PDF Version

October 24, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 30

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

I will now rule on the matter

of privilege raised yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. I have reviewed

the circumstances and listened to Members speak on the issue. I will point out

that my role as Speaker in this matter is laid out in O'Brien and Bosc at page

145, “... 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 matters, all other orders of the day that are

before the House ….”

Speakers

Osborne and Wiseman, in their decisions of May 29, 2017 and June 19, 2012, both

indicated that “… it is for this House to decide what course of action will be

taken when that happens ….”

examination of a prima facie point of privilege in Maingot, page 227 quotes the

United Kingdom Select Committee on Parliamentary Privileges asking “…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?”

In this

matter, I do believe he does.

Parliamentary Privilege enables Members to fulfill the parliamentary functions

for which they were elected, and enables parliaments to function. Any conduct

which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of

any specific privilege may have been committed, may be a contempt of the House.

Privilege must be necessary to fulfill the functions of the House or the Member.

The “necessity” test has been described by the Supreme Court of Canada in the

Vaid case as follows: “In order to sustain a claim of parliamentary privilege,

the assembly or member seeking its immunity must show that the sphere of

activity for which privilege is claimed is so closely and directly connected

with a fulfillment by the assembly or its members of their functions as

legislative and deliberate body… that outside interference would undermine the

level of autonomy required to enable the assembly and its members to do their

work with dignity and efficiency.”

Some of

the rights and powers of this House, and of all parliaments in the Westminster

system of government are: 1. The exclusive right to regulate its own internal

affairs (debates, proceedings and facilities) 2. The power to discipline; to

punish persons guilty of breaches of privilege or contempt.

considering all of this, I find that there is a prima facie breach of privilege

by way of contempt. I will now ask the Leader of the Official Opposition to move

his motion.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

motion is:

WHEREAS

the Member for Mount Scio has admitted to releasing to the news media

investigative reports into that Member's conduct by the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards before those reports have been tabled in the House of

Assembly; and

WHEREAS

the release of such reports of an Officer of the House is an indignity to the

complainants that threatens to compromise the integrity of the investigative

process and the public perception that justice is being served and prejudices

the ability of the Members of this House to fulfill their responsibilities; and

WHEREAS

the Member's attempt to use these leaked reports to influence perceptions of the

report's conclusions before they have been presented to Members for debate,

affects not just the integrity of the process but our ability to fulfill our

adjudicated responsibilities.

BE IT

RESOLVED that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges

and Elections for an investigation and a recommendation of an appropriate action

to censure the Member for Mount Scio for what he has done.

MR. SPEAKER:

I require a mover and a

seconder.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Seconded.

MR. CROSBIE:

Seconded by the hon. House Leader for the Opposition.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Before

we proceed, I would like to instruct the Members that we will now be following

the regular rules of debate according to Standing Order 46(1) and (2). I do

remind all Members who which to speak to this matter before we vote, that they

are to be relevant – and I stress that – in their remarks.

The

question we are dealing with is whether this matter should now be referred to

the Privileges and Elections Committee, not whether the Member has committed a

breach. Okay.

And with

that, I would invite the Leader of the Official Opposition to commence with his

remarks.

MR. CROSBIE:

As you cogently put the matter in your reasons for proceeding just a few minutes

ago, privilege is what is necessary for the House, this hon. House, to fulfill

its mandate and the expectation of the people of the province that it can

conduct its business as both a legislative and a deliberative body with dignity

and efficiency. That is what is at stake in the matter now before us.

Dignity

and efficiency, and in our capacity as a deliberative body, those words coming

from the Supreme Court of Canada in the case you cited, Sir.

Dignity

and efficiency is all the more necessary when the House is acting in its

deliberative capacity because what we have before us, and the business of the

House that gave rise to the conduct now impugned in the resolution by the Member

for Mount Scio, involves the capacity of this House acting as an adjudicative

body as distinct from acting as a legislative body passing laws. There is an

inherent jurisdiction in this place to regulate the conduct of its own essential

internal processes and the conduct of its Members.

What we

are confronted with, Mr. Speaker, is an attempt, which may well have had effect,

by one of the Members, the Member whose conduct is impugned, to influence this

place in its deliberative functions; to influence this place in its role as an

adjudicative assembly, over the recommendations for sanction provided to this

House, presented to this House, in reports tabled yesterday, and to decide

whether we, as an adjudicative body, accept the recommendations, reject the

recommendations, or prefer other forms of sanction than those recommended.

attempt to influence us in the exercise of that essential function, and in our

independence in how we exercise that function, is a grave and serious matter

indeed.

Mr.

Speaker, I listened with great attention to comments publicly made last night by

the Member for Fortune - Cape La Hune, in which she explained that in her view

what was at issue is the ability of the political process in this democratic

polity, Newfoundland and Labrador –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I'm

going to remind the Member regarding my comments on relevance.

The

decision has to be in this debate whether or not to refer the decision to the

Privileges and Elections Committee, or do we address it here, or through some

other vehicle. So it's really on that very narrow decision, and it's going to be

a challenge for us to comment on that, I recognize that, but I would ask all

Members to stay focused on that very specific question.

Thank

you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you.

So I

interpret your instructions, Sir, to be that it's really a matter of procedure,

and whether referral to that body is the appropriate method of proceeding?

MR. SPEAKER:

That's right.

MR. CROSBIE:

Well, in that case, Sir, as I

outlined, it is a grave enough matter that it deserves the attention of the

Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for an investigation and a

recommendation of appropriate action, and I support the motion.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Do we have any other

speakers?

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

And I'm

glad to be able to stand and speak to this motion. I do support, and we do

support as the Third Party caucus, the resolution that's being put forward by

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

I think

the most important basis for agreeing that we do have to have this investigated

is the fact that we have a Code of Conduct and the Code of Conduct has high

demands of us as Members of this House of Assembly and representatives of the

people in this House of Assembly.

The Code

of Conduct talks about our rejecting participation in unethical political

practices which tend to undermine the democratic traditions of our province and

its institutions. It says that we will – we've all signed this. It says that:

Members will act lawfully and in a manner that will withstand the closest public

scrutiny. We are here to protect the public interest and to enhance public

confidence and trust. Members will base their conduct on a consideration of the

public interest. Members should promote and support these principles by

leadership and example. And the whole basis of our Code of Conduct is respect

for one another, respect for the public and respect for our democratic

institutions.

believe that the actions that are leading to this resolution really do put in

question what it means to live by this Code of Conduct, and I think it puts in

question what do we do when this kind of event happens that happened, with

regard to the reports being leaked by an individual Member before the House had

its chance to deal with the reports.

So in

light of our Code of Conduct, in light of our legislative standards, I think the

most appropriate place for this to be considered is with the Privileges and

Elections Committee. That's the role of the Privileges and Elections Committee.

It would have the opportunity to do the investigation that it needs and then

bring recommendations back to this House, though we don't know what those

recommendations could be. They could even mean some legislative changes.

I won't

anticipate what that investigation could be, but I think it is needed. If indeed

there is a loophole that says doing this kind of thing, there's nothing to say

that the kind of action that happened is something that shouldn't happen, then

we should make sure that loophole gets closed, if there's something like that

there. And that's the kind of thing that the Privileges and Elections Committee

would be able to look at and come back with carefully, reasoned recommendations

to the House of Assembly.

This is

not something that's partisan politically; this is something that we all would

agree on – something that we're all concerned about in this House, I know that.

And I think doing it through our committee that's set up in our Standing Orders

to deal with our legislative standards is the way to go.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

speakers to the debate?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Scio.

MR. KIRBY:

My Speaker, I don't have a

whole lot to add to what I said about this yesterday – I stood in response to

this. I will elaborate a little bit that in the discussion between my legal

counsel and legal counsel for the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, it was

agreed that I was not bound by confidentiality in the release of these reports.

Also when I stood yesterday –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I'm

sorry, but I must remind the Member I do believe you might have remised my

directions to the group to the House.

MR. KIRBY:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Fine. Well, then I would ask

you to stay relevant to the – the question before us and the debate before us

right now is whether or not to defer this resolution to the Privileges and

Elections Committee, or perhaps to handle it here or in some other vehicle. So

whether or not there's been a breach that is to be determined later.

Thank

you.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Scio.

MR. KIRBY:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am

arguing that it should not be for that reason – that the lawyers representing me

and the Commissioner for Legislative Standards agreed that we were not bound by

confidentiality.

When I

stood yesterday as well – and I believe I'm entitled to make this point – I

pointed out that my actions were no different than the Member for Terra Nova who

released two reports, sometime between the 24th and the 28th of August. So why

would I be singled and the other Member not –?

MR. SPEAKER:

Again, Sir, I would correct

you. I would suggest that the debate is to be focused on whether or not to

determine if a breach has occurred by referring it to the Committee. Not whether

there's (inaudible) – your context, your justifications for the initiative. It

is whether or not – do we determine whether there's been a breach or not on this

floor, or at the Privileges and Election Committee? The resolution is put it to

the P and E.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Scio.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, so I'll stand on

a point of personal privilege then. Because my rights as a Member of this

Assembly are not any different than any of the other 39 Members of this

Assembly. I have a right to be treated fairly, the same as the other Members. So

I don't understand how it is there can be a motion or a ruling of any sort that

singles out my actions which were exactly the same as the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. SPEAKER:

Again, Sir, I would ask you

to recognize the fact that we are dealing with a priority issue. It's a point of

privilege raised yesterday by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

The

debate at this time is whether or not to defer this determination to the

Privileges and Elections Committee, not whether or not there's been a breach, or

anything else related to that. Does the determination go to the P and E

Committee or not? So I'd ask you to really focus your comments on that.

Thank

you.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Scio.

MR. KIRBY:

So, Mr. Speaker, are you

ruling that I am not entitled to make a point of personal privilege on this

matter?

MR. SPEAKER:

What I'm ruling is that we

are, first of all, dealing with a priority issue that a point of privilege has

already been raised by the Leader of the Opposition. That is the priority. I'm

handling that one right now.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Scio.

MR. KIRBY:

So, Mr. Speaker, when will I

be able to raise my point of personal privilege then?

MR. SPEAKER:

It's typically at the

earliest opportunity. If I could just have a minute, I'll confer with my Clerk.

I'm

going to suggest that as it's a matter I've not encountered before, I'd like to

take a recess. So we'll call for a recess.

Thank

you.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I would

like to remind Members that the House is currently debating a matter of

privilege. This matter takes precedence over all other matters before this

House.

Regarding the point of personal privilege raised by the Member for Mount Scio,

and quoting from Bosc and Gagnon,

Chapter 3, pages 161 to 162, Matters of

Personal Privilege.

“The

Chair may occasionally grant leave to a Member to explain a matter of personal

nature although there is no question before the House. This is commonly referred

to by Members as 'a point of personal privilege' and is an indulgence granted by

the Chair. There is no connection to a question of privilege and, as Speaker

Fraser who once noted, '[t]here is no legal authority, procedural or otherwise,

historic or precedential, that allows this. Before rising to speak in the House,

the Member must first give the Speaker written notice of the matter; oral notice

may also be given privately to the Speaker.

“Such

occasions are not meant to be used for general debate, and Members have been

cautioned to confine their remarks to the point they wish to make. The Speaker

has also stated that, as these are generally personal statements and not

questions of privilege, no other Members will be recognized to speak on the

matter. Members have used this procedure to make personal explanations, to

correct errors made in debate, to apologize to the House, to thank the House or

acknowledge something done for the Member by the House, to announce a change in

party affiliation, to announce a resignation or for some other reason.”

So I do

advise the Member that should he wish to raise a point of personal privilege he

should follow procedure, as I have outlined, and I will consider the matter.

However, I further note that in accordance with Bosc and Gagnon, at page 150,

and dealing with matters of privilege, “When the motion being considered touches

on the conduct of a Member, he or she may make a statement in explanation and

then should withdraw from the Chamber.”

Should

the Member wish to procedure in this matter, I will provide him more latitude.

You have

15 minutes, Sir, if you'd like to make a comment. And, as I said in my remarks,

I will provide more latitude.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Scio.

MR. KIRBY:

Before I begin, Mr. Speaker,

can you clarify your statement about withdrawing from the Chamber. I've not

heard that here in the last seven years that I've served.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

According to Bosc and Gagnon, at page 150, and as I alluded to in my

preamble,

we are dealing with a point of privilege. That is the priority.

If a

Member wishes to make a point of personal privilege, there is a procedure that

you need to proceed. You can advise me personally, you can send something to me

in writing.

Given

that this point of privilege deals with a personal – it's personally connected

to yourself – there is an opportunity in the guidance that I have through Bosc

and Gagnon that the House will allow that Member to make a statement, there's 15

minutes can be granted, but following your statement and given that we've given

you that latitude, the direction of Bosc and Gagnon is that that Member should

withdraw from the Chamber for the conclusion of the debate.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Scio.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I'm still a bit

unclear but I guess you'll correct me if I go beyond whatever latitude it is

you're willing to grant.

As I

said earlier, when these matters came to my attention and I retained legal

counsel in May, there was a discussion between the legal counsel for myself and

for the Commissioner for Legislative Standards about confidentiality and there

was no agreement around confidentiality. I didn't enter into any agreement. I

didn't sign anything, and there was very little discussion to that effect.

Whether that's right or wrong, people can judge accordingly.

I don't

know why it is I was sort of stopped. I mean, obviously, it's your

responsibility to maintain decorum and order here in the House and I respect

your authority to do that, but I was trying to articulate the fact that my

actions were no different than another Member of the House of Assembly who, you

know, did practically the same thing as I did and I just think that we're all

equal here in our right to be treated with fairness and to be treated equally.

So I

don't know why you would refer a matter to the Privileges and Elections

Committee pertaining specifically to me, when my actions are no different is –

it's astounding to me, and I think it's really a violation of my rights as a

Member of this Chamber. Whatever you think of what it was that I did or

allegedly did, I think, and I think all Members should consider this, because it

could be you at some point.

I won't

belabour that because I did read that CBC story from the 28th of August into the

record yesterday and Members are aware of what I'm talking about.

Just a

couple of other things; the basis that the Leader of the Official Opposition

uses to make this allegation that somehow I violated confidentiality is based on

his reading or

interpretation of a passage in O'Brien and Bosc, which basically

says if you're a member of a standing committee, you're bound by

confidentiality. If you're a member of a committee, you're bound by

confidentiality. I'm not a member of any committee of this Legislature. I'm not

a member of the Management Commission; I'm not a member of any committee here.

So I don't know how it is that that pertains to this situation.

There's

also a jurisdictional question here, and I think you want to go back and look at

previous rulings in this House. None of this happened within the confines of the

Chamber or the other areas of the House of Assembly. My office is in the West

Block, in fact, so I'm nowhere near here.

So I

didn't use the House of Assembly, and I didn't use the precinct of the House of

Assembly to release these reports, which the public were entitled to read, since

they paid something to the tune of a couple of hundred thousand dollars for

them. I thought the public had a right to read them, the same way as the Member

for Terra Nova felt when he released these reports in August of this year.

After

living with a cloud of suspicion for six months, I thought it was time to

release this – with the understanding that I was not bound by any

confidentiality, and I'm not sure that the Privileges and Elections Committee

can make up rules pertaining to this situation.

The law

is foundational. In addition to evidence – and I'm not a lawyer; the letters

after my name mean something else. But the law is foundational, and that is, in

addition to evidence, whether you agree with it or not when you're making

judgment, you also consider precedent in previous cases. The law isn't made up

as you go along.

So I

don't understand how it is the Privileges and Elections Committee is going to

sort of – or how the House of Assembly, by the way, is going to apply a

confidentiality requirement to me when there was none previously. That's not the

way rules are made. If the House of Assembly wants to make a rule, if the

Privileges and Elections Committee wants to make a rule that in these cases,

when there are investigations, all Members of the House of Assembly are bound by

confidentiality, I got no problem voting for that and agreeing to it. That's

completely fair. But you cannot retroactively apply a rule, and there is no such

rule as it stands.

I guess

the other point in all of this which has to be said – and we'll have a lot more

debate about this, I hope – is that on or about the 28th of April of this year,

my name was very publicly put out there in the media. There was about a two-week

period where I was attached to this. I was guaranteed no confidentiality. The

Commissioner had not even received a complaint, yet my name was out there being

dragged through this media circus, and I was removed from Cabinet. I removed

myself from the Liberal caucus. So I have rights as an individual too,

regardless of whether you believe what the Commissioner found, whether you

believe me or the complainants, I have rights too, my family has rights too, and

I have a right to be treated equal to every other Member of this House of

Assembly.

What

went on there was absolutely wrong; it would not happen in any other workplace.

If I worked – my home position at Memorial University of Newfoundland if someone

filed a grievance against me under the collective agreement for the Memorial

University of Newfoundland Faculty Association, all of that would be kept

private, and it would be a gross violation of the collective agreement if

somebody went outside that and named me unjustly for things that have not been

proven to be the case. But that did happen here.

So I was

tired of living under a cloud of suspicion, and I felt my family, my friends,

the people in this Legislature, the general public and, most importantly, my

constituents, had a right to know what went on here, because I was so publicly

identified unfairly last year.

I could

go on; I'll have a lot more to say about this in the debate. I thank you very

much for allowing me to state my peace and giving me some latitude to that. I

appreciate it.

MR. SPEAKER:

I thank the Member and I must

instruct that, consistent with my direction, I will have to ask you to withdraw

for the completion of this debate. I'm citing Bosc and Gagnon, page 150.

I thank

the Member.

Are

there further speakers to the debate?

Seeing

none, I might invite the mover of the resolution to see if he has any further

comments.

MR. CROSBIE:

I have no further comments,

Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Is the

House ready for the question?

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Nay.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Division has been called.

House

Leaders, please call in your Members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I'm just standing for the

vote.

MR. SPEAKER:

I seek some direction from

the Clerk.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, please rise.

CLERK (Barnes):

Mr. Ball, Mr. Andrew Parsons,

Ms. Coady, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Byrne, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Mr.

Osborne, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Warr, Mr. Bernard Davis, Mr.

Edmunds, Ms. Haley, Mr. Letto, Mr. Browne, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Derek Bennett, Mr.

Reid, Ms. Parsley, Mr. King, Mr. Dean, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Holloway, Mr.

Crosbie, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Paul Davis, Mr. Brazil, Ms. Perry, Mr. Kevin

Parsons, Mr. Petten, Mr. Lester, Ms. Rogers, Ms. Michael.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against the motion,

please rise.

CLERK:

Mr. Joyce and Mr. Kirby.

Mr.

Speaker, the ayes 35 and the nays two.

MR. SPEAKER:

I declare the motion is

carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Given the hour of the day, I

would move that we recess until 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

This House stands in recess

until 2 p.m., and I do remind all the Members of this House that there will be a

technical briefing that will commence here with the Commissioner for Legislative

Standards at 12:30.

Thank

you.

Recess

The

House resumed at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I would

like to recognize some visitors today that we have in the public gallery. I'd

like to welcome Ms. Diane Molloy. She's the Executive Director of Newfoundland

and Labrador Foster Families Association, and staff members Lori Petersen and

Amy Powell. They are joining us today for a Ministerial Statement.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements

today, we will hear from the Members for the Districts of Virginia Waters -

Pleasantville, Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, Exploits, Torngat Mountains and

Corner Brook.

The hon.

the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

MR. B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House to recognize and congratulate Aluel Acheiek and Caitlyn

Menchion of Virginia Park Community Centre on achieving their Silver Duke of

Edinburgh Award.

It is

important to remember that some of our most critical learning happens outside

the classroom and lessons they have learned on this journey will help shape

their future direction for the rest of their lives. The time and dedication it

takes to complete the silver level of this award is a sign of their passion and

commitment; something they should be very proud of.

Prince

Philip created the Duke of Edinburgh International Award in 1956 as a way to

give people, like these young women, a supportive and non-competitive

development platform. The Prince values activities that deepen self-awareness,

builds confidence and broadens skills to further their growth as active and

responsible citizens. I have had the pleasure of volunteering with youth my

entire adult life and have seen first-hand the benefit that this award program

has made in the lives of youth.

I hope

this award is the step in a long life of activity, volunteering and working

together to make our communities better.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to congratulate the 2922 Vimy Ridge Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corp of Bay

d'Espoir award recipients who were honoured at the 2018 Annual Ceremonial

Review. It is my great pleasure to pay them tribute.

Top

Green Star went to Corporal Sarah Brushett; Top Red Star, Master Corporal Aisha

George; Top Silver Star, Corporal Michael Willcott; Top Gold Star, Warrant

Officer Christian Snook; and Top Master Cadet to Master Warrant Officer Samuel

Davis.

The

Marksmanship Award went to Sgt. Michael Willcott; Top Fundraiser, Sgt. Samuel

Hussey; and CO's Choice Award to Sgt. Dante Felix.

Peer

Choice recipients were Master Warrant Officer Samuel Davis and Sgt. Michael

Willcott. Top Dress and Deportment went to Master Warrant Officer Samuel Davis.

I also

highly commend all of those who received awards for their outstanding and

excellent attendance. I would also like to pay tribute to the Legion of

Excellence recipient, Master Corporal Aisha George, who was honoured for

enhancing the cadet movement aims and objectives. A huge bouquet goes to Warrant

Officer Christian Snook for his receipt of the Lord Strathcona Medal, which is

the highest medal that be awarded to a cadet in recognition of their exemplary

performance in physical and military training. Congratulations, Christian, for

attaining this highest regard by peers and supervisors as exemplifying the model

cadet.

I ask

all Members to join me in thanking these outstanding fine young youth.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Exploits.

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today in this hon. House to commend the Botwood Mural Arts Society on hosting a

most successful Global Mural Conference on September 12th to the 15th of this

year.

The

society has commissioned prominent mural artists to paint several eye-catching

additions to the town landscape, depicting our history, culture and way of life,

making Botwood the mural capital of Newfoundland and Labrador.

These

murals have enhanced the beauty of the town and boosted the extent of tourism in

the region. I would extend to all a warm invitation to visit and take a stroll

through our town to view these magnificent conceptions.

I ask

all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating the Botwood Mural Arts

Society on its diligence, effort and success in hosting this global event, and

the bringing of us to the world and the world to us.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize a truly beautiful volunteer effort by an

outstanding member of the community of Nain.

Mr.

Simon Kohlmeister worked as a conservation officer, and sometimes his job

involved visits to the local garbage disposal site to monitor wildlife. But he

also recognized that some waste at the dump could be used for a better purpose,

and it was to this end that Simon saw opportunity.

Simon

took the garbage and turned it into something more valuable. In this case, Mr.

Kohlmeister took broken bikes from the dump and began putting them back in

working order.

Over the

years, his efforts to fix broken bikes has proven successful. Now, other

families have begun taking their broken and unused bikes to Simon to be repaired

and give back to the kids of Nain. It is through his efforts that many young

people in Nain have a bike to call their own.

I had

the opportunity to speak with Simon last spring about his project, and while

he's enjoyed the media attention, he's just satisfied in knowing that there are

kids who are happy with a bike of their own.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Mr. Simon

Kohlmeister of Nain for his outstanding community effort.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Corner Brook, who will ask for leave of the House before he speaks.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, it will be a very difficult day. It will be difficult to picture any

day in Corner Brook without Craig Kennedy in it.

Mr.

Speaker, Craig Kennedy was a friend of mine and a friend of many, and his

presence was not just felt in my own hometown of Corner Brook but, indeed,

across the continent.

Craig

was a professional civil works superintendent and was recognized at an

international level as a leader among leaders in his field. Craig Kennedy ran

the Public Works department of the City of Corner Brook like no other. He had a

style that made people want to work with him and to match him. But his most

visible place in the community was on the ice or behind the bench at the storied

Humber Gardens and the Corner Brook Civic Centre.

He led

his teammates to the coveted Allan Cup win in 1986 and showed those same

leadership skills years afterwards as a player, player-coach and coach for the

best team in the Newfoundland Senior Hockey League: the Corner Brook Royals. Ron

MacLean and Don Cherry – learning their friend, Craig Kennedy, had passed –

celebrated his life with the entire country this past Saturday night on

Coach's Corner .

Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of us all, I offer my sincere condolences to his wife

Christine, to his sons Colton and Jordan, to his mom Verna and to his entire

extended family. Craig has left us after 61 years. His legacy of giving, caring

and contributing, however, will last forever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety and Attorney General.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, our government is making it easier for Indigenous students from this

province to have a career in law.

Through a new agreement with the University of

Saskatchewan, two seats will be reserved annually in its College of Law program

for Indigenous students from Newfoundland and Labrador. Upon graduation, the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will allocate and fund two articling

positions within the Department of Justice and Public Safety. Indigenous

governments and organizations will encourage students to apply to law school and

fund or identify funding for educational expenses.

Mr. Speaker, the trilateral partnership between this

government, the University of Saskatchewan and Indigenous governments and

organizations will improve access to legal education and create new employment

opportunities.

Our province is only the second jurisdiction in the

country to partner with the College of Law at the University of Saskatchewan,

and it is expected that the first two Indigenous students from Newfoundland and

Labrador will enter the program in the fall of 2019.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity today, to

encourage Indigenous students from this province to consider a career in law.

This is a profession where they are typically underrepresented. Individuals have

until February 1 to apply, and it is through this partnership that we all hope

to improve Indigenous representation in the legal system in Newfoundland and

Labrador and to ensure better access to justice for everyone.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank the minister for the

advance copy. And I join with the minister to encourage Indigenous students from

judge, Lord Denning, once said: the law must be certain, but it must never stand

still.

commend initiatives that allow for more Indigenous persons to receive training

and experience, practising and defending the rule of law and that integrate

Indigenous cultural experience into the great river of Canadian legal

development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And I

thank the minister. Creating opportunities for Indigenous students to pursue a

career in law will improve our justice system, especially for Indigenous peoples

who have been unrepresented in our legal system for far too long.

Reforms

to the criminal justice system are among the many calls to action of the Truth

and Reconciliation Commission, and these reserve seats are a step in the right

direction. In addition to this measure, I hope the minister will continue to

find further ways to better recognize and implement Indigenous representation

and practices within our justice system.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to pay tribute to a group of people who care deeply about the safety and

well-being of children and youth in our province.

Throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, approximately 560 foster families provide

safe, nurturing homes for children and youth.

Foster

Families Week, held annually during the third week of October, is a special

opportunity to express our heartfelt appreciation and respect for them.

These

families play an inspiring role in the lives of children. Every child and every

youth deserves to feel protected, safe and secure, and this is where our foster

families shine.

Author

and former professor Jess Lair said “Children are not things to be molded, but

are people to be unfolded.”

Foster

families open their hearts and homes to children and youth in need of comfort,

safety and security. In doing so, they create endless opportunities for them to

thrive and succeed.

The

Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development recognizes the vital role

foster parents play in our province and we work closely with the Newfoundland

and Labrador Foster Families Association to recruit and support foster parents.

I invite

my colleagues in this hon. House to join me in thanking our foster families for

their inspiring and extremely valuable contribution to the future of this

province, in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. On behalf of the Official

Opposition, I join with the minister in extending a sincere appreciation and

words of encouragement to the foster families throughout this province.

Mr.

Speaker, these families provide comfort, motivation, protection and nurturing to

those often vulnerable children in their care. I also wish to thank the

Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association who work tirelessly to

support foster families and who recruit families to ensure placements are always

available in this province when needed.

families and persons who are interested in learning more, I encourage you all to

reach out to the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association for more

information and to consider becoming a foster parent.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I'm happy to use this

opportunity to thank the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association

and congratulate them on their ongoing development as an organization. Each time

I interact with them I'm impressed by the work that the families themselves do

along with the organization.

I wish

them all the best this year as they implement their new strategic plan which

emphasizes education, capacity building and very important cultural awareness.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to highlight the enhancements we've

made this season in the provincial highway transportation network.

Our work

to enhance our province's highways keeps people working in their communities,

facilitates increased tourism and trade, and ultimately fosters growth in our

local economies.

released our Five-Year Provincial Roads Plan in January 2017, and we knew that

issuing tenders earlier in the year would lead to a stronger and more productive

road construction season. The Heavy Civil Association of Newfoundland and

Labrador has applauded our plan for that reason.

This

year, we have paved 568 lane kilometres through the plan. Add an additional 244

lane kilometres of paving throughout this year on the Trans-Labrador Highway,

and that's over 800 lane kilometres that have been paved in Newfoundland and

Labrador by our contractors hired by our department this construction season.

Our work this year has resulted in significant

improvements to some of the higher-traffic routes, including the Outer Ring

Road, Pitts Memorial Drive, and Peacekeepers Way. Work completed on various

other sections of provincial highway includes mill and fill from Goobies to

Clarenville, rehabilitation of Elliston Road, and the completion of resurfacing

of Bald Mountain to North Branch.

We will also be opening the latest phase of the Team

Gushue Highway this fall, connecting Kenmount Road to Topsail Road, which will

relieve traffic flows in the metro region.

And work will soon begin to add climbing lanes to

sections of the Veterans Memorial Highway that will help increase safety by

creating opportunities for motorists to pass slow-moving vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, our five-year Roads Plan is working. Our

annual public consultation process is currently open until November 16, and we

encourage the public to let us know where they feel we should focus our efforts

in 2019.

We look forward to seeing continued success under our

five-year Roads Plan for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay South.

MR.

PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his

statement. Mr. Speaker, the importance of the province's road network cannot be

overstated, and we welcome all initiatives that make improvements for our

motoring public.

I, too, encourage residents of the province to reach

out and tell the government which roads require work. I hope these additional

roadwork projects will get the attention they deserve. It would be nice if

residents could participate in the process with full knowledge of where the

particular roadwork complaints and requests stand in terms of priority with the

government.

I would like to, once again, take this opportunity to

call upon the minister to release the complete list of all ranked roadwork

requests, those selected for work and those that your government have rejected,

so that the people of province can see exactly where their roads rant under the

Liberal's Five-Year Roads program.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of

St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his

statement. The minister notes work will begin soon on climbing lanes for the

Veterans Memorial Highway. I'm sure the minister is aware, and I know he is,

this work cannot begin soon enough. The safety and the very lives of those using

that highway everyday are at risk. It's not enough that we ensure roads are

built and paved, we have to be certain they're also designed to be safe.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Further statements by minister?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

In the spring of this year, the Premier stood in the

House and defended the process to use the Commissioner for Legislative Standards

to deal with complaints. However, yesterday the Premier said – and

I quote: “… the process has had many questions and, no doubt, has been flawed

….”

Let me

ask the Premier what specifically he feels is flawed about the process.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we

first had to deal with these allegations and the allegations that were brought

forward in the spring of this year, based on the legislation and the act that we

had in place in this House of Assembly, done by Chief Justice Green, I would

say, at that point that was a process that was outlined, that allegations – and

I think that was clearly articulated to all Members of this House of Assembly

today. I think the Member understands that. But given the fact that we've been

through now what's been a lengthy process, reports have been tabled and the

feedback that we've been given by all those who have participated – they've

outlined a number of concerns about the process.

I will

say that I was not involved in this process at any point at all. I will say now

that given the fact, as we've been getting feedback, there are a number of areas

where we see flaws in this process. That's the reason why we need to make sure

that we take the appropriate amount of time to make sure that we can bring

improvements, Mr. Speaker, so that anyone else in the future that would have to

deal with this, we can get it right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, in fairness, we

all acknowledge that – the Green report was focused on other issues, namely of a

financial nature; so, no doubt, improvement is needed.

Last

spring the Premier said: I just want to make sure that the comfort level of all

those that are involved, as they participate, that they're comfortable with the

process. Does he still stand by these words, given the dissatisfaction expressed

by at least two complainants, as well as those who were investigated; and what

action does the Premier intend to take to address their comfort level?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

One of the things, Mr.

Speaker, I think what we can do is take this from the floor of the House of

Assembly and put it into an arena where the people who have been through this

process will not continually be exposed to the discussion that we've been having

here.

Many

people in the past have talked about one of the problems that have existed, the

fact that they were not given the opportunity to actually have a private

conversation with someone to talk about a process. This was one of the problems

that was highlighted – everyone has been through this – is the fact that indeed

what happened, in a very specific nature, they were dealt with in the public

arena, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the Member opposite has heard those concerns as

well.

What

I've made a commitment to is zero tolerance and to make sure we take the

appropriate time to make sure we can do whatever we can to correct this process,

which as seen by everyone that's been involved in this, to have a number of

concerns and a number of flaws.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank the hon. the Premier

for those remarks.

I would

like to ask him whether he feels it is now appropriate to adopt one of the

recommendations in one of the reports, I believe it's a Kirby report, that the

House adopt the practice of instituting sensitivity training, specifically in

the legislative context for Members in their interactions between themselves and

with ministers, and whether that should be done in the immediate future?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I'm

going to interrupt the Member on this point because the matter of an improved

process has been referred by unanimous decision of this House to the Privileges

and Elections Committee. So recommendations coming from the P and E Committee

would come to this floor, and then we would be debating it at that time.

So, I

just make that point. I'm not sure if the Premier wants to respond. I'm going to

go back to the Member, the Leader of the Official Opposition, please.

MR. CROSBIE:

Naturally, I take your guidance on that, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier may or may not wish to respond.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

Apologies for the confusion there.

PREMIER BALL:

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I

appreciate the role that you play. I think it was obviously a little bit out of

line to come to me, but I don't mind him asking the question. The Members of

this group have taken harassment training, Mr. Speaker. I said it quite clearly

in the spring that it should be mandatory, it would be mandatory, for all

Members of this House of Assembly to take harassment training. I said that

publicly; I stood here.

Mr.

Speaker, if all of us in this House of Assembly, if we haven't learned anything

from this exercise that we've been through, if there are no lessons that we've

learned already, that politicizing these events that we've had to deal with in

the last six months – this is an individual, and it's unfortunate that I have to

raise this, that said he should never waste a good crisis.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a crisis in people's lives here. We need to get this in the

right arena, get us to the point where we can have a debate that we can actually

restore this process to the benefit of all Members and the public of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Crises

are events that need to be learned from and adapted to, and improved on the

circumstances that gave rise to them, and I think we can all agree with that.

There

has been comment outside this House that this was not the best process to be

followed, and that people may not be coming forward with complaints due to what

they've witnessed, that in fact they may be deterred.

Is the

Premier concerned that this may be happening?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, am I concerned?

I think just yesterday if anyone in this province, especially the Leader of the

Opposition, was paying attention to what was said, I said I was concerned. I was

concerned that women in this province would not put themselves – they would not

come forward in leadership roles.

concerns have been expressed publicly many, many times. I took swift action in

the spring. It was taken to the appropriate measures, Mr. Speaker. The

independence – as we heard today by the Commissioner for Legislative Standards –

was there.

Mr.

Speaker, I am very concerned about where this is, but I want to let the Leader

of the Opposition know, and every Member of this Opposition know, it's the House

of Assembly, all Members here, that we collectively have the responsibility to

put in place better measures so people are not exposed to what they've been

exposed to, and that women in this province will feel comfortable in coming

forward to put their names on the ballots to sit in the very chairs that we sit

in today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, given the

acknowledged flaws in the process that we've been witness to and which lie

behind the reports tabled recently in the House, does the Premier believe it is

due process and fair to those against whom findings have been made to apply that

process to decide their fate, or should a new process be implemented?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, we've had

concerns. It is one of the reasons why – to the private Member's resolution here

some moths ago – that we've established, through the Privileges and Elections

Committee, to get examples and ideas; all Members that sit on that. The Leader

of the Opposition knows this. He's quite aware. He knows exactly the answer to

the question he just asked. That process is already ongoing.

Today,

even with the recommendations that have come forward, we already know there's

more that needs to be done. Chief Justice Green, when they put this in place

some-10, 11 years ago, Mr. Speaker, things have changed over that decade. We can

all learn lessons of what we've been through.

Mr.

Speaker, my tolerance level on this is zero. We will bring improvements, Mr.

Speaker, but it will take the collective group that we have in this House of

Assembly to work together, to make the difference that everyone in this House

deserves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the question went more to whether the process that's being

implemented is so flawed as to undermine the justice of the outcome; but, I'll

move on to the next question.

The

former finance minister said her departure was related to bullying and

intimidation within the Liberal caucus. Yesterday, reports detailed the poor

conduct of MHAs and ministers within the Premier's caucus, noting the culture of

harassment and intimidation was pervasive within the Liberal Party caucus.

What

does this say about the Premier's leadership that these issues have been ongoing

for three years?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, and I hear some

heckling from Members opposite, which surprises me a little bit given the

serious nature that we're discussing here today. It really surprises me.

Mr.

Speaker, what we've had here, and I would argue, and to the Leader of the

Opposition, that you look at political parties in all jurisdictions in this

province, federally, I would argue with any Member of this House of Assembly

that they cannot point to any jurisdiction where they have not had to deal with

things like we've been dealing with. The difference is I encourage people to

come forward. I encourage people to bring their allegations, to bring it

forward. That is the difference.

Mr.

Speaker, Opposition parties that I'm looking at today, the Official Opposition

and the Third Party, they've all had to deal with this. Let's not kid ourselves;

let's be very honest with ourselves. Everyone has had to deal with this. We are

not perfect. We have decided to deal with – it's not always easy to do. Families

are attached, women are attached, and all Members are impacted by this. I am

(inaudible).

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank the Premier.

Mr.

Speaker, in The Joyce Report the

former minister of Finance stated that there was “fear among her colleagues of

speaking up but said that it was not the result of a single individual's action,

but rather was rooted in the culture ….”

I ask

the Premier: What did he do to change the culture in the last three years?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

what we've done is we've now taken these allegations that have come forward and

we put them in the forum that was available to us. We've brought in place new

harassment workplace measures, Mr. Speaker, for all of the public sector.

Mr.

Speaker, I've reached out to those that have been impacted and made sure that if

you needed to talk I was there to work with them through this process. The

Employee Assistance Program that we have was always made available to people.

There are a number of measures.

Mr.

Speaker, let's not forget, let's not forget the responsibility for this to bring

improvements is with every single Member of this House of Assembly, every single

Member of this House of Assembly. So if the Leader of the Opposition is saying

that this is only connected to this party over here, Mr. Speaker, I just need

him, I just you to look to your right, over your right shoulder (inaudible)

answer that question, that you are not aware of the concerns that (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Order,

please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

It's generally accepted, Mr.

Speaker, that top leadership sets the tone for an organization.

Looking

back on the events leading up to the tabling of these reports, does the Premier

believe if some or all of the complaints could have been avoided if the Premier

had made his zero tolerance policy known at an earlier stage?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I would think

that anyone that has been aware and has worked with me, they have always known

that I'm willing to talk to individuals if indeed there were concerns brought

forward. When concerns were brought forward back in the spring of this year, I

acted swiftly. We acted appropriately at the time, given what we had, the

options that we had available to us. The options through the House of Assembly

act, through the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards, that is the appropriate – that was the action that we

took.

Mr.

Speaker, anybody anywhere in this House, regardless of any political party, I am

more than willing to reach out. If they need to chat, if they need to talk, my

door is always open, Mr. Speaker. I am accessible, more than willing to help

whoever they are to work through sensitive issues that they have to deal with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, does the Premier

think it's acceptable, as detailed in the reports that have been tabled, that a

Minister of the Crown tried to circumvent the proper procedures for hiring

within the public service and put pressure on colleagues to get his friends a

job?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

MR. OSBORNE:

I'd be careful with that.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, that has been

dealt with in the reports. Mr. Speaker, that has been dealt with in the reports,

and these reports will be debated and discussed on the floor of this House of

Assembly, and I'll leave it – as I said yesterday in my comments, I think this

is the appropriate place to deal with those reports; the issues that were raised

there, the recommendations that will come out of there, whatever the reprimands

will be, Mr. Speaker.

I will

say that right now there is a hiring process that's in place within the

government that has been there, we've been dealing with for a number of years,

and we expect people to work within the guidelines that we have in place, Mr.

Speaker, with this government and within this public service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the

report, one of the complainants – in one of the reports, Mr. Speaker, one of the

complainants stated that the former minister of Education frequently made jokes

referencing the school that burned, referring to Bay d'Espoir Academy which had

burned tragically in January 2017 in a shocking act of arson. A former minister

admitted that he made such comments and defended himself by saying that they

were humorous in nature.

I ask

the Premier. Do you think such comments and behaviour is appropriate for anyone,

much less a minister of your Crown?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I will say that

I was not in the room when any of those comments were made. As a matter of fact,

it was the first time I saw them, when I saw them in the report, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

aware of what context that would've been said, but anyone that would make

comments about replacing a school with a burnt school, I would never take that

as a serious option. It's not something that I'd be interested in discussing

with. The people in Coley's Point right now, I've visited there many times, and

we had the replacement of that school as part of our infrastructure program.

I think

the Member opposite is quite aware of our commitment that we have to the people

of Coley's Point for that school, so we will deliver to the people of Coley's

Point the school that they deserve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER BALL:

By the way, when people

opposite, when Members opposite had the option to deal with that, they refused

(inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to the report, the former minister of Education said that practically

every caucus Member was there when these jokes were being made about the Bay

d'Espoir school.

So if

the Premier, as he just said, wasn't there, perhaps the caucus Chair could

answer, given that anyone can answer questions, or someone who was there can get

up and answer: Is it accurate that almost every caucus Member was in attendance,

cracking jokes about the burnt school in Bay d'Espoir?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

stand up in my role as Government House Leader, and I find it interesting today

that we're going to debate a private Member's resolution entered by the Member

for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, where she wants the Commissioner for Legislative

Standards to come into this House and to explain, to give a full understanding

of the process, and have any questions answered before they deal with the

reports' findings and recommendations, yet the same Member stands up in the

House and asks questions about these same findings and reports.

So I

find it difficult to think that we should not debate this in the House, yet she

thinks it's okay to stand up and ask questions for political gain.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

That's a shocking answer, Mr.

Speaker, because this issue is of great importance.

We have

children, parents and teachers struggling every day, and we are very far from

having a new school built, Mr. Speaker.

In his

report, the Commissioner noted that another Member of your caucus acknowledged a

culture of joking on the subject.

So I

ask: What type of ship are you leading over there when this is acceptable

behaviour in caucus – in your caucus?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

to reference one point made by the Member, she talked about a school. It's not

my understanding that there are any delays with moving that school forward.

Those children deserve a new school after that and certainly it's a commitment

by all Members to make that happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS:

But what I would ask the

Member about, because she talks about shocking behaviour, perhaps she'd like to

stand up and explain the comments she made to a member of my staff when she

called them and verbally abused them about not getting seat funding that she

wanted. Maybe she'd like to discuss that on the floor of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Mr. Speaker, the public can

see for themselves the type of behaviour that's displayed in this House and

judge accordingly.

The

former minister, Education minister, and your caucus colleagues would have all

been aware that 250 students and staff have been displaced by that fire in

January 2017. And since that time, they have been attending a temporary school

that does not have a cafeteria, a science lab or even wheelchair accessible

bathrooms.

Can you

tell the people of the province what you and your caucus found so funny about

this situation, and can we have an update as to when we can expect to open the

doors of a new school?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

that all Members of this House like to see when there are new schools built in

this province, no matter the district – this is in the best interest of the

children of this province. The second thing I would point out is that the Member

opposite actually voted against the budget that allowed for the funding to build

that school.

And the

last thing I would like to ask the Member opposite, if she would like to recall

the comments she made to my staff when she called about funding for seat

projects and said if she didn't get what she wanted, she was going to go to the

Premier's office. I'd like to know what those comments were.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly one of the positive outcomes of this process is that I will not be

intimidated in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

And I will speak up on behalf

of my constituents and all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, the Commissioner stated that he felt that members of the public,

particularly those in the district in which the school fire occurred – but

elsewhere as well – would likely be upset to hear that the Member for Mount

Scio, who was minister of Education at the time, made jokes about the burnt

school. They'd certainly be very disappointed, and are disappointed, to know the

entire Liberal caucus made jokes about the burnt school.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

I agree wholeheartedly with his assessment; do you?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I actually find

that the question asked by the Member was very offensive to many people of this

House and is actually not cast in any facts or findings that were made in those

reports.

The same

reports that she would prefer – and again, in a PMR that we not discuss until we

have an opportunity as Members to discuss this with the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards.

So, we

talk about a non-politicization; that's exactly what we're getting. But again,

I'm not putting my answers out for the purposes of intimidating anybody, but I

will tell you who was intimidated: a member of my staff who was called and

verbally abused when they didn't give the money that a Member on the opposite

side wanted.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, yesterday the Members opposite took their direction from the federal

government and finally gave the people of our province a peek at the new carbon

tax they are introducing here in January. We now know the so-called temporary

gas tax that the Liberals introduced has been morphed into the new carbon tax.

Why

weren't you open and transparent about this new tax all along?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

could refer back to a few months ago with some public comments that I would have

made about where the carbon pricing plan or the greenhouse gas emissions plan

was going.

Mr.

Speaker, the Member opposite, all you needed to do was look at the pan-Canadian

framework with the annex that was attached to that and you will see there was a

lot of flexibility in the negotiations that we had.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm very proud to say that when you look at what we've been able to

accomplish for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, for Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, no increase in home heating fuel, communities that are

off-grid, aviation, municipalities. We've had our industry offshore, which is

important for us that we make sure that Newfoundland and Labrador is an

attractive place to invest. We've had greenhouse gas reduction targets.

This is

a good plan for Newfoundland and Labrador. The temporary gas tax will come off,

Mr. Speaker, and once again (inaudible) Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Order,

please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

Before

you proceed, I do remind everyone, the temperature's going up a little bit. I

only want to hear from the person I have identified.

Please

proceed, Sir.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind

the Premier, that after this new carbon tax comes into effect it will cost you

more to drive your vehicle. More for gas, more for diesel. Not cheaper, Mr.

Speaker. With 300 new taxes and fees that's been there since 2016 and our

economy that's under pressure, this will not help our cause.

Despite

their reassurances, this new carbon tax will make things more expensive and do

nothing to help the environment. Can the minister tell us that his new tax will

reduce emissions?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud

to stand in my place today and let the Member opposite know – so what he's

saying to people in this province right now, the other option, which would have

been the federal backstop, which is happening right now in Ontario,

Saskatchewan, Manitoba and in New Brunswick, that was the other option. I could

assure the Member opposite, if he looked at the details of that that would have

had a larger impact on our province.

I want

to say this one more time, that when you look at the impact on taxation and

costs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians – and I just want to refer the Member

opposite to the Muskrat Falls Project, no bigger impact on Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, no bigger impact on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, doubling of

electricity rates (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

– Leader of the Opposition

support us (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Order,

please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South for a very quick question, please.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I ask

the Premier. How much revenue do you expect to generate from this new tax?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier for a

short response, please.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some of

it, I guess, will have to go to pay for Muskrat Falls, that's for sure. But, Mr.

Speaker, any revenue that's collected will be used at the discretion and go back

into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I still

wait for the Leader of the Opposition to stand in his place, does he believe

that it was a mistake or not? He needs to clarify this. People of Newfoundland

and Labrador would like to know the answer to that question. Does the Leader of

the Opposition –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

– believe that it's a mistake

or not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the

Premier said facts are important. I agree; yet, the Premier keeps trying to

confuse the facts. The fact is Canopy Growth, the largest cannabis producer in

the world, will get to keep up to $40 million in withheld remittances. That's

taxpayers' money that government won't have for schools, roads and health care.

I ask

the minister. What is his plan to concretely support our own local producers who

are trying to work really hard to establish similar businesses around the

province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

what I said yesterday, and maybe just to put this in context. If there's $10

that will come in to the NLC, Mr. Speaker, for every $10 that would come in $3

would go to – for every $10 in a sale, 30 per cent of that would go to NLC,

which is $3. Of that $3, $1 would go to the producer, and that program exists

for anyone interested in producing cannabis within our province. That is then

used to support the industry as it evolves.

Mr.

Speaker, much of what in that production will then go for export or go for

medicinal use. The other option, maybe the Member opposite is okay with the

other option, which would be to import it from places like New Brunswick who –

the facts do matter. Yesterday she said no other province had done it

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

Premier: Are giveaways to large corporations such as $40 million to Canopy

Growth, $45 million to Grieg Aquaculture and $1 million to S&P Data to create

low paying jobs, is that his idea of economic development?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yeah,

it's the idea of this government, Mr. Speaker. And I'd encourage you to reach

out to the people of the Burin Peninsula, reach out to the people, some of which

are in her own district, Mr. Speaker. Reach out to the oil and gas industry, Mr.

Speaker, and tell them – ask them just one question: Does the NDP, which she

leads, not support job creation in our province? Because I've heard a lot of

comment about this.

People

with an aquaculture, agriculture, the tech industry, thousands of jobs are being

created. Does she not support government partnering, working with industry to

create jobs, sustainable jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? By her

question, I take it the answer to that would be no for the Leader of the Third

Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, government gave

a million-dollar contract to controversial international firm, McKinsey, to

attempt to do in three months what government has failed to do in three years:

advance the economic development of this province. As usual, government revealed

few details on the scope of the work that the company has been contracted to do.

So I ask

the Premier: Will he table the RFP for this work – if, in fact, there was one –

and the engagement letter with a detailed work plan with deliverables and time

frame, so that the people of the province have a clear idea what we are, in

fact, paying for?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, I will say that

the McKinsey information was put out in the RFP. But I'll ask the Member

opposite – she seems to think that we haven't done anything.

Husky

Energy: 5,000 person-years of work; Equinor: 11,000 person-years of work; Vale

underground: 2,135 person-years of work; our infrastructure plan: 53,000

person-years of work; health care infrastructure: 46,000 person-years of work.

Aerospace: 150 new jobs; Canada Fluorspar: 3,000 person-years of work; Bluedrop:

50 new jobs; S&P Data: 500 new jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE:

Quorum: 24 new jobs; Grieg

aquaculture – which she did not support – 800 new jobs; Wabush: 1,800 new jobs.

Mr.

Speaker, is that what she doesn't support?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Order,

please!

I ask

for order. I'm going to turn the dial down on the temperature.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Yesterday, government announced its carbon pricing approach. We all need to do

our part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but government has exempted

offshore oil exploration.

I ask

the Premier why we still need to subsidize multinational oil corporations – the

largest corporations in the world that have profited so much from our resources,

and plan to continue doing so into the future.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree

with the Member opposite that we all have to do our part, and we all have to

protect our environment and our planet for future generations.

Mr.

Speaker, we all know climate change is very real and upon us, and we have worked

very closely with industry. We want to ensure we have continuing growth and jobs

in our economy. We still want to protect the jobs that we do have.

I can

tell you that the offshore oil and gas industry will be paying their – they will

have an impact on the carbon future. Mr. Speaker, they will be have to keep

their emissions 6 per cent below their historical emissions. It'll go to 8 per

cent. It'll go to 10 per cent. It'll go to 12 per cent. The reason why

exploration is exempt, Mr. Speaker, is we want to develop our industry. This is

exploration opportunities so that we can get into production, where they will be

held accountable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Questions

has ended.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

on a point of order, Standing Order 49. Today in Question Period, the hon. the

Premier referenced the Member from our caucus, Mount Pearl South, and he's done

this a number of times, in regard to an alleged incident that may have taken

place outside this Chamber. My understanding, in speaking to you, and hearing

from the Speaker's Office, that a determination was made that there was no

finding, but we still hear a reference by the Premier to that actual event.

I would

ask that that be settled here in the Chamber once and for all.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

I have ruled on this matter

in the past and I have clearly indicated that had there been a point of

privilege, that it should have brought forward immediately. I've asked that

direct reference to same not be raised here because you had that opportunity.

So, I

support the member's motion. I must say that I try to catch words and nuances

and so on in responses and in questions. I have not had a chance to review

Hansard from yesterday. We've been

preoccupied with other matters. I will undertake to do that and report back to

this House.

Thank

you.

The hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources first.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand

on a point of order, Standing Order 49. Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the

Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune in her question really cast aspersion on

mine and everybody else's character here in this room.

During

her question, she referenced a comment in the report that is yet to be debated

in this House, referencing that all of us were engaged in joking about a very

serious situation in her community.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask her to withdraw that comment. I ask her to withdraw that comment,

as it is simply not true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Any further discussion on

this matter?

The hon.

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, point of

privilege,

section 49.

I also

took great exception to the Member for –

MR. SPEAKER:

I'm sorry, do you mean a

point of order or a point of privilege?

MS. DEMPSTER:

Point of order.

I took

great exception to the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune's comments and I

would ask her to withdraw. I have a history of fighting for schools and children

in this province. For somebody to stand and insinuate and state on the record

here that –

MR. HAWKINS:

In schools that we're

building.

MS. DEMPSTER:

– in schools that we're

building right now, Mr. Speaker, that the other crowd with $25 billion in oil

didn't see a priority, I said I take great exception. I ask her to withdraw the

comments, because they are 'infactual.'

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Point of order, Mr. Speaker,

section 49 again.

As chair

of government caucus, I've been chair for over a year and have chaired a number

of different meetings and I can state that that wasn't discussed in any of our

caucus meetings, and it wasn't heard.

MR. SPEAKER:

Do we have any further

comment?

The hon.

the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, during

Question Period if there are some comments that might have exposed or something

that was inappropriate, you need not waste your time in actually reviewing the

tape. If there's anything that I said that was inappropriate, I'd like to

withdraw that statement.

I will

say that there was no Member ever mentioned. All I said was look over your right

shoulder. I'll leave it there, but if that was inappropriate, I'll just withdraw

the statement.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you, very much.

Any

further comment on the earlier point of order towards the Member for Fortune Bay

- Cape La Hune?

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I would also

like to speak on a point of order with regard to the school.

I am

certainly not included in making fun of anyone, any child needing a school or a

new education facility. Everybody in here knows a new education facility I've

been lobbying for consistently prior to my time here in this House of Assembly

has been of top priority. I want to state that for the record, Mr. Speaker, that

it's very important and I take that very serious as the Member for Harbour Grace

- Port de Grave with regard to Coley's Point Primary school and those students

in particular.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Given the heat of the Oral

Questions, I would prefer to review

Hansard and report back to this hon. House tomorrow. So I'll have two

undertakings for you tomorrow.

Thank

you.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

I do

have time for one petition, if there's a petition.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

current 1.6-kilometre busing policy results in children walking to school in

areas with no sidewalks or traffic lights and through areas without crosswalks.

This puts the safety of these children at risk.

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure the safety of all children by removing the

restrictive 1.6 kilometre busing policy where safety is concerned.

Mr.

Speaker, we've had a multitude of discussions about this in the House of

Assembly and we realize, and I think we all agree, it's an outdated policy that

goes back decades, and we do look at the fact particularly in growth areas. Now

we realize all children should be able to travel to schools safely and we do

know there's an onus on parents and there's an onus on the general public and

the drivers and on those children travelling to find the safest route possible.

We have an ability to do that.

Our

busing system is very much equipped to ensure kids get to school in a safe

manner. What we don't have now is an understanding that in some growth areas,

particularly, or in areas where the schools have changed and the routes or the

access to it have dramatically been altered, that there are some challenges. We

have more cars on the road. We have people who are distracted for various

reasons. We have the walking public who are distracted, being those students,

but we have an ability to do this.

We know

there's a cost associated to everything, but as we look at the busing process –

and I've dug into this – we are, on a yearly basis, eliminating some of the

buses in some of our rural areas because the student population is decreasing.

It's a reality, but in other cases we have growth areas where we have a

multitude of challenges here, increased traffic flows.

We have

growth areas, particularly like in my district, in places like CBS, in the

Torbay area, in the Paradise area and a multitude of other areas, out in the

Goulds and those areas, and other places in Newfoundland and Labrador where

traffic has increased. Our road networks, unfortunately, are not conducive for

kids to be able to walk in a safe manner. So what we're asking the government is

take a serious look.

In some

cases, I look at my own district – and I know courtesy busing is a program that

was put in play a number of years ago and has been effective to address some of

the needs but it doesn't address all of the needs and becomes a confusing and

encompassing process for administrators, the school district and bus drivers

themselves;

whereas for a small investment we could eliminate these issues,

increase our safety, take stressors off family members so that we would have a

proper system in play.

I'm

asking the minister, have a serious look at this. I'm even asking if he has the

time someday to come to my district, walk the route that some of these kids have

to walk in a growth area with thousands of cars on a daily basis travelling at

sometimes speeds that are not conducive to any way, shape or form being safety.

So I do

ask that we table this, and that if the minister was up to it, someday we'll

take a walk so he can get a better understanding of the situation we have here.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

Private Members'

Day

MR. SPEAKER:

This being Wednesday, I now

call the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune to introduce the resolution

standing in her name.

Motion

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. PERRY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

certainly a great honour and a privilege for me to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. PERRY:

– rise once again in this

House on behalf of the constituents in Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, and it's

great, Mr. Speaker, to be back in the House after spending the summer in our

districts.

I'm here

today moving a motion on a matter that I think is of historical significance for

parliamentarians. It's of huge importance to this hon. House here today, but I

think it also – this experience that we're going through will make an impact in

the work of future parliamentarians all across the British Commonwealth, I

certainly hope, Mr. Speaker.

I, the

Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, seconded by the Member for Conception Bay

East - Bell Island, move that:

WHEREAS

some Members have concerns about the process that the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards had to follow in producing investigative reports of

harassment complaints against Members; and

WHEREAS

the Speaker has informed Members of the House of Assembly Management Commission

that the Commission does not have the authority to summon the Commissioner but

the House of Assembly does; and

WHEREAS

questions about the process must be dealt with before the House can properly

deal with the reports the process has produced; and

WHEREAS

ensuring the integrity of the process is paramount in assuring the public that

justice is done in matters of harassment;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House summon the Commissioner for Legislative

Standards prior to debate on any of the investigative reports in order to answer

questions and provide clarity on the process so Members can have a full

understanding of the process and have any questions answered before they deal

with the reports' findings and recommendations.

Mr.

Speaker, I certainly hope that when we stand and call the vote today that we

have unanimous support for this motion because I do believe that each and every

person here in this hon. House is genuinely concerned about the circumstances

that we find ourselves in.

I, for

one, for the record, would like to say that I think this process has been hard

on all of us, all of us MHAs, in particular the complainants and the

respondents; and the Commissioner as well, Mr. Speaker, certainly has been

placed in a difficult position in having to deal with this task. So it's of huge

importance that we get this right.

Mr.

Speaker, one of the things that's a bit upsetting to me about this whole process

is that the option did exist for government to take leadership on the issue, but

instead it had to follow this route of seeking an opinion of the Commissioner.

So I followed suite with that process. I questioned the process from day one. I

questioned it then, and I still question it to this day, because I really don't

think it's an adequate process for the situation we find ourselves in.

The

Green report did not properly, or did not address – not properly – did not

address, really, issues like bullying and harassment because they weren't as

prevalent at the time. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the issue of behaviour and

conduct of MHAs – the Code of Conduct itself is so vaguely worded that it's very

ambiguous and it can be open to

interpretation in a lot of ways. So, in my

opinion, it needs to be much tighter and spelled out much stronger.

Mr.

Speaker, why this motion is important, I do believe here today, and why we do

need to have some more clarity surrounding the process that was followed is

because at least five Members have – or there are at least five reports of

allegations of harassment against Members in this House, and these Members have

entrusted their concerns to the process that currently exists under the

House of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity and Administration Act .

A new

Legislature-specific harassment policy is now being developed by our Standing

Committee on Privileges and Elections. In the interim, the House agreed to adopt

a modified version of the Executive Branch Harassment-Free Workplace Policy for

complaints when the respondent is a Member of the House of Assembly, but the

Code of Conduct investigative process defined in the legislation also remained

in place, and that's the process under which at least five complaints were

submitted.

On May

16 and May 30 of this year, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards appeared

before the Management Commission to assure Members that his office could handle

investigative reports of this nature and a proposed alternative was to have the

complaints dealt with by the Citizens' Representative, but we were assured that

this process would be okay and that the Commissioner's office had resources to

avail of outside support if required.

So, Mr.

Speaker, we proceeded with this process. Again, as we've heard over the course

of the last two days, it doesn't seem like there are too many people pleased

with how it went. Perhaps if we had a clearly spelled out outline of what would

be undertaken, what was expected of respondents and complainants throughout the

process, that would have even been helpful, and what each were not able to do

with respect to things like seeking witnesses and whatnot.

So there

was really a lack of clarity for all people involved. I certainly speak in

support of complainants, respondents, everyone who found that this process was

very challenging, Mr. Speaker, and certainly one that we think has room for

significant improvement. That improvement, I have no doubt, will be forthcoming

from the work that's underway.

Mr.

Speaker, the matter continues to be of public interest. Some of the issues with

the process, when we started it, there were more questions than answers. In

fairness to the Commissioner, we certainly appreciate that he wasn't able to

answer a lot of the questions on the process we were seeking because it was so

new. It was just the beginning.

The

scope was not determined. The demands were not determined. The support that

might be required was not determined. The timelines were not determined. Now

that the process, though, has led to the production of at least five reports,

the Commissioner will certainly have, I think, a lot more insight into how these

types of matters will be addressed in the future.

The

matter continues, Mr. Speaker, to be of public interest. It's been debated in

the Legislature for days on end, and I have no doubt we have many more days

left. In fact, it is the reason that we've been called back early.

The

problem is that concerns about the investigative process have been raised. One

of those concerns is that reports have been leaked prior to being tabled and

published. Other concerns have been raised about the identification of Members,

the inclusion of certain information and so forth. Questions have been raised

about how things were investigated and by whom. How thorough was the process?

Was every reasonable stone turned in the search for answers? How deep was the

dig?

Were

Members given the opportunity to refute allegations and counter allegations

prior to the submission of these reports? Was there or is there an avenue for

appeal? How were the dividing lines determined between behaviour that is and

behaviour that is not, within the scope of what is acceptable? How rigorous was

the balance of probabilities test that was used to resolve matters of dispute?

We have

a right, Mr. Speaker, to ask these questions and other questions about the

process before we debate the reports that the process has produced. If the

process was above reproach, reports are more likely to be accepted as fair and

just; but if the process was flawed, the reports and their conclusions may also

be flawed.

Mr.

Speaker, we've heard person after person after person rise in this House and

suggest there were flaws in the process. Just to go over an outline of how many

people have actually expressed dissatisfaction with this process, the Premier

himself said in his Ministerial Statement on October 23, “A better, more defined

process is required for the Members of the House of Assembly.”

The

Premier said this in answering questions on October 23, “In the Ministerial

Statement, that I've just mentioned already, we do have concerns, like everyone

else that's been through this process, Mr. Speaker, and we will be dealing with

that.”

The

Minister of Service NL, an organization that is qualified in investigating

conduct behaviour and behaviour as a whole, should have been the process that we

took. The Minister of Service NL was asked about the investigation itself and

she was asked if she was satisfied with the whole process, and she reported, no,

I am not. I, myself, as complainant, will say, no, I am not satisfied with the

process.

The

Member for Terra Nova said in August: I have great concerns with the process,

and one of the things I have said to the Commissioner when I did my interview

was that I was concerned about – I didn't think his office had the experience to

conduct an investigation into workplace harassment, bullying and intimidation.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure that we are all in agreement when we say this is no reflection

whatsoever on the Commissioner; it's a reflection on the fact that this is so

new and we have not experienced it. We certainly have not experienced having to

do an investigation into harassment and bullying in politics.

The

Member for Mount Scio said: I just think that the report is a part of the

violation of my personal privacy. The political science doctor Amanda Bittner

said: Are folks going to come forward now that you know it's just a joke, it's

no big deal? Why would you, right?

People

already don't come forward because we won't believe them, and to me I think

what's more interesting about these reports is not so much what they were found

guilty of, it's what they were found not guilty for having done. So what's the

threshold that makes these two particular incidents acceptable or unacceptable

and the rest of the stuff is no big deal.

So, Mr.

Speaker, there's a lot of uncertainty in what's happening with this process, for

all of us involved. And again, I will say it's regrettable that any of us had to

go through this. It really is. It's not fair to the complainants. It's not fair

to the respondents. It's not fair to the Commissioner. This should have been

dealt with by leadership.

As many

people have said, this has been going on all the time. It has never, ever

escalated to this point because in the past it was addressed. Either Members

left, were dismissed, were removed from Cabinet, or something. Some type of

leadership happened to address these types of situations in Parliaments over the

years, I'm sure. And in this situation we were referred to the Code of Conduct,

and this is the process we find ourselves in today.

It's an

unfortunate situation, Mr. Speaker, because at the end of the day, all anybody

wants is a better Newfoundland and Labrador. As workplace parliamentarians, and

as a complainant, I know all I want is a better workplace. I want to know that

the constituents of my district, regardless of the fact that they are in an

Opposition district versus a government district, will have fair and equal

opportunity to government funding and programs.

These

are the types of issues, Mr. Speaker, that the Code of Conduct speaks to. We

need to ensure that all Members of this hon. House are held accountable to the

highest standard of behaviour.

Does

anyone here really think that the types of behaviours that we have all witnessed

are acceptable in today's society? Do you really think that we can stand proud

in front of our children, our nieces, our nephews, our grandchildren about the

type of behaviour and tactics that are displayed in this House?

In my

opinion, Mr. Speaker, we all need to step back and say if we are going to raise

the bar, it starts with us. And yes, things have happened in Parliaments over

the past I would say, not just for the 20 years, 30 years, for the last 200

years. But if we going to make this a better place, it falls to us to take that

responsibility seriously, Mr. Speaker.

So back

to my resolution now in terms of the PMR to summons the Commissioner. I think,

certainly, by coming before the House of Assembly, it gives the opportunity for

all MHAs in this House to ask any questions and learn more about the process

itself, and as well for the public at large to see first-hand what has been

transpiring in this process.

certainly would all welcome, I would think, feedback from the public at large,

because we are here to decide how to regulate policies and how to allocate

taxpayers' dollars in the best interest of all of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

One of

the things, Mr. Speaker, the Green report was very clear on is that each and

every Member treat each other with respect. So it comes down to a question of

how we're going to define respect, perhaps. Because there seems to be different

understandings of respect based on the process that we've been through over the

course of this summer.

I've

shaken my head at a lot of things. So certainly, before I have a comfort level

in voting on some of the things that are in the reports, and whether or not

they're even true – because if some of the statements that are in there are not

true, and going back to Question Period today, we really need to take a whole

look, Mr. Speaker, at all of this and say: Is this the process that we should be

in? And certainly having the Commissioner before us will help give us all a

better understanding.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand

in my place today as a Member of the House of Assembly, and it is with regret

that I have to speak to this issue, Mr. Speaker, I say that.

It is a

difficult subject, and in particular I feel torn because I don't want to

re-victimize people. I don't want to bring their names forward. I don't want to

talk about what they've been through, and I won't, Mr. Speaker, and I won't when

the debate is on these reports itself, because I think that bullying and

harassment and intimidation is very, very difficult for people, and I think we,

as a Legislature, have to understand that.

We have

to understand the impacts are far beyond the politics; far beyond what's

happening in our community right now in the House of Assembly, but there are

others out there that are dealing with this every day. So I implore to my

colleagues in this House to be sensitive to each other, and to be sensitive to

those who are complainants in this instance and those who are respondents. There

have been times over this last six months when I don't think we all have been.

I can

tell you, as a person who has watched – I guess because we're all in this

Legislature we've been party to a lot of what's gone on. It is very, very

difficult on people. While over the next number of days and weeks we may have

the opportunity to stand here, Mr. Speaker, I am asking each of us to do so with

respect, for each of us to reflect on: There but for the grace of God go I; that

old adage that says tomorrow could've been something that we had either been

involved with or said or did, and to understand this is difficult. But as

difficult as it is, we also are in an opportunity to address societal change.

So I

hope over the – whatever period of time we take to find a better process, to

determine what the outcomes of this process that we've been in, I hope we all

reflect on this opportunity to rise and say that we have an opportunity to

affect and show leadership to our society.

It's

been about a year since the #MeToo movement started. Mr. Speaker, #MeToo started

and the Time's Up movement started because women finally stood up and said:

enough. And I don't think it's just women saying that. I think it's women and

men, and our societies, and our communities and our leaders, and all of us

taking that deep breath and saying: enough. We can all change.

Mr.

Speaker, I deal with a lot of violence-free community files, trying to effect

change in that. This is all part of that incremental or arising amount of saying

violence, harassment, all of those – what I'm going to call – negative societal

impacts that we're experiencing in our communities, it's time for us all to

stop. We all want a better world. There's not one of us, not one of us in this

House, not one person listening, there's not one person in this province that

does not want a better world. We can effect that change.

Mr.

Speaker, we are speaking to a resolution today to bring before the House, the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards, prior to debate of any of the

investigative reports in order to answer questions and provide clarity on the

process.

Mr.

Speaker, I think there's not one of us in here in this House today to say the

process was ideal. I can tell you within government – and there is a difference.

I say this for the people that may be listening, there is a difference between

government and the Legislature, in that government does effect policy it does

for its workers, it does in the people to whom work for government, and it has –

I mean government has put in an Harassment-Free Workplace Policy that is

probably leading the country. I would say that. It was written by Rubin

Thomlinson, who are experts in this field, and adopted and adapted for our use,

for our employees.

Mr.

Speaker, it's very, very important. It talks to – allow me to tell people, it

brings greater awareness of workplace harassment. It does a lot of training and

increases accountability for those in authority. It establishes timelines for

formal investigations and includes a comprehensive complaint resolution process.

Mr.

Speaker, when we all found ourselves in this situation – and if you read the

reports it does give a timeline accountability of this. This came to the floor

of the House of Assembly in Question Period. There probably would have been

different processes. There probably could have been different mechanisms to

utilize, but we found ourselves in the situation where it was brought to the

House of Assembly; therefore, unfolded a House of Assembly Question Period kind

of response.

Mr.

Speaker, I said at the very beginning, we have to be sensitive to the people

that are involved here. I'm going to say that while we don't have a perfect

process, and I don't think it was a perfect process because I would have liked

to have seen some type of restorative justice, some type of better

communication, some type of better processes, you know, different timelines, it

is the process that we have. There are ways under the act – there are different

sections under the act that – the House of Assembly accountability act, there's

36.1 where the Premier could bring forward privately to the Commissioner, the

Commissioner can start an investigation him or herself. You can also have the

complainant go to the Commissioner.

So there

are multitudes of ways it can be dealt with, including the House of Assembly

could bring an issue to the attention of the Commissioner. So there are ways and

means, but I'm going to say this: the process, while we may want to improve upon

that process and I think we absolutely do, that work is underway right now with

the Privileges Committee, and I thank them. I know they worked very hard during

the summer.

It is an

all-party committee, Mr. Speaker, just for those outside of the Legislature who

may not know that. Representatives from all parties sit on that legislative

committee, and it's very important. I think what you'll see coming out of that

will lead the country, because this is a topic that everybody in the country is

watching.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm also going to say that in understanding what our precinct was going

through, what our colleagues were going through, the Management Commission back

in – I think it was June, I believe, did put an interim process in place to say

we're going to follow the Harassment-Free Workplace Policy by government so that

there was an alternative mechanism. So there was an alternative mechanism.

So back

in June, the Management Commission said, okay, we know that the Privileges and

Elections Committee are reviewing all this work around harassment and process,

but we're going to put in this interim process, which I'm glad we have – I'm

glad we have. So if any of us are experiencing challenges in any way, shape or

form, we can follow that process. So there is an alternative. I am just making

sure that people understand that, Mr. Speaker.

So, here

we are today, and I understand that everyone here in this House of Assembly has

been briefed by the Commissioner as to what the process was, and what he did or

did not do in that process. And, Mr. Speaker, I understand that he brought in a

pretty reputable firm called Rubin Thomlinson. Rubin Thomlinson, by way of those

who may not know, is a national firm focused solely on workplace investigations

and training. The firm's experience in investigations, workplace harassment and

misconduct is expansive.

I've

already said that the former government, actually, engaged Rubin Thomlinson on a

matter. They also earlier engaged them on starting to develop some work around

workplace harassment, so they are known to this province and to our processes

within our government. They have experiences in investigations, like I said

workplace harassment, misconduct; their experience “is diverse and decades deep”

and that's from their website, giving Rubin Thomlinson “unique insight into

cases and their complexities.” And we know by our briefing by the Commissioner

that he engaged, as an independent investigator, Rubin Thomlinson.

As such,

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be important, I think it would be very important,

that we add – and this is a very friendly amendment – we add to the private

Member's resolution brought forward in earnest yesterday, and I support that

resolution; but I'd like to add to it by saying, and I guess I'm amending it,

and I'm asking my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, to

second that motion.

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that

the private Member's resolution before this House be amended by adding

immediately after the words “Commissioner for Legislative Standards” the words

and commas “and Rubin Thomlinson, as investigators,”.

that's moved and seconded, Mr. Speaker – and the rationale here is that Rubin

Thomlinson were the investigators, and we would like to be able to ensure that

we understand their process as well as the Commissioner's.

MR. SPEAKER (Warr):

The hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was

made aware of this by the hon. minister. Just so we're clear, it involves the

Commissioner as well as the investigators from the said – yes, okay.

Thank

you.

And

that's a friendly amendment that we certainly support.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

House will recess so we can take a look at the amendment and report back.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Are the House Leaders ready?

Order,

please!

The

amendment to the motion is said to be in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do

want to thank my colleagues of the House. All colleagues in the House did

support this friendly amendment and I think in the spirit of trying to find the

best answers to the process and ensure that we have the information that we need

as we move forward.

Mr.

Speaker, allow me for a moment just to define a little bit what I understand

Rubin Thomlinson's role to be, and that was as an investigator, and using their

considerable expertise in harassment and workplace issues, they used theirs –

where the Commissioner really has the oversight – the colleague from Fortune Bay

- Cape La Hune actually said this: has really the expertise around the Code of

Conduct.

So allow

me to quote a couple of things from our Code of Conduct, because I think it's

important. Mr. Speaker, it says: we have to serve our “fellow citizens with

integrity in order to improve the economic and social conditions … of the

province.”

We have

to “reject political corruption and refuse to participate in unethical political

practices .…”

We have

to “act lawfully and in a manner that will withstand the closest public

scrutiny.”

Our

personal conduct, “Members will not engage in personal conduct that exploits for

private reasons their positions ….”

We'll

carry out our “official duties and arrange their private financial affairs in a

manner that protects the public interest ….”

And, Mr.

Speaker, probably as importantly, “Members should promote and support these

principles by leadership and example.”

Mr.

Speaker, I don't have much time left, but I will say this. I think it's very

important that we have an opportunity now to show that leadership; to show how

we can bring about some societal change. For all that has gone on in the last

six months, Mr. Speaker, I think it speaks to where we are going as a community,

as a province, as a society, as a country. That it is not to be tolerated:

harassment, abuse, intimidation. It is not acceptable.

As the

Premier says, zero tolerance. People are listening to what we're saying. People

are watching what we're saying. The country is watching what we're saying. I

think it's incumbent upon all of us to show that leadership right now. Let's

make this about betterment and improvement about societal change.

remember once reading a slogan that said: add women, change politics. In the

last 30 seconds I have, I will make this plea: to any female, any woman that is

listening today, to think about going into the political realm, because add

women, change politics. And just what I am saying today is let us all change

societal requirements around harassment and bullying. Let's be leaders, and I

implore upon that, and I thank you for supporting the amendment to the

resolution.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

indeed an honour to stand and talk to this private Member's resolution put

forward by my colleague, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

Again,

talking to the amendment which we will, and I know personally I will be

supporting, because it adds another nuance to exactly the intent of this PMR,

which is to have an open, a very inclusive, a very structured and a very

beneficial process here of finding the proper information.

People

need to realize – and I think in this House we have. This is unchartered waters

that we've jumped into in this House of Assembly. It's unchartered because

society has changed dramatically, and rightfully so.

We found

ourselves in the midst of some serious situations here that we need to have a

mechanism, we need to have the support process, we need to have a fluent,

inclusive process that ensures everyone who's engaged and involved in this are

safe, they are comfortable with the process, and they know that everything

should be done in a manner that should be outlined, that's transparent,

accessible and publicly – to the point of view that the public would have

confidence in exactly what we're doing here.

The

process of bringing in the Commissioner is not new. It may be new to this

because, as I mentioned earlier, this is unchartered waters. We're looking at

something that's very serious and something that's very important that we get it

right. We got an opportunity here to do the right thing.

Over the

last number of months the process within government has been changing to ensure

that employees are protected and that if accusations are made, that they're

investigated in the proper manner and that people feel safe and confident that

that process is to be followed. It's no slight to the Commissioner. It's no

slight to Rubin Thomlinson, the company that were hired to do it.

What

this was about – and I think one of the things that may have been missed in part

of this discussion was because this was new, this was a new process, we wanted

to – and I say we, I know on this side and a number of other people, including

some of the people engaged in this process, the complainants and those who had

to defend what was being – the accusations being put forward on them, didn't

like the process because it wasn't all encompassing. Because there hadn't been a

structure in the past that people were confident that it could work – and I have

no qualms in explaining.

I was

under investigation by the Commissioner at one point. Again, it was new

unchartered waters a number of years ago. The Commissioner of the day had to go

to Ontario for advice to figure out how you deal with that and what are the

ramifications around the investigative process and the process around ensuring

that everybody is given an opportunity to be included in the process, all

evidence that's necessary should be shared with the Commissioner and discussed,

and that the proper process would be followed.

I give

full credence; at the time it was a fairly lengthy process, but it was done with

due diligence. It wasn't at the same level as this or in the same chartered

waters. It was very important and serious. Anything that talks about the

integrity of this House, talks about the responsibilities we have as elected

officials and talks about the Code of Conduct, are very important. There is no

slight of one over the other.

The

difference here was we had never been down this road. Prior to that, they had

never been down the road in a situation that I found myself in. So the

Commissioner, through due diligence, went out and looked at other jurisdictions,

looked at what would be the process and followed the process of the

investigative mechanisms that would be in the best interest of ensuring that due

diligence was done. At the end of the day, the report really reflected the

circumstances around that particular issue, and that's all we were asking in

this case.

We're

not dismissing or saying in any way, shape or form that the Commissioner and the

company hired didn't do that, but we do know at the beginning, because this was

so new, everybody had reservations. Because even the Commissioner, himself, had

acknowledged that he wasn't an expert. His office didn't have the resources to

be able to do this, and to be able to do it in the timely fashion that would be

necessary so that people's lives weren't held ransom for periods of time,

because that does have an impact on all involved. It has an impact in this

House, as we've seen with the issues that we're still facing today.

What it

talked about was the culture of ensuring we find the proper mechanisms. What was

suggested at the time is maybe we look at a new mechanism. Well, we didn't go

that way. Unfortunately, it was decided to go the route that we've gone, and

we're saying: okay, we're at that stage. We can't reverse that, but we need to

know exactly the whole process that was used.

Asking

the Commissioner to come in here – as we had a discussion earlier with the

Commissioner. You can see it's evident that there are a number of questions that

people have; their clarification they want. There is an explanation as to why

certain methods were used or why certain methods weren't used in the

investigative process, and what that meant to all involved and what should've

been shared with the complainants; what should've been shared with those who

have been accused of a wrongdoing. And what role did the other players have in

that, the House of Assembly? What role does the management committee have in the

reporting process? What is private and should be privileged? What is open that

the individuals can share with the general public?

So there

are number of nuances here that need to be discussed. What's being proposed here

I think is another example of openness, transparency and inclusion.

Collectively, we're all working together to find the best solution so that we

can address any issues in the future.

I think

the bigger picture here is about having the discussion around: how do we prevent

situations like this from occurring? The culture of a safe environment, a

culture that people can have discussions and it not get to a point where it's

harassing, or in any way, shape or form bullying. How people can feel safe about

what's happening; but, as part of that, have a process in play that ensures that

if the mechanism or whatever happens, if there is an accusation, the mechanism

is fluent and everybody would know how to move that forward.

So we're

not confident. I know we, on this side, are not confident. From what I heard

from the majority of those involved in this whole process, they're not confident

that this process was the best mode. So l