PDF Version

November 6, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 37

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

It is my

pleasure to welcome yet two more new Pages to this House of Assembly this

afternoon. To my right – your left, I guess – I have with me Tamsyn Russell and

Katelyn Galway.

Tamsyn

is from St. John's and is studying political science at Memorial University, and

Katelyn is from Harbour Grace and is studying French at Memorial University.

Welcome

to both of you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Bienvenue, tout le monde!

In the

public gallery, I would like to welcome the Mayor of Lawn, Mr. John Strang, and

I'm looking for them. I don't see them.

Yeah,

Mr. Strang, thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

And I'm also looking for a

nice group of folks from MADD Canada who are here.

There

she is, okay, hello. I'd like to welcome Patricia Hynes-Coates, the President of

MADD Canada, Terry Coates, Amanda Hynes, Anthony Hynes and Sharon Cobb, and

Sharon you're with MADD Avalon.

Thank

you, you're joining us here this afternoon for a Ministerial Statement.

Great

welcome to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today for Members' statements

we will hear from the Members from the Districts of Ferryland, Humber - Bay of

Islands, Bonavista and Mount Pearl - Southlands.

The hon.

the Member for the District of Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand

in this hon. House today to recognize a constituent who is an entrepreneur and

business owner, Jill Curran. On October 25, Jill was awarded the Entrepreneurial

Excellence Award at the 21st annual Newfoundland and Labrador Organization of

Women Entrepreneurs.

The

award recognizes the entrepreneurship of an individual who has owned and been in

operating control of a business for at least 10 years as of March 31, 2018. This

award also recognizes the significant impact on the economy of a region.

Jill,

whose success is an inspiration for other women in business, opened Lighthouse

Picnics 15 years ago in the historic Town of Ferryland, and now employs over 12

people during the season. Seven years later, she opened the business Maxxim

Vacations which has become a leading tour operators business. Lighthouse Picnics

is operated out of a 130-year-old lighthouse in Ferryland, while Maxxim

Vacations is located here in St. John's.

Jill's

success has been significant and far reaching, not only on the Southern Shore,

but in profiling what we have to offer in our entire province.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Members of this House to join me in congratulating Jill on

receiving the 2018 Entrepreneurial Excellence Award, and making a major

contribution to the tourism industry in our great province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to recognize a great volunteer in my district. This past

summer, George Sheppard of Curling received the Sovereign's Medal for

Volunteers.

This

medal, awarded by the Governor General of Canada, recognizes individuals who

have made an exceptional contribution to their community through their

dedication to volunteer work.

When

George returned to Corner Brook 30 years ago after serving with the RCMP in

Regina, he helped organize the first RCMP charity golf tournament. He decided

that the money raised should go to the Children's Wish Foundation. That first

tournament raised $450 and has grown tremendously over the past 30 years, with

last year's tournament raising over $15,000, giving the total raised to date

over $300,000.

addition to the tournament, George also does his part selling tickets,

collecting recyclables for cash, helping out during the annual Children's Wish

telethon and sits on the committee with his partner in crime Jack Pennell, that

helps make wishes come true.

To quote

George, “That's what it's all about; looking after the young ones.”

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating George on receiving this prestigious

award and thank him for his continued service to his community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Bonavista.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With

Remembrance Day upon us, there are many events held to honour our veterans. That

was the case on October 26, when dozens of veterans received a prayer shawl from

Lieutenant-Governor Judy Foote and Prayer Shawl Chairperson Vi Parsons at a

special ceremony held at Heritage United Church in Musgravetown.

The

Prayer Shawl Ministry of Heritage United Church is a group of 25 ladies from the

church and community who meet regularly on Wednesdays to share in fellowship,

worship God, and knit or crochet shawls with a prayer attached. Since 2006,

hundreds of shawls and other knitted items have been presented to those who are

in need or to anyone who needs the comfort of knowing that someone cares.

Earlier

this year, the group decided that it would recognize local veterans in

Musgravetown and surrounding communities, thus the Honour our Veterans ceremony

was planned. Veterans, their families and special guests packed Heritage United,

where service and sacrifice were honoured. Afterwards, fellowship was shared at

an afternoon tea reception.

Mr.

Speaker, to the women to the prayer shawl group I'd like to extend a naval

expression for a job well done: Bravo Zulu!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, it is my

privilege to recognize an amazing constituent of mine who has made a significant

difference in the lives of persons living with disabilities.

Craig

Reid has been a tireless advocate for many years and a force to be reckoned with

when it comes to issues around access and inclusion and the concept of universal

government, business and communities aware of these issues, but has a proven

record of influencing them to initiate change.

Craig is

well known to government officials and has acted as a watchdog whenever he's

One area

Thanks to his efforts, the district funded an accessible pilot project to ensure

Peninsula which resulted in many improvements.

It was

also his persistence that led to enhanced blue-zone parking at the Confederation

Building, the Health Sciences Centre, St. Clare's Hospital and the St. John's

Arts and Culture Centre. He was also the primary catalyst behind the CBC

Newfoundland and Labrador series, Access

Denied , which explored mobility issues, accessible workplaces and many other

related topics.

This

past August, Craig was recognized for all his efforts by the Coalition of

Persons with Disabilities who awarded him the Linda Wilansky Individual Advocacy

Award for 2018.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in recognizing this amazing volunteer.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to

rise today to recognize the Project Red Ribbon campaign. In its 31st t

year, Project Red Ribbon is Mothers Against Drunk Driving's longest running, and

probably most well-known, public awareness campaign.

Losing a

loved one due to impaired driving is particularly devastating because of how

needless and unnecessary it is. Each year, almost 1,500 Canadians are killed and

more than 63,000 are injured in impairment-related crashes.

Mr.

Speaker, these types of incidents are preventable.

Never

drive impaired, or with an impaired driver. If you plan on drinking, arrange for

a designated driver or call a cab and, if you suspect someone is driving

impaired, call 911.

I would

also like to remind all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that it's not just

alcohol that impairs. Illegal drugs, cannabis, prescription or over-the-counter

medication, and even fatigue, can impact one's ability to safely operate a

motorized vehicle.

This

province has some of the strongest impaired driving laws in the country. Mr.

Speaker, thanks to the support of MADD and all the Members of this House, we

have made significant changes to the

Highway Traffic Act , including stronger penalties for impaired drivers.

commend the efforts of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and encourage everyone to

participate in this important campaign.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

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. Mr. Speaker, we in the

Official Opposition strongly support the Project Red Ribbon campaign and stand

with Mothers Against Drunk Driving in promoting the very important work they do.

Impaired

driving takes lives and while there has been significant effort to reduce it,

Mr. Speaker, impaired driving continues to be a serious problem and there's much

more work to be done. Continued education and awareness campaigns such as

Project Red Ribbon play a vital role in this regard.

Mr.

Speaker, road safety is a shared responsibility and we must all do our part. We,

too, want to thank MADD for all the work it has done and continues to do in

raising awareness about the importance of always driving sober. We, too,

encourage everyone to support this very important campaign.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

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. I join in thanking Mothers Against

Drunk Driving for the annual effort to raise awareness of the damage caused by

impaired driving. Detecting impairment is vital for law enforcement and yet

government still has no reliable roadside detection method for cannabis as it

does with alcohol. For the safety of everyone in our province, I hope this issue

can be addressed soon with the province talking to the federal government.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize a noteworthy achievement by the Labrador-Grenfell Health

Authority.

In July

2018, the Labrador West Health Centre became the first health care facility in

Atlantic Canada to receive the World Health Organization and UNICEF's

Baby-Friendly Designation.

The

Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative was launched in 1991, and is a worldwide

effort to implement best practices to support breastfeeding. Today, there are

more than 150 participating countries.

Congratulations to everyone who helped achieve this designation, including the

staff of Labrador-Grenfell Health, members of the Baby-Friendly Council of

Newfoundland and Labrador and the Regional Baby-Friendly Initiative Working

Group.

Through

your work, you are helping new parents make informed decisions about infant

feeding and ensuring that families are supported in these decisions.

This

initiative complements our commitment in

The Way Forward to increase our province's breastfeeding initiation rate by

7 per cent by 2025.

We have

also provided the Baby-Friendly Council with $25,000 to develop toolkits to help

municipalities create breastfeeding-friendly spaces, policies and practices.

These toolkits will be available this fall.

We also

supported the recent Breastfeeding Research Symposium – I was pleased to attend

and bring greetings on behalf of government – here in St. John's, which brought

together researchers, practitioners and policy makers to discuss ways to

increase breastfeeding rates in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding Labrador-Grenfell Health

and the Baby-Friendly Council for their commitment to supporting families in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

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'd also

like to thank the minister for providing an advance copy of her statement. I

join her in commending the Labrador-Grenfell Health Authority and the Labrador

West Health Centre in particular for becoming the very first health care

facility in Atlantic Canada to receive the World Health Organization and

UNICEF's Baby-Friendly Designation. Congratulations as well to members of the

Baby-Friendly Council of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Regional

Baby-Friendly Initiative Working Group.

The

World Health Organization recognizes that breastfeeding is the normal way of

providing young infants with the nutrients they need for healthy growth and

development. Virtually all mothers can breastfeed, provided they have accurate

information and the support of their family, the health care system and society

at large.

Colostrum, the yellowish, sticky breast milk produced at the end of pregnancy is

recommended by the World Health Organization as the perfect food for the

newborn, and feeding should be initiated within the first hour after birth.

Exclusive breastfeeding is recommended up to six months of age with continued

breastfeeding, along with appropriate complementary foods, up to two years of

age or beyond.

We need

to continue to educate people to accept breastfeeding – whether at home in

private or in public social settings – as absolutely normal, convenient and

healthy.

Once

again, we all commend them on this significant achievement.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

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 thank

the minister for the statement. An important determinant of good health is

nutrition and a key measure of nutrition is breastfeeding. Studies show

breastfeeding reduces health costs in the first year of life, and I'm glad the

Baby-Friendly Council is working with Eastern Health to study this in our own

province.

commend the council and health centre along with the minister and my colleague

for their hard work getting our breastfeeding rates up and I look forward to

seeing the toolkit.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, if breastfeeding

reduces cost in the health care system, then that's certainly an additional

reason to be very much in favour of that.

My first

question is for the hon. Premier. Over the last three years, from 2015, the

Liberal government has increased spending.

I ask

the hon. Premier: Having regard to the financial update today, how do you expect

to find $442 million in savings in four years?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One

group we will not be reaching out to will be the Leader of the Opposition, since

– if you look at the history of the record, it was as a result of the

administration, the group that he now leads, that has gotten us into this

spending issue where we are.

What

we've been able to do is maintain the expenditures of this province, Mr.

Speaker, keeping in mind that we are actually in a very volatile economy. So the

layoffs that the Leader of the Opposition would be – he would be promoting,

which is what we've heard from him and his Members in recent weeks. So his

layoffs would therefore have further impacts on the economy.

So the

approach we've been taking is to partner with the industry sectors, partner with

our labour groups to navigate our way through this. The economic indicators in

our province right now, I will tell you, have much more improved since they were

in 2015.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

The

Minister of Finance – Premier, said today that he was sowing the seeds of

diversification.

I ask

the Premier: Are these cannabis seeds or acorns, and where is the additional

revenue from these seeds of which the minister spoke?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Speaking of seeds, Mr.

Speaker, one of the things we've been able to do through

The Way Forward is to promote the

agriculture industry, which back in the 1930s, this was a province that was

self-sufficient in food; where in the '90s and into the last 10 or 15 years, and

with the group that you now lead, that reduced to nearly just 10 per cent of our

population.

So we

recognize significant opportunities. We've highlighted those in our Way Forward,

which is a growth in sustainability for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are working with many industry sectors, including the community sector – some

of the best volunteers we have in our province – to help guide our way through

partnerships, even with other provinces, Mr. Speaker, to help this province,

which is rich in natural resources, to get the future of this province back on

track.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I appreciate the seed

reference might draw the hon. Premier into musings about agriculture, and we all

anticipate the advent of edible cannabis soon.

When the

Minister of Finance took office, he promised legislation to reduce spending in

agencies, boards and commissions. The minister has backed away from this.

I ask

the minister: Where are the savings from the ABCs which have been promised?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of

all, I'll start off by saying that many of the agencies, boards and commissions

that were put in place by the Members opposite, we've already reduced a number

of the agencies, boards and commissions put in place.

The

second item, I'll say to the Member opposite, he's asking where the legislation

is. I'll say stay tuned, because we've only just started this legislative

session and most of the time it's been tied up dealing with other issues, as you

know, but you will see the legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank the minister and

assure him we will stay tuned; although, the picture on the screen is getting a

bit snowy three years into his mandate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

The minister trumpeted the

success of oil today; however, he says that the province is not relying on oil

revenues. How can he say this, considering deficit reduction is due solely to

the increase in oil revenues?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of

the Opposition says the picture on the screen is snowy. I say it's a downright

storm, a storm left by the uncertainty, the debt that your colleagues, that

you're sitting next to, left this province in; an unprecedented debt level of an

estimated $2.7 billion in deficit. Over $1 billion more than your colleagues,

your Minister of Finance, your partners that you're sitting with, projected.

That was a huge task to deal with.

We've

been able to reduce the deficit by $2 billion in just three years, Mr. Speaker,

without cutting major services, without having a drastic effect on services. I'd

say that's something to be proud of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank the minister, and I'd

ask him when he intends to take ownership of the problems he's just put his

finger on but I'd probably get a rhetorical answer.

I'd like

to change topics. For the Premier, we have documents that show the lobbyist on

the Canopy deal, Mr. Jeffrey Ryan, registered as a lobbyist on the exact same

day that the numbered company was created.

Does

this seem like a coincidence, or does it arouse suspicion in your mind?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

First of all, Mr. Speaker, in

the

preamble the Leader of the Opposition talked about taking ownership. I would

suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should also accept the responsibility

for where you left this province, you and your team that you are now sitting

with.

We are

taking ownership of where we are, and we're making a big difference. That is

what The Way Forward is all about, I

say to the Leader of the Opposition.

To the

question that he asked about this Jeff Ryan, if the lobbyist registry is

working, that's the reason why the registry is in place. Simply, the fact that

you actually know who the individual is shows that the registry that we put in

place is working. I would encourage you to go look at that registry. You would

see the person sitting to your right is actually also registered as a lobbyist

on that registry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Order,

please!

MR. CROSBIE:

I believe his lobbying career

is not nearly so illustrious as Mr. Ryan's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

And there's reason for that.

Ted

Lomond is a form Liberal Party executive member and now the deputy minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation. Documents obtained through an ATIPP

request show that on the day following the creation of the numbered company and

the registration of the lobbyist, the deputy minister emailed his team

instructing them to start drafting the contract with Canopy.

Is the

timing of this email also a coincidence?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

executive team that's at the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and

Innovation and the team that I have working in the department do their proper

due diligence when they deal with particular files, when you're dealing with a

publicly-traded company such as Canopy. This was something that we wanted to do

in terms of being able to attract a world leading, cannabis production facility

here, secure supply with the legalization of cannabis, and we did that.

It's

very important that when you look at, Mr. Ryan in particular, he is an in-house

consultant. He is an employee of the Canopy Growth Corporation and will be

acting in that role and capacity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, let's deal with

some facts.

So the

financial arrangements are these: $8.74 million for shares; $10 million

interest-free construction loan; the annual lease payments at $4.99 million over

a five-year period, for a total of $25 million; adding up to $44 million, less

the cost of the land at $2.7 million. A net total of $41 million.

I ask

the minister, or the Premier: Is Canopy really just doing a pass-through of the

$40 million of taxpayer money to a numbered company whose shareholders have

Liberal lobbyists, but whose identities remain unknown?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, the answer is

no. Canopy Growth Corporation is a publicly traded company that has

shareholders. All of their shareholders are anybody that could be buying shares

in Canopy Growth Corporation. I, myself, certainly would not have shares as a

minister.

What I

will say is that we have a contract with Canopy Growth Corporation that allows

them to recoup up to $40 million in reduced remittances for eligible cost.

Anything that is not deemed eligible, they would not be able to recoup that

cost.

So,

there is process, there is adequate protections in our contract to be able to

ensure that any amount or any dollar that is reduced in terms of remittances is

adequately accounted for through this process.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I'd say to the

hon. minister that having just done the math, we now know how his government

came up with the $40-million taxpayer gift.

I would

ask the Premier. Did you meet with Jeffery Ryan, the lobbyist?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of

the Official Opposition certainly loses credibility when he continues to make up

numbers and put numbers out there publicly that are completely inaccurate.

What has

been stated publicly is that Canopy Growth Corporation will invest far more than

$40 million in their capital expenditure. In order to get a reduced remittance,

they have to be able to make sales here in Newfoundland and Labrador and it has

to be based on eligible cost. Anything that is not deemed eligible, they will

not get that recoupment.

What we

are getting in Newfoundland and Labrador is a supply agreement; it's not costing

the taxpayers any money. There's no upfront grant. There is no cash in this

situation that is being provided. Every dollar that Canopy Growth Corporation

expends in this province, our province gets even more.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Will the minister tell the

House if he directed his deputy minister, Ted Lomond, to make this deal happen?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When it

comes to any type of deals that we do in our province, we're certainly committed

to making sure that we do good deals here in Newfoundland and Labrador on behalf

of the people of the province. I can certainly list off a number of deals that

were done in the past by the former administration.

One

thing that we've seen recently with, in particular, the Biome deal is that

you're seeing $54,000 a year average salaries in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. We did a deal when it comes to Canada Fluorspar that is seeing 3,000

person-years of employment; S&P Data we did a repayable loan to them and $500

per employee that's going to create 500 jobs. Hundreds of people have already

started this process of being employed there and that's going to create $131

million in economic activity.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last

week, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board said in this House

he was going to try and find out, or do an investigation, into who the

shareholders are of the numbered company that's leasing land to Canopy Growth.

I ask

the minister to give an update on that investigation, and if it's determined who

actually owns and who are the names in that company.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I

will say is that when we had done a deal with Canopy Growth Corporation, as I've

said before, that they went into an agreement with the Newfoundland and Labrador

Liquor Corporation and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and they

created a numbered company which has representatives from their corporation.

They did

so to create this company here in Newfoundland and Labrador so that the province

could get additional taxation or other benefits associated with having such a

company created. That is the approach that has been taken.

When it

comes to any outside dealings outside of that contract, beyond December 2017, we

do not dictate, as a government, where or who companies get and do business

arrangements. There are all sorts of arrangements that a company may get into,

and I'll certainly further answer his question –

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, there's a Canopy

numbered company and there's another numbered company that's leasing property to

Canopy. That's the question was asked to the Minister of Finance and President

of Treasury Board last week. He stood here and said he'd do an investigation,

he'd find the information out and he'd bring it to the House.

So I'm

asking the Minister of Finance: What investigation did you do, and did you find

out who the names are and, if you did, could you please tell us in the House?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to

anybody that's doing business here in Newfoundland and Labrador, like for

example S&P Data – I know that the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi doesn't

appreciate 500 jobs being created here in the city of St. John's, as she said so

yesterday, but we did not dictate to them to set up at the Village Mall.

We did

not dictate to Biome Grow Corporation that they would set up on the West Coast

of this province. It was actually the president of the local company who had an

application in with Health Canada since 2014, who was seeking investors, and

they said we want to bring this to St. John's, and he said absolutely no.

When it

comes to Canopy Growth Corporation, they said they would set up a company on the

northeast Avalon. They are doing that. Anything outside of that has no

involvement with the contract and is not part of the government.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker, I can only

assume that the minister's not going to follow up on what he suggested he would

do last week in the House here.

In the

state of Colorado where cannabis was legalized in January of 2014, criminal

activity has been introduced by investments in production facilities and

licences have resulted in legally grown cannabis being shipped out for illegal

market sale by the criminal element.

While

certainly we have no evidence of that activity here in this province, this is

significant to understand.

I ask

the minister: If you do not investigate who the beneficiary is along the chain

of investors, how do you ensure the protection of the public investment and

security of the public in general?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, we have a

contract with Canopy Growth Corporation, the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor

Corporation, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the numbered

company that was created by Canopy Growth.

We have

a contract with them and it involves them supplying 8,000 kilograms of cannabis

annually with us. And it also prescribes a requirement that we would provide up

to $40 million of their eligible expenses. Anything that is not deemed eligible,

we have an audit process. We have prescribed protections in place that would

allow us that if there is some form of overpayment we can stop remittances at

any time. We could also relinquish retail licenses, if necessary.

So when

it comes to the chain of command, we have appropriate process in our contract to

protect taxpayers. This is a good deal for the people of the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So the minister confirms

there are no checks done in that particular circumstance that we're seeing arise

in Colorado.

Mr.

Speaker, it's common knowledge that Canopy Growth had trouble meeting the supply

needs for the first several weeks of legalization. The contract with Canopy

Growth, I understand, indicates that 50 per cent of construction of the facility

would be completed by October 1, 2018.

I ask

the minister: What percentage of completion have they reported for construction?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One

thing that I can say that here in Newfoundland and Labrador is that Canopy

Growth has been supplying us with a significant amount of product to the

licensed producers and retailers here. It's quite significant. You see in other

provinces like New Brunswick they have had to close 10 of their 20 stores.

Quebec is operating just three days a week.

When it

comes to the contract with Canopy Growth Corporation, there are milestones that

are in it, and we have a requirement of which they would be open by October of

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the minister indicated there were penalties in place in regard to the

contract with Canopy Growth. Could he outline the penalties and if any have been

executed related to delivery, supply or other elements of the agreement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, as I've said

previously that we have a contract with Canopy Growth Corporation to supply

cannabis, 8,000 kilograms for a year – that's annually, for the first two years

with an option to renew.

Cannabis

has only been legal for just three weeks here in this particular province. We're

not in a position to be able to go to a company and say, you have not delivered

at this point in time. We do have appropriate mechanisms in our contract over

time to look at and see if they delivered the measurables and the milestones

that are in place. We have adequate protections. There is no taxpayer money

going into this particular contract. Should there be an overpayment of

remittances at any time, there's an ability to recoup or stop remittances, and

there's an ability to shut down or relinquish retail licenses. So the taxpayers

of this province are protected.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He's not

going to tell us the details of the penalty, so I'll ask him this.

If the

actual supplier, Canopy, delivers in the agreement what they said they would,

they delivered in the twelfth month of the year, would that still meet the

requirements of the contract, even though for 11 months they may make no

deliveries?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, it seems like

the Member opposite and the previous administration were very heavily involved

in business dealings and how business could or could not work. It seems like

they wanted to dictate where a company would set up, dictate who they would deal

with and who they would operate. That is not our approach.

Our

approach to doing business is that we are open for business, we are creating

jobs. And we are seeing it having success, not just in the cannabis industry of

attracting two companies right now with hopefully more to come and the jobs that

have already been created, but look at all the other things that we've done in

mining and attracting major investment, over $16 billion, and how we're

correcting the fiscal mess that was left by the administration on the other

side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Public Accounts Committee met with the Auditor General this morning to discuss

the findings of the audit of the Eastern School District.

Can the

minister outline what action the department has taken to ensure taxpayers' money

is being spent where it is most needed to support the education system?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to thank the Member opposite for the question. Certainly, the Auditor General's

report was not something that any of us on this side of the House will be proud

of, and I'm sure on the other side of the House either, Mr. Speaker.

Some

time back in last year my department felt that there might have been some issues

requested that the Auditor General would go in and check on what was happening.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we realized the audit was done between 2011 and

2016, which certainly bring some concern for us as a government.

So, Mr.

Speaker, we are certainly working with that and we'll ensure that there are

efficiencies and ways (inaudible) to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: Do you have confidence that the school district understands the

seriousness of these findings and the importance of implementing proper internal

controls and oversite to protect the monies of the citizens of this province and

to ensuring it's being spent where it's needed in our education system?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Unfortunately, when some of these situations happen – totally unacceptable. As

minister responsible, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Member opposite that I have

board, as a matter of fact, to ensure that these types of things are not

repeated.

Too

often we stand there and have to defend these things. They are not things that

we need to defend. These are totally unacceptable. Some of them could be even

fraudulent, and we are making sure that the total investigation goes into that

to ensure we do have the necessary funding for programming in our school

district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do

agree with the minister, these are very serious and are indeed, and already been

proven, that they are fraudulent.

Has the

department put mechanisms in place to monitor the board and ensure that they are

taking the findings of the Auditor General seriously and are implementing the

needed procedures and proper oversight in a timely manner?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

assure the Member opposite that there were some issues with regard to making

sure all the checks and balances were in place, and we are working with the

checks and balances in place going forward, Mr. Speaker.

What

happened is totally unacceptable and should not, and should not, and hopefully

will not happen again. And we will work within the resources we have, Mr.

Speaker, and we'll work with the school board to ensure that these checks and

balances are in place to make sure these things do not happen in the future.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the

minister instruct the board to do a full audit of other services within the

board to ensure that the proper controls and oversights are in place and working

throughout the entire board?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

already ahead of that. Because actually when the Auditor General came in and we

District, and we know – she more focused on the Avalon Peninsula and we asked at

that time – and, of course, her schedule's pretty busy as well – to make sure we

have really a good, broad perspective of what could and potentially happened in

the other areas of the province.

As you

know, Mr. Speaker, there were four school boards at the time and they collapsed

into one school board under the former administration. So they had to work

through some of these issues when they tried to consolidate all of that. So

there were some issues. We'd like to know what's happening in Central and

Western as well.

So, Mr.

Speaker, yes, we want to make sure that we have measures in place to ensure that

these things do not happen and will not happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

board recently approved a $2 million plan to address the problems identified by

the Auditor General and will be seeking funds from the department.

Will the

minister support this request and provide the monies to the board?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the

Member opposite, you should realize and understand that there is a budgetary

process that we go through. Part of that is each of our departments will look at

– and we will look at our budgets that we have and we'll deal with these issues.

One of

the things that there are, not necessarily one or two or three or do something

in silos – there are opportunities to look at synergies and opportunities within

the Finance Department, and some other departments, to work with to ensure that

Board will have the resources that are necessary for them to ensure they're

doing the things when it comes to a financial perspective going forward to have

these tools in place, and we will work with them to ensure that we do have that,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island for a very quick question, please.

MR. BRAZIL:

Has the minister had dialogue

with the elected school board to outline concerns around this particular issue?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development for a quick response, please.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I

do have regular discussions with the chair of the board.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While

government gives away $95 million to among the largest producers of recreational

cannabis in the world, many of our people, especially seniors, are suffering

from severe dental pain and infections but cannot afford to see a dentist

because this government cut the Adult Dental Program. Doctors around the

province are ringing alarm bells about the suffering and danger their patients

are in, the extraordinary use of antibiotics and the dangers of addictions with

pain meds.

I ask

the Premier: What is he going to do to help these people who are showing up in

our emergency departments in desperation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Adult Dental Program in this province is on a par with at least five other

jurisdictions in Canada. We have actually increased, between budget '17 and '18,

the amount of money within that program by roughly 20 per cent. Given our fiscal

constraints, we were very pleased to be able to do that.

service somewhere in excess of 50,000 clients in the course of the last year. We

look to find ways to improve it, bearing in mind the issues of fiscal

sustainability and the problems we inherited from the previous government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, so the minister

is telling me that the race to the bottom is what he's looking at.

Last

week, The Gathering Place opened a free dental clinic with services provided by

volunteer dentists and hygienists. Already, 1,500 people are lined up

desperately wanting to see a dentist. Many haven't seen one in years and have

very complicated dental issues. The Gathering Place cannot meet this dental

emergency situation alone.

So I ask

the Premier: Will he bring back the Adult Dental Program so people can get the

health care that they need?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Mr. Speaker, thank you very

much.

The

Gathering Place serves an invaluable function. It deals with a very vulnerable

population – a significant number of who don't actually have MCP cards for

reasons that we can't manage.

We have,

as a government, quadrupled funding to the Gathering Place over recent years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HAGGIE:

So I think we are doing what

we can, given the situation in which we find ourselves, with not unlimited

funds, and a constrained environment to dig ourselves out of the hole that we

inherited three years ago.

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.

We're

hearing from families around the province about the situation of loved ones in

long-term care who are experiencing repeated assaults, falls, delays in hygiene

care, lack of assistance at mealtime and being forced to stay in bed. They say

the problem is lack of adequate staff.

I ask

the Minister of Health and Community Services: Is he taking this situation

seriously?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The care

of our seniors is of paramount importance to this department. These are the

people who built this province. I will not stand by when there are any cases of

neglect. There are mechanisms in place through the RHAs, through the new p atient

safety and quality assurance act that we put in place through the adult

protection program for those individuals who have concerns about their loved

ones, and I would encourage them to use those. If there's anybody else out there

who has a specific case of neglect, and you haven't brought it to me, you should

have.

From the point of view of staffing, we have the single

largest number of RNs and LPNs in the country on a per capita basis. We are the

leading province in that regard. We have added nurse practitioners, and seen

huge improvements in the last year alone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker.

People

are trying use the system, and it's not working for them. Yesterday, a group

submitted a petition to this House, and offered many more examples of neglect

and poor care and threats to the health and well-being of their loved ones. We

have an urgent situation now because staffing levels are not meeting the needs

of the people.

So I'm

asking the minister: Will he conduct an immediate review of the staffing needs

in long-term care, and end this suffering of residents? Whatever he says about

statistics, it's not working.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once

again, any individual or family member who's concerned about the welfare of

their loved one in a long-term care facility, or anywhere in this province,

should bring that to the attention of the health authority, or the appropriate

authorities or my department if they fail to get satisfaction. I will not

tolerate that kind of activity.

In terms

of staffing, we have an opportunity now, going forward with the new long-term

care facilities, which we have managed to find funding for and partnerships to

enable us to build at a time again when we have had very little fiscal

maneuverability, we are able to put new long-term care facilities in place. This

is an opportunity for us to make sure that our staffing levels and staffing

ratios align with best practices, and I was speaking with the RNU literally two

hours ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The time

for Oral Questions has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

My apologies for my

hesitation.

Last

week when questioning the minister responsible for The Rooms, I made reference

to a document. The document is called The

Rooms Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador, Request for Proposals, Agency of

Record (AOR) , issue date January 25, 2018, and it is the conflict of

interest guidelines.

Might I

table this document?

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

MR. CROSBIE:

I gather I just leave it here

for pickup.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

I require consent of the

House to table that document.

Do I

have consent?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay, document is tabled,

thank you.

Further

tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At a

time when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are dealing with high levels

of taxation, increased unemployment rates, increased food bank usage, increased

bankruptcies and many are forced to choose between food, heat and medications,

Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro are continuing to seek

numerous power rate increases through the Public Utilities Board. Once the

Muskrat Falls Project comes online, these rates are predicted to further

increase significantly to unmanageable levels for the average citizen of our

province. While government has indicated they are working with Nalcor to

mitigate these rates, they have provided no detailed plan as to how they intend

to do so.

Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador to publicly provide all the potential options for

rate mitigation, develop a comprehensive, detailed plan to deal with current and

impending power rate increases. This plan is to be provided to the public as

soon as possible to allow for scrutiny, feedback and potential suggestions for

improvement.

Mr.

Speaker, I have over 200 signatures here today. These are mainly – well,

actually they're from all over: Middle Arm, Burlington, Baie Verte, Burin –

different parts of the province – La Scie. I presented this numerous times. I

will continue to do so because people have asked me to do so. This is certainly

not being critical of the current administration in terms of where we find

ourselves with the project. That's not what people are saying. It's not about

casting blame on anybody. It's talking about where we are, the reality of where

we stand today and the concern that people have about how they're going to pay

for the light bills if something isn't done.

The

Premier and minister have indicated that they do intend on implementing

rate-mitigation policies and so on to get it to a manageable level. All is being

asked here by people is that simply just saying that in itself does not ease

people's minds. They want to see action. They want to see exactly a detailed

plan as to how we are going to arrive at that place. That's what they're asking

the government to do. I don't think that's unreasonable. I don't think even the

Premier or government would say it's unreasonable.

I know

it's a matter of timing. They say they're working on it. I hope they are and,

hopefully, sooner rather than later this is going to happen so that people can

have some piece of mind.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Natural Resources for a response, please.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I've

been listening intently to the hon. Member who has tabled a number of these

petitions in the House and I can say this government certainly recognizes that

people are concerned about their electricity rates. We, too, are concerned about

their electricity rates, and that's why we're working with the Public Utilities

Board to find a path forward based on the incoming Muskrat Falls Project.

We all

know the difficulties that we inherited around that. The Member opposite asked

for a response as soon as possible, and we are working on one, Mr. Speaker. As

the people of the province know, in 2021 is when we anticipate having to start

to pay for the Muskrat Falls Project, and certainly there will be a detailed

plan before that time.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, workplace health and safety currently requires that where more than one

but less than 15 workers are engaged in one shift, an employer shall ensure that

one of the workers holds a valid emergency first aid certificate, unless an

officer directs that a higher certificate is necessary.

We, the

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to specify workplace health and safety to include a

mental health first aid certificate in this requirement.

Mr.

Speaker, in today's society it is theorized that we are under about 35 per cent

more stressors that effect our mental health than that of our ancestors in

previous decades, and particularly in our province where we're now faced with

escalating economic challenges, our mental health is definitely at risk.

We,

right now, have the highest rate of bankruptcy in our history. We have the

highest rate of self-harm in the country, of all provinces. Mental health is a

recognized and emerging important factor of overall workplace health.

Therefore, I am fully supportive of this petition. It's not a big added cost to

the employer by any means, and I would think that it would far counteract any

negative business costs that are caused by mental health issues in the

workplace.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Today I

rise again to present this petition – the federal government's current policy

regulation linking harvest quotas to vessel size.

Many

harvesters own fishing vessels of larger sizes, but because of the federal

regulations, harvesters are restricted to using smaller vessels, which often put

their crews in danger.

We, the

undersigned, call upon

the House of Assembly to urge

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to make representation to the

federal government to encourage them to change the vessel length restrictions

policy to ensure the safety of our fish harvesters.

Mr.

Speaker, I bring this again today, and I've been bringing it for the last number

of years, actually, in the House, and it's very important. This year I have not

heard of any casualties at sea because of smaller vessels, but in the past we've

heard it several, several times.

What's

happening in our crab fishery today, it's probably even more so. I know in my

own district – I'm not sure in other districts, but I know in my own area that

the inshore fleet this year had a very difficult time in catching their crab. In

fact, there were a lot of quotas that were left in the water and not even caught

because there was no crab available.

That's

an added cost to people that have two or three different vessel sizes. It'd be

easier for them to be able to use the larger vessels to be able to fish the

inshore quotas, and that way the costs wouldn't be so much on the harvesters.

It's important in safety. Anybody out on the water knows that the changes in

temperature, the climate can just change so fast with wind increasing, stuff

like that.

We're

putting our harvesters at risk by using smaller vessels. I just call on the

minister to talk to the federal government about changing these restrictions.

There was a reason why these restrictions were brought in in the first place: to

ensure that the inshore harvesters had a piece of the pie when it came to

harvesting crab, shrimp and anything at mid-shore. But most people today are

fishing both and they're being forced to use smaller vessels, even when they're

only nine or 10 miles offshore, where it can become very rough.

I just

ask the minister to make representation to the federal government to change this

regulation.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

to rise today to present a petition on behalf of constituents in my district

dealing with the management plan described for Mistaken Point Ecological

Reserve, which is a World Heritage Site.

The

management plan described the partnership between Mistaken Point Cape Race

Heritage Inc. to assist with the

interpretation site in Portugal Cove South,

which is the gateway for visitors. Mistaken Point Cape Race Heritage administers

and operates the site for Mistaken Point, Cape Race and the wireless

interpretation centre at Cape Race as well.

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

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to support the Mistaken Point UNESCO management plan

and meet all the responsibilities to maintain and grow the Mistaken Point world

heritage UNESCO site.

Mr.

Speaker, this actual recognition was in July of 2016 and was a long process

going through with the department and officials, with the help of the federal

government and Parks Canada in terms of putting the actual, what's called a

dossier, together in terms of the documentation of why this site should get the

world heritage recognition, and that was acknowledged in July of 2016.

With

that was a management plan that was to be executed by the provincial government

and as well a local group on the ground, as I referenced, Portugal Cove South

and Cape Race Heritage. With that collectively as a partnership to look at the

administration – because that's the gateway; it's a physical facility there in

Portugal Cove South and the community and the volunteers work to administer and

expose the world to Mistaken Point. And that's supposed to be a partnership.

There

are specific requirements within that plan that needs to be met by UNESCO to

make sure that you retain that status. One of the challenges is certainly a

fiscal challenge. We've seen no input in terms of new dollars from this

government to assist with that facility or to assist with the overall management

and administration of it.

Even

today, we're seeing the community groups out selling tickets on various things

to try and raise money for operation, which is really not good enough when you

think about a World Heritage Site and how unique those are around the world, and

the tremendous opportunity from an economic point of view that it can bring to

the Southern Avalon. It's not just about that region; it's about the whole

province and the recognition of this world site.

So we

certainly call on government to step up the responsibility, get engaged with

this, look into the management plan and what the requirements are and work

collectively with those great volunteers on the ground so we can maximize the

opportunity for the Mistaken Point World Heritage Site, not for the region but

certainly for the whole province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper Motion 9. I move, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1), that this House

not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., today, Tuesday, November 6.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 7, first reading of Bill 35.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board for leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and

Compensation Act, Bill 35, and I further move that the said bill be now read a

first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Minister of Service NL, or Government House Leader, shall have

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety

and Compensation Act, Bill 35, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The

Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act,” carried. (Bill 35)

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 35 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2, Bill 36,

and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No.

2, Bill 36, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Service NL to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The

Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2,” carried. (Bill 36)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation No. 2. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 36 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Motion 2.

MR. SPEAKER:

If I may and before the

Premier speaks, I would like to address the House of Assembly with some remarks

before we commence.

This is

a very unique and challenging time for this Legislature; therefore, I would ask

all Members in the context of debate on the reports from the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards to please do the following: Keep their remarks courteous

and respectful; ensure language used in debate is not unparliamentary; and that

any debate ultimately respects and promotes the dignity of this hon. House and

its Members.

I ask

for the co-operation of all Members in this manner.

The hon.

the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Member for Terra Nova, the following resolution:

WHEREAS

in accordance with subsection 38(1) of the

House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act , the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards has submitted a report respecting his

opinion on a matter referred to him under the authority of subsection 36(1) of

that Act;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly concur in

The Joyce Report of August 24, 2018.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, we opened this House on October 23, rather than the scheduled November

5, to deal with the reports from the Commissioner, Bruce Chaulk, which contained

findings based on the investigation to allegations of bullying and harassment

brought forward by four Members of this House.

For the

benefit of all involved, I wanted the reports to be tabled, to be debated and

determinations made in a fair, expeditious and decisive manner. Right now, I

will not get into what has become a belaboured process, but the delay of this

debate by two weeks – but I will say that this certainly did not favour those

involved.

When

this legislation began back in May of this year, it was the only process that we

had available to us. We were in unchartered waters with this investigation. It

is now clear to me that this has to change. It has to be a much better process.

The

Commissioner did the best that he could under the current guidelines. A process

that allows for the names of those who wish to remain anonymous, to be made

public, Mr. Speaker, that's a flawed process. A process that allows reports to

be released before they are seen by this House is a flawed process. And a

process that allows for opportunities for people to make their case in the House

and in public, before the debate begins, is also a flawed process. A process

where decisions are delayed by several months is also flawed.

So I do

not hold the Commissioner responsible for these flaws. He pointed out yesterday

that much of this process is based, essentially, on the honour system, for want

of a better word. For those who made submissions – everyone, Mr. Speaker, is

expected to tell the truth. It is clear we have to consider changes that will

allow for a more controlled and certain framework.

I said

in the past, Mr. Speaker, that families are affected by this. When matters that

we fully expect to be confidential are shared with the public, for whatever

reason, it brings undue grief to the families of all parties involved. Yes, the

public has a right to know, but they would expect to be informed once the

process is complete, and certainly not to suit any personal objectives of any

one individual. A process that is not safe for people to come forward, that does

not protect them in a process, well, these processes must change.

Members

must be comfortable to come forward. Just think about it, given what has

transpired lately, how comfortable would anyone feel bringing forward an

allegation of bullying and harassment right now? A truthful answer to that

question, Mr. Speaker, alone is enough. It's enough to tell us we need to make

dramatic improvements. The handling of bullying and harassment complaints is new

for us and is also new for other provincial governments.

Unfortunately, Members have had to endure an ordeal that was never intended when

we sanctioned this process. It was sanctioned many years ago. While such an

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of

the biggest lessons I have learned in this is that we need a process that

separates matters of bullying and harassment from other matters related to

legislative standards of conduct. We have to do everything we can to ensure a

new process will have the confidence and trust of all those that need it.

short, we need to get it right. And I make this pledge today that we will get it

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

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

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

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

women in our province.

We must

send a clear and unmistakable message that this House of Assembly is a safe

place for them to engage in public life. Of course, the best message that we can

send is to conduct ourselves in ways that will preclude the need to file an

harassment or bullying complaint in the first place; but, should that need

arise, Mr. Speaker, the process must be safe, respectful, impartial and

confidential.

You've

heard me say that my door is always open, but while that is true and will

continue to be true, it is not a sufficient process. A sufficient process should

be timely, it should be clear and it should be confidential. Furthermore,

rumours and innuendo do not have a part to play in a trusted process.

In the

Commissioner's opinion, many of the behaviours described in the reports fall

within the scope of behaviour that exist in a political environment. That

finding alone should make it clear we need a fundamental change in a political

culture. In my view, these behaviours should be unacceptable in any environment,

including the political one.

I see a

big difference between the cut and the thrust of debate and the vigorous defence

of one's position, but it cannot cross over into belittling and diminishing

behaviours. We must not and cannot support a culture that gives licence to the

behaviour simply because it resides in the political arena. It is this very

culture that all too often discourages people from seeking public office.

While

I'll acknowledge anyone can be affected by this issue, men and women alike, I

will not rest until women who aspire to be MHAs know that they'll be welcomed

and respected in this House. Mr. Speaker, currently less than 25 per cent of

this Assembly are women, and we need more women in this Legislature.

The

Commissioner also wrote that in his opinion the behaviours described in the

reports did not rise to the level of objectionable or offensive behaviour that

would support a finding of harassment and bullying. It is my view and firm

belief, as representatives of people of this province, we must be held to a

higher standard, and we must rise to a higher standard.

Now, I

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

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

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

higher standard must be founded on respect and decorum.

We can

disagree as passionately as we want. We can be vigorous in defence of our

positions and opinions. Even in the heat of political persuasion, we must be

respectful and ever mindful that diminishing another person to elevate one's own

position is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. Members of this House must

feel safe at work, and if the behaviour of a fellow MHA threatens that sense of

safety, there must be a recourse through the process that inspires confidence

and inspires trust.

Times

are changing, Mr. Speaker, for the better, in my view, as more and more people,

particularly women, are taking a stand against systemic injustices. We see this

happen globally, and as a result we need to do better. That means a fundamental

shift in what we consider to be acceptable behaviour towards men and women in

and outside of this House. I would argue that this culture change should extend

Now, I realize we cannot control the voices of others.

These voices are often nasty, they're vicious, they're self-serving and often

dishonest, but we can control our own voices. We can control our own manner of

debate however vehemently we disagree on issues. By engaging in respectful

debate, however vigorous, even online, we can, at the very least, set the right

tone and lead by example. We can control our own voices.

Mr. Speaker, none of us are perfect. We are all prone

to make mistakes, but it is important to be able to recognize those mistakes.

It's important that we own up to them. It's important that we take

responsibility. It's important that we apologize if need be and commit to do better.

The Commissioner talks about introduce a restorative

justice, a model with an emphasis on rehabilitation of relationships. It is an

approach that would focus on addressing the harm of one person who has caused

another by words or actions .

However, I am not completely sure that such a model applies in all cases.

Matters of harassment and bullying inherently flow for

an imbalance of power. The offender must be

accountable and accept responsibility for those words or actions.

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

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

person or the persons that have been hurt .

We also have to bear in mind that a restorative justice approach is only

appropriate if all feel that it's safe to take part. Only then can those who

hurt be empowered, and through that process, Mr. Speaker, the path to healing is

possible .

Then there is a matter of violations of the Code of

Conduct. The Code of Conduct violations can be very serious. While Members of

the House will decide a measure of discipline and compliance with the

Commissioner's recommendations, I have decisions to make on my own, to make with

respect at the entirety of the reports. I have no doubt that Members of this

House will weigh in with their own assessment of these violations, as well as

other matters outlined in the reports.

During these discussions that follow, there will be

likely moments of very high emotions. After all, Mr. Speaker, these are

emotional issues. Nevertheless, I ask that these discussions, and the debate to

follow, be conducted in a manner that is respectful to all Members; that we

conduct ourselves in a

manner that will rise to the level of decorum that the people of this province

so rightfully deserve.

Mr.

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

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

today, all Members, to let that culture change begin now.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank

the hon. Premier for those eloquent and entirely appropriate words.

I do

believe, if I'm not mistaken, that we are on now – and I do wish to address my

remarks to the first of these items. I believe that's correct. So it would be

the one concerned with The Joyce Report ,

August 24, 2018.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to express, on behalf of the Official Opposition, that we

do not concur in this report, and I would like to explain why that is. It is not

that we contest the findings of fact in the report, it is that we contest the

conclusion that the facts as found do not support a recommendation to this

House, or an opinion on the part of the Commissioner, that a violation of the

Code was committed.

Specifically, I would refer to page 1, where at the bottom of the executive

summary – this is page 1 of the report before us,

The Joyce Report of August 24, 2018.

“Although there is no contravention of the Member's Code of Conduct,” – wrote

the Commissioner – “MHA Joyce acknowledged that he would refrain from using

profanity towards MHA Holloway and I would recommend that all MHAs not use

profanity towards each other in the future as such language is not an acceptable

practice for our elected officials.”

Yesterday – and with the greatest respect to the Commissioner for Legislative

Standards. Yesterday, I did ask him toward the end of my questions as to whether

he viewed the Code of Conduct as at least partly aspirational. And he said that

he did and he agreed it was at least partly aspirational.

The

importance of that concept of having an aspirational Code of Conduct is that we

are acknowledging – and I don't think this is controversial. We all acknowledge

that standards of conduct, as they exist at this moment or have existed in the

recent past, although they may be generally accepted, may not be good enough. In

the moment of decision, it is possible we may have to acknowledge that we set

ourselves a higher bar than the conduct which may have been normalized in the

past, and this is how progress occurs.

submit, Mr. Speaker, that we collectively should set ourselves a higher bar than

that the use of profanity towards a colleague, a fellow Member of the House of

Assembly, is acceptable. As the Commissioner himself said, this is not

acceptable. But, to fail to find a breach of the Code of Conduct in the face of

these findings is to legitimate and accept and tolerate conduct, which the

Commissioner himself has found unacceptable.

I turn

to the conclusion page, page 20 of this report. The findings, specifically, were

under Conclusions, top of page. I refer to this: “Used the word 'f…'” – I'll

just abbreviate – “with humourous intent ….”

Now, in

my submission, Mr. Speaker, whether the intent was humourous or not, it was, it

seems to me, experienced by the complainant as unwelcome, which is one of the

definitions of harassment; otherwise, he would not be complaining about it.

“Used the word 'f…' with humourous intent

when speaking to MHA Holloway, and on at least one occasion told him to 'f…

off.'”

Nobody

in this Chamber, if asked in a formal setting would say that that conduct is

acceptable. It is not; yet, the respected Commissioner has found it appropriate

not to enter a finding that there should be a sanction in relation to that.

I now

refer to the principles of the Code of Conduct that the respected Commissioner

has quoted further on, on the same page.

Principle 4 : “Members will

act lawfully” – well, we expect that – “and in a manner that will withstand the

closest public scrutiny.” So that is an aspirational standard. “Neither the law

nor this code is

designed to be exhaustive and there will be occasions on which Members will find

it necessary to adopt more stringent norms of conduct” – more stringent norms of

conduct – “in order to protect the public interest and to enhance public

confidence and trust” – enhance public confidence and trust.

It goes

on in Principle 11 to state: “Members should promote and support these

principles by leadership and example.” I submit that the language and the

attitude of disrespect manifested by the hon. Member in the findings in this

report merit sanction in the form of a reprimand.

listened carefully to the hon. Premier's remarks and I wrote down some of the

phrases he used. He referred to even in the heat of political persuasion, the

gist of it being we must always remain respectful of persons. Well, this is not

remaining respectful of persons in the heat of political persuasion.

I agree

with the Premier, we do need a culture change. I have now, I trust, adequately

expressed the reasons that we on this side of the House have for refusing to

concur in the report.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The next

speaker.

The hon.

the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly thank you for the opportunity to rise today and speak to this

resolution. This resolution arises from the Commissioner for Legislative

Standards investigation into allegations of workplace harassment by the Member

of Humber - Bay of Islands.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to pose questions of the

Commissioner about the process which he undertook to investigate this complaint

and other complaints brought forward by my colleagues.

While it

is clear, at least from my perspective, that the process has some flaws, it is

the process that currently governs the behaviour and the conduct of all Members

of this hon. House. When I first came forward with my complaint, I knew this

process was not a good fit for investigating and, hopefully, starting to address

workplace harassment. In fact, during my interview with the Commissioner, I made

a very similar statement.

During

the past six months, I, along with my family, my closest friends and my

colleagues have endured a great deal, because I decided the behaviour of some

must change. In 2018, Mr. Speaker, there is no tolerance for workplace

harassment and, collectively, we must all do better to ensure that it ceases to

exist or, if it does exist, that we take immediate steps to shut it down.

I would

like to be clear that workplace harassment is not an issue alone to the Liberal

caucus. It is a pervasive issue that impacts all sides of this Legislature and

legislatures across this country. In July, I was in Ottawa attending meetings

with other parliamentarians from across this country. One of the key topics for

discussion was workplace harassment, intimidation and bullying. In conversations

with fellow parliamentarians, I quickly learned that Newfoundland and Labrador

is not the only jurisdiction to rise up and demand this change. I also learned

that the country is watching what we do here, so it is important that we set the

stage to do it right.

Mr.

Speaker, not for a moment do I think that at the end of these next few days will

we have all the answers, but I am confident that we will be moving in the right

direction. So to my colleagues, who have had the courage to come forward with

your complaints, I applaud each of you. You are a part of this change, and I

look forward to continuing our work to serve the people of this province.

I wish

to express my deep gratitude to the people of the Terra Nova District who have

been steadfast behind me throughout these past few months. I have appreciated

support that has continued to encourage me to push on and to see this through. I

would also like to express my gratitude to those of you working in the public

service who have stopped to offer words of support, a friendly handshake and

your encouragement to never give up.

Mr.

Speaker, the change we are about to see is not about me. It is not even about

other Members of this House. But it will be about the children in our schools,

the people who work in our communities and those who consider to run for public

office in the future, including women, all of whom will want a workplace that is

free from harassment, intimidation and bullying.

Before I

take my seat, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to leave you with this quote from George

Bernard Shaw who wrote: “Progress is impossible without change, and those who

cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

reluctantly stand to speak to this motion today. We've spent a lot of time,

energy and money on the issues that face us here today, and I believe I must

point out once again, as my colleague has – or the Leader of the Official

Opposition – in the executive

summary of this particular resolution and report

that: “MHA Holloway also indicated that the culture of harassment and

intimidation was pervasive within the Liberal Party Caucus.”

believe it's important to state that once again, Mr. Speaker, that what's at

issue here is not a debate about what has been going on within the House of

Assembly within these Chambers as we do our work here, but something other than

that. I'm concerned about the process. I raised my concerns about the process

with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards yesterday about the extensive

public nature of this process as it relates both to complainants and to

respondents. I am a very reluctant participant in the continuation of this

process. I do believe that everyone who was involved has done so from the best

of intentions, trying to again work with a very, very difficult situation.

What I

find very interesting and would like to point out, in the culmination of all of

the reports together, although we are speaking specifically to this one, when we

look at the best practices in looking at mental health issues in the workplace,

when we look at the best practices in terms of determining diagnosis of PTSD –

I'm not equating what happened here as a mental issue, but when we look at what

is happening in best practices there, and then also best practices in the issue

of workplace harassment and bullying, it is not one specific issue but the

culmination of many issues, of many acts, of quiet, subversive, deliberate acts

– and one stands out that is incredibly egregious or very specifically

identifiable, but the culmination of the petty, little acts in order to

discredit, isolate, intimidate and that's what we see in the culmination of

these reports if we were to look at that.

Mr.

Speaker, that's not how this is being handled. That's not at all how this is

being handled. I am disappointed in that, but then I'm also disappointed in how

nobody has been protected in this process, either complainants or respondents.

When we look at the reprimands, I don't know how this House makes restitution to

those who have had to go through this process so publicly. I don't know how we

do that.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

going to rise to speak on this and to speak on the report itself. First of all,

the Leader of the Opposition made out that I'm the only person that ever used –

and the context itself it wasn't to the person; it was about an issue we

discussed and I'll explain that. I ask the Member for Cape St. Francis or the

Member for Ferryland: In our discussions, was that ever used? Do you ever use

it?

So, Mr.

Speaker, I do not think that I'm the only person here on occasion when I was

speaking – and it was about a project that I said it and I'll explain it.

So,

don't give the impression that everybody in this House are saints because we're

not. We're definitely not. And I see the Premier's comments about the flawed

process. It was flawed, absolutely, 100 per cent flawed. Imagine, going in court

and never being a witness, and you're going to vote and say I'm bad? Never had

the opportunity, not once, to speak to Bruce Chaulk – not once.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll even say to the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, as

everybody talking about me being out in the public: How many times did I give

you a heads-up when capital works, or sit down and let you go through the list?

How many times did I tell you what projects was going to be approved? I ask the

Member for Cape St. Francis: How many times I do that to you? How many times are

you in my office going through what you needed in the district, and we worked

out a deal? I ask the Member for Ferryland: How many times did that happen?

So you

get this idea that you don't deal with people. Ask anybody across the aisle, one

person that never sat down and went through everything you needed in the

district – just one, stand up, anybody in this House. It just never happened.

Because all this gets out in the public, you're this big animal, that happened,

but it just never happened.

So the

Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, if I never sat down with you and went

through the projects with you, any time there's firefighting equipment, stand up

and say it now. The Member for Cape St. Francis, stand up and say it if I never

did it, if I'm saying something wrong. The Member for Ferryland, any Member

across, it just never happened.

I got to

say for the Member for Terra Nova – the other two were different, but I was

disappointed because I worked well with you. I worked hard in your district. I

used to drive in just so I could come back from meetings in your district. Like

this here shocked me, yours shocked me, but the other two I'll explain later,

but it did. I can honestly say it did, and I know the times I stood up in the

House of Assembly and defended you, and your wife used to send notes, thank

Eddie. I mean, you knew that. You used to read them out to all the boys here. It

actually shocked me. Then when you come over to the dinner that we were having,

you were going to stay at my house. A month earlier, you bought a ticket – you

still owes me 20 bucks for it, by the way – but you got the email and you

purchased the ticket.

I say it

to the Premier, talk about the respondents, the people that were accused. There

was a meeting with myself and Greg Mercer, and I have to bring this up. A

meeting with myself and Greg Mercer and the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's,

and when you review all the copies, that night the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape

La Hune, a CBC reporter contacted her, that night, and there was only three

people knew: myself, the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's and Greg Mercer.

Premier,

when an allegation was made against me, which I didn't even know at the time, on

April 25, three people knew, Sir: you, Joy Buckle and the Member for Placentia -

St. Mary's. It was brought up on the House floor that afternoon with only three

people knowing, and it was in the media – CBC. And how am I supposed to feel?

Dismissed out of Cabinet; gone – across Canada: bullying.

You have

to point out here, Mr. Speaker, there wasn't one case of bullying or harassment

found in these reports – not one. So all these things about the bullying and

harassment that myself and the Member from Mount Scio – not one. And I'll just

give an example. I'll just give one example. There's a lot I can go through the

report on. I will just give one example that the Member for Terra Nova – and I

got to say that I was shocked, by the way. I really was. But anyway, that's

fine.

One

example: I called 11 times from July 14 to July 31 about the Speaker and,

apparently – which I didn't do – I was saying nasty things about the Member for

Harbour Grace – whatever the district is.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Port de Grave.

MR. JOYCE:

Harbour Grace - Port de

Grave. So I was put across Canada, and I was a bully for one of these

allegations. Guess what? There wasn't even a Cabinet shuffle until July 31, but

I had to defend that I made 11 calls to that Member's house. I wouldn't give up.

There wasn't even a Cabinet shuffle. Yet, I'm a bully. That's the kind of

allegations that's put in here. It never happened because there wasn't even a

Cabinet shuffle until July 31. Yet, I'm a bully.

And the

second one that the – apparently – and I'm sorry for bringing this up, but I

have to get the record out because I'm the type of person who can move on, but

after seven months, it's pretty hard.

The next

one was in the meeting with the pensions that I made statements to the meeting

with the pensions. I was never in the meeting with the pensions. It never

affected me. I gave 17 witnesses to say I never attended the meeting. Yet, in

the report, two of the four allegations that I was saying stuff in a pension

meeting, and you could ask the people who were involved. I was never in the

meeting, yet I was a bully for doing that.

Those

are the kind of allegations that's in this here. That's the kind of allegations

that's in it, and that's why it's so disappointing. It is so disappointing, and

I know I got a lot of calls from your towns, from mayors and all that. They were

disappointed, too.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I just

going to remind the Member to please direct your remarks to the Speaker.

Thank

you.

MR. JOYCE:

I got a lot of calls from the

Member from the District of Terra Nova – sorry about that – and I also got a lot

of calls and people were shocked because we worked so well.

Mr.

Speaker, they didn't say that I raised my voice, and I'll tell the incident. I

got no problem with it. We were sitting – I was having lunch. You came in with

the proposal for Clarenville. The Member for Terra Nova came in for a proposal

for Clarenville. I was sitting down – and I make no bones about it. I was having

lunch, and he put it on my desk, and he laughed, and I looked at it and I said,

are you serious? He said, yeah, and he laughed. I said, well, how about the rest

of the MHAs? The words were: Well, that's their problem. I said this is effing

crazy.

Do you

know what it was? I never did swear at the Member. It was the proposal that was

– do you know what it was? Out of the $10 million capital works that the

province had, looking for five for a new fire hall and town hall, and I wouldn't

do it because of the rest of the Members. I said, I can't do it. That was the

comment. It was never to him; it was never to his face. Because I'll tell you, I

had, what, 40, 50 meetings in Terra Nova; 30, 40 with the fire departments,

probably 400 or 500 people. Ask one, did I ever raise my voice. Ask one, did I

ever swear. Ask one staff, just one. It just never happened.

So this

idea that this is a big part of the culture, it's just wrong. It's just

absolutely wrong. Then – because it's out in the media and everybody is talking

about confidentiality. I note the Premier brought it up also, the part about

confidentiality.

How

would you feel if your name was out in public going across Canada? How would you

feel? How would you feel if your name was put across – first of all, when the

complaints were made to the Premier only three people knew. The Opposition knew

about it at 1:30 that afternoon, CBC announced it at 1:31 that afternoon – CBC.

Now we know there are code names involved.

How

would you feel that your name has been put out there, you're dismissed from

Cabinet, you're told you're a big bully. You're told that everything you did –

but it was two months later the complaint was ever put in – two months. You're

waiting for two months and everybody expects 90 days. There was never a

complaint put in for two months, and then you wonder – with the names that were

going back and forth and how stuff was getting leaked out. You start to put

things together when you put the reports together.

I'm not

paranoid; definitely I'm not paranoid, but I can tell you one thing, if there

was anybody putting stuff together – you believe there were people working in

tandem to put this out in the public; yet, we have a confidentiality – myself

and the Member for Mount Scio, we were put across Canada as Members released

because of bullying and harassment. And there wasn't one finding of bullying or

harassment, not one – yet, seven months of your life when you talk about

confidentiality.

Just

think about it. Just think about it, Premier. Only three people knew about that;

yet, at 1:31 the leader, Paul Davis at the time, who was involved with another

Code of Conduct case. I might say, that that was thrown out in another case that

I have the documentation for. So at 1:31 CBC announced that it was me. I didn't

even know. No, I think the Premier told me at 12 o'clock or 12:30 he said.

How many

people in this room, how many people across this province know, the initial

allegations that were brought to the Premier of the Province was I turned my

back on someone? I was in a swivel chair, I turned the seat. I walked by the

Minister of Finance's chair, I grunted, and then when I walked by I pushed aside

and I glared.

How many

people in the province know that's the initial allegation that was told to me?

How many people know that? How many people in this province know that the Member

for Placentia - St. Mary's asked for mediation and I reluctantly agreed to

mediation? How many people know that? That's the initial stuff.

Then

when it got leaked out here to the Opposition and the CBC it got bigger, and

then everything changed. Two months later, and in the report itself – I mean

that's the kind of things, Mr. Speaker, that I've been facing for seven months.

Four months I knew about people changing information back and forth, code names

–four months.

Do you

know why I didn't tell anybody across the way? I didn't want to interfere with

your caucus meetings or your Cabinet meetings, but I knew four months that three

people knew about the meeting. It was leaked over here. That night I remember

myself and Greg Mercer, April 11 that was leaked also to CBC – to the CBC, I

know because they were contacted. It's in her report. I knew about that for four

months and I wouldn't tell anyone because I didn't want to put anyone on the

spot.

How

would you feel? How would you feel? Then you're talking about the process. The

process comes up – and I'll say to the Member for Terra Nova, at any time we had

an open relationship, my office door was open. I went in your office. I went to

Terra Nova and made many announcements with you.

There's

something I got to clarify here. You were talking about that you were – I have

to say this, it's nothing against you, to the Member for Terra Nova. I have to

say that you're frozen out. I remember the time that you mentioned it. It was an

incident and I did it to everybody. I did it for you also, to the Member for

Terra Nova. Is that if there was an announcement in someone's district, I wanted

the MHA to make the announcement. I wouldn't go myself. I know there was one

down in, I think it was Stoneville. You requested to go, and I said no, let the

Member do it. He had it all planned, and that's what he did.

So when

you think you're frozen out because you don't represent the minister, I'll just

give you a good example. We were in Glovertown and we were in Clarenville,

myself and yourself, the mayors and the towns and the minister at the time, Judy

Foote. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? Guess what? The Member himself, to ensure that

he got the credit, I emceed it. He made the announcement on behalf of the

government. That's the way I operated, and I did it every MHA, every MHA.

So the

idea that you were frozen out because the Member in Stoneville was making an

announcement down there that you didn't go down and I wasn't there, it's the way

I operated. That had nothing to do with you, and you felt that way. That's just

the way I did it, and I can go across this room on many occasions where I

emceed, as a minister, I emceed the event. I actually emceed so you could get

the credit for it.

Mr.

Speaker, when you think about it – and I won't go through the rest of the report

and stuff like that, there's no need of it. But anytime, Premier, when you're

talking about the system itself, think about the people who the complaints are

made against. Think about that. Make sure in the system we're protected, because

I can tell you it happened to me. Over what? When you look through it, over

what? And I'll get into that report later – over what? All it was over was a

job, which a guy never got an interview.

I'll ask

one question – Opposition also – name any person here who never gave a minister

a resume, stand up. As I said, that is normal to hand someone resumes.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

believe the challenge that the Member just issued to all of us, without the

ability to stand up, is inferring something quite negative to us, for those of

us who have not.

MR. SPEAKER:

I would rule that it's a

request, frankly, that's not consistent with Parliamentary procedure, and I'd

ask that we just move on.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you.

I know,

just trying to grandstand again, Mr. Speaker, that's typical.

Mr.

Speaker, and I'll get into what you said in the House of Assembly also without

any foundation about me. I'll say to the Leader of the Third Party, without any

foundation. But you see, bullied, no allegation, one about a resume dropped off

in September. This is the type – one person over there, and one person on the

Opposition, one person in the Opposition –

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I again

rise on a point of order,

section –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

MS. ROGERS:

– 49, the accusation that I

was grandstanding, rather than really referencing back to the sort of double

jeopardy that he has put us in by his request for those to stand who haven't

given a – and then to call that grandstanding when it really is a point of

clarification.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

At this time, I don't see a

point of order but I am watching closely.

I see it

as a disagreement between hon. Members, but again, I am watching very closely.

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

The Members of the Opposition

– thank you. And so, stand up. You can't, because it's normal. It's normal.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Member for Cape St. Francis: How many resumes did you pass

in?

MR. SPEAKER:

Again, I will remind the

Member to please direct his remarks to the Speaker.

Thank

you. That's the second warning.

MR. JOYCE:

(Inaudible) give an example.

It's not that you're going to interfere with the Public Service Commission

because it's illegal to do that, Sir. It's illegal to do that. I'll get into

that later, and how I never had a chance to respond, even the person that

applied for the position never got a chance to respond. Never even got an

opportunity to speak about it. Yet across Canada we're bullies, myself and the

Member for Mount Scio are bullies, and there wasn't one allegation of bullying

in it.

When I

see the Premier's remarks, there's no foundation for bullying, I agree. I ask

any Member opposite, any Member when I was in government, if you were getting –

how can I put it? If you were getting a rough time from anybody, who picked up

for you? Who stood up for you, even in caucus? I did.

And when

we were in Opposition, and we had government Members, I used to always say to

our Opposition: If there's someone over there weak, don't say much to him, don't

embarrass him, don't pick on him, don't embarrass him. I said that a hundred

times.

I have

no problem, if I went toe-to-toe with the Member, any of the Members, the Member

for Ferryland, because we're both capable in the House of Assembly; but if you

bring a rookie in, you don't embarrass the rookie. You just don't do it. You

just honestly don't do it, and we never ever did do that, and I always made the

point. The Members opposite, even some of the ones that made the allegations

that I'm a bully, how many times did I stand in this hon. House and defend them?

How many times did I go to their districts and support them? How many times did

I meet with town councils on their behalf and go over and above – and I know

some on Sunday afternoon, Saturday nights, Sunday nights.

So this

idea because it's made up, and then how it was made up, Mr. Premier – and this

is what got to be in this legislation. How it was made up, it was made up in the

public. It was not done privately. So I want, when I ask the Committee – and I

know the Member for Stephenville Port au Port, I asked that I be able to attend

when all this is over. I'll give you some ways on how that Committee itself and

some recommendations.

So I say

to the government that when you make up this policy, make sure it's a fair

policy for everybody – for everybody. Because I can assure you that when you get

tried in the public, when you get this idea of all the bullying and harassment

you all did, all across Canada and it takes two months to even see what you're

talking about, and when you actually get it – just imagine, I ask anybody. I ask

the Member for Burgeo - La Poile, just imagine if you were a lawyer and someone

walks in today and makes an allegation and you say okay, here's the allegation

and you're defending them; two months later they come back oh, no, no forget

that, here are the allegations now. What are the chances of saying that witness

is credible, two months later?

In the

statement that was put in, just an example, the statement that was put in by the

person who was the meeting with the Premier, as a witness to the Commissioner,

said the compost facility wasn't brought up, the swimming pool and the job

because it was never an issue. How many people across the way now is going to

say I'm a big, bad bully, but I never had one opportunity to sit down and

explain one thing that happened – not one thing.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

Member's time has expired.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

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

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I just

want to make a couple of points that probably relate to all – of course, it

relates to our being here this afternoon. I want to thank the Premier and the

Leader of the Official Opposition, the Leader of our caucus for the comments

that they have made, with which I concur.

None of

us wants to be going through what we're going through. Yet, we're in a

legislative bind that we got put in. Nobody intended it to happen and I just

want to put it out to remind us how we got into it. The accountability and

integrity act is the act under which the Code of Conduct guides us and guides

the Commissioner for Legislative Standards as well with regard to the work of

that role.

When

that act was put in place by Chief Justice Green, the act said there would be a

Code of Conduct and the House of Assembly Management Commission was given the

task to create the Code of Conduct that would then come to the House of Assembly

to be approved and would become part of legislation.

The act

itself came out of the financial scandal that we'd been through. When you read

the act, remembering that, it makes so much what's in that act meaningful. Then

the Code of Conduct which the House of Assembly Management Commission put

together became a much broader Code of than just dealing with financial scandal.

It got put into the legislation with sections around how a Commissioner deals

with reports on issues that are brought to him, without anybody realizing at the

time that we could be in the situation we're in here today, and been in this

week and the past months, with everything public, people's lives out in the

public, and us having to be here today because that's how the legislation has

gotten us here. We're here because of our legislation.

My next

comment does not reflect the Privileges and Elections Committee, but I just want

to remind everybody our work has been public in the sense that we have had three

or four reports that have gone out from the Committee, and anything I'm saying

is based on those public reports. You all know that the Privileges and Elections

Committee has been working hard for months. We've said it to everybody that we

have been working hard for months listening, listening to people with expertise,

listening to Members of the House, listening to employees of the legislative

sector. Together, hopefully, with the work of the Committee and this House we

are going to change. We know we have to change what's happened. We cannot

continue, but I want to give us a sense of hope that we can do it. We can do it.

I want

to refer to something that I may be the only person in the House who remembers

this because it wasn't public. Many years ago – I've been here since 2006 –

there was an MHA who had a complaint made against that person; harassment of a

sexual nature, not sexual abuse, but a person not really knowing what was

appropriate with touching, with the use of hands, et cetera. The complaint came

from a young woman, and the only reason I know about it is that I was the only

one in the House from our party at the time. I was the leader of our party. I

know that the premier and the two leaders knew it happened. I was contacted by

the person from the caucus who was dealing with the issue. It got dealt with

privately. Those of us who needed to know knew. The person actually underwent

training, harassment training, and nobody ever knew that that happened except

those who were involved, and I would hope that that's what we're going to be

able to get ourselves back to. That having a process to deal with harassment of

any sort, that that process has to be a process that respects everybody's

privacy, and I know we can do that.

I didn't

think I was going to speak to this report, but as I sat here I realized – I just

really felt the need, as an individual, to stand and say that. Because we have

to have to hope, and we have to know we can make it better.

We have

to promise ourselves that what we're doing here this week will never, ever

happen in this kind of a setting again. That we will create a climate – because

I do think we have a culture that's not acceptable, and we do have to look at

that culture. It would be crazy for us as parliamentarians not to acknowledge

that, but we can change, and I absolutely believe that we all want to work

together to make that change.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

going to have a whole lot to say. I hesitate to speaking at all to some degree,

Mr. Speaker, because I have to say, in my seven years here in the House of

Assembly, this is probably the most – what's the word I'm looking for –

uncomfortable discussion, I think, that's we've been part of. I'm not going to

get into any of the details of the report because, quite frankly, I wasn't

there. I wasn't a witness. I can read the report like anybody else.

I will

say that I believe, as others have indicated, that there are definitely flaws in

the process – if I can put it that way. I think we definitely need to develop a

new process that's going to be confidential, that's going to ensure that

everybody is treated fairly, because there have been some indications – again, I

guess you could say it's hearsay because it's he said, she said and all this

stuff, but some indications that perhaps due process did not necessarily occur.

At least that's what I've heard from some people, which concerns me, I have to

be honest.

Yesterday, when we had the Commissioner for Legislative Standards here, I do

understand his hesitancy to answer certain questions. I understand the rationale

behind it, but I have to say, there were questions I had around the process that

I didn't get clear answers from the Commissioner because of him deciding that

there were certain things he wasn't going to answer for and he had his reasons

and, as I said, I understand that.

I can

speculate on some things. I can read the report, but I guess all I would say is

go back to the fact that I think we really do, and I'm sure everybody here now

is committed to putting a proper process, a proper procedure in place to replace

the one that we've gone through here. I think this public process is absolutely

horrendous, in my view. It's horrendous in terms of the negativity it casts on

this House of Assembly. It is for the Members who are the complainants, it is

for the respondents, and it is for the family members of the complainants and

the respondents.

I know

myself, through personal experience, this can be tough on one's family when your

face is out there in the media for various reasons. I've gone through that

myself for different reasons, but been there, been the centre of attention in

the media, not always positive. It depends on who you ask, I suppose. And it is

tough on your family. So I can only imagine that it is tough on the family

members of everybody involved in all of these reports.

So while

I do certainly appreciate what the Member of the Official Opposition is saying

about his concern about not concurring with the recommendation, I do get it when

he talks about a higher standard and so on. I agree in principle, but given the

fact that we do not have what I would consider a proper process in place, then I

think we have to rely on the process that we do have, trust the judgment of the

Commissioner.

Even

though I have questions, as all Members do, about some of his conclusions, how

he got there and so on, we really don't understand exactly everything that he

did, why he did it, how he came to the conclusions that he came to, and I as one

Member am not prepared to stand here and be judge, jury and executioner and so

on for my colleagues in the House of Assembly, whether I agree with their

actions or I don't.

So I

will just simply be, I guess, going along with the recommendations of the

Commissioner, who is an outside person who has looked at this, gone through the

process based on the process that he had, the legislation that guided him, and I

will have to trust his judgment on the recommendations. While I may have some

questions in my mind about some of the conclusions, how he got there, not being

there and not being part of that process, not hearing the interviews, not

getting all the information, I think it would be unfair for me to, on my own,

just render my own judgment. So I will just simply go along with what the

Commissioner's recommendations are and concur with those recommendations.

certainly hope we all learn from this and that we will get a better process put

in place that will spare all of us as Members, all future Members, and our

families, and our families – I cannot stress enough – our families. And everyone

in this House understands the impact on your families, to spare them all from

this public process that has to be very, very difficult on them.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Any

further speakers to the motion?

Seeing

none.

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. SPEAKER:

I believe the ayes have it.

This

motion is carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Motion 3.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources, the following resolution:

WHEREAS

in accordance with subsection 38(1) of the

House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act , the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards has submitted a report respecting his

opinion on a matter referred to him under the authority of subsection 36(1) of

that Act;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly concur in the Kirby Report

of August 24, 2018.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm just going to speak to the resolution itself in terms of how it

enters this House of Assembly and how it's different than a regular government

resolution.

There

are certain resolutions that are put forward in the House that are the policy of

governments, a government initiative, something that government of the day wants

to see happen. There are other resolutions that go into this House through other

entities. One of those entities being the Management Commission, which is a

Commission that is made up of Members from all sides of the House, from three

parties, and which essentially guide the House of Assembly in matters affecting

MHAs.

As the

Government House Leader, I am the vessel through which these resolutions travel

into the House. I have had opportunities in the past where there's been debate

in the House whereby Members have said I can't believe government is doing this,

knowing full well the difference there. So I'm just trying to ensure that the

public that watch this understands that this is a motion that comes from the

Management Commission.

Now, in

this case, basically what we're dealing with is a recommendation that has been

made by a statutory Officer of the House of Assembly, that being the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards. So people understand how that works, we

have a number of Officers who are independent of government but who answer to

the House of Assembly. That is the Commissioner for Legislative Standards,

there's the Privacy Commissioner, there's the Child and Youth Advocate and

there's the Citizens' Representative.

Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the reports, regardless if

one agrees or disagrees with the process, and there has been a lot said to that,

one thing that cannot be said is that this was a government employee. That is

simply not factual. This is an Officer of the House that was put in place by the

MHAs sitting in this House. So, it's one thing to talk about process, it's

another thing to say that we don't like the process because it wasn't

independent of government. To say that is simply not true.

Moving

forward, we have seen cases in the past where these types of matters have ended

up in the House where there are complaints made of a breach of the Code of

Conduct by a Member. There's an investigation, a report and the report contains

findings. I've seen it on two occasions myself in this House.

The

Commissioner will usually do an investigation and lay out the facts as they find

them, whether there has been a breach of the Code of Conduct. If there is no

breach of the Code of Conduct, the recommendation in the past has been, again,

the report is tabled in the House and, as Members, we must dispose of that

report. Generally the way that has been done is if there has been no

recommendation by the Commissioner, i.e., no breach, therefore the House concurs

in the findings of the Commissioner.

If there

is a breach of a particular Code, the Commissioner makes a recommendation of

what the penalty should be – I believe it's under

section 39 of the particular

act – and makes a recommendation based on their findings. In the past we have

seen that Government House Leaders, including myself as well as previous

Government House Leaders from previous administrations have moved resolutions in

this House based strictly on the recommendation made by the Commissioner and

then they are voted on.

I'm not

here right now to talk about whether the resolution should be voted 'aye' or

'nay', agree or disagree, that's up to each Member of the House to do so. What

I'm explaining, Mr. Speaker, to those that may be listening, is the method that

led to not just this resolution, but every resolution that's been entered last

night and starting debate today in this House. So I just want to lay that out

there for why we are here.

In this

particular case, the Commissioner found that there was no recommendation; such

the resolution reads that the House of Assembly concur in the report of said

date. That's where we are.

I will

take my seat now. I wanted people to understand the process that's been employed

here. I will say during all of this process that I want to thank my colleagues

on the other side, as Government House Leaders, that we've had – there's an air

of politics that ha