Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 1 November 2018 (48th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLVIII No. 35)
2018-11-01
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
PDF Version
November 1, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 35
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR.
SPEAKER (Trimper): Order, please!
Admit strangers
I would like to welcome all the Members back to the
House of Assembly
In the public gallery today, I would like to welcome
Shara King and David Mullett of Midnight Tailors. They will be mentioned in a
Member's statement this afternoon.
Welcome to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
And
I would like to extend a very special welcome to Ms. Cheryl Davis; she is the
wife of the MHA for Topsail - Paradise who is here on a very special occasion
today.
Welcome to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR.
SPEAKER:
For
Members' statements today we will hear from the Members for the Districts of
Mount Pearl North, Placentia West - Bellevue, Virginia Waters - Pleasantville,
Ferryland, Windsor Lake, and then I'll be over to the Member for Gander at that
time.
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Coffee Matters on their
return to their original Mount Pearl location.
In early April of this year, the Mount Pearl business
was forced from its home in a strip mall on Commonwealth Avenue following a fire
at Elite Tattoo Studio next door. The business lost thousands of dollars' worth
of food due to smoke damage, and the structure itself was completely cleared
out.
After the fire, co-owner Scott Hillyer said he was
overwhelmed with the flood of support they received from the community when
preparing their temporary space for business. Customers, suppliers, contractors,
other businesses and community members were there to help.
Hillyer attributes the show of support from the
community to the good brand that Coffee Matters has built, which puts people and
goodwill first, and profits second.
He said: “We have a philosophy that whoever calls
looking for donation, whether it's a five-dollar gift card or whether it's
something larger, we always try our best to donate back to the community.”
I would ask all Members present to join me in thanking
Coffee Matters for all they do in the community and congratulate them on their
return to the their original home in Mount Pearl.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR.
BROWNE:
Mr.
Speaker, Mr. George Brushett was 21 when he joined the Royal Artillery 59th
Newfoundland Heavy Regiment and served during the successful Battle of Normandy,
in addition to service in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany.
His unit fired its last rounds of the war in Hamburg,
Germany, two days before the city's German forces surrendered. Upon returning
home, he raised a family and became a dedicated member of the Free Masons. He
passed away this January at the age of 98.
Mr. Cyril Butler joined the war effort at the age of
18, serving in the Royal Air Force while stationed at Scotland, Wales and
England on D-Day. Upon returning home, he served in the Naval Reserves and as a
councillor and town manager in Marystown. He was instrumental in the erection of
a war monument in Marystown and the creation of the Sea Cadet Corps. A
consummate gentleman, Mr. Butler passed away in July at the age of 96.
A third veteran, Mr. Don Holloway, served with the
Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps from '42 to '47 in ammunitions,
naval mine and U-boat detections supply system. He became a passionate advocate
for recreation, serving as Marystown's first arena manager and recreation
director before becoming president of both provincial and National Pensioners
and Senior Citizens Federation. He passed away in September at the age of 96.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to salute all
veterans, but most certainly, these three heroes hailing from Marystown.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.
MR.
B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House to recognize local
entrepreneurship Shara King and David Mullett of Midnight Tailors in my
district. Midnight Tailors are tie makers from St. John's who create
handmade-to-order custom ties for everyone, and for every occasion or
non-occasion, including weddings, corporate situations, or if you just want to
look sharp.
Sci-Fi on the Rock, St. John's largest pop culture
convention afforded them the opportunity to realize the potential that
convention settings offer to market their unique #geekchic casual accessories.
Midnight Tailors then decided to hit the Canadian convention circuit each year,
peddling their wares at established giants such as Montreal Comiccon and
Hal-Con, among many others.
Midnight Tailors also supply several retail outlets
with their products, proving that there is a huge niche market for custom
accessories in our community. Since initially starting with classics and bow
ties, they have expanded to cufflinks, earrings, scrunchies, handkerchiefs and
headscarves, ensuring that there is something for everyone in their shop.
Midnight Tailors have shown that with a little
imagination and a lot of drive, anything can happen. They are a creative
cornerstone of our community. I look forward to seeing what creations they come
up with next.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in wishing Shara,
David and Midnight Tailors the best of luck, and remember to support local.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to recognize the
graduating class of 2018 of Stella Maris Academy in Trepassey. The class
included three high school graduates: Adrianna Nichol, Riley Pennell and Dion
Perry.
Last Saturday, I was honoured to share in the
graduation ceremony for these three students held in Portugal Cove South. While
Stella Maris student enrolment has declined significantly in the last decade,
their academic and athletic results have always been extremely high. The
innovation and commitment of the staff and students have ensured students are
ready to take on any challenge.
The size of their school and class has not affected
their academic success. Their success is tied to the tremendous supports from
the school staff, the communities and parents. These supports have played a big
role in maximizing their education experience, opportunities and have provided
the needed guidance to the students over the years at Stella Maris.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House to join me
in honouring the graduates from Stella Maris Academy in Trepassey, and wish them
every success in their future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. Member for the District of Windsor Lake.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated, lifelong public servant
who recently announced his retirement from this Chamber. The Member for Topsail
- Paradise entered the House in 2010, but his contributions to the well-being of
the province span decades.
Prior to entering provincial politics, he spent 25
years as an officer in the RNC, served as councillor and deputy mayor in his
hometown of Conception Bay South, and has been a lifelong volunteer and
community leader. The Member served eight years as a Cabinet minister, Leader of
the Opposition, and the 12th premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, while
devoting himself to the people of his constituency.
Whether the Member for Topsail - Paradise stays retired
from the public eye or not, his future activities will be performed with the
dignity, compassion and dedication that he has always shown.
The PC caucus thanks the Member for his service, and
wishes him and his family Godspeed as they write the next
chapter of their
lives.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
For
further Member statements, I would ask the Member for Gander to please address
the House of Assembly to confirm leave, and then proceed with his statement.
Thank you.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank my colleagues for leave to present this
statement.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise in
this hon. House to mark the passing of my friend and former colleague, Dr. Doug
Torraville.
Coming to Gander from a practice in Grand Falls-Windsor
in 2004, Doug rapidly established himself as a pillar, not just in the
obstetrics service but in the community itself. His tireless efforts carried his
beloved discipline through many challenging times, and it was only his
unreliable physical health that finally ground him to a halt.
It's a remarkable testimony to the man, his character
and skills, and the love and respect in which he was held by staff, that the
entire obstetric nursing complement from the hospital formed an honour guard to
escort him on his last journey through the church in which he worshiped
regularly. In turn, their nursing colleagues had volunteered to fill their
places on duty to allow all of them to pay their respects. It was the entire
hospital coming together.
He will be remembered as a tireless advocate for
midwifery, in Gander in particular. The profession, his discipline and his
community will be the poorer for his passing, but his memory will continue in
the hearts of we who knew him.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR.
BYRNE:
Thank you very, very much, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps the only thing tougher than a Newfoundlander
and Labradorian is a Newfoundland Pony. Our ancestors worked alongside this
iconic animal to make their living from the land and from the sea. The pony was
often an essential way of their life and was used for many, many jobs including
plowing fields, hauling fish nets, hauling wood and as a means of transportation
from isolated communities.
To help others to ensure the continued perseveration of
this significant, iconic and special breed, our government is providing land for
their protection, pasturing and breeding.
Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to inform this House that
in September we issued a 50-year lease for approximately 10 hectares of Crown
lands near Hopeall, Trinity Bay, to the Newfoundland Pony Society to create a
Newfoundland Pony Heritage Park.
While these 10 hectares will assist the Newfoundland
Pony Society in its efforts to provide sanctuary to these beloved animals, we
must also recognize the tremendous efforts and dedication of those who, for
decades, have committed their time and their resources to save the pony from
extinction.
Mr. Speaker, while my department is working hard to
protect and preserve the Newfoundland Pony, so too are we working hard to
improve the circumstances of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
As part of our Way Forward commitments we increased
access to Crown lands, we identified 62 areas of interest totalling
approximately 64,000 hectares for agricultural use. I'm very proud to state to
this House, Mr. Speaker, that 49 of these areas – a total of approximately
50,500 hectares – have now been reserved for agricultural developments.
Mr. Speaker, today we have over 27,000 hectares of
agricultural land and agricultural leases which have been issued to existing and
new entrants.
Watch as we grow. Truly, we are on the way forward.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR.
LESTER:
Mr.
Speaker, the Newfoundland pony still remains the one and only official heritage
animal of our province. Considering its reputation as a hardy, strong, yet
gentle creature, I can think of no better representative in the barnyard to
represent our province's history.
I am very familiar with the Newfoundland pony. For my
tenth birthday my grandparents gave me one. With that pony I was taught to work
the fields and haul out wood every winter. We on this side of the House applaud
the efforts of the Newfoundland Pony Society and encourage all Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians to visit the Heritage Park upon its opening.
In reference to the secondary part of the Ministerial
Statement, I'm glad the minister has finally put forward numbers regarding this
report, as I've requested them time and time again both in and outside the
House. While these numbers are substantial, they remain vague and are not a
reflection of what I'm hearing from industry. Huge delays in application process
and lease production, largely attributed to the Crown Lands move from its
original location to Corner Brook. Further to that, I refer to the old saying:
Never change horses in mid-stream.
In speaking with the industry, both producer and
representative organizations have expressed frustration with the lack of
consultation and collaboration which was promised in
The Way Forward document on agriculture. Now that the minister has
confirmed these numbers, I look forward to a detailed request, which was posed
six months ago. Once again, I would like to remind him that the political
announcements do not feed people, farmers do.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The Member's time has expired.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Thanks to the minister for the advance copy of his
statement. The Heritage Park should help the Newfoundland Pony Society immensely
in its work to preserve the breed. The park will have land for raising horses,
growing hay, providing a refuge, and eventually attracting visitors.
But there's also a concern, I say to the minister, that
more land will be needed around the province to increase the numbers and ensure
the Newfoundland pony survival. It needs more than the Heritage Park. However,
congratulations to the society for all its work, its amazing volunteer work.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House to promote a wonderful
initiative supported by the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation.
The Research Inspired Student Enrichment Awards, or
RISE, gives recipients an opportunity to attend research-related enrichment
programs at prestigious schools, such as the Research Science Institute based at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the Da Vinci Engineering Enrichment
Program at the University of Toronto; and the Boston Leadership Institute in
Wellesley, Massachusetts.
High school students in the province who demonstrate
academic excellence in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and who
will be completing level II by June 2019, are eligible to apply. Awards range in
the value of $7,900 to $15,100, and will be granted to a maximum of 15 students.
Eligible students must have a minimum average of 90 per cent across all level I
courses, and have a minimum number of courses in science and mathematics.
Mr. Speaker, the deadline for this year's RISE Awards
is November 8.
As part of The
Way Forward's Technology Work Plan, we want to give students the opportunity
to further their educational horizons in ways that promote experiences with
technology and innovation, while also building on their potential here at home.
The RISE Awards is a wonderful program that empowers our youth to aim higher and
achieve more academically. In supporting this initiative, our government is
showing its commitment to increasing innovation, fostering creativity and
developing an entrepreneurial spirit.
Mr. Speaker, 110 RISE Awards have been presented to
students who thrive academically in our schools. I encourage all students to
apply and reach their full potential, becoming tomorrow's innovators, educators,
researchers and leaders.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS.
PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his
statement. On behalf of the Official Opposition, we join with the minister in
encouraging students to apply for the RISE Awards. Students in this province
have continually demonstrated that they can compete on a world stage. From
Enactus Memorial to the success of the Paradigm Hyperloop, our students are
demonstrating their intelligence, critical thinking skills and abilities in
every discipline imaginable.
The Research Inspired Student Enrichment Awards are
another opportunity for students in this province to expand their horizons. They
will give students the ability to attend enrichment programs which will teach
additional skills and inspire students to pursue post-secondary studies in
various areas.
Mr. Speaker, the potential of our youth is endless. I
encourage all students to seek out opportunities and strive for success.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister. Congratulations to all the
previous RISE Awards recipients on their achievements and best of luck to this
year's applicants. What a great opportunity for our young folks. Young people
are essential to the future of our province and they deserve every opportunity
to pursue the best education possible, especially in innovation.
These awards play a valuable role in supporting our
students but so too do our post-secondary institutions here at home who are also
centres of excellence. They cannot take any more cuts.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the minister responsible for The
Rooms. The Rooms request for proposals for an agency of record this year
incorporated certain conflict of interest guidelines. Did The Rooms get their
conflict of interest guidelines from the minister and, if not, from where did
The Rooms get the guidelines?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I answered the question around the RFP that was issued
for an agency of record yesterday. That is within the CEO's responsibility and
of The Rooms Corporation to be able to enter into an RFP to secure an agency of
record.
They did so following guidelines and they did issue an
apology for a poor use of an example that was put forward, but there was no
knowledge of government, there was no direction put forward by me and that is
not the direction of this government to do so with the example that was put
forward by that RFP.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
further question for the minister: Conflict of interest guidelines in effect
when The Idea Factory was hired by The Rooms as agency of record stated that it
is a conflict of interest – and I'll quote this – to represent or advise any
person or organization engaged in advocacy activities against the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador, including any provincial Crown corporation or other
agency of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador – end quote.
Would the minister advise the House whether this
guideline continues to limit The Idea Factory and the clients they represent,
and does this continue as government policy?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Mr.
Speaker, this has been a matter of public record. The Rooms CEO has apologized
for the poor use of example, but it had no impact on the actual awarding of the
RFP. It was not part of the RFP process and this was not something that was
sanctioned by government, approved by government. This was something taken by
The Rooms CEO in the responsibilities that they have to issue an RFP.
They had used the appropriate process of having three
people to review four proposals and the matter of the example that was used on a
questionnaire for conflict of interest was not a factor in awarding the
decision. It is not the viewpoint of government, nor is that how our government
would operate.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
thank the minister but just to ensure we're on the same page, the language that
was so regrettable was from the RFP but the RFP incorporated certain conflict of
interest guidelines.
The question is: Are those conflict of interest
guidelines that The Rooms used earlier this year still in effect?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I said, this was an example that was used on the
website when they went out to procure a record, a Q & A. It was not part of the
assessment process. There was an independent process put forward where there
were three people who reviewed four best proposals, they had a matrix, they did
verifications – there were four proposals. The best person was submitted.
The CEO has highlighted that this was not part of
government, not part of government's decision. This was something that The Rooms
had done and they had done in error by using a poor example.
There was a public apology issued through The Rooms
Corporation and issued through the listserv of government. I'm sure the Member
opposite would review that apology and that matter that was made by the CEO of
The Rooms.
This is not how government is operating.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the minister and I are still not on the same page.
The question and the wording that I read out is from the conflict of interest
guidelines incorporated by the RFP. We both regret the wording, the explanatory
wording in the RFP, but I'm now asking about the conflict guidelines.
Are they still in effect?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Mr.
Speaker, we'll never be on the same page I think when it comes to the Member of
the Opposition, his policies and directions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
has not been clear with the people of this province when he talks about we need
to ensure that every year there has to be a debt break, a balanced budget, $900
million in cuts that he would make in spending. We take a balanced approach here
on this side of the House. We have a plan to get back on surplus when it comes
to creating jobs and building for the economy.
When they talk about cannabis and the industry that
we're developing right here, they would prefer to have importation so there
would be no jobs here and no economic development and no spinoff. That is the
direction of what they are talking about here on this side of the House.
I've answered his question repeatedly. This is not the
direction of government nor The Rooms.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr.
Speaker, it seems that when the question is particularly embarrassing, the red
herring treatment is dragged out.
For the minister: Would the guidelines that I have
quoted in previous questions forbid The Idea Factory from representing or
advising, for example, the Employers' Council or a public sector union?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Mr.
Speaker, the answer is simply no. It is simply no, because this was an example
that was used in a Q & A on a website. It was not part of the request for
proposals to have an agency of record. This was a poor use of an example; it was
highlighted by the CEO.
This was something that The Rooms Corporation undertook
on their own. It is not government's policy to be restrictive in that viewpoint,
and it is something that The Rooms Corporation had apologized for. I cannot be
more clear than that in all of the answers that I've put forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Again, Mr. Speaker, the language used in the RFP that has been regretted and
withdrawn is not the same as the guideline. If the guideline is not aimed at
clients like the Employers' Council or NAPE, can the minister say what persons
or organizations engaged in advocacy it is aimed at?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think that the Member opposite certainly understands
contracts, understands requests for proposals in his previous career. What I
have pointed out is that The Rooms has the responsibility to enter into a
request for proposals on their own to procure an agency of record. They had done
that. They had followed the procedures of filing for a request for proposals.
That was done by three people. It was independently awarded. There were four
proposals.
When it comes to these guidelines that are put forward,
there was an example in one of the questions that had reflected a very poor
example that is not representative of government nor The Rooms, nor did it have
an impact on who was awarded the contract.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Would the minister inform the House whether it would ever be proper for
government or a Crown corporation or other agency to refuse the contract with a
consultant based on whether they represent or advise a person who is engaged in
advocacy activities against government?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Mr.
Speaker, there are times when there are certainly a conflict of interest that
would exist why somebody would not be able to do work for government, and the
Member opposite would certainly know that and could cite examples of that.
But in this instance, this was irrelevant. It was an
error in judgment by The Rooms in placing this forward in an example. It
reflected poorly. The Rooms CEO has apologized for it. But it had no bearing on
the issue of the RFP and who was awarded – a very credible firm that is doing
great work on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, the Human Rights Act forbids discrimination on the basis of
political opinion.
Can the minister advise the House whether the conflict
of interest guideline in use by The Rooms is consistent with the Human Rights
Act?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Mr.
Speaker, I happen to recall months ago that the Member opposite, while he was
seeking to be the leader of the party that he's now responsible for, had stated
that he would file a human rights complaint into this matter, and maybe he can
inform the House if he has, and what the outcome of that would be.
But the fact is that The Rooms followed a process to
issue an RFP. They have the right and responsibility to do so. It has nothing to
do with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. To have The Rooms – they
did this independently, they put forward a poor example, it is something that
they had apologized for, but it had no impact on the awarding of the actual
contract.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
I thank the minister for pointing out the issue of the complaint.
As a matter of information, I did make a complaint, it
was rejected by the commission because I was not a person with standing to do
so; I was not affected by the incident. I commend it to the minister's attention
to look into whether this is, in fact, in breach of the Human Rights Act.
A question, Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, for the
Premier: According to news reports, Nalcor has paid monies owed by Astaldi to
workers since October 14, which we fully supported and are pleased to hear.
Would the Premier be able to inform the House the approximate amount of the
payout by Nalcor, and what fund the amount will come from?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, this has been a difficult time for the
workers of Astaldi. It is unfortunate, and it has been something that we've been
monitoring and working with Nalcor on over the last number of weeks, as the
public is well aware.
The people who work for Astaldi, if they have not
already been paid, in the next few days they will receive their payment. Nalcor
has made that arrangement. Nalcor is working with the surety on that very issue,
because it is so important to the people of the province.
So, I guess the answer to the question that I've been
asked is how will Nalcor get reimbursed for the monies that they have paid to
the workers of Astaldi, it will be through the surety, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
I'm
not sure that I heard the last words, it will be through …?
HON. MEMBER:
The
surety.
MR.
CROSBIE:
The
surety, I see, yes. Thank you.
Can the minister state the approximate amount Astaldi
owes to workers in health and pension benefits? Whether Nalcor will cover any
shortage or whether someone else, some third party would be involved in that?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Astaldi was required to have both sureties, bonds,
letters of credit up to I think it was about $400 million; it was required as
part of their contract. As the Member opposite is aware, he is a lawyer, the
lien that was placed by RDTC, the Trades Newfoundland and Labrador for payment
of pensions and benefits plans was done in July and August.
The surety made payment in September; we're waiting to
see what happens in October, Mr. Speaker. It would be through the required
surety and bonds that are underway, and they are working through that process.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
For
either the minister or the Premier: Is it the position of government that the
Astaldi default has not undermined the completion
schedule for Muskrat?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I think the CEO at Nalcor has made it quite clear
that Astaldi right now is not one of the primary constructors at the Muskrat
Falls site. Nearly 95 per cent of the work that has been completed by Astaldi
right now – work is ongoing. CEO Marshall has told us that this will not
interfere with the
schedule on all of this.
There are some 500 workers that worked with Astaldi. It
was the primary goal for us to make sure that they got paid for the work that
they did on the site up there. As I said so many times, the impact of Muskrat
Falls on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is not as a responsibility of
the people that worked there, it's as a result of a bad deal that was put in
place by the previous administration.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We've been advised by an ambulance operator that the
Department of Health and Community Services have placed all payments to
ambulance operators on hold until further notice.
Can the minister confirm if this is correct and, if so,
what is the reason or reasons for withholding the payments?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
No, there has been no hold placed on payments to
ambulance operators. What has happened with one individual operator in Central
Health is that any back billing for overtime, over and above their regular block
funding, has been asked to be forwarded to the department for verification.
Since that instruction was put in place in June, no invoices have been submitted
by the operator to Central Heath, so nothing has been forwarded.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That's not our understanding that there was a memo sent
– that there would be a hold on payments to the ambulance operators as such. So
you're now clarifying that that has not happened at all, and there are no
operators now that are waiting on their full payments to come forward.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
The
only one I am aware of where there has been any issue around holds has been the
one I have just referred to. And yes, there have been no invoices submitted by
that company to Central Health since the instruction on those invoices only was
placed with them in June.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR.
BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just out of courtesy, I will note, you may not be aware
of this. This is, from our understanding, actually happening. I do ask that the
minister look into this to see if, indeed, this can be confirmed; and, if so, if
he would rectify it because there may be ambulance service out there who cannot
provide a service because they're not being paid for that service, and we need
to ensure that those service are there.
So I do ask the minister if he would look in to see if
this is, indeed, a situation that is happening right now.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
would be happy to do that, Mr. Speaker. I would just draw to the attention of
the Member opposite that since the Grant Thornton audit earlier on this year,
each of the private operators has now agreed to have Grant Thornton staff in
their office to provide auditing and verification services on a go-forward
basis. So, hopefully, these kinds of issues will not arise in the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance how the
shortfall in revenues from cannabis will be made up. He did not answer the
question then. I'm wondering today if he could answer that question for us.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is a supply issue at
the moment across the country. Every province, every jurisdiction of the country
faces this supply issue. We're hoping that, by the end of the year, we have
assurances that the supply should be in regular order to the retailers in this
province. That's certainly our hope.
Based on demand, Mr. Speaker, we're hoping that we'll
make up the shortfall that has been faced as a result of both the deadline for
legalization being October 17, as opposed to July 1, as well as the shortfall on
supply.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister indicated yesterday, and he mentioned it
again here that time, the demand is obviously greater than the product that is
not available, and that precedes what was expected.
So I ask the minister: How did you come up with your
original demand projections?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The original projections were provided by the federal
government to all jurisdictions in the country. And based on the estimates by
the federal government, the provincial jurisdictions and territorial
jurisdictions put supply and sales expectations in place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Canopy Growth is constructing their
facility on a piece of land recently purchased from a developer by a numbered
Newfoundland and Labrador company. The company acquired the land immediately
prior to leasing it to Canopy.
I ask the minister: Is he aware who owns this numbered
company?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR.
OSBORNE:
No,
Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of who owns the numbered company, but I would like to
add some context to Canopy Growth and the deal that the province has reached.
We've heard criticism from the Members opposite regarding the deal, the tax
remittances to Canopy Growth over a period of approximately 14 years.
The thing is the municipal property tax to the City of
St. John's is about a million dollars a year for that facility. The sales tax,
personal income tax, the payroll taxes to the province are in excess of $2
million a year. Without that facility, we wouldn't be collecting those amounts.
Those amounts add up to approximately what the payout is over the 14 years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Mr.
Speaker, I thank the minister for answering the question with regard to his
knowledge of who would own the land being leased, but in short, there's no
conflict that exists. This is a publicly traded company of about $11 billion.
Would the minister look in and see who exactly owns
that property of the company and who's leasing that property to Canopy?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR.
OSBORNE:
Mr.
Speaker, I'm not involved in the ownership of the company, nor am I a
shareholder in the publicly traded company. I don't know who owns the numbered
company, I don't know, other than the individuals who've been in the public
media regarding the ownership of Canopy. But certainly we'll endeavour to find
out, if that's what the Member wishes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: Why does a privately traded, approximately today
$11 billion company, have to lease a piece of land upon which to construct a $50
million facility, and we're putting in $40 million in actual tax credits? Why
would they not finance and be part of that deal? Why is it necessary for the
province to be involved?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
Mr.
Speaker, the publicly traded company is certainly building the facility. When we
had entered into the deal with them in December of 2017 there was an urgency of
the – we had the understanding that July 2018 cannabis would come into
production and for sale here in this province, across the country, so we needed
to enter into a supply agreement.
That had been moved to October, but the company, the
publicly traded company, they had identified that they would build a facility in
the northeast Avalon and it would be up to them to determine which site and
which area, whether they buy land, lease land, buy a building. They could have
looked at other properties, whether it be the Costco that was being closed down
or other properties that are out there.
There are people looking at buildings all over this
province.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister referenced yesterday that he's absolutely
considering these types of deals for other companies relating to the $40 million
tax credit.
So, I'll ask the minister today can he identify who
those companies are and if the deal has been done.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR.
MITCHELMORE:
would say to the Member opposite that deals certainly would be imminent and stay
tuned for that particular matter. Once we're in a position to release anything
for the public, we certainly will and make those details available.
It's very important to highlight that we are building
an industry here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that when you deal with
publicly traded companies, there is a procedure and protocol that you would have
to undertake, and that in these particular deals the companies determine their
location. They determine where they want to set up. They acquire their land.
They put their building, their capital. They're publicly traded businesses. They
determine their business plan. What is of interest to us as a government is
securing supply, the jobs and the economic benefits to Newfoundland and
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Terra Nova FPSO began service in 2002
and was said to have a life span of approximately 20 years, and is speculated to
be in need of repairs and maintenance.
I ask the minister: Has Suncor been advised of when
they intend to take the vessel out for these repairs and what will be the effect
on production?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Suncor has been a good operator in our offshore
Newfoundland and Labrador. They certainly have made a tremendous amount of
investments in our offshore and we're very, very pleased to have the Terra Nova
project, of course. It's been a big component of our offshore.
They will be doing repairs, Mr. Speaker. I have a
meeting arranged with Suncor, with the operators of Terra Nova, and I may have
more information after I have that conversation with them.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: In terms of those repairs, will
they be taking place at the Bull Arm facility, Marystown, the dockyard in St.
John's? Where will they take place to?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Mr.
Speaker, it depends on the extent of the repairs and what is required. Sometimes
they may have to go outside of this province if they cannot fit within the
requirements of what we have in the province, but we have not discussed at this
point where those repairs will be taking place because it depends on the extent.
As I've advised the Member opposite, I will be having a
meeting in the very near future with Suncor to discuss that. Obviously, this
government would always want to have the work done in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR.
HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister. Why has no decision been made on
the requests for proposals on the operation of the Bull Arm site?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That's a very good question. We have been working. As
the Member opposite knows we did go out for an expression of interest and then
further to a request for proposals. Four proponents came forward and two of
which have come down through the request for proposal.
We have been having many, many discussions with them
and it's very public as to who – one is for a supply basis and one is for a
fabrication facility. We've been having multiple discussions to try and make it
the best possible solution for long-term opportunity in Bull Arm and working
with, obviously, the Member of the House of Assembly for that very area and with
the communities to make sure the long-term success of that facility is there.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The provincial ambulance system is in trouble: no
central dispatch; financial anomalies; inefficiencies; paramedics, unions,
employers, owners, the public, every player is in an uproar; and the minister
simply throws up his hands and says government is just buying a service and
doesn't have the power to intervene.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a government contract with a
courier company. Ambulances are an essential part of our health care.
I ask the minister. When is he going to take
responsibility and do what is necessary to ensure a safe, well-functioning,
effective ambulance service for the people of the province?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Thank you very much for the question.
Mr. Speaker, I think some of the
preamble is something
I would take issue with. I wouldn't like this fear mongering to spread beyond
the Chamber. If you need an ambulance and dial 911, you will get one. It will
turn up in a timely way, with skilled people there.
We are having some challenges and we inherited a
situation where we had had Fitch one, Fitch two, Fitch three, POMAX reports all
neglected and we are working on that.
We have plans afoot for central medical dispatch. We
have done the audit with Grant Thornton, and we have put in place financial
measures to deal with the irregularities that we identified. We are working on
it, Mr. Speaker; it's not nothing is happening.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Mr.
Speaker, only yesterday in this House the minister said that he simply gives the
money; that he has no control over how that is spent.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: If he is not in
charge of the provincial ambulance service, then who is in charge?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Mr.
Speaker, we inherited a system with the ambulance service that we are working to
rectify. It is currently based on the concept of a contracted service. We are
meeting with the ambulance operators, be they private or community, and RHA to
work together to solve this problem. It is not my problem, it is not their
problem, it is a collective one and, between that determination, we will come up
with the answers we need.
We have rolled over the ambulance agreement, we are
working towards a potential RFP and trying to design with them, collectively,
what this system will look like so it will best serve the needs of the
population in the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Mr.
Speaker, the inheritance that the minister speaks about was three years ago. So
this year the Grant Thornton audit found serious financial anomalies in the
ambulance sector, yet government has done nothing to address these issues, and
now says there won't be any changes for at least another year. That brings us to
four years, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the minister: Why is he putting off fixing
problems his own government has perpetuated by its failure to provide financial
oversight in this essential part of health care?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
With respect once again, Mr. Speaker, that
preamble is flawed, and the Member
misspeaks. We have not done nothing. We have done the Grant Thornton audit,
we've actually listened to the results of the Fitch inquiries, all three of
them, and we are putting in place central medical dispatch and we're putting in
place contract management.
We are dealing with contracts that are outdated and we
have inherited. We are now bound by a new
Public Procurement Act , and we're working within that to deal with those
situations. We have put in place, at our expense, Grant Thornton to monitor and
provide real-time fiscal data, at no expense to the ambulance operators, so we
can monitor the things she says we're doing nothing about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The Fitch ambulance report in 2013 recommended
government immediately set up a central dispatch facility to ensure ambulances
get to people in a timely fashion. Six years later, there is still no central
dispatch and people remain at risk.
So I ask the minister: After three years of being in
government, why have you not created a central dispatch facility, which the
Fitch report recommended be done immediately?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
coin a phrase of one of my colleagues: Stay tuned; it's coming.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for St. John's East – Quidi Vidi for a quick question, please.
MS.
MICHAEL:
ask the minister then: He's saying keep watching, it's coming. So will we also
find coming the turning over all the ambulance services in this province to the
Medavie Blue Cross corporation?
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR.
HAGGIE:
Mr.
Speaker, we are still in discussions with essentially a blank sheet of paper as
to how our ambulance operators would like to proceed. I'm not going to pre-judge
that. If that's what the Member opposite wants, I hear her opinion, thank you.
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.
Notices of Motion
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I give notice that I will ask to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Assessment Act, 2006, Bill 34.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.
MR.
LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
At a time when the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
are dealing with high levels of taxation, increased unemployment rates,
increased food bank usage, increased bankruptcies and many are being forced to
choose between food, heat and medications, Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland
and Labrador Hydro are continuing to seek numerous power rate increases through
the Public Utilities Board.
Once the Muskrat Falls Project comes online, these
rates are predicted to further increase significantly to unmanageable levels for
the average citizen of our province. While government has indicated they are
working with Nalcor to mitigate rates, they have provided no detailed plan as to
how they intend to do so.
Therefore, we petition the House of Assembly as
follows: To urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to publicly provide
all of the potential options for rate mitigation, develop a comprehensive,
detailed plan –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh,
oh!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Thank you, please proceed.
MR.
LANE:
to deal with current and impending power rate increases. This plan is to be
provided to the public as soon as possible to allow for scrutiny, feedback and
potential suggestions for improvement.
Mr. Speaker, I have about 100-120 names here today.
They're coming from areas like King's Point, Grand Falls, Port Anson,
Springdale, Harry's Harbour, Nicky's Nose Cove – never heard of that place
before. That's a new one on me, Nicky's Nose Cove. Rattling Brook and so on. So,
Mr. Speaker – Harry's Harbour and so on.
Mr. Speaker, there are people from all throughout the
province who are concerned. We all have concerns certainly about where power
rates are going. We're all, I'm sure, listening keenly to what's happening with
the Muskrat Falls Inquiry and, hopefully, we will get some answers there. Some
of the answers coming, so far, have not been good. They've been very disturbing,
to say the least. But at the end of the day, regardless of how we got to this
point, we're here.
Now, the government has indicated that they're going to
mitigate rates, and I'm glad they've said that. I certainly hope they do. But
just simply saying that is not good enough for many people. People want to know,
specifically, what the plans are going to be to mitigate rates. That's what
people want to know, that's why they signed this petition and that's why I'm
presenting it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Natural Resources for a response, please.
MS.
COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree with the Member opposite that people in the
province are quite concerned about the Muskrat Falls Project and its impacts,
Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate the Member opposite wasn't concerned enough when
he made the decision to do ahead with that very project.
At the time of sanctioning, I believe the Member
opposite would've made a decision to have Muskrat Falls costs given 100 per cent
to the ratepayers of this province. This government has said, quite clearly,
that will not be the case, Mr. Speaker. That will not be the case.
We are working diligently and thoroughly, not just to
ensure that the Muskrat Falls Project is finished in a better place than where I
started, we are working very diligently and methodically to finish the project
and not have any more extensive costs added or burdens added to the people of
this province.
Mr. Speaker, we are also equally working methodically
and diligently to have a plan to address the concerns around Muskrat Falls
costs, and we can reassure the people of this province, it won't be borne by the
ratepayers or the taxpayers.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS.
ROGERS:
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 humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest
minimum wages in Canada, and minimum wage workers earn poverty incomes; and
WHEREAS proposals
to index the minimum wage to inflation will not address poverty if the wage is
too low to start with; and
WHEREAS women and
youth, and service sector employees, are particularly hurt by the low minimum
wage; and
WHEREAS the minimum
wage only rose 5 p er cent between 2010 and 2016, while many food items
rose more than 20 per cent; and
WHEREAS other Canadian jurisdictions are implementing
or considering a $15-an-hour minimum wage as a step towards a living wage;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly
pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to legislate a
gradual increase in the minimum wage to $15 by 2021, with an annual adjustment
thereafter to reflect provincial inflation.
As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, the minister has gotten up each time I've
presented this petition lately to say, well, you know what, we're at $11.15 now,
and they've increased minimum wage, but at the snail's pace rate that they're
doing, and if they're only increasing the minimum wage according to the
increases in the cost of living, we will never – most of us will be gone by the
time we reach $15 an hour. Everybody else in the province will have surpassed
that. And as noted, most provinces are looking at $15 an hour as a target that
will eventually get them to a living wage.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador
deserve better than this, and they need better than this, we know that. And
again, it negatively impacts predominantly women and young people, a lot of
people who don't have a formalized education, and this is not the way to do it.
This is holding the province back. We need government to take bold actions that
modernize our province, that modernize our legislative standards. We need that,
we deserve it, and it's in the best interest of the people, it's in the best
interest of the province, and it's in the best interest of our economy.
All the research has shown that appropriate, targeted
minimum wage levels of at least $15 an hour, by the year 2020 or 2021, in fact
is providing a boost in the economies where it is already undergoing.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and
Labour for a response, please.
MR.
HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, again, rise on making a response to that petition
because, again, I just need to correct some of the information that the hon.
Member opposite. I learned a long time ago, when we get up to speak we shouldn't
use terms such as “all.” She just said that all research – all research has
indicated that $15 an hour is what it should be? That is incorrect. There's
research out there that's telling otherwise as well. So that is just one point,
Mr. Speaker.
The other point I wanted to make, she talks about most
of the provinces in Canada are looking at $15 per hour. That's not necessarily
accurate either, Mr. Speaker. There are some provinces that are. There are other
– she's using “most.” There are 10 provinces in Canada and most would be
anything like six or seven, that would be most, and that's incorrect. If you
look at Newfoundland and Labrador, we are at $11.15 with a 65 cent increase in
one year.
As minister, it is my responsibility to strike a
balance between the employer and those that are working. So, Mr. Speaker, that
sometimes becomes difficult to try and do that. I will also mention, for
clarity, that in Newfoundland and Labrador right now it's $11.15, Nova Scotia
it's $11, Ontario it's $12 – I'm sorry, Quebec is $12, Ontario is $14,
Saskatchewan is $10.96. And so when you say most provinces, that is incorrect.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further petitions?
The hon. the Member for Topsail - Paradise.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise on a point of personal privilege.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Sir, it is my honour to grant you this point of personal privilege.
Please proceed.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and all hon. Members for the
opportunity to rise this afternoon, and I can tell you at this point in time,
the quietness and silence here is deafening. You have learned now how to quiet
the House, Mr. Speaker. This is apparently how it's done.
I thank all hon. Members for the opportunity to say a
few words this afternoon. I referenced the hon. Speaker and hon. Members in this
hon. House and I do so in reflection of us as a group of elected officials. I've
always been told, Mr. Speaker, we should never forget who elected us; we should
never forget why they elected us. And furthermore, we should never forget who we
were when they went into the ballot box and chose who they were going to elect
to represent them here in this House.
I'm not going to belabour this point today; it's not my
intention to belabour this today. But I do point out, and I know first-hand from
own experience, that sometimes it can be easy, sometimes it can sneak up on you
when you get caught in a moment, or caught up in a moment that's happening, to
fall away from our own values or to slip away from the principles that really
make us the people we are that cause people to vote for us in the first place.
I've done that on occasion here in the House myself,
where I've said something to somebody either while standing on the record or off
the record and had quickly regretted it afterwards; or, in some cases, upon
reflection over some time had regretted it as well.
It's very easy for all of us to get caught up in the
politics of what goes on here. We know in politics there's also a to-and-fro and
a maneuvering and an effort because every politician knows that the next day
after the night before when you realize you've been elected, on everybody's mind
is the fact that you have to get re-elected. That's not lost on any of us.
That's part of what we have to do. If you don't conduct yourself and create
policies and opportunities and you don't do the things that people expect you to
do, then you are essentially setting your own fate and future.
So, it's hard sometimes for all of us to stay focused
on doing what we came here to do, to do good for the province, and do good for
the people of the province and to keep that first and foremost.
I also encourage all Members that when you see your
colleague or you hear your colleague going down a road that maybe is not the
right way to go, instead of applauding and encouraging and supporting and always
seeing – there is lots of humour happens here but seeing the humour when you say
oh, maybe that person shouldn't have said that or done that, I think it's
incumbent on all of us to tap that hon. Member on the shoulder and say I'm not
sure we should go down that road, or maybe we should think about it differently.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, and the truth of it is that
when one person in this House goes astray or does something or says something
that reflects negatively upon that Member, it reflects negatively on every
single one of us. Because people of the public quite often see us as one, and
many people in the province they don't care what party we represent in many
ways. They don't care which side of the House we're on. If we do something or
act in a way that doesn't make them feel good about us, it quite often reflects
on all of us.
So we should all strive at all times to be the example,
no matter where we are, who we're with or what we're doing at the time, because
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians expect us to be the example that they want
their loved ones and family, their children, to strive to be. People expect
better from all of us and we're all responsible for that – me included, Mr.
Speaker. All of us in this entire House are responsible for that.
I think about the future as well, especially with me
stepping down, finishing tomorrow. There are so many great wonderful people in
our province that are so capable and smart and educated, diligent, well
respected, well regarded and well intended who do great work in their
communities. That do great work in their own neighborhoods and do great work in
our province. They've also done, in many cases, great work in our country.
We need those people, Mr. Speaker, to step up and offer
themselves to become a Member of this House. We want them, and I want them, to
want my job. If they want to come, run for us, work for us, be a Member of this
House, and there are people that are latching at your coattails and say I want
to do what she does or he does, or I want to be in that House like he has been
or like she has been, then I think we've done a better job because we want those
good people to step up to become Members of this House, to offer themselves, to
strive for better for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Mr. Speaker, many years ago – here comes the story part
– I was a very young man and I was trying to find my way as a teenager and
through school. I can tell you, I wasn't the most focused student in high
school. I see a former high school teacher of mine, he's at Tim Hortons in
Manuels every single morning; the man is in his eighties. My colleague behind me
here certainly knows him well. He's there every single morning and every now and
then I say to him: Sorry about that. I'll say: Sorry the way I was in high
school. Because I can tell you he knew me. I knew him but he certainly knew me,
and I was a pretty young guy at that point in time.
I always knew that whatever work I did I always said I
can't see myself being in an office, working at a desk, processing paper and
doing those kinds of things. I was going to need to be more challenged than
that; I was going to have to have excitement in my life and so on. I always
thought well, what really fits for me would be policing. That'd work for me.
Imagine you were into the thick of it day in, day out, day in, day out.
Sometimes it sounds like politics.
So, I applied for the RCMP and the RCMP, they are the
mothership of policing in the country. They are what all police agencies should
strive to be. As a young Newfoundlander and Labradorian, as a young Canadian I
said there's nothing better I could be. If I wanted to be a police officer, I
was going to head to the best, the top, and so on.
I applied for the RCMP. I went through the rigorous
process of application, testing, fitness testing and all the rest of it, doing
exams and so on. I was fortunate that they had accepted me and they said yes,
we're going to take you. They said the bad news is that they were going through
at the period of time – and good that they were – where they were diversifying
the RCMP. I almost said force then. I like service, by the way. People talk
about police forces. I like police service because I think police do more than
just apply force and apply the law. I think they provide a service as well.
They were diversifying the RCMP service by hiring
visible minorities and more women, diversity of language and so on and I was a
Well, I'm going to apply for the RNC; if I can get in the RCMP, I can get in the
RNC, no problem. You know, if the RCMP will take me, any other police service
should be able to take me. So I applied for the RNC, and much to my surprise
they turned me down. They wouldn't take me. And I said: This is messed up. How
does this happen?
So I went back to them, and there was no follow-up
interviews back in those days, post-process interviews where you can go back and
say what did I do wrong, or what should I do different; but I called them up,
and I went and saw Gary Browne, actually, who increased through the ranks to
deputy chief in his career, and I went back and he was in the selection
committee – he tells everyone today our history – and I went back to him and I
said: Why are you turning me down?
And first thing they told me was – my wife's in the
gallery, so I got to be careful, because she tells me this every day – they
said: We don't like the way you drive – because I got a couple of tickets during
my time as a young person – you're going to have to fix that. But they said
also: We see what you've done. I was going to university for a little while;
I've worked probably since I was 14, 15 years old. They said: We don't see what
you're doing in the community; we don't see how you're contributing to the lives
of others. And I went: Oh yeah, that's that volunteer work stuff.
My father spent a lifetime giving to his community. In
my younger years my father and I never always got along; we certainly did later
in years, but he was someone who – we had supper, he had to rush out the door
because he had a meeting to go to. Dad always had a meeting to go to. I said:
I'm not going to be that; that's not going to be me. So here I was trying to
find a meeting to go to, because I had to go do something to prove to them I
could do something outside the box for others.
I said: I got to find something that's going to be
meaningful to me, and enjoyable, and will help me be a better candidate, because
I'm going to reapply to the RNC again next year. I got to be a better candidate;
what can I find? And at the time, and some of you may remember back in those –
and the Member for Windsor Lake and his legal background, and anyone else with a
legal background, will remember the early '80s when the young offenders act
first came into being, and it was pre-that, before that, and there was a program
called the juvenile diversion program.
I said: Well, what's that about? The juvenile diversion
program was a pilot project, and I found my way down to their offices on Harvey
Road here in St. John's, and I went in and met with the executive director, and
said: What's this about, and I need some volunteer time, and can I help you out?
Margie Harris-Stapleton is who it was. Many of you, I
think, would know her through the work that she continues to do in the
community. And I was this young kid; I tell you, I was pretty green at the time.
I was very much an introvert. I had lots of issues and confidence – I would
never stand in a venue like this and speak. And I said, what can you do? How can
I help you, and so on? They were looking for volunteers. We had a conversation
and they said, yes, we're going to do this. We're going to take you and we'll
take you as a volunteer. I really had no experience, Mr. Speaker, in
volunteering at the time.
The Juvenile Diversion Program was about –
historically, what had happened was a young person or an adult who had conflict
with the law, got caught drinking under age, shoplifted an item of very small
value, broke their neighbour's fence or threw a rock and broke a neighbour's
window, these types of things traditionally were held by charging the person and
the young person would go to court. This program was about finding a different
way to divert the behaviour of those young people.
So they trained me as a mediator. I didn't know what a
mediator was back in those days, but they trained me as a mediator to mediate
the differences between, for example, a neighbour and the young person, or a
victim of a theft and a young person, or if the young person had been drinking
under age, then we would mediate between the young person and their family.
They trained me to be a mediator. I thoroughly enjoyed
it. I learned a lot from it. It was also then, before too long they appointed me
to the board, asked me would I go on the board. I said sure, what's that? What's
a board, and I became a board member. It was my first ever board position. I
don't know how many I've had since then, but it was my first ever board
position.
More importantly, Mr. Speaker, I learned so many
lessons through that experience. The program was about giving kids a break. It
was about giving them a second chance. The program taught me, don't be too quick
to judge people. Hear them out first and find out really what's the issue, the
root of the issue here and what's happening, and why did this behaviour occur
and how did this conflict with a neighbour, friend or with the law occur? Don't
be too quick to condemn people.
Sometimes people do need a break, and sometimes those
small things you can do for someone will make a big difference in their lives or
in their future. I took that back to – well, took that with me my entire life,
because the year after that I went back to the RNC and I applied again. They
said: oh, yeah, you. What have you done the last year? I volunteered. What did
you do? I volunteered at Juvenile Diversion. Oh, what did you do down there?
Well, I became a mediator. Oh, really. Yeah, and I coordinated mediation
sessions.
By that time, I was training other mediators and I was
a board member. They were giving me lots of opportunity and helping me develop
and grow and be a better person. I brought all that back and the RNC accepted
me.
I should point out, about two weeks before I went to
the Police Academy at Holland College in Prince Edward Island, the RCMP phoned.
They said, we hear you're going to Holland College. I said, yeah, that's right.
Okay, well come down and see us, we'll take you now. I had a choice to make but
I certainly, absolutely, have no regret. I absolutely made the right decision by
following the career that I did.
Those lessons, especially with young people, I spent a
lot of my career working with young people and with families who have had
difficulties with young people and so on. I took a lot of those lessons with me
throughout my entire life. I was blessed with the people I work with in the RNC;
some fine, fine women and men who look after all of us in so many ways.
We're actually blessed with so many first responders in
our province, not only police but firefighters, the medical attendants, the
search and rescue people; the people who are at the emergency rooms at the
hospitals who face chaotic and difficult, challenging circumstances every day;
people who work in the acute care wards; social workers who are working with
children and families who are struggling to get through and to look for a better
day ahead. There are so many people in those front lines of public service and
government service that there are too many to mention.
I remember as a councillor in Conception Bay South –
and Conception Bay South has a composite fire department of career and volunteer
firefighters. I remember one time I was speaking at one of their events. I know
my friend behind me here will appreciate this one as well, and many of you. I
made a significant error when speaking at an event because I referred to the
career firefighters as professionals and the rest as volunteers.
I very quickly recognized my error, and I heard it loud
and clear. Because no matter if that emergency medical response team is a
volunteer or if they are paid employees, or if they're firefighters or
volunteers, or if they're paid employees, or – in some cases we have people who
volunteer to support and assist with police. Mr. Speaker, they're all
professionals in Newfoundland and Labrador and we owe them a great debt of
gratitude for what they do.
I'm not going to go down the road of too much policy
today, but there's one that's current for me. I've spoken to the minister and I
appreciate the discussion we've had on this this week, and I would be remiss if
I didn't mention it. We have first responders who are suffering today, and I am
thankful that last year the government decided – and the minister took the
initiative to change the policy for workers. Because in the policy, what was
required by a worker was to identify the event that caused their mental health
challenges and issues. If it be an occupational stress injury or actually
full-blown diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.
I know now, and I didn't know then, but I certainly
know now that post-traumatic stress disorder doesn't have to be caused by an
event, especially for first responders. If you've got someone who for five or 10
or 15 or 20 years, whatever the case may be, who's been responding to these
chaotic, difficult and challenging circumstances, I'm telling you here today,
and I tell all Members of this House, they are impacted. They are. The people
who respond every day are impacted. It took me a long time to figure it out. It
wasn't until after I left government and came in the Opposition when I had more
time to process it that I came to realize that.
We have people, first responders, today who've retired
or resigned from their jobs because they can't do it anymore. The policy that
existed when this happened for them doesn't apply to them. So if a person today
– I left policing in 2010, eight years ago. It seems like a long time. I've
learned a lot about myself in that eight years. I've learned a lot about myself
and the impacts over the last couple of years. And I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker,
there are so many first responders out there who are not able to even get
support to see a psychologist who specializes in occupational stress injuries,
because they don't meet the criteria.
So I ask the government, and I ask this House, it's the
only policy item I'm talking about today, but I encourage you, I urge you, I beg
you to have a very serious look – and if it means, and I know it's a complex
piece of work. I know that there's a campaign in the province right now to
include a presumptive clause for all workers, and that's going to be a ton of
work. It could take months or years to get through all that work.
If the government was to say, well, right now we're
going to provide presumptive coverage for first responders, and if you wanted to
determine who they were and follow a narrow scope that occurs in the country –
because most every province has it today – and if you had that presumptive
clause for first responders with a commitment that you're going to review other
classifications of employees and broaden that as time goes on, at least start to
help the ones that are in that core that you can help. Because there are first
responders who have given so much to our province are suffering, and they need
that help.
Being an MHA, Mr. Speaker, is not easy either. Every
one of us know here sometimes the things that our constituents sometimes will
ask us for that we can't do, that we'd like to do. We'd love to be able to fix
all their problems and we know we can't. It doesn't matter what side of the
House you're on or where you sit in this Legislature, you can't do it. I know
for you, as well, Mr. Speaker, it can be frustrating, not being able to achieve
sometimes what you'd like to do.
It's not easy being a minister. I've experienced that
as well. And I know that sometimes you'll sit at the Cabinet table and you'll
go: I don't know about this. I always knew that the rule in Cabinet is: If you
can't live with the decision, then you have a choice to make. Because you can
stay in Cabinet, and if I can use the term “live for another day” to help
influence other decisions in the future, or you can pack up your bags and go
home.
If you stay there, you can help in the future, and
sometimes that's really challenging. There's something you philosophically or
principally don't really believe in or it's a real challenge for you, but you
know there are other things coming that you want to support and you feel can
help go in the way that you want it to go, and you can only do that if you're
sitting at the Cabinet table.
And being a Cabinet minister can be even harder,
because your constituent sometimes will come to you and say: Well, you're a
minister; you can make this happen. And you go: No, really I can't. Sure you
can; you can make this happen. So it's tough.
I know it's tough being a premier because I had that
one. It was toughest time of my life; no ways about it. No argument from the
Premier. I sent him over a note earlier, because I was thinking about the things
that the Premier and I actually have in common, Mr. Speaker. I sent him a note
earlier, when the House sat earlier today, and I said: Am I right in thinking
that you're a Toronto Maple Leafs fan? Because I'm a Toronto Maple Leafs fan. Is
that okay with everybody?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
P. DAVIS:
So,
Mr. Speaker, I do have support on the other side of the House. But it turns out
the Premier's not a Toronto Maple Leafs fan. I thought we had that in common.
But I noticed today he's wearing a nice gold or yellow-coloured tie; so am I.
He's got a black suit on. He's wearing his poppy, a white shirt. We have all
that in common. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that's about it. That's about all we got in
common.
HON. MEMBER:
Grey hair.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
But
– my hair's not grey. It's really hard to get someone to dye a little bit of
grey in so I look like I'm experienced, right?
HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR.
P. DAVIS:
But, Mr. Speaker – oh, is grey a good colour?
HON. MEMBER:
Grey it not a colour.
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Grey is not a colour.
Mr. Speaker, it is tough business when you're faced
with the decisions, and it's never, never easy. I'll tell you something else,
Mr. Speaker, it's not easy over here either. I got to be honest with you when I
sat in government, in some ways, I used to look at the Opposition, and some of
you sat in the Opposition over here, and I go: Man, they got it so easy. They
have no idea how tough and how hard it is, and your difficulties and challenges
are certainly different from ours.
But it's not easy for us over here either, Mr. Speaker.
We have a lot of work to do in a short period of time every day. We have a
caucus who's a small, but very hard-working team that I'm very proud of. And
someone said to me recently: How's it been anyway? Your job is to pick holes in
the government, you got to find their shortcomings, you point them out, when you
catch them making a mistake you go: Aha, I caught you. I said: Yeah, but do you
know what? That's not that easy to do. You can do that for a day or you can do
that for Question Period but I can tell as time goes on, that wears on all of
us.
I go back to my earlier comment. Sometimes it doesn't
reflect on all of us very well, so we've got to find our places. This team over
here, Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud of. They've done a great job as an Opposition
and they've done a great job supporting me along the way.
Mr. – oh, I almost said your name and I'm not allowed
to say his name. The Member for Windsor Lake, I thank him for his comments at
the beginning of the House session this afternoon. You took three pages out of
my speech, so I'm sure everybody appreciates that. You've got an important job
to do as well. I got to say I've been impressed with how you've handled yourself
over the last couple of weeks. I have to say that.
With all due respect, the comments I hear from people
is that there is a significant contrast that's been established now in this
House, a very different way from doing business on one side and doing the other.
As that proceeds and experience grows and so on, then we'll all see where the
chips fall because I'll be home with my bag of chips and I'll be watching on TV
as well to see how all that goes. But I do wish you, Sir, and the entire caucus
all the best in the future.
I've been thinking about, lately, some of my former
colleagues and I've been so lucky in the past as well. I've got some of them who
are still friends today. I had one very recently say to me: Paul, if you're
lucky – okay to say my own name is it, Mr. Speaker? Oh, thanks; I wouldn't want
to be expelled from the House today.
He said: Paul, if you're lucky as a politician, you get
to make two decisions in politics that will impact you significantly on a
personal level. You can decide when you join politics, and if you're really
lucky, you can decide when you leave because sometimes other people will decide
that for you. Well, I'm very lucky. I'm very, very lucky.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, in my experiences that
I've had over my lifetime and all the way back to when I became a volunteer with
juvenile diversion program, which was a catalyst in so many ways for
volunteerism, I can't remember a time, any significant period of time since then
that I didn't do something in my community. Because the truth of it is it's
tremendously rewarding. It's also tremendously beneficial because when you get
to work with other people and learn from them, they are sometimes the best
lessons of all.
I've never differentiated myself, the difference or
separated my work life from my volunteer life. They always mesh together. They
all become one and you are what you are when you are at work, when you're
volunteering, when you're trying to help a group or an organization, you are
what you are. But both of them are very rewarding and fulfilling. Both work and
volunteerism, when you think about it, is really – and the work we do as a
police officer, as a politician, it's about people. We are in the people
business in such a big way. You're in the policy business and operating, doing
the business of running the province and so on, but it's really all about
people. I give full credit to the people who I've been blessed to have had the
opportunity to work with through all of those experiences.
I've always shied away and tried to shy away – it's not
about me; it's not what I've done. It's always about team, not me as a person.
I've always credited the people around me, and I do that today.
Volunteering is about community groups. Groups are
groups of people. Running an election or deciding to run for an election is
about team or about people and teams who come together to achieve a goal. It's
always perplexed me, Mr. Speaker, I have to be honest with you. I always get so
perplexed by how people give up so much of their time to help a politician get
elected. It's fascinating, it's amazing and we would never be able to do it –
none of us would ever be able to do it if we never had a crowd of people around
to help us go through that process. Those who get the best teams quite often run
the best elections, but we always do it.
From the time I first ran in council in 2001 to the
nomination processes and by-elections and elections – the leadership election,
the leadership process I went through in 2014 was probably the longest, hardest
run personal campaign of my life. People during that campaign from all over the
province stepped up and reached out to help me be successful in that campaign;
it's amazing. It continues to amaze me when I think about it and reflect upon
it, and we should never forget how valuable they are.
Friends and neighbours and people who I've never met,
family – how much patience do your families have for the jobs that we've taken
on, the roles that we've taken on? All work together to win an election, Mr.
Speaker, as I said it's really pretty amazing. I thank all of them, all of those
countless people from the very beginning when I first ran in 2001 – I've been on
the ballot more times than I can count with two hands since 2001. If you include
nominations and running for deputy mayor and council and by-elections and
elections and so on, it's more than two hands the number of times. I've never
done it alone, I've always done it with the help of people and I'm truly
thankful for them.
Back in my days in the RNC, Mr. Speaker, which was my
first real time in public service, I learned about our public service. Policing
is removed somewhat from the regular public service, but public servants are the
backbone that keeps the police agency operating.
When I came here into the House, I saw a new level of
experience. I had a new level of experience with our public service and public
servants throughout our province. When I became a Cabinet minister, I got hands
on, and deep, and learned so much about how much we rely on our public service.
I saw it first-hand.
We've got great, talented, hard-working people in our
public service throughout our province and we should – every one of us in this
House should be so proud and pleased to have all of those people, because they
do a fabulous job for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
In my time in Cabinet, and in the Premier's office, Mr.
Speaker, there were many, many days that I drove on to the parking lot, dark in
the mornings, and thought, will I be the first one there today? Nope. And there
were many, many days I left here late at night, and I thought, am I the last one
here tonight? Nope.
I don't remember a time, and there were many, many days
I was here early in the morning and left late at night, I can't remember a time
when I was the first one here or the last one to leave. That's because public
servants were here doing what we asked them to do, and working for
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I mentioned caucus, and I can't overstate how important
it is to have a team. I know when you go through really difficult, tough times,
Mr. Speaker, and you're getting a rough ride or you're getting a hard go, then
it's so important that the people around you are the right people that are
continuing to support you, and I've certainly enjoyed that. It's a constant
battle to try and balance your working life and your House of Assembly
responsibilities, but I've got admiration for all of them.
Mr. Speaker, I've had more than what I ever wanted as
far as experience with health care. Everyone knows I was diagnosed in 2011, and
I went through a summer of chemotherapy treatments, and then in the fall I
became a Cabinet minister. What a lot of people don't realize is that I
continued treatment for two years while I was a Cabinet minister. I did
maintenance treatments for two years.
I had fabulous, fabulous care. We've got some of the
finest doctors – I'm sure the Minister of Health knows it first-hand, he's
worked in our system for so many years. But we got some of the finest health
care professionals in this province that you're going to find anywhere in the
country or in the world, right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
P. DAVIS:
talk about employees all the time, but people quite often in the public,
especially lately, but a lot of people don't understand quite often the
difference in political staff and public service. Because political staff are
our chosen people who work on our political goals, which is separate from the
public service. And what a team I've had around me since day one.
When I first got elected and I came in, I was brand new
and knew nothing. I came in on a by-election. So I came in on my own. You look
over here, how many Members here came in on by-elections? He did, you did, you
did, he did, he did – he's not here today but I'm thinking about him. They all
came in on by-elections. And I knew nothing. There was a group of people here
that very quickly rallied around me, taught me the ropes, what I needed to know
and helped me along the way when I first came in here.
I've never believed that the leader or the premier, or
the Cabinet Minister has to be the best of everything in the room, or the
brightest and most educated. You don't have to be. But what I've been able to
do, Mr. Speaker, is bring some of the brightest and most talented people around
me, then engage with them and get the best out of them. Then that helps us get
the best results. I take my hat off to all of them and thank them so much for
the work they've done, all the political staff that have supported me. I have so
much to be thankful for, Mr. Speaker.
When I won the leadership in 2014, that evening – and
Tom Marshall, who was premier at the time, said I'd like to speak to you
tomorrow. I told this story a couple of weeks ago. He said, can I meet with you
tomorrow? Can you come see me? I said sure thing. He said just come up for an
hour. I said, I'll be there tomorrow morning. So I got there around 10 o'clock.
I think I went home 10 o'clock that night. Because if you know Mr. Marshall, he
likes to have a yarn. But he's very wise in many ways, very, very wise.
One of the most important pieces of advice he gave me,
he said tell your friends not to stop calling. I said, what are you talking
about, tell them not to stop calling? He said they're going to stop calling. The
premier knows what I'm talking about.
He said your friends will stop calling because they're
going to call you and say come to dinner tomorrow night. I can't, I have an
event to go to. How about, let's go to the cabin on the weekend? I can't, I got
three events on the weekend to attend. Okay. Well, how about Monday night next
week? No, I can't. I got something else going.
He said so tell your friends please don't stop calling,
because while you put everything into politics and into your work, just
remember, that the day you walk out, your friends and your family are the ones
that will be there for you.
The time is right, Mr. Speaker. The time is right for
me to move aside and to allow the evolution and change that happens in our
House. Change is not a bad thing. It's time for me, almost nine years – it was
January 2010 when the seat became vacant. Then I was off to the nomination race,
and the by-election race after that. The time is right for me to move on. I do
so with some pleasure and pride having served here, but it's the right thing for
me to do.
I wish everybody all the very best. I thank everyone
for all their support over the years. I wish every Member of this House the very
best and may good judgment always guide your deliberations.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr.
Speaker, if I could take leave just to have a few comments.
As always, you sit through this House, and as the
Member opposite just mentioned – and we're certainly all sad to see him leave
today. I've listened to a few of those farewell speeches over the years in my
nearly seven, eight years now in this House, and I will say that today gave us
some insight of the Member opposite in his time in politics. I remember back in
2010 and the circumstances surrounding the by-election which led to the Member
opposite coming into this House.
Also today, I think is a time for all of us to reflect
on who we are as individuals, as he talked really about the people that elected
us and the times and occasions that we get to actually reset who we are as
individuals. I get that, Mr. Speaker, being Leader of the Opposition, sitting as
an MHA, and, of course, now as Premier. Getting that time to reset is important
for all of us to reflect because it does take us back to our roots and gives us
the foundation of who we are as individuals.
Also, he made some very good points about informing our
colleagues of who we are. Indeed, from time to time we are not perfect people
here in this House, and from time to time we will make mistakes. But encouraging
others and allowing others to enter into that space in our life, I take those
words of wisdom.
I do want to share, though, one moment back – as Leader
of the Opposition, back in 2011 coming into this House, and being just here for
a few weeks I found myself as leader of the Opposition, and therefore you'd be
leading Question Period.
So I think it's always – my mind went back to this
today, and the Member opposite was at that point, I think, the minister of
Service NL. And I remember standing in Question Period, and we see it today, and
usually the leader of the Opposition would lead off with a riveting question to
the premier of the province or whatever, or to someone like in Finance, like we
see.
Very rarely would you see the leader of the Opposition
lead off Question Period to a new minister that's sitting in a second row. So I
saw the minister as he came in and took his chair, was about right there, and I
had a question – I remember the question; it was about an issue down on the
Burin Peninsula at the time. His colleague was sitting next to him, and I was
trying to get his attention, because what I didn't want to do was to catch the
minister off guard; I really wanted to make sure that he was fully aware that
the question was coming to him, and give him the chance to actually get up and
do what he had to do on his first question in the House of Assembly from me as
leader of the Opposition.
So his colleague was there, and he was the guy,
remember you said the great big calculator, I know we won't use words, but I
think every Member of this House around in those days will remember who I'm
talking about. So I was trying to get the Member's attention, but he was of
course getting ready for Question Period. I was tapping him, tapping him, so I
made a wave to his colleague, and I remember the back and forth, and it was like
third baseman or first base coaches, was like … and we were making those
gestures. I just wanted to let the minister know that I was going to come to him
for a question. He got up and he did his job, did a great job in answering the
question on behalf of the people that he'd already met with, so for me it was
making sure that those issues.
So, there is a lot of that that happens in this House
of Assembly. We see the to and fro that occurs in Question Period and the
debates, but I will say there's always a level of respect for each other that
occurs in this House of Assembly. I say as Premier of the province, and I speak
to the Member, knowing very well that he sat in this very chair, and both he and
I have had many exchanges back and forth. I will say I've always had a lot of
respect in the integrity that you carried yourself as an MHA, as a premier of
this province.
Regardless of the meetings that I attended on a
national basis, I've always made sure that those colleagues of yours that have
been there now, that we actually had the chance to transition from your chair to
mine, always made sure that I let them know how you were doing and what you're
doing in your life today, just want to make sure that you know that.
You raise some very good points, and there's nothing
wrong with any Member leaving this House and addressing a policy position. I
think everyone that leaves this House, there will always be bits of unfinished
work that will happen; that is what we do. And you raised the issue of PTSD
today, which is an important issue on many people in our province. So I thank
you for addressing that, even a policy question as you give your farewell speech
to the people of the province and to us as Members of this House of Assembly.
I did notice, however, that when we talk about things
we have in common, not just a shirt and tie and why I didn't get a memo – your
wife didn't send me a memo or you didn't send me a memo, this just happened, but
I appreciate the fact that we do have things in common. The fact that you might
be a Leaf fan and I'm a Canadians fan, that's one thing. But the fact is this;
this is what we have in common.
We have in common – I heard this quite eloquently
explained today in the comments that you made, what we do have in common today
is that we share a view that the people of this province, the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador is why we sit in the Chamber that we sit in. I share
that view with you; this is something that we have in common.
You also made mention of some of the challenges. I
really compliment you, the way you handled those over the years. I remember
being at an event a few years ago and you were there, at dragon boat races. I
remember those days and you did your role, you did the thing that you were doing
on that day and you were actually contributing to a cause that was very
important to you and your family. So, I remember all those things. Also, Mr.
Speaker, the fact that you shared a view that public servants play a key role
and, those around us, to support us each and every day in the work that we do.
I'll make a few final comments, as you leave today.
It's important that you leave with obviously going back to your family and
whatever your future holds, what I will say for all Members of this House of
Assembly, all Members of government today to you, Sir, is this, that we wish you
and your family all the best.
If at any point, you want to send some advice this way
or share some of your experience – I've had that opportunity to share that
advice with premiers of all political parties in the past; that offer still
stands. I think all of us as statesmen, as leaders in this province can learn
from one another.
So for you and your family today, I'm not bidding you a
farewell because I'm sure our paths will cross again at some point, but I'm
saying thank you on behalf of every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian for
the role that you played in making this place a better place to live. We wish
you, whatever the journey is, wherever your journey takes you, all the best to
you in your future, good health and thank you for all you've done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS.
ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
How lucky are we? How lucky are all of us to be here
today to be able to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? How lucky
have you been, Paul Davis, to be able to serve the people in such an honourable
way?
I guess today is about your legacy as well and what
kind of legacy you leave. You leave a legacy of hard, hard work. You leave a
legacy of commitment, of passion and compassion. You leave a legacy of absolute
determination to make this place, our place, a better place for everyone.
I want to thank you for that and on behalf of my
colleague, Lorraine Michael, we want to thank you for the leadership that you
have shown both as the 12th premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, as the leader
of the Opposition. We want to thank you for the ways that you have influenced
this House. Every time all of us come to gather in this House we listen to each
other; we learn from each other. Sometimes we agree; sometimes we vehemently
disagree.
I can remember the first time I so vehemently disagreed
with you over something when you were a Cabinet minister, and how hard I pushed,
and how hard you pushed. I still think I was right in that one, by the way.
One of the things that people should know as well that
when you were first elected to the House of Assembly, that you were elected with
82 per cent of the vote. It was so interesting to hear you speak so eloquently
today about how important team work is and how important it is to open up, to
allow people to come, to work together and to value that.
I was so moved today as well when you talked about you
thought maybe you'd be the first one in in the morning and maybe you'd be the
last one out at night. But there were others in the team that you were able to
pull together. That's a sign of true leadership, to be able to inspire others to
do the best that they can too and to all work together.
Cheryl, thank you. You're going to get him back. Thank
you for all the ways that you have supported him as well in the great work that
he has done here for the people of the province.
I just want to go back again to the issue of legacy and
what the eight years that you have served here as an MHA, as a leader, and as a
premier, is the story of that part of your life and I'm sure there'll be so many
more stories to tell. We will hear them unfold. I know that this is not the end
of your story.
I remember one of the first times I actually met you
face to face, and I said: I believe we have something in common. And you said:
Oh, what is that? I said: We both have been through chemo, yet we are dancing in
this political arena. Because we know that one of the most creative things to do
in the face of cancer is to push back, and to live as fully as we possibly can,
and to share that determination to live as fully as we possibly can.
So I just want to go back before I finish, that 82 per
cent of that vote –
MR.
P. DAVIS:
Stuck in your craw, isn't it?
MS.
ROGERS:
Well, yeah, it sticks in my craw. But let me tell you why it sticks in my craw,
Paul Davis, because Victor Hugo wrote that the supreme happiness in life is a
conviction that we are loved. Paul Davis, you are loved.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
I may, and the Speaker does have an opportunity to may, I would also like to
offer my congratulations, Sir, on your decision today. I thought your words were
very prophetic. As the Premier alluded to – I have not had an opportunity to
watch a lot of farewell speeches, but I will always remember your words.
I also would suggest that you and the Premier have
another thing in common. You each had one of my elbows when I came through those
doors as the Speaker, and there wasn't a hope of resisting, and I will never
forget that force and that excitement of coming into this role.
I've enjoyed our many conversations. It's been good to
get to know you, Sir. I wish you all the best. As the Leader of the Opposition
said, I say, Godspeed to you and your family in this next
chapter of your life.
As a final confession on transparency, your wife and I are Facebook friends.
That's as far as it goes.
I do wish you all the best, Sir. Take care.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Yes, I call Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR.
SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, I move from the Order Paper, Motion 2.
Further to the motion adopted by the House on
Wednesday, October 23, 2018, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of
the Whole on a date to be announced in the House by the Government House Leader
following consultation with the House Leaders for the Official Opposition and
the Third Party, in order to receive the Commissioner for Legislative Standards,
for the purpose of answering questions and providing clarity on the process of
the recently tabled reports inquiring it to Members' Code of Conduct.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards be provided up to 15 minutes to offer opening remarks and
that the Commissioner for Legislative Standards be permitted to have up to two
support staff accompany him, if he so chooses, but support staff will not speak;
and.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a maximum of 400 minutes be
allocated for this debate.
I would like to move that motion, seconded by the
Minister of Natural Resources.
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Government House Leader, control of the debate.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
I'll just wait, Mr. Speaker, until the time goes up on the clock, but I can
guarantee I will not need that full 60 minutes.
Basically what I'd like to do in moving this motion
today is to hopefully try my best to provide some clarity and some background on
what it is we are doing, because this is an usual motion that we're moving
today, one that I guess is quite rare is what we would say.
Just to go back, and I'm not going to get into the why
we are here today, but I want to go back as far as last Wednesday. So last
Wednesday was the movement of a private Member's resolution that I would note
was supported unanimously in the House, and even included a friendly amendment
for an opportunity for Members to question the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards on the floor of the House of Assembly so that Members could have an
opportunity to question, to inquire, to get information about reports prior to
the debate of resolutions that would come from that report and recommendations
made by the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.
That motion was made last Wednesday and was supported
unanimously by the Members of the – actually, I don't think it was supported
unanimously, but it was supported by a number of Members of the House of
Assembly and certainly it was passed.
What that lead to then was an opportunity for House
Leaders, as well as House staff, to figure out how do we enable that process to
happen, to basically have a stranger enter the House, come onto the floor of the
House and how does that debate look, how does that debate take place.
Again, I want to thank the House staff for the work
that they've done in going across the country. This is not something that you
see a lot of. I think it's happened twice in this province, once back in the
Come By Chance days and I think once back in the'60s the Auditor appeared on the
floor of the House.
I believe that we have had prime ministers appear on
the floor of the House to speak but not to answer questions. This process will
be an opportunity for Members to both speak and to listen to the Commissioner
for Legislative Standards who was the drafter of reports which have been tabled
in this House by the Speaker as chairperson of the Management Commission.
The other thing I want to point out to people that many
times there's – as Government House Leader it's my duty to move motions like
this, certain motions that are government policy, but this is a motion that
would have come from the Management Commission. It has been discussed by
Members, by the House Leaders in this House. I think we've worked very well
together to determine what we think is a good process to put in place and,
again, enabled by staff of the House.
So what we've done here in moving this motion – and
again, notice was given yesterday, we are debating this today, and hopefully
passing this today. Because the goal amongst House Leaders was to hopefully
allow for the Commissioner for Legislative Standards to present himself to this
House this coming Monday, which requires the passage, obviously, of this
resolution today if we want that to happen.
We've laid out a scenario here where the Commissioner
will present, the Commissioner will have support staff, and we've put on 400
minutes, which works out to roughly 6½ hours here. The 400 minutes was basically
created by the taking the number of Members that sit in this House, 40, and
putting 10 minutes on. Again, this is not something we've done. Anybody that
watches the House of Assembly and watches debate on legislation understands the
different stages, first reading, second reading, but this is not going to be the
same, obviously, as a debate over a piece of legislation.
It will be done during a Committee of the Whole which,
to people watching, the Speaker removes himself from the Chair, the Deputy Chair
will sit at the table and will moderate this debate and will allow for the
questioning to go on. But in this case it's not Opposition asking government;
it's all Members of the House of Assembly, as Members of the House of Assembly,
being able to ask the Commissioner for Legislative Standards any questions that
they may have on the reports that he filed here in the House of Assembly.
So we've established the timeline on this, which is 400
minutes. What we have not established – and again, I would point out to people
listening that even though we are governed by Standing Orders, with the consent
of House Leaders, Members can come to arrangements that work for this House as
it relates to debate. So hopefully what we're going to do before Monday – the
only thing that has not been decided is how the 400 minute allocation will work.
I will point out that it's my opinion, my point of view
– and I think it may be shared
other Members – is that this is not a process that any of us in this House have
been privy to. All we want to do is to have a process that makes everybody,
every Member of this House, and we are all equal, feel treated equally and an
opportunity that we think is fair to ask questions of the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards – who I would point out is a Statutory Officer of the
House, and actually would be in this position by virtue of a vote of all Members
of this House.
So every Member
should be treated the same. I would just like to see a process that when it's
done, hopefully all Members can say, I feel like I've had a full and fair
opportunity to ask the questions that I've wanted to ask and to have clarity and
confirmation of any information. Because again, the reports that the
Commissioner has filed are public, they are tabled, and everybody – hopefully
all Members have had an opportunity to read them. Again, I would
encourage, obviously, everybody to read these reports if they're a Member of the
House of Assembly.
So this is our opportunity to ask questions. That's my
goal, is that I would like all Members to walk away from this after that day
saying, I feel like I've had an opportunity to ask those questions. So that's
why we need to figure out the time. I don't believe that all Members of the
House of Assembly will use the time or ask questions. Some Members may have no
questions; some Members may require extra time. So we want to come up with an
approach that works for everybody, based on the timeline that we've laid out
here.
I can advise the House that I have – and you can see on
the Order Paper. I've made a motion under Standing Order 11, so that the House
do not adjourn on this coming Monday at 5:30. The reason for this, I think it's
in everybody's best interest that when we start – and especially for the
Commissioner as well. That when we start we allow the process to unfold, and to
stop it at 5:30, if we're continuing on past that time, to stop it and come back
the next day I think is a disservice to everybody and to the Commissioner.
I think what I will be doing, if necessary, is I would
move that motion that day, so that when we start we will go as long as we need
to go, knowing that we have the maximum of 400 minutes. So that's my intention
as well, to do here in the House that day.
Again, I'll continue, as I've done over the last number
of days and weeks, is I'll work with my colleagues in the House to figure out
how Monday will operate in terms of questioning, how it will work in terms of
time limits and time allocations. Hopefully, that's something that everybody can
come to agreement on, and it allows everybody to feel like they've had that
opportunity.
What I want to do before I take my seat, and I will
have an opportunity to speak at the close of this if necessary. What I will be
doing, hopefully after this, so people understand the process moving after that.
This is something that the Members of the House have supported. It's an
opportunity to question the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. I then, as
House Leader, have to move five notices of resolution for the five reports that
have been tabled. They cannot be combined into one. They have to be one for each
of the recommendations – or each of the reports that have been put here in the
House of Assembly.
My goal is that after everybody's had an opportunity to
ask those questions, is that I would hopefully be able to put on the Order
Paper, this coming Tuesday, those Notices of Motion. Again, what I can say is I
really want to thank the Table staff, particularly the legal Clerk.
This is very difficult, because the legislation
governing this is very prescriptive. So it's not like we have a huge amount of
flexibility in the wordsmithing of resolutions. It's very broad, and we're
trying our best to put in resolutions that – you try to be flexible sometimes,
but we may have to go with what the legislation sets out. Thankfully, we have
the guidance of Table staff who help guide us on a day-to-day basis, but
especially in times like this where this is not something we've dealt with very
regularly.
So, hopefully, we'll put those notices of resolution
in. Then, obviously, those will be dealt with in the House as per regular
course. Those motions will be called, then they will be voted on and then we
shall proceed from there.
I put that out there because there has been some
confusion, especially amongst people outside. I did a significant scrum
yesterday with the media where they were asking: how does this all work, the
mechanics of it. I'm trying to explain, I think this is how it works because
this is something different. So that's the process we're following now.
The debate today is on this resolution that sets up
what, hopefully, will happen this Monday, which is we'll have the Commissioner
for Legislative Standards in. It is not today to debate resolutions coming. It
is not to debate anything like that.
Again, I'm certainly not telling anybody what to say or
what not to say. That's not what I'm getting into. Today's purpose – for those
watching – is we're trying to set up a process that has not really ever been
done in this House when it was here. I think the last time it was done – I don't
think we even sat here. I think it was up on the 10th floor. So we're trying to
set up a process. We'll see how that goes. Again, I'll listen to my colleagues
in the debate.
I'll take my seat, and hopefully have an opportunity to
speak again today.
Thank you.
MR.
SPEAKER:
Thank you.
As this is a government motion, I look to the
Opposition now to respond.
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR.
CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Government House Leader for his
explanation.
Before I respond to the points that arise, it might be
appropriate if I mentioned that in at least one of the precedents that he
referenced, and that had to do with the Come By Chance Oil Refinery. My father
was a very active member of the House and a participant in the questioning, but
I believe it was Mr. John Shaheen who was examined by the House on that
occasion. For all I know, he may have had something to do with the other
precedent as well, being active in politics at the time in this House.
The hon. the House Leader for the government has
explained how the 400 minutes will work. He's referenced equal treatment and
fairness, all of which are excellent sentiments. He also said that every Member
will be treated the same, or should be treated the same. The point that arises
from that, Mr. Speaker, is that not all Members are equally situated in this
process or have the same interest in it, because there are – and using the
language of these five reports, there are plaintiff Members and there are
defendant Members, two defendant Members on this occasion.
I recognize that the hon. Leader of the House for the
government has referenced the exact details of the process and procedure for
questioning and the allocation of time might be worked out by consensus or
consent among the House Leaders. I just want to put on the record at this point
that there's a case to make – and I do this because as a lawyer, and I'm sure my
friend across the aisle will recognize the point I'm making, due process is very
important. Due process is critically important that justice be done and due
process is critically important that justice be seen to be done.
When I say that, I mean that it may well be thought by
the Members who are described as defendants in these reports should be allocated
more than the arithmetical 10 minutes here. Again, I note that my friend across
the aisle has referenced that we may work that out by consensus between House
Leaders.
There's another reason why I say that. I just draw
attention at this point to the fact that the act, known as the
Public Inquires Act , is referenced by
the – and I'll call it, for shorthand form, the Accountability Act. I think
we'll all know what I mean when I say Accountability Act. It does reference and
incorporate the Public Inquires Act
but as I've learned over the last week or so,
section 30 of the
Public Inquires Act says that: “Where
another Act confers upon a person or body the powers of a commission under this
Act, the powers conferred on the person or body are those powers given under
sections 9 and 10.…”
So it's not the entire act that applies, the entire
Public Inquires Act , but only nine and
10. Nine and 10 have to do with the “Power to inspect” and the “Powe