PDF Version

April 6, 2022

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. L No. 41

The

House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Are the House Leaders

ready?

MHA

Brazil, are you ready?

Order,

please!

Government

Business

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER:

Thank you. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Motion 4.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Speaker.

As Chair

for the Privileges and Elections Committee –

SPEAKER:

You need a mover and a

seconder first, please.

B. DAVIS:

I move, seconded by the

Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, the following resolution, the

Review of Harassment-Free Workplace Policy Applicable to Complaints Against

Members – the report that was tabled yesterday.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Speaker.

It's a

bit early to get going with all the order on that kind of stuff, but thank you

very much for the opportunity, as Chair for the Privileges and Elections

Committee and pursuant to

section 17 of the Harassment-Free Workplace Policy

Applicable to Complaints Against Members, I have the responsibility, on behalf

the Committee, to bring forward this report on behalf of our Committee.

The

Harassment-Free Workplace Policy Applicable to Complaints Against Members was

developed by the Privileges and Elections Committee of the 48th General

Assembly, on the order of the House, and was adopted in the House on December

2019 and came into effect on April 1, 2020. I might say it was unanimously

accepted in this House.

The

policy applies to complaints against a Member, the respondent can only be a

Member and the complainants can either a Member, an employee of the Legislature

or an employee of the Executive Branch of government.

The

Privileges and Elections Committee has specific duties under this policy

including the responsibility to review its provisions once each General

Assembly, or as required in accordance with

section 17.

By way

of background, the Committee was notified by the Citizens' Representative who

has the responsibility of oversight of the complaint and resolution process

under this policy of a potential issue with respect to the confidentiality

provision. The Citizens' Representative advised that the party to a complaint,

which could be either a complainant, respondent or a witness, refuse to sign a

confidentiality agreement as required by

section 10 of the policy.

The

Citizens' Representative concluded that his work could not proceed any further

without clarity on this matter and asked the Committee to review this matter

under

section 17 of the provision. Our Committee met on four occasions in its

review of this matter on the following dates: February 14, 28, March 7 and March

24. In addition, the Citizens' Representative appeared before the Committee

during this review to provide further clarity on the identified issue and

discuss potential ways to address this matter.

The

Committee reviewed and analyzed this matter, as is outlined in the details that

our outlined in this report that was presented to the House, as well as our

recommendation for the amendments to the policy. These amendments may be minor

in nature, but far reaching in impact.

The

final report resulted in the adoption of the policy by the House and it is clear

that confidentiality is the overarching principle. The policy stipulated

confidentiality requirements throughout; it does not only rely on the execution

of the confidentiality agreement as set out in the confidentiality requirements.

Furthermore, amendments were also enacted in this

House of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity and Administration Act making confidentiality, as it relates to

the matter under the policy, a requirement of law.

It is

the Committee's view that the requirement for the confidentiality agreement is

intended to be an added layer of protection in the policy, as it is not only a

legal instrument requiring confidentiality. Our Committee has also taken the

position that the process under the policy must proceed, regardless of whether

the party to a complaint signs the confidentiality agreement.

The

Committee proposes that

section 10 of the policy be amended to include a refusal

to sign the confidentiality agreement as a breach of the confidentiality

provision of the policy.

The

change is as follows, that

section 10 of the Harassment-Free Workplace Policy

Applicable to Complaints Against Members be amended to add immediately after the

sentence “The complainant, respondent, and witness must sign a confidentiality

agreement at the beginning of the process,” the following: notwithstanding the

refusal of the complainant, respondent or witness to sign a confidentiality

agreement, processes under the policy including the investigation may proceed

and are not affected by the refusal to sign. The Citizens' Representative shall

report the refusal in accordance with the provision of

section 10.1 as if it

were a breach of confidentiality.

If this

is adopted here today, and I hope it is, refusal by any party or the complainant

to sign the confidentiality agreement would immediately be reported by the

Citizens' Representative to the Privileges and Elections Committee in accordance

with

section 10.1.

Section 10.1 of the policy states that Members and employees

who breach confidentiality through the process under the policy may be subject

to disciplinary actions.

This

Committee is emphatic that the guiding principles of expectation articulated in

the Harassment-Free Workplace Policy, which was adopted unanimously by this

House, must be embraced and upheld by all. That is, it is everyone's

responsibility to foster a healthy work environment, to promote a culture of

civility, to demonstrate respect and to recognize every person's right to be

protected and supported. I think those are admirable.

The

policies applicable to complaints against elected officials create a clear

process, provides options for resolution in complaint-driven (inaudible) and

protects confidentiality. This policy is intended to create a cultural shift,

foster a better work environment and hold elected officials to a higher standard

of behaviour.

I would

like to take this opportunity to thank the Committee Members: the Member for

Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, who is the Vice-Chair; the Member for St. John's

Centre; the Member for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows; and the Member for Burin

- Grand Bank, all of you were working hard on this for the past couple of

months.

For all

of the reasons highlighted, our Committee has brought forward this piece of work

and it is why we're asking all hon. Members in this hon. House to unanimously

support changes to

section 10 for the Harassment-Free Workplace Policy

Applicable to Complaints Against Members.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

C. TIBBS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

just add a couple things to this. First of all, thank you very much to this

Committee for the work that it did; the House of Assembly staff for assisting us

where we needed assistance and accompanying us; as well as the Citizens'

Representative.

What we

ran into here is a problem that needed mitigation immediately so any

investigation could move forward –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

C. TIBBS:

– and we want to ensure that

the process is going to see fit and it holds all of us to a higher standard. We

do hold ourselves to a higher standard within the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador but when there is a complaint filed against a Member, we need a process

to ensure that complainant has the courage to come forward.

With the

old legislation, of course, we have seen that a confidentiality agreement had to

be signed by both parties and it didn't have any mitigation there, once again,

for if somebody refused to sign the confidentiality agreement. The importance of

the confidentiality agreement is to ensure that the process is followed within

the confines of the House and people's business isn't put outside the House

which would, in turn, if there are names mentioned or whatnot, people may be

hesitant later on down the road to come forward with a legitimate complaint

against a Member. We wanted to make sure that everybody felt comfortable that

worked throughout government to make a complaint if one was seen fit to be made.

That was

the whole point of us meeting the four times that we did. I believe that we came

up with a great piece of work here, with some great wording to mitigate that. It

might seem simple in its words, but it will definitely work for the House and it

will work for everybody throughout government in the future.

Again,

we need to behold ourselves to a higher standard. This piece of legislation here

– that I hope everybody votes yes on – does that to ensure that. It is an

important process. The process that we have in place right now is a very

important process. It allows us to stay at the higher standard that we are and

it keeps us all at a higher standard. I think that is the biggest thing that we

are getting at right now. To change this from having to sign a confidentiality

agreement, which is still there, but now to continue to move forward nonetheless

with a complaint or process is the most important part.

I'm

going to ask everybody here to support this. It important to a complainant, but

it's important to all of us too, and it gives the public confidence in us

outside of these walls to ensure that we are held to the standard we should be

held to. So everybody, if you could just give it a quick read. We know what it's

all about now, but, in future, I would expect everybody to sign the

confidentiality agreement. If you choose not to, the process will still go ahead

and the complainant will still get their day of justice, whichever the House

sees fit.

So I'll

take my seat, Speaker, but I appreciate the Chair for the work he's done, and

again, the House staff for the work they've done. They've certainly guided us

through like they do here every day.

So thank

you very much, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of

all, I just want to thank the Committee for their work on this. Obviously, as an

independent Member, we don't have any representation on any of these Committees,

which is very unfortunate in a democratic society, considering the fact that we

do represent three of the 40 districts and the people within those districts.

But to the Members of the Committee who did this piece of work, I certainly want

to commend them on it.

Obviously, I think it's fair to say that everybody in this House is going to

agree with this. I think it's important that in every workplace – and I think we

all recognize this – people, whoever they are, deserve to be treated with

dignity and respect. They should not have to be subject to any kind of bullying

or harassment or anything else.

For far

too long, I think that applied generally within every workplace, I guess,

including within the public service, but there was nothing specific applying to

the House of Assembly. Really when you think about it, we're the people who are

making the laws. We are the people who should be leading by example. We're the

people who should be, as others have said, held to that higher standard.

Therefore, it's important, and that's why I was certainly supportive and I know

other Members were of bringing in a specific Workplace Harassment-Free Policy

for MHAs. I think that happened – I don't know if it was last year or the year

before, whenever it was that we brought it in.

I think

that was a good move. Like any piece of legislation or any policy, it evolves

over time. It is impossible to write a piece of legislation. That's why when we

come to this House of Assembly, there's never a shortage of bills. There's never

a shortage of bills to debate because by the time you get through all the

existing legislation, things that you might have passed two years, three years,

sometimes 10 years ago, all of a sudden everything is changed. Whether it be a

technological change, or whether it just be a change in public attitude and what

might have been acceptable 10 years ago is no longer acceptable now. So that's

why this legislation and policies are evolving all of the time.

In the

case of the Workplace Harassment-Free Policy, even though it was only passed

about a year or so ago, already we've seen a circumstance now – I'm not sure

exactly what the circumstance was but, obviously, something happened, I would

suggest, that brought this issue to light around the signing of confidentiality

agreements. There was some issue or loophole or something that hadn't been

thought of that, obviously, found its way to the Committee.

Now the

Committee has looked at that and they are putting a measure in place to ensure

that all parties are protected, that there is confidentiality, but also that you

cannot simply stall a process. Because at the end of the day, if the intent of

this policy is to have a safe workplace where everybody feels respected and

everyone has the ability to bring their concerns forward, if they have a

concern, that process should not be cut short by some loophole in the policy.

That's what this is meant to deal with.

In that

regard, I certainly support it. I would say too, Mr. Speaker, that this

amendment is part of a bigger picture as it relates, I guess, to the policy, how

Members interact, how we deal with complaints, how we have the ability to appeal

complaints – particularly if new information comes forward or if it's been

determined that there's been some error made in a previous decision. For

example, if there was information given or a position taken in this House,

perhaps by an Officer of the House – I don't want to delve into it too much, but

at the end of the day we had one situation, I guess, that this could apply to.

There was a dispute over what is an employee and the Officer of the House comes

in here and says one thing –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

This

bill is not about specific cases; it's dealing with the policy.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

talking to the policy and the fact that this is doing something specific around

the whole idea of confidentiality, but it's not just about confidentiality; it's

about making sure everybody within the complaint process is treated fair and

square. I guess that's the point. The point of doing this is making sure that

everybody is protected, on all sides of the argument. That's all I'm saying.

So we

just have to be very careful and we need to, perhaps, as we reflect on what

we're doing here today and reflect on the bigger picture, realizing that any one

of us in this House, on either side of the House, at any time could be subject

to a complaint. Whether that be legit or erroneous, it could happen. And anybody

in this House – you're in public life long enough, I can guarantee you that

nobody is going to go unscathed. At some point in time, your picture is going to

be on the front page of The Telegram

or something over some controversy. It's inevitable if you're here long enough,

I think, for the majority of people; a few escape, but not many escape, I can

tell you that.

As we

consider these policies on a go-forward basis and the bigger picture, I just

think it's important that we realize and be cognizant of the fact that this

could impact any of us. We want to do it fair and square. We want to close all

the loopholes. In this case, we want to protect confidentiality. But it's also

important, I believe, in the bigger scheme of things that when a complaint is

made that could apply to this piece of legislation, could be applied too that

there should be the ability – I'm not taking sides or getting involved in any

past things. I'm just saying, from what I've seen, I think we really need to

have a closer look at if new information comes forward, or if one thing is ruled

on today and then something changes that conflicts with that tomorrow, that

there needs to be a fair way for a Member or anyone else to be able to appeal

that and get their fair day in court, so to speak. That's all I'm saying.

Now, we

can surmise from what I'm saying that I'm referring to a specific issue; if you

want to surmise that, you can surmise that. Again, I wasn't there. I wasn't

involved in any of these past disputes – thank God I wasn't – but all I'm saying

is this applies to all of us, and if any one of us got caught up in a situation

where this was applying to us, I as one Member, and I would think every Member,

would simply want to know and have confidence that they are getting a fair

hearing.

If it's

determined after the fact that there was some flaws in a ruling, or new

information, that they have the ability to appeal it. And not be able to say

every time it's brought up in the House, oh, we can't talk about it; you're cut

off. Or I bring it to the Committee and we can't look at it and nobody can look

at it. We just pretend it didn't happen, I guess. That's all I'm saying – for

the future, for all of us, for any of us.

So with

that said, on the bigger picture, back to the specifics of this bill, it's a

good move as far as I'm concerned and I will support it 100 per cent.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess

I'm going to speak on this because, I'm making no bones about it, this is the

part of the situation that myself and Dale Kirby were involved with.

I just

want to give a bit of background here, Mr. Speaker, why this came up in the

first place. Back in April 2018, there were complaints here against myself and

Dale Kirby about bullying and harassment in the House of Assembly. That was the

complaint; you could read the thing that the House of Assembly was rocked by

allegations of bullying and harassment.

So I

went through part of the process with Dwight Ball who, again, had information he

didn't release about it all – the coward. What happened? Here's what happened. I

just want to give the House of Assembly the background on this. There was a

meeting May 8: the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's, there was a lawyer

involved, and a third person. The third person who was involved with that

meeting was Cathy Bennett, the former minister of Finance.

They met

with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. After Cathy Bennett paid for

that lawyer to meet with Bruce Chaulk, with the Member for Placentia - St.

Mary's, who made the complaint, it was found out that there was no bullying and

harassment policy against any Member of the House of Assembly. That's how this

came about.

There

was none. You couldn't do it. You couldn't put in a bullying and harassment

claim. That's where all of the complaints changed from bullying and harassment

to Code of Conduct that my finances weren't in order and I shouldn't be in the

House of Assembly. That was one of the complaints.

that's how all of this came about, the bullying and harassment. Cathy Bennett

paid for a lawyer to go sit down with Bruce Chaulk, with the Member for

Placentia - St. Mary's. That's how all of this came about. So that's how this

policy started developing. Because then, they realized, okay, we can't go with

the bullying and harassment anymore. That's gone off the table. We got to go

with Code of Conduct.

That's

why I say to the Deputy Premier – I've got to give her credit. The Deputy

Premier – one of the allegations against me with the Code of Conduct: the $30

million from Vale, I took that and spent that on the West Coast. That's where

the Code of Conduct came in. The problem I am going to have with this bill, and

I say it to the Chairperson, the Minister of Environment: What's the penalty?

I'll

give you an example. This is legitimate. I ask the Minister of Industry, Energy

and Technology: You went though a nine-month police investigation; what's the

penalty for someone who made a false text about you? None. Absolutely none. Do

you know what the penalty is going to be if this is done? No, but seriously,

though. This is very serious. Leaking a Cabinet document – that's up to the

Liberal Party, what happened? Nothing. Now leaking the text and putting a police

investigation, what's the penalty by the Liberals? None.

So I

asked everybody on the Committee: What's the penalty? And I'll give you a good

example. All of this bullying and harassment that was brought forward by the

Member for Harbour Grace and the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's, that was all

out in the media before we even knew it. Do you know who was leaking most of the

stuff in media? Fred Hutton, the same person who is up in the Premier's office

right now: breaking news. That coward, Fred Hutton, never called me once on any

of that information. Never called me once. It was out in the media before we

even knew it.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

E. JOYCE:

So my question, Mr. Speaker –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

It's not

parliamentary language to call someone a coward.

E. JOYCE:

It's not?

SPEAKER:

No. I'll ask you to retract

that, please.

E. JOYCE:

I will withdraw the comment.

SPEAKER:

Thank you.

E. JOYCE:

Sorry.

But he

never ever contacted us. So I know for a fact, coming from the staff at the

Premier's office, that he used to joke around –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I ask

the Member to stay with the policy that we're discussing here today. The

specifics of that have already been ruled on within this House.

E. JOYCE:

I'm not talking about

(inaudible). I'm talking about what happens when (inaudible). This is what's not

in the policy. What happens if there's a complaint here today against any Member

and it's all put out in the media before it happens? What is the result? This is

not worth the paper it's written on because there are no penalties involved.

Absolutely no penalties.

What is

the penalty if someone made a complaint against any Member in this House of

Assembly and it's false, and it's all out in the media before you even got a

chance to defend yourself?

P. LANE:

Reputation ruined.

E. JOYCE:

Reputation is ruined, says

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

Well,

you're lucky it's not, because the people knew me and knew the difference. My

reputation wasn't ruined, but it could be out in the media and it would be

carried on; you're right, it would be carried on.

That's

the question I have to ask the Committee Members. It sounds great, oh, if we

don't go ahead and do this here, then all of a sudden we have to go ahead with

the Committee. But what if someone leaked it? I've been there.

How many

people in this House of Assembly know how much stuff was leaked and there are no

consequences? What are the consequences? I ask any Members of the Committee to

stand up and say this is why this here should be taken back and it should be

amended to put in penalties.

It's no

good for me to make an amendment to it because it's going to be ruled out of

order anyway. I know that. So it's no good to even to do it. I know some of the

Committee Members, because the Liberals got the majority, they're going to do

what they want to do anyway.

What is

the penalty? Can anybody tell me? Can anybody in this House tell me what the

penalty is? You can't do it.

I'll

just give you a good example why you need a penalty. When all this was going on,

before this with the bullying and harassment – and this is to the bill, Mr.

Speaker, I know you're trying to keep it – I can understand that, I have no

problem with that – I apparently released the name of a certain individual, the

Member for Placentia - St. Mary's who made the complaint.

I have

17 people on a list; I can start naming them over there, four or five of them.

She walked into caucus the day before and said I just filed a complaint.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I have

been giving the Member lenience.

E. JOYCE:

It is relevant. It is

relevant, I say, you should have went as a witness. You promised to go as a

witness yourself; you wouldn't go. Don't you go starting, don't you start.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

E. JOYCE:

I can tell you –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Stay

with policy.

E. JOYCE:

I know, Mr. Speaker, you're

the one who backed out as a witness, too, as a minister had the information and

wouldn't bring it forward.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

E. JOYCE:

Yes.

SPEAKER:

We're staying with policy,

please.

E. JOYCE:

I will, yes.

But

anyway, Mr. Speaker, this is my point, it was out in the media – we're talking

about confidentiality – it was out in the media, there was 15 MHAs in the caucus

who were ready to go as witness, that we were told, but it's all out in the

media. So what is the –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

You're

not being relevant to the bill right now.

E. JOYCE:

But what is –

SPEAKER:

You're talking about a

specific case, but we're discussing the policy of this particular resolution and

I ask you to stay relevant, please.

E. JOYCE:

It is relevant. It is. You're

saying that you can't release information, but when you release the information

what's the penalty? What is the penalty for it? Can anybody – none, there's

none.

This is

the point – this is the flaw in this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

E. JOYCE:

Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER:

I'll tell you (inaudible).

E. JOYCE:

You'll tell me. What are you

going to tell me? I'll tell you what you're going to tell me right away. You're

going to say we're going to bring it back to the House. Then here's where the

problem lies. You're going to bring it back to the House that it didn't –

whatever the – but here's the problem.

P. LANE:

The House will do nothing.

E. JOYCE:

If the House don't do

anything, if you're a Liberal, we'll find something else to do. If you're on

this side, it's going to be a harsher penalty. It should be uniform for

everybody. That's why we should have it in this House, if someone leaked

documents, have it somewhere in this House that he has to stand – him or her –

stand, apologize, withdraw, not sit in the House for a day or two, have

something that's uniform.

That's

what you're going to say is that we'll bring it back to the House with a

recommendation. So if you have a Liberal majority, and it happens to be a

Cabinet minister who does it, do you think you're going to get the same issue

and the same judgment as you would if it was me? So say me, for example, or

anybody else over here, this is the problem you're going into. I've seen it.

I've been there. I've seen it.

So this

is why I'm asking the Committee now to take this back and put something in there

with teeth. This has no teeth. I've been there with it. I've been through it.

I've been through all the going out in the media on a regular basis; Fred Hutton

on a regular basis, leaked stuff on a regular basis. Breaking news. It was all

false. It was all false. So this is my point to the House – and I know you

people are listening to me talk again – it could be anybody tomorrow.

It was

the Minister of Energy one day, a nine-month police investigation. What

happened? Nothing. Nothing. So this is why I'm saying to the Committee – and as

people know, I went through the court thing, we're waiting for the decision on

that, I'm not going to speak about that, because it's parliamentary privilege;

I'm not.

But

there are two things out of that that came out, Mr. Speaker, which is very

relevant here, what the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands said, if you get new

information. Do you know the two things that came out right quick? The lawyers

agreed. Members aren't government employees; the second thing, Bruce Chaulk's

lawyer said, oh, it was a mistake that Members – he said Members – really aren't

– it was an honest mistake. Those are the two things that came out in the court.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

the Member to not use names.

E. JOYCE:

I will. Thank you for that.

SPEAKER:

Use the statutory officer by

their title, please.

E. JOYCE:

The Commissioner for

Legislative Standards. Sorry about that.

But

those are the two points that came out of that whole court thing, now we are not

government employees, which I stood in this House and tried – and the second

thing it says is Members and government employees at the beginning – the

Commissioner for Legislative Standard's lawyer said it was an honest mistake

where it said Members, he really thought it was; it was an honest mistake. So

everything that myself and Dale Kirby went through in this House of Assembly out

in the general public, it was an honest mistake.

Then

what the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands said is that if there's new

information you should bring it back. Under this policy, Mr. Speaker, what are

the penalties?

So I'm

going to ask the Committee – I won't belabour this anymore – to withdraw this

bill, withdraw this, bring it back and put some penalties in it, because I can

guarantee you, and I'll say it again, it all depends on who it is, what degree

of severity it's going to be brought back to the House about. I can guarantee

it, as sure as I'm here, and if anybody knows me, I'll always try to be fair. I

don't care if you're Liberal, NDP, independent, I try to be fair. Over time, my

record shows I didn't care: If it's right, it's right; if it's wrong, it's

wrong.

So if

we're going to allow – whichever government, it may not be the Liberal

government, may be the PC government, may be the NDP, you don't know, but you

can't put that in the hands of whoever is in power, you can't do it. What you

have to do is say if this is the act that's being brought forward here, you have

to have some kind of penalty in here, which is uniform for everybody in this

House of Assembly – everybody.

Then

even if you're not the Member to move ahead because there's a complaint against

you, what is the penalty? Mr. Speaker, this is the point. What is the penalty if

someone who makes the complaint is out in the public talking? Does this

continue? Does the investigation continue?

I ask

the Chair of the Committee: Does it continue? If it's already out in the media,

where it's supposed to be confidential, does it continue or does it stop? We

say, oh, well, it's all out in the media; it would've got out anyway. So what

are we going to do about it? Nothing.

There is

no penalty in this here for even the person who makes the complaint. So if a

person who makes the complaint against you, they can go talk to the media. There

is nothing in it. There are absolutely no teeth in this here. Confidentiality

agreements don't mean anything unless there are penalties attached to it, and we

all know that. I know it personally. Dale Kirby knows it personally. With all

the leaks that were here, what is the penalty for it?

Now that

there is a Code of Conduct brought in here for bullying and harassment against a

Member – and I agree with it, by the way. If there is someone out here harassing

an employee, they should be – I got no problem with it. I think it is great. I

think it is all great. I got no problem with that whatsoever if you feel that

you've been bullied, you've been harassed or someone is always after you. I got

no problem whatsoever to bring this in. I agree with keeping us all accountable.

I think the ones who keep us accountable are our electorates. They are the ones

who keep us accountable.

I agree

with the philosophy of the bill, but I ask again that they withdraw this here

and bring it back so that when we come back here, if it is put out in the public

media and it is leaked in any way whatsoever and it is shown that you did it,

either the Member or whoever leaked it has got to pay consequences to it and the

person whoever made the complaint, if they leaked it – which happened to me and

Dale Kirby.

Everybody here, I can show you – I can tell you it was out in the media before I

even knew what they were talking about. I didn't have a clue. Walked out here

one day and the next thing you know (inaudible) –

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER:

I am trying to get this House

back to a place of relevance when we speak to bills. We have a Member that is a

naming people; that is not speaking to the policy here today. We have rules to

follow in this House. At the end of the day, Speaker, we're just trying to get

this Parliament to a better place, to entice other people to want to step up and

run for whatever party. I would just ask you to please be mindful of relevancy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

E. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, how is that not

relevant? How is that not relevant, Mr. Speaker? I am showing a full example

where there was a complaint of bullying and harassment that was out in the media

before the people even knew about it. I am saying that it was done. Here is

proof that it was done and there are no consequences. How is that not relevant?

Explain to me how that is not relevant, Mr. Speaker.

I am

trying to strengthen the legislation. I am actually trying to strengthen the

legislation. I'm just glad that the Deputy House Leader is so concerned about

bullying and harassment, she had her chance to go as a witness and she wouldn't

do it, and I'll talk about that some day.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

E. JOYCE:

Trust me on that.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Speak to

the policy, not individual Members.

E. JOYCE:

But that is part of the

policy. What I'm saying is part of it.

I'll sit

down. I'll take my seat, Mr. Speaker. I'll ask that the bill be taken back to

the Committee again and put in some penalties, not only for the Member, but also

for the person who made the complaint that is put out in the public.

That's

my concern here now. This is not worth the paper it's written on because there

are no consequences for anybody if this is breached. If you don't believe me,

ask the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology what it's like to have

something leaked about him – a nine-month police investigation.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

Seeing no other speakers –

sorry, the Leader of the Third Party.

J. DINN:

Thank you, Speaker.

Obviously, I will be speaking in support of this. And, in some ways, there are

already safeguards that exist in 42.8, Confidentiality of identity and 42.11,

Declaration. I would assume that all Members would be following that. In some

ways this seems superfluous; however, the fact is it did create problems for the

Office of the Citizens' Representative to do its investigation.

In many

ways, this is about accountability; it's about ensuring transparency and

confidence. It's also about protecting due process, especially with regard to

complaint process. Anything that helps that process along is certainly going to

be, Speaker, absolutely crucial to making sure that the public and the Members

have confidence in the approach.

I do

accept the fact that maybe there needs to be some stronger penalties on this,

and that goes to one of my concerns in this. Because the one thing that I've

clearly understood, that's been made clear to all of us when we first got

elected and went through the orientation, is the power of freedom of speech that

MHAs enjoy here. I often thought, too, if there is an issue indeed with whether

names are mentioned or whatever else, as to what are, not so much the penalties,

but what are the practicalities. Because names can be mentioned either

deliberately or by accident, it doesn't make any difference. Since this is

televised and in Hansard , whether an

apology is offered or not, the name is there on record.

In some

way I guess I would like to see – and I did bring this up in Committee – how do

you make sure, whether it's then through a delayed transmission so that if it's

– it's one thing to mention, I guess, the names of MHAs and so on and so forth,

but I'm more or less concerned about people who – maybe it's an employee, for

that matter. How do you make sure that name is protected, not only in terms of

the measures – and certainly this is an attempt to further emphasize the whole

notion of confidentiality, of driving home that point. But still, names can get

mentioned here.

I would

still like to see something that if a name is brought up that really shouldn't

be, who is a vulnerable individual, that name is not on the record in some way,

shape or form, or the transmission is stopped or it's blotted out, if you want,

or redacted. In that case I still think, Speaker, we could go a little bit

further into looking at that. That may not be within the realm of this report,

but at the same time I think it's something we need to turn our attention to,

especially since the modes of communication and the technology for communication

has evolved significantly and we're no longer just dealing with paper copies.

So with

that, certainly anything that enforces the notion of confidentiality, whether

that is looking at stiffer penalties and penalties that are applied equally

across the board, or in measures that we can to protect the names, I think

that's all good, but this is a good start and something that we will support.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

Seeing no other speakers if

the Minister of Environment and Climate Change speaks now, we will close debate.

The hon.

the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'd just

like to thank the speakers today: the MHA for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans, the

MHA for Mount Pearl - Southlands, the MHA for Bay of Islands and the MHA for St.

John's Centre.

They all

highlighted some good things with this piece of legislation that is going to be

updating in the changes to the act. They're going to help us with bringing a

higher standard; ensuring that the benefits of confidentiality were highlighted,

which is important; and finding a process to make the process better.

I think

individuals highlighted the fact that legislation is created to be changing and

ever flowing when we see things that need to be updated and fixed. I thought

that was very thought provoking. Our workplace and workers need to be treated

with dignity and respect was a line that was used. I thought that was very good.

Closing

the loopholes: You shouldn't be able to stall a process or cut short a process

by a loophole that existed. We need protection on all sides was mentioned there.

The

investigation: the accountability, the protecting due process was mentioned. I

think all of us support all of those initiatives.

Parliamentary privilege: I'd like to highlight a point that the MHA for St.

John's Centre mentioned. It did come up in our Committee and we have written the

Standing Orders Committee to look at some options that can come from that

because I think there are some good ideas from that perspective.

Parliamentary privilege does not give you the privilege to put forward names of

people without their consent on those things. It's for debate. It's to protect

you so you feel the ability to open debate, but not to name people in processes

that shouldn't be named. I think that's a good point that the hon. Member for

St. John's Centre mentioned.

The talk

of penalties is an important one and they do exist within the confines there

now. Penalties can be an apology right now, suspensions, fines and vacating the

seat would be one. But one of the things that happens, not within the

legislation that we're talking about here today, but it does come up when there

is a breach of that, the Committee will get together and discuss that and bring

it forward, as the hon. Member said, for the people in this House to determine

what the penalty would be; whether it be an apology, suspension, fine or

vacating the seat in circumstances. I don't think we've seen those

circumstances, not in my recent memory, anyway, of some of those, but we have

seen apologies. We have seen suspensions. We have seen fines.

So I

think there's no better place to put it than in the hands of the House of

Assembly. There are four opportunities for penalties that currently exist within

what we have and there could be ideas that we could look at others.

But

that's not the role of this Committee right now, that's the role of the House of

Assembly and maybe Standing Orders or something like that. I would push that to

the Table Officers or the House itself to look at those options because there

may be more penalties that could be brought in and maybe highlighted a little

bit earlier.

that's not problematic from my standpoint, but one of the things that I do want

to say is that I'm glad that people see the urgency in fixing this loophole that

existed. I don't think it was intended as a loophole or anything like that and I

don't think it's being used as one. I just think that it's highlighting a fact

that the Citizens' Representative brought forward a concern that the Committee

met on four different occasions to come up with the solution that could fix a

potential problem that could exist, or may exist. I just hope people in the

House of Assembly vote to move forward with this report that we've tabled here

today.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

The hon.

the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 14, Bill 53,

An Act To Amend The Judicature Act.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you, Speaker.

It is

moved and seconded that Bill 53,

An Act To Amend The Judicature Act, be now read

a second time.

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 53 now be read a second time.

The hon.

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

That was seconded by the

Deputy Government House Leader.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Judicature Act.” (Bill 53)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'm

happy to speak here this morning on

An Act to Amend the Judicature Act. This

proposed bill is pretty straightforward. It will simply amend

section 21(1)(

c) of the Judicature Act to allow for the

number of judges of the court to be set out in the regulations as opposed to be

setting out specifically in the statute.

An Act

to Amend the Judicature Act will remove the reference to the specific number of

Supreme Court judges from the act and instead will authorize the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council to prescribe the specific number of judges in

regulation.

A little

bit of background on this. In the 2018 federal budget, $77.2 million was

provided over four years and $20.8 million ongoing per year to support the

creation of 39 new Unified Family Court judicial positions in Canada. Of these

positions, three were earmarked for Newfoundland and Labrador to support the

expansion of the Unified Family Court model across the province.

These

appointments will occur gradually and the Supreme Court will work with the

Provincial Court and the Department of Justice and Public Safety to ensure the

necessary administrative resources and a transition plan is in place before

expansion occurs.

Supreme

Court judges are paid by the federal government pursuant to the federal

Judges Act.

Section 21 of the

provincial Judicature Act sets out the

number of judges to be appointed in this province. The proposed amendments will

simply set out the number of judges via regulations instead of being set out in

the act.

The

proposed amendment will allow for flexibility with respect to judicial

appointments, appointments as needed, and not subject to the House of Assembly

sitting schedule. Once the UFC model is expanded throughout the province, the

Supreme Court will take on all family law matters in this province, taking over

current Provincial Court jurisdiction in areas of the province where family law

matters can be heard in Provincial Court. The Provincial Courts will continue to

be operational once the UFC model rolls out.

The

Provincial Courts are the busiest courts in this province with high numbers of

litigants moving through the court each week in predominately criminal law

matters. Expanding the UFC model in Newfoundland and Labrador will create a

one-stop shop for family law matters in this province. It will promote a

specialized family law bench that will be solely dedicated to family law

matters. Additionally, expanding the UFC model will reduce any confusion

surrounding what level of court matters should be filed in.

We have

consulted with the judiciary on this and I personally met with Chief Justice

Whalen of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador and Shelley Organ to

discuss these matters. Certainly, I give credit to Chief Justice Whalen for

advocating on behalf of the judiciary.

With

that, Speaker, those are my comments.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Speaker.

It is

with great pleasure that I speak to this bill, Bill 53,

An Act to Amend the

Judicature Act.

I, first

of all, want to say that I would be supporting and we would be supporting this.

I think the main reason is because it does support access to justice. I think

the minister has just referenced the fact that it will lessen confusion for

potential individuals who want to have their matters heard before the Family

Court. I think this is a welcomed amendment.

Just by

way of background, I think for the benefit of any viewers, family law in the

province is or has been the responsibility of both the Supreme and Provincial

Court. If the matter involved divorce or the division of martial property, it

must be heard in the Supreme Court. Additionally, St. John's and Corner Brook

both have Family Courts – a division of the Supreme Court – thus, in these

areas, the Supreme Court, Family Division will hear all family matters and the

Provincial Court will not hear any.

However,

in areas where there is no Supreme Court, Family Division available, then an

application can be filed in Provincial Court or the General Division of the

Supreme Court. So now, the province will see three more Family Courts set up by

the Supreme Court. As we know, the Supreme Court is funded fully by the federal

government.

What

we're going to see is more opportunities here to have cases heard in the Family

Court. I think also, consequently, that it will reduce the number of people who

have to choose between the two levels of court: Provincial and Supreme. The

addition of these three Family Courts will reduce confusion, as has been stated

by the minister, and I think what's really important to note here is that

especially for those individuals who don't have lawyers, who are

self-represented, this will help with them in terms of understanding the

procedure that's in play.

Because

we know that the law can be quite confusing and sometimes daunting, especially

for those individuals who wish to represent themselves and may not understand

the complexities in terms of appearing before the court. So I think this is a

good thing, that it will now lessen that ambiguity, the conflict that may exist

for individuals about what court they now would have to file an application in.

Because

the province will see three more Family Court judges appointed – the current

number that is stated in the legislation of 22 is not accurate. Now, as the

minister has stated, they're going to prescribe the fact that you can basically

have – that will be open in the regulations.

So I

think, in its entirety, this is a good amendment and we would support it. It's

straightforward. Also, there's reference to the gender-neutral language that it

will be using; of course, that's always welcome as well. I like the idea that

it's a one-stop shop for family law matters, and that will, again, increase

access to justice. When we see access to justice being encouraged, I think this

is such a basic principle of law, which really makes sure and ensures that

citizens have equal access to the legal systems in their respective

jurisdictions.

On that

note, in conclusion, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and we support the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Speaker.

I am

happy to speak to the Judicature Act

and to talk about prescribing the specific number of judges of the Supreme

Court. I am very happy to see that the Attorney General and Minister of Justice

and Public Safety have brought this in. I think this is absolutely a step in the

right direction.

I don't

think I need to repeat the points that the minister made or my colleague across

the way. This is something I am very familiar with for multiple reason. Number

one, being that this has been in the works for some time now. Back when I was in

the role, I had some input into working with the federal government to increase

the number of Supreme Court justices here in the province, to do more when it

came to the separation of the divisions. Just when you talk about the different

matters, talking about Provincial and Supreme, that has always been an issue

when you had Supreme jurisdiction on the West Coast, something different in

Central, similarities up in Labrador, change on the East Coast. So having that

uniformity, I think, is going to be a good thing.

I am

extremely happy that the Attorney General and his department continued on with

this and ensured that it got done. So certainly kudos to the minister.

When you

talk about some of the changes here, they are housekeeping in nature. But they

are also what I would call a good housekeeping in the sense that when we talk

about gender-neutral language, that is something that whenever we have to amend

legislation to make changes, it is a good opportunity to refresh and to update

and make legislation more in line with today's standards. I think we have seen

that. Just looking at a lot of the changes here today, we're talking about

taking out Grand Falls and putting in Grand Falls-Windsor. I mean, that is

obviously something that has been a long time coming. I will point out –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

A. PARSONS:

A shout-out to the Member

opposite and, again, a shout-out to the good people of Windsor for having their

names included in the legislation.

I will

say that having served the role, and I think I have spoken about it on a number

of occasions, but the work that is done by Legislative Counsel on this piece of

legislation or any other is absolutely necessary, important, and people truly

have no idea about the difficult work that they do. When you look at

legislation, to go through it, to comb it, to make updates, to make changes, it

is really painstaking, timely work, difficult.

Again,

it is not like we have a full army or division of people working at this: it is

very few. I want to give credit to Legislative Counsel. I know we have a

previous Legislative Counsel sitting here in the House of Assembly so they would

have a lot of insight on the work that goes in to it. Certainly, those were very

big shoes, difficult shoes to fill, and I wish the camera could show the

individual to see if their face is reddening or not when you speak – oh yes,

thank you, Speaker; that was my goal. But I mean it with sincerity that

Legislative Counsel is a difficult role, a necessary one and one that benefits

all of us here in the House of Assembly.

As a

former lawyer myself in small-town rural Newfoundland and Labrador, having seen

the difficulty when you have work being done in two levels of court, it could be

difficult. Not knowing whether you bring application to the Provincial Court, to

the Supreme Court. So to have that uniformity there is I think a necessary

thing.

Again,

to have three new federal judges here in the province is a big win for us I

think. I think you're going to see improvement in the system. When it comes to

family law, especially, it's a difficult task at the best of times. I know and I

know the Attorney General knows there's work that still has to be done on that

work and he'll certainly have mine and everybody's support, because it's

something that, regardless of where you are in the province, we all deal with

that in terms of our constituencies and access to justice, access to courts.

So on

that note, I will say thank you for the opportunity to speak to the

Judicature Act , and I appreciate the

opportunity here.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a

few comments on this amendment to the

Judicature Act . Just looking at this act now, it's being amended to

incorporate gender-neutral language and to authorize the Lieutenant-Governor –

sorry, accent; I've been up in Labrador for a week, so now a lot of people can't

understand me again.

When

there are any changes coming down, what I always look it is why are these

changes happening, what's the positive, what's the negative and the rationale

why. So one of the things is to incorporate gender-neutral language, which is a

very, very positive thing, bringing our legislation into the modern day. We talk

a lot about equality; it's good to see it actually being written now in our

legislation. Also, the ability to authorize the Lieutenant-Governor in Council

to increase the number of Supreme Court judges through the regulations. So, on

the surface, that seems a positive thing as well, but we always have to ask why,

and are there any negative impacts, any positive impacts.

Looking

at the change that has come about through federal investment, which is a big

positive, $77 million for the expansion of the Family Courts across Canada.

We're going to be getting three new justices with this increase in funding. It's

very, very positive to see that the chief justice of the provincial Supreme

Court approached the provincial government requesting that these changes would

happen in a gradual transition, which would allow everything to be looked at and

make sure the changes are positive and no pitfalls there.

Just

looking at some of the issues now. As my fellow MHA for Harbour Main talked

about consistency and making the transition easier for families who are in the

justice system because, right now, we have family law cases heard either in the

Supreme Court, the Provincial Courts, also in St. John's and western

jurisdictions. They already have a Unified Family Court.

So this

process would actually bring consistency, which is very important for families.

Also, another thing that would be really positive is a lot of families don't

have a lot of money and affording a lawyer is a barrier and then having to face

which jurisdiction will actually hear their case.

So it

brings consistency. It makes things much more simple, which is important. This

process is supposed to take time, allowing for studies of the proposals and

consultations between both branches of the court and the Department of Justice

and Public Safety. That's a very positive thing.

But, of

course, the positions in hiring are expected to take time with no current

deadline. That's the rationale behind giving the power to set the number of

justices on the Supreme Court from the act to the regulations. Now, in actual

fact, that is a bit concerning to me when I was looking at changing it from the

act to the regulations because it takes the ability for us to discuss it in the

House of Assembly and to have the MHAs have their say and ask questions and

discuss it. Going to the regulations, it goes to Cabinet.

One of

the problems we always run into when things are in Cabinet is transparency. So

that was a concern, but, like I said, on the surface it does seem to be

concerning but, in actual fact, the fact that shifting the number from the

Supreme Court justices from the act to the regulations is not really a major

concern because, of course, it's all through the federal government.

Like I

said, speaking after everybody else, I don't want to be repeating things, so

this is something that we can support. I'm going to be voting to support it.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

Seeing no other speakers, if

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety speaks now he'll close debate.

The hon.

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I want

to thank the Members for speaking to this, this morning, the Member for Harbour

Main, the Minister of IET and the Member for Torngat Mountains. I think they've

all raised important points and spoke about the positivity of this legislation.

certainly also want to thank the former minister of Justice and Attorney

General, who did a lot of the heavy lifting behind the scenes and made it pretty

easy for me to just simply bring some legislation here and get this done here

this morning. So thanks very much, I appreciate it.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is that Bill 53 now be read a second time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Motion

carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Judicature Act. (Bill 53)

SPEAKER:

The bill has now been read a

second time.

When

shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?

L. DEMPSTER:

Now.

SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Judicature Act,” read a second time,

ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill

53)

SPEAKER:

The Deputy Government House

Leader.

L. DEMPSTER:

Speaker, I move that this

House do now resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 53, An

Act To Amend The Judicature Act.

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Motion

carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 53,

An Act To Amend The Judicature Act.

A bill,

“An Act To Amend The Judicature Act.” (Bill 53)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the Member for Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Chair.

While I

recognize that Supreme Court judges are paid by the federal government, does the

minister expect that the provincial government will incur any additional costs,

in term of supporting this increase in the number of judges?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you.

When

each new federal court or Supreme Court judge is appointed we will work with the

Department of Justice and we will work with the judiciary as well, within their

budget, to make sure that any necessary increase in cost for staffing or things

like that, we will work through that with them.

There

certainly may well be cost but I can't say that for sure. When the time comes to

discuss that, we'll work through that within the department if there are savings

to be found there or money within the budget for the courts.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Where will these three additional courts be located?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

There is no decision yet on where the three courts will be located. That's

something that we will work with the chief justice and with the Supreme Court

on. Of course, there are six locations throughout the province. There's one in

St. John's, Corner Brook, Grand Bank, Grand Falls-Windsor, Gander and Happy

Valley-Goose Bay. Currently, there are UFC models in Corner Brook and St.

John's. So the three will be dispersed amongst the remaining four spots.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Chair.

Will

there be an effort to appoint judges who have a background or experience in

Indigenous matters? Is there going to be any special focus or attention for

that, Minister?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

So the appointments are done by the federal government, by the minister of

over the last few years, the appointments have certainly made efforts to have

varied backgrounds in the community. Certainly, a gender-based lens has been put

on it with members from all kinds of communities and I am sure that they will

continue to make those efforts there as they go forward to appoint new judges.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you.

Are

there any wraparound supports provided with the Family Court?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

So the Family Court itself, it is my understanding it would just be the

judiciary, but, of course, there are lots of support services that are offered

by the Department of Justice and Public Safety. I think that more specifically

with regard to things like Provincial Court jurisdiction, the Family Violence

Intervention Court, the Drug Treatment Court and those sort of speciality

courts, there are wraparound supports offered for those.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

H. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

The final question: I'm just wondering if there's going to be any expansion in

terms of the jurisdiction of any of the courts. For example, the court in

Gander, will there be any kind of new expansion of their jurisdiction or

anything like that with respect to this new bill?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

So the jurisdiction of the

courts is set out in the Constitution right now, and this is one of the reasons

why we want to deal with this and expand the UFC model. The federal government

has jurisdiction over issues under the

Divorce Act for married individuals, and the Provincial Courts have

jurisdiction and the provincial government has jurisdiction over issues related

to child support and child issues and things like that.

So what

the Judicature Act does is allow for

there to be a one-stop shop, to move some of the provincial jurisdiction into

the federal jurisdiction to deal with this under the one-stop shop of the

Unified Family Court. This is what we are working through. This is sort of the

purpose of the Family Court is to blend some of the jurisdiction between federal

and provincial matters so that individuals involved in family matters, whether

getting a divorce or separation and dealing with child issues at the same time

don't have to go to two different courts and have two different court matters at

the same time. It can all be dealt with together.

CHAIR:

I see no further questions.

Shall

the motion carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clauses 2 through 16

inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall clauses 2 through 16

inclusive carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clauses 2 through 16 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as

follows.

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act To Amend The

Judicature Act.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report the bill

without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the

bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon.

the Deputy Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER:

Chair, I move that the

Committee rise and report Bill 53.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 53.

Is it

the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

B. WARR:

Speaker, the Committee of the

Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to

report Bill 53 without amendment.

SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them

referred and has directed him to report Bill 53 without amendment.

When

shall the bill be received?

L. DEMPSTER:

Now.

SPEAKER:

When shall the bill be read a

third time?

L. DEMPSTER:

Tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

SPEAKER:

The hon. Deputy Government

House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 2, Bill 41, third reading,

An Act Respecting A

Province-Wide 911 Service For The Reporting Of Emergencies.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that Bill 41,

An Act Respecting

A Province-Wide 911 Service For The Reporting Of Emergencies, be now read a

third time.

SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

bill now be read a third time.

The hon.

the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'd like

to take this opportunity just to provide an additional comment to the debate we

had yesterday. I'd like to thank those who reached out to me last evening and

this morning and continued to express their concern. They had a couple of

interesting, new ideas and I'd like to read it into the record, if I may.

I want

to underline, again, that the people that I'm hearing from – and I'm sure that

many of us, on both sides of the House, are probably hearing from – we're

talking about a bill that is making changes to what is probably one of the most

important safety umbrellas in this province. It's so important that we listen to

the experts. We listen to those who've been providing this service, who are very

knowledgeable about the service, and their concerns.

As I

said yesterday, there is a variety of issues here, and I'm still struggling to

try to understand exactly the rationale. One of the key items or one of the new

suggestions that I've heard – and I'd just like to read into the record – was

that, again, everyone I've heard from the last 24 hours and less are still not

convinced. I feel that myself, as an MHA, and every other MHA in this

Legislature, we do need to listen to our constituents. When they're telling us

to do something, they have concerns; it's our duty, our responsibility to bring

those concerns to the floor.

One of

the suggestions, and I'll go through yourself, Speaker, to the minister, was

that – as I explained yesterday, there were a variety of issues. Essentially,

what's going to happen here is that we're going to be removing a very

professional, very carefully appointed board, that's frankly been producing and

performing very successfully. They've done their job well, they've built up a

fund and we're removing them. I guess there's a financial saving associated with

doing that, but I would argue that the minimal amounts of cost and the fact that

it has been borne by the fund that they have been charged with overseeing, no

cost to government, I really question the wisdom of that.

As I

made a suggestion yesterday, if successful in passing this bill, I do believe

that it would be appropriate for government to consider some mechanism where you

can have that continued expertise, especially some of the key individuals on the

board that have spent a great deal of the last several years involved in this.

So we

have removed a board. We have increased the size of the Department of Justice

and Public Safety. Core government has grown. I think just saying those words,

Speaker, all of us here are realizing the challenges that we have with the size

of the civil service. The importance, though, of continuing to provide that

service but continuing to have an opportunity for good, professional people to

excel in our core civil service. We have been careful not to try to grow it;

here is a direct move in that direction.

We have

taken a fund that has built up some $20 million and it was set aside and it has

been built up with a very specific, a very intended purpose. As I said

yesterday, I was trying to find the right words, but the fact that it will be

going into general revenue with commitments or promises or some kind of future

hope that it will still remain a priority when the CRTC says it is time to move,

there is a lot of trust involved here. As so many of my colleagues said

yesterday: Why are we touching this? Why don't we just leave it alone?

I think

a point I made yesterday was that if you look at that fee, that 75 cents, that

has been collected on every single phone bill by every resident of this

province, that fee was levied in exchange for the understanding that it would go

towards a fund dedicated solely for the enhancement and the operation of the

Newfoundland and Labrador 911 service. We have taken that away. So, in many

ways, we have defaulted as a result of passing this bill on that business

transaction.

I guess,

as I said, we have now turned a fee with a specific intended purpose, it is

really now just a levied tax. It is a fee. Yes, it is collected in association

with our phone bill, but now it will be going into general revenue without that

intended specific purpose.

So with

that

preamble, I did want to introduce a new thought that was sent to me early

this morning. It was suggested that – and I'll just paraphrase from a rather

long email – if the minister wanted to find access to financial support to pay

for the upgrades, for example, to the new radio communication system, it's

suggested that he could've made a simple amendment to the current act to allow

for the NL911 board to pay dividends back to government, as has occurred in past

boards. That way, any deemed surplus could've been paid out while allowing

sufficient reserve to be retained to manage, upgrade and expand the current

system.

A lot of

wisdom in that, a lot of wisdom in the expertise that we're now walking away

from. Again, the different contacts I've had with search and rescue, I didn't

speak to all the different authorities, but I have not had a single person tell

me they had any concerns in terms of the rationale around why this needed to be

done, but they certainly have concerns over Bill 41 and what its intent is.

Thank

you very much, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

going to take just a few minutes to have a few more comments. Given the time is

only 11:22, we have lots of time because we have about an hour, really.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

P. LANE:

I don't have an hour, but we

have an hour, based on our

schedule there's no other legislation so I'll take my

time.

Anyway,

I don't want to belabour all the points and I don't want to repeat every point

that my colleague made but he did make some very good points. I think for me I

had some time to sort of think about this and reflect on this overnight and this

morning about the discussion we had yesterday and so on. One of the things I

heard mentioned a couple of times, and even after the House closed, I spoke to

one of the ministers there and they talked about the radio system, and my

colleague just referenced the radio system.

In terms

of these new initiatives and so on, sometimes it's in the way you do it, how

people view it and how it's communicated. I was saying to my colleague here for

Humber - Bay of Islands earlier, if from the get-go government had come forward

and said we're slightly changing the definition of the 911 system to get, not

just phones but other related items, i.e. radio systems and so on, which is what

he's doing.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

P. LANE:

I did read it, I say to the

minister. I did read it. You have a chance to speak after me.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

P. LANE:

That's sort of what they're

talking about there.

But if

they had to have said from the get-go, look, the bottom line is we have $20

million sitting in a fund over here that we can't get at and it's just siting

there, but part of that 911 system is not just telephones, it's the radio

systems for the cars, for the ambulances, for the police cars and so on. Having

that advanced technology that would be in the police cars, in the fire trucks,

the ambulances and so on, that when you call 911, the Enhanced 911, you would

have the appropriate radio systems and pairing available so it all works

together as one system. Do you know what? That's something we need to do. It's

not something that we've ever budgeted for per se, it's a new thing and it's

something that we need to do, but it is part of this bigger picture.

So we've

estimated that when the time comes for the Enhanced 911 it's going to be – I

don't know – $5 million. I don't know what the amount is. I think my colleague

said during his day at it, it was $2.5 million, so I don't imagine it's gone to

$20 million, but maybe it's $5 million, maybe it's $10 million, I don't know.

But if

he had to say there's a portion of money here, so now after you subtract that,

we have $10 million or $15 million left in the pot or whatever it is and that's

growing by $3 million a year. We've done some estimates about how much it's

going to cost now to have the appropriate radio systems and so on in every

police car and ambulance and fire truck and so on, and here's what it's going to

cost.

We can

take that $20 million. We can set this much aside for the Enhanced 911 system,

take this money here and put it in all of the emergency responding vehicles,

because it's all part of it. We won't have enough to put it in every vehicle,

but the $3 million a year that's coming in, that $3 million every single year,

that surplus money is going to be able to get 10 more fire trucks or 20 more

fire trucks or 20 more police cars, whatever the case might be and maintain it.

Now,

every cent that's gone in on this is going to the 911 centre, it's going to

Enhanced 911 and it's going to the radio systems and everything associated to

that on the fire trucks. This is how much it's going to cost, here's what we're

spending the money on and this is why we're doing it.

If that

is what had come forward before this House of Assembly, I would have voted for

it, because it makes sense to me. It makes sense to me. If there had been

honesty about what it was all about, but that's not how it came down. It never

came down that way.

We're

talking about we're going to make the province safer. We're going to make the

province safer by scrapping a 911 board and saying today you're reporting to the

board and tomorrow you're reporting to the Minister of Justice, now it's safer

all of a sudden.

P. TRIMPER:

Oh, I feel better.

P. LANE:

I feel better, I feel much

safer.

Then we

talked about efficiencies. What efficiencies in government? It's not costing a

cent now, not a dime. You're taking on more work. So it's actually going to grow

– as my colleague says it's going to grow core government. It's not going to

save anything. It's going to grow core government. Because it's being paid for

now by a separate fund and done by a separate entity. We all know that's another

flimsy excuse. At the end of the day, let's just be honest.

Let's

say there's a bigger picture here, guys. It's not just about that Enhanced 911

system. It's also about all the other related equipment that's going to be

needed in police cars, ambulances, search and rescues, radio systems, all that.

It's all one big package, which I think I would have certainly bought into that

concept; it makes sense to me. No good to have an Enhanced 911 system that when

you call 911 they can't communicate properly with the emergency responders. That

would have all made sense.

Therefore, that $20 million that's here, just sitting here, over here in some

bank account, we want to take that money. Here's how much it's going to cost and

the rest is going to be spent on this. Here's our list. Show us a list; this is

the stuff we need, this is what it's going to cost, it's all going to be part of

this. We're going to spend the money on that.

We're

not going to just throw it in general revenues and over on this side we're just

going to hope that you spend it on the right thing. As I said yesterday, I was

being half saucy I suppose, talking about opening up another government office

in an Opposition district or more couches for the – but the point is that's the

stuff that people see and are very upset about. It's not even in my area, but

I've had a lot of people come to me about that stuff.

people feel that you're going to waste the money on unnecessary things, or

political things, or whatever the case might be. But if you'd said from the

get-go the money is here and this is what we want to spend it on. It all ties

together, it's all part of the same picture. This is how we're going to spend

it. Here's what we need and here's what it's going to cost. Then as we upgrade

it – there's not enough money in the pot to do all of it, that's why the $3

million a year, extra money, it's going to be 20 more fire trucks this year, or

ambulances, or whatever.

I would

have supported it. I would say that makes sense, all good. But that's not what

you did. That's where you've got the problem.

I think

the lesson in all of this is just be upfront and honest with people. Tell people

what you're doing and why you're doing it. If we did that, there would be no

reason for people to be skeptical. But when it's all under this sort of shroud

of secrecy and it's all just going to get thrown into the pot, we're not going

to tell you what it's about and we're going to start making excuses about making

the province safer and all of this kind of stuff, people look at it with a

jaundiced eye. They don't believe you. That's what it comes down to.

At the

end of the day, my vote still stands where it does because I don't like the way

this was done. With what I am saying here about the radio systems, I'm not sure

that's going to happen – I'm not sure that's going to happen. I have to trust

you. That's what's going to happen. But I don't, because you weren't upfront and

honest to begin with. If you had to come forward and say here's the list of

stuff we're spending the money on and it made sense to me, and it tied into the

911 system, I'm on board, b'ys – I'm on board. You didn't do it. I'm sorry, no

offence to anyone, but I can't trust you because I've been down that road before

and got burned.

again, I can't support the legislation as is, but I hope that that's your actual

intent, even though you didn't state that as your intent, specifically. You

might have somewhat alluded to it, to some degree. I would ask maybe if the

minister, in his closing comments, could say to us – if he can say to me, I'd

feel a lot better about it. If you could say yeah, that's what we're doing with

the $20 million. Here's our estimate for the Enhanced 911. Here's our estimate

to put the radios in all of the emergency equipment and search and rescue.

Here's their list. Here's what it is going to cost. Here's what we're going to

spend the $3 million on year over year on that same stuff.

I'd feel

a lot better. I am sure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would, too. But

if you can't do that and it's just we're going to take the money, throw it into

general revenues and trust you to spend it on what it was intended for, we can't

do it.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

E. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

going to spend just a few minutes and I'm gong to ask the minister in his

closing statements – I have a lot of concerns because one of the stations – as

you know, the 911 centre is in Corner Brook. I know what the minister said

yesterday, that people are going to be brought in to the Department of Justice

and Public Safety. There will be no layoffs.

So I

just want the minister to confirm that, because it's in

Hansard . I didn't want to respond to the people that contacted me

until the minister spoke today and I was going to ask you to reiterate what you

said yesterday. There won't be any layoffs. They'll be brought in to the

Department of Justice and Public Safety. Because they are concerned about

layoffs and the number of people out my way who have contacted me last night and

today, since this, so I'll just confirm what was already said yesterday. I'll

ask the minister to confirm that.

Just a

little compromise here on this and I'm going to stick with my vote also with the

Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands. Mr. Speaker, here's a little compromise

with this: 911 haven't been dissolved yet; this is part of the process to have

it. I say to the minister as a bit of advice – you can just take it and listen

to it or not take it; it's up to you – before 911 is dissolved, why don't you

take the money and purchase the radios? Have the radios purchased.

instead of bringing $20 million – and it still hasn't been confirmed in this

House yet. Are the radios for the ambulance services, police, RNC, fire

departments, first responders around the province?

P. LANE:

Search and rescue.

E. JOYCE:

Search and rescue is another

group.

And I

understand the concept of having all the radio systems compatible so that

everybody can communicate. I understand that, and upgrade the systems to that. I

understand that, I'll say to the minister. But if there's some way that the

minister, in his closing statement, could say here's the list of radio systems

that we're going to make compatible to make search and rescue, to make first

responders, to make 911 safer, that would help to alleviate a lot of the

concerns.

I'll say

to the minister – and I see him over there listening very attentively – make a

commitment. When you close in third reading here, make a commitment that the

radios will be purchased before you bring the money into general revenue. Even

if the Next Generation 911 is $2 million, make a commitment that you can put it

in Department of Finance some way and put it as a deferred payment so that you

can purchase the Next Generation system. It has been done where you can put

funds aside. You could purchase the Next Generation. We know if it's $5 million

for the Next Generation, that is put in deferred revenue so that you can

purchase it and we know that it's going to be done – of the 911 to buy the Next

Generation.

And I'll

say to the minister if you can in your closing, or we can even delay this –

because it's going to get passed; we know that – and come back with a list;

here's the list of radios and here's the list of entities that are going to be

used by this fund to expand 911 across the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

There

are some friendly suggestions to the minister to help, because when you take the

funds – again, I was there at the press conference, I was the critic, actually,

for Municipal Affairs and Environment at the time – for the phone, people expect

it to be used for that purpose. I won't get into it any further: people expect

it.

I'll say

to the minister, if you make a commitment here today that you would put the

money, the $5 million aside for the Next Generation and then also give a list of

what telephone systems and what radio systems you're going to upgrade and make

it compatible – which is a good idea, I'll say to the minister, that is a good

idea. If it is the ambulances, fire departments, search and rescue, all the

first responders around the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, take that and

purchase it before you fold 911 so that we know the funds went where they were

intended and the 75 cents per phone is used for the intent.

That is

just some friendly suggestions to the minister to help get this resolved so that

we can move ahead with a better 911 system, which everybody in this House wants.

Everybody in this House wants it. So that is just some friendly suggestions to

the minister to help with everybody.

I'll ask

the minister – and I know he will – to address what he said yesterday that there

will be no layoffs. That the people that are working at the 911 centres now,

especially out in Corner Brook that I heard from – that's the only ones I heard

from, the people in Corner Brook – they're concerned about losing their job.

That is natural. That is normal. I know the minister said it yesterday and I

know he will confirm it again today.

I'll sit

down and take my seat.

Thank

you.

SPEAKER:

If the hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety speaks now he'll close debate.

The hon.

the Minister of Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I thank

everyone for their comments this morning. I think it did bring some clarity to

the long debate we had yesterday.

I will

just make a couple of quick points. The value in this bill, as I see it, is in

the integration of all aspects of Public Safety here at government, most

specifically the radio program and the 911 program, which will work together. If

you do a review of the old piece of legislation and the new one, I would submit

that section, the change from emergency 911 telephone service to emergency

service where it combines radio and 911, is really the main substantive change

in that bill.

There

were some comments made that if it had been presented differently that we would

have a different discussion on it. The bill hasn't changed. The bill was

presented, there have been no changes made: It is what it is. It is there for

everybody to read and it is there to be interpreted and reviewed without any

changes since we brought it forward.

Just to

comment on the expertise related to the separate entity right now. The staff

will be coming into the Department of Justice and Public Safety and it's the

staff that has the expertise. The board exists for the purpose of governance of

that entity. So the expertise is not being lost, it'll be brought into Justice

and Public Safety. I look forward to working with them as we move forward with

911, the upgrades and the radio project.

Finally,

there's a question there about the PSAPs in Corner Brook. There are no staff in

Corner Brook related to the current 911 system, the 911 Bureau, but the PSAPs in

Corner Brook and St. John's will remain the same.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

Is it the pleasure of the

House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act Respecting A

Province-Wide 911 Service For The Reporting Of Emergencies. (Bill 41)

SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the

Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting A Province-Wide 911 Service For The Reporting

Of Emergencies,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the

Order Paper. (Bill 41)

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy

Government House Leader.

L. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Speaker.

I move

that this House do now recess until 2 o'clock.

SPEAKER:

In accordance with paragraph

9(1)(

b) of the Standing Orders , this

House is now recessed until 2 this afternoon.

Recess

The

House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Good

afternoon, everyone.

Statements by

Members

SPEAKER:

Today we will hear statements

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

Port, Cape St. Francis, Baie Verte - Green Bay and Ferryland.

The hon.

the Member for Lake Melville.

P. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Speaker.

Grace

Voisey, of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, was beloved by her family and friends

throughout Labrador. The brave and public battle this 16-year-old Inuk fought

with leukemia was felt by everyone – a battle that she lost in July last year.

Even

under adversity, Grace continued to spread the virtue of kindness on a daily

basis. It was in this spirit that Mealy Mountain Collegiate recently held the

first annual Grace Voisey Kindness Week in February. Each day, students and

staff wore different clothing in support of the values Grace endorsed. Money was

purple day for violence prevention. Tuesday was jersey day for teamwork.

Wednesday was pink shirt day to stand up against bullying. Thursday was tie-dye

for peace, love and dye day. Friday, each grade wore a different colour to

create a rainbow.

Grace

would often say Kuviasuvunga – I am happy – in her pursuit of traditional

activities and Inuit culture. She was an accomplished dancer, drum dancer and

served as a Page in the Nunatsiavut Assembly.

I invite

this House of Assembly to celebrate the remarkable young life of Grace Voisey,

and to pass along your own act of kindness in her honour.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Speaker.

It is my

distinct honour and privilege to acknowledge a fantastic group of individuals in

my District of Stephenville - Port au Port, who have been working tirelessly to

raise funds to support Ukrainians who move to our province during this

humanitarian crisis.

organization was formed called West Coast Supports Ukraine, consisting of a

large group of volunteers from the Codroy Valley, Bay St. George and Corner

Brook areas. LouAnn Davis, owner of Nomad Stages, a performing and fine arts

studio in Stephenville and the driving force behind the initiative, has two

staff members from Ukraine, so this hits close to home for her.

The Bay

St. George area is home to over a dozen Ukrainian speakers – the largest

Ukrainian population on the Island portion of the province. Therefore, response

was swift when the call was put out for help to organize events.

West

Coast Supports Ukraine has raised close to $19,000 thus far on a series of

fundraisers, including two benefit concerts featuring local musicians, and

donations from school fundraising initiatives. The group is continuing their

efforts with an online silent auction planned for April 21 to 25.

Community support for the fundraisers has been phenomenal, which proves that

community spirit is alive and well in Stephenville - Port au Port, and they look

forward to welcoming some Ukrainian families into their area.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

J. WALL:

Speaker, today I rise to

recognize a reading program in my district that promotes literacy in our

communities. Initiated by the interest of local citizens, the Killick Coast

region is proud to partner with the Dollywood Foundation of Canada to administer

Dolly Parton's Imagination Library.

This

library strives to instill a love for reading and literacy in children from

birth to five years of age, and their families, as it's a book-gifting program

that mails free, high-quality, age-appropriate books to children each month, at

no cost to the child's family.

Ms.

Megan Hibbs, an educator and community volunteer, is spearheading this wonderful

program and currently 165 children are enrolled. Children are receiving their

first books this month, and families are excited that the library is finally

here in the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis.

Dolly

Parton's Imagination Library is open to all areas of our province, as it only

takes one person in the area to take the responsibility of getting the program

started.

Speaker,

I ask all hon. Members here today to join me in thanking Megan Hibbs for taking

the leadership role in bringing Dolly Parton's Imagination Library to the

Killick Coast.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Baie

Verte - Green Bay.

B. WARR:

Speaker, I rise today to

acknowledge the late Maurice Budgell, a well-known and respected advocate who

passed away on March 17, 2022.

Maurice

was a very proud Newfoundlander and Labradorian who was a regular caller on

VOCM's Open Line program, speaking

passionately on countless issues. Most recently, he had been speaking to gain

support for the fixed link to Labrador.

It was

important to Maurice to advocate for those less fortunate and he worked

tirelessly for the betterment of our great province. He worked on numerous

boards, including the Heritage Society and the Whale Pavilion committee located

in King's Point. Maurice had a great interest in the tourism industry and saw a

great potential in the Green Bay region.

2022 has

been designated as Newfoundland and Labrador's Come Home Year. The community of

King's Point had been planning for their own Come Home Year since 2020, but due

to the pandemic had to postpone. Maurice was so looking forward to playing his

part as a historian and as well a musician. He was a very talented individual

who went above and beyond to welcome all.

I ask

all my hon. colleagues to join me in extending sincere condolences to Maurice's

wife, Mavis; children: Dean, Dana, Dale, David and their families; and all the

residents of King's Point and his friends across the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Speaker.

Today I

rise in this hon. House to recognize two communities in the District of

Ferryland who stepped up to support physical activity in their communities.

With the

latest COVID outbreak, the opportunities for families to socialize were limited.

With this in mind, the Cape Broyle Recreation Committee came together and

constructed two ice rinks, one for hockey and another just for skaters; as well,

cleared and maintained an area around both rinks so that walkers had a safe

place to go for their daily walk. The Town of Ferryland also constructed a

multi-use rink for their community to enjoy as well.

These

recreation opportunities gave people many chances to get outdoors so they could

enjoy physical activities and socialize with others. These community projects

allowed for communities to come together at a time when everybody else was

experiencing COVID fatigue.

Speaker,

I ask all Members in this House to join me in recognizing Cape Broyle Recreation

Committee and the Town of Ferryland and the many other volunteers for their time

and dedication for taking on these community-building projects and supporting

physical activity in our district.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Climate Change.

B. DAVIS:

Thank you, Speaker.

I'm

pleased today to highlight the success of the Come Home Year Community Cleanup

Project administered by the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board.

The Come

Home Year Community Cleanup project is a new funding initiative to support the

clean up of litter or improperly disposed of bulk items in areas such as

roadsides, trails, beaches, parks, and outdoor recreational spaces. Funding was

provided to municipalities, Local Service Districts, Indigenous community

governments and organizations and non-profit community groups.

This

program was so popular when it was launched that additional funding was

committed to accommodate the influx of applications. Overall, the MMSB approved

256 projects with a total cost of $520,000 awarded during this funding period.

One

community is using the funding for clean up of the popular walking and fishing

area, which has been littered with large debris, like washing machines and water

tanks. Their goal is to make the area beautiful again and to preserve the river

habitat.

Speaker,

these projects have a positive impact on protecting our environment and

supporting people in our communities as we look toward welcoming home family and

friends to celebrate Come Home Year 2022.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

J. WALL:

Thank you, Speaker, and I

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Speaker,

I am delighted to speak today on the success of the Community Cleanup project

administered by the Multi-Materials Stewardship Board.

Keeping

our province and communities clean is the responsibility of each and every one

of us but, certainly, some go above and beyond. It is encouraging to see 256

community projects awarded with over $500,000 contributed towards this

initiative.

Let's

all continue to work together to keep our communities clean for this generation

and, more importantly, the next.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Lake

Melville.

Sorry,

the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS:

Thank you.

SPEAKER:

Both in the Big Land.

L. EVANS:

I thank the minister for the

advance copy of his statement.

cleanup helps the environment; I also encourage the government to take proactive

measures to prevent illegal dumping and reduce littering within our beautiful

province.

Government needs to be more proactive, strengthening environmental assessments

and listening to our scientists when making decisions.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you, Speaker.

Last

week, the Public Service Commission launched a graduate recruitment program to

attract recent post-secondary graduates to the public service. This program

provides an opportunity to work in various government departments, acquire

diverse skill set and to develop a career path to management and executive

roles.

The goal

is to attract the best and the brightest to join the existing talent within the

public service to guide Newfoundland and Labrador into the future; to bring a

strong, skilful leadership team for the next generation.

The

program is open to anyone who is eligible to work in Canada and has successfully

completed a recognized post-secondary program with a minimum of a three-year

diploma or bachelor's-level program within the last two years. Those accepted

into the program will receive a competitive salary and benefits, mentorship and

employment for two years.

Speaker,

I am pleased to note that to date we've received well over a hundred

applications. The graduate recruitment program will further enhance our public

service and help build the leaders of the future.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, I thank the minister

for an advance copy of her statement.

Speaker,

we need the smartest, most innovative and creative graduates to join the public

service. I think that all Members of the House will agree with that sentiment. I

also think that we can all agree that our public service is full of diligent,

hard-working professionals.

Before

entering political life, I spent many years in the public service working

alongside them. I have tremendous respect for our public service workers, whom

I'd like to thank, from plow operators to social workers to processing clerks.

Thank you.

Government was once an employer of choice. But now, with the number of vacant

positions, I wonder if this is still the case. I urge the government to show

appreciation to their public service and to ensure that working for the people

of the province remains a sought-after profession.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

J. BROWN:

Thank you, Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. The institutions of this

province continue to prove their investment value by attracting young minds from

around the world. The problem seems to lie with the ability to retain graduates

once they are here. The Third Party awaits the government's retention success as

it rises to the challenge of retaining and keeping employees in the public

service.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

Are there any further

statements by ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

The cost

of diesel fuel and stove oil in Labrador West and Churchill Falls has

skyrocketed. Diesel now sits at over $3 per litre and stove oil increased by 33

cents this week alone. Labrador already has to deal with higher prices due to

the cost of shipping to the region. Now those costs continue to escalate,

meaning a more difficult situation for consumers.

I ask

the Premier: How high is he prepared to let fuel prices go before he finally

takes action?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you for the question. As we said before, we're taking a more holistic approach

to the cost of living. We understand that the price of gas is one of the drivers

in the cost-of-living equation, but not the only driver, Mr. Speaker.

We can't

control the price of gas. If we were doing what the Opposition suggested, it

would be up and down like a yo-yo, constantly. Unfortunately, that's largely

driven by external factors beyond our control; externalities like a war in the

Ukraine, Mr. Speaker; like a significant displacement of Russian oil and gas

that's causing pressures on the supply chain, we can't control that.

What we

can do and we will do in the budget is ensure that we're addressing the cost of

living in a holistic approach for the people of the province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

It's

already been noted that the Premier and his administration have many avenues to

be able to address the increased cost of fuel, not only for the people of

Labrador but for the people of all this province, Mr. Speaker.

Speaker,

we applaud the Registered Nurses' Union, its membership and all those at the

front line of our health care system for their heroism, especially during the

pandemic. Yesterday, it was suggested a potential solution to nurses' burnout

means temporary shutdowns for surgery in some parts of our province.

I ask

the minister: What does this mean for the estimated 6,000 surgeries backlogged

in our province?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Service.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

Yes, I

would echo the Member opposite's comments about our gratitude and appreciation

for the hard work and dedication of the nursing profession and indeed health

care workers in general in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

J. HAGGIE:

We know that we need to care

for our caregivers. It is important that we look after the people that we have,

as well as the population they serve. That is a balance. Currently, there are

580 individuals in health care who are off due to COVID. That number is slowly

decreasing. As the strain on those resources diminishes, our focus now is to

allow the workforce to recover, regain their strength and to address the

challenges that we all face over the coming weeks.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear anything that addresses the immediate issue here: the

backlog of surgeries.

We all

recognize the dedication of our front-line health care professional staff and

the sacrifice they have made. But the minister's answer is not more nurses, it's

not more support staff; it closes operating rooms in this province. As other

Atlantic provinces recruit our health care professionals to their provinces,

again, we, in Newfoundland and Labrador, are being left behind.

I ask

the minister: How will you balance shuttered operating rooms and the enormous

backlog of surgeries in our province?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Service.

J. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

I would

argue we're not being left behind with our recruitment efforts. We announced in

October, I think it was, a $30-million package aimed at primary care physicians.

We have met with them on numerous occasions. There are bursaries. There are

interest-free loans. There is guaranteed income. The new graduates coming off

their family medicine residency program are being actively sought here.

We are

looking at a marketing campaign for health care providers across this country

and we'll be leaving the province to do that as well as, virtually. One could

argue about the backlog numbers and Mr. Diamond has, to some extent, addressed

that. Summer is normally a time to run these numbers down. We will have to see

what we can do to balance both requirements, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Speaker.

I have

to disagree with the minister. We noted yesterday 11 communities that now do not

have doctors living in their communities to provide services. We talked about

seven emergency rooms that had to shut down because we don't have health

professionals to provide those services. So whatever your recruitment process

is, it's not working; we have to come up with a new plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

Speaker, the Information and

Privacy Commissioner is an Officer of this House. Yesterday, he issued a

statement accusing the Premier's administration of using the courts to undermine

the legislative commitment to transparency and accountability. He said: “It

stabs at the heart of the very purpose of having an access to information law –

independent oversight.”

I ask

the Premier: Does he agree with the Information and Privacy Commissioner?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

J. HOGAN:

Thank you for the question.

And that matter now, as the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner

stated yesterday, is going to the Court of Appeal. He's decided to appeal it

because he feels that there's a public interest issue there. He hasn't spoken to

the legalities of his appeal yet, but we'll see that when it comes forward.

But, of

course, as Attorney General, I'm not going to speak to any matters before the

court other than to say I practised law for 15 years as a litigator in this

province and you go to court all the time, and sometimes you win and sometimes

you lose and you respect the decisions of the court, no matter what it is. We'll

respect the decision of the Supreme Court Trial Division and we'll respect the

decision of the Court of Appeal when that decision comes out as well.

Thank

you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

D. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

not arguing the logistics of the legal argument here. What we're saying, a

government that stood its platform on openness and transparency is refusing to

be open and transparent, and an Officer of this House is calling them out on it.

That's not good for the people of this province, it's not fair to this House of

Assembly and it isn't what you campaigned on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

D. BRAZIL:

Speaker, the Liberal

government has a reputation for hiding information. Just this week, we learned

that the $5-million Rothschild report will not be released. The Premier even

refused to ask the Commissioner to review the report and provide the public with

a partially redacted version. The Commissioner has called on the Premier's

government to “amend the statute to provide even greater certainty that

government is not above the law, thereby reassuring the public of its commitment

to transparency and accountability.”

I ask

the Premier: Will you bring forward changes in this House in line with the

Commissioner's request?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER A. FUREY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we

have addressed those concerns in the past with respect to the report that the

hon. Member is referring to, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has addressed

that, recognizing that it's not prudent to release all commercial information.

As the Member opposite is fully aware, an ATIPP request can go in and it can be

redacted. That's normal course of business; we're not preventing that.

What we

are saying is that this report is, for the first time, an evidence-based

approach in evaluating our assets. There are obviously commercial sensitivities

in there, as I'm sure everyone in this House can appreciate. The report, if

ATIPPed, will be redacted accordingly and in accordance with the legislation and

we'll move from there, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, it is disappointing

to hear the Premier stand up and say that a report paid for by the people of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is not accessible to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador and the only way they can get access to the report is

to apply through ATIPP legislation so that some of the report can be blackened

out before anybody can see it. Speaker, that's just not good enough – that's

just not good enough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM:

Tomorrow the Minister of

Finance will bring down a budget and we'll get a second chance to bring in a

real cost-of-living plan.

I ask

the minister: Will you provide relief at the pumps and lower the taxes on

gasoline?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

Thank you very much, Speaker.

First,

to the

preamble, that is not what the Premier said. That is not an accurate

reflection of what the Premier said at all. The Premier has been very clear that

the report has sensitivities. We do not want to cause any unintended

consequences. I know the Member opposite would not want the assets of the people

of this province to be harmed in any way because of release of information that

may have an impact. I'm sure the Member opposite would not want to do that.

With

regard to the budget tomorrow, as I said in the media yesterday, what we tried

to do on this side of the House was bring balance to this budget. Everyone knows

the financial situation that we're in here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think

tomorrow the people of the province, and, indeed, I think all the Opposition,

will feel that we did create that balance and address the concerns around the

cost of living.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Speaker, what I heard was

that the report will not be released. What I will not support is the fact that

our assets of this province that belong to the people can be sold off without

full disclosure. That is not good enough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM:

Again tomorrow, the minister

has an opportunity once again to make changes to the cost-of-living plan.

So I ask

the minister: Will you delay the implementation of your proposed sugar tax?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

That was three questions in

one, but let me start with, first of all, the Rothschild report. That is not

what the Premier said. We are not prepared to put the peoples' assets at risk.

That is why we're making sure that this important document is held for

commercial sensitivities and that is important to the people of the province,

and I think the people of the province understand that we're not playing

politics.

The

second question about what we'll be saying in the budget with regard to the cost

of living. I have already indicated there will be balance in the budget

tomorrow, that we are working very hard understanding the financial concerns of

the province.

To the

sugar-sweetened beverage tax, we announced that 10 months ago, Mr. Speaker. I

can say that it was important for the health of the people of the province and

the people now have choice.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

minister's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

T. WAKEHAM:

Thank you, Speaker.

I can

assure the minister that maybe the people that she's talking to don't want the

report released, but I can guarantee you the majority of people in Newfoundland

and Labrador want to see what's in that report, deserve to see what's in that

report –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM:

– and know exactly what's the

plan is for the assets of the province.

Mr.

Speaker, diesel fuels our economy. It powers heavy equipment, fishery and all

such other sorts of transportation. I recently had a fisher send me an invoice;

the total on the invoice was $2,000, of which $550 was taxes. That's not

sustainable. It's not sustainable for the small businesses in Newfoundland and

Labrador who rely on transportation to get their goods.

I would

ask the minister: What's your plan for small businesses in Newfoundland and

Labrador tomorrow to help them with this economy?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

S. COADY:

I can't imagine that the

Members opposite would want their government to put the assets belonged to the

people of the province at risk. I cannot believe for one moment that there would

be anyone elected to this House of Assembly that would call on us to release

information that could put those assets at risk. I'm actually shocked, Speaker.

I actually am shocked that they – and they're chirping across the hall again –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

S. COADY:

– interrupting me when I'm

saying that I am confused by why they don't understand that we want to ensure

the commercial sensitivities that we discussed are protected.

I will

say to the Member opposite that the budget will be tomorrow afternoon. I'm sure

he will take the time to review it and then he can give his analysis of the

budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Speaker.

Normally

we have to ask the question three times to get one answer, not three questions

in one.

August, there were 127 applications waiting to be heard by a residential

tenancies adjudicator. By February, this number has grown to 185 applications.

I ask

the minister: How many applications are now waiting to be heard?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

Our

residential tenancies process is a very important for both landlords and

tenants, and it provides kind of an independent, quasi-judicial means to make

decisions about landlord-tenant disputes. It's a very important process. We've

had a challenge recruiting residential tenancies adjudicators, which is why we

had a backlog unfortunately.

I'm very

pleased, as of about two weeks ago we have our third of three residential

tenancies adjudicators. So we're expecting our backlog to be very quickly

diminished and get back to more acceptable time frame.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Speaker.

All of

the Liberal Members, they all must be filled with Liberal jobs, you can't fill

them anymore, they're all gone. They're all taken up, are they?

Tenants

and landlords both need quick resolutions when disagreements arise, yet the

minister continues to allow three adjudicator positions to remain vacant, the

cost of living continues to increase and places for rent are more and more

scarce, especially on the northeast Avalon. That means more disputes –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

L. O'DRISCOLL:

– which need attention from

government to ensure fairness.

I ask

the minister: Why are you letting these disputes go unheard for so long?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Speaker.

disagree completely with the

preamble. I can confirm we have all three

residential tenancies adjudicators in place. We had two out of three for a

while, the final one started just a few weeks ago and has moved from out of

province. So we're doing our part to increase the population in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL:

Bringing Liberals in from

outside now to fill the other job, is that the way it's going to go?

The

minister has a growing waiting list in her department. Some tenants and

landlords could be waiting up to six months to get a resolution. Does the

minister think this wait-list is acceptable?

SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

S. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, you

know, unfortunately, we weren't at our full slate of residential tenancies

adjudicators. I'm very pleased, as of two weeks ago; we now have a full slate so

we have three residential tenancies adjudicators. They're working virtually,

which is a bit more efficient, we get to see more people at a time, actually.

So while

we do have more people waiting, we've actually been able to reduce the wait time

this year, Speaker, and the amount of time from hearing to decision is reduced

as well. We've reduced that from 63 days in 2019 to 26 days in 2021.

So when

we do hear those, Mr. Speaker, which is speeding up now that we have a full

slate of residential tenancies adjudicators, both landlords and tenants wil