PDF Version

December 2, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 23

The

House met at 1:45 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Admit strangers.

Order,

please!

First of

all, I'd like to welcome guests.

As we

begin our broadcast today, I just want to remind Members of the comments which I

made to them in private session.

In the

Speaker's gallery today, I would like to welcome Mr. Robert Lambe, visiting us

this afternoon for a Member's statement. He is joined by Judy Lambe and Sheila

Strong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today, we have Members'

statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Conception Bay South,

Mount Scio, Mount Pearl North, Lake Melville and Ferryland.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

acknowledge a very passionate volunteer from Conception Bay South.

Ms.

Coralie Dodge of CBS earlier this year visited Gambia, in West Africa, where she

participated in her third Shoebox distribution associated with Samaritan's

Purse.

She

began her volunteer work with this organization in 2009 and since then it has

been her passion to place as many shoeboxes as she can in the hands of needy

children. Thus far, she has provided about 2,000 boxes herself and had the

privilege of distributing boxes in Costa Rica and Uruguay.

Coralie

is very passionate about this ministry, and shops all year long for sale items

and bargains. To offset some of the expense, she worked a second job, but having

to deal with a bout of cancer, she had to restrict some of her activities.

Today, she is doing well physically and always maintains a happy, positive

attitude. Seeing the joy and appreciation on the faces of these children,

inspires her all the more to keep on doing what she enjoys doing, which is

putting a smile on the face of a child.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Ms. Coralie Dodge

for her continued dedication to making our world a better place.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Scio.

MS. STOODLEY:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this

hon. House today to recognize Mr. Robert Lambe, a dedicated volunteer from my

District of Mount Scio. I'd like to thank Mr. Lambe for joining us today in the

Speaker's gallery.

Mr.

Lambe has been volunteering with numerous community organizations since 1974. He

was inspired to get involved at the age of 19 when he saw a Community Services

Council ad on a local TV station.

Over the

past 45 years, Mr. Lambe has been an active volunteer in goodwill centres,

nursing homes, hospitals, radio stations and with the Red Cross. Mr. Lambe is

continuing his efforts in the new year, getting involved with the Habitat for

Humanity ReStore and undertaking a 15-week training program through the

Alzheimer Society of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Most

notably, Mr. Lambe has been nationally recognized for his commitment to

volunteering. In 1996, he was awarded the Governor General's Caring Canadian

Award and, in 2016, he was presented with the Sovereign's Medal for Volunteers.

Selfless

leaders like Mr. Robert Lambe are critically important to our towns, cities and

communities. Their dedication and enthusiasm enables our community sector to

thrive.

I ask

all Members to join me in acknowledging Mr. Robert Lambe's volunteer commitment

and contribution to our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Mr. Speaker, the Duke of

Edinburgh's Award program is an international personal development program for

young people ages 14 to 25, regardless of gender, background or ability.

Introduced in Canada in 1963, the program currently attracts over 30,000

participants annually, and is operational in all 10 provinces and three

territories.

qualify for an award, participants must undertake a balanced program of

leisure-time activities and meet the prescribed standards in four different

areas of self-development, including community service, adventurous journeys,

physical fitness and skill development.

Mr.

Speaker, on November 26, I had the opportunity to attend a Bronze medal Duke of

Edinburgh Awards ceremony honouring some very deserving young men and women.

Over the

past year or so, these young individuals have been involved in many challenging

and worthwhile activities under the direction of committed volunteer leaders. In

speaking with participants individually, they told stories of personal growth

and commitment as they embarked on the various challenges and opportunities.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to congratulate Curtis Edwards and Desiree

Dolimont from Mount Pearl North, as well as all other candidates who were

presented with the Duke of Edinburgh's Bronze medals. I wish them well in their

Silver and Gold medal pursuit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Lake

Melville.

MR. TRIMPER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

stand here today, Lake Melville is engaged in a huge effort that, two weeks from

now, will deliver some 300 Christmas hampers to those less fortunate in our

communities. Participating in this tradition over the last 45 years is more than

an appropriate way to put all of us in a spirit of goodwill, and it started with

one man.

Roland

Shears was a popular high school teacher who taught mathematics in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay for many years. He believed in volunteering to support his

community. In the 1970s, he brought together several church projects to create

one extensive Christmas hamper program.

Named in

his honour, the program continues under the organization of his wife, Jean

Shears, Max Butler, Paula Dawe and Sterling Curl, who worked with the

Ministerial Association and the current chair, Kimberly Beers. Toys are

collected by local schools, churches and the bargain store; clothing and food

fill an ambulance at Labrador-Grenfell Health; and the CBC and Labrador

Friendship Centre organize a turkey drive – just a few examples of how dozens of

organizations are involved.

I ask my

colleagues to express their appreciation to all involved in the Roland Shears

Memorial Christmas Hamper Project that ensures no one goes without on the 25th

day of December.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to congratulate a constituent from my district, 17-year-old Kathleen

Murphy of Tors Cove, on being crowned Miss Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador

2019-2020.

The Miss

Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador Leadership Program is the province's

largest program for young women, which awards individuals for academics,

promotion of healthy living, public speaking, community service, volunteer work,

environmental awareness and performance-related talents. Kathleen is very

involved in her school and her community. She is the co-founder of the

environmental club in Mobile Central High School. As well, she is the

co-president of the student council. She takes

part in many other

extracurricular activities such as soccer, hockey, Girl Guides and tutors at

school.

Kathleen

was privileged to get the chance to compete at the school cheerleading worlds in

Orlando, Florida, and recently given the opportunity to emcee at the 2019 Junior

Achievement Business Hall of Fame. I would like to recognize two other

participants from our district: Kaitlyn Boyle and Brooklyn Kenny on their

accomplishments in this program as well.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in congratulating Kathleen Murphy on being

crowned Miss Achievement Newfoundland and Labrador 2019-2020.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to congratulate a remarkable team that has received

national recognition.

The

Exploits Hurricanes of Grand Falls-Windsor – who I understand are watching, so

we all say hello to those folks in Grand Falls today – recently returned from

Toronto, where they were honoured by Special Olympics Canada as the Team of the

Year for 2019.

Leads

Gary Wicks and Kim O'Neill, Second Tony Kryitsis, Third Margaret McNeil and Skip

Joshua Gardner have been curling together for about four years, under the

guidance of Coach Joe Tremblett and Assistant Coach Sara Pinsent.

Not only

are they enthusiastic competitors, but they also have a reputation as loyal

teammates and dedicated volunteers who embody the spirit of fair play.

Mr.

Speaker, when we highlight Newfoundland and Labrador athletes in the House of

Assembly, it is to acknowledge the hard work, dedication and passion they have

demonstrated in their respective sports.

Well,

Mr. Speaker, this team certainly exemplifies those qualities. In fact, this

honour tops off, what has already been, a very exciting year for them.

In March

2019, the Hurricanes won the gold medal at the Newfoundland and Labrador Special

Olympics Winter Games and this past spring, they were named 2018 Team of the

Year by their hometown of Grand Falls-Windsor.

Their

next big adventure will be representing Team Newfoundland and Labrador at the

Special Olympics Canada Winter Games in Thunder Bay, Ontario, in February 2020.

Mr.

Speaker, I invite all my colleagues in this hon. House, and all Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, to join me in congratulating the Exploits Hurricanes and

wishing them continued success as they represent our province in Thunder Bay.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. It is my honour to

stand in this hon. House and join with the minister to congratulate the Exploits

Hurricanes of Grand Falls-Windsor on being named the Special Olympics Canada as

Team of the Year for 2019.

Team

members Gary Wicks, Kim O'Neill, Tony Kryitsis and Margaret McNeil, along with

Skip Joshua Gardner and Coaches Joe Tremblett and Sara Pinsent, are a model

team. They have proven with team loyalty, dedication and playing fair your

accomplishments can be more than just winning. These traits are most important

for all athletes in all sports.

behalf of the Official Opposition, our congratulations go out to the Exploits

Hurricanes as we wish them every success representing Newfoundland and Labrador

at the Special Olympics Winter Games in Thunder Bay, Ontario in February 2020.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement, and I join the

minister in congratulating the Exploits Hurricanes on their many achievements,

including being named Team of the Year for 2019 by Special Olympics Canada.

I thank

all the coaches, athletes, volunteers and everyone involved for their passion

for the sport and for being excellent representatives of our province on the

national stage. It's a testament, certainly, to what it means to be a truly

inclusive society.

I again

congratulate the Exploits Hurricanes and wish them continued success in Thunder

Bay and beyond.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS. HALEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, on Monday, November 25, I had the privilege of joining our community

partners for the launch of the annual Purple Ribbon campaign, which aims to

increase awareness and responsiveness to violence against women.

Over the

last four years, our government has implemented significant legislative changes

to support women and girls facing violence. Last month, we approved legislation

commonly known as Clare's Law, which provides authority for police to disclose

information regarding interpersonal violence to a person at risk.

Budget 2019, we provided new funding

to establish a women's centre on the Northern Peninsula, Mr. Speaker. The NorPen

Women's Centre opened its doors in Port Saunders earlier this fall and is

already offering programs to women in the area. We also provided funding to the

Coalition Against the Sexual Exploitation of Youth, a program of Thrive

Community Youth Network.

The

Office for the Status of Women works every day with representatives from the

women's community, Violence Prevention NL organizations, Indigenous groups and

organizations, and multicultural women to identify collaborative, culturally

appropriate ways to address violence in our province.

We all

have a responsibility to end violence, Mr. Speaker. I ask everyone to join me in

pledging to work together to end violence in all its forms.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

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

Opposition, I join with the minister to support the annual Purple Ribbon

campaign, which aims to increase the awareness and prevention of violence

against women and girls.

Mr.

Speaker, gender-based violence is unacceptable. The status quo is not good

enough. Women and girls and many others in our communities are still not safe

enough. Violence is still far too prevalent, and that's not okay. We have to

find new and better ways to protect the vulnerable.

With

this in mind, I'm pleased to support the introduction of Clare's Law here in

this province and I look forward to the specifics of how the legislation will

work when it becomes available. I look forward to continuing to work with

community partners and members of our community to end gender-based violence.

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, and I

thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

It's

good to see legislation approved for Clare's Law, the opening of the NorPen

Women's Centre and funding for the Coalition Against the Sexual Exploitation of

Youth program.

As we

strive to end violence in all its forms, I look forward to seeing government

implement the calls for justice from Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and

Girls report. I also remind the minister of the need for a strong network of

domestic violence courts around the province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, may I say that I

applaud your remarks at the beginning and certainly will endeavour to follow the

spirit and the letter of those myself.

My first

duty is to direct my questions through the Chair. Sir, according to a CBC story

this morning, there was an investigation into the hiring of Carla Foote at The

Rooms.

I ask

the Minister of AESL: Did the Premier order or encourage you to hire this

individual at The Rooms?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all

saw the CBC report this morning. The report has not been tabled in this House of

Assembly at this point; I'm sure it will be. We always appreciate the work of

the legislative Commissioner and, of course, the Citizens' Representative as

well.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, when the report

is tabled, I'm sure we'll expect a full answer.

The CBC

story cites an investigation by the Office of the Citizens' Representative. Will

the Government House Leader support the release of the results and all documents

related to the investigation, and when?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

I'll remind this hon. House that the report has yet to be tabled. I'm sure it

will be tabled imminently, Mr. Speaker, and then we'll deal with the reports in

this House for as long as it takes.

I will

remind everybody in this House this deals with a human resource issue, and we

have to be respectful of the fact that this is difficult on that person's family

and themselves.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, the

answer was encouraging because my next question was to be: Will the Government

House Leader commit to keep this sitting of the House open to fully debate any

report which may be tabled?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

it is incumbent upon all of us to make sure that we do the work of the people of

this province, and if the House needs to stay open throughout the month of

December, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure all Members in this House will be willing to

sit.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Given that Mr. Brinton was

quietly fired without – or with, I should say, a payout from The Rooms – with

significant cost to the taxpayer – and that the position created for the

individual in question was for almost $30,000 a year additional salary, I would

ask the minister: What is the total cost of this patronage appointment?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you to the hon. Member for the question. This is a HR matter, dealt with through

the HR processes. I will not speak to that matter directly because it's a HR

matter.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We'll be

left, I guess, to do our back-of-the-envelope calculations. It's certainly in

the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Given

that this individual was inserted into a position at The Rooms against the

wishes of senior management and the board of directors of The Rooms, will the

minister finally admit to a gross abuse of his powers?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, it's troublesome

that we're trying to speak on this floor today of a report that's under

parliamentary privilege, and it's the responsibility of those who have seen that

report to remain under that parliamentary privilege.

I will

say, in a general sense, Mr. Speaker, it's not unusual within governments – over

multiple governments, not just the Liberal government, but over multiple

governments – that movement within the organization, including its Crown

corporations. It's not unusual. I'm going to be cautious in what I'm saying

because it is under parliamentary privilege.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I appreciate my colleague's

position as she just explained it, but I am following the well-established

practice of asking questions based on credible news reports.

Mr.

Speaker, does the Government House Leader believe the current Minister of AESL

should be removed from both Cabinet and caucus pending further investigation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

I can't deal with any

substance of any report until it's tabled, Mr. Speaker.

I will

say that it has been very reasonable across multiple governments that movement

of personnel from either core government or Crown corporations is not an unusual

circumstance, Mr. Speaker. I can say that.

I will

also say that as the report is tabled, we can get into the details of that

report, but I will remind everyone in this House, it does deal with a human

resources matter and we should be sensitive to that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Could the House be informed

whether the hiring of this individual at The Rooms was a decision of Cabinet or

rather was it directed by the Premier unilaterally?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

very, very, very difficult to speak of the substance of a report that has yet to

be tabled. There is an issue of parliamentary privilege in this House. I'm sure

you, as Speaker, will table that report in your due course and then we can get

into any substance of debate around that report.

I will

say that it is not unusual for executives to move across government, Mr.

Speaker. That practice has been happening for decades.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Sir, on July 23, the Minister of Finance was questioned about the firing of the

former CEO of The Rooms and gave this answer: These are two completely different

matters.

Will the

minister now admit that Mr. Brinton was forced out for resisting abusive power

by the minister's own colleagues after his 15 years of service at The Rooms?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

believe my colleague, the minister responsible for The Rooms, has already spoken

and addressed this matter. I will say that it is challenging to deal with human

resources matters on the floor. I understand the former CEO of The Rooms sought

to retire. He did outstanding service to the province over his 15 years tenure

as CEO.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Given that answer from my

colleague, would the government waive any confidentiality around the reasons for

Mr. Brinton's leaving of his position so that he can explain his own viewpoint

and give his own evidence on the matter?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

individual involved, Mr. Speaker, and government have mutually agreed to protect

his privacy and to not discuss the reasons involved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Medical Association says that government does not have a plan that identifies

how many family doctors are needed in this province. When the Medical

Association talks about a plan, they mean how many extra doctors are needed

right now and 10 years from now. They say 60 today and 250 over 10 years.

The

minister told the media he does have a plan. Well, where is it? How many doctors

do we actually need right now and 10 years from now? The 99,000 people without

family doctors deserve to know the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

We do

have a plan. I think we have agreed with the Medical Association that we cannot

agree on numbers.

This is

an issue of access. In the last four years we have put in place 12 primary

health care teams; the exact tool recommended by Dr. Peachey, not only in this

report for the Medical Association – which we've not yet seen in detail – but

also his magnum opus, as it were, in Manitoba where he went through the complete

system there.

We have

12 primary health care teams up and running or nearly complete. We have others

in the wings. We have spent $9 million on retention bonuses for physicians in

this province in the last five years. We provide $4.5 million annually to the

Medical Association to help with their Family Practice Renewal Program.

I see

you're edging to your seat, Mr. Speaker. I will sit down.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the

minister cannot tell us how many doctors are needed right now and how many will

be needed in 10 years. That, to me, means he does not have a plan.

If he

has a plan, he would also know how many patients there are without family

doctors. The NLMA says 99,000 people, many of whom phone Members of the House of

Assembly every day looking for a family doctor.

How many

patients does the minister believe do not have a family doctor? What research

has he done to nail down the essential – stating the point for his plan?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

Once

again, the numbers are subject to debate. The Harris Centre has yet a different

figure.

The

facts of the case are if you are a person who has lost a long-standing family

physician, you need access. We are working on access. The issue is around

getting people in the health care professions to work to their full scope of

practice. This was identified clearly in Dr. Peachey's report. In Dr. Peachey's

own figures, collaborative care models would increase our capacity in this

province by 50 per cent.

We have

currently the single, largest number of doctors per capita of any province in

this country. We have the largest number per capita of nurse practitioners in

this province. We need to get everybody working together, and that's our

challenge. That's our plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister says that Eastern Health has more family doctors than nine years ago.

What good is it to tell the 99,000 people without a family doctor that we have

more doctors than nine years ago? The facts are that the growth of our seniors'

population, the growth of chronic diseases is outpacing the growth of family

doctors.

Will the

minister commit to sit down with the Medical Association and develop a plan that

works for the 99,000 who don't have a doctor?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I would

estimate that we contact or meet with, in one form or another, the Medical

Association on a weekly basis. This is not two of us sitting on opposite sides

of MacDonald Drive shouting at each other, contrary to the impression that the

Member opposite might like to convey.

We are

working with the NLMA as partners in this. They have finally come around to the

agreement that fee-for-service models do not work for primary care.

Collaborative teams are the way to go, and we are funding them and we are

helping them to come up with that.

The

challenge is, Mr. Speaker, getting people from an old business model that was

entrenched in the last century and bringing them up to a collaborative model

where everybody works to their full scope of practice.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister talks about a new payment model for doctors. These will help the

situation, but he has delayed over two years from sitting down to negotiate

these things with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association.

Why

won't the minister negotiate? When will he start negotiating with the

Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

We have

a thriving relationship with the Medical Association through a group called the

Physician Services Liaison Committee. If I remember correctly, it was actually

set up in 2002. It meets on a regular basis. It makes significant decisions and

could be regarded – and in some ways by the Medical Association, is actually

regarded as an ongoing negotiation.

We are

simply now in the early stages of positional discussions with the Medical

Association. They need time to get their ducks in a row, we need time to get our

ducks in a row for our formal sit down collective bargaining thing. That will

happen after Christmas, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ninety-nine thousand patients in Newfoundland and Labrador can't wait to be in

the early stages of negotiations with doctors in Newfoundland and Labrador. The

Health Minister responded to the NLMA's report on family physician forecast by

saying: The only thing that we can agree on is that nobody can agree on the

numbers.

Instead

of wasting time playing a numbers game and denying there is a problem with

doctor shortages, will the minister take steps to implement real incentives to

attract more doctors to our province in a time of crisis?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

We have

taken real and concrete steps through Eastern Health. As of this week, there

will be two extra family physicians in a private clinic in St. John's. The NLMA

are working with Eastern Health through the Family Practice Network around

enhancing the services on Major's Path.

We have

actually delivered an extra 225 years of physician services to this province in

the last four years with our existing retention bonus system, Mr. Speaker. We

will build on that and there will be an ask in this year's budget to enhance our

bursary program.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

According to the Medical Association, the region of Conception Bay

North-Trinity-Placentia, which includes the District of Harbour Main, has the

most unattached patients in all the province.

I ask

the minister: Why have they failed to implement a physician human resource plan

to deal with the shortage of doctors in our region?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

authority to deal with future needs of a region rests in

section 16 of the

Regional Health Authorities Act and is

vested with Eastern Health. They have begun and actually are in the process of

dealing with the issues that the Member opposite raises.

One of

the challenges has been getting discussion underway with the NLMA about using

the electronic medical record so we can actually identify very easily whose

patients are rostered with which primary care provider. That is, as I understand

it, the flick of a switch. It's already being done in Saskatchewan.

Again,

this is not an issue where arguing over numbers is profitable. There are extra

clinics on hand in Conception Bay North, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

December 14, it is likely that the Bonavista hospital will be down to two

physicians, from the usual five, serving approximately 8,000 residents in the

area.

Can the

minister update us on the success of the recruitment initiatives for this area?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

By early

January, the net change to Bonavista will be, at most, minus one. One of the

individuals concern was an absence at short notice over family health. We have

recruited a physician who is currently undergoing some further training through

the College of Physicians and Surgeons. There is another position advertised,

such that by January, any net change will be down to, at most, one and service

will be maintained, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, there are

individuals in my district, and also throughout the province, that are waiting

for cataract surgery that will have to wait almost two years to get that

surgery.

I ask

the Minister of Health and Community Services: Can he confirm that there are

only three ophthalmologists left in the province that are performing surgeries?

If so, what is being done to clean up the wait-list and what is also being done

to recruit additional doctors?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Once

again, I think the Member opposite's numbers are inaccurate. I would be happy to

get him the latest snapshot, if that would help.

The

issue around access to cataract surgeries is being addressed. We have come to

the final stages of discussions about accreditation and safety issues for those

private clinics who wish to avail of the funding that is already available.

It is a

matter of safety, it cannot be rushed and it's very nearly complete, Mr.

Speaker. It will be done shortly.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, the potential

for our offshore is immense. As the minister repeatedly said, we have 650 leads

and prospects offshore; however, this province does not have the infrastructure

required to fully construct FPSOs or GBS.

I ask

the minister: What steps has she taken to improve our infrastructure and

facilities to ensure that our jobs do not leave and go elsewhere, or future

projects like we have with Bay du Nord will be constructed completely here?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is,

indeed, wonderful news that we have 650 leads and prospects offshore

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

We also have independently

verified 52 billion barrels of oil, Mr. Speaker, so there is tremendous

opportunity. It always reminds me of the Chinese proverb: The person who says it

cannot be done should not interrupt the person who's doing it.

I will

say that, Mr. Speaker, we have put in place a tremendous program called

Advance 2030 that outlines how we're

going to advance the growth of oil and gas. I applaud the Member opposite that

he should probably commit himself to that document, as all other stakeholders in

this province have done.

We've

tasked the new oil company, oil Co., to actually get in there and do supply and

service development.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, we all know

about Advance 2030 and, actually, I'll

ask a question: Does the minister believe that economies are better suited by

royalties or by jobs?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, in this

province, over the last three decades of our oil and gas industry, it has been

both. We have done oil royalties. We have done investments in our offshore that

are yielding money for the coffers of the province; it has been a royalty

regime, Mr. Speaker. The Member opposite might remember that it was under the

former administration that the royalty regime was actually solidified.

So I say

to the Member opposite, and I say to everybody in this province, we are well

served by a robust oil and gas industry in the province and we should be all

working together to develop it.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, I remind the

minister that it was never at the expense of one or the other. The previous

administration had 10,000 jobs constructing oil rigs.

Mr.

Speaker, we've all heard of the $100-million giveaway of the swing gates in

Argentia. Does the minister have a plan to install such infrastructure at the

Bull Arm facility or elsewhere so all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can

benefit from construction jobs in the offshore?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

I invite the Member opposite for a full briefing with my department at any time

so that we can go into depth and detail about all the things that we are doing

to grow the oil and gas industry here in the province. The Member opposite knows

full well that in offshore Newfoundland and Labrador, as we get into deeper

waters, it will be FPSOs. We have two of them already working in offshore

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I can

assure the Member opposite, as I can assure the people of this province, we're

going to continue to grow the oil and gas industry. I invite him to work along

with us and the over 250 stakeholders that helped up develop

Advance 2030 .

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, on November 13, the minister voted in favour of a private Member's

resolution for Newfoundland first initiative, to ensure that our residents

benefit from public projects and offshore oil and gas and other natural

resources.

I ask

the minister if she actually supports this or if she only voted in favour

because the gallery was full of hard-working Newfoundland men and women that

would be affected by the resolution?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that Member opposite just questioned my integrity, and

that is not acceptable in this House, I can say that. But we all know what

Socrates said: When the debate is lost, slander becomes a tool of the losers.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister: When will the fiscal update for the province be released and will it

be released before the House adjourns this year to ensure the minister can

answer questions about it in this hon. House?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

got an update today, actually, on where we stand with that. I know that

bureaucrats, the officials in the department, are working hard to complete the

fall fiscal update, Mr. Speaker. I know there's another piece of work to be

completed on that. Hopefully, within the next couple of days, Mr. Speaker, I'll

be able to provide the update.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. PARDY:

Mr. Speaker, 90 per cent of

the population of the District of Bonavista does not come under the direct

management of a regional waste management board. The district appears to be a

forgotten entity. Eight years ago, the Bonavista council was informed that

within two years they would fall under a regional services board.

Is there

a plan for waste collection for the vast majority of the District of Bonavista?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker, and great timing for that question.

The

process of reviewing the Waste Management Strategy for the province has been

ongoing. There's a lady by the name of Ann Marie Hann that has been doing it. I

should have the report within the next two to three weeks, certainly before

Christmas. At that time, all of the province – when I say all of the province, I

mean all of Newfoundland and Labrador – will be included under that strategy.

I look

forward to further conversation with the Member opposite because there are some

great things happening in the waste industry.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Time for a quick question for

the Member for Exploits.

MR. FORSEY:

Mr. Speaker, residents of

Wooddale area in the Exploits District have no Internet service and poor

cellphone service. This is a popular farming area for residents and farmers

being denied access to business opportunities because of lack of communication

services.

What is

the government doing to address this issue?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you

very much to the hon. Member for the question.

Connectivity is really important to our government. We've done significant work

in that area. I just recently announced one in the Corner Brook region there a

few weeks ago. The hon. Member opposite would understand that for sure.

The good

thing is we're forming relationships with community, industry and governments to

ensure that the connectivity is occurring, whether it be broadband or cell

service. This is really important and it's a very good question.

I'll be

willing to meet with the hon. Member any time to discuss this in more detail

because 45 seconds is not long enough, 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.

With

reference to the aforementioned news article, I ask the Minister of Advanced

Education, Skills and Labour: What exactly did the Premier tell him that made

him sidestep the required hiring process at The Rooms, invent a new position and

hire an unqualified person?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

again remind this hon. House that they are referring to a report that is not yet

tabled in this House, Mr. Speaker. There'll be ample opportunity for a full

debate around that report, but we would breach parliamentary privilege – and I

can tell you that I would not do that in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I look

forward to the response to this question once the report has been tabled.

I now

ask the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation: If government

will now vacate the position of executive director of marketing at The Rooms and

start over using the appropriate hiring process?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.

Member for the question.

I was

not in the role at the time when any decisions were made, but I have not had the

opportunity of seeing the report. Like anyone else in this House, I haven't had

the opportunity to see this report. I'd like to see the report and to at least

have the opportunity to look at that before answering any questions in the House

of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour: Should the accusations

prove true once the report is tabled, will he do the honourable thing and

resign?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

making a lot of references today to a report that has yet to be tabled. While we

all appreciate the work of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards and the

work of the Citizens' Representative, it has yet to be tabled. We can't get into

the fulsome debate around the report. We're going on a media

article this

morning.

I can

say again, that it is not unusual procedure within government and within Crown

corporations over multitudes of decades – not just in the recent decades, but in

many, many decades – to move people around as the need exists.

Mr.

Speaker, I do remind again that this is a human resource issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the cost of power – electricity – food, rent, medication, phones has

gone up. By contrast, income support has not increased in five years.

I ask

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour: Will he immediately raise

income support to assist people caught in this squeeze?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the Member opposite for the question.

Certainly, something that we do every single year is we do a review of the

income support rates. One thing we have done and that we committed to in the

election this past year was to ensure that everybody in the St. John's Metro

area would have a bus pass which would make access to medical care and other

services more affordable, and that's something we're firmly committed to do.

We'll be

looking at the rates that exist when it comes to income support because,

certainly, we want to make sure that we're looking after the most vulnerable in

society, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, after paying

essential bills, some recipients – and I've met a few of them – on income

support are left with $40 a week, that's $5.75 a day for food.

I ask

the minister: How exactly does his department determine, what is an adequate

amount of income support?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, when we review our income support benefits they are all based on

various calculations that take place. They are based on cost of living and

comparisons across the country.

One

thing that we have done as a government is we've put in a low income benefit, a

Newfoundland and Labrador Income Supplement and an enhanced Seniors' Benefit. We

are taking measures. There are some specific supports that are in place to help

people in certain situations such as dietary needs, fuel supplements that are in

place to help people who have outside, extraordinary circumstances.

Income

support rate benefits are based on individual circumstances. Some with families

would avail of the federal child tax benefits that exist as well, and we've just

put measures in place to enhance that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period

has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

MS. COADY:

Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER:

Point of order, the hon.

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

approximately 2:22 this afternoon the Member for Terra Nova questioned my

integrity and that is contrary to Standing Order 49.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

understanding in listening to the questions asked, he never questioned the

integrity of the minister. What he had asked, does she agree with the process

that was put in play while voting for that? Does she still agree with what she

voted for?

MR. SPEAKER:

I will take this matter under

advisement and report back to the House at a later time.

Presenting reports by standing and select committees?

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

In accordance with

section

38(1) of the House of Assembly

Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act , I hereby table the report

of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards entitled,

The Mitchelmore Report , November 13,

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Cannabis Control Act, Bill 19.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

The hon.

Leader of the Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice of

the following private Member's motion, which will be seconded by the Member for

Windsor Lake:

WHEREAS

democratic reform is an important issue facing our province; and

WHEREAS

many individuals and organizations living in our province believe our democracy

can and must be reformed, modernized and strengthened; and

WHEREAS

the All-Party Committee on Democratic Reform, struck before the last election,

has too narrow a mandate and is not the best mechanism for achieving meaningful,

non-partisan democratic reform; and

WHEREAS

a better approach to democratic reform would be to establish a non-partisan

select committee on democratic reform that works on behalf of and reports

directly to the House of Assembly;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House urge government to disband the

All-Party Committee on Democratic Reform; and

BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED that this House establish a select committee on democratic

reform with a mandate to review and make recommendations on voting systems and

methods, voting age, funding of political parties, the role of third party

groups in election campaigns, timing and date of elections and other items at

the committee's discretion; and

BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED that given this select committee needs to be and must be seen

to be non-partisan in nature, that the select committee consist of the

following: two Members of government, two Members of the Official Opposition,

two Members of the Third Party and an independent Member, and that the chair of

the select committee be elected from within; and

BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED that the House consider how to ensure the select committee has

the resources it needs to conduct this work.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant

to Standing Order 63(3), the private Member's resolution entered by the Member

for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, shall be the one debated this Wednesday.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Answers to

Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, during

Question Period, the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked me a question. I didn't

quite hear the end of the question. I've since heard it.

The

former CEO was compensated 11-months salary based on the termination of that

process or the movement of him from the position. I just wanted to make sure

that was for the record.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before

we get into petitions, I rise on a point of privilege. O'Brien and Bosc are very

clear, which are the legislative authorities and the procedure and practice of

the Legislature of the House of Assembly, as well as the House of Commons.

Under

the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, there are some types of

contempt. This was written in the O'Brien and Bosc book. I'm going to use this

as one of the most serious, egregious issues around protected documents and

privileged documents – I'm quoting from the book itself – “divulging or

publishing the content of any report or evidence of a select committee before it

has been reported to the House.”

Today,

in Question Period and throughout, I guess, this morning, there has been public

debate around a report that has just been tabled – literally, just been tabled

in this House. There have been a select few in this House of Assembly – a very

select few, Mr. Speaker – who would have had access to that report prior to your

tabling it today.

I can

say that I think that it is a breach of privilege of all Members of this House

and a breach of parliamentary practice that is very serious and could even be

considered contempt of this House. I ask the Speaker to review the matter and

make his considerations.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to respond to the point of privilege here. As was asked from the House and from

the questions that were asked here from our Leader, they were all relevant to a

report that broke early this morning – I heard it a little bit later and some

other Members didn't hear it until we got in caucus – relevant to certain pieces

of information. What was asked in the House here was about clarity. Was there

any substance to it? What was the discussion?

We now

have the report itself in our hands, so I guess we'll very quickly, and so will

the media, get an opportunity to see what pure clarity is and what fact is

separated from fiction.

On the

note, I take exception because, as the minister noted, there are only a number

of people who would have access to this that we know of. Obviously, from the

printing process to the editing process, there's no doubt there's probably a

number of other people who may have it, but I take exception that there may be

an inference here that certain people who are on certain committees might have

access to this, Mr. Speaker.

All I

know of, and I can vouch for my colleagues on this side, is that the media broke

a story that has some information, from looking at the report, that seems to be

accurate and there may be some question on some other pieces of that

information. We welcome the Speaker to look into this situation and if there's

any wrongdoing, to expose that, Mr. Speaker. But I think there's a bigger issue

here that we need to get to and it's about the contents of this report.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

A brief point to add to that,

Mr. Speaker. It's my understanding that the news

article that I read did not

reference this report in particular, but instead referenced the Citizens' report

which I believe is an appendix to this, which is still privileged, but I want to

just make a point that that's a very distinctly different group of individuals

that would have received those reports.

Just to

point out that it's not necessarily this report, it was the Citizens' report

that has been referenced, so I think that that might mean you need to look in a

slightly different direction when you're trying to find the space for it.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess

I just wanted to concur with what has been said. As one Member of this House of

Assembly, I think it's very, very disturbing that we're seeing these reports and

that the media could get a hold of this. I don't know how they got a hold of it

but, as we move forward, we're going to be talking about, at some point in time,

a new policy, a harassment-specific policy.

We did a

briefing this morning on it and we can come up with all the policies we want,

but we need to have trust in whoever has their hands on these policies, and

that's not necessarily Members of this House. It's possible if someone had

access to it but, as has been said by my colleague from St. John's East - Quidi

Vidi, in the news

article it referenced the Citizens' Rep report, not this final

report.

somewhere between there and this document reaching this House of Assembly, that

information got out to the media. That should concern every single Member of

this House of Assembly. Politics aside, it doesn't matter; every single Member

should be concerned about that. I really urge you, Mr. Speaker, and whatever we

have to do to try to get to the bottom of that, because I certainly can't have

confidence as one Member as we move forward on any reports or any processes –

and we're talking about confidentiality – if someone is going to be able to leak

information. Information that I don't even get to see.

We were

talking about this this morning. There's information I wouldn't even get to see

under our new protocol. If a report was made in the future under this new

policy, it goes to a Committee of the House. I don't get to see all the details

and know even the Members who were involved. The Member who was accused, not

whoever might be making accusations, not who the witnesses are.

I don't

even get to see it but I'm expected to vote on it and vote on sanctions, which

is a concern itself, which I will raise when we get to debate. But to know that

the media, or anybody else for that matter, can get their hands on this private,

confidential information is very, very disturbing.

whatever we need to do to address this – whether it be at the Citizens' Rep

office, whether it be amongst ourselves – wherever it needs to be, we need to do

it because we cannot allow this kind of thing to happen in the future or we will

have a process that nobody here can have any confidence in.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to

speak on this, because I'm even mentioned in this report for some reason. I'm

going to speak on this here, and I'm actually in the report. Shocked. So I just

want to talk about the leaking.

I know

there was a meeting April 25 with the Premier, a certain Member and staff, and

it was leaked to the media. Mr. Speaker, then it was on the House of Assembly

floor that afternoon. The Joyce Report they're talking about. A media person

tweeted they had a copy of the report at 1:45 p.m. I received it at 3:40 p.m.

Now, to

even make matters worse for me – you talk about confidentiality, and I heard the

government talking about confidentiality. I have a letter signed by the Premier

that he was speaking to Bruce Chaulk to find out when the reports are going to

be released – and I couldn't even find out.

When the

government opposite wants to talk about confidentiality of these reports and you

have your own Premier of this province contacting Bruce Chaulk and saying, what

are the timelines for these reports – when I don't even know. So it's very

important as Members of this House of Assembly, that if we're going to have

confidentiality of these reports, that it be upheld. I was tarred, feathered,

kicked out, booted out, everything before there was an allegation even made –

two months later, and you talk about confidentiality.

We have

the Government House Leader – and I agree with the Government House Leader.

There should be confidentiality. There actually should be confidentiality.

AN HON. MEMBER:

One hundred per cent.

MR. JOYCE:

What?

AN HON. MEMBER:

One hundred per cent.

MR. JOYCE:

One hundred per cent.

Mr.

Speaker, I have to speak on this here because when the Government House Leader

is talking about confidentiality, you should turn to your right and ask your

Premier to respect my rights as a person, as a Member of this House of Assembly

with confidentiality and stand up and apologize.

Mr.

Speaker, this is very important because I'm in this report, and this is about

confidentiality. Apologize for contacting the chair of the legislative

commission and asking, when will the reports be released? We're talking about

confidentiality, but the Premier wrote himself and said, on occasion we have

contact. It's very important on confidentiality, very important.

I heard

the Government House Leader in Question Period when you said, well, this family

is involved. How come no one opposite thought about that, about me and Dale

Kirby? You can see, Mr. Speaker, how this becomes so political with the

outstanding reports that we have here, and everybody wants to talk about

confidentiality.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I ask

the Member to take a seat.

MR. JOYCE:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

I'll let you know if you're

finished, but take your seat while the Speaker is standing.

I think

the point of privilege that has been raised here is whether the Opposition, in

their questioning, leaked the report. I've heard some comments from both sides

of the House on this matter and I think we've had enough deliberation for us to

make a decision, unless a Member has a serious point they want to make in

relation to this that hasn't already been made.

I'm

going to give the hon. the Member for Bay of Islands a few minutes to conclude

his comments, just a few minutes. I ask him to get directly to his point that

relates to this point of privilege.

MR. JOYCE:

What I would recommend – and

the Government House Leader is concerned, and I agree with you 100 per cent,

confidentiality is so important. Why don't we hire someone to do an

investigation to try to find out how this report got out and how the Premier of

the province interfered with the last report to get dates? Why don't we do that

and bring it back to the House of Assembly? That's a good recommendation. Let

everybody in this House go out and hire an independent body to come in – if we

have to hire the RNC. This is extremely personal and important.

If your

Government House Leader is very serious, why don't you now make a motion in this

House to have the RNC or someone come in to find out how this report got out and

how the Premier of the province had the right to contact Bruce Chaulk and get

permission from the other report on confidentiality, which I couldn't get, which

my confidentiality has been broken.

So i

you're going to do it, let's do it for everybody, not just pick and choose

because you think it's a chance to pick on the Opposition. The Premier of the

province did it himself.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before

we conclude and you deliberate, I just want to make sure – because a Member

opposite did indicate that I may have made an accusation. I did not. I just

think that the Speaker has to, on behalf of the integrity of the House, on

behalf of all Members of this House and on behalf of the process of this House,

determine what occurred, that this report was – not this report, but some report

that was privileged to this House would have been sent to other parties without

it being tabled here first.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

In your

précis of the comments made during the exchange on this point of privilege, it

may be apparent or it may be perceived by a reasonable person that the scope in

which you see this to be confined to the questions of the House during Question

Period of today's sitting. I believe the hon. Member raising the point of

privilege took exception not just to the events of Question Period today, but in

a more specific and larger issue, which is the divulging of a document,

divulging of information which would be privileged, which would be held and kept

by the House for equal provision to all Members.

There

are several foundations in which this House as an institution are borne on, one

being just the essential nature of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the

central – central – convention or constitution which we all hold, but we all

recognize there are limits to that freedom of speech on the floor. This is where

points of privilege and points of contempt are taken, where we codify those

events. Because to limit freedom of speech, it has to be done in a way that

meets with the general satisfaction of all Members.

When

information is divulged that is not equally shared by all Members

simultaneously, Members are no longer equal. Some Members have access to

information, some do not and this is where the contempt – when in consideration

of this matter of privilege and contempt, as O'Brien and Bosc points out in

their treaties document: “The United Kingdom Joint Committee on Parliamentary

Privilege attempted to provide a list of some types of contempt in its 1999

report” to our mother House. Within that codified list, “divulging or publishing

the content of any report or evidence of a select committee before it has been

reported to the House” would be a contempt or a breach of privilege.

Mr.

Speaker, on the finer point of whether or not it was the Citizens' Rep or the

other committees, you cannot do through the back door what you can't do through

the front door. So if there is a breach of the Citizens' Rep's report, which is

the foundational document to a Committee of the House, I would say to you, Mr.

Speaker, that this House holds as a guiding principle that you cannot do through

the back door what the House specifically forbids you from doing through the

front door. So therein lies the breach of privilege or may be defined as

contempt of the House.

Information was conveyed by someone – a select group or individual – that held

that information and had it available to them. It was conveyed outside of the

normal scope of the tabling of the documents in question. It created an inequity

between Members; some Members had it, some did not and some Members had to take

questions on this issue as early as this morning because it went into the public

domain when they had – such as myself – no access to that information. Therein,

Mr. Speaker, lies the breach of privilege or the contempt of the House.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

We're going to take a brief

recess to review this matter, and we'll be back to the House with a ruling.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Are the House Leaders ready?

The

House Leader for the Third Party ready?

Order,

please!

I would

like to rule now on a matter raised by the Government House Leader with respect

to the apparent release of a report of the Citizens' Representative. O'Brien and

Bosc, third edition, on page 142 states: “A complaint on a matter of privilege

must satisfy two conditions before it can be accorded precedence over the Orders

of the Day. First, the Speaker must be convinced that a prima facie case of …

privilege has been made and, second, the matter must be raised at the earliest

opportunity.”

With

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

has raised the issue within the time required. The press report was this

morning, and the matter of the release of information in question is still

evolving.

With

respect to the first condition, prima facie simply means: apparent on its face.

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

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

before the House warrants priority consideration over all other matters, all

other orders of the day that are before the House.”

Maingot

on Parliamentary Privilege , page 227,

puts it this way: “Does the act complained of appear at first sight to be a

breach of privilege…or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If

the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should…leave it to the House.”

I find

that there is a prima facie point of privilege by way of contempt. Discipline of

Members is part of the privileges of this House, and those Members have a right

to the information contained in such a report before it is released to the

public. I ask the Government House Leader to move her motion.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

your Table Officers for your deliberation.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that the matter raised as

a question of privilege by myself earlier today and the responses made be

referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and the Committee

submit its report to the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER:

We're going to begin this

debate; but before we begin, I just want to say this motion is very restrictive

and I want to keep the debate relevant to this motion itself.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

As I

said earlier, there is a breach of parliamentary privilege. We have an onus upon

all of us here in this House to ensure that reports that are privileged should

not be released prior to all Members of the House reviewing. I can tell you that

most Members in this House would not have seen the reports and would have woken

this morning to no knowledge of same.

Mr.

Speaker, I think it's important that we refer it to the appropriate committee

for their review, deliberations, discussions, and for them to report back to

this House of Assembly.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

trying to get some clarification here. Are we referring the report to the

committee to look at the content of the report and the issues here, or are we

referring or deflecting the issue about the report itself and how it got to the

public domain?

I'm

asking for clarification on that before I speak to it again.

MR. SPEAKER:

Maybe the hon. Government

House Leader can –

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much.

I'm

happy to stand and provide clarification. This is a matter of privilege of a

report that should have been tabled and given to all Members of the House before

it was deliberated on externally; therefore, it is on the question of privilege

that we're referring it to the Privileges and Elections Committee.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

concur. We would welcome the Elections and Privileges Committee having a look at

any information that gets put out to the public domain before there is an

opportunity to have a discussion in this House of Assembly. We wholeheartedly

agree with that, but that doesn't diminish from the content of this report. That

has to be dealt with in a timely fashion also, Mr. Speaker.

So we'll

go on record that we support that the Elections and Privileges Committee would

have an opportunity to look at that. I look forward to it; I'm a Member of that.

I look forward to us finding the process here and finding exactly how we prevent

information from getting out there and to what degree this information got out

there as part of it; but we need to have a debate also on the issues relevant to

this report in the very immediate future, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Before the Member for Bay of

Islands speaks, just for clarity, this motion is to send the matter of contempt

to the Privileges and Elections Committee. The report still has to be concurred

in by this House – the report that was tabled today.

The hon.

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just

going to stand for a few minutes and support this here, because I feel on many

occasions many of our rights are being jeopardized and put out in the public

domain without even an opportunity to speak on your behalf or, in this case now,

it's out in the media today before it was even tabled.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm glad you set this precedence, because now there are other ones that

can be brought forward. I'm glad of that, because once you determine in this

House that this here somehow got to the media, I trust now that my rights also,

later when I stand, will be reviewed also. I highly support this 100 per cent

that, yes, we should put this to the Standing Committee on Privileges and

Elections to find out how this got leaked to the media. I support it 100 per

cent.

I have

to say to the Members opposite, to all the Members opposite who are supporting

this, where were you when there were other reports that were leaked that you

wouldn't stand? So if we're going to represent the rights of all Members in this

House, you can't do it on political bias. If we're going to keep the integrity

of this House of Assembly and support this motion – which I am going to do,

support this motion – we have to ensure, for the integrity of the House of

Assembly, that you support all motions when there is stuff that's leaked in the

House of Assembly.

So I

will be supporting this motion, because, again, I always feel due process is the

proper way to handle these complaints. Due process is to give everybody an

opportunity to speak in this hon. House, to speak on the report and have a few

words on the report, Mr. Speaker. So I have no problem. As someone who went

through this, who never received due process, it was out in the media that

afternoon, whose report – and why this is relevant, very relevant is because the

reports themselves, the Premier of this province had access to these reports

before I did. Not access, he had confirmation when they were being delivered.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm trusting, when I stand up in a few minutes on a point of privilege

also, that you send this to the Committee how the Premier of this Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in a letter tabled in this House, which everybody in

this House agreed to, how he could speak to Bruce Chaulk and ask Bruce Chaulk

when the timing of these reports were coming out, when my lawyer could not find

out these reports.

So I'll

support this, and I hope I'm going to get the same support, Mr. Speaker, when I

stand in a few minutes on a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Corner Brook.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

There

are two important considerations to be held by the Privileges and Elections

Committee. One is, of course, to determine if there can be a course to

investigate and uncover the perpetrator or perpetrators to the contempt to the

House. That would be one element to this, but recognizing, without prejudging,

what the circumstance or what the evidence may lead to in this particular case,

we all hope that the perpetrator and perpetrators of the contempt that has been

displayed to this House will be found, whomever they may be.

The

second element to this may be to ensure that this not happen again. That

measures are put in place to be able to prevent this kind of contempt from

occurring again. That may be restrictions on information exchange, not limiting

the scope or access to the Members themselves, but whether or not they can

retain it. There's a basket of different measures, because my privileges, as a

Member of this House, were obviously treated in a contemptuous fashion.

None of

us here want that to be able to continue. We recognize that sometimes it is

difficult to uncover who those perpetrators were of the most egregious – one of

the most egregious offences to the House would be a contempt, so we recognize

that this has to be resolved. Sometimes it may not be easy to find the

perpetrator or perpetrators, so it would be yourself and the Committee to

investigate whether or not there should be mitigatable measures to ensure that

this does not happen again.

Like I

say, Mr. Speaker, when the collective privileges of the House are treated with

contempt, I can think of no higher order of malfeasance, given the traditions of

this House.

With

that said, given your point of reference, which you shared with us today, I

think it's very important that we all take this matter very seriously. The two

issues can be held. They are separate. They are not interchangeable, per se.

They can be held. They are distinct from each other. We need to deal with both

and there's been no suggestion by anyone on this side of the House that one

supersedes the other.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

going to speak long, but I do want to concur with what my colleague just said.

We're going to be voting to send it to Privileges and Elections. Obviously, it's

going to be very challenging, I would suggest, for that Committee to actually

determine who leaked the information. It's going to be a challenge at best. They

could probably, possibly interview some people and ask some questions or

whatever, but let's face it, it's going to be difficult. Nonetheless, I think

it's important that we take this step regardless of that, because at least it

sends a message. It's symbolic, if nothing else, the fact that we're saying that

it's unacceptable.

To pick

up on the point that my colleague just raised, which I think is a very, very

important point – one that I wasn't necessarily thinking about at the time, but

he raised a great point – and I say to the Members of the Committee, as he has

said, this should be as much about, or maybe even more about mitigation.

Mitigation measures that can be put in place to stop this type of thing from

happening again. Because it's going to be very difficult to find out who did it,

and I wouldn't want the Committee to go into this process and say, well, we

interviewed a couple of people or whatever, we looked up a bit of information,

we couldn't find out who did it, end of story. Because that probably is what's

going to end up happening in the end.

I would

say to the Committee, do your due diligence in that regard, but let's focus on

anything we can possibly do, any safeguards that may not be in place, security

measures, whatever it might be. Sign offs – if someone's going to get something,

maybe everyone's got to actually sign something. No more electronic sharing of

data. It's got to be hard copies signed and witnessed, whatever the case might

be, to put those type of measures in place to protect this information. Because

as I said earlier, this could affect any single Member of this House. It doesn't

matter what side of the House you're on, it affects us all, and what happened

was absolutely unacceptable.

I would

also say if we do find out who did it, there has to be a severe consequence to

that. If it's someone in this House, there has to be a severe consequence. If

it's someone outside this House, they need to be fired, as far as I'm concerned.

It's not acceptable.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further speakers to this

motion?

Is the

House ready for the question?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, point of

privilege.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand

on a point of privilege, the same as the Government House Leader. I tabled a

letter last Thursday about the Premier actually being in contact with the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards on timelines, which is against all

protocols.

This is

my first opportunity, because I tried to ask questions in the House before and

they were turned down. Mr. Speaker, you set the precedent just then that we can

stand and it can be asked. This is my first opportunity to raise this after

tabling a letter last Thursday and you, yourself, just stood and said that these

investigations can go ahead.

Because

of the circumstances where there is a letter signed by the Premier himself

stating that, on occasion, he did contact Bruce Chaulk, I feel I need to know

what information was given, when it was given. Even my lawyer couldn't get that

information, yet for the Premier of the province to stand and have access to

this information and I don't know what information was given, how many times

they were in contact, how many people contacted, who it was shared with.

I'm

asking all Members opposite if you're going to do it now for a Member – which I

agree with by the way; I agree with it – here's an opportunity now, Mr. Speaker,

also because you set the standard just then that my first opportunity – because

I tried to raise it in the House before, it was shut down. I tried to raise it,

Mr. Speaker; couldn't even get to ask the question. So this is my first

opportunity here now, following your ruling just a few minutes ago that all of

our rights here in this House should be honoured.

I need

to know the information. If we're going to do this properly, Mr. Speaker, you

need to stand up and rule that yes, my rights have been violated. If not, Mr.

Speaker, if you're going to rule against me again, just another example of how

all of our rights here in this House of Assembly are not the same. It's all

according to where you sit.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

We're going to take a short

recess to examine this case as well. We'll take a short recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Are the House Leaders ready?

Order,

please!

I would

like to rule now on this matter raised by the Member for Humber - Bay of

Islands.

As we

stated in the previous point of order, O'Brien and Bosc third edition on page

357 states: “A complaint on a matter of privilege must satisfy two conditions

before it can be accorded precedence over the Orders of the Day. First, the

Speaker must be convinced that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has

been made and, second, the matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity.”

With

respect to the timing to the point of privilege, the Member has not raised the

issue within the time required. This matter was raised by the Member on November

13, 2019 and the Member had numerous opportunities to raise the point of

privilege in the House since then.

therefore rule that there is no prima facie point of privilege.

Thank

you.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, these are the

reasons for this petition:

The Blue

Beach Harbour Authority wharf and infrastructure is located at Blue Beach near

Black Duck Brook. The road to Blue Beach includes 10 kilometres of unpaved and

unmaintained roadway. The road to Blue Beach is used by more than 20

fisherpersons and their buyers to transport nearly $3 million in product each

year. As well, farmers and tourists use this road to access their farms and to

enjoy the breathtaking scenery of Long Point.

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

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

Newfoundland and Labrador to consider repairing, upgrading and maintaining the

10 kilometres of unpaved road to Blue Beach in the District of Stephenville -

Port au Port.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a small

section of road that currently gets provided with some

fill and one grading in the spring of the year. All summer long, from the spring

to the summer to the fall, the road is used constantly by the fisherpersons in

the area, it's used by tourists and it's used by farmers. What we're asking for

is not for this road to be paved or anything like that, but merely that the

government consider plowing this road on a more regular basis, in terms of fill,

and maintaining it, perhaps three times: once in the spring, once in the summer

and once in the fall.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

it's great to get back to government business, I have to say.

WHEREAS

the rainstorm of January 2018 caused major flood damage to Route 450, South

Shore Highway in the Bay of Islands, and there are areas of the highway that

still have not been repaired, including pavement repairs through sections of

John's Beach, clearing of debris from the gabion baskets, the tender for Cammies

Brook Bridge replacement and other necessary work throughout the region was not

done, and where the conditions of the road are causing safety concerns for

motorists;

THEREFORE, we, the undersigned, call upon the hon. House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure all urgent repair work and

other upgrades are included in the Department of Transportation and Works tender

call for the 2020 construction season and carried out immediately in the spring

to ensure safety and the well-being of the motorists using the highway.

Mr.

Speaker, I know the minister is here and I just want to say that route in to

John's Beach has been fixed in the last four or five days. They did send crews

down to get that done. That was a major area of concern for a lot of motorists.

I just want to recognize that that has been done. There is other work that needs

to be done, and I have a commitment from the minister that it will be done early

in the spring.

Also,

for the request for review and proposals for the next phase of the five-year

plan that I have personally submitted the reviews from the concerned citizens of

the South Shore for Route 450, I have put them on the portal and I will be

bringing them to the minister's attention. I know the gabion baskets are being

worked because, again, when the spring comes and then the rocks come down, you

need it cleared so they just don't go rolling on over.

I just

want to advise the people of Route 450, and the minister also, that there has

been work done. The road is much safer now in the last couple of weeks for that.

I look forward to continuing discussions with the minister to make further

improvements.

I know

there's a tender coming out to do John's Beach on the rural northern fund, and

also to do parts of Mount Moriah. I know Cammies Brook Bridge, which was heavily

damaged during the rain storm, the tender should be coming out to start that

this spring.

So I

just want to advise the residents that the department is hearing their concerns

and there will be work done and the roads will be safer – they are safer now in

the last two or three weeks, and they will be safer in the spring.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

This is a petition regarding

parent representation on the steering committee on deaf and hard of hearing

education.

WHEREAS

following the closure of the Newfoundland School for the Deaf in 2010, deaf

children have been systematically deprived of their right to an education,

equitable to that of hearing children.

Deaf

children have been deprived of the right to their first language, American Sign

Language.

Deaf

children are being socially isolated in mainstream school designed for hearing

children surrounded by hearing classmates who cannot communicate with a deaf

child in or outside their classroom.

The

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development has recently announced a

steering committee to review these problems and propose solutions; however, a

formal written request to have parent representatives on this steering committee

has been declined by the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

THEREFORE we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to mandate the Department of Education

and Early Childhood Development to include parent representatives on this new

steering committee to ensure transparency and accountability to the primary

stakeholders for any discussions, namely their deaf children.

Secondly, to ensure that the chosen parent representatives are knowledgeable in

the aspects of deaf education through their personal experience with the current

delivery system of education to deaf and hard of hearing students in the

province and currently have a deaf child in the school system that requires

American Sign Language.

Mr.

Speaker, parents of children would compare this, I guess, in some ways to

francophone education. We have a francophone school board, which is for those

children who are rights holders to an education in their language in French, but

it's more than that. It's just not about language, it's also about the culture

and it's how we best meet the needs.

In many

ways, if you could imagine if you were to say to those who are rights holders to

a francophone education, to an education in that language, if we were to say

provide interpreters. What these parents are looking for is basically something,

at least representation here on this committee to ensure that the rights of

their children to an education, to a deaf education, to deaf culture, to the

proper supports are in place.

I can

tell you that inclusion is more than just simply forced integration. It's about

providing the necessary supports that are needed for all, so that parents can

see the one thing they want for their children, and that's the ability of their

children to succeed.

Right

now these parents are looking for a parent representative on this committee to

make sure their experience, the experience of their children, are taken care of.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

With a response, the hon.

Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly have respect for the hon. Member's petition and it's a priority for

our department and the district. We met with the parents, Mr. Speaker, and

listened to their concerns. A steering committee has been struck. There are

representatives from various organizations, including the Newfoundland and

Labrador Association of the Deaf, the APSEA, the Canadian Hard of Hearing

Association, and recently, Mr. Speaker, we engaged the Child and Youth Advocate

as well. There are members from the department and from the district.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm here to say that families will be heard. I will guarantee that they

will have an opportunity to provide their own perspectives into this steering

committee.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Motion 4.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that pursuant to

Standing Order 11(1) that the House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock on Monday,

December 2.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that the House is in favour of the motion.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion

3. I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board:

BE IT

RESOLVED that in accordance with subsection 8(8) of the Standing Orders, the

spring 2020 sitting of the House of Assembly shall commence on March 2, 2020 and

end on June 4, 2020, but in all other aspects the Parliamentary calendar for

2020 as issued in 2019 shall remain unchanged.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion has been moved and

seconded.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From the

Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 9.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Service NL,

An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance

Act, Bill 9, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that Bill 9,

An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, now be read

a third time.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER:

The bill is now read a third

time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order

Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act,” read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion

2. I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment:

BE IT

RESOLVED that the House of Assembly concur in the final report of the Standing

Committee on Privileges and Elections on the Development of a

Legislature-Specific Harassment-Free Workplace Policy dated April 8, 2019.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that this motion does carry.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is

important work that is carried over from the last Assembly. Mr. Speaker, the

former Privileges and Elections Committee put forward a report arising out of a

private Member's resolution. I do note that you were Chair of that Committee in

the last session and I thank you for your great work on the Privileges and

Elections report.

I also

want to note the former Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi was the

Vice-Chair of the Committee, the former Member for Ferryland, as well as the

current Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave and, of course, the former

Member for Stephenville - Port au Port. They put a lot of work, a lot of time, a

lot of effort into developing a new process to deal with specific issues arising

out of a Harassment-Free Workplace Policy.

Mr.

Speaker, tremendous work has been done. There was an extensive amount of

consultation, extensive surveys, questionnaires, and a lot of work was done. A

portal was developed and all Members of this hon. House had an opportunity for

input. All Members of this hon. House current have also had the opportunity for

a briefing on this report.

So the

Committee is newly struck. It has a new Chair, and happy to have the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment as the new Chair of the Privileges and

Elections Committee. I know they'll continue to do great work.

The

former Committee presented its final report to the House of Assembly on the

development of a Legislature-Specific Harassment-Free Workplace Policy, which

includes the proposed policy, along with recommendations related to the Code of

Conduct for Members and other consequential statutory amendments. It recommends

the House concur in the report and its recommendations.

The

proposed policy, combined with the proposed amendments to the Code of Conduct

and the House Of Assembly, Accountability,

Integrity And Administration Act , will ensure all complaints of harassment

are dealt with in accordance with the process outlined in the policy, as opposed

to the Code of Conduct; which was developed taking into account the sensitive

nature of harassment and relationship-based issues.

The

final report of the Committee follows many months of analysis, consultations and

deliberations. The Privileges and Elections Committee recognizes the importance

of this work, as well as the expectation that the Legislature must lead by

example in this area. The proposed policy is intended to create a cultural

shift, Mr. Speaker, foster a better work environment and hold elected officials

to the highest standards of behaviour.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll walk through, for the benefit of those watching and for the

record, what some of the proposed policy highlights are. The application of the

policy will apply to complainants of harassment filed by an MHA or an employee

where the Member of the House of Assembly is a respondent. Employee is defined

in the proposed policy and includes employees of both the Legislative and

Executive Branches, including political support staff.

The

definition of harassment is based on the definition in the interim process that

was put in place by the Management Commission from the Executive Branch

Harassment-Free Workplace Policy, with a definition of bullying added. It

includes abuses of authority, discriminatory harassment, sexual harassment and

bullying.

The

complaint process outlines a clear process for submitting complaints, as well as

the steps and associated timelines once a formal complaint has been received.

There is also a resolution process and formal investigation process and includes

informal and formal resolution options and assigns responsibility for the formal

resolution of the investigations with the Citizens' Representative.

It also

outlines the principles that will be applied by the Citizens' Representative

during an investigation, as well as associated timelines. It also outlines the

process, once an investigation is complete, with referral of the final

investigative report to the Privileges and Elections Committee which has the

responsibility for recommending sanction, if warranted, of the respondent MHA.

The

process for the Privileges and Elections Committee in recommending sanction, the

Committee's deliberations and the final report will be conducted in camera for

privacy purposes, Mr. Speaker. While their final report to the House must

identify the respondent MHA, it will not disclose the identity or any

identifying information of the complainant or witnesses in the process.

The

Committee's final report, including the recommendation for sanction, will then

be referred to the House of Assembly for debate and vote. Provision is included

to protect the identity of the complainant and witnesses during debate of the

Committee's report in the House.

There is

a confidentiality provision, Mr. Speaker. The confidentiality provision seeks to

respect confidentiality to the extent possible, keeping in mind the principles

of procedural fairness. It also includes a process for disciplinary action

against an MHA or employee, should it become known that confidentiality has been

breached.

There's

also mandatory training for MHAs, which all of us in the previous session have

already completed, Mr. Speaker, and it is mandatory for newly elected MHAs. It

also includes a requirement that any Members who have already completed the

training attend refresher training once per general assembly.

The

Privileges and Elections Committee does not have the authority to recommend

policy direction with respect to reimbursement of legal fees, as decisions on

financial matters fall outside its mandate. Authority rests with the House of

Assembly Management Commission and Treasury Board.

The

Privileges and Elections Committee is making recommendations that the Management

Commission and Treasury Board, as outlined in the report, determine policy

direction, as appropriate, on the reimbursement of legal fees.

Gender-based issue and power dynamics are examples of how the Committee applied

both of these lenses in its development of the proposed policy. Definition of

discriminatory harassment prohibits harassment on the basis of sex, sexual

orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status and family

status. The definition of sexual harassment prohibits harassment that is gender

based.

There's

an establishment of an independent support advisor, which will be another avenue

through which to seek support and guidance relating to gender based and power

imbalance concerns. There's a requirement for the intake officer to have

specific skill sets to receive and provide advice on complaints of harassment.

prohibits reprisal and retaliation against any MHA or employee who has alleged

harassment, made a complaint or participated in the proceedings under the

policy. Further, it stipulates that any reprisal or retaliation may be subject

to disciplinary action.

There

are proposed amendments to Principle 10 of the Code of Conduct, Mr. Speaker. The

Committee reviewed the principles and related legislative provisions of the Code

of Conduct for Members of the House of Assembly, particularly in respect to the

separation of harassment/bullying from the Code of Conduct.

The

Privileges and Elections Committee recommends that Principle 10 be amended as

outlined in its report. It is of the view that maintaining Principle 10 as it

currently exists would result in a situation where a complaint of harassment

which is relationship based would have to be investigated under the Code of

Conduct, should a complaint be received under the process. It will ensure that

complaints of harassment which are relationship based are dealt with in

accordance with the process outlined in the proposed policy, which was developed

taking into account the sensitive nature of harassment and relationship-based

issues.

The

proposed amendments to the Code of Conduct provisions in the process of the Code

of Conduct in the act currently provides four ways for an investigation to be

initiated.

Section 38 of the act sets out the process for reporting once an

inquiry under the Code of Conduct has concluded.

When an

investigation is initiated by the Premier, it follows a different process than

if it was initiated by a Member, the Commissioner or the House of Assembly,

which is dealt with by resolution. Any Member of the House of Assembly,

including the Premier, has the ability to request an opinion of the Commissioner

about another Member as it relates to the Code of Conduct. The Committee is of

the view that it is not necessary for the Premier to have the ability to

initiate a review that would follow a different reporting process than if it was

initiated by any other Member.

The

Committee is proposing an amendment to the

House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act , as

outlined in the report, to repeal subsections 36(4) and 38(2). In order to give

effect to the proposed policy and to ensure that all harassment-related

complaints are dealt with under the proposed policy, not the Code of Conduct,

the Committee is also recommending a number of consequential statutory

amendments to the House of Assembly

Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act , as outlined in the report.

Mr.

Speaker, as this report was tabled in April of 2019, there is one small

amendment that does arise. The policy as tabled was intended to come into force

at the beginning of the 49th General Assembly. As this is no longer a viable

commencement date, the date of April 1, 2020 is proposed so that the Citizens'

Representative can make the necessary administrative changes and so the bill

proposing consequential amendments to the

House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act can be

brought forward to debate.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this one small amendment to what we're debating today is

I move, seconded by the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, that the

proposed Legislature-Specific Harassment-Free Workplace Policy tabled by the

Privileges and Elections Committee on April 8, 2019, be amended by deleting the

effective date in the proposed clause 18 and by substituting the following:

Effective Date.

This

policy and its related processes will come into effect on April 1 of 2020.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, that is solely to give time to ensure that the Citizens'

Representative can make the necessary administrative changes and so the bill

proposing consequential amendments can be brought forward for debate.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker. I think I've outlined the processes by which this report has

come to the Table and I've moved that amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

That's an amendment to the

original motion.

We'll

take a few minutes to review that motion.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Are the House Leaders ready?

MS. COADY:

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes.

Members

of the Third Party ready?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes, okay.

The

amendment is in order.

Is the

Government House Leader speaking to the amendment?

MS. COADY:

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes, okay.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, thank you very

much.

It's

pretty much a friendly amendment on behalf of all of us here in the House in

that the time – obviously, the 49th General Assembly is already underway. All

we're doing with this very small amendment is setting a time so that the process

can take place by April 1, 2020.

I think

everybody has had a chance to review this. This has been circulated previously,

Mr. Speaker. Everyone has been briefed to it. So on that point, I will take my

seat and allow the debate to begin.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just

going to stand and speak on the amendment and the report because it is all

encompassed in one. I support the amendment because, I guess, I was the one who

caused a lot of this. Myself and another person, apparently, caused all this

bullying and harassment stuff in the House. They had to get this report

together. So this is where this came about.

They

wouldn't bring it in the last time because the election was going to be called

in April, to be honest about it. It had nothing to do with the report; an

election was going to be called in April and they were scared to bring this up

because I might have a few words with the Premier. That's why it wasn't brought

up, to be honest about it. So let's be frank with the discussion on all this.

I just

want to go through some of the pieces in the report, Mr. Speaker. In general, I

agree with a lot of the recommendations in the report, in general, but there are

a lot there that I have a major problem with.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to speak frankly and I'm going to speak honestly about this.

One of them is confidentiality. Here we are today in the House of Assembly and

we're now – the Privileges and Elections Committee to do an investigation on

confidentiality. Just think about that. Here we are legislators in this House,

the confidential report that is supposed to be out against a colleague, about a

colleague in this House, and we're going to do an investigation and we're all

supposed to be honourable in this House of Assembly.

Mr.

Speaker, my concern with that – and I go on my own experience. When we asked

questions this morning on that: What if the confidentiality is broken? What if?

It goes back I think to the election readiness committee, Privileges and

Elections Committee. What are the sanctions? What are the major sanctions if

someone breaks confidentiality in this? What are they? We have to make them

strong enough so it doesn't happen.

I'll use

myself for an example, Mr. Speaker. I'll use myself for an example, just a prime

example. I walked in the Legislature last year, everybody in the House of

Assembly knew what was happening. What's the confidentiality? It's a major

issue, because what happens then – and I'll use myself for an example again.

What happens is by the time you take an issue and then the issue is put out in

the public without any explanation, then all of a sudden it becomes like a mob

mentality. It's a big scandal that rocked the House of Assembly – rocked the

House of Assembly. That was the big issue last year.

What did

it turn up? What did it turn out? Someone said I love you while you're out

drinking beer somewhere and someone else said someone handed me a résumé for a

13-week position. The big bully and harassment, but the mob mentality, because

it was all put out in the public domain at the time. You walked in the House,

the first thing you're out of Cabinet. The next thing you know you can't sit in

caucus, and the former Speaker is saying you should take a break because the

heat is too high in the House of Assembly.

What's

the repercussion? What are the repercussions for anybody who leaks any part of

the report? Are they severe enough to ensure that it doesn't happen again?

Because the minute it is leaked, Mr. Speaker – and I can tell everybody this,

the minute it's leaked, whoever it's leaked about is put at a disadvantage and

the process is out the window. There is not a fair process.

That's

just the first part about that, Mr. Speaker, is the confidentiality part. We

have to – and I don't even know, the House Leader can speak to it when she has

time. What are going to be the major repercussions? Are we just going to put it

back to the Committee and say, okay, you guys decide what they're going to be?

This is a prime example of why I'm saying from experience, and even what

happened in the House of Assembly today, you can't leave it up to judgment.

I know

how politics works and I can tell you, I don't care if it's PC, NDP or Liberal,

if you're over there and one of your own buddies – and you know someone leaked

something, what are the chances? If you're – one of your friends, you're going

to say, well, let's really give it to him. Let's stand up for it if it's not in

legislation.

If the

PCs were on that side, on the government side, and someone leaked it, what's –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. JOYCE:

No, but the chances are, and

this is very serious, you're going to end up saying someone is going – might put

pressure and say, let's just take it easy now. He's going to sit with us and we

have to have him around.

This

happens, and this is not knocking anybody here. Because if you have the leniency

to do it for your friend, you have the leniency to do it in the House, it's

going to be done. This is why we can't say we're going to leave it up to the

Privileges and Elections Committee – we can't do it. We have to put guidelines

in and say if you're found leaking stuff, you have to have repercussions. Here

are the repercussions. You can't leave it up for a whim. You can't do it. I can

assure you, it can't be done.

If you

look at any process that happened here in the House of Assembly lately – and

I'll just use me for an example. Before I even received a complaint it was all

over the media. I never even received a complaint – never did, two months later.

This is why about leaking, however you do it. Can you imagine someone taking

you, moving you from your job, doing everything and never receiving a complaint

about it and it's all out in the media?

This is

why I say to the House Leader, on a serious note, we cannot just leave it up to

a Committee to decide – and it's all according to who it comes to – what the

repercussions are. I'll just give you a good example again today.

When

this report was put in the House today, we know it went to a certain number of

people. I'm assuming the Management Commission and a few staff people were aware

of it and whoever did the reports. I don't know, seven or eight people – eight,

nine, 10 people. Can you imagine – it got out somehow. Can you imagine if this

report comes out now with, what, two Members – three from the government side,

one from the Opposition and one from the Third Party, and someone doesn't like

what's being recommended? How long is that going to take to get out? How long is

that going to take to tell your fellow colleagues?

This is

why we have to have repercussions. You have to have repercussions, Mr. Speaker.

Forget me, I'm fine. I'm more than fine, I can assure you that. Just look at

down the road, if there are issues with staff down the road, if there are issues

with MHAs down the road, this is what I'm concerned about. If we're going to

keep the integrity of this House of Assembly, we have to look at a process

that's going to protect everybody. Right now, I can assure you what's in this

proposal – and this is very serious – it doesn't come up with the repercussions

if someone is leaking information.

One of

the biggest parts of this here, of the report, is the process and the

confidentiality of the process. I agree with it; I agree with the

confidentiality of the process. I agree with the process that's put in place,

but you have to have repercussions if someone steps out of that process. If you

look at any profession that you're into, you look at any profession that any of

us are into, there are rules. If you step outside those rules and someone is

injured, or if you cause damage to somebody, there are already repercussions in

place. But in this report here, there's none. Bring it back to the Committee,

see what they're going to say.

That is

a major concern for me, Mr. Speaker. I'm looking at if there's a case against an

MHA, or even if it's a government employee who makes it against an MHA or

political staff, whoever it is, they are not protected under here because there

are no repercussions. That's a major concern that I have. I just wanted to

highlight that as a major concern for me, for the government when the government

wants to make any more recommendations on the report and any more sanctions on

the report to put some muscle into it to make sure that it's done in the

confidence of everybody and whoever comes forth.

Because

I just know how it works. You look at any process whatsoever, if you have

someone who wants to come forward and they see someone's name put out in the

media and then there are no repercussions of that happening, you're going to

stop people from coming forward. That's what's going to happen, I can assure

you. But if someone in this Legislature – and I just use the Legislature for an

example – had confidential information and they reported it and they were found

and had reported and they say you have to leave this House for a month, I can

guarantee you no one in here is going to leak it anymore.

That's

what we need, Mr. Speaker, to ensure the process is going to be fair for

everybody. So I urge the government to look at that and not leave it on the whim

of the Privileges and Elections Committee because it may change, and it may go

on, whichever government is in power, whoever got the majority.

This is

not negative towards anybody, this is just human nature, and then pressure comes

on people, people talk because we are colleagues and all that. So that's just

something I ask the Government House Leader to look at.

Another

thing I'm going to look at is the application of policy, Mr. Speaker. I find it

kind of strange. I'm just going to read here on page 7, I just want to read this

and I find it strange, actually. I know none of the government Members are going

to stand up and say anything to support me on it, and I understand where you're

coming from, I understand that.

“The

proposed Policy will apply to

interactions that an MHA has with

other MHAs ….” I really thought that

was there with Principle 10. I always thought that was there. So why are we

putting that in here? Why are we putting that sentence in this report?

Do you

know why? Because Principle 10 didn't apply to MHAs and how they treat MHAs –

didn't apply. This is why the Elections Committee – it does get to the point,

Mr. Speaker, where the government themselves, right here, on page 7: “The

proposed Policy will apply to

interactions that an MHA has with

other MHAs and employees ….” It just

spells it out between MHAs.

Why is

that there? Will someone stand and – Mr. Speaker, you were the Chair of the

Committee, and I don't know who else was left on the Committee. Whoever is the

Chair now, I don't know if it's the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Are you the

Chair of the Committee now? Yeah. Can you explain why that's there? Can you ask

someone to explain why that's there, why it changed?

Do you

know why it changed, Mr. Speaker? You know, Mr. Speaker, we had discussions. Do

you know why that changed? Because Principle 10 that was applied against me

wasn't supposed to be applied. That's why that's there.

Can you

imagine now government is admitting that Principle 10 don't apply to

interactions with MHAs. Now, how do you feel? Your government is admitting right

here on page 7 that this here is going to be interactions between MHAs. If it

was already there in Principle 10, why would you bring it in? Because it was

never there, and this is part of – I was talking about the mob mentality that

happened back here in April 2018. Allegations made; Opposition had it;

confidentiality was gone, out the window; asked questions that afternoon; all of

a sudden, the media took hold to it; House of Assembly rocked by allegations;

everything blown out of proportion; we have to find something here; Principle 10

gone. The government now is saying, no, no, no, we have to straighten this out.

I'll say

to the Chair, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, page 7 of the report, it

states: “The proposed Policy will apply to

interactions that

an MHA has with

other MHAs ….” Right in the report. I

know you're not going to stand up, no one is going to stand up and say we

changed it. I know no one's going to stand up, yeah, that's why we changed it,

but, Mr. Speaker, you were the Chair and you know our discussions, and that's

why this was brought in.

I just

want to acknowledge and have it on the record that once again this whole process

– and this was started with confidentiality. By the time it leaks out, by the

time it gets out, by the time people like Tammy gets a hold of it, then what

happens then? The mob mentality takes over. I know this happened also to my good

friend Dale Kirby. This happened to Dale Kirby, also. The mob mentality of it

all, that, oh yeah, here's what happened. Next thing you know, Dale Kirby – can

you imagine, Mr. Speaker? Can you imagine, here we are in this report and we're

talking about confidentiality? Here's a man kicked out of Cabinet and caucus,

boom, before a complaint was ever made, but this is all confidentiality. What

repercussions do we have? Absolutely none. Shameful, actually. It's actually

shameful, Mr. Speaker.

Here's

the other thing, and I agree with this, by the way. I agree with this here: “The

PEC's deliberations of the final investigative report will be conducted

in camera , and while their final

report to the House must identify the respondent MHA,

it will not disclose the identity (or any identifying information) of

the complainant or the witness in the process .” In theory, perfect. In

theory, Mr. Speaker, if someone did something so severe that there were issues

that should be taken up in this House, it should be the person. I have no

problem with it whatsoever.

I ask

you a question, and this goes back again to confidentiality. I'll just use me

for example, again. What if I couldn't stand up and defend myself in this House.

What if I couldn't? I'll just give you a good example, prime example. What if I

couldn't call the Minister of Municipal Affairs and say: By the way, did I bully

you? What are you talking about? You're in the report. What are you talking

about? And you see, the language came back to me of how distraught he was.

Imagine if I couldn't speak to him and I didn't know and he was in the …

Mr.

Speaker, do you know the other person that was in the report that apparently I

bullied? And I'm not picking on this last report, this is just factual. If I

wasn't allowed to personally be identified, do you know who it was? It was you –

it was you. Apparently, I bullied you. When you did the report, when you did the

investigation, what are you talking about?

Do you

see why, Mr. Speaker, that everything here –and if I never had that opportunity

to go out and speak my mind after being out in the media so much and being

leaked so much. It's great in theory, but every person has to have an

opportunity to defend themselves. As legislators, legislative people here, the

only chance we have is in here or the courts. That's the only way.

Once I

got the report, if I couldn't notify the people that were being bullied – and

there are others, a lot of others. The minister of industry, trade and rural

development, it turned out I bullied him. He wrote me a letter and said, what

are talking about? I don't know what you're talking about.

Now, if

I wasn't allowed to speak to those witnesses and they were in the report,

everybody was saying: My God, how bad was this guy? So this hamstrings the

person, this hamstrings your defence. If you don't have the ability to find some

way to get the information out, it's serious.

That's

three in this House. I have more. I have a lot more, but that's just three: you,

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Indust