PDF Version

March 6, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 49

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Today in

the public gallery, I would like to welcome the mayor and council for Port

Blandford. We have with us the mayor, Chad Holloway; Wince Peddle; Navanda

Harris; and Cyril Bennett.

A very

big welcome to you, folks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

For Members' statements today

we will hear from the Members for the Districts of Topsail - Paradise, Exploits,

Torngat Mountains, Stephenville - Port au Port and Baie Verte - Green Bay.

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, when the Paradise Warriors Peewee B hockey team saw an opportunity to

help a fellow warrior, they didn't hesitate to step up. The Paradise Warriors

Peewee B hockey team was recently selected as a semi-finalist for the Chevrolet

Canada Good Deeds Cup. The Good Deeds Cup is a national initiative that

encourages peewee division hockey players to do good deeds in their community

and then submit a short video that highlight their endeavours.

This

past November, the team became aware of their fellow Paradise Warrior, Charlie

Druken, who for three years has been battling a disease which is difficult to

diagnose, and had to travel to Toronto Sick Kids Hospital for special medical

testing.

The

Paradise Peewee B team did not hesitate to step up and to give back to help

their fellow Warrior. The team hosted a novice hockey tournament, held a 50/50

draw to raise funds to help offset travel costs. By working together, they were

able to raise just over $1,600 for the family. But the good news doesn't stop

there. As a result of being selected as a semi-finalist, Chevrolet Canada will

donate $2,000 to a charity chosen by the team.

Mr.

Speaker, I congratulate the Peewee B Warriors for their compassion towards their

teammate and wish Charlie a speedy recovery.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Exploits.

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. John Antle, principal of Exploits

Valley Intermediate in Grand Falls-Windsor, who is one of 40 educators from

across the country being recognized as Canada's Outstanding Principals of 2018.

Mr.

Antle has worked in the education system for 20 years, with the last nine being

at Exploits Valley Intermediate. John resides in my District of Exploits and EVI

is in the neighbouring district of Minister Al Hawkins of

Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

Mr. Antle's outstanding leadership has facilitated the

implementation of the Positive Behavioural Intervention Strategies, which

rewards students on a weekly, monthly and yearly basis. Academic and behavioural

achievement is celebrated at school assemblies with positive student behaviour

being acknowledged every Friday with ‘Gotchas.'

Since the PBIS and also a new web-based behaviour

management system, which recognizes student contribution to a safe and care

school environment, was put into practice, academic achievement and student

well-being has improved significantly. Suspensions at the school have been

reduced from 147 per year before the new program, to three in 2016-2017. John

also works to maintain the well-being of his students through coaching,

breakfast programs and adding additional co-curricular activities.

Of course, Mr. Antle shares credit for this

accomplishment with his administrative and teaching team at EVI. He was

nominated for the award by the vice-principal, Darren Woolridge.

I would ask all hon. Members to join me in

congratulating Mr. John Antle and his staff and students at Exploits Valley

Intermediate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR.

EDMUNDS:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very special person from my district. Joan

Dicker has spent 38 years teaching students kindergarten and Inuktitut at Jens

Haven Memorial School in Nain.

In addition to a busy and committed career as a

teacher, Joan has played a huge role in volunteering for special and annual

events in her home community of Nain.

Preserving the Inuktitut language is important to Joan

because she believes language is everything in her community; its people, the

culture and the traditions which she helps keep alive by ensuring that Inuktitut

continues to be taught.

Joan is featured in advertising for the Newfoundland

and Labrador Teachers' Association's “Teachers Change Lives Every Day” campaign.

Or, as Joan would say: Ilinniatitsijet Inosinik Asiangu Itsisot!

The campaign video shows the long-lasting impact that Joan

has had on people in the community. Her students have gone on to create programs

to preserve, promote and protect Inuktitut. They feel the need to give back to

the community in the same way that Joan has.

I ask all Members to join me in saying: Vakummek, and

congratulating Mrs. Joan Dicker on her illustrious career as a home-grown

educator.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. FINN: Mr.

Speaker, this past December I had the great honour of addressing graduates of

Piccadilly Central High at their cap and gown ceremony. Multiple awards were

presented that evening for top academic marks in various subject matters and a

number of scholarships followed as well.

Cole Tallack, the son of Morgan and Nadine Tallack of Cape

chemistry and world geography and was subsequently named the Top Academic

student. This humble young man was also the recipient of the Centenary of

Responsible Government Scholarship, the Memorial University scholarship, the

Town of Cape St. George scholarship and the Port au Port Economic Development

scholarship for a total value of $3,750.

Cole is currently enrolled at Memorial's Grenfell campus in

Corner Brook, and while he is taking general courses this semester, he has told

me he has a keen interest in the field of environmental engineering.

I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Cole

Tallack on his academic accomplishments and wish him every success as he

completes his post-secondary studies.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

MR. WARR: Mr.

Speaker, seven schools participated in the team event at the 2018 School Sports

NL Varsity Table Tennis Provincials hosted by Roncalli Central High, Avondale.

Bride's and Pilley's Island. Four schools also joined the weekend to participate

in the individual events. Teams were from Sheshatshiu, Bay d'Espoir, Port Rexton

and Clarenville.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Dorset Collegiate

Huskies, from my district, for their outstanding play, winning 20 straight

matches and capturing the championship banner. This is the fourth straight year

that this small school from Pilley's Island has won the provincials.

Congratulations to individual event winners. Girls Singles:

Brianna Warren, gold; Boys Singles: Ty Winsor, gold; Girls Doubles: Brianna and

Sarah Warren, gold; Boys Doubles: Riley Vincent and Devin Roberts, bronze; Mixed

Doubles: Ty Winsor and Haley Elliott, gold.

Special accolades to level Ill student, Brianna Warren, a

most decorated table tennis player at the local, regional, provincial and

Atlantic levels, as this represented her last opportunity to participate at the

high school level.

A special thank you to teacher/coach Mark Warren and

assistant coach Brandon

Roberts for all your support.

I ask

all hon. Members to help me congratulate the Dorset Huskies.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, March is Fraud

Prevention Month in Newfoundland and Labrador, and this year marks the 14th

anniversary in Canada.

The

month-long crime prevention initiative is aimed at educating and informing

consumers and communities on how to recognize, report and stop fraud. It unites

more than 80 law enforcement agencies with public and private sector

organizations across the country in efforts to raise awareness and protect

Canadians from fraud.

This

year's theme is Recognize it. Report it. Stop it. and speaks to the need for all

of us to be vigilant when it comes to fraudulent activities and report any

activity that does not appear to be legitimate. In 2017, our government

implemented a Fraud Management Policy which provides guidance to employees on

reporting of fraud and processes for management to follow when they become aware

of fraudulent activity.

During

Fraud Prevention Month, and every other month of the year, our government is

encouraging consumers to take time to learn about ways to protect themselves

from fraud. Anyone wishing to have more information on consumer protection can

contact the Consumer Affairs Division in my department, or email

consumeraffairs@gov.nl.ca .

Mr.

Speaker, the cost of fraud can involve more than financial losses and may also

result in the loss of property and personal security for victims. We remain

committed to raising awareness about fraud and providing consumers with the

tools and information they need to identify and avoid fraudulent activity.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her

statement. Mr. Speaker, we also are pleased to recognize March as Fraud

Prevention Month. Unfortunately, fraud is the sad reality of society. There are

a lot of scams and fraudsters out there looking to take advantage of people,

either through stealing their money or even their identities. We have to ensure

that people are aware of the potential to be scammed and everyone needs to do

their best to make sure we're all protected.

Also, it's very important that any examples of fraud be

reported, that everyone becomes aware so that the headache and suffering caused

by these activities are reduced. We can all do our part to protect ourselves and

raise awareness to others of this important issue.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. This is an extremely

important issue. I join the minister in commending the efforts of the many

individuals and organizations involved in fraud prevention initiatives this

March and year-round. People's lives are affected by this issue.

In an

increasingly online world, it is important to increase fraud prevention literacy

so that people feel empowered to recognize whether what they see online is

authentic and defend against a growing number of online scams.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our

government is seeking input from residents throughout the province to help

inform the drafting of new public health legislation.

Current

legislation is outdated, with some sections not having been updated in more than

50 years. Mr. Speaker, the goal is to develop a new, more modern piece of

legislation that is aligned with recent best practices in public and population

health from across the country.

encourage everyone to take

part in the consultation process. The deadline for

response is Monday, March 19. People wanting to participate can visit

engagenl.ca .

Once an account is created, they will be able to participate in any future

consultations conducted by the provincial government. Other ways to participate

include providing written submissions through regular mail or by obtaining a

hard copy of the online questionnaire online by calling 729-0724. Emailed

submissions can also be sent to

healthinfo@gov.nl.ca .

The

provincial government will also hold a targeted stakeholder meeting later this

month. Invitations to that meeting will be sent this week.

We have

an opportunity to develop a comprehensive piece of very important provincial

legislation. I am very interested to hear people's views on public health and

what they would like to see as part of the new legislation. I look forward to

its introduction in the House of Assembly this spring.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of his statement. It's encouraging to hear that

the government says it's open to input from residents of the province. Health

care is perhaps the single most important issue in this province that affects

every single individual from birth to death, and everyone should be engaged.

With any

legislation, it is created with good intentions and is prepared to deal with

issues and circumstances relevant to a certain time period. As time passes,

legislation needs to be updated and made relevant for the time in which we live.

Legislation, in most cases, is a living document which evolves over time.

encourage citizens to participate; however, I am concerned that the process is

rather restrictive with only written submissions and a limited targeted

stakeholder meeting. There seems to be a lack of face-to-face opportunity for

citizens to be engaged and participate. We need to make certain that the process

is as open as possible so we can get input that we seek that will create the

legislation we need.

I look

forward to the government adopting ideas from the general public and

incorporating it into important pieces of legislation that would impact us all.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm delighted to see

that our public health legislation is being updated with an eye to best

practices across the country. In terms of the consultations, I see some

limitations. I would suggest an option be available where the questionnaire and

the booklet are very accessible to those who don't want to register to form a

portal.

I also

believe there should be multiple stakeholder meetings, some with a diverse

group, others with single groups of professionals and of the public. I think

this would ensure better consultation in the end.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, a $400,000 grant awarded to a company owned by the Premier to develop a

housing project was awarded in July 2016, eight months after the Premier and the

Liberals formed government. The Premier disclosed that he had his hands on the

process by suspending all progress until his holding company was established and

the blind trust was established.

So I

asked the Premier: When was this conflict of interest in awarding $400,000 to

your company raised with you as the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As you

know, this is a loan, still exists as a loan, as has been mentioned before. It

was a merit-based decision that was made by the former premier of the province,

who is now the Leader of the Opposition. It was his government that actually

conditionally approved that application on a number of criteria options.

Mr.

Speaker, I was not involved in any of the construction, not involved with NLHC

or nothing. Everything was proactively disclosed from the shareholder's point of

view. When I became Premier of the province, I suspended this so we could put in

place, to make sure, put belts and braces in place that there was no conflict at

all for me as a shareholder. All of which there was a transition into a blind

trust. This was put in place to make sure there was no conflict before any money

would have flowed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, to

correct the Premier, it was actually a conditional approval and a conditional

process. Conditional meeting the conditions of the contract. It was a forgivable

loan. And once a loan is forgiven, then it's a grant. So it's going to be a

grant, Mr. Speaker. The Premier suspended the progress for this $400,000 grant.

The concern was flagged and raised with the Premier, and that's why he put

things on hold. So the Premier said he saw the conflict of interest opinion from

the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.

Premier:

Will you table that opinion today?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

said, from start to finish here we've now given this to the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards. It was indeed a conditional approval based on certain

criteria.

For the

Member opposite to suggest that this is forgiven, it is wrong. He knows it's

wrong. It was his government that conditionally approved this.

As a

matter of fact, that loan still exists, I would imagine, as I have no

visibility; this is currently within a blind trust. But if the loan exists and

it's for a certain period of time based on criteria, I could not tell you today

where that loan exists because I have no visibility into the blind trust.

The

Member opposite knows exactly what he's talking about. This is with the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards, Mr. Speaker. I've already said that

we'll make that information public once the work is completed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

the Premier just said it was conditionally approved because that's what

happened. The final approval did not happen until he was in office for eight

months.

He, as

the Premier, and his government were the ones who approved this $400,000

forgivable loan which is a grant. It becomes a grant. The Premier should know,

he received one in 2009. He received a $400,000 grant back in 2009. That was the

same process, same rules that happened on this one, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier: If the conflict of interest opinion was provided from the

Commissioner, why won't you just release it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm a

bit surprised that we're stood up here again this week answering these same

questions after the Premier answered them on multiple occasions last week.

I think

it needs to be pointed out again to the public that this was a loan. There were

60 groups that received loans, all approved by the Member opposite's minister,

the Member opposite's department, the Member's opposite's government and his

hand-picked CEO of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

I would

note that the Premier has, again, for the second time, referred this to the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards. I think we have to end off with this.

The Member said in an interview this weekend that John Ottenheimer had concerns

but it's funny, because when you review the file there are none in writing.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official

Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

It doesn't mean he didn't

raise them, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the question was very simple. I suppose maybe what I'm hearing here –

because the Premier is not answering the question if he will release the

opinion; maybe he doesn't have one. If he can correct me, he certainly may.

I ask

the Premier: Was the $400,000 forgivable loan – which becomes a grant once

you've met the conditions, the $400,000 grant – was that actually specifically

discussed and reviewed with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards? Was the

Commissioner aware of the contract requirements? Not the conflict of interest

rules for the House of Assembly, but was the Commissioner aware of the contract

clause that prevents an MHA from benefitting from such a grant?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier has answered multiple questions on this. In fact, before this was all

ever in the news, I would point out that the Premier went above and beyond and

actually disclosed all this proactively to the Commissioner for Legislative

Standards. But just to assuage any public concern that there might be, he's done

it again and we await the investigation or review or whatever that's going on,

which I'm sure will turn up nothing.

I would

point out that the Member opposite said that his hand-picked CEO John

Ottenheimer had concerns about this. Now, a review of the file indicates that

Mr. Ottenheimer chose not to disclose anything to anybody in Housing or put

anything in writing. So I ask the Member: When did Mr. Ottenheimer tell you

this?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've

never said that Mr. Ottenheimer did tell me this, Mr. Speaker. I never ever said

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, the

Premier doesn't want to answer any questions on this here today. He answered

one, but now he's putting up someone else, even though it's him who says he had

the conversations with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards but he won't

answer to it.

The 2016

contract that was entered into with the Premier's company has a stipulation that

no provincial MHA shall be admitted to any share or part of any contract,

agreement or commission made pursuant to this agreement or to any benefit

arising therefrom.

I'll ask

the Premier: Will you do the right thing and repay the $400,000 grant or, if you

want to call it, a forgivable loan – will you repay the $400,000 that was

awarded to your company by your government while you were Premier?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appears that the former premier is grasping at straws today. It's funny because

it was his government, the same Conservative –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS:

Oh, must of hit a nerve, Mr.

Speaker.

It's

funny because it was his government and, in fact, him that approved this with

the same conditions that I'm assuming would still apply later on when it was

finally approved and went through the entire vetting process. He chose not to

have any concerns. He never had concerns then. His minister never had concerns.

Mr. Ottenheimer never had concerns.

Again,

I've got to go back to this because it was very clear on

Issues and Answers the weekend that the Member opposite said Mr.

Ottenheimer had concerns. They're not in writing. He didn't tell anyone in the

department. So when did he tell you? Was it at the PC AGM?

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier is an elected –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Please

proceed.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier is an elected Member of the House of Assembly. The Premier will benefit

from this contract, from taxpayers' money that will flow as a result of this

contract signed by his government under his watch as Premier to his company.

It's as simple as that, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the Premier once again: Will he repay the $400,000 of public money given by his

government to his company while he was Premier?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hopefully, the people of the province will have any concerns they have

alleviated by the fact that the Premier now has, on two occasions, brought this

to the attention of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. He did it the

first time without being asked. He would have done that after the Member

opposite, the former premier, signed this. It was his government that signed it.

In fact, put a big press release out about it. He never had any concerns then.

The

Premier has since gone back to the Commissioner and said, look, here it all is,

come back and report to this House. As a statutory Officer of this House, report

back to the House. The Premier has again gone above and beyond to ensure that

nothing wrong was done.

Again,

I'm still concerned because I would like to know what the hand-picked PC CEO of

the Housing Corporation said to the Member opposite.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the

Premier doesn't want to answer of these questions today, even though it was the

Premier who said he met with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.

Last

week, the Premier said that there was no benefit to him. He stood in the House

of Assembly and he said it's no benefit to him, that all of this money was going

into the pockets of his clients, is what he said.

I ask

the Premier: If it's no benefit to you, then if you paid it back, there

shouldn't be any loss to you. I ask the Premier again: Will you repay the

$400,000 of public money that was paid to your company by your government while

you were Premier?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

said last week, the benefit for affordable housing projects, indeed all 60 that

he would have announced that he claimed last week not to know anything about –

it seems this week he knows quite a bit about it. The Member opposite would know

that the benefit from that particular project, and all the 60 that were

announced, it's clearly obvious if you look at the press releases of last year,

or whatever year this was, and the years prior to that, it clearly goes to the

people that live in those units. They get the option and the ability that would

not be afforded to them to live in affordable housing that is reliable.

deserve this to our seniors. We deserve them and we look forward to working with

the private sector to make sure that can happen to some of the most vulnerable

in our society.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. P. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree

with the Premier that it's a good program and having more availability of

affordable rates for housing is a great thing to have, and it's a good program

from that perspective.

However,

the money actually flows to the construction company. Right here in the contract

dated Friday, July 22, it clearly lays out 25 per cent is advanced when the

foundations go in; 25 per cent is advanced when there's substantial or

completion of a rough-in and so on; and the remaining 50 per cent is when it's

substantially completed. So it's tied directly to the construction of an asset

that the Premier owns. The grant flows as a grant towards the construction cost

of an asset the Premier owns.

The

benefit is to the Premier's company. Will you pay it back, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

should never let a good story get in the way of the facts. We should never allow

that to happen, Mr. Speaker. The Member opposite has a way of just twisting

information that he is really not overly concerned about the facts.

What I

said is after the election in 2015, putting in place a blind trust, I went to

the Commissioner for Legislative Standards before – I said this earlier today

but he would not want to repeat something factual. I said this before, before

any money would have flowed, I suspended the project, suspended any transfer of

money until the blind trust was in place and I had an opinion and advice on the

conflict of interest.

I was

very open and transparent with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards not to

allow any money that would actually transfer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Federation of Independent Sea Harvesters of Newfoundland and Labrador was formed

in 2016.

Can the

minister explain why it's taken 14 months in the certification process?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member

may not be aware that the Labour Relations Board is a quasi-judicial body which

answers to the legislation and reports to the House.

AN HON. MEMBER:

He's asking a FISH-NL

question.

MR. BYRNE:

If I understand, this is a

FISH-NL question that you're asking?

Mr.

Speaker, if it's a question of the FISH-NL and the certification of that

particular group, that would be done through the Labour Relations Board.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

question was for the Minister of Labour. The Labour Relations Board falls under

the Minister of Labour, who happens to be not the minister who just stood up

that time. So I'll ask it again.

The

Federation of Independent Sea Harvesters of Newfoundland and Labrador was formed

in 2016.

Can the

minister explain why it's taken 14 months in the certification process?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now that

some clarity is given on the question there, it's very, very clear that the

Labour Relations Board, as you know, is a quasi-judicial board and any

complaints that go to that, as a minister, I have to be very, very clear in the

fact that I have independence in that. I do not interfere with the Labour

Relations Board. That would go through the process and they will make a decision

on that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: Has there been any significant changes since 2015 to the staff at

the Labour Relations office?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

understanding is that we do have a new chair in place in the Labour Relations

Board.

AN HON. MEMBER:

A fantastic chair.

MR. HAWKINS:

And a fantastic chair at

that.

Mr.

Speaker, again, all of these issues that come before the Labour Relations Board

are dealt with from a quasi-judicial board that will make an independent

decision. They use the regulations within the Labour Relations Board to make

those decisions. It's not my position, as minister, to interfere with any of the

decisions or to expedite the way in which they do their work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How many

active files are being processed by the Labour board?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Most of them that are active,

I guess, Mr. Speaker.

To give

the exact number, I am not given these numbers on a daily basis but, in fact, I

can certainly find out how many are active. I'm assuming that everyone that is

active is being dealt with in a timely manner, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sure

all the fish harvesters in this province are not finding it as funny as the

government are, Mr. Speaker.

When can

the members of the FFAW and FISH-NL expect a final resolution on this matter?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Advanced

Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

assure the Member opposite that both the FFAW and FISH-NL will receive a

decision when the decision is made from the Labour Relations Board.

Mr.

Speaker, this is a very interesting file. I'm sure they are taking all of the

necessary information and going through it to make sure that a decision that

they've made – and my understanding is that they are taking the measures that

are necessary to make a decision that would be an appropriate decision from the

Labour Relations Board. As soon as that decision is made and a final decision,

we will certainly know that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister: When was the last time he met face to face with D-J

Composites employees?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Advanced

Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, we fully understand the situation with D-J Composites in Gander and

realize that employees have been on the picket line for quite some time. Mr.

Speaker, at my department, we have, through the Labour Relations Board, provided

services to both sides.

As you

know, Mr. Speaker, the best deal or contract is a negotiated contract. We

understand there have been some areas of concern through the whole process of

this contract. We have provided services that would try to expedite an

agreement. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that has not happened, but I can assure

the Member opposite, that we still provide services to both the employers and

the employees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister Responsible for Labour Relations, what measures have you personally

taken to resolve this situation that's gone on way too long?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Advanced

Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have

taken several measures. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, back in last September

I had a request from the union to put a mediator in place. Then I had a

subsequent meeting with the employer and told the employer that I would

certainly be putting an independent mediator in place to try and resolve the

issues, at which time I did that, Mr. Speaker.

The

mediator met with both sides and had significant discussions. One of the

interesting parts of the report is when the mediator brought the report back he

did not make recommendations, he made observations and it was intended and hoped

that both sides would get together. Mr. Speaker, that did not materialize. So,

again, we are now working through the process, and our services will be

available for both the union and the employees.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

On February 21, the federal Minister of Fisheries

announced his decision to expropriate 25 per cent of Grand Bank surf clam quotas

and give it to a Nova Scotia company.

Minister, it's almost two weeks: Have you managed to

schedule a meeting with the minister yet?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR.

BYRNE:

Mr.

Speaker, we reached out to the federal minister to seek clarity on his decision

because an award has not yet been made on the surf clam EA of 25 per cent of

existing quota. We have asked to meet with the minister. We have doubled back

with indigenous communities, and as well with the Town of Grand Bank and the

entire Burin Peninsula.

In fact, the Member for Burin - Grand Bank has been an

outstanding leader in making sure that the federal minister, the federal

government is well aware of the circumstance facing Grand Bank; but, also, Mr.

Speaker, what's very much troubling and very important is that the spirit of

reconciliation which was attempted, which has not been achieved, our indigenous

communities have spoken out and said they'd like stronger leadership from the

federal minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR.

K. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, two weeks ago this minister said he was trying to get a meeting with

his counterpart in Ottawa. So much for your cozy relationship with Ottawa when

they won't even meet with you.

Why is there such a delay? Where are the seven MPs on

this, and where is the regional minister on this?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR.

BYRNE:

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's the darkest side of politics.

Yes,

Minister LeBlanc is a friend of mine. No, he's not just a friend, he's a close

friend, he's a dear friend; and, yes, we often agree but, yes, we also disagree.

someone who understands that life in politics can be very, very difficult, I

would ask the hon. Member to respect one thing. The Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans is not well. He does indeed face an illness, and his capacity to meet on

an instantaneous basis is not what it was some months ago. So we have reached

out to the federal minister and when we can arrange a meeting we will.

I do

know this, that we all need to be fair minded and respectful of the needs of all

of us around us. This is a difficult job, and do you know something, we're all

trying to do it very well.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Cape St.

Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

That minister need not talk

to me about respect. I respect everybody. If the man is sick so be it, but I do

respect the people in Grand Bank and the people on the Burin Peninsula.

If you

can't get a meeting with the minister, why aren't you calling the Prime

Minister's office and have a meeting with the Prime Minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, when we need to meet with federal officials, we do have that

access. We don't need to tear down flags. We don't need to cause a fuss, but

when we need to stand up for our people, including the people of Grand Bank and

the Burin Peninsula, you can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that this side of the

House, we will always do that.

Our

MHAs, the representatives of the people who are affected by this decision,

including the indigenous communities, are standing tall and standing up for

Newfoundland and Labrador. We do not have to resort to personal slurs and

slanders, nor do we have to say that we cannot be friends.

I had

asked the hon. Member; we don't always agree with each other, do you say that

you are not my friend?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I ask

the minister to sit in his place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cape

St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, stand up and do

your act again, Minister, because this is about the people in Grand Bank and

it's about the people on the Burin Peninsula. This is about Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians that have full-time jobs, that are losing their full-time jobs.

I'm

asking you to stand up for those people. I'm asking you to stand up for

Newfoundland and Labrador and not let this industry go to another province.

That's what I'm asking you to do.

Minister, why – or can the Premier maybe answer this question – aren't you

speaking to the Prime Minister of Canada on this issue? It's an important issue

to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

proud to be able to stand on my feet today and talk about the federal-provincial

relationships, because no one on that side of the House could have ever talked

about federal-provincial relationships, because there was none. There was none

at all.

So what

we're talking about – and I tell you, it's not lost on me when he just mentioned

about Minister LeBlanc. Well, let me tell you this, since he's been a minister

we've had an Oceans Protection Plan that's been in place that Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians will take

part in. We've had the Atlantic Fisheries Fund that

they skated around and couldn't finish to bring benefits to the fisheries in

Newfoundland and Labrador. The Marine Rescue Sub-Centre – remember that, that

used to operate in our province? – coming back to this province, Mr. Speaker.

What

about LIFO? They skated around the issue and could not get that addressed, Mr.

Speaker, and I haven't even talked about the biggest single investment that we

will see in the marine environment in Newfoundland and Labrador that will be the

Ocean Supercluster. That's how relationships are built on. We do not always have

to agree ….

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Cape St. Francis for a quick question, please.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, last year an

overflow of surf clam –

MR. SPEAKER:

A quick question, Sir.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Yes, last year an overflow of

surf clams in the Grand Bank, and Clearwater has a new plant in Glace Bay, Nova

Scotia.

Has the

minister spoken to Clearwater, and will this company remain to do landing and

process all its surf clams in Grand Bank?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Land Resources for a quick response, please.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, we have had

regular communications with Clearwater with the senior executive, but also with

its personnel on the ground in Grand Bank. Clearwater is now evaluating the

circumstances they find themselves in. They are determining what exactly is the

consequence and impact of this particular decision.

We are

working with Grand Bank to ensure we maintain full employment. The key issue

here, Mr. Speaker, the key issue is that the federal government must rescind the

decision it took to remove the enterprise allocation from Clearwater because

they did not follow their own rules. That's our plan A.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Early in

February demonstrations were held at Stephenville High school because a male

student accused of sexual assault on three female students was being allowed in

the school in spite of an outcry from students and parents that the girls who

made the accusations felt unsafe, as did others. The school board spokesperson

claimed they had no choice in the matter because by law the student has the

right to attend classes.

I ask

the Minister of Education: Why did the school board not use its powers of

suspension under the Schools Act ,

which recognizes the right to an education, in order to ensure immediately a

safe and caring learning environment for the students?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, under the

Schools Act , I don't speak for the school districts in this

province. They have a CEO and they have a board of trustees that's headed

by a chairperson who's the official spokesperson for the school districts. If

the Member has a question for the school district, that's the appropriate place

to address that.

In my opinion, as I've said publicly, we have prided

ourselves on trying to abolish bullying in our schools. Sexual harassment and

abuse of this sort is the epitome of bullying, in my opinion, that is

dehumanizing towards another person. We will be bringing in amendments to the

Schools Act to make clear to the

school districts what our practices and policies should be in this respect.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to put a question to the minister with regard to

what he just said because he did say publicly that he was going to be making

changes to the Schools Act to make

sure that things were clear.

Can he tell us what he means by that?

MR. SPEAKER: The

Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY: Mr.

Speaker, that means an amendment to the

Schools Act .

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

Leader of the Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, the situation that occurred at

Stephenville High is one that could occur again overnight. Clarity of the

language in the Schools Act is needed

urgently. It was needed before, it is needed now.

I ask the minister: How quickly is he going to act to

similar to that at Stephenville High school?

MR. SPEAKER: The

Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY: Mr.

Speaker, the situation is extremely serious and we don't take it lightly. That's

why we're going through the normal, internal process of government to address

the issue. The school district is changing its policy with respect to the Safe

and Caring Schools protocol, and we are looking at changes to the act which

takes time.

The task force report on education was released in July of

last year and the Member came in here and demanded that we bring in the changes

that were announced in July, in September. I can't just make things happen at

the snap of a finger.

We have to have due diligence. This has to have legal

attention. Legislative counsel has to be involved. We have to do consultations

with stakeholders. Things can't happen immediately and there's a reason for

that, because we need to have due process in enacting changes to the act.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Schools Act

allows for school boards to offer alternative arrangements, such as home

schooling or online learning, when they deem it necessary to have students

removed from the school for the security and safety of staff and students.

So I ask

didn't do it then and if they would do that now if a situation like this came up

immediately? They do it all the time with children on the autism spectrum. Why

not in this case?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to know

how often this Member has reached out to the school district herself to ask

these sorts of questions. We have had a continuous dialogue since the events

became known to the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development in

January. We've had a continuous dialogue with the school district about these

matters. We've had a continuous dialogue with stakeholders who are interested in

having changes.

This

Friday, I am meeting with staff with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of

School Councils to address this, amongst many other issues, Mr. Speaker. I ask

the Member how many times she had reached out to the school district to make the

sorts of suggestions that she is making here on the floor of the House of

Assembly today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Oral Questions

has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Answers

to Questions for which Notice had been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador ought to be the principal beneficiary of the

development of our natural resources we own;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to ensure that no natural resource development

agreements are approved unless Newfoundland and Labrador is the principal

beneficiary.

And as

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, we've had this discussion over the last number of years, particularly

as it relates to our natural resources and there are multitudes in this province

of ours. They cover a gamut of regional, generic backgrounds and potential

future development when it comes to alternate forms of energy because we have a

natural geographic makeup here that we need to take advantage of.

We've

known in the past, and it's unfortunately happened with a multitude of

administrations, it's happened over various decades that without doing due

diligence, there are times that we've either developed agreements or never had

the hindsight or the vision to be able to say down the road, we need to be able

to understand what the value of this asset is going to be, particularly around a

natural resource.

What's

being suggested here by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is saying: We've

learned from our mistakes. We've talked about it for the last 50 years, in some

cases. We're in debate now over how we develop the next level of our natural

resources and we need to ensure that every resident, so we can plan for the

future, plan for the present, but particularly learn from the past. As we go

through the natural resources that we have if it's in the mining industry, if

it's in the oil industry, if it's in hydroelectricity or if it's all the new

future industries that are going to come here from our natural resources, we

need to have a principal understanding that we're going to be the maximum

beneficiaries and we're going to be the primary beneficiaries here. Because the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador have struggled for 500 years, have fought to

maintain our culture here, have ensured that we are great, productive citizens

in this country but also in this world, and we've done it always to engage other

societies and be in an open society and being open for business.

But when

you're open for business, you must ensure that the people who are foremost the

individuals who've gotten the process to where it is, should benefit so they can

then have the next future generations to be secure when it comes to education,

health care, inclusion, open opportunities and engagement of bringing other

cultures to our great province of ours.

what's being said here is to ensure every piece of discussion or legislation

should have on it a lens that looks at any contract that's out there around our

natural resources benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, I present this on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I

look forward to doing it again in the future.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for

Cape St. Francis

MR.

K. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The current federal government policy regulations link

harvesting quotas to length of vessels. Many harvesters own fishing vessels of

various sizes, but because of federal regulations, harvesters are restricted to

using smaller vessels and often putting their crews in danger.

We, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to

urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to make representation to the

federal government to encourage them to change the policy to ensure the safety

of those harvesters in our province.

Mr. Speaker, I bring this petition today and I will

continue to bring it in the House of Assembly because it's very important issue.

It's a very important issue in my district. I know a lot of people that are

harvesting crab and there are different zones of crab. There's outside the

200-mile limit, there's inside and there's the inshore zone. A lot of times

you'll see harvesters that have licences in each one of these zones.

Mr. Speaker, because of these regulations they're

forced to using vessels that are probably undersized, under the 35-foot length

and then under the 45-foot length for different zones. They probably have to

have three vessels. My thing with this whole thing, I believe that we as

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should be doing everything to make sure that

the harvesters that go on the water are in safe vessels. We have seen in this

province, and you will see it every year, and it is sad and it affects

communities and it affects our whole province .

(Inaudible due to technical difficulties.)

I think

that these regulations can be changed. I'm hoping the minister will do something

about it and talk to the federal government because it's our resource, they're

our people and we need to protect them.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

Orders

of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 2, third reading of Bill 33.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 33,

An Act

To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, 2015, be now

read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

This

motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, 2015. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER:

This 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 Access To Information And Protection Of

Privacy Act, 2015,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the

Order Paper. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 34.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 34,

An Act

To Amend The Legal Aid Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Division.

MR. SPEAKER:

Division has been called.

Please

call in the Members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER:

(Inaudible) given that we do have an audio problem right now, we are going to

recess for 15 minutes.

propose we convene at 2:45 o'clock.

Thank

you.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Division has been called.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, please rise.

CLERK:

Mr. Joyce, Mr. Byrne, Mr.

Haggie, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Mitchelmore, Mr.

Warr, Mr. Bernard Davis, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Edmunds, Mr. Browne, Ms. Haley,

Mr. Derek Bennett, Ms. Cathy Bennett, Mr. Finn, Mr. Reid, Ms. Parsley, Mr. King,

Mr. Dean, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Holloway, Mr. Brazil, Ms. Perry, Mr. Kevin

Parsons, Mr. Petten, Mr. Lester, Mr. Lane.

MR. SPEAKER:

Those against the motion,

please rise.

CLERK:

Ms. Michael; Ms. Rogers.

Mr.

Speaker, the ayes: 29; and the nays: two.

MR. SPEAKER:

I declare the motion carried.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Legal Aid Act,” read a third time, ordered

passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call

from the Order Paper, Order 5, second reading of Bill 35.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. K. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that Bill 35,

An Act To Amend The

Public Inquiries Act, 2006, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 35 entitled,

An Act To Amend The Public Inquiries Act, 2006, be now read a

second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Public Inquiries Act, 2006.”

(Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Standing

up today to speak to this amendment to the

Public Inquiries Act, 2006 and I guess it's sort of related to a bill that

we discussed here in this House yesterday which was the amendment to ATIPPA.

I'd like

to thank the staff within the department. They've done a tremendous amount of

work, not just in respect to the inquiry but certainly as it relates to these

pieces of legislation providing briefings, not just to the Opposition and to

government caucus but, today, actually we had a technical briefing provided to

the media on this particular bill because it not a simple matter.

It's not

a huge amendment in terms of size but it's substantial and it's one that if you

just read it, you might have some questions. But I'd like to think that with the

very able handling of this matter by our staff, our deputy minister, staff

solicitor, as well as one of our ADMs, I think they did a great job, not only

into the briefings to the Opposition but to the media today. I thank them for

all that they've done on this bill and the other bills, three bills in the last

two days.

We're

standing here today with this amendment which, as I said, is not huge in the

sense that it's a complete overhaul of a bill. It really is basically an

amendment that's an addition to an existing bill.

What it

says here, and I want to read this out because all of this is important. The

Public Inquiries Act, 2006 is amended

by adding immediately after

section 24 the following: “24.

(1) Where the Crown or

a person designated under subsection (3) discloses to a commission or inquiry,

either voluntarily or in response to a request or summons, any information over

which immunity or privilege, including solicitor-client privilege, is asserted,

the immunity or privilege is not waived or defeated for any purpose by the

disclosure.

“

(2) Where a commission or inquiry determines that it is necessary to disclose

information over which the Crown or a person designated under subsection

(3) asserts immunity or privilege, including solicitor-client privilege, the

immunity or privilege is not waived or defeated for any purpose by the

disclosure.

“

(3) The

Lieutenant-Governor in Council may designate persons to whom subsections (1) and

(2) apply.”

And then

the next one here is: “2. This Act is considered to have come into force on

January 1, 2018.” That date is important for reasons that I'll get into now

shortly.

Basically, in layman's terms what we're doing here with this amendment, should

it pass, is we're ensuring by statute that solicitor-client privilege will still

apply to information which is provided to the Commission of Inquiry into Muskrat

Falls, and that it is not waived merely by virtue of being passed over.

What I

want to do is try to get into it a little bit more and talk about why we're

here, how we're here and what this all truly means. As I discussed yesterday, we

have the Commission of Inquiry which was set up in November, headed by Justice

Richard LeBlanc. They've been very busy, since that time, getting the inquiry up

and running. I know they have some hearings coming soon, standing hearings,

which is to determine who does have standing at this. They have a timeline

that's in place.

Just to

put out there for the record – one of the issues that were discussed yesterday –

this is a timeline that was certainly not forced upon Justice LeBlanc, it's one

that Justice LeBlanc knew going in and accepted. No justice is going to accept

an impossible task. These commissions of inquiry, every one of them is

difficult, comprehensive and important. But this one, I think, very well may be

the largest in terms of document disclosure and in terms of information.

What

happened is in early January the Commission basically sent to government a

summons, a request, for any and all information – and I don't have the actual

wording here – related to Muskrat Falls since 2006. Right now, within the

Department of Justice alone, there is 36 gigabytes of data just on that request.

That's well over a million pages of information to be sent. It's a tremendous

request. It's absolutely humongous.

Here are

a couple of things to keep in mind. When the request came in, the request – or I

don't know if it was a request or a demand but, either way, it was we want the

information within two weeks. That's huge. Just actually getting the data,

getting the information over the last 12 years is a significant task, getting it

compiled, putting it together and then sending it over to the inquiry.

One

thing we've made clear all along is we want to do everything we can to ensure

this inquiry proceeds as expeditiously as possible. That's why we were here

yesterday making an amendment to ATIPPA and we're here today – again, we want to

ensure that gets over.

putting together the documents, there are a couple of things to keep in mind.

The request itself was so broad that, in many cases, the information that falls

under the request will not be deemed relevant to the inquiry. I have a pretty

good suspicion that once they go through it, they'll say so much information is

relevant and some of it is not, but the request is broad and that's fine, that's

what we want. We wanted a wide lens, a wide net cast on all that information

that may apply.

One of

the other problems, though, is that some of the information requested – which,

in many cases, is not relevant – has to do with other very sensitive government

matters, legal opinions on non-related matters, government policy,

solicitor-client issues, just really sensitive, important information that if

you lose privilege, could hurt, not just government but the people of the

province.

It's

basically like allowing the hood up, and let's look underneath and see what's

there. In many cases, it could be seen as giving away government information

that will harm – and when I say government, it's not about this government. It's

about any government. It's about matters that pre-existed this one coming in and

could continue on to another government. It's not about this administration.

It's about the administration.

disclosing the information, a couple things here; one, the amount of information

is so vast that looking through it to see what is privilege and what is not,

what do we need to have a look at, that would take months – months. By

disclosing it you are deemed, in many cases, to have waived solicitor-client

privilege. So by giving it over, privilege is gone.

Later

on, what that could mean is the information comes back to government, somebody

puts a request in for that information and says: It's not privilege anymore, you

waived it – therein lies one of the problems.

We had

solicitors going through this and instead of going through every page, it was

felt that by bringing in this amendment we could protect it, we could get all

the information over and some has already gone. That's why you'll note that

section 2 says this will be retroactive to January 1. This catches everything

that goes over there.

Once

it's all over there, they can then go through this, deem what's relevant, what's

not relevant, the process that will be followed. That's completely up to the

Commission what they need and what they don't need. They'll determine that.

That's basically the whole purpose of what we are doing here.

When you

talk about amending the Inquiries Act, and whenever we talk about ATIPPA or

Muskrat Falls, the mere mention of those terms or names creates heightened

awareness amongst the public, in my opinion.

Even

here in the House when you hear certain terms – after 2012 with Access to

Information or ATTIPA or Bill 29, the mere mention of it, people thought about

it. In many cases, the fact that we're bringing this amendment – if you were

just to look at it without reading you might think: What's going on?

That's

why it's so important that we stand here, not only in the House and have this

debate, but we did the technical briefing today with the media. It was a chance

for the media to sit down – as the purveyors of information to the general

populace, it was a chance for them to sit down and ask all the questions they

wanted on: What does this mean?

I was so

happy to – again, I will say, my staff did a 10-times-better job explaining it

than I ever could. This is what they're used to. This is what they're good at.

So I thank them for doing this.

Now, we

talk about the term solicitor-client privilege, and people have a general

concept on what it means and what it's about, but I want to put out there

exactly how important it is. Just so people would know, and this has been

decided at the highest level of court in our country, obviously, the Supreme

Court of Canada. Solicitor-client privilege applies to a communication between

solicitor and client which entails the seeking or giving of legal advice and

which is intended to be confidential by the parties.

The

Supreme Court of Canada, I've got a good quote here from one of the latest

pieces of legislation to go through the courts on this topic, and that's Alberta

v. University of Calgary, 2016. In that case, they do a tremendous job of

explaining the rationale and the importance of privilege and solicitor-client

privilege, and I'm going to quote from the case.

“It is

indisputable that solicitor-client privilege is fundamental to the proper

functioning of our legal system and a cornerstone of access to justice.” That's

actually a quote from the case Blood Tribe, at paragraph 9. “Lawyers have the

unique role of providing advice to clients within a complex legal system.

Without the assurance of confidentiality, people cannot be expected to speak

honestly and candidly with their lawyers, which compromises the quality of the

legal advice they receive. It is therefore in the public interest to protect

solicitor-client privilege. For this reason, ‘privilege is jealously guarded and

should only be set aside in the most unusual circumstances.'”

In fact,

the Supreme Court has also said that solicitor-client privilege is a substantive

rule that has overtime evolved into a fundamental civil and constitutional

right. This is not small stuff and it has been confirmed of its fundamental

nature to the justice system and that privilege has to be as absolute as

possible. If you start tearing away at that, you start tearing away at the

system.

This is

not me; this is the Supreme Court of Canada that has made these decisions on

multiple times over the years. The most recent one that I'm aware of is 2016,

but it goes right back. Some of the cases I refer to, one of them here is

actually from 1980.

I put it

to you this way; a client comes in, and it could be on any type of matter. They

feel comfortable talking to their solicitor and giving all the information

because in doing so it's the only way they're going to get proper advice. If a

person comes in and feels that everything they say is going to be told to

somebody else, exposed, put out there, in many cases they won't talk. Therein

lies the importance of it, and I love – actually, I can quote, there's a great

movie here that Tom Cruise is in, The Firm ,

where he talks about solicitor-client privilege.

It's

like a ship with cargo that will never reach its destination. A lawyer who has

that information, has it there, it can never go anywhere. It cannot go anywhere.

I can't understate, or overstate, how important this is. People say, well, what

does that matter?

Again,

in this case we're not just talking a client going into the lawyer to talk about

a family matter, we're talking about – in this case the client is government.

The client is government and they're going in, and the release of this

information would be detrimental to this entire province in many cases.

Now,

let's go back to why we're here, the commission of inquiry. Nobody launches an

inquiry without wanting to get to all the information. That's the whole purpose

of this. The purpose – as I've said on many, many occasions – of an inquiry is

to get down to what happened for that particular situation. Is it for a – in the

case of Dunphy where we had the shooting of a civilian? Is it the Cameron

inquiry? Is it the Ocean Ranger inquiry? Is it the Hughes inquiry? All

substantive, important matters, and the purpose of an inquiry and why it's

independent, is we need to get down to it without any interference and find out

what's going on.

The

second

part is what can we do to avoid a situation of this nature from happening

again; but, we must keep in mind that certain pieces of information that are not

relevant should not have their privilege removed and harmful to government. We

can't allow that to happen. That's the whole purpose here.

I would

note that if this were not to be placed in here, if we were not to do this

amendment, many people may take it upon themselves not to put all the

information forward. We want everything forward. We want everything in front of

the commissioner to make this decision.

I'm just

going to go through – I have some notes here that I'd also like to go out there,

just to put everything on the record. I look forward to the comments from my

colleagues across the way and then to the Committee stage where I'll certainly

try my best to answer questions.

We all

know the commissioner has broad powers, and one of those is the fact that they

can put summons out there for information. They can request your presence at the

inquiry. They can request your testimony at the inquiry, search warrants, all

things. This is one of the reasons you do an inquiry is because that

commissioner has the ability to do all these things.

We all

know how privilege applies in court. It applies in the same way for an inquiry.

I've talked about privilege. A commission of inquiry cannot compel disclosure of

privileged documents, and the disclosure of this could result in the loss of

that privilege.

This is

not a case of wanting to hold back the documents, because we want to put it all

out there; all we're doing is protecting the privilege that goes with these

documents.

These

are good points to put out there. The loss of the privilege applies to the

entire matter. It's not select parts; it applies to it on a whole. So not just

specific documents, it would go to the entire matter. You can imagine how this

would be completely and extremely detrimental for various reasons. Once the

privilege is lost, that loss is permanent. You can't go back.

The

issue here we talked about is that when the documents come back, the privilege

is gone. The Crown can't say: No, no, these are privileged. No, those are going

to come out. We're talking not so much about the inquiry itself but about future

litigation unrelated to the inquiry. That's one of the things that we're

concerned about.

The

purpose of this today is to facilitate document disclosure to an inquiry without

prejudicing government's ability to maintain privilege and immunity in other

contexts. It's not creating any new or existing privileges for government. It

allows us to disclose everything without the risk that would apply that I

described earlier.

Specifically, this amendment will ensure that any privilege or immunity

applicable to government documents is not lost due to disclosure to an inquiry

or disclosure by a commission during an inquiry. I think that lays it out there.

I don't think I want to belabour this point much more than this.

I had an

opportunity to speak to the media on this earlier today and answer questions

they might have had. I understand the Opposition was briefed on this last week

so they've had an opportunity to review this and to ask questions.

At this

point, I'm going to take my seat. I look forward to the debate from my

colleagues and to Committee stage of this bill.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's,

indeed, an honour to stand in this House and speak to Bill 35,

An Act to Amend

the Public Inquiries Act, 2006. As the minister has outlined, his department

officials gave a very thorough and professional briefing. This is a very unique

piece of legislation from a legal point of view but, also, particularly for its

implications as we go through.

It's

unique to a certain degree. I know the minister made some references to

particular nuances and particular examples, but because we're changing the

legislation to reflect something that's going to tie directly in to an inquiry

now that's been called. That's becoming the debatable issue here right now. It's

about the importance of this piece of legislation – and not the legislation, but

the amendments to it, and the reference that it will have and the impact that it

will dictate when it comes to the inquiry.

I just

want to make it clear for the people at home, this is about changing a piece of

legislation that directly will affect the dissemination, the sharing, the public

access to pieces of information that I personally feel, and I think a lot of us

on this side of the House feel, are going to be pertinent to the Muskrat Falls

inquiry. No doubt, everybody in this House has asked for the inquiry; everybody

supports the inquiry.

I know

us here in the Official Opposition are 100 per cent approving and supporting

that we get the inquiry moving forward, that we have an open process, and that

as much information – all information, but as much information that is needed

not excluded because it fits within a legal ramification, would be accessible

and open to not only be used by the Commission itself, but also for the general

public (inaudible) to be able to have a discussion around and an understanding

of what's being put forward.

So this

is where it becomes the debate around the changes to this piece of legislation

in Bill 35, because the issue we're trying to get around and the conversations

we're having is particularly around the sharing of information and why in any

case or any scenario would there be restrictions. Keeping in mind that the

inquiry itself, and the officials who are going to lead that have extensive –

and I mean beyond extensive legal backgrounds. So they would know if they're

treading into areas which in some way, shape or form is going to have a legal

implication to an individual or a company as such.

To have

particular pieces of information before it ever gets to them, deemed that it's

not important or that they shouldn't have access to – and I know it's a debate

about all information will be given to the inquiry. Then the inquiry would say,

here's what we want. We want all this. But then coming back, the department or

government or Cabinet will decide no, we've looked at that, you can have 80 per

cent of it, because we're going to talk about solicitor-client privilege here.

That

becomes a tangly situation. I've talked to some people from legal backgrounds

and their issue to me was, the word tangly came up; this is a very tangly

situation. But the other word became: Why would they go this route; why is it

necessary to do this at the end of the day? Particularly when what we're calling

for here is an open, transparent process to get answers, or get direction or

clarification to ensure three things: that the project publicly is known how and

why we've got to where we are; any impacts it's going to have on future costing,

the cost for electricity, the billing in this; but also how we would mitigate

any future issues around development similar to this.

And we'd

get that from an inquiry. That's how we get it. A set of recommendations come

out, we've seen that in recent inquiries that have taken place where you get a

full-fledged understanding of how we got to that point, the factors involved,

the personalities involved, the outside entities, the intent, how far the intent

went to the final outcome and if it changed somewhere along the way, what were

the impacting factors that caused that to occur.

So it

becomes a bigger umbrella issue here around let's put everything on the table.

Let's put everything out so that we have a clear understanding of what it is

that the inquiry is going to need, that the legal professionals and the

technical professionals are going to need to ensure that they can look at the

issue around here is again, was it the most cost-effective project, was it

deemed necessary, did we need the power, and the costing acknowledged at a

certain rate, why is it now that the overruns are far more than would have been

built into a contingency. So there are three key things that need to be

addressed here.

There's

no doubt the commissioner already putting together – and what I do like, when we

had the discussion and the debate in this House, this was going to be all

encompassing, it was going to be extremely open and all information would be

disclosed. We all supported that process. I know and I can honestly say that I

served as a backbencher when this was first being debated. I served in Cabinet

in the later years when the process was about to begin the construction phase.

There were questions asked and there were presentations made. There were

discussions about where we were and why, instead of the straight line, things

that had to curve to the left or the right to address particular issues and

needs, and that we were going to run into some particular challenges just by the

nature of the scope of the project, and certain unforeseen circumstances that

popped up – not that they weren't planned for, but popped up from a different

dimension.

That's

all understandable. Based on the principle of that type of information, I'd like

to know, what was shared with me, was all the information that was available or

was I just given enough information to appease my understanding of where the

project was, or was that exactly the accurate information that was available at

the time and reflected exactly where we were.

weren't asking to get down into the minute details of the construction phase,

the contracting phase, the assessment phase and all those type of things.

Because there were a multitude of professionals internally and externally, and

outside consultants, who gave advice because they were experts in that field. It

would be relevant to exactly why the project would move at the rate it was

moving.

As we

move forward, hindsight, all kinds of other intuition and all these type of

things would say, you know, at the end of the day, a project of this magnitude

that we haven't done to this degree in a different type of terrain, in a

different type of culture, in a sense of a working culture now when we have with

the unions, multitude of unions, when we're bringing outside contractors from

other countries who are not even used to the geography here, what factor would

that have on the final time frames, the final outcomes and, particularly in this

case, the final costing and then what that final costing impact would have on

the general population, particularly around one particular thing, and that's

ratepayers having to pay what particular rate for electricity once Muskrat Falls

totally comes online for Island generation.

They

were things that need to be out there. We've heard, particularly in the last two

years, the general public, no doubt, have had some concerns, and there's still a

fair bit of support for the project in a general context; but I think everybody

has the same concern that we have, that for the last two years the governing

party here having been hanging their hat on, that Muskrat Falls wasn't done

right, that Muskrat Falls got out of hand, that Muskrat Falls isn't the best

project, Muskrat Falls is not something we needed.

Fair

enough, if that's your belief and you have evidence to that process and you want

to expose that, by all means, do it. As a matter of fact, we, on this side, have

jumped up and said we want to know it too. If there's something that needs to be

clarified and something that needs to be exposed, do it. Particularly, if

there's something that needs to be put here now, the quicker the better so that

we can move the project to the next stage because we know the project is not

stopping. We know the project is 75 to 80 per cent complete. We know it's going

to bring electricity to the Island. We know it's going to bring electricity to

Labrador. We know it has the ability for us to be able to go on an international

and a national market to be able to sell additional electricity.

We know

if it's used right and promoted right, it can help attract other type of

industry to Newfoundland and Labrador. We know all that. But if we're going to

do this and do it right, we need to be able to address two key issues. As I say,

the elephant is in the room. One is how a project that was supposed to be so

fluent and all stages were met get offline from a time point of view and get

offline from a financial point of view. How do we, after the end of the inquiry,

ensure that no matter what project we take on – because Gull Island is only a

few years later. At best, a decade later with a number of partners and probably

a different approach, but what that approach may be will have to be based on the

Commission's recommendations and findings.

To do

that, we have to ensure every available piece of information, every commentary

that was made, every suggestion, every minute piece of research that was going

back 10, 15, 20, 25 years is important because it has an impact on the end

result.

I know

the minister has outlined – and I understand, if I was in the Commission's side

or if I was in Nalcor, there are a multitude of pieces of information here from

all angles. It's going to mean a very encompassing process; it's going to mean

resources may have to be dedicated.

People

have thrown out $100,000, $200,000, $300,000 in additional resources, but in

this case – and we're talking a multi-billion dollar project that can and should

be and will set out to be the mainstay of moving Newfoundland and Labrador

forward in a number of ways. From a green energy point of view, from

guaranteeing that we had available energy levels all through the province, that

we could use it as an attraction for industries in Newfoundland and Labrador and

could also use it so that we weren't depending on any other jurisdiction. We

would control an entity, an asset and make it revenue generating without any

additional costs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, once the asset is

in play and is doing what it was set up to do, which was provide green energy to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

To do

that, the first focus, I would have thought – and I'll go through some notes

after – led to believe last fall was around that the government wanted to ensure

every piece of information that was available – everything. No matter who was

involved with it, it would be shared with the Commission. The Commission, then,

would have that right at their fingertips to pull at any given time, which in

turn then meant that could be shared with the general public who have the

biggest vested interest here.

Don't

forget, this whole inquiry, the whole intent of building Muskrat Falls was to

enhance the general public's ability to have an asset, have access to

electricity and do their environmental part for our great province. To do that,

we need to ensure all information is shared.

A couple

of questions that I brought up, and there were some discussions with some legal

people, were about tell me – and this is, again, complex. Unfortunately, not

having a pure knowledge of the law, particularly around this component of it,

client-solicitor privilege, and you can see it may be different if you're in a

murder case or if you're in some kind of an insurance case, it might be a little

bit different, things that are said and done and these types of things.

This is

a bit different from my perspective. Again, not having a legal background, but

I'm seeing it from Joe Public who's looking from outside saying we've had debate

for this for the last seven years. I want to know if there's something here that

needs to be addressed, if there's something here that didn't go the way it was

supposed to.

If it's

something that was done deliberately, why would we not open up the process that

ensures all that's put out in the open so that everybody at the end of this

process feels happy that three things were accomplished: transparency and

openness was done; that we now have, say, no matter what Crown corporation you

are in Newfoundland and Labrador, never forget who you work for. You work for

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and who you're answerable to, as part of

that process. As a third thing, anytime we do something that may not have worked

out, how do we ensure we learn from that process, that we don't repeat it again?

We'd probably find better ways of doing things and develop more practices,

improved practices as we go through that whole process.

To come

in with a change to a piece of legislation that talks about wanting to do

something that's all encompassing, purely engaging and an open and transparent

process, but then get to the edge of the door and saying: By the way, not

everybody can get through the door. You're all welcome to come in, but not

everybody can get through it. The restrictions on that are going to be based

around something that's in the legal genre of client-solicitor privileges, but

having the definition of how that relates directly to this piece of legislation

becomes a bit questionable, particularly for people who are not fluent in the

law and how this would relate to it, particularly if you talk around contract

law.

We've

all heard it, we see it in some of the other cases that we've had in

Newfoundland and Labrador and in other places, but as it relates to sharing of

information in an open inquiry, that's not about directly pointing blame.

There's not somebody on that hot seat. It's about an inquiry of a project that a

multitude of agencies, groups, professionals, departments, corporations had a

direct input into helping design and helped move forward.

So the

connection is not as simple and it would say in some of the examples that have

been used when it comes to client-solicitor privileges. I've had a hard time

trying to make that connection and making it valid. Not saying that in law it's

not written, that it can fit in any context, but I'm having a problem seeing, in

this particular case, knowing what the discussion has been and knowing what the

intent of the inquiry was, why in any way, shape or form we would put any

restrictions on it. Not only is it a restriction, but it becomes very

encompassing. While the minister talked about there's a lot of information,

there's going to be more discussion around what is accepted and what isn't.

If what

the government is saying is all information is going to go to the Commission,

well, that's fine. So all the information is out there already. I'm lost to say

there's so much of it, but then at one point you're touting that all the

information is going to go to the Commission, but the Commission may not have

the ability to use all that information.

That

becomes a questionable process there, and the intent of why you would go that

route and not show that you're open and transparent, keeping in mind these are –

legal minds would say, particularly in the commission, here's the information I

need and here's why I need it. For me to hit the objectives of the inquiry, I

need A, B, C and D. Don't give me A, B and D, and C not be accessible because it

fits under a particular category that now exists that didn't exist before,

because you're putting this in the same vein as something else in the legal

system, the client-solicitor privileges.

If I was

a commissioner sitting on that, I would have some real challenges. Regardless if

I had a multitude of backgrounds or knowledge in particular laws relevant to

this, I would be saying I want all the information. We saw it in other

commissions.

The

Cameron commission was extremely open. Information was shared over periods of

time. It was explicit to the impact it had on the patients in this case and the

process used prior and during, and even the process around contacting those who

had been misdiagnosed or given the wrong information or after surgeries needed

to be addressed and looked at. I can't recall seeing a lot of the

solicitor-client privileges being invoked there as part of it. We know the

witnesses were called from various backgrounds, ministers of various

departments, and questions were being asked.

The

solicitors there asked very poignant questions around: Why was this done? Who

was aware of it? They had all kinds of documentation to say you sent this email

at this point, you spoke with this group of individuals, you requested this type

of information. Now, can you clarify exactly what your intent was with that?

Were there any issues you had with it? Should this have brought you to another

point where there would have been a concern about what was happening?

I see

the same thing here. I see no difference in what we're doing here in the sense

of making sure that the commission and the commissioners have all the

information they're going to need to make an informed, or open up first for an

informed discussion and then ensuring the report at the end of it is reflective

of what particularly the issues are, and to do that you must, first of all, have

access to all that type of information.

Again,

to go break that down – there's no doubt, when we get in Committee I'll ask the

minister for some extreme examples of how this would work in other

jurisdictions. I've gone through – we know there are only two other provinces

that even have a similar one here, Ontario and BC, but there are particular

nuances. I don't think their legislation was changed to when an inquiry was put

in place.

I could

see going the opposite. I could see if this legislation already existed and now

we're bringing in an inquiry, we have to come and say we have to change the

legislation and open it up so that the inquiry does have access to everything

and people can't just flippantly say solicitor privileges here or

solicitor-client privileges in any way, shape or form. But when we're putting

something in that doesn't exist in other forms, particularly when it came to

inquiries and that, then I have to challenge. I have to question: What's the

intent?

I don't

know if it's just because it fits well with the legal process. I don't know if

it's something that people inadvertently are saying: Well, no, people could

still get the information. But our research is saying: No, no, if under that

it's challenged as the client-solicitor privilege, and while the information may

be given to the inquiry and the inquiry says, yeah, I want all of this, but then

the department or the government – and I still need some clarification on

exactly who, in this case, would make those decisions, because it becomes like a

conflict of interest.

you're calling for an inquiry but after you said it's going to be a whole open

process, you're also restricting the debate and you're restricting the debate

because you're restricting the type of information that can be put out there, so

that the debate can centre around whatever that piece of evidence or that piece

of information is relevant to. I have a major problem with that also.

So that

makes you start to think, what's the intent here? What's the driving force? I

have no inkling of saying there's any suspicious malice here. What I'm asking is

somewhere along the way we're going to need some real clear clarification

because, obviously, the bill itself – and I'll just read quickly here the

Explanatory Note: “The Bill would amend the

Public Inquiries Act, 2006 to confirm

that immunity or privilege is not waived when the Crown or a person designated

by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council discloses information to a commission or

inquiry.”

The bill

itself is not much longer than the Explanatory Note, and the minister noted

that. Meaning this is not a big encompassing piece of legislation, but the one

change makes it as if this was a massive act, because the understanding there

and the impact it has on everything else in the act is very important, and

extremely important here.

I just

go back to a couple of the clauses here. The first clause of the bill would add

a new section, 24.1, to the Public

Inquiries Act, 2016.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind

the Member to try to stick with the principle of the bill, not delve into the

clauses.

Thank

you.

MR. BRAZIL:

Fair enough, Mr. Speaker.

I do

that, but I need to outline this so that people would understand the changes

being made here are particularly around the clauses. The principle around what's

being entitled that you're going to hold back stuff is relevant to the clause,

because the clause itself is being changed to ensure that, in this case, all the

information can't be shared. Because you can invoke a particular clause here and

it talks about “… designated under subsection (3) disclosures to a commission to

inquiry ….”

This is

all about the information that's going to be distributed to the commission. The

clauses here – the principles, to me, are directly connected to the clause

because the clause is being changed to alter the principle of the piece of

policy and legislation we're doing. The argument we're having here is we don't

agree with the principle of the changing of this piece of legislation, and the

clauses reflect that.

What it

says here basically in the clauses, where the commission determines that a piece

of information is important and relevant, they must then ask for clarification

of whether or not there's going to be a challenge under the client-solicitor

privilege. If indeed that's done, then a decision is made that that piece of

information is not going to be relevant for them to be able to use in the

commission.

There's

a real problem with that, as I see it, a real problem. Because in my

interpretation, you're being judge and jury because it's the government who

called for this commission. It's the government who are now bringing in this

piece of legislation. It's the government, at the end of the day, who will make

the decision on what piece of information or what fits under the

client-solicitor privilege.

There

are three nuances there that I have a real problem with. What I would have

thought was going to happen and what I think we were led to believe: Commission,

we're open. We're going to give you everything we have. Everything you want to

use, you can take it and use it. I say that because – I'm not making that up. We

were told when the commission was coming that this would be an open process and

it would get to the root of everything that's gone on with that, and it would

get to the root because the government who were proposing this were outlining

and supporting exactly what would be there.

We were

told, to the bill, there will be a new provision. Actually, it promotes

disclosure, and it's a good thing. We were told that in this House, that's a

quote. I was so happy to hear that and said, well, this is great. Let's get it

out there, but that's unclear at this point. I can't see how it does that when

it puts in a restriction that didn't exist. It didn't exist in this process. It

didn't exist in a number of the other inquires. It doesn't exist in 75 per cent,

80 per cent of the other jurisdictions.

Of the

ones that have something similar, it's all left to

interpretation, because they

haven't gone to this level on a particular open inquiry that's not connected to

a direct individual or group. It's connected to a project that has a multitude

of facets, and they all have to be studied. They all have to be researched. They

all have to be disclosed. They all have to be discussed. They all have to be

evaluated and then a set of recommendations come or a finding from the

commissioner.

The

thing here, and here's the key thing, here's our key understanding here: the

government currently has the right to refuse to disclose information if it is

protected by solicitor-client privileges. The courts usually respect this, so

the information request could be denied. That's in the normal judicial system

that it's considered, that would be part of it.

We're

saying that this inquiry was a bit different and that wouldn't be included in

this. You'd follow the legal processes, but you would not be imposing a

restriction that would be used normally – they're normally used in the

protection of a witness in a lot of cases and in protection of somebody

disclosing pertinent information that may have a physical impact on somebody or

a safety impact on people. That's not what we understood would happen in this

inquiry. This was about, purely, getting all the information so a commissioner

and a group of commissioners could make a decision on exactly what was what and

how it was going to work.

I looked

at some things. If the government was worried that there was something in a file

that shouldn't be released and that released part of the file was compromising

to the secrecy to all the file, including the sensitive information, then in the

public interest, the government would refuse to disclose any of it and protect

the secrecy of the sensitive information that would deny the inquiry the

information they seek and need.

So one

of the challenges here about that is they can pick and choose. So all of a

sudden, if there are five or six pieces of information that gets sent over and

they say this reflects the negative part of the project, we're going to share

that; we're not going to challenge that. But here's something that supports the

project moving forward. Well, we're going to use the client-solicitor privileges

there.

We're

not saying that's what they would do, but we're saying this opens up the door

for that piece of

interpretation and challenging, which again is still going to

be an encompassing and a costly process. So if we use cost as one of our factors

as to why we're not going to share all the information, we have to be realistic

and we have to be honest with people. We have to be upfront and say, at the end

of the day, if it's cost prohibitive, say that.

If we're

do that on a $12.5 billion project or a couple hundred thousand dollars, tell

that to the people. Don't say it in one sentence and then in the other sentence

say by the way, we're going to challenge 25 per cent of information we're going

to put forward, that there is going to be cost related to it, that there are

going to be solicitors involved, particularly, as part of that.

Obviously, I would think it would be at a higher level of cost than it would be

if we're asking somebody from OCIO or somebody else to photocopy information or

to download information to be shared or somebody to put it on a screen for the

commissioners to look at. I'm just looking at where the cost relevance would be

here.

So when

we talk about there are going to be legal challenges about pieces of information

or

interpretation, I don't suspect it's going to be one of the truck drivers for

Muskrat Falls is going to interpret whether or not the solicitor-client

privilege should be invoked in this particular challenge.

At the

end of the day, we have to be realistic, what we're talking about here. We've

got to be realistic about where the costs are going to be relevant. If the costs

are going to be relevant, the first way to take the cost out of it, if it's

going to be cost neutral on both of these challenges, then let's stick to the

intent of the Commission and the inquiry, and that was about getting to the root

of any of the challenges for this project and getting all the information out

there that was relevant.

That's

what we're talking about. We need to examine all other

interpretations of what

the client-solicitor privilege is when it relates to this type of project. We're

Opposition and that's what we do as Opposition. Ours is to challenge and

question if what you're saying is your belief, or what you're saying is your

understanding, that's fine and we respect that, but I want to know and look at

is there another belief, is there another understanding, is there another

approach to this. Is one factual and one not factual? Or is there a middle

ground that needs to be looked at here as part of that?

That's

all we're saying here as we have this debate and we'll have it for the next

period of time around two key things: what it is we want to achieve, and how

we're going to achieve it. I thought what we wanted to achieve was already set

back in November and December when we had some discussions here about opening up

and getting confidence back in the public, that we have a project here that

we're going to move forward. All entities agreed it's going to have to move

forward. It is at a level now that it's in its final completion stage. How do we

maximize the return for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador? How do we

minimize the impact on them? And particularly, how do we ensure things like this

that may have gotten out of hand because there wasn't proper planning, or there

were issues there that were a challenge, how do we ensure it doesn't happen in

the future?

They

were similarly key components that I thought we would get out of this. We seem

to be taking a different route here because we're going to be putting in

restrictions on how we're going to achieve those goals. From the people I talked

to in the general public, they're all in favour of the inquiry because they want

to know what it is went on to get this to where it is, and what impact it's

going to have on them from a financial point of view.

The

financial point of view may not necessarily always be in the negative. What is

it that's part of that project in its infancy stage, in its development stage,

and in its future benefits that would benefit them and the next generations? So

they want to know these types of things. That's simple. And that's what we were

all led to believe the inquiry would do, and I still think the inquiry can do.

I would

think that side of the House over there, the government side, would want that

also. I would think their Members go back in their respective districts and talk

to people about Muskrat Falls, and talk to people about the upcoming inquiry. No

doubt, they're saying the same thing to the MHAs in those respective communities

as they're saying to me.

We want

to know where it is, we want to know how we can get the best return and the best

benefit on it, and we want to ensure that it minimizes the impact on people and,

at the end of the day, it doesn't happen again. If we under budget it, if we

misinterpreted the numbers, if numbers led to believe something that didn't

exist, if people were incompetent – these are things that need to be identified

as part of it. That's what a Commission does. You see it in any Commission

that's happened over the past number of years. You can look cause and effect,

and that's what most Commissions come out to. The cause of getting to it while

you called the Commission to have an inquiry, and then the effects it's going to

have on people, and the set of recommendations to mitigate those impacts.

that's where we are with this. I just want to go back and talk a little bit.

I've seen some of the Members over there shaking their head when I'm talking

about what the intent of the inquiry was. I thought it was simple, that's how I

understood it, unless I totally missed it in the House here and missed everybody

from the media and everybody outside talking about what they wanted to achieve

from it. It was a simple understanding.

I just

want to go back to some of the things relevant to the discussion that we had. I

just want to recount the statements of the Premier and the Minister of Justice

made in the House about their intent to disclose information to the inquiry –

because that's what this is about. This whole debate now, it's secondary about

the inquiry; primary, this piece of legislation is about what information can be

disclosed and under what grounds it can be challenged not to be disclosed. This

is simple. And we know under what grounds that it's being proposed here and

changing a piece of legislation, and it's about the client-solicitor privileges.

So I

just want to bring back about some of the things to tie all this together when

we talked about what was the intent here, and as I saw some people shake their

heads in disbelief that my understanding of what it was. But I'm going to read

it out, and tell me, was that not your understanding. I can particularly talk

about the Premier and the Minister of Justice.

October

16, 2017, it's only last fall, a few months ago we had these discussions. The

Premier said: “We will put in a terms of reference that is all encompassing.”

Great; nodded, I went along with it; everybody on this side said perfect, that's

what we need. We need to know exactly where we're going with this, what it is,

what it needs to come out with an end result that benefits the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

“Mr.

Speaker, we look forward to having a very intense, detailed, deep dive into how

we got into this situation.” My first statement when I stood up was about we

need to know where this got off the rails. That simple. And that statement

speaks volumes for that too. Agreed with the Premier today; agree with him

still. I hope he still agrees with the statement he made on October 16, 2017.

“That

will include everything from a forensic audit.” And there was a whole debate

about a forensic audit and what impact that would have and what benefit. And

finally, people were convinced; let's go that route. That makes sense. The more

information you have, the more lens on it, the more angles, the more you can

disclose exactly what lines up with what, what doesn't and what information then

is needed to make an informed decision on your go-forward process.

“The

commissioner and those people, they will have a broad width and they will use

whatever resources they need to get the real answers that were hidden from the

people of this province.” I agree.

If there

was something hidden from the people of this province, you know who they were

hidden from? David Brazil, the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island,

because I sat over there, I asked questions, probably nobody more than me –

maybe the Minister of Natural Resources debated Muskrat Falls on

On Point radio,

On Point television, spoke to it, spoke to the merits of it, the

need for it, the benefits it would have, the generational improvements it would

make in our society.

I want

to know, if for some reason I was led down the garden path, if for some reason

somebody was incompetent, who made decisions at the time. If it's for some

reason that we have to take into account with our terrain, geography, all the

challenges we have here that things got out of hand, then we need to be

prepared. Because this won't be the only thing we do over the next 50 years in

Newfoundland and Labrador that are at a large scale, because we can't be afraid

to do megaprojects either. Now, can we do them better? Sure. We're hoping we'll

learn how we do them better from this process.

“Our

intention is to expose all of that and let the inquiry do the work.” This is

from the Premier, this is not me. Thank God, I can nod and go along and say:

yeah, you know what, good point, I agree 100 per cent. But you can't say that in

one light and then have a debate on legislation that restricts some of the

things that you can do. You can't have it both ways. It doesn't work that way.

That's not how legislation works.

For

every action there's a reaction. If your action here is you want this to work

because you want to have access to all the information and then bring in

legislation that restricts that, I have a challenge. I have to challenge them. I

have to challenge whether or not you want to achieve the objective you had. So

that becomes a challenge. I have a real problem with that and I'll continue to

debate that part of it.

If you

come back and say: no, no we're going to find ways that every piece of

information gets shared. That the client-solicitor challenge, we're changing

that because it really won't have any impact here. I need someone to explain

that to me because I can't get the legal minds outside to explain it to me, who

are outside looking in.

I know

the department officials, no doubt, have intent of what's trying to be achieved

here. In layman's terms, my

interpretation of what's trying to be achieved,

certain pieces of information that somebody doesn't want to be shared will have

an ability not to be shared. I can only put it in those terms because other than

that, I can't rationalize it in my own mind. That might be because I don't have

a clean understanding of the client-solicitor privileges, but I definitely don't

have a clean understanding of how that relates to this particular inquiry. That

becomes a challenge for me and we'll have a great debate over it.

Whatever

measures are needed, they will have the resources to do it. The Premier goes

back to talking about the resources. Well, one of the arguments I've heard is

that this would cost money. It will take time. There's so much information, it's

going to be a very encompassing process.

We've

all agreed. When we voted for that, nobody over here disagreed or said: No, but

we're going to put a caveat there that you can't spend X numbers of dollars or

you have to be able to pull something back a little bit different. Or, no, no,

if it's only 10 boxes that were allowed in and we have 12, somebody has to keep

the other two out. That wasn't what the intent was. Nobody ever said that over

here, I guarantee you that.

I know

the Premier didn't say it over there. I'll touch on some of the Minister of

Justice stuff. He didn't say it over there either. We were on the right track

until where we are right now, where it got off the rails again. Something went

askew. For some reason there are pieces of information that either people don't

want shared or afraid once they look at it – because there's no doubt, nobody

would know everything that's there now until this inquiry. F

I doubt,

with so many entities involved here, anybody would know exactly everything,

other than maybe the people who were at the beginning. But a lot of who were at

the beginning are not there now. There will be information that's gone on the

last number of years, also, that needs to be disclosed and shared with the

Commission to get an understanding of where this project is and where it needs

to go.

“We are

going to get the answers that are required.” Perfect. I can tell you there are

520,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador who want to get the answers too.

They want to know where our future lies when it comes to the largest project

that we've undertaken, want to know what impact it's going to have on people.

That's welcome. It's perfect.

Let's

talk about November 20, 2017, a month later. So we're in debate now, it's all

public that this is going to happen. It's already announced who's going to lead

the inquiry. Perfect, everything is in play. A respectable commissioner who's

going to lead it, a legal background second to none, understands the whole

process. Great, no dispute, no debate, no wish around that.

The

Premier again says: “We will get the answers ….” He's following up, so we're in

the right trend here. The right trend is here. We're all confident we're going

to get the answers because we deserve them. That's what it's about.

“I have

nothing to hide, that I can guarantee you.” Perfect. Because I guarantee you,

we, on this side, have nothing to hide. We want all the information to come out,

whatever it is. I guarantee you, if there's something that somebody shows – and

I'll look at that. If they say you were at this meeting or something, I'll have

to dispute. Or I'll say, yes, I was there and believe that piece of information

or, yes, that's accurate information.

Is it

something that was detrimental? Unless my memory is totally gone astray, the

conversations I was engaged in and the information that was shared to me and the

things I researched and looked at all fell within the scope of what was being

proposed and what was being moved forward.

“I for

one will be glad to sit in front of the commissioner and speak about my

experience on the Muskrat Falls Project prior to becoming Premier and while

being Premier. So let's make that very clear.” Perfect. I respect that. That's

from the Premier. That's in late November. So that's ideal.

If he's

willing to sit there, I know David Brazil is willing to sit there, and I know

the people on this side of the room are willing to sit there, but why don't we

also, while we're sitting around the room, have all the information that is

relevant to what we're debating here. I think that's an easy set.

So far,

the continuum here is everybody supports the process. Everybody supports the

commissioner having carte blanche, total control, total access to everything

possible, up to this point. Now we're up to November. The Commission is set,

ready to go. The nuances are being worked out like anything to get in play,

don't forget, for January 1. Everything is to be in play for January 1, because

the legislation here talks about retroactive to January 1. It's all in play.

We're weeks away from this happening.

“I will

comply. I will be more than willing to sit in front of the Commissioner and

discuss my experience from the beginning to the end of this project. That you

can guarantee.” He's reiterating what he had already said three times earlier.

He's willing to do that. Perfect. Great for you, Premier. I greatly respect

that. I can't wait to see it and so many other people that may be called as

witnesses to the Commission.

Well, to

do that and in light be supporting that we're going to put restrictions in what

information gets shared. Is that information that verbally I can share? Is it

information that's on a document? There are some challenges here about what that

really means.

Now I'm

going to talk about some of the things the Justice Minister of the day had

talked about, when he talks about in reference to the inquiry. He's asked,

“Certainly, what we have here I think is a very broad terms of reference.”

We all

agreed to it, and that was what was debated. We've had a number of people who've

been challenging the Muskrat Falls Project for years. The 2041 group and all of

them have outlined their concerns for a number of periods of time. One of the

big things some members of that had outlined was the terms of reference were too

narrow and that we needed a broader scope on it.

The

Minister of Justice had supported that, thought it was a good move forward and

worked towards expanding that. I compliment him for that. I think it was a good

move. I think it fits in well with everybody's intention of what was trying to

be achieved here; but, as he does that, now we're having a debate on a piece of

legislation he's putting forward that would find ways to restrict how broad

those terms of reference are, particularly when it comes to what pieces of

information can be shared with the Commission. So, again, that's where I have a

challenge on saying you're going to do something and then later on thinking and

saying maybe we should hold back on some stuff. If there's a rational reason

that benefits the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, fair enough. Share it

with us. Give us the intent to how that works. I have no problem with that. I'll

be the first one to nod and applaud that.

“When it

comes to an inquiry, we want the facts. What happened? The second part we want

is to ensure that the recommendations throughout will help avoid a situation

like this happening again in the future. That's what happens in an absolute

inquiry.” I have to agree. I think I said that about eight times. At the risk of

repeating myself, Mr. Speaker, I probably have said that eight times.

Again,

do you know who I'm happy with? The Minister of Justice. It's a very valid point

that he made back in November also – very valid. He echoed again what we were

thinking. Now I'm happy to be able to say I've echoed it for the last 35 minutes

or so, or 45 minutes now, about where we are with this. So we're on the same

page. Right now, we're not off kilter with each other. We may when we get into

some debate on the vote on this piece of legislation, but we'll see where that

takes us over the next number of days.

“The

second

part is that I can guarantee you, everybody on this side would be ready

to appear if compelled and put any evidence there ….” Thank you, perfect. He

took the lead on that, exactly what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

wanted to hear. Do you know what? It's what this side of the House wanted to

hear also. Put it all out there. You have nothing to hide. We have nothing to

hide.

there's an entity that has something to hide, there are people that's out beyond

the scope of this House of Assembly, let that evidence be shown to the

commissioner and to the general public and get it to be used in the best

interest of moving the project to the next stages and ensuring that people are

protected. I thought it was great.

“At the

end of the day, the Public Inquiries Act

allows for the justice of his independent inquiry to compel everybody –

everybody – to appear, to give testimony, for the release of documents so that,

at the end of the day, all the facts of this matter will be known. This will be

an independent inquiry that's quite broad so that the people of this province

get the full disclosure on what happened.”

Perfect;

it is singing to the choir, without a doubt. It is exactly what the intent of

those people outside who have their own blogs, who are on

Open Line, have asked for and want it disclosed.