PDF Version

November 13, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 17

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Admit strangers.

Are the

House Leaders ready?

We're

going to wait a few minutes to allow people to get seated in the gallery before

we begin.

Order,

please!

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

carry on with where I was yesterday.

The

issue in question, the conversation lasted about, at that meeting – that seems

to be the centre of everything here – a grand total of a minute and a half, one

minute and thirty seconds. In that the minister asked a person to retract and

the person retracted, and even in the partial transcript that was provided,

admitted to a poor choice of words. There was no laughter, except by the person

who made the statement. If I had to guess, and I don't know, because that person

realized the mistake he just made.

My words

in that meeting speak for themselves, but my words are the ones that are being

called into question and even a suggestion that there was a cover-up.

I cannot

say why that person laughed or why the minister chose only to ask for a

retraction. I can only speak to what was going through my mind, which was as a

person who was not involved in that part of the conversation – there was a

conversation going on between several members about the technical requirements

of these meetings – this is not my part; this is in the hands of people better

able to deal with it.

When

this comment was made, it was everything I could do – it was shock – to distance

myself from it, to distance the Salmonid Association of Eastern Newfoundland

from it and to make sure that those in the room knew that the comments did not

reflect my views or the views of the organization I was president of at the

time. After that brief exchange, the meeting went on. It was almost banal, in

many ways, what happened. There was no demand for an apology, and we assumed the

issue had been dealt with.

Now, the

minister could have chosen, if he wished, to follow up with a phone call, upon

more reflection; he could have written a formal letter of protest of some sort;

he could have issued a press release; he could have gone to Twitter to voice his

displeasure, and God knows the minister is not shy about going to Twitter on

these issues. There was no further contact to discuss this issue. That's it.

Instead,

the hon. the minister chose to wait a year and half later to express his umbrage

and moral indignation about a comment not made by me, but made by someone else

sitting in the meeting along with me, long before I was an MHA in this House of

Assembly, but while the hon. Member was a Minister of the Crown at that time and

was well able to deal with it if he so desired. I had no control over what the

minister chose to do and I certainly had no control over what a member said, but

I did have control over how I reacted.

There

has been a concerted effort, of course, here to reframe, to mischaracterize the

comments to fit in with a narrative designed to undermine my integrity and

character, that somehow this was an example of marginalization and that this is

proof that this pattern of behaviour is in the House. You can see it now, but I

would challenge that and I will challenge that in a minute.

The

minister referred to gaslighting, and I laugh at it because who is gaslighting

whom in this one? I guess I shouldn't be surprised because when I was president

of the Teachers' Association, it was a minister on the other side of the House

that referred to me as a peddler of ignorance as well. It's not the first time.

So words

do matter, language matters, and I've been careful about what I say and how I

say it. I challenge the minister, and I challenge anyone in this House, to point

to any language from Hansard of where

I have marginalized Indigenous people, uttered racist comments, condoned it or

otherwise. None, because I can guarantee you that if I had, I'm sure the Speaker

would've ruled me out of order and called me to task.

Yet,

when I look at it, the minister, it's almost Machiavellian in its simplistic

strategy to avoid answering questions about the company and the government –

Mowi's and the government's complicity in the disaster that had occurred on the

South Coast. Instead, chose to conflate two issues, and there has been a pattern

of behaviour, as I said, of the red herring, the straw man – and I'm not sure if

the minister even is aware that he's doing it.

When I

challenge whether the Marine Institute, whether it was independent, it became

I'm now attacking the independence of MUN and calling it a shill for industry.

Climate change became equated with an attack on Indigenous knowledge and

marginalization of Indigenous people and racism. Support for this point of order

has been characterized then as an attack on Chief Mi'sel Joe.

Even

when a Member on this side of the House raised concern about farmers and the

loss of their crops to moose, it morphed into a personal attack on the Member's

integrity and a suggestion that somehow he was a law breaker. This has always

been about the minister.

I had

the power at that time to accept the resignation and to take that action, and I

did. I couldn't violate the privacy. I don't know what the minister is

suggesting by this. I think of all the times I, as a teacher, I've chastised,

corrected the behaviour of a student, but I certainly didn't go talking to other

parents about what the punishment was or what happened. That's just simply good

conduct, a respect for due process.

The

comment was not made in the public sphere, yet the minister would have me inform

the public, when he himself remained silent on this for a year and a half. He

chose not to go public until now.

So I

guess I should take some comfort in the knowledge, of course, in all of this,

that our questions on this side of the House were so effective, our tenacity so

annoying, our cause so righteous that the minister and this government felt the

need to go to such extremes to avoid answering our questions.

I've

come into this House after an inquiry has been done, an investigation and a

report on bullying and harassment. Now, I don't feel necessarily bullied or

harassed because, in the end, I do not answer to the minister or to this side of

the House; I answer to my own conscience, I answer to the Members of this caucus

and I answer to a duty to hold government to account.

While I

support this motion, I'm not even seeking an apology. I'm not interested in the

minister redoing sensitivity training because I think it would be meaningless,

given the circumstances. I would have preferred that – I'll settle for a

retraction, which is what the minister asked for in this meeting. I'll settle

for that, and then let's get back to business. Let's get back to fulsome,

engaged and, I will say, hard debate where we can debate the issues and not

resort to personal attacks and to somehow undermining the integrity of Members

on either side of the House.

I think

that's where it needs to go because, at the end of it, we've all got to answer

to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador, to the citizens who elected us, not

just our parties but to the people. I answer to all the people in St. John's

Centre, not just those who voted for me.

I think

we need to have engaged debate. I think we need to respect the rules of decorum.

I think we need to respect each other and then, at the end of it, let's walk out

and have a beer together because, in the end, we're supposed to be working

towards the common good.

That's

what I believe in. I will not back down when this is done. I will still be going

back to my questions on aquaculture and I will still be demanding answers. If

this is an attempt to make me back off, it will not, but I will stick to that

regardless of how it's characterized.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today and it's always a privilege to stand in your place in this

House and I think we sometimes lose sight of it. There are 40 of us in this

House. To stand in your position and say what you feel and say what you believe,

you are always representing your district. When we all stand, sometimes we

represent our district – most times I should say, but sometimes there are

provincial issues too.

This is

a difficult issue. Last year, during the harassment and bullying debate, I

intentionally never stood. I had lots of opportunities. I was offered

opportunities to stand and speak and I refused to stand because I felt that it

was something that I didn't want to be part of. I didn't like it; I didn't feel

good about being an MHA. I didn't like the fact what I was listening to and I

just suffered through it. It was hard and I think it was hard on a lot of

Members in this House, but we did it.

Last

week, when the MHA for Corner Brook stood up and made those comments, I was more

disappointed than anything else. It was like, oh no, here we go again. I know

there was a clip on the news and I had my head down, but it was more out of

just, oh my, not again. We can't go back to this. I always said last year I

don't think I could suffer through that again, but here we are.

Now,

we're in a point of privilege. It's a necessary point of privilege, I think,

because you can never lose sight of what we stand for in this House. You're

elected and it's a huge privilege. The people who never sit in this House – and

we get a lot of criticism from the public, but this is an honour and this is a

privilege. It's more than a job. To be the Member that represents your given

district – and most of us are representing their own towns. I represent my own

town and I think most Members – I look around and I think the majority are and,

if not, it's your adopted hometown. It's a very privileged role and it's

something we should never lose sight of.

We're in

the cut and thrust of the House of Assembly and I'll debate with the best of

them. Me and the Minister of Transportation had many good debates, but I've

tried and if I ever did get personal I think I'd be the first to apologize for

it and likewise. I see that across the House all the time. We have healthy

debates and I think that's what we're here for.

When we

cross the line of making personal comments and damaging people's reputations,

that's the problem. That's provoked me to want to speak on this matter. I don't

want to belabour it because we've had lots of debates since yesterday, but I

felt it important that our party – our Opposition House Leader brought up this

point of privilege. You, Mr. Speaker, ruled it was a prima facie breach of

privilege and at first glance it appeared to be a breach of privilege against

the Members for Mount Pearl North and St. John's Centre. It was made by the

minister and Member for Corner Brook, which brings us to exactly why we're here.

The

point that people need to realize – and I've sat and listened intently since

yesterday – we're debating a breach of privilege. The Member opposite made a

reference that the Member for Mount Pearl North was a criminal and the Member

for St. John's Centre was a racist. That's what we're debating. We're not

debating racism. We're not debating Indigenous rights and Indigenous people.

Chief Mi'sel Joe is not the person that's under the microscope here. Nothing but

respect for Chief Mi'sel Joe. I don't think anyone in this House is a racist.

Everyone here are very respectful of Indigenous people and Indigenous rights. We

have a Member in our own caucus. This is 2019, no one here feels that way.

I've

heard a lot of debate go on about that, but that's not what we're debating that

we're going to vote on. We're debating, and we're going to vote on, the

behaviour of one Member in this House towards colleagues on the other side.

Nothing to do with those other individuals; that's two separate issues. I know

it's been clouded and the lines are getting blurred here. That's not where we

need to be.

It's

about a simple fact – nothing simple about it, but that point is very simple:

The Member opposite made remarks that we have deemed to be in violation of his

privilege against two Members on the Opposition side – simple. That's as simple

as I can make it. It's nothing to do with all those other things. We're clouding

the issue. So, when people vote, are you willing to accept that as acceptable

behavior?

Ironically, this morning, before I came in, I spoke to a former Member of this

House who served a long time, actually, in the House and we discussed this. I

said, point blank: Would that behaviour be acceptable when you were in this

House? He said: No. A lot has changed, which it has. Society has changed, which

we know. A lot of things now are not acceptable, which used to be acceptable.

You would not get away with those comments back then, and I'm going back 20-odd

years.

You

can't call someone those names in the House and expect – this House has always

been honourable. That's what we're debating. It's not a personal slight; I have

no issue with the Member opposite. I think all of us do that, a point of

privilege comes up different times on all sides of the House and it's about

self-awareness. It's about realizing what you say and correcting the wrongs.

Instead

of doubling down and tripling down and doubling down again, just say I'm sorry.

Maybe, in retrospect, I shouldn't have said it. That would have simplified all

of this. We've spent two days – we're in our second day here now and the

people's business is on hold. We're debating something that I really believe

could have been resolved with a simple apology. I think anyone here can attest

to that.

I went

to the Remembrance Day ceremony up to the local legion and I was bombarded;

everyone wanted to talk about this issue. That's when you get your real

temperature, Mr. Speaker. I've spoke in this House before about it, it's a

bubble, we exist in this bubble; but remove yourself from the bubble and people

will express their views. I'll say that every opportunity I get in this House

and Members opposite, I'm sure, have heard me say it many, many, many times,

that's the reality we live in, and the public are not accepting of this.

May 16,

they voted. They wanted us to do business differently. They wanted us to operate

differently. They wanted us to function together. They wanted us to be united,

collaborative – I know people in my caucus don't like that word too much, but

it's collaborative. We need to have a collaborative approach. That's what people

want. They don't want this. They don't want to see me up here, any of us up here

today, debating this issue. They don't want to listen to what they've listened

to in the last two days in this House. We just listened to five, six weeks of

that in the federal election.

They're

divisive issues, Mr. Speaker, and I think everyone in this House heard and felt

the same way when they listened to it in the federal campaign. Now we're

bringing it to the House of Assembly. For what? Because you misspoke or you

probably – well, we feel it was wrong comments and the privilege broke. That's

what we're debating.

Now

we've opened this all up into a broad range of issues. None of us will ever be

elected long enough to debate the issues that we're talking about. They're very

deep, divisive issues, but that's not what we're debating, Mr. Speaker. We're

debating – the fact of the matter was a breach of privilege on a prima facie, on

a first-glance basis felt that people's rights were violated. Full stop, that's

it. None of these other things need to be brought into this argument.

Sometimes in the House of Assembly, I find – over time we've learned, that's

what happens at times. That's exactly what happens. We get there sometimes and

by the end of the debate you don't know what you started off debating because

it's gone down so many different angles, and that should not be the case for

this. I've given it a lot of thought, and even over last night after I left here

yesterday, I started thinking, that's where we're missing the point. That's all

people want.

Should

you or should you not have said it? The House will make that decision; they'll

make that vote. It's not about those other issues, it's not about them. It

really frustrates me how these issues are brought to the forefront when that's

not what we're trying to do. I guess it's a typical smoke and mirrors.

should all rise above it. That may sound inspirational or righteous, but I'm

not. I'm speaking what people want us to do. They told us on May 16 what they

wanted. They don't want this. They didn't want this last year.

God help

us, if we never learned nothing after last year and what happened. We went

through sensitivity training, and the Member opposite actually attended his

training with me. He was a very active Member of our session. We had to learn

something.

I know

it's not a perfect world. You're not going to do four days and turn into a

different person, but it's awareness, Mr. Speaker, it's self-awareness. Should

you or should you not do it?

Trust

me, people on this side will tell you, there are times I get in that caucus room

and I get cranked up on something and when I come in this House, I turn it down

ten decibels for sure because I realize this is not the place to do it. Behind

closed doors, yeah, I do it.

When I'm

in the truck by myself you can rest assured I'm full on, but when I'm in here

there's a level that people expect of us. The people who elected me or voted for

me do not want me to be that way. They want me to represent them. Because when I

embarrass myself, I embarrass them. When I say something wrong, it's a slight on

the people who voted for me.

Anyone

can live here and think that that's not the case, trust me, it is the case.

People are offended when their representative, whether it be federally,

provincially or municipally, does something embarrassing, it embarrasses them.

I'm not perfect. I can speak for me and I'm sure others can speak for

themselves. I'm not a perfect person, by no stretch. I'm very flawed, but I've

always had the ability to stand up and say: I'm sorry, I done wrong. I can do

better.

We could

do better. This House could do a lot better, and what really bothered me when I

seen it last week was, here we go again. Put everything else aside; we got to

vote on a point of privilege. We could sit now and we could have the vote. It's

probably not going to make much different in numbers. That's what we're here

for: Get back to the business of the House; get back to doing what's right.

People elected us to do what they want us to do. There's a lot of legislation;

there are lots of things they want us to produce, be productive.

We can't

let these things go unnoticed. We can't just sit back and say this is normal

because then you're accepting of it. See, if you don't say anything, you're

accepting that to be normal behaviour. Normal, that's allowed. We can open the

doors. Let's call everyone racists; let's call everyone criminals. That's not

where we need to be, Mr. Speaker. That needs to be called out and stopped for

every Member in this House, not just a Member opposite, all of us. It's not

right for me to say it either. It's not right for any of us to say it. So, it's

not being righteous. I'm being honest and I'm being frank, and I think that's

what people want us to be.

certainly get it from my own people when I talk to them, Mr. Speaker. They want

us to be real. They like the fact you're real. They like the fact you say things

that you feel, but you have to be careful when you cross the line.

What

people really want us to do is stand up, be accountable. If you make a mistake,

accept it, move on and do what we're put here to do, because we weren't put here

to do this. That's not what people elected us to do. We have a lot of serious

issues in this province that need our attention in this House and outward in our

offices and our districts. We don't need to be wasting our time with this.

It's an

important issue; it needs to be debated, but I think, right now, from our side

of it, the Opposition House Leader presented this point of privilege. We feel

it's been debated and the issues have been thrown out there. It's a pretty

straightforward issue, Mr. Speaker, on the two points with the Members. Nothing

to do with all those other issues. I respectfully hope that the House makes its

decision soon so we can move on and continue on with the business of the day.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What's

before the House is important. I've been in this Legislature now, I'm soon going

into my 25th year, this is the first time since I've been here that we've had a

point of parliamentary privilege that was actually debated on the floor, Mr.

Speaker, so it is important.

It's

also important – I've also seen a tremendous change in this House. Are things

perfect? I will say they're not. We have room to improve. I've seen instances

where people called other Members drunk or half in the bag or gender slurs or

other slurs in this House over the years. Does that make what's happening today

or what we're debating today – does that erase that? No. We've come a long way;

we still have a ways to go.

Mr.

Speaker, I remember the debates we had here a year and a half or two years ago

and the situation this Legislature went through. It was embarrassing because it

reflects on all 40 of us. We have 40 Members of this Legislature and we are

honoured – or we should be honoured – to be here. It's part of the reason we're

called hon. Members. We have been selected by the people in our respective

districts to represent the thoughts and opinions of our districts. We've been

elected to represent the thoughts and opinions of our districts.

Whether

or not the issues that transpired over the last couple of days are reflected

accurately here, I think one of the things maybe we all need to do is some

sensitivity training, Mr. Speaker, that allows us to better understand and

better represent our Indigenous communities. I'd be up for that, just as we did

sensitivity training on harassment and bullying.

representatives, we should be held to a higher standard. When I sat in the chair

that you're sitting in, Mr. Speaker, one of my cornerstones was on greater

decorum and greater civility in the Legislature. I believe that's necessary. I

believe it's something that as 40 honoured individuals representing the people

of this province, we should hold ourselves to that standard.

Let's

not have a greater-than-thou or holier-than-thou approach to this, because we've

seen other statements such as calling for somebody's head on a platter, or

saying that the government will have to struggle every week and every month for

years, Mr. Speaker, in order to survive. Let's not have a greater-than-thou

attitude in this Legislature.

When

this whole thing that we experienced a year and a half or two years ago

transpired, there's a Member on the other side – and I won't embarrass that

Member. I could've gone to the Commissioner for Legislative Standards on that as

well. The Member knows who it is. I didn't do that, Mr. Speaker – I didn't do

that. I'm not going to point out who it is. I have no desire to do that. But the

reality is there were issues on both sides of the House. I chose not to go to

the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. I chose not to go.

Now, be

careful I say to some Members shaking your heads, because I chose that, I'll

say, for two reasons: (a), I didn't want to embarrass the individual; and, (b),

I've never been into that – I've never been into that. Yes, I called for decorum

and I called for civility in the Legislature, but I've never been into nailing

somebody to the cross, Mr. Speaker.

But the

reality is we all have a responsibility not only to debate the issues, and

sometimes it's going to get political, Mr. Speaker, and I don't mind a political

jab. I've often said you attack the issue, you attack the policy but you don't

attack the individual. Now, I'll commend the Member for St. John's Centre,

because he stood a few moments ago and said he's not interested in having a

crucifixion here, asked for the Member to apologize, and get on with business.

So I commend him for that. As a new Member to the Legislature – look, as I said,

I enjoy a political jab, I enjoy the thrust of debate and sometimes when you're

thrown a curve ball in the Legislature you enjoy that, because you get a chance

to throw it back.

But the

reality is it's the issues that we have to put our greatest focus on. The issues

that are at hand, the issues that are important to the people of this province.

Whatever comes out of this today, one of the issues that I see needing a greater

focus on is understanding our Aboriginal communities, understanding so that we

can better represent them. Because we all have individuals living in our

districts of an Aboriginal background. Some districts have Aboriginal

communities. Nonetheless, all 40 Members of the Legislature – just as we did

sensitivity training – I think it's incumbent upon all of us to have a greater

understanding so that we can represent better some of the communities and some

of the populations in this province.

So I'll

put that out there just as a thought. Whether that goes into another debate, or

whether it's accepted or not, I'm open for discussion on that, and I'm open to

taking

part in some level of training to better understand the people that we

represent.

Back to

the other issue, Mr. Speaker, as 40 individuals who represent the province, I'm

very pleased that we've come the distance that we have. Because 20 years ago,

the insults that were hurled back and forth across the floor was a normal part

of business. Shouldn't have been normal, but it was a normal part of business,

the accusations that were made back and forth across the floor.

Part of

the reputation this Legislature has gained – I'll say gained because earned is

probably not the right word, but part of that reputation was because of the

conduct of Members of the Legislature, how debate transpired. We've come a long

way in respecting and having meaningful debate without the insults, without some

of the language that was used.

I was

here before we had TV cameras in the Legislature. Members would be somewhat

behaved for the half hour of Question Period while media were in the media

gallery and the minute the media left it almost became a circus. Times are

different today and we've come a long way. My message, Mr. Speaker, is we still

have a ways to go in how we treat each other in the Legislature, how we dialogue

in the Legislature. If politicians, Members of this Legislature, want the

respect of the general public, that's something we have to earn – that is

something we have to earn.

Whether

people in this Legislature look at what's happening today on the floor as maybe

a little bit of politics or not, that's another debate and I'll leave that for

people and their own consciences to decide whether or not there's a little bit

of politics attached to this. But we all have a responsibility. Yes, have a

little bit of fun. I said to a Member a couple of days ago, last week, if I'm

asked a policy question, I'll give a policy answer. If I'm asked a political

question, I'll give a political answer. I enjoy the political answers as much as

the policy answers, Mr. Speaker. I think we all do. It's part of the back and

forth.

But, at

the end of the day, as the Member for St. John's Centre said, we should be able

to punch the time clock and go and have a beer, because this is a small

community. This province is a small community and, at the end of the day, we

should all be here for the best interests of the people of this province. We

should be here to serve the best interests of the people of the province. That

doesn't mean we have to agree with each other because that's not going to

happen. We have 40 Members from 40 different districts with 40 different sets of

circumstances, 40 different sets of issues and, quite honestly, 40 different

personalities in here.

I'm not

going to say that everything I say is going to be met with absolute acceptance

by Members of the other side of the Legislature. Heck, if we're all going to be

completely honest about it, we have our own caucuses and there's debate within

caucus because that's part of the democratic process. Not everything you say,

even within your own caucus, Mr. Speaker, is always accepted. There's debate

within caucuses and at the end of the day, regardless of the debate that happens

within caucus, you come out as a caucus with a united front.

The

reality is the issues that are raised on the floor of this House should be

reflective of the concerns of the people of the province, the issues of the

people of the province. Even when we make a decision in this Legislature,

whether we all vote unanimously on an issue or not, it's not always met with

acceptance by everybody in the province.

We could

stand on the corner and pass out thousand-dollar bills, Mr. Speaker, and you're

going to get three different reactions. Somebody is going to say that's awesome,

excellent; somebody else is going to say you've given out too much; and somebody

is going to say you didn't give out enough. One of the challenges we face as

Members of the Legislature is no matter what decision you make, you're going to

get those three different reactions: Yes, it's perfect; you didn't go far

enough; or you went too far. That's something that we have to bear when we – you

have to have a bit of a thick skin when you sit as a Member of this Legislature

because no matter what decision you make, somebody is going to complain about

it.

You

can't satisfy everybody all the time. It's something you come to realize the

longer you're here. If you act in good conscience, to the best of your ability

and make decisions that you believe, with the best of your ability and the best

of your intentions are for the greater good of the greatest number of people in

the province, that is all we can ask for.

What I

would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is similar to what the Member for St. John's Centre

said – again, I commend him because we should be able to deal with the business

of the people – whether we agree or whether we disagree, we should be able to

deal with the business of the people. No matter how harshly we may disagree on

policy, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we should go out here all knowing

that we're here for a similar purpose.

believe that every single individual in this House ran to represent their

constituents and ran with good intentions. Every single individual that I've sat

with over the years – I did a quick count the other day, I've actually sat,

believe it or not, with 170-something different individuals in this Legislature.

So I've come to know a number of different individuals. Every single one of

them, I would subscribe, ran with the best of intentions.

people make mistakes? Obviously. After all, we are human. People make mistakes.

If I wanted to be a little bit cute about it today, Mr. Speaker, I made a

mistake on Muskrat Falls because I believed what I was told, as did the Member

for Mount Pearl North. The reality is you make a decision based on the best

advice that's provided to you at the time, and that's the best we can hope for.

Mr.

Speaker, should we have a better understanding of our Aboriginal communities?

Yes. Should we have greater tolerance for each other in this Legislature as we

debate? Yes. Should we have a little bit of fun and a little bit of banter?

Absolutely. It creates a little bit of levity in here. But, Mr. Speaker, what we

need to focus on is the people's business. That's the reason we've been put

here.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, one of the first phone calls I received after our election was from one

of my colleagues, and that colleague commented on the negativity, the

mudslinging, the smearing and the nastiness that had just taken place in the

provincial election. My response to that individual was: Well, it's up to us to

rise above that. It is up to us to change that. What we have seen so far is

we've not done a particularly good job of that. I would like to address some of

the things that have led us to today.

caucus and I are taking three distinct approaches to addressing this issue. You

have just heard from the Member for St. John's Centre, who described the events

precipitating the situation we are in right now. Later, you will hear the Member

for Labrador West talk about his own personal perspectives on racism. Today, I

am going to focus on the motion at hand.

I do

want to speak briefly about the situation that got us here. I will point out

that on November 6 the hon. Member for St. John's Centre asked a question, very

concerned about the die-off of 2.6 million salmon and wondering if there was a

plan in place that would have addressed such an eventuality. In response, we

found that the minister, instead of answering the question or even using the

word plan, took a different tangent. Now, I have some serious concerns about how

many other recordings the Member may have in anticipation of other questions

that may come up that he might not want to answer. So that would be my first

concern in this situation.

Looking

at the motion at hand, as I believe the hon. Member for St. John's Centre has

addressed this issue. I think he has been very clear in what he would see as a

resolution to this. However, this has continued and has been exacerbated for the

last week, and prior to that. I'd like to point out that yourself, the Speaker,

has found the motion at hand was prima facie, or apparent on its face, so we

have met the initial criteria that the motion is valid and is deserving of

debate.

I'd like

to move specifically to that motion. In particular – and I think we've had ample

speakers to this part: “… the behaviour of the Member … has damaged the

reputations of two members of this House and thereby breached their privileges

…” – and I think we have seen ample evidence that that is the case.

I think

the second part of this motion points out that the Member: “… is contemptuous of

this House and of its Members and disobedient of the higher standard of conduct

….” This is where I would like to focus my attention this morning.

What we

have found – and I have looked at a great many pieces of documentation here. I

did find in the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Assembly, number 10:

“Relationships between Members and government employees should be professional

and based upon mutual respect and should have regard to the duty of those

employees to remain politically impartial.” I think that perhaps we have

breached that particular rule.

I would

also like to point out that harassment – according to the Harassment-Free

Workplace Policy – can be defined as: “Verbal abuse, yelling, and/or making

threats.” That one might be a little bit questionable.

The

second one: “Making degrading or offensive comments, gestures, or jokes;

Spreading malicious gossip or rumours; Inappropriate communication through

So, in

fact, harassment takes a myriad of forms, and I think we have ample evidence

that many of these criteria have been met. For example, if one was to look up

the hon. Member's Twitter feed we will find numerous, numerous incidents where

the Member for St. John's Centre has been called out. I would like to point out

that several of these tweets were actually written while the House was in

session on Thursday evening – Thursday afternoon, sorry. So I think that

certainly speaks to inappropriate communication.

In terms

of harassment, the fact that this issue has continued – ad nauseam, I might add

– where we now have to debate how we are actually interacting with one another

as Members of an elected Legislature, as adults, as smart individuals, we are

now debating how we interact. I think that has great cause for concern, and

certainly speaks to the need for the final report on the House of Assembly and

the development of a Legislature specific, Harassment-Free Workplace Policy.

We see

the need of this has been exemplified. In fact, I was considering amending this

motion to include an adoption of a policy, but I have chosen to separate that.

But I would like to see government move that almost immediately after we finish

the conclusion of this proceedings.

continue, when we talk about harassment, bullying or intimidation, Mr. Speaker,

I think it's very important to recognize that harassment and intimidation are

not only words, they are actions, they are gestures, they are behaviour and they

are posturing.

If we

reflect back on Hansard we see that

both on Wednesday and Thursday the hon. Member not only spoke inappropriately,

the tone was very derogatory. In fact, we all witnessed the Member leaning over

the desk, posturing, speaking loudly and in tones that were very inappropriate

and very demeaning. That is not acceptable, Sir, so I think that we need to

capture that as well. It is not about words, it is about behaviour. We see that

there is a consistent pattern of this. Again, I go back to the motion. This is

not a single incident, this is a repeated pattern of behaviour that is

unacceptable in the place in which we do our business.

The

pattern of behaviour that I would like to concentrate on is on Wednesday and on

Thursday of last week we saw an inappropriate exchange by that particular

Member. Throughout the weekend, and continuing on until right now, we are seeing

Official Opposition, as well as anyone else who might be caught up in this

drama. That is unfortunate but it does represent a pattern of behaviour.

I would

like to point out another thing. If we look at the

Members' Parliamentary Guide – and this is wonderful. This is not,

of course, the Standing Orders, yet a guide to which we should hold ourselves to

a higher standard. I will note that under the Rules of Debate/Decorum, when

speaking in debate Members address the remarks to the Speaker, Sir, as I am

doing, but we have seen that the Member opposite did not. Also, while there is

occasion for incidental disruptions or heckling, it might be tolerated but

excessive interruptions ought not occur.

If I

want to go on with our guide, I would like to point out I did raise – although

it wasn't accepted as a point of order – that in that same Parliamentary Guide,

specifically associated under the Breaches of Privilege,

section 4 on page 46

says: “Once the Motion is proposed, the debate is on the question of referring

the matter to the Committee” – which we have not done – “… of the facts, breach,

and remedy is undertaken.”

However,

“If the Motion touches on the conduct of a Member” – and it does – then “they

may make a statement” – which the Member has – “but should then withdraw from

the Chamber.”

Now, I

point out that this is simply a guide, but it is convention. As I am new to the

House of Assembly I am learning what is convention and what are the rules and

what might be appropriate; however, when we saw that the Member recognized the

ruling, the Member deliberately chose to defy that convention and instead chose

to stay in the House.

Not only

does that suggest a lack of respect for the House of Assembly, it also goes to

the pattern of behaviour, but it also shows us the need for the Member's

additional 20 hours of training. Because it seems that the Member is unaware, or

maybe is aware, of the fact that as they remain in the House of Assembly, you

are intimidating. The very presence of a harasser is intimidating to an

individual who feels that they are harassed. So, just being in the same room as

an individual who feels slighted is inappropriate.

addition to that, their behaviour, while in the House, also is suggestive of how

they are behaving and how they recognize how they have affected the other

individual, the perceived victim in the case. That person can also speak out

and, those incidental interruptions, that person is still able to do that. So we

can still see that happening. Sir, we have already seen that happen this morning

in the entrance of the Member and his lack of respect and decorum for what is

happening right now.

Sir, I

strongly suggest that the two criteria that have been proposed in the motion,

the damage to the reputation of two Members of the House and their breach of

privilege and the contempt of the House and the disobedience of the higher

standard, have been met.

I do

believe that might be all my points I have right now. I would like call for a

free vote on this issue. I made an inquiry earlier. Given the nature of this and

the past history of our concerns about harassment-free workplaces, I would like

the opportunity to provide a secret vote but, unfortunately, that doesn't seem

to be available for us at this time. So, in that case, I would like to recommend

that the House enable a free vote. That Members can vote as they see appropriate

for the decorum in the House of Assembly.

I would

like to encourage individuals to do that. At the same time, I would also like to

suggest that perhaps – this is about harassment and behaviour in our workplace

but, in addition to that, we've also seen that there are some concerns about how

we perceive marginalized individuals. I would like to suggest that perhaps the

House voluntarily undertake training in racial issues and in how to

appropriately address situations that might exist in that manner.

For now,

Sir, I would like to stand in support of this motion. I would like to point out

that the criteria upon which the motion has been based, I think, has been met

quite firmly and I do believe that we should move this motion.

Thank

you very much, Sir, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very

important issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a

privilege to stand in my place today and speak to the prima facie breach of

privilege. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I'm a person who takes great pride in

what I do and I think most Members will know me for that.

I've had

the opportunity before to engage myself in debate here within the House of

Assembly. I've sat in your chair, Mr. Speaker, and presided over the debate on

the floor. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I have not always condoned what has gone

on, on the floor of the House of Assembly.

I'm

surprised, actually, how we got here and I've been struggling with this the

whole evening, last evening. I'm a person – and most of my colleagues know here

– who enjoys sleep. I enjoy sleep because I want to be sharp. It's exactly who I

am. I struggled last night. I had a coffee with my hon. colleague this morning

discussing the same thing, and it was quite early. I've struggled over this

matter. I've struggled over how we got here.

Mr.

Speaker, last Thursday, a Member rose on a point of order, changed to a point of

privilege. You heard the debate, and I'm certainly not questioning the Chair,

but in your final submission you had said it was a disagreement between hon.

Members. That's what I took it to be then, because that was your ruling.

So here

we are today debating this motion that says: “BE IT RESOLVED that the House of

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

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

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

of the higher standards of conduct that the House commands all Members through

its deliberations in 2018.

“BE IT

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

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

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

“BE IT

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

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

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

“BE IT

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

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

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

for by the salary of the Member for Corner Brook.”

Again,

Mr. Speaker, I go back to the bullying, harassment and intimidation training we

took as a result of incidents that happened here in 2018. I accepted that

because I am part of this precinct, and when it's demanded of us to do that I

will take part and I will do my best to ensure that I abide by the rules and

regulations. Certainly, I want to be part of a family of Members.

Again,

as the Member had mentioned earlier on – actually, the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board had mentioned, we all are here for a reason. We've

been elected by our constituents to come here and represent them in this hon.

House.

He also

mentioned – and I have to give the former Speaker, Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board, Speaker, who's now a Member for Lake Melville, I

have to give them credit for the way they presided over this House of Assembly.

visited here, Mr. Speaker, several years ago. I actually had two daughters that

at different times in their education here at Memorial had the opportunity and

the privilege to be a Page in this House of Assembly.

To the

hon. minister's comments, he talked about decorum in the House then and he

talked about – he actually described it very well. It was a circus, for the most

part. There was work that got done, but I sat here and watched what had happened

on the floor of the House of Assembly. I have to be honest, Mr. Speaker, I was

disgusted, to say the least.

I was so

happy when I was elected in 2015, Mr. Speaker, to represent the good people of

Baie Verte - Green Bay. The one thing that I promised myself, the one thing that

I promised my family, the one thing I promised my constituents was I was going

to act in an honourable way. I was going to be truthful and I wanted to engage

not only with my own caucus, I wanted to engage with my colleagues from across

the floor. I think I've done that. I've done that and I'm proud that I have.

I have

to disagree with the Leader of the Third Party on her comments with regard to

when she had mentioned that almost a feeling of the floor changed when the hon.

Member came in today. Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Member for Corner Brook

actually spoke here yesterday. With regard to the Member for Mount Pearl North,

I think he had no trouble withdrawing some of the comments that he had made, and

he did and I stand to be corrected. I've gone through

Hansard and he has withdrawn a portion of his comments to that hon.

Member.

I'm

going by memory, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member, a farmer in his own right, had

talked about the issues surrounding hunting at night, and it is law, Mr.

Speaker. It is law, and the hon. minister pointed that out.

I'm not

about to put a suggestion in anybody's mouth here, but through the debate there

was a statement that was made by the hon. Member that the peace officers had

come there and explained to the farmer that they came there and they weren't

armed. They came there and they left again. There was an indication from the

hon. Member that they hid away until

an act – the law probably was broken, I'm

suggesting that it was, and they hid away and they came back to make an arrest,

to make a charge.

Mr.

Speaker, somewhere along the line, I'm sure – I come from a police background –

I'm sure there was a conversation that happened between those wildlife officers

and that farmer as to what you can and cannot do. I'm sure it happened. I'm not

positive, but I would suggest that it did. To suggest they went and hid away,

waiting for this person to break the law, I have trouble with that, Mr. Speaker,

and he challenged the minister at the time as if to say that's not good enough.

I'm sure

the minister, although he's looking after his department, he's the leader of

that department, in no way suggested that that would happen. That was a choice

that was made by the wildlife officers that night, to the hon. Member's

complaint, and they did what they thought they should do. Having said that,

again, Mr. Speaker, I want to leave that part of the debate because the hon.

minister did withdraw, and I appreciate that.

Like the

Minister of Finance, I, too, want to commend the hon. Member for St. John's

Centre, who has asked for an apology and was very sincere in his remarks today.

He has stated to this House, unequivocally, that he is not a racist, and I

believe that, Mr. Speaker. I believe that. He has admitted to be part of a

conversation where things went off sides, and he asked for that to be retracted

or an apology, which I assume he's got.

Mr.

Speaker, with regard to the audio that was discussed by the two hon. Members, I

have not heard that. I have not heard the audio. I didn't take the opportunity,

as of yet, to listen to it, but here's where I want to go with this. If it

happened, leaders, not only in this province, but leaders throughout this

country, have spent a lifetime apologizing for things that they didn't play a

part in whatsoever. They've spent a lifetime apologizing. Truth and

Reconciliation, Mr. Speaker, is what I'm talking about.

I'm sure

we've all had the opportunity to be a part of a process whereby someone has said

something or someone has done something and you're guilty by association. I'm

not suggesting anything here, Mr. Speaker, other than I want to refer to a piece

of legislation that we brought in here last year. It was brought in by the hon.

the Minister of Justice, and I spoke to it. It talked about restorative justice.

To restore means that we can actually rebuild.

Maybe

the delivery may not have been me, the way that I would have delivered a

message, but what I see – I've had the opportunity to meet and speak with Chief

Mi'sel Joe, and if he had knowledge that an incident had happened – perhaps he

did. He says he does and I certainly have no problems believing that.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, I'll go back to the point that I made earlier: Leaders who have had

no involvement in issues from years gone by have apologized. And that's probably

what Chief Mi'sel Joe is looking for. Maybe that should have came out that way.

Again, I'm talking about a restorative process. That if it happened, there's an

opportunity here, Mr. Speaker, to sit down and discuss issues of concern.

Not many

shots have been taken here at me in the House of Assembly, but I got a shot

taken at me this week as well, and I'm not going to mention the Member either,

but I was disappointed. I made the Member aware of the fact that I was

disappointed.

Mr.

Speaker, I take that as being just you're heightened, you're in debate and

things are sometimes said. When you look at what's been said, you say: Oh my, I

hope I didn't say that. I mean, you have an opportunity here because you can go

back through Hansard , which I have.

I have

no problems in forgetting some of these things, no problems whatsoever. Again,

the hon. Member had mentioned the fact that he'd like for this House to continue

doing the good work that we do. I commend him for that. Perhaps, may I suggest,

even a phone call to discuss the issues that supposedly had happened. Maybe just

an opportunity to enact some restorative process here.

I want

to refer, Mr. Speaker, to my mandate letter from the Premier. It's public. There

are only a couple of lines that I want to discuss, or actually I want to

acknowledge. One is: “I expect you to continue to be collaborative, open,

accountable and transparent as you implement your duties….

“In

fulfilling your responsibility as Minister, I expect you to continue to show

collaboration in a positive and constructive manner with your Cabinet colleagues

and our peers in the House of Assembly.” Mr. Speaker, I've read that mandate

letter several times, but I wanted to go back and highlight those two statements

that were made to me by the Premier of this province, who I'm very proud to call

the leader of our government.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll end by saying I'm honoured to stand here. I'm honoured to engage

in this debate. Really, I don't know if it's a debate or not. I see it as you

did, two hon. Members in a disagreement. As I said earlier, I don't condone

everything that happens in this House of Assembly, but in saying that as well, I

certainly wish to hear the remaining speakers today and I'll be engaged in that

process as well.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker, for the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to say it's an honour to stand in this House today and speak to this, but it's

really not. It is an honour to be in this House, but it's not an honour to be

talking about this stuff. It's very disappointing.

Mr.

Speaker, I just want to start out by saying, first of all, that none of us in

this House of Assembly are perfect and I'm not going to stand up here on a

soapbox and suggest that I am. I have history of my own; particularly in my

first couple of years when I was elected originally back in 2011 where I was

dubbed Dunderdale's attack dog.

I lived

up to that moniker pretty good in this House of Assembly. It's something I'm not

really proud of now, in reflection – definitely not – but at the time there's no

doubt that whenever, in particular, the NDP would get up in the House and they

would be asking for different things and challenging the government, I'd get the

tap on the shoulder and say, okay, get up there and blast them. That was the way

it was. I'd talk about money trees and everything else, and the former Member

for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi would get all upset and she would start waving

her finger at me like she used to do. Those who were around would know what I'm

talking about; but, it was part of the game, if you will. It was part of the

game.

Now, I

can say upon reflection, I've tried really, really hard over the last number of

years to tone it down and to stick to business and to give up that old

foolishness. I think it's pretty fair to say – I think most Members can say, if

they're honest about it, and I know they are – that by and large, 99 per cent of

the time, I'm paying attention, I'm engaged in debate. I speak to every single

issue in debate and I try to keep down the rhetoric and stick to the issues.

I've

agreed with the government on things when the Opposition didn't. I've agreed

with the NDP when the Opposition and the government didn't. I've agreed with the

Official Opposition when the government didn't. I've voted all ways trying to do

better, because the people of our district expect better, and we all know that

and we all heard that loud and clear.

I'm not

coming from this from a perspective of someone who doesn't understand the thrust

and parry of debate, someone who has never engaged in any foolishness ever. I'm

not trying to suggest that I am any less or any more infallible than anybody

else in this House. We've all said things in this House, from time to time,

perhaps that you're saying, gee whiz, I wish I never said that. A lot of times

it's in the heat of the moment, the heat of debate and so on.

From

time to time, everyone might heckle a little bit. I have to say, I agree with

the Minister of Finance, it really has changed. The last few years, it really

has improved tremendously, but it still happens from time to time. It still

happens from time to time, and we're all guilty of it.

I know

last Wednesday, we were here in Question Period, and I asked a question of the

Premier to which I didn't really get the answer I wanted, other than to say: Oh,

you voted for Muskrat Falls. I was frustrated and I balled out: Yeah, so did

your Minister of Finance, b'y. That was unparliamentarily, but at the heat of

the moment it was frustrating and I said it. That type of thing happens.

That's

not what we're here to talk about now. What we're here to talk about now is two

comments by our colleague, the minister of Forestry and land use, or whatever

it's called – Fisheries, Forestry. Anyway, you know what I mean. We know who it

is – and a couple of comments that were made.

Now, we

all know in this House of Assembly – we all know – you get that sort of punch,

that little punch in the gut when somebody says something. Everyone here knows

what I'm talking about. When somebody says something that – people can say

something in fun, in debate, make a jab, and we all sort of appreciate that to a

certain degree. We all understand there's some politics, there's some rhetoric.

There is

always a bit of frustration about getting questions answered and so on, but we

also know there is a line, and while it's not totally defined, we all know after

a while with experience, we all kind of know where that line is. When someone

steps over that line, I think collectively, everybody kind of makes that little,

geez, he probably shouldn't have said that; or she shouldn't have said that.

Everyone here knows what I mean.

When

those comments were made in Question Period, that was exactly the reaction I had

was, geez, I wish he hadn't have said that. There's going to be a point of order

or something on this for sure. I knew it immediately. I think he probably might

have known it himself at the time when he said it. Of course, it's gone beyond a

point of order and now we're into a point of privilege.

Mr.

Speaker, of course, you'll rule that, on first blush, because you are not

suggesting that there actually was a breach. What your ruling said was that on

first blush it appears there could be a breach or there's some question in your

mind. Because based on the parliamentary procedure, it also says that if the

Speaker is unsure, if there's a doubt in the Speaker's mind that maybe it could

be, then it's to be referred to the House of Assembly for all the Members to

decide if indeed there was a breach or not. That was the position you took. It

was certainly a position that I supported and still support.

Now we

have to decide whether or not there was a breach; whether or not we feel what

was said crossed that line and how far over that line. Because talking about a

point of order is one thing, a point of privilege is a little more serious. This

is where it gets even greyer again as to which one was it.

I have

no problem – now, I'm going to take the two issues. First, with the Member for

Mount Pearl North, I would have no problem if the minister had addressed you,

the Speaker, and called the Member or questioned the Member for Mount Pearl

North to suggest that somehow it sounds like you're endorsing this type of

activity where someone could be hunting at night or you think it's wrong, even

though technically now it's against the law. I could see him pushing that point

– I really could – because it is a debatable point, there's no doubt about it. I

see both sides.

believe that when the Member said – and this was the point for me – “Then again,

maybe this hon. Member is not always on the side of the law himself,” that is

taking it a step further. That is suggesting, inferring that the Member could be

involved in some sort of criminal activity or breaking the law. I don't think

it's a stretch to see that, because he even says: the law himself – maybe he's

not always on the side of the law himself.

didn't say the Member is not always on the side – and there is a distinction in

this. It's not like he said, he is not on the side of the law, but he said maybe

he's not on the side of the law. This is where all this gets pretty tangly and

grey, no doubt. Do I feel that the comment was absolutely inappropriate? Do I

think it's offensive? Do I think it should be retracted unequivocally?

Absolutely, I do. One hundred per cent he should retract that comment.

On the

issue with the Member for St. John's Centre, I was totally confused, actually.

At least for the Member for St. John's North, I understood the context of what

he was talking about and where the minister was kind of going. For the Member

for St. John's Centre, I sat here and I'm like: What the heck does this have to

do with salmon farming? You're suggesting – and I'm going to read what it says

here: “What I've constantly found from this hon. Member” – meaning the Member

for St. John's Centre – “and it is a pattern of behaviour ….”

It's

certainly not a pattern of behaviour that I'm aware of. It's not a pattern of

behaviour that I have ever seen in this House of Assembly. It's not a pattern of

don't know where this pattern of behaviour is coming from, I honestly don't. I

was sitting there totally confused. What is this all about?

He says

“it is a pattern of behaviour … A pattern of behaviour of marginalization of

Indigenous ….” What he said, he asked a question about salmon farming and the

2.6 million salmon – I believe that was the question or he was probing into

that, and where is the plan to deal with it and why didn't you let the public

know when you knew and that questioning that had been going on for a few days,

which is this Member's right to do. It's his job to do, actually. It's not his

right to do, it's his job to do. How we got from there to a pattern of behaviour

of marginalization of Indigenous people blew my mind. What is he talking about?

I didn't

even know what he was talking about. I had to ask people. I had to flick on the

while, I didn't have any clue what he was talking about.

So now

we find out that we're talking about an incident that allegedly happened – I'm

saying allegedly. I know there's a tape out there, but I haven't listened to the

tape, per se, and I wasn't there. I'm going to use the word allegedly. Happened

a year and a half ago where this Member, not in his capacity as an MHA, is at a

meeting for a group he was involved with and another person, not even him, makes

a comment for which this Member says: This is an unacceptable comment. It does

not reflect me. It does not reflect the views of our association. How this can

somehow be all tied together in the House of Assembly on a question about salmon

farming is ludicrous. It really is ludicrous.

It makes

no sense. How are the two connected? The only thing I can think that it could be

connected, in my mind at least, the only connection I can seem to make as to why

that would be said was it was a way of deflecting from answering the question,

it was a way of shooting down the Member for asking the question, because he had

been pretty persistent in asking this question day after day, and in the media,

so it was kind of a way of shutting him down. This will shut him up. That's all

I can think.

Now, I'm

not saying that's what it was. I'm not inside that Member's mind. I don't know

what he was thinking, but that's the only thing I can come up with that makes

any logical sense to me is that's why it was said. Once again, the comment is

totally inappropriate – totally inappropriate.

suggest that someone – and I know we can stretch this because someone is saying

he said that this Member is a criminal and this Member is a racist. No, he never

used those words. He didn't say you are a criminal, you are a racist, but he did

say, the Member for Mount Pearl North, maybe this Member is not the side of the

law himself. For the Member for St. John's Centre, a pattern of behaviour of

marginalizing Indigenous people. So you can draw from that what you want. To me,

it's pretty clear what was being inferred, if not outright said, and I don't

think it's appropriate – I don't think it's appropriate.

Now, we

have this motion before us. Do I think the punishment, so to speak, fits the

crime? Well, one thing I want to add – and this has been said – I don't seem to

feel any sense of remorse. That's one thing that's really bothering me with

this. Because I know if I said something, it would be gnawing at me and I would

say, at some point in time, I shouldn't have said it. I've stood in this House

of Assembly and criticized myself for past things I've supported. I criticized

myself for voting for Muskrat Falls – I went off on a tangent, but I have,

because I wish I hadn't had done it, and I've given my reasons.

I can't

understand for the life of me why the Member can't simply stand up in the House

and say: Mr. Speaker, what I said was wrong. It is unacceptable, it goes against

the Members' Code of Conduct, it goes against the rules of the House, it goes

against being an hon. Member, it goes against decorum and it's simply wrong. I

withdraw my comments unequivocally – unequivocally. I apologize to the House. It

won't happen again. I can do better. We can do better. For me, that's all he has

to do.

I don't

care about this whole – I mean, let's do another, what, 20 hours of sensitivity

training or something. We all did the sensitivity training. Sure, what did it

change? Is it really going to change a whole lot if he did it again? I don't

know. You can't just go and sit down in a classroom and do a few exercises that

they give you and talk about stuff like that and all of a sudden you change.

That's something that you have to change from within you, your own attitude.

That's not going to change because you went to a course.

So,

look, he has to do better. And he needs to be called out on it. So I do support

it in the sense that the man needs to be called out on it, because it's not good

enough. We've already been through all this.

I want

to tell you, over the last day or so – and I don't know if other Members have

whatever. I don't know. I speak for myself. But I can tell you something –

shouldn't be news to anybody – the general public are not happy about this.

They're not happy about this.

We're

almost $15 billion in the hole. We have a deficit that's been growing by about a

billion dollars a year. We have issues with family doctors, we have issues in

our school system, we have unemployment that's way too high, food bank lineups

have been growing and we're here spending our time talking about this stuff –

really. Our gallery is full here today because there are people who have

concerns that are more important to them than this. They really are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm just going

to put it out there. For me, let's put an end to this now.

The

Member has been called out publicly. If the idea was public shaming, guess what,

it's happened. His face has been all over the news the last two days; it will be

on the news again tonight. I know what that's like. Other Members in this House

know what it's like. It's horrible and it's horrible on your family.

MR. JOYCE:

Ask me about it.

MR. LANE:

Yes, the Member next to me

says ask me about it. It is horrible.

If there

was any attempt to call him out publicly, it's been done. We need to bring this

to an end. For me as one Member, and I don't know in terms of procedure if it's

even possible at this point, but if the Member were to stand up, stop the old

doubling down and tripling down – cut out that nonsense, you're only making

yourself look worse. You're digging a hole.

If the

Member would stand up in the House of Assembly and simply say I withdraw these

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

unequivocally – I don't want to hear any justification or any of that BS – then

I, for one, am satisfied to bring an end to this. If the Member is going to

continue to double down and he's not going to acknowledge what is done, because

it's not okay, then I'm not going to have any choice but to support this.

That's

all I have to say, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Lake

Melville.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess

in recognition of the people that are in the gallery and everyone that are in

this hon. House, and having just spent 2017 to 2019 sitting in that amazing

chair, it is important to be relevant. I'm going to do that with my remarks, but

I'm going to do it from my perspective and I want to speak to that. So I would

ask for everyone's indulgence while I go through what's been going on with

myself for the last couple of months.

I want

to go back, there are a bunch of things in my mind. The Member for Baie Verte -

Green Bay always speaks with great passion and conviction, and that's exactly

how I approached this political adventure, which, for me, started in 2015. Every

day I'm in the House, every day I represent the people of Lake Melville, I have

found to be amazing, very rewarding, through the highs and the lows.

With

that background, there is an undercurrent that unfortunately we are all dealing

with, this house is dealing with, this province is dealing with and this country

is dealing with. Just by way of background, it's interesting that in 2013 there

was a world survey of some 80 countries and Canada placed amongst the highest;

the highest rank in terms of their racial tolerance of others in the world. What

an amazing accolade to receive.

Anyway,

as I was preparing for my remarks today, I started diving down through and I

starting looking and seeing many things that I suspected I would see in there.

It was great challenges to that assertion, to our own feeling that we are

somehow better than the rest in terms of our attitude and our acceptance of

others in our society.

We only

have to look to the recent election. We only have to look to all of our

individual pasts to see that, in fact, we are struggling. Are we making

progress? I would suggest we are. I would suggest that we are indeed making

progress. As several have alluded to the decorum in this House and tolerance of

people's opinions and their rights to be heard, I would suggest we have made

great progress, but every now and then we stumble.

It's

those stumbles that catch us all. It certainly caught me, and I think that's

when we need to pause and say: Are we on the right track? Do we really have the

conviction to really go to where we need to go, to where that 2013 said that we

were? Can we get there? I guess it's how we deal with those stumbles that we

need to really think about how we respond.

In terms

of relevance to the point of privilege here today that was brought forward, I

think what brought about a lot of the emotion that I certainly felt on this

floor was because of the undercurrents around racism, words that we've heard,

situations we've encountered and how we deal with it. Whether we're that person

uttering those words or hearing those words, how did we act?

We only

have to look at Hockey Night in Canada

on Saturday night to see how that unfolded, and did Mr. MacLean react as quickly

as he should have. It's easy to second guess. It's easy to challenge and so on,

but at the end of the day, did those individuals, did they come back and say:

You know what, I made a mistake, I'm apologizing for it and I'm committing to

going forward and doing a much better job.

Last

night, I was with my wife and about 6,000 other people at Mile One, and as we

were listening to the 44th president of the United States and listening – you

could have heard a pin drop, much like this room right now. You really heard

every word he said. I think for most of us, I said jokingly, going out, I don't

think anyone was converted. I think we all went in realizing that we are very

much fans of this gentleman and the better world that he was working hard on. It

was really quite a moving experience, and I think we're all wishing back to

another time.

So every

now and then something happens, whether we get a new leader, a new shift in

policy, that sets us back. I believe those around us, certainly around me, I

believe in this entire House – in my role, previously, as Speaker, I came to

know everyone in this House, and I do know what I've seen of them in the

personal conversations I've had with them. I do believe there is great

conviction in this Legislature, and I do believe this Legislature is committed

to going forward.

I want

to go back to my history, if I may. I came to this great province in 1987, and

for the last 32 years most of my activity has been involved in working in a

variety of cultures, but particularly with the Indigenous peoples of Labrador.

I'm very pleased to say that I worked with the Innu, the Inuit, and then the

Metis – now the members of the NunatuKavut Community Council – on so many great

initiatives that I'm very proud of.

I helped

set up and then operate, I'm thinking, four separate majority-owned, controlled

Indigenous companies. We built capacity. We hired many dozens and dozens. It

would probably be in the vicinity of, perhaps, I would suggest, a couple of

hundred different youth, Indigenous youth from Labrador, and watched with great

pride as they combined their traditional knowledge with the Western science that

I had been blessed to have the experience to learn. It has been a very

productive experience.

I helped

with the Mushuau Innu Renewal Committee in 1994 with the relocation of Davis

Inlet after the tragic events of 1992, where six children were burned in a

house. The pain and the emotions at the time and how we collectively needed to

do something to help that community and the efforts, and going through that

soul-searching time was such an eye-opening experience.

I think,

as the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands was just alluding, several of us have

had opportunity to sit through sensitivity training, Aboriginal awareness,

Indigenous rights and so on. Those little exercises are all useful, there's no

question, but I feel very honoured and blessed to have had the experience of

working on that soul-searching, how do we find our way out of this, and my own

personal commitment to help them and help others get there and do what I could.

So that's been my commitment to Labrador, and particularly the people of Lake

Melville.

It was

with an amazing fall into an abyss on the 12th of September when a reporter

called me and played back my words from a conversation that I had had the day

before. In that fog of realizing: Wow, what have I just done? What have I just

said? What mistake have I just made? I thank myself – I guess, I'm glad at the

time that I had the basis, the clarity of thought to say: I'm not going to make

any more mistakes.

actually was in the Premier's boardroom. I thought I was going to be talking

about all the good things going on in Municipal Affairs and Environment, and I

get this call. I told the Premier what was happening, and I said they want a

comment. I said there's only one thing I can honourably do is go and apologize.

Because there are words on there, whether the intent was in a negative – first

of all, let me rephrase. There was no negative intent. It was a time of

frustration. It was, as the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands and some others

have said, it was a mistake.

I said

there cannot be any qualification of this. There cannot be any explanation. It's

a setback for yours truly, and I need to deal with it. He said go. So I went. I

went to the studio on television live. I can tell you when Mr. Germain was about

to interview, I felt I was being strapped into an electric chair, but I knew I

needed to do that. I needed to do it for myself, for my wife, for the people

around me. I'm glad I did that.

That

night was a difficult night. I called the grand chief and I called the gentleman

that I was referring to on the phone and apologized to them very sincerely,

thinking, maybe perhaps hoping, that would sufficient. It wasn't.

As the

night wore on, I didn't sleep at all that evening, but the next morning I knew

what I needed to do and I needed to get back to Labrador and speak to the

people, the Indigenous leadership that I had offended with those words. I

surprised them. That's not me. They didn't even recognize me, so I definitely

disappointed them. I went to the airport, and something happened that morning to

me. I want to go back, again, to my colleague from Baie Verte - Green Bay, and

some others who spoke, about the opportunity to be in this House, and as low as

I felt that morning, there were two thoughts on mind.

One was,

first of all, a women came up to me. I'm not going to mention her name. She's a

constituent and, in September, she found out that she had cancer. Now she's on a

battle, and my office has been helping her, along with the Minister of Health

and Community Services. We are helping her get through that. She came up to me

and she came over to me and she said to me: Are you okay? And I just said to

her, and I've said to her since: That gesture of worrying about me when I

realize what you're going through, wow. That helped me put it in perspective. I

know who I am, I know where I'm going, I know what I'm committed to doing. I was

in a pretty low spot that day, but for her to reach out to me, told me to keep

going.

I was

going to read a statement – maybe I'll get a chance to today or at some point

soon – regarding the Special Olympics. They have an oath that I aspire to a lot,

and it's an interesting oath. It says: Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me

be brave in the attempt. I promised the people of Lake Melville, my colleagues

around me on both sides of the House – for example, my own interest in competing

with you, Sir, for the Speaker's position. That's why I did that. I said: I

can't give up. I have to keep going. I have to show people that I'm going to get

back on the rails and keep going forward.

The

other thought that was on my mind, however, that morning – well, I was sorry and

I could feel the remorse. I can tell you I was mad at myself because I knew what

those words would mean to certain folks, particularly within the Innu Nation,

that I had been working closely with so much of my life. I still wonder in my

mind: Why did I say that? Why did I do that? Why did I lose control in that

instant? It wasn't about being recorded; it was about saying it. So many of my

friends said to me, and they came up to me afterwards and they said – I'll leave

my name out – what are you doing? They said, you're always correcting us in a

conversation, and I do.

Sometimes some of my friendships get a little off kilter, get a little

challenged because I'm saying don't make those generalities. You cannot make

those sweeping statements. If you have an individual you have an issue with,

that's one thing. That really goes to the heart of what are deemed to me racists

comments. Unfortunately, I dropped my guard there. I said words I regretted and

I apologized for it.

I felt

as I got on the plane and I came to Labrador that morning on the 13th – we had a

caucus call and I enjoyed great support from this team. They're a great team.

It's good to be back, being part of them again. However, I couldn't reach the

leaders. I knew they were mad. I knew I had upset them.

They

were heading to St. John's. There were lawyers, elders and leaders coming to St.

John's that day. I left messages with the grand chief and he was mad, he was

angry and he was disappointed. The allegation at the time was that the Premier,

the Members of Cabinet, my colleagues in this government and, frankly, my

colleagues in the entire Legislature were racist. I don't believe that's the

case; in fact, I know it's not the case. Otherwise, why would we even be on our

feet here today talking about this?

It is a

serious undertone. It's something that we're all struggling with, but when we

hit those and make those mistakes, I feel that we do need to apologize. Like so

many of the colleagues around me – and now to bring it back to the relevance of

this particular point of privilege – it's bullying and harassment, but it's also

about elevated emotions when we find ourselves caught by our convictions,

whether we're at the receiving end or, unfortunately, on the distributing end

where we've said the wrong thing. We need to realize that and we need to put

ourselves back on those rails.

I called

the Premier, thought about it and I said: Sir, I feel I need to resign. The

criticism is of you and it's of the Cabinet and it isn't, it was my mistake. I

need to wear that. I feel that whenever we make those mistakes, that's what we

have to do. We have to realize that other people are fighting big battles,

battles for their life. Frankly, the Indigenous people of Labrador and

Newfoundland and Labrador and this entire country have been on this struggle for

years.

I'll go

back to Don Cherry. When you just take “you people” out of the context, you say:

Well, what is that? I've had so many people challenge my own words that were in

that recording and say: What did you say? What was it? Well, what, in fact, I

did and what he did is ignited a lot of frustration. So for the dark days that

I've had since September 12 and 13, many people around me in my district have

had many tough struggles for decades, for generations.

I was on

that campaign with them to address, through the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission. I carry the recommendations with me. I think a lot about it. I just

wanted to say here on the floor today that we will stumble. We will find

ourselves off the rails, but we need to commit – recommit myself. I keep saying

to myself: Why did this happen to myself? I can only feel it's to help me

refocus and double down my efforts to do what I can to address the challenges of

embracing everyone in this province, in this country, into society where they

need to be in a very respectful place.

With

that, my colleagues, I thank you for your attention.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to thank the colleague behind me there: the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

I agree with a lot of what he had to say, absolutely. Also, I was given a piece

of advice the other day by the hon. Member across the way, the Minister of

Finance. Before I went into an interview, he told me: Attack the policy, not the

person. Unfortunately, his own colleague didn't take those words to heart like I

did.

I'll

never attack an individual in this House, ever, because that's not who I am. Mr.

Speaker, I'm the father and the husband of three Inuit women. Very strong women

who have been attacked personally because of the colour of their skin and their

identity, and it hurts. My family has been the victim of racism. To have a

minister across the way using that identity to attack a Member of my caucus is

very unfortunate. That is not the spirit of this House. The spirit of this House

is not to attack an individual, it's to attack policy and debate.

It hurts

me, actually, personally of how things have been unfolding. I also have to stop

and think, all the individual had to do was apologize. Stand up in the House,

retract his statement and apologize, but instead he continues to double down,

and that hurts me to see that.

Mr.

Speaker, my wife went to college here in St. John's. One day walking across the

parking lot someone yelled a racial slur at her, a very hurtful racial slur. At

3 in the afternoon while I was at work back in Lab City, I got a very upset

phone call from her about it.

In 2010,

my wife was airlifted to St. John's, along with myself, when she was pregnant

with my first-born child. We arrived at the Health Sciences Centre. She was

taken upstairs to be looked after. I went down to administration to get

everything straightened out. Behind the wicket, I handed my wife's MCP card and

ID to the administrator. She looked at me, oh great, more natives from Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, systemic racism is a problem in this province, absolutely, but to

use it to attack a Member of this House is very unfortunate.

These

are very personal things to me to be attacked like that. As an individual who

does not identify as Indigenous, my perspective on the world has greatly changed

after marrying my wife. Actually, living two years in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, my

view on the world is a lot different than probably some of my colleagues. I also

have a deepened – I fell into this world. My wife tells me all the struggles

that she and her family have faced over the years of being Indigenous, but to

have it used as attack against you is very, very unfortunate.

This is

not the reason of this House; this system was created so that no interpersonal

battles happen. We speak through you, Mr. Speaker. That's the reason of how the

system works. To have a Member avoid you and make personal attacks here, on

this House. We cannot degrade ourselves to this point.

We have

to continue on a path forward where every Member in this House has the right to

say and ask questions of the government, have a right to ask and those questions

to be answered. Also, when we walk out through those doors at the end of the

day, we can shake each other's hands and say, see you tomorrow, because this is

what it was supposed to be like.

Unfortunately, the Member across the way decided to change that. I thought we

were doing pretty good for a few weeks, but now this is very unfortunate. We

need to challenge this now. We need to put an end to this now and ask for an

apology. Then we can go back to doing the business of what these individuals

here in the gallery are here about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BROWN:

I have homelessness in my

district, Labrador West – homelessness in Labrador West. It's unreal. I have

people lined up at food banks. This is not why I'm here.

All I

ask, Mr. Speaker, is just – all we want is an apology. That's all we want, an

apology and carry on with our business. I've sat and had long discussions with

my wife about this, about these issues, about going through this whole thing, as

insightful as this is, ask for an apology. That's all she told me, ask for an

apology. That's all we'd need and we could keep going forward and conduct the

business of this House that needs to be conducted. We have stuff piling up

behind us now. We have things that are very pressing that need to be done.

Mr.

Speaker, I am 100 per cent supporting this motion.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today.

I want

to say, I completely agree that there are lots of pressing issues that we must

be debating here in the House of Assembly and I look forward to debating those,

but it was the Member opposite, the Opposition that put forward this motion. We

all have rights and privileges, as Members in this House, to debate specific

motions that are put before us.

I have

to say that I've sat in this House of Assembly since 2011. I've been here, I've

been where the Member opposite was. I've been where the Member for Mount Pearl -

Southlands has been. I've sat in the Official Opposition and I've been with

government since 2015 on this side of the House, but I take a little bit of

frustration at the Member for Conception Bay South saying that we don't need to

be wasting our time on this.

There is

a parliamentary procedure and parliamentary practice, and we must honour those

rules and privileges of the House and those practices of Members and have a

fulsome debate on the matter, which you had determined we should do as Members.

Every single Member has a right to contribute and should contribute to the

particular debate here in the House today.

I would

say for people who are newer, and there are many newer Members here – there are

a couple of independents. The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, we were

elected at the same time. The independent for Humber - Bay of Islands has a very

long history here in this House. The Opposition House Leader who introduced the

motion, as well as the Member for Cape St. Francis, the Minister of Finance and

the Premier, they have been here longer in terms of service than many other

Members in this House. I can certainly tell you from the time that I stepped in

this Assembly in 2011, the decorum in this House has changed substantially.

remember sitting in Opposition when the government of the day, the Progressive

Conservatives, would put forward motion after motion to call out Members to get

up to apologize. You did not know who was going to be attacked next. The amount

of heckling that occurred in this House of Assembly was significant and

substantial, and many Members engaged in it because there were not those cordial

relationships that exist today.

I would

say, as a minister here in this House, that I have been to other Members'

districts. I have worked with them on issues, so has my office. I've been to

Stephenville - Port au Port and made announcements; in the Member for Cape St.

Francis's district as well. We've worked on a lot of matters to advance UNESCO

status in the District of Bonavista, and this is how the House should function.

It should function to be very collaborative.

It was

not that way when I was here in 2011, as the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands

can certainly attest. It was very much a survival mode of attack, attack,

attack, with significant amounts of heckling, and you didn't know who was going

to be that person and why. So, the temperature and tone and decorum in this

House has changed significantly.

One

thing about this debate that I hear and understand is – and I think we all need

to reflect on our own behaviours and understand that we all are human and we all

make mistakes. I know for myself, personally, I've had my share of bruises as a

politician and I've made mistakes, so have other people in this Legislature, but

what is being debated here today – and I have to go with the Minister of

Education on this. I don't really know how we got here, and it's not to question

the decision of the Speaker, but I want to reflect back on Thursday, November 7,

and the Hansard that took place and

the procedures and policies of this House.

The MHA

for St. John's Centre asked a question. He had said: “Mr. Speaker … the minister

said he takes the words and knowledge of the Mi'kmaq seriously, yet in an

interview on Mi'kmaq Matters , the

Miawpukek First Nation chief said he only found out about the die-off in the

media three weeks after the minister knew.

“So, if

the minister truly values our Mi'kmaq citizens, why didn't he pick up the phone

and tell the chief as soon as he knew?”

Then the

minister responded, saying, in “that same interview, Chief Mi'sel Joe said I

commend the minister for the work he's done and acknowledged the government's

good, hard work on this.

“What I

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

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

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

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

there has never … picked up the phone to phone him to ask any questions. I've

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

several times.”

This is

what had transpired in the conversation back and forth. Then there was a point

of order that was put forward, and that point of order was around that you

should address all your comments to the Speaker. That is indeed fact, and

yourself as Speaker said yes, and the Member had said thank you very much.

Then he

says to the point of order, to the Government House Leader – and it was changed

to a point of privilege at that point – and it was a discussion to the point of

order. The minister had said about the past pattern of behaviour is not keeping

in spirit with reconciliation with Indigenous people and the company where there

have been the marginalized interests and the importance of Indigenous people and

nations in our province, and it's not acceptable.

Then

there was a ruling made on that by Mr. Speaker, it says in

Hansard : “While there's no point of order here, it's a disagreement

between two hon. Members, I would take this opportunity to remind all Members of

this House that comments should be directed towards the Chair. This is the past

precedent in our House and all Members should abide by that. It's designed to

depersonalize the questioning and the answering and I ask all Members to follow

that precedent.”

It's

important, as has been talked about in this House, to talk about and tackle the

issues, not to make matters personal. But that was put before the floor, and

that's when it should've been raised, a point of order or a point of privilege,

when a matter comes forward.

Question Period, as well, the Member for Mount Pearl North also said a question,

saying: “I'd also like to point out that people hunt moose day and night, and a

bullet goes just as far in the day as it does in the night.” Well, that was the

point that the Member for Mount Pearl North – even though the minister had

highlighted that hunting at night is an illegal activity. So the minister

further stated that calling for hunting at night, against the regulations, is

basically an active defence of poaching.

understand that there were questions going back and forth on this particular

matter and, at that point, after Question Period it was the Opposition House

Leader during Question Period, actually, not before it ended, got up and said

point of order. As the Speaker, the Speaker said we would deal with points of

order after Question Period. The Member is a long-standing Member, as the

Opposition House Leader, and would know that you cannot interrupt Question

Period as you stated, Mr. Speaker, and that any ruling on a point of order to

retract a comment, as we've seen in this House many, many times, to request for

an apology or withdrawal of remark, would be done following Question Period on

that particular day.

The

Opposition House Leader had chosen not to pursue that opportunity to call for a

withdrawal of remarks right after Question Period. So here we are debating a

resolution for the House. I've been in this House several times where sometimes

unparliamentary language is said. No one condones unparliamentary language.

We've been here where that has come forward, and as it's been raised in this

House the Members have done the honourable thing and withdrawn the remarks.

In his

response to this resolution that was put forward, the Member for Corner Brook

has said he withdraws his remarks from those that would be deemed

unparliamentary language that would be pertaining to any particular Member that

would be considered unparliamentary. He has done that for the Member for Mount

Pearl North. I respect him for doing that. I think that's important.

When you

look at all of the resolutions and what here is being said about BE IT FURTHER

RESOLVED about verbally apologizing, writing the other two Members of the House

and then engaging in anti-harassment behaviour, this, to me, seems that it's a

far stretch to what was actually said in Question Period back and forth and what

was reasonable. The Member opposite has withdrawn remarks that would be deemed

unparliamentary in this particular matter.

We're

taking a significant amount of time to debate these issues, but it gives us a

great opportunity in this House to talk about substantive issues that we face as

Members, as parliamentarians, and also experiences that we've had and share when

it comes matters of – as the Member for Lake Melville had just talked about and

very eloquently – systemic racism and discrimination. That is certainly not

acceptable.

Myself,

as Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, I'm now responsible for

the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism and I've had the opportunity to

sit in a sharing circle and hear first-hand significant amount of racism and

discrimination that have been faced by newcomers here that's totally

unacceptable. It's just unacceptable.

I've

also held a Minister's Roundtable on Immigration in Labrador. Hearing about

experiences and learning on ways of how we can make Newfoundland and Labrador a

very welcoming and engaging place. It's important and the onus is on all of us

in this House to work together, to collaborate and to make sure that we do have

welcoming communities. That we do more to ensure that our newcomers, that our

citizens – and as other Members talked about, maybe there is further training

that all Members in this House need to engage in, whether it is specific to

Indigenous or also around newcomers and immigration and other marginalized

groups.

The

first meeting that I've had with an outside stakeholder group actually, as

Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour, was addressing racism

Newfoundland and Labrador, as to how we can combat Islamophobia and racism here

in our province. I had met with the professors involved in this report and

listened to them. They had released a community report in September of 2019 and

I certainly appreciated the opportunity to hear what they had to say and their

contributions and the recommendations that are put forward.

We take

that very seriously. This is not something that is specific to one particular

government department, but it goes across all departments and all levels at the

federal, at the community level, community organizations, with labour unions,

education groups and how we can address discrimination in all forms. That is

something that is so important that we all have to do, each and every one of us

in this House of Assembly. We all have to take actions to engage to ensure that

we have better and ongoing policy improvements and efforts to promote inclusion,

to respect the dignity of all of our residents, including residents of

intersecting cultural, religious, racialized and other backgrounds.

We've

seen this recently, as the Member for Lake Melville talked about, just in the

remarks of Saturday on Hockey Night in

Canada and just how the commentary of targeting groups of people, newcomers,

immigrants, it's just unacceptable at any level. When people become aware of

these remarks, they immediately should apologize. These things should not

happen.

We all

have to take action here in this Legislature and in this Chamber to engage in

restorative justice, as was talked about, an important topic, and how we can

work with Indigenous populations here in this province to improve the relations,

as came out of the Truth and Reconciliation report, that we all have to take

actions.

I was

very pleased to hear Chief Mi'sel Joe, who I have great respect for, who I've

met many times. I've had the opportunity to be in Conne River and I've met and

have been working with Indigenous groups and organizations and governments for

many, many years as well, Mr. Speaker.

It's

important that we do listen and engage, and that all people in our province have

a voice and that we take the greatest actions to ensure that when we are raising

questions here in this House of Assembly, when we're using individual's names,

in particular, and matters, that they be consulted, that they actually be

reached out to and consulted. That you have the full and wholesome view when

you're a Member and that you're not just taking one particular side of the

issue. That you actually reach out and consult and engage so that you have a

very informed view.

I can't

condone anybody wanting to be hunting at night. I think it's a very dangerous

activity. It's against the law. If you look at from a point of view of where

many farms are in this province, some of them are very close to residential

neighbourhoods, very close to roads and other areas where people could be, and

discharging firearms after dark should not be something that is done lightly

here in Newfoundland and Labrador. That's certainly something that I could not

support, and I hope it is not the position, as well, of the Member of Mount

Pearl North.

Mr.

Speaker, I think, procedurally, we're at this point and we are where we are in

terms of the decision to accept this as a Member's rights at first blush of

maybe being breached, but I would say if people look at the precedent here in

this House, at the procedures, at the rules and how things have transpired over

the years, that this motion is far too strong in terms of what actually had

transpired and what had taken place in the House of Assembly.

I would

call for action to be taken to either have this motion amended or withdrawn from

the floor of the House of Assembly.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to actually thank all Members.

Quite a few have engaged in this debate over the last few days, and some of the

opening comments that were made were based on some comments that I made in this

House of Assembly some time ago.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, I want to say that I stand by those comments back about a year and a

half ago, because it's important that we send a message to the people of our

province, especially in these times, that we do work in collaboration. That's

the commitment our government has made to the people of our province. It's a

commitment we've made to the Opposition parties and the independent Members that

we have in this House of Assembly. I think that is the message people want to

see from us.

Mr.

Speaker, that is not going to actually interfere from time to time where you'll

see rigorous debate that will occur on the floor of this House of Assembly. That

will continue to occur.

Mr.

Speaker, over the last few days, as the minister responsible for Indigenous

Affairs, I've been listening, and listening to the debate back and forth, the

comments that have been made by various people, but I've also reached out to

Indigenous leaders in our province. I've listened to the evidence that has been

shared with me, that's been publicly, and following it very closely, all the

comments that people have been making. That includes the comments of the media.

Mr.

Speaker, there is one piece of advice that has been taken from a man that I have

great respect for. As a matter of fact, it's not only me, as Premier of this

province, that has the respect of Chief Mi'sel Joe, it's Memorial University,

it's national leaders all across our country. As a matter of fact, the man has

been recognized internationally for his work in social development, economic

development with his group in Newfoundland and Labrador. As a matter of fact, I

would say that most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that have met Chief Mi'sel

Joe will say that he has left a mark on their life.

I will

assure you that you cannot spend five minutes in that man's company and not be

left with a very pleasant memory. He is just a remarkable individual. He is

someone that I've had many discussions with, Mr. Speaker, when you look for

advice on issues around Indigenous affairs. It's not just Chief Mi'sel Joe,

there are other leaders as well that I would often reach out to.

So, Mr.

Speaker, one of the things he said to me is that he has said quite clearly about

his remarks and how he feels about racism. This is not a new issue for the Chief

in Newfoundland and Labrador, this has been ongoing. As a matter of fact, in one

discussion that I've had with him, or one of the comments he made to me was the

fact that he's in his early 70s and he spent nearly six decades in promoting and

advocating for the lives and changing the lives of Indigenous people in our

province, and indeed across the country.

Mr.

Speaker, we find ourselves here today when we're talking about a number of

issues, one around the whole idea of what's happening within the aquaculture

industry; some of the things that are happening around farmers. I can tell you,

Mr. Speaker, I could share lots of stories about moose hunting in this province.

I've been fortunate that I grew up in an area – well, that was part of what we

did.

As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think this is the first year that I can remember

in my life that so far I have not been moose hunting in this province. When I

can get a Saturday morning or a Saturday evening some time soon, I will

guarantee you I will be out there with my friends.

I will

say, too, Mr. Speaker, that over this period of time I can tell you that I've

spent time with farmers. As a matter of fact, I can share a story – this is in

just recent memory of my older brother who is no longer with us. He never was

one of those fellows who wanted to go moose hunting but, indeed, we encouraged

him to go. So I called this farmer friend of mine and there were some moose –

and I'm sure the Member here for Mount Pearl North would understand exactly what

I'm talking about. I'm sure the minister responsible for FLR would know this

story as well.

So, we

go out early one morning and we saw this moose that was there just feasting on

turnip. That's exactly what was happening. I can tell you, that particular

farmer said no, we have to be careful because there are other people in this

area. We need to be able to do this carefully. We need to be able to do this

when dawn – when we can actually see exactly what's happening. That's what we

did, and that was the first moose hunting experience for my older brother. It's

great memories for me. It's just an example of what happens within the

agriculture community within our province.

Mr.

Speaker, that is one part of the debate that got us where we are today. This

occurred back on the floor of the House of Assembly just last week. Then we got

into some of the other issues. As the discussion continued, it continued to grow

and grow and grow. It led into some conversations that we had with Chief Mi'sel

Joe. That is a gentleman, as I said, Mr. Speaker, that I have a lot of time for,

and I know Members in this House of Assembly would have a lot of time for as

well.

Now

we're debating this resolution that we see to the floor of the House of

Assembly. When I look at it on the surface, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is

certainly the will of collaboration with all Members of this House of Assembly

that we want to do the right thing and we want to recognize that each and every

single Member, that we operate, as we speak in this House of Assembly, we do it

with respect of each other, we do it with integrity. Mr. Speaker, that is what

we were elected to do.

I will

tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is also a point that when we do speak here that

there are values and there are morals, too, that we actually stand on. I expect

all 40 Members of this House of Assembly would agree with that as well.

When we

go back and forth – and that happens quite some time. Often, it gets heated and

sometimes comments will be said. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you in my almost nine

years in the House of Assembly, from time to time I've had to stand up and

address the Speaker and say: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that comment.

I don't

think there are too many people here that if they haven't been actively engaged

in some good debate across this floor of the House of Assembly that would,

actually, at some point in that debate, would say if I had to say that again,

Mr. Speaker, I probably would not say it that way. That happens quite often. As

a matter of fact, we all know stories that – even there have been comments that

have been said other places, not just on the floor of the House of Assembly, if

we had to do it again we would probably do it differently.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to make an amendment in a few minutes here to the resolution

that we have in front of us. I know we have about 10 or 12 minutes or so now

before the House will adjourn. I also want to say when we make – I think it's

fundamental – decisions in this House of Assembly, we make every effort to seek

advice from people that sometimes do not sit in those chairs. We have a lot of

great people in the House of Assembly. We have a lot of issues that have been

dealt with and that we're currently dealing with, too, within our province that

had there been sage advice taken, maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we're

in.

I would

suggest that at some point all of us, as 40 Members here, elected MHAs, that

from time to time I think when the opportunity presents itself, people like

Chief Mi'sel Joe should actually have the opportunity to come to this House of

Assembly and have their say as well. It doesn't happen often in this House but,

Mr. Speaker, those opportunities need to present themselves.

We see

ourselves just recently, where we've actually been engaging more and more the

committee work to help us make the advice and get us in the situation where we

can make proper judgments and proper decision-making for the people of our

province. Mr. Speaker, at some point I think it's fair to say that people,

Indigenous leaders across our province, people like Chief Mi'sel Joe, should

have those opportunities.

Mr.

Speaker, today I'm going to make this amendment:

BE IT

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

Brook has called into question the reputations of two Members of this House

which does not meet the higher standard of conduct that this House commanded of

all Members through its deliberations in 2018; and

BE IT

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

without equivocation his offending statements with respect to the Members for

Mount Pearl North and St. John's Centre.

I think

in the spirit of collaboration the Leader of the Opposition has agreed to second

that motion.

MR. CROSBIE:

Seconded, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

We usually recess to examine

the amendment, but I've had a chance to look at the amendment and I thank the

Member for providing a copy of it. I understand there seems to be all-party

support for this motion, maybe – I'm not sure. So, I'm going to move forward

with accepting the amendment that it is in order.

Seeing

no other speakers to the amendment – sorry, the Member for Humber - Bay of

Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you.

I'm

going to speak to the amendment and also later on to the main motion. There is

quite a bit of leeway here.

Mr.

Speaker, I listened intently here to all the issues that's happening in the

House of Assembly. I see the Member when he first brought it in, brought up

about the bullying and harassment about a year ago. This is a bit personal to me

and there are a lot of issues I want to bring forward because every Member here

is saying every Member should have the right. I'm not going to talk about the

issues of what happened, but the process of what happened, how every Member

here, how this is becoming so political, this House of Assembly.

I'll

give you a good example of what happened. I'm going back, it might be '92, maybe

even '91 – I can't remember – myself and the Member at the time, God bless his

soul, a great man, Jack Byrne, we got in a heated discussion here and he had to

withdraw his statement. He wouldn't do it. Do you know how we resolved that in

the House that time, and the same thing could have happened here last week? Do

you know how we resolved that? The Speaker stood up, asked him to withdraw, he

wouldn't withdraw and he had to leave the House for the day. That was the

punishment at the time.

Do you

know what we did the next day, me and Jack Byrne? We went on CBC radio, side by

side, had an interview for about 10 or 15 minutes and discussed our issue. Do

you know what happened then? Jack Byrne's wife was picking him up. I said: I'll

give you a ride up. We went in for a cup of coffee, he had no money, I bought

him a coffee and we had a laugh. He said: I got to go by the house now; I got to

get some paint. We went by his house, driving him around, had a laugh. He said:

I got to pick up the paint and bring it back. I brought him up to get the paint

and brought him back.

That day

Jack Byrne got in the House of Assembly and said, yes, I barbarized that Member

so bad this morning on CBC, he chauffeured me all day. That's how we handled

things back then, the House would handle it.

It's

becoming so political in this House, everything. I use the bullying and

harassment that myself and Dale Kirby went through. That was so political. And

I'm going to bring up stuff, Premier. You made statements then, but I can tell

you, Premier, that personally knowing you and knowing what went on, how many

people in this room know – and I don't mean the people who are newly elected or

the NDP; you were newly elected, but the other people. I use the Leader of the

Opposition who stood up in this House and said I have issues; he wouldn't take

me. He later apologized, and I thank you for that and I hope you're going to do

it publicly, that you will apologize, that I have issues. In other words, I have

some stability. Did anybody ever jump up and say he shouldn't say that? No one.

Not a soul.

How many

people in this House now know – and I look at the Government House Leader, and I

don't know if the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island was there – that

the person who came into this House, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards,

misled the Management Commission. The Speaker admitted it. He admitted it to me

personally. The Justice Minister, Attorney General said it publicly.

How many

people brought that up in the House of Assembly during this debate? How many? An

Officer of the House misleading the Management Commission, and what it was, was

I was never interviewed. The Management Commission went in. He said there were

34 people interviewed; one refused to participate. The question was asked by the

Minister of Justice. He said: Who was that? Eddie Joyce. And not one Member in

this House would stand up – not one – for what I and Dale Kirby went through.

Not one. That's so political, all this that's happening.

I use

the Premier for example. When you told me all this was BS, you know why you

couldn't say unequivocally it's not true? Because there were two witnesses in

the room. I've been talking to the witnesses. I said that I tried to ask this

question in the House of Assembly. You want to talk about we all got to stand up

for Members' rights, how this only happens for whatever political purpose we

want. I use this for me and Dale Kirby.

The

former Speaker, I tried to ask a question about the Premier being involved with

the process; I was shut down. It's not worth the economic development of the

province. I was shut down. Do you know why I was shut down? Because we got to

get around the government Members. We've got to get around somehow. We can't let

this happen. We got to put this through.

Do you

know what I was trying to ask? It was August 6 or 7. I was out in some community

announcement we had. I think it was August 6 and 7. The Premier said to me:

Reports come out tomorrow. I said: What? How do you know? He called me that

night, he said: No, yours and Dale's come out together, couple weeks' time. Sure

enough, two of them came out.

So I

wrote the Premier when all this was done. I wrote the Premier and I said: Who in

your office was contacting Bruce Chaulk? He wouldn't respond. I wrote again,

because someone in the office was telling me keep going, and sure enough. Do you

know my lawyer, who could not get any information of when the reports were

coming out, but the Premier was involved and he could.

Now, the

question that has to be raised –

MR. TRIMPER:

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

We usually don't accept

points of order during this debate. If the Member wants to raise it after the

debate.

MR. TRIMPER:

Yes, I'm just reminding

(inaudible).

Thank

you. I'm just reminding the Speaker that the matter that the Member's referring

to has been discussed, resolved and voted on by this House. So he's now wasting

the time of the House.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

We can deal with that later.

MR. JOYCE:

You're talking about stuff

dealt on in the House, but I say to the Speaker, it was your duty, your right. I

say the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, you weren't at the meeting, the

initial meeting when he said that, I know that, but you know there were

conversations later. The Government House Leader knows there were conversations

later. Guess what? No one brought it up in the House of Assembly.

Can you

imagine, an Officer of this House could walk in this House of Assembly, make a

false and misleading statement about a Member, so serious as bullying and

harassment about myself and Dale Kirby, and never brought it to the floor of the

House of Assembly when I asked it to be brought to the House of Assembly? Can

you imagine that?

I ask

the lawyers in this room, the lawyers. What would be the case (inaudible) if

your client was never, ever interviewed? What would ever happen? What would ever

happen if the officer, the police officer, who made a statement said he wouldn't

participate, but you had letters from your lawyer saying, when is the date,

we're willing to meet? What would happen? It'd be thrown out. But guess what, it

was never brought to the House of Assembly – never brought to the House of

Assembly.

So the

question I give back to the Premier – and you standing up that we all have a

higher standard to get involved. How many times did you ask your staff to get

involved with Bruce Chaulk? Who was it? How many people did he tell about it?

(Inaudible) you can answer it now, you wouldn't answer it before. How many times

did that person get in contact? How do we know that there was – were there any

notes taken? Can I get a copy of the notes? Can I get a copy of those notes?

This is the kind of stuff that myself and Dale Kirby went through in this House;

we went through it in this House.

I know

the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island, him and the Member for

Conception Bay South agreed to bring it to the Management Commission. These are

two PC Members. They didn't do it – they d