point on this

particular scope.

I would

further point out that when the Member was speaking, he also said – the Member

for Mount Pearl North – when he referred to this, he says and I quote: “I've

become partially aware of the situation where a farmer called the conservation

officer several times.” I'll repeat: “I've become partially aware of a situation

where a farmer called the conservation officer ….”

This is

referring to the incident where, allegedly, because I'm not going to confirm or

deny operational details of an enforcement action on the floor of this House, as

the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources, the Member openly stated that he

was not in clear understanding of the full facts. “I've become partially aware

of a situation …” and yet he went on to say “he called the conservation

officers, they showed up without a gun, only to leave the farmer with his own

devise…. Give me the same gratitude as him, Sir. Only to leave the farmer to his

own devise to take care of that moose, while the conservation officers hid in

the woods only to come out and arrest him.”

Mr.

Speaker, there's a certain continuity to the narrative here that would suggest

there might be some concerns that would be expressed, and so, at one point in

time, earlier in the conversation, I will say, said: “… I'm not sure who the

hon. Member for Mount Pearl North is referring to, but if he has any evidence,

any information about poachers or poaching activity, which he seems to be

endorsing …” because as I say – no, Mr. Speaker, I have a lot – this is – the

scope of this is very significant: “… which he seems to be endorsing, he should

report it to the authorities. Then again, maybe this hon. Member is not always

on the side of the law himself.” Because he's normalizing what we all understand

to be illegal.

Mr.

Speaker, I will have no trouble withdrawing: “Then again, maybe this hon. Member

is not always on the side of the law …” because in reflection, all hon. Members

have honour and should be endorsed, but I would respect that suggesting that

conservation officers should subjectively and arbitrarily enforce the laws of

Canada, that's not something for consideration by this House.

The

second thing I'd say is the normalization of illegal activity, by saying that we

hunt moose day and night, that a bullet travels as far during the day as it does

during the night, that he has partial information and criticizing a peace

officer for doing their job, that's one issue.

So, I'll

say that and say that I think my words were within bounds because I said “may.”

I did not make a direct acquisition, but I reflect that in the spirit of this

House we have a responsibility to treat all hon. Members with that honour. I

will respectfully withdraw the statement that “maybe this hon. Member is not

always on the side of the law himself.” I withdraw that.

The

second issue, Mr. Speaker, which is, I think, more significant – well, it's very

significant because the scope of the hon. Member's point of privilege included

my exchange with the Member for St. John's Centre. This has been an ongoing

issue since a serious issue that unfolded with salmon farming on the South

Coast. I've made the point that it goes actually much further and deeper than

that. There was a serious incident not long ago where a significant salmon

mortality event occurred where 2.6 million fish perished due to various

circumstances which are currently under investigation.

It's

really, really important that, while the House generates a position, while

individual Members and individual parties and individual leaders generate a

position on this, that all of those who are involved in the discussion that have

a direct role to play, that they be included in that discussion.

Well,

that's true for Indigenous people. That's very true for First Nations. It's very

true for leaders and elders of First Nations to be included in that

conversation. I have been frustrated by the fact that First Nations have not

been included in the mainstream of that conversation, as the leaders and elders

of the First Nations themselves have informed me, that they have been excluded,

except for the government, except for myself as Minister of Fisheries and Land

Resources and the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, there has been no

direct contact with First Nations.

The

institutions which we rely on such as oversight bodies, the media – very

important institutions – regrettably there has been no direct contact or minimal

contact with First Nations on this issue. I think that's very regrettable

because First Nations, Indigenous leaders and elders have huge capacity to offer

here. Not only do they have very, very specific, very rightful – we hold a duty

to them; we hold a duty to consult. The honour of the Crown is within our hands

and we must consult with them.

There

has been next to zero consultation, regrettably, outside of the government and

select Members of the House. As well, the companies have engaged in large

measure. So I have argued for several weeks that before positions – significant

positions, consequential positions – are taken on how fish farming should be

conducted, what are the expectations, what's the way forward, that First Nations

and First Nation leaders and elders should be included in that conversation.

I'm very

proud that I have, I've lived to my own words. But then it met with significant

negativity that I would suggest that the hon. Member for St. John's Centre, who

holds very strong views – and I admire him for that – would not include

conversations with Indigenous leaders and First Nations in part of his formation

as he solidified his own positions on this.

became very clear to me that those discussions had not occurred and I'm not sure

they're going to occur. I hope they do. Then it became very clear that there

have been instances in the past where respect for First Nations has not always

been in keeping. Mr. Speaker, this is what I have raised time and time again, so

this is a material point to your consideration of a point of privilege.

I have

raised it that I am aware that the organizations that the Member for St. John's

Centre has been involved in, members of that organization have committed racist

words, slurs against Indigenous people and that I took concern about that. I

raised the point of when they were said and it suggested that these two points

in time may be connected by the fact that the individual who made those slurs,

while it was suggested that he was removed from the organization, the evidence

actually suggested the contrary. And these are all points that I've said

publicly. So this is not any new information that I'm exposing on the floor of

the House of Assembly.

In the

continuum of time between the current and the past, there has been a pattern of

behaviour which I find very disturbing, and that is that some of the same

individuals who committed those slurs were actually continuing to stay in their

original roles, or at least complementary roles – separate but complementary. In

other words, they were still engaged in sitting at tables with Indigenous

leaders and elders consulting on salmon management, while it was never revealed

that they had said racial slurs and may have certain attitudes towards

Indigenous people that would not reflect what we would expect or allow.

When

someone sits at table with Indigenous leaders, when they're talking about how

their rights, their privileges, their opportunities may be impacted, one would

expect that all those who sit at that table would come with an open mind, a fair

mind and one without biases.

So, Mr.

Speaker, in the continuum of time I have said that there is a pattern of

behaviour as I stitch this together. And I drew that out. Then, of course, on

Friday there was a decision that was taken by the Leaders of the Progressive

Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party to address much what the hon.

Member is saying today. And it was said that I had become unhinged, and that I

should be quarantined.

Well,

that's regretful language as well, Mr. Speaker. Becoming unhinged is a

state of mental stability. It's a mental state that – I don't think suggesting

an hon. Member has become unhinged is a good decision by the Leader of the

Progressive Conservative Party, nor is it to suggest that an hon. Member should

be quarantined, segregated, separated out, removed. That's regrettable.

Then, of course, the Member for St. John's Centre added to

this by saying that everything the hon. Member said about the context and

content of that meeting should be taken in disrepute.

He called on me; he suggested

and said this through the media. He said, to the effect of, I should seek better

recall of events because I have mischaracterized how things have happened. For

example, one of the things I drew attention to is that after the making of a

racist remark, there was laughter in the room. I found that very regrettable and

a continuation of racism.

The

exact expression that was used – and I regret saying this on the floor of the

House, Mr. Speaker – was, yes, we now kowtow to First Nations people. This was

the statement that was made by a member of the executive of the Salmonid

Association of Eastern Newfoundland, followed by laughter. I remember the

laughter being – and I was almost paralyzed as I processed what had just

happened and then I said: Stop right now. I can't condone this.

Then

what happened next was there was a rationalization of the behaviour. It was

suggested that somehow that kowtowing to Indigenous people was actually a

euphemism or an – inappropriate words for an appropriate decision or appropriate

policy that First Nations have legal rights so, therefore, they're at the table

for legal rights.

Notwithstanding the fact that the whole conversation was about employing

effectively traditional Indigenous knowledge in resource management, that

Indigenous people have a full, complete and fair place at the table, the

rationalization – so there was a chain of events here within the meeting of a

racist slur, followed by laughter, followed by a rationalization. I thought I'm

of the belief that all three are contemptuous. It's bigoted and has to be called

out.

I called

for a retraction and I did receive it, but I didn't hear any apology. I felt at

that point in time, because there were 16 people in the room, it's better to

deal with this at a different time. I understood afterwards that the member –

and I do regret that by the way, I could have been stronger myself. It was clear

racism.

I do

understand that the executive member who made the statements was somehow severed

from the organization, or at least it was indicated to me afterwards that he was

somehow severed from the Salmonid Association of Eastern Newfoundland. I did

leave it at that point but when I began just a few weeks ago stitching together

the chain of events, what I found out is that he was not severed from the

organization. This became very disturbing to me, and in fact, the individual in

question has been regularly attending federal consultation sessions, sitting at

the table with Indigenous people, Indigenous people sitting at the table with

him, and no one ever knowing that this person had invoked such racist remarks.

That became very, very, very troubling for me.

Mr.

Speaker, what I'll say to you is that it eventually got to the point where I was

gaslit. I was gaslit, because not only did the hon. Member for St. John's Centre

suggest that I had no appropriate recall of the events that occurred, that it's

untrue that there was laughter in the room and that everything was handled

appropriately, I know differently, but I was pressured to feel as though that I

may be losing my own capacity to recall appropriately. Then the hon. the Leader

of the Progressive Conservative Party suggested that I was unhinged, that my

state of mental health was uncertain, and then he suggested I should be

segregated, that I should be separated out, that I should be quarantined. Mr.

Speaker, that is gaslighting.

Suggesting that events that you know to be true are not really true; that your

perception of reality is skewed; that you should go back and question yourself

and doubt yourself because you don't have good, strong capacity to understand

the events as they occurred; then suggesting your mental health is uncertain;

then suggesting that you should be separated out from society and from your peer

group, that's gaslighting, the definition of gaslighting.

The

definition of kowtowing is subservience to a higher power, to an elite power.

When people say that we now kowtow to First Nations people, means we now kowtow,

we are now subservient to an elitist group, and it's First Nations people, this

is racism.

Mr.

Speaker, to wrap this up, I think we need a broader conversation on racism in

this province because while I was being gaslit, while my mental health was being

questioned publicly by the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party – I

think that's a fair characterization of when someone says you're becoming

unhinged, someone is questioning your state of mental health. When someone says

you should be quarantined, that is suggesting that you should be separated out.

Well,

when someone says you have no reasonable, rightful recall of the events, my

integrity is higher than yours, so it's my word against yours, I have to say to

you that during the course of that meeting, and I made no bones about it at the

time, we started the meeting by saying – we introduced ourselves. There was 16

members of the executive of SAEN, the Salmonid Association of Eastern

Newfoundland, and I did say there would be a staff member here who would take

note and record the meeting.

The

meeting was recorded. I had no idea that the recording was still in existence to

this day, but I knew that it was and asked for it to be recorded and it was

recorded. Notes were taken, recordings were made because there was 16 people and

it was a very heavy conversation about science and salmonid ecology and about

the management and other things and it was difficult to get the full context

sometimes, so the meeting was recorded.

Mr.

Speaker, just moments ago, I did supply to members of the media the exact

recording of those words for them to assess and evaluate. Now it's in others'

hands to be able to assess whether or not there was a racist remark, whether it

was laughter in the room, whether or not there was a rationalization, other

events are pertinent to this.

addition to sharing it – and I spent all of my Remembrance Day weekend

reflecting in sombre commemoration of veterans who have fallen and veterans who

are still with us, celebrating and commemorating our Armistice Day, but I also

spent most of my weekend talking to First Nations leaders and I did indeed share

with them the recording.

I want

to read for the record what was said by Chief Mi'sel Joe. He shortly released a

news advisory and it reads as follows, Mr. Speaker, based on the recording that

was sent to him: Miawpukek First Nation condemns racist remarks and the pattern

of systemic racism against Indigenous People.

“Chief

Mi'sel Joe and the Council of the Miawpukek First Nation acknowledges that it is

an audio recording from a 2018 meeting between members of the Salmonid

Association of Eastern Newfoundland (SAEN) and the provincial government. Chief

Mi'sel and Council have listened carefully to the words spoken by the members of

SAEN and that it finds the comments were unquestionably derogative and racist.

The racism was inherent in both the direct slur against Indigenous People as

well as the careless and convenient rationalization offered in response.

“‘I have

listened to the audio carefully and with an open mind to any reasonable

interpretation of the words as well as the explanations as to what they were

intended to mean. We have concluded that the remarks were derogative, racist,

and so too was the contrived attempt to legitimize them,”' Chief Mi'sel Joe

stated.

“Chief

Joe also addressed other issues related to the incident:

“‘A

retraction was offered but no apology and no clear evidence of true

reconciliation given,' Chief Joe said, ‘I have since learned that the SAEN

executive who made these remarks was ‘supposedly' removed from the organization.

I have also been made aware that this same person has been included at several

important consultation sessions as a representative of a salmon council, which

included SAEN as a member. First Nations often experience situations where

racists and abusers holding positions of power are exposed; but instead of

ensuring that they are incapable of repeating such racism and abuse, they are

quietly removed and placed elsewhere with no requirement for sensitivity

training or where the racism can continue without ever being brought to the

public's attention. SAEN's decision to remove this person from their

organization shows they knew there was a serious problem of racism. SAEN clearly

failed to ensure that he was not in a similar place where the racism could

continue. This person continued to sit at a federal government table discussing

important matters affecting Indigenous people without First Nation people

knowing who the person was, what he had done, and what his value system

represented. This situation was an all-too-familiar cover-up.'

“Chief

Joe notes that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) call to action #57

states:

‘“We

call upon federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to provide

education to public servants on the history of Aboriginal peoples, including the

history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous law, and Aboriginal - Crown relations. This will require

skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human

rights, and anti-racism.'”

Quote

from Mi'sel Joe: “It is clear from the 2018 SAEN audio recording that we have a

great challenge and a long way to go to give effect to the TRC call to action.

Miawpukek First Nation believes that Minister Byrne was justified in referencing

this matter. True progress can only be obtained when there are transparency and

a recognition that a problem exists.”

“In

summary, there were multiple acts of racism: 1. The racist comments; 2. The

laughter; 3. The rationalization/justification/legitimization of the racist

comments declaring it another way to say ‘it's a matter of law'; 4. The removal

of the perpetrator only to allow them to resurface in a similar capacity; 5. The

cover-up of the whole event; 6. The denial that it was ever a serious matter

that wasn't handled appropriately.

“Chief

Mi'sel Joe said this is clearly a pattern of racism and he would not be making

any further comment on this issue until he has heard from all the people and

parties involved.

“‘I

would like to learn if they support or reject our position as First Nations

people and what will be done to ensure such racist sentiments are appropriately

addressed and eliminated.'”

Mr.

Speaker, I will table this, with the unanimous consent of the House to do so,

upon conclusion of my remarks.

Finally,

Mr. Speaker –

MR. SPEAKER:

Given the seriousness of a

point of privilege, I've been giving the Member a lot of leeway in terms of

addressing his point of privilege, given the seriousness –

MR. BYRNE:

I appreciate that very much, Mr. Speaker. It is very, very serious.

MR. SPEAKER:

– but I would ask him to

conclude his comments.

MR. BYRNE:

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that there was not knowledge or

capacity to be able to enact a course of action to prevent the continuation of

the cover-up, that the hon. Member for St. John's Centre had removed himself as

president of the Salmonid Association of Eastern Newfoundland.

The

Salmonid Council of Newfoundland and Labrador does not have constituent members,

individual constituent members, Mr. Speaker, just to clarify. What it is, is a

constituent assembly of organizations: SPAWN, Salmon Preservation Association of

Western Newfoundland is a member; the Exploits River management authority is a

member; the Newfoundland and Labrador Outfitters Association is a member; and

the Salmonid Association of Eastern Newfoundland is a member, is a group of

constituent members.

There

was a suggestion, Mr. Speaker – that was voiced publicly and with great

confidence given to it – that the Member for St. John's Centre had removed

himself from the executive of SAEN.

I wish

to place before the House a document, which comes from the Registry of Companies

under the Corporations Act . It's a

notice of directors. It's dated January 20, 2019. It comes from the president,

and it lists all of the directors of SAEN for the coming year. It does say –

this is dated January 20 – that the name of the hon. Member for St. John's

Centre sits as president of the organization. It does list the name of the

perpetrator as still sitting as a director of the organization.

Mr.

Speaker, I spoke just recently with the director responsible for this. This is a

public note. Anyone can see this if you go to view this at the director of

companies. Anyone is entitled to receive this. Perhaps there was an error that

was made, that when the Member for St. John's Centre signed this on January 20,

2019, and he did so – when he signed it on January 20, 2019, he signed it as

president.

It's

registered at the Registry of Companies on January 21, 2019. There may have been

a mistake. I will give the hon. Member full leeway to explain himself, but under

the rules of the Registry of Companies this document is to say: who is the

executive of the coming year, not of the previous year. That was what was

explained to me by the director who's responsible for this record. This is a

statement that says who is the president and the directors for the coming 2019

year, not a reflection of the past. That is what's required.

Mr.

Speaker, I will conclude. I do humbly withdraw, for the Member for Mount Pearl

North, when I said the hon. Member may have engaged in inappropriate behaviour.

I'd ask that in reflection of all that has been said, that people of

Newfoundland and Labrador hunt moose day and night, that a bullet goes as far

during the day as it does during the night, the condemnation of the work of

peace officers in this province – this may be another matter which the Member

for Mount Pearl North may want to raise himself and explain himself. I think

it's worthy of an explanation. I'd also like to know why he raised on the floor

of the House things which he only had a partial knowledge of.

Mr.

Speaker, on the real crux of the issue here, racism is all around us. Racism is

serious. While we think that we are really, really breaking the back on racism

in Newfoundland and Labrador, evidence suggests the contrary. When a Minister of

the Crown is gaslit, suggesting that my knowledge of the facts is incorrect,

that my mental stability is questionable, that I should be segregated, when I

speak I truth, that's a matter which I will let the House decide.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Before

we recess to make a decision if this is a prima facie, I'm going to hear from

some other speakers on this matter. Point of privilege is a serious matter, so I

want to give Members an opportunity to respond.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

tell you that as president of the Teachers' Association – and I've chaired many

a meeting – that while we always debated strongly and while we always debated

fiercely, it was always a case of attacking the issue and not the person. That

much I can tell you. And that comments, whether it's about poaching or accusing

a Member of racism, would have been ruled out of order.

I would

assume, in Question Period here, that when we ask a question, we expect an

answer that gives as good as we give. It has been characterized in this House

that the NDP is obviously opposed to oil and to aquaculture. Fair game to say

that because you're attacking the comments and you're attacking the issue. I

expect that.

Now, the

Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources has referred to a pattern of behaviour,

and there has been a pattern of behaviour, ramped up since the beginning, which

has gone from dealing with the issues to manufacturing a personal attack, and

I'll address these issues.

Since

the beginning of the fish die-off, whether we call it a disaster, a catastrophe,

a significant event, the fact is it's significant and demands answers –answers

that the public need to know, answers that those who participate and pursue the

wild fishery harvest, those who are employed in the aquaculture industry and

those who are just concerned for the state and welfare of our Atlantic salmon.

It took

three weeks and it took the president of the FFAW to bring it forward. Instead

of joining in or coming clean, the minister at that time chastised the industry

for letting the FFAW control the narrative and, furthermore, said that the

minister didn't have the authority under the legislation under the

Aquaculture Act . When we challenged

that, it came out, I think, around the middle of October that he didn't have

authority under the Privacy Act to do

so. We challenged that and asked the Privacy Commissioner for a ruling, which

resulted in a rather long letter from the minister to the Privacy Commissioner

explaining why.

Then it

came to climate change. I'll state it very clearly, my issue with it has always

been – I've never been a climate change denier. If anything, I've been saying we

need to take measures to mitigate against it. My argument has never been at the

beginning that it was a warm-water event, although I would challenge that. My

point is if a company, if a minister, if a government truly believes that is the

case, then there should have been actions taken to address it. It's as simple as

that.

I don't

take the snow plows off in January and be surprised if a dumping of snow comes.

I might be forgiven in the summertime, but I think it's safe to say regardless

of who says it, climate change has been ongoing for decades, so if you didn't

know about it, there's something terribly wrong.

We've

always argued that the government has to have a plan. Instead, what has happened

– and I can tell you it goes back to the end of October when the minister

tweeted out a veiled threat that he and I are about due for a conversation about

a meeting and what happened at that meeting that I knew then where he was going

with it, because what the minister choose to conflate was two separate issues

that had nothing at all to do with each other.

In this

House, the minister has stated that according to Indigenous knowledge, they

recognized the importance of climate change and, therefore, if I'm challenging

the whole notion of climate change, I must therefore be marginalizing Indigenous

people and Indigenous knowledge. Now, nothing can be further from the truth on

that one, but we've now reached a stage where instead of withdrawing and doing

the honourable thing, the minister has chosen to double down on this.

It's

interesting that the minister spends an extensive amount of time on the meeting

of June 4, 2018 and it was just a matter, as one of my Members who is also of

Indigenous heritage, wondered why it took the minister so long to get to it, to

bring it out.

The

meeting was called. It's interesting because, again, it reinforces a certain

pattern of behaviour by the minister. It came about as a result of the

minister's decisions and policies around catch-and-release at that time. We were

more concerned with the fact that the minister seemed to be pandering to a

certain group that were opposed to catch-and-release in favour of

catch-and-retain only.

At that

insulted by better, and with better insults, too, I might add. I have been

insulted by former ministers. So it comes down to this: That some people will

take a Dinn view of the regulations. I said, Minister, I've been insulted by

better than this, let's meet.

That

precipitated the meeting of June 4. It was a two-hour meeting,

two-hour-and-fifteen minute meeting. It ranged from everything to do with

catch-and-release regulations, enforcement and so on and so forth. There were a

variety of questions asked by a number of people. At this point, the person who

was the clerk was speaking to the minister and I think the conversation had to

do with who's invited to the peer review committee on science. That was the key

thing that the media had been involved that the minister was most concerned

with, more or less why he and other Members weren't invited to these meetings.

At that

time, he was engaged in a conversation with the gentleman in question. I was

sitting next to the gentleman listening while the two were engaged in the

discussion. The gentleman was going through what groups are going into it and

made the comment that the minister refers to. I can tell you this: That he said

it as he was saying – he realized he stepped in it big time. I was shocked, but

I can tell you this right now, unequivocally, there was no one else laughing in

that room. There was no muted laughter, there was nothing but shock, dismay and

horror at what was said.

The

minister at that point, and to his credit – since he's the one speaking to him,

I'll ask the gentleman to withdraw that comment in speaking to the gentleman. At

that point I said very clearly: Minister, Indigenous people have every right to

be at whatever meetings, any of these meetings regardless, by their legislation

and by the fact that they lived in this land first. They have that right.

The

minister made the comment that there are certain people, certain groups that

wouldn't be covered under that legislation. I said: Minister, I agree. They have

every right to be here at these meetings by virtue, again, of their legal rights

and by the fact that they inhabited this land first. It's their land. I said:

Further, these comments do not reflect the view of same. At that point, the

gentleman withdrew the comments, retracted the comments as the minister had

asked and the meeting went on for, actually, another hour and a half.

The

definition – I just had to make sure I had it here – of rationalization: It's an

action of attempting to explain or justify behaviour or an attitude with logical

reasons, even if these are not appropriate. I didn't rationalize anything. I

didn't suggest that, well, you have to understand that this gentleman has

probably outmoded views. I didn't attempt to explain as to what he was really

meaning. My point was clear: I have no issue with Indigenous people, they have

every right to be at these meetings. Secondly, the views do not represent SAEN,

the views of SAEN. That is not our view – very clear.

To me

that's not rationalization. Well, I'm hearing an awful lot of rationalization as

to how I am now a racist because I said that and that these are racist comments.

Again, the meeting went on for another hour and a half and the minister engaged

in a conversation and good-natured banter with the gentleman in question.

So, if

indeed he was horrified, he should've walked out and we should've had further

conversation, but we carried on. As far as I could see, the issue was resolved

to the minister's satisfaction. He didn't ask for the person to be removed from

the room. Certainly, if he had asked that, I probably would have done it easily

enough, but as far as I could see the minister had gotten a retraction. Yes, he

probably should have apologized, too. Although, he did say it was a poor choice

of words. That still doesn't excuse the comments – period.

Then to

characterize as they have been characterized, as he said: stop, stop, stop right

now. I can tell you, those words were never issued and that somehow my comments

of legal rights is a euphuism for – I don't know what – bigotry, racism? Is that

what's being suggested here?

Now,

SAEN is a small volunteer organization. We have an office clerk who works 10

hours a week, just a little bit above minimum wage, that's it. The webpage is

designed and operated by a volunteer when he gets the time. All things done by

volunteers.

I can

tell you that SAEN is a member for the Salmonid Council of Newfoundland and

Labrador, but guess what? There is no one representing SAEN this year, because

their president had stepped down to assume the role of MHA. There was no one to

fill the gap.

It's a

small world – as I learned – with regard to conservation groups, where you find

multiple people in multiple areas on multiple committees. I have no control over

that. This was a meeting that took place. The only thing we'll say is that at

the end of it, the gentleman, who was our office clerk, said: I think I should

step down. And I said, yes, I think you probably should, because it's not going

to help us. It's the wrong thing to say, and we left it at that.

At the

AGM at the end of September, the gentleman was actually elected to the board.

That's it. He has not represented SAEN at anything. Now, he is a member of other

groups, and I have no control over their membership, but he has not benefited

financially from the SAEN organization.

I resent

the whole notion that somehow the SAEN people – that SAEN somehow is racist for

(inaudible) we didn't. I can tell you, the members that were there, they are

people who work with Indigenous groups, have high regard for all people with

whom they work.

What has

happened here, I guess, and what the minister has chosen to do, instead of

withdrawing it – because I could understand, I guess, if I had made the

comments, I really could. Have every right to say that, but somehow to use the

logical fallacy of because you are in close proximity, that you are

now

therefore tarred with that brush. It was not said publicly; I would've said the

same thing publicly. It was said within the context of that meeting.

Now, I

can verify exactly what was said. There was no laughter, no muted laughter by

anyone in the room because they were all just as shocked as I was. There was a

request for retraction. It was given. Was it given as quickly as I would've

liked? Probably not, but it was given.

I can't

apologize for a comment I did not make, but I can let the person know – or

anyone know – that these comments do not represent my views or the views of the

organization I represented.

All I

can tell you is that since I stepped down at the end of this election, for the

most part, the person who does the most work at the Salmonid Association of

Eastern Newfoundland is the president. There is no president. I'm not there. I

do not know what's going on. All I know is that I shouldered a lot of the work

myself, so if the website is not up to snuff, it's not my issue anymore.

Actually, I filled out three years' worth of registration forms to Service NL in

January, when I submitted that, because whatever happened, in previous years

they had not done so; I did that. You'll probably see my name on all three

before I was even a president.

I'll

speak to this: When I served as president of the Teachers' Association, I was

everywhere, in every group. I visited the Miawpukek First Nations, met twice

with them there, with the school leaders and with the teachers. I visited with

the Sheshatshiu; I've been to meet the Indigenous B.Ed. group in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay. I've been there.

Language students at Holy Heart. We took them out overnight. I think, in many

ways, what we have very clearly demonstrated is that we are an organization –

and that I do believe in this. We're committed to this, to diversity, to respect

for all people regardless of their ethnicity, their creed, their beliefs.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it's easy to withdraw the comment against my

colleague about poaching and the Members having a hard time to drawing a

distinction between the person who made the comment and the person who's

probably equally shocked as he was, and certainly I did my best to address it at

that time. As I said, not my belief, not the position of SAEN and, at the end,

that person was removed. However, I have no control over who gets elected at an

AGM and I'm not about to go to members and say, hey, here's what happened at

this meeting.

I will

point this out as well, because I attended the inland compliance meetings when I

was president back in the early spring. We had a number of groups talking about

– or actually it was in the fall of the year – the regulations for next year for

catch-and-release and management protocols. There were a number of

representatives from the Miawpukek First Nations group and I'll tell you this:

They had very different views than I did on the value of catch-and-release, but

that's their right to have those views.

disagree with those views. I will challenge the viewpoint that they hold and I

will defend my own, but that in no way suggests that I disrespect or that I

marginalize Indigenous ways of knowing or Indigenous groups. That's what's being

suggested here that if I have a difference of opinion, if I disagree with

something, what the Members on the opposite side of this House are putting

forward, I therefore must have a profound dislike of them as individuals. The

whole purpose in this House is to challenge – at least I understand it here from

the Opposition – government decisions, to challenge government statements on

their merit.

I do not

know enough about any of you to attack you personally, nor would it be

appropriate, because I do believe that in this House that we're all hon.

Members. I think for that point that you'll never hear me attack an individual

personally, but if I do, I won't have to be told to retract it. I come from that

tradition. I believe in the rules; I believe in that respect.

Let's go

at the arguments and go at it hammer and tongs, but as we would say at the NLTA,

we walk out the door and we have a drink. That's the way it should be. Because

we are, and it was made clear by my counterpart in the PCs, that we've made a

promise to do things differently.

I will

tell you this, when this issue comes up again, I will still be asking the

minister for the plan to deal with warm-water events. I will not be backing down

from that because that's my job. My job here is not to insult you personally, no

matter what I might feel, but to stick to the issues, stick to the arguments and

I'll leave it at that.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I've heard enough submissions

at this point to take some time to recess the House and to determine if this is

indeed a prima facie point of privilege.

I'm

going to recess the House now and take some time to do that.

MR. BYRNE:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Not to give a speech but to

table the documents, the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I would

like to seek unanimous consent of the House to be able to table two documents:

One, the Registry of Companies related to the Salmonid Association of Eastern

Newfoundland, which I gave previous notice of; the second document being the

media advisory from Miawpukek First Nation, which reads: Miawpukek First Nation

condemns racist remarks and the patterns of systemic racism of Indigenous

People.

This may

guide you in your determination.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

This House is now recessed.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Are the House Leaders ready?

Order,

please!

I would

like to rule now on a matter raised by the Opposition House Leader this

afternoon. O'Brien and Bosc, Third Edition, on page

142 states: “A complaint on

a matter of privilege must satisfy two conditions before it can be accorded

precedence over the Orders of the Day. First, the Speaker must be convinced that

a prima facie case of privilege has been made and, second, the matter must be

raised at the earliest opportunity.”

With

respect to the timing of the point of privilege, I am satisfied that the Member

has raised the issue within the time required. A fulsome review of

Hansard was required, which was not

possible until the full transcript was completed.

With

respect to the first condition, prima facie simply means “apparent on the face.”

O'Brien and Bosc states that “the issue put before the Speaker is not a finding

of fact, it is simply whether on first impression the issue that is before the

House warrants priority consideration over all other matters, all other orders

of the day that are before the House.”

Maingot

on Parliamentary Privilege, page 227, puts it this way: “Does the act complained

of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege… or to put it shortly, has

the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he

should …leave it to the House.”

I find

that there is a prima facie point of privilege, and I ask the Opposition House

Leader to move his motion to begin the debate.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move

the motion, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, that we now move for

debate on our point of privilege motion.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

BE IT RESOLVED that the House

of Assembly finds the behaviour of the Member for Corner Brook has damaged the

reputations of two Members of the House and has thereby breached their

privileges, and is contemptuous of this House and of its Members and disobedient

of the higher standard of conduct that this House commanded of all Members

through its deliberations in 2018.

BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Member for Corner Brook shall withdraw completely and

without equivocation his offending statements with respect to the Member for

Mount Pearl North and the Member for St. John's Centre.

BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Member for Corner Brook shall apologize verbally and

in writing to these two Members and to the House collectively for engaging in

behaviour that was of a bullying and harassing nature in contempt of this House.

BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Member for Corner Brook shall be required to take an

additional 20 hours of anti-harassment sensitivity training, which shall be

arranged and scheduled by staff of the House of Assembly and which shall be paid

for from the salary of the Member for Corner Brook.

Seconded

by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay. We'll move to the

speakers on the motion.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

listened with great intent to your ruling and understand where you pointed to in

Bosc and O'Brien, the leaders, of course, in parliamentary procedure in our

country, and your finding of the fact that whether or not it appears at first

sight does a Member, obviously – and you would agree to leave it to the House.

One of

the key things in all of this is whether or not – the finding of fact is not a

finding of fact, and I want to make sure that the people of this House

understand that. It's not a finding of fact. You decided and determined with

your Table Officers that it is indeed something that the entire House should

adjudicate on and determine and leave it to the House. Whether it appears at

first sight is a determination that you made, and you also looked at whether or

not it had precedence over all other matters of the day.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a very serious issue that we're debating today. I noted with

interest how the Opposition House Leader referred back to issues of harassment,

issues of bullying in this House, issues of concerns that have been raised, and

those were very serious and difficult times in this House of Assembly.

We have

engaged in a lot of soul searching, I would think, as all Members of this House,

as to how our behaviour should be; what is of concern in terms of harassment,

what is of concern in terms of bullying. I do note that the language of bullying

and harassment does appear in the motion. The motion does speak to behaviours,

Mr. Speaker, rather than some of the issues and facts that have come out.

thought my hon. colleague, the minister of forestry and lands, he did speak to

this issue around the two points. One point being whether or not the language

that he used in debate last Thursday was appropriate. He did withdraw a certain

statement, and I guess the House understands that he has withdrawn that

statement.

The

second most important point – and I know that all of you have listened intently

to what Indigenous leaders have said, listened intently to what the discourse is

publicly at this point in time around this matter. Mr. Speaker, I think it's

difficult for us to adjudicate on the matter of harassment and bullying in this

House on this particular matter, considering the point that we have a chief in

this province who has listened to the tape in question, who found that the

laughter and the content was very difficult, who felt that it was – racist, I

think is his word. He's not here to speak before this House but he has spoken

publicly on this matter.

Mr.

Speaker, in our discussions and deliberations this afternoon, and probably into

the days ahead, I will say that we do have Standing Orders in this House and we

do from time to time get a little heated on the floor. That is not unusual.

There is

a Standing Order 49 that does deal with offensive language. Many times you do

talk about a disagreement amongst hon. Members, and those things are important.

It's very important that we conduct ourselves with decorum in this House,

there's no doubt. I think it's very important that we also recognize that words

matter, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to stand and adjudicate. In fairness to my

colleague who put forward the motion, he asked us to adjudicate on harassment

and bullying, and we all in this House, or those that were here in the last

session, did take sensitivity training. It came out of what happened in the last

Legislature, and we all were required to take this sensitivity training.

I dare

say that if any Member of this House hasn't taken that at this point, that it

will be available to them. It's very important that we make sure that we are

professional and honourable, but things, from time to time, do get heated, and

it is difficult to assess and address, without getting into the depth of these

issues, as to whether or not they actually do present as harassment and

bullying.

I will

say this: I think it's incumbent on every person in this Legislature – indeed,

Mr. Speaker, I think it's incumbent upon every person in our province – to speak

out against any version, form, intent, or otherwise of racist remarks and that

we must understand and elevate our discourse to ensure that we call it out when

we see it, that we don't accept it. I think, if there's one thing that can come

of today's debate and discussion, and likely tomorrow's debate and discussion,

is that we all agree – we all agree – that that is not acceptable.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, to the motion itself – and language matters; language definitely

matters in the motion – it talks about damaging the reputation of two Members of

this House. Now, those are strong words. I would allow the words of my

colleague, the minister of Forestry, to speak to whether or not we have damaged

the reputation of those two colleagues by this discourse. I would say that one

remark has been withdrawn; the other is still out there, but they are being

questioned by a broader audience than this particular House.

I also

will say that it does talk about, here: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Member

for Corner Brook should apologize verbally and in writing and to the House

collectively for – and words matter – engaging in behaviour that was of a

bullying and harassing nature in contempt of this House.

Mr.

Speaker, again, I think that's strong language. If the Member opposite feels

that way, there are rules in place for this Legislature, pathways that can be

found. We should never allow bullying and harassment. I have said that

repeatedly and there are means and methods by which they can be adjudicated,

judged, reviewed, discussed and assistance provided. It's not in a motion on a

prima facie case. I would say that. I think we should understand how serious

those allegations are and understand the sentiment that they portray and

understand the difficulty that they bring. I would say that, Mr. Speaker.

I would

say that this is a good reminder for everyone in this House – all of us in this

House, Mr. Speaker – to ensure that we are continuing to always reflect on the

behaviour that we present, the language that we use and the demeanour in which

we hold ourselves. It should be to a higher standard than what I would say all

of us need to get to, the higher ideals that we wish to have. I pride myself in

conducting myself in a professional manner, as I do know that every person in

this House would say that they felt that they did as well.

I have

some problems with the words that are being said and the sentiments being used,

but I have one thing that I think is incredibly important, that this has shone a

light on – I have to remember my mother's good grammar – is that we all have to

take a stand against racism. I think what I heard from Chief Mi'sel Joe today

was that. I think that all of us must be reminded of that.

It's not

necessarily a reminder for us against anti-bullying and harassment. We must

always hold that important discourse as well, Mr. Speaker, but I don't want to

lose the fact that one of the issues in question here also has tinges of a

bigger problem. I think that if we were to reflect on our own selves, we have to

be better at calling out any behaviours that we see that reflects racism or

challenges our Indigenous leaders or indeed any of our groups in our province,

Indigenous in particular because this is what the issue is around this.

I will

say, I have challenges around some of the language that is being used in this

motion. I do think that we can continue. There's been a lot of work done in this

House of Assembly, a lot of work done by everybody in this House to reflect upon

our language and reflect upon what we're projecting.

I know

that when I listened to the discourse earlier today, I found that I was learning

more information. As the Minister Fisheries and Land Resources spoke, as hon.

colleagues opposite spoke, we were learning more about the language that is used

and the intent and the problems around such. But, Mr. Speaker, I will say, I

think it's extremely important for this House to recognize some of the damage

that has been done when using language that is not appropriate and causing

people to feel as if racist comments have been made.

I won't

deal with the first instance that was adjudicated earlier because the Minister

of Fisheries and Land Resources has withdrawn his comment, but I will remind all

of us that respect, not just for each other in this House, but for all other

groups in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is important.

I know

that there are those that are reflecting today, listening to our words in this

House, that are reflecting upon the tone of this debate, reflecting upon the

fact that this debate is now above all other matters of the House – to use your

words, Mr. Speaker – that we have stopped the work of the province to discuss

this matter. So raising this to that level I think is important and I do believe

that sensitivity training, especially around ensuring that your language is

appropriate and that you do call out when you ever hear anyone using

inappropriate language, I think that's essential as well.

I'll

take my seat, Mr. Speaker. I think it is difficult this afternoon and a

difficult moment for all of us to reflect, but I will say that, upon reflection

on this, there's some good that comes out of this because it does elevate us all

to recognize the harm and the hurt that comments, either withdrawn or not

withdrawn, can have.

I'm

reflecting here on Mi'sel Joe as chief and how he's feeling today. I'm also

reflecting on ensuring that when we use language in this House, especially

around bullying and harassment, we take it quite seriously and that there proper

mechanisms. I will assure the people of this province that there are mechanisms.

As a Member of the Management Commission, we did put in place a mechanism by

which we can have that adjudication on those issues handled appropriately, dealt

with effectively and reflected, of course, in our training and our leadership.

With

that, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my seat.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Sir.

I'll

address my remarks to the substance of what's before us. The Chair has made an

affirmative finding of the existence of a prima facie case on the motion which

concerns privilege and a point of privilege.

listened attentively to the hon. minister's defence of himself during his

remarks today. They amounted to a defence of justification. In other words, he

took the remarks which were impugned in the motion as constituting harassment

and denigration of the reputations of two Members: one Member being part of my

caucus, the Opposition caucus, the other Member being part of the Third Party

caucus.

defended the impugned remarks that he had made by digging himself in deeper and

justifying those remarks. That's relevant because his defence of justification

compounds and aggravates the offence given to the House and to these Members,

namely the damage to the reputations of the two Members concerned. It makes all

the more compelling the need to vote on the prima facie finding and confirm it

by a vote of the House as being well founded and the sanctions recommended by

way of the motion as being deserved by the offending Member.

I fully

support voting in favour of this motion and of the sanctions attached to the

motion. The hon. Member referred to becoming unhinged in the course of his

remarks. The dictionary definition simply means: Behaving in an uncontrolled or

unreasonable way. The statements the minister has made are intemperate,

uncontrolled and unreasonable by any definition. That is the verdict of the

court of public opinion outside this House and that should be the verdict in the

House on the motion.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I assume

I have one hour in which to speak; is that correct?

Mr.

Speaker, on the substance of the issue I respect the ruling of –

MR. SPEAKER:

I just want to correct the

minister. He has 20 minutes.

MR. BYRNE:

I certainly respect the Chair

and your wisdom in determining what the facts as presented to you were, the time

and your decision in terms of a two-part ruling about allocation of time or the

distance of time. On the issue of substance, one of the things that we always

would consider – and you did as well, Mr. Speaker – is whether or not there was

a specific reference.

I have

seen many, many headlines that say the Member for Corner Brook and the Minister

of Fisheries and Land Resources made a specific reference of racism towards the

Member. We can point that out. We have lots of time during the course of this

debate as to specifically what was said by whom, because words do matter, the

language does matter.

I'm sure

that all those taking a decisive position on this will want to inspect what

specific words were used by me in prejudicing the privileges of the hon.

Members, because there's a difference between a headline and a synopsis in the

media versus what was actually said. I think that is material and I will accept

whatever comes forward in that determination, because that is how you impugn the

reputations of Members. It's not by what others may cast as what you said; it's

what you said.

So, Mr.

Speaker, with that as a backdrop, I am not aware that anything that was said

which was in any way, shape or form, so very precise – so very, very precise –

as what was said by Chief Mi'sel Joe, the First Nation leader and saqamaw, the

religious leader, the spiritual leader of all Mi'kmaq of the Island of

Newfoundland.

The

inevitable thing from this debate is that we will examine and we will vote on an

issue about whether or not the privileges of Members were impugned because

attention was brought to a statement and a series of events which the saqamaw of

the Mi'kmaq of the Island of Newfoundland, Chief Mi'sel Joe, said was racist.

It's a difficult position to put this House in because now we have decided that

we will make judgment on this, when it is arguably the Indigenous leadership of

Newfoundland and Labrador, or the Indigenous leaders that are here, would

probably be the betters judges, make the better judgments.

I will

say, again, that on the balance of the full review of what was provided, Mi'sel

Joe is a very, very intuitive, very sharp and very fair person. I don't think

anyone in this House would ever dispute that. He said as follows: The comments

were racist; the laughter was racist; the rationalization, justification,

legitimization of the racist comments, declaring it in another way to say it was

a matter of law was racist; the removal of the perpetrator only to allow them to

resurface in a similar capacity was racist; the cover-up of the whole event was

racist; and the denial that it was ever a serious matter that wasn't handled a

appropriately was racist.

This

House is in a very difficult spot right now. I don't think this House is a

difficult spot because we have to take a stand against racism; this House is in

a very, very difficult spot because we are going to cast a judgment on whether

or not Chief Mi'sel Joe is right. He will say this publicly, because he asked me

– I had an opportunity, I've been in discussions with him on a lot of issues –

and he asked me to ask, is when he puts forward this is he not telling the

truth, because he heard this.

While

I'm hearing the guffaws and the calls from Members opposite, we can't avoid

this. The people up here will not avoid this, I don't believe. I don't think the

people out there will avoid this. Someone, somewhere, sometime in the next short

while is going to ask Mi'sel Joe and other Indigenous leaders, what do they

think of this? And, more than likely, they're going to provide an answer. So

this place is in a very difficult spot.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll say again, the specific words of any hon. Member would wish to

bring forward specific references that was – first off that I said, but

secondly, was not in keeping with the assessment and judgment of Chief Mi'sel

Joe on this matter – the one who has currently spoken, there may be others –

then bring it forward. That will be a useful exercise.

So here

is what we do know. Is that Indigenous leaders in this country and in this place

we call Newfoundland and Labrador, in their own homes, they have said that they

have been systematically subjected to racism. They understand what it is, they

know what it looks like, and they feel the pain of it, and they continue to feel

the pain of it.

We are

going to assess whether or not the privileges of Members to say certain things

exceeds and is more important than the rights of Indigenous leaders to express

themselves on a matter before the House. Think this through. I would hope that

nobody, no one in this particular House feels as though their point of view,

their privileges exceed the expectation of people to call out racism. That's

what this is all about.

So, Mr.

Speaker, it will be an interesting several days. Think this through. If it was

not racism, if it was not Indigenous racism, if it was another form of

prejudice, if it was another form of bigotry, if it was another form of trying

to make people feel smaller than what they are, then I wonder if we would still

have this debate.

Racism

is alive and well in this province. We see this, probably, more clearly now than

ever. As Mi'sel Joe pointed out to me just a few short moments ago, if ever

there was a spotlight shone on a problem, this is the spotlight, and not for the

reasons the House is debating it for.

We will

all walk out these doors and we will all answer questions about whether or not

this is a process issue, whether or not it's a – well, are the privileges of

Members really being violated? We have rules in this House and we respect those

rules, but, again, when someone says that someone's a poacher, that's different

than someone who is condoning poaching – by your words.

Speakers

may be in a very difficult spot, because if there's any implication whatsoever,

after a train of language and a train of evidence or words are used that would

lead any reasonable person to a conclusion, if that conclusion is ever spoken

out loud, then we are going to be in contempt. This is a precedent setting

decision that this House is making.

I think,

quite frankly, the racism story, the racism reality is the far, far more

reaching story here. On the notion of hunting at night, just to put this in

perspective. If the issue is that a Member says people hunt day and night, that

it is illegal to hunt at night, that bullets go just as far at night as they do

in the day, that an officer, a conservation officer, a peace officer who

enforces such an unjust law is being criticized – because I don't think you

could take any other reasoned position than to say: I can't believe that a peace

officer is actually enforcing this law.

Then, if

that relates to: I am concerned that the hon. Member is condoning poaching, then

we are all in a very difficult place. Because the conversation, the right of

free speech in this House, which is absolutely sacrosanct, one of the highest

orders that meets the test of our practices and our conventions, if that is to

be the case, if that freedom of speech will be confined based on the use of

clear succession of words that a Member uses, that could reasonably be drawn to

a conclusion that there is a condoning of a particular act which is not in

keeping with what we would normally express to be in keeping with the law, then

if we are to sanction that and censor that, then the words in this House will be

forever censored. We will not have that freedom of speech anymore. That's one

point to consider.

The more

important point which is that of combatting racism, let me walk through it again

so that all can understand what is at stake here. The words themselves,

kowtowing to First Nations people, that was racist. No doubt about it. The

laughter that ensued, whether it's accepted laughter occurred or not, the

evidence shows that it did. That was a racist empowerment. It was an empowerment

of a racist behaviour. I would say that many would argue, more scholarly people

than myself would argue that therefore it's racist.

The

rationalization, the justification, the legitimization of a racist comment

declaring it in another way to be as a matter of law has been assessed and

judged by those, by a man, by a person who has lived a lifetime of racism and

racist behaviour put against him, and he has said that's racist. Anytime you

legitimate, create some sort of veneer of legitimacy to a racist behaviour, you

are engaged in the perpetuation of the same. That's his conclusion.

The

removal of a perpetrator only to allow them to resurface in a similar capacity –

there is truth to this. We have found that in the faith community, for example,

sometimes there are transgressions that occur. Instead of dealing with the

transgression directly and openly, the transgressor is simply moved and the

transgressor is allowed to continue to operate in a different place with no one

expressing any concerns, nobody giving highlights, nobody giving a warning that

the person has moved to a different role. They're allowed to continue that.

That's, I believe, the sentiment which is being expressed here by Mi'sel Joe.

Whenever

you have a person in authority or power over another person, and they're found

to transgress what any normal person would feel to be an expression of a

reasonable behaviour, an expected behaviour from a societal context – and racism

being very much that prime example. Whenever you have a position in authority

and power over another and they are found to be in contempt of basic societal

values to be against racism, to exhibit racist behaviour, the answer, I would

argue – and I believe others will argue – is that's not the time to quietly do

an in-house reform. But know, allow and be aware of the person stepping out into

a different form, a parallel form, a form to which you are a party to yourself,

without ever telling anyone at the table who this person is, what they're all

about and why they were removed from the organization to begin with.

I cannot

have just simply said it's okay if they knew why the Salmonid Association of

Eastern Newfoundland – if they knew why he was removed, that they would just

simply allow it and just say it's okay, it's business as usual. You can come to

the table just from a different entry point, even though the entry point has a

direct linkage to the Salmonid Association of Eastern Newfoundland.

Members

of the Salmonid Association of Eastern Newfoundland are not bad people – they

are not. I firmly believe that the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast, vast, vast

majority of them are not in any way, shape or form inclined, condoning or

supportive of racism. I do believe that coming aware that racism was filtered

and allowed to proceed, I don't think they're going to be supportive of this.

Now, I

will stand up and I will explain something. Yes, I'm aware, obviously, that

there was a racist remark that was done. There was a series of racist actions

that were taken. I was made aware, made to believe that the person was removed

from the organization. I had a limit to my capacity to assess this, because, as

we know, Mr. Speaker, I've spoken on the floor of the House before that I was

not allowed to attend these meetings. I was not allowed to attend these SAEN

meetings that the perpetrator was. And that was a bone of contention which I've

played out on the floor of the House before, because the federal government said

that I'm not allowed to attend these meetings, but others are. So my capacity to

draw reference to this was limited. It's not limited now, now that I've been

able to connect all the dots.

Mr.

Speaker, my time, my 20 minutes to be able to address an issue of racism

embedded in this particular issue, embedded in Newfoundland and Labrador,

embedded in many of our institutions that we rely on, has soon come to a close.

I hope I've offered some perspective, some thought-provoking ideas and

realizations in Members' minds. But as well, most importantly for me, is

realizations in the population, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When we

are about to judge whether or not Chief Mi'sel Joe has it wrong, I will be

voting with Chief Mi'sel Joe on this issue.

I thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MS. COFFIN:

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. J. DINN:

I'll yield.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Mr. Speaker, I note in the

Members' Parliamentary Guide, under the Breach of Privilege and Addressing

Breaches of Privilege/Contempt, under

section 4, Debate, page 46, it notes that:

“If the Motion touches on the conduct of a Member, they may make a statement but

should then withdraw from the Chamber.”

I'd like

to ask for a ruling from the Speaker on that, please.

MR. SPEAKER:

I've had an opportunity to

discuss this with the Table Officers. I think in the past we've treated that as

a guidance. So I can ask the Member to withdraw and if he doesn't withdraw, he –

MR. BYRNE:

Withdraw from the Chamber,

Mr. Speaker, is that what you're requesting?

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes.

MR. BYRNE:

I would like to be part and

to hear the debate as it occurs; however, if it is to be an issue that distracts

from the issue at hand, I will indeed withdraw because this is too important. I

would like to be part of this but if it is a distraction, I will withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER:

It's a guidance to the Member

and it's a request. It's up to his discretion. I will leave it to the Member to

guide his own actions on this.

MR. BYRNE:

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, would

you repeat your …? I apologize, I didn't –

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes, my understanding is this

is a guidance rather than an absolute order to leave. It's up to the Member if

he wants to leave or if he wants to stay.

MR. BYRNE:

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. There

was a point of order; I think the Leader of the Third Party, I believe, had an

expectation for me to leave. Would that be a fair characterization?

Maybe

the Finance Minister, if I could ask through you, Mr. Speaker, if the Member –

so the point of order was raised very deliberately and the proper Standing Order

was recited. I'll ask through you, Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Third

Party have an expectation that I should leave? If not, obviously there was a

reason why the point of order was called.

MR. OSBORNE:

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, it's my

understanding that the hon. Member will have an opportunity to vote, regardless,

on this particular matter. My suggestion here, and my understanding as well, he

is not absolutely required to leave; it's guidance. But I would put it to the

other side that if we are to have a vote on this very important issue, if we're

going to remove the politics from this – if you want to be political, ask the

Member to leave. If we're going to remove the politics from this, Mr. Speaker,

it's my understanding it's a guidance; it's not a requirement.

He also

gets to vote on this. So I would suggest that if he's going to vote on this with

full knowledge of the debate, that the Member should be able to remain in his

seat.

MR. SPEAKER:

There's no point of order.

Our past

practice is that the Member withdraw from the House, but it's just guidance on

that issue. It's up to the Member if he stays or if he wants to leave while the

debate is happening.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

In reply

to your ruling, a Member did stand on a point of order and did recite a Standing

Order. I assume it was with the expectation that I be required to leave. You

have ruled, and ruled fairly and justly, that it is a guidance, but the rules do

state that I, as a Member, may stay. I wish to stay.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

We'll go back to the Member

for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I truly

wish that this had not become an issue. Really, I truly wish that this could

have been basically resolved in September by a simple answer to some simple

questions about who was involved around the fish die-off. It's as simple as

that.

Now, I

in debate and argumentation was the logical fallacy: the straw man, the ad

hominem and guilt by association and red herring. In many ways, I'm sad to say,

that's what we're seeing here.

I've

listened earlier to the minister who's in high dudgeon about this, who is deeply

offended, outraged, and I can accept that, but the fact remains is it took the

minister a year and a half after the event occurred to bring it up, to express

that outrage. Now, in consideration of the media at that time took place, the

minister and this individual knew each other and were well acquainted with each

other. That's not the first time they tangled.

At any

point, since the minister had – and I won't go through all of the details. At

any point, the minister could have, in self-reflection, called up and said: Mr.

Dinn, I've been thinking about this, it's really reprehensible what happened

here. I'd like to know what's been done. I certainly would have explained that

to him and we could have had that conversation. I'll come back to that in a

minute; but, the minister didn't do that. Because many of our members, as I

said, were wondering just when this was going to come up.

As I

said, one of my members emailed me, herself of Indigenous background, said to

me: It took him long enough. However, when it does come up, I guess, it is just

as important as anything else, because, like I said, it's a year-and-a-half

later and it comes up when the minister is responding to some very intense

questioning around the die-off of some 2.6 million fish on the South Coast; a

die-off that the minister had no answers to and it was very clear that he had no

control over. There were several attempts – and I won't go through them again –

to shake, I guess, the Opposition off the issue.

Now, to

be clear, I'm not questioning, rationalizing, legitimizing, justifying the

comments that were made. They were inappropriate, they were unfortunate and they

were racist. No issue with that; however, the minister, only a few short minutes

ago, said: It's not what others have said but what you said. So let's be clear.

No matter how hard the minister tries to associate with me as having said those

words, I did not say those words. I did not make that comment.

It's

interesting to watch how it morphs because now, since the minister cannot catch

me on the fact that I said those words, he has no basis for saying that, now

tries a different tact which is guilt by association. The straw man, the guilt

by association. I was there in close proximity, therefore I am guilty of being

racist.

I made

it clear at that time, and I said when I spoke earlier that the minister asked

for the gentleman to retract; not to apologize, not to leave the room, none of

those things, but to retract that comment. My comments were very clear. I have

no issue, I support Indigenous groups, Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous

people at these meetings. Again, by virtue of their legal rights and by the fact

that they inhabited these lands long before we did, and that the comments of the

gentleman do not represent the view of SAEN.

I don't

know by what stretch of the imagination anyone can call that rationalization,

but in my book that is not an excuse, it's calling it out for what it is. This

is not right. Here's what we believe. Here's what I believe.

I'll

come back to this when it comes to dealing with issues as well. I really find it

disingenuous to suggest that somehow and to characterize what I said then as

rationalization and justification and whatever else, other descriptor the

minister can put on it. Those are statements he's made not only in this House

but outside, Mr. Speaker.

It's

been characterized here, we all have to take a stand against racism; no issue

with that. I fully support that, but that's not the issue, and we're already

chasing down the red herring.

Now,

anyone who knows me, I've taught in inclusive settings. I am inclusive. I am

respectful of those, regardless what heritage they come from, whether they

believe in God, whether they don't. Whether they're Liberal, PC or NDP, it

doesn't make a row of beans to me. That we do have a lot more commonalities than

differences.

Minister

Byrne has said that substance about words do matter, language does matter. If

that is the case, then I would advise Mr. Byrne to focus on – sorry, I retract

that – the minister to focus on what was actually said because, you know what,

my language was clear. I don't know how much more precise I could make it at

that time.

No one

is here questioning – because the minister has turned this now into if we vote

in favour of this, we are now undermining Chief Mi'sel Joe. Sound familiar? If I

question climate change, I'm therefore marginalizing Indigenous behaviour,

Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous people. It's the same tactic – it's the same

tactic. The straw man, the straw person setting up an issue that's not there to

begin with.

Even

here in this meeting, in this Assembly, the minister referred to guffaws from

this side of the House. Now, I don't know your definition of guffaw, but guffaw

is a belly laugh and I certainly did not hear that here. I think we need, again,

to focus more on what the issue is. The language was unacceptable. The issue has

been about aquaculture. How an event that happened over a year and a half ago,

that had a year and a half to be drawn attention to publicly is now only finding

itself on the floor of this House of Assembly and only after repeated questions

by me, and other Members of this House, about how the disaster was handled, I'll

leave that to you to decide. But here, there was no laughter at that event.

And I'll

talk about this: The transgressor was moved without giving warning. I can only

act –

MR. SPEAKER:

I ask the Member to take his

seat.

Just to

remind him that we've reached the time when we're to adjourn the House. If he

wishes to save his time, he should adjourn the debate.

MR. J. DINN:

I adjourn the debate. I'll pick up tomorrow then, I take it.

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The House stands adjourned

until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 o'clock in the morning.

The

House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 10 a.m.