PDF Version

September 16, 2020

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 45

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Are the House Leaders

ready?

MR. CROCKER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Ready.

Opposition House Leader ready?

MR. BRAZIL:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Third Party ready?

MR. J. DINN:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay, good.

Order,

please!

Admit

strangers.

Before

we begin the broadcast, I just want to let Members know that we're still working

on the bell issue. We have a way of disconnecting them now, so hopefully we will

not have the problems with the bells, but we shall see. I predicted yesterday

that we wouldn't either, but it continues. We'll see.

We will

start the broadcast now. Before we begin proceedings for today, I would like to

welcome Bobbi Russell, our Policy and Communications Officer, who will be

assisting at the Table. Bobbi has supported the Management Commission for more

than 10 years and, in recent years, has also supported House Committees and

assisted at the Table. She is joining us today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper Motion 6. I move, seconded by the Deputy Premier, the following

motion: that the House of Assembly concur in the

Report of the Standing Orders Committee ,

dated September 14, 2020.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that the House concur in the

Report of the Standing Orders Committee , dated September 14, 2020.

The hon.

Deputy Premier.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

It's a

pleasure to be here this morning to speak about the Standing Orders Committee

report for September of 2020. I'd like to thank the Members of that Committee.

They are the Government House Leader and the Member for Carbonear - Trinity -

Bay de Verde; the Member for Labrador West; the Member for Windsor Lake; the

Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate; and of course, Speaker, you're a Member of

that Committee, as well as myself, as I've been Chair. Members met regularly. We

had lots of good debate and discussions on a number of matters related to the

Standing Orders and have put forward a

report for review by the House of Assembly and hopefully concurrence.

Mr.

Speaker, for those that may be listening this morning, what the

Standing Orders are, they are the

rules of the House of Assembly. And we have to modernize and improve those rules

on an ongoing basis to ensure that we are following best practice, as well as

ensuring fairness and equity amongst Members.

So what

we've done today, we've prepared a report and what we'd like to do today is make

the recommendations that are contained in that report. We're going to address

the following matters: establishing the length of Member statements based on the

number of words, rather than the time allocation. Some people speak slowly, some

people speak quickly, so rather than try and time people, we're going to base it

on the number of words.

Increasing the length of time for a minister to respond to petitions from 60

seconds to 90 seconds. As you know, Mr. Speaker, from time to time we have

petition – just about every day we have petitions in the House of Assembly, this

gives the minister an adequate amount of time to be able to respond to that; 90

seconds is not a whole lot of time, it's just an additional 30 seconds but it

does, hopefully, get a more fulsome answer.

Another

rule that we would like to update, Mr. Speaker, is codifying that an infant in

care of their parent is not considered a stranger. We have a colleague in our

House expecting a lovely baby in very short order and we wanted to make sure we

can welcome the baby to the floor of the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

We also needed to remove the requirement for a Member to stand in their place,

uncovered, in order to speak. Again, that addresses some of the concerns around

the pandemic and having to stand and sit. One might have noticed on Monday when

we came back to the House, the House Leader had to make that change on a regular

basis. We're going to codify it so that it is in our

Standing Orders .

Assigning the speaking times currently prescribed for the Premier to the Leader

of the Government in the House. As everyone knows, the Leader of the Liberal

Party, the current Premier, does not yet hold a seat in the House of Assembly.

He is in the middle of a by-election. The speaking times currently prescribed

for a premier would now be prescribed to the Leader of the Government in the

House. Just as we prescribe time for the Leader of the Opposition in the House,

we will prescribe time for the Leader of the Government in the House.

We are

also codifying debatable motions to ensure that we have a smooth process in the

House of Assembly, giving adequate time to speak on bills, motions and

resolutions and moving through our work expeditiously.

Finally,

Mr. Speaker, enshrining the authority for the House and its Committee to meet

virtually in a hybrid manner. As I said, Mr. Speaker, we are in the middle of a

pandemic. We have done very well, I think, as a House of Assembly of both

assembling and allowing for a virtual assembly, virtual meetings, and as the

people of the province know we've worked very diligently during May and June to

put forward a plan to ensure that we can do a virtual Parliament. This now

enshrines that authority and allows it on an ongoing basis. We had originally

had said at sunset or completed in December of 2020, we are now saying we'll

enshrine it and codify it in our Standing

Orders .

I don't

know, Mr. Speaker, if I need to go into depth. I can very quickly go through

them as Members are listening to what it is exactly that we've done, so allow me

to take these one at a time.

Members'

statements currently provides – the

Standing Orders provide one minute for each Member's statement. While as a

rule of thumb one minute is generally 200 words, depending on an individual's

pace of reading, there's a wide variance in the speed of delivery and the length

of Members' statements. To provide an approach that is equitable to all Members,

it is recommended to establish the length of the Members' statements based on

the number of words rather than time. We all felt that was a reasonable

resolution to that challenge.

Responses to petitions: in 2017, under the former government House leader, we

did make changes to the Standing Orders .

We provisionally made changes to the

Standing Orders to provide a 60-second response from a minister. The

provision was received positively and became a permanent Standing Order in 2018.

The Committee was of the view that increasing the time available for a response

to 90 seconds would allow for a more fulsome response.

Again,

codifying that an infant in the care of their parent is not a stranger: from a

parliamentary perspective, a stranger is any person on the floor of a

Legislature when it is sitting who is not a Member or a parliamentary official.

Consequently, an infant could be and would be considered a stranger. Whether to

codify in the Standing Orders or not,

parliamentary convention is that the consent of the House is necessary for a

stranger to be present in the Chamber while the House is sitting. While this is

not a common occurrence, we do hope it becomes one.

Many

legislatures have accommodated the attendance of infant children in the Chamber

with their parent. To support a family-friendly Legislature, the Committee

recommends the Standing Orders codify

that an infant in care of their parent is not considered a stranger in the

parliamentary sense. This will provide that any Member caring for their infant

would not need to seek consent of the House in order to bring their infant with

them when attending a House sitting.

It's

about time we did that, I would say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

We also are saying here today

to remove the requirement for a Member to stand in their place uncovered to

speak. Standing Order 44 states that: “Every Member desiring to speak is to rise

in his or her place, uncovered, and address himself or herself to the Speaker.”

This Standing Order has been unchanged since 1951. It's no longer relative of a

diversity of society.

To date,

the House of Assembly has not had the experience of accommodating a Member who's

unable to speak from a standing position or who for ethnic, religious or health

reasons wears a head covering. Should either be the case, the

Standing Orders would need to be

amended to allow the Member to fully participate without the need to seek

consent from the House for a variance or be subject to the point of order.

Other

jurisdictions have dealt with this requirement in varying ways. Some have

provided consent as the need arose to vary the Standing Order, while others have

amended their Standing Orders to

accommodate full participation of Members in an increasingly diverse society.

The

Standing Orders Committee is

recommending the latter approach; that the House amend its current

Standing Orders to require that a

Member be in their place to speak. The Committee is also recommending the

removal of the requirement to be uncovered so as to accommodate a Member who

wears a head covering for religious, cultural or medical reasons.

Furthermore, as a result of the pandemic, the chief medical officer of Health

recommended that Members remain seated while speaking. A resolution – I

mentioned this earlier – was brought to the House to give effect to this

recommendation on a temporary basis when the House sat in June. This advice

remains unchanged for the fall sitting. To provide for such situations in

future, the Committee is further recommending a provision be added to the

Standing Orders to provide direction to the Speaker to recognize a

Member who may be unable to rise in their place.

Codifying debatable motions: debatable and non-debatable motions are a matter of

parliamentary convention. Many Canadian jurisdictions, the House of Commons, the

Senate, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have codified

debatable motions. While the Standing

Orders of the House of Assembly specify a number of motions that are not

debatable, those that are debatable are not codified. Codification of debatable

motions in the Standing Orders will

provide easy access and thus greater clarity to Members.

This

would be especially important and useful if the House was meeting in a virtual

or hybrid manner. Any motion not listed as debatable is non-debatable unless

otherwise provided for in the Standing

Orders . Examples of debatable motions are second and third reading of a

bill, while first reading is a non-debatable motion.

Prescribing the Leader of a government in the House. Standing Order 46 provides

the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition with additional time in debate

generally, and with respect to the motions of confidence. Under Standing Order

46(5) these times may not be delegated. Standing Order 46 is very narrow in its

expression and only gives those specific rights to the Premier and the Leader of

the Opposition, by virtue of their positions in the structure of government as a

whole. Standing Order 46(5) also prohibits the Premier or the Leader of the

Opposition from delegating a right of unlimited time to, in accordance with

Standing Order 46(3).

When a

leader of a party in the Official Opposition status is not an elected Member, an

elected Member is delegated as the Leader of the Official Opposition for

parliamentary purposes. At the present time, the Premier is not a Member of the

House; however, as the Member is designated under the

Executive Council Act , another Member cannot be designated Premier

for parliamentary purposes.

Without

a Member assigned as Leader of the Government in the House, an imbalance exists

in the House that could affect how it fulfills its democratic functions,

particularly given the essential features of the Canadian system of

parliamentary government. Consequently, the Committee recommended changing the

reference in the Standing Orders from

Premier to Leader of the Government in the House, not unlike Leader of the

Official Opposition. The same concept.

Continuation of virtual proceedings, I think I've dealt with adequately. As I

said previously, we did have a Select Committee on virtual proceedings. It was

established in May of 2020 to determine how we would be able to meet in

otherwise an in-person environment. Of course, we did report those findings to

the House on June 30. These recommendations provide for Committees of the House

and the Management Commission to meet virtually or in a hybrid mode; however,

the provisions expire on December 3. This is now seeking to codify them, to put

them in our Standing Orders so that

they can be continued.

That,

Mr. Speaker, is the extent of the Report

of the Standing Orders Committee . I want to thank the excellent work of the

Table Officers of the House of Assembly, and thank them again for always being

organized, prepared, doing the ju risdictional

scans, looking at what is best practice

across the country and helping and supporting the Committee as it does its

deliberations and work. I also thank, again, Members of the Committee for their

time, their excellent attention and their efforts.

With

that, Mr. Speaker, I'll allow for the debate to continue in the House of

Assembly.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, it is with great pride that I speak on this amendment today with

respect to allowing the infant in care to be not considered a stranger in our

Legislature. I think this is a very modernized and progressive step and, as has

been stated, one that is certainly overdue.

The

importance of having women be supported in the Legislature and encouraged in

this manner cannot be understated. We know that historically women have been an

underrepresented group in politics. They were, in fact, in the past even barred

from participation in politics and in our democratic system. We know that they

couldn't even vote. We also recognize that there are still significant barriers

which exist and which continue.

These

informal barriers present obstacles to women, especially in what is a

male-dominated career, as we see in politics and in the Legislature. We know

that in our Legislature here, I believe approximately 23, 24 per cent of the

Legislature are women. So this amendment is certainly consistent and supportive

of encouraging women to be involved and be a part of this important democratic

process.

Mr.

Speaker, there also is an issue, of course, with the labour force. We know that

women hope to re-enter the workforce. We know that many women want to enter the

workforce for the first time, and this is something we need to encourage in a

very significant way. We need to see increased participation of women in the

labour force. This is vital to our economic recovery.

The last

thing we need is obstructions or barriers to women that would exist, for

example, if women could not have their infants with them in the Legislature. So

it is a vital, important step that really indicates progression and support to

our women.

For some

women we know that they are responsible for many jobs. They often have to juggle

two jobs throughout the day, not only child care and paid work. We know that any

outdated processes and rules, such as not allowing infants to be present with

women in the Legislature, are obstacles and need to be overhauled. They need to

be eliminated.

We need

to meet the needs of modern women. We need to support them. We need to make

reforms like these to support women. For example, even as far as maternity

leave, I've spoken on this in the past with respect to Canada's maternity leave

program. It also is an outdated bureaucratic and badly in need of overhaul.

So when

we see steps like this that have taken back – especially, I might add, during

this time of the pandemic, even before COVID-19, even before the lockdown, even

before the economic crisis, women and especially single-parent women were among

those most at risk, economically. They were vulnerable.

We know

the studies have proven that they were most likely to suffer mental health

effects and conditions. So we needed to see and we need to see the government

take progressive measures like this and others with respect to supporting women

and providing them the mental health resources that we see are necessary as a

result of the pandemic. The pandemic has amplified and it has increased the

negative effects for women, not only in our workforce but in general.

We also

know, Mr. Speaker, that women are more likely to work in the retail and service

industry. We know that they were more likely to find themselves out of work

during the pandemic. In fact, in terms of job losses, more than two-thirds of

job losses, unfortunately, occurred with women, especially those women in the

retail and service industry.

So any

efforts like what we see today with respect to this modernizing, progressive

amendment can only be supported, and we need to continue on, though, in this

frame of mind. We need to look at other progressive measures. For example, a

feminist strategy going forward, an economic strategy, which will address the

effects that women have incurred, the detrimental effects that have occurred as

a result of this medical health crisis.

We do

know the vast majority of single-parent households are women. Women have been on

the frontiers, they have been on the front lines of the pandemic. Eighty-three

per cent of the health workforce in Newfoundland and Labrador is female. Women

dominate the health care field and retail sector too, but we need to see more

women step up for political office. I think this specific amendment really gives

direct attention to that important piece.

We know

if more women are involved in politics, Mr. Speaker, policy changes with respect

to we have more women policy, women frameworks; we have a gendered lens from the

perspective of women. I think that is an important part to a healthy

Legislature, when we know women have so much to bring to the table. They have

different perspectives that we need to acknowledge. When we only have 23, 24 per

cent in the Legislature, that is an awful and inadequate representation of

women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, it is

important that this is one step of, hopefully, many that we will see by the

government in terms of recognizing the gaps that exist, as far as women are

concerned, in politics. We need to have more engagement by women.

Women

have so much in terms of the perspectives. So far in my role as critic for the

Status of Women, I've seen many women's groups throughout the province – I've

heard from many of them – who really want to be engaged more. They want to be

involved in policy. They want to have more of a say.

I think

we have to do as much as we can to facilitate and encourage the incredible

networks of women and women's organizations in our province. We need to tap into

that valuable resource. We have so many groups throughout the province, and I

would submit, Mr. Speaker, they are really well suited to play more of an

advisory role in creating a more equitable province as we move through and pass

COVID-19.

Government needs to engage more women in our province because we know there are

existing structural inequalities. They were evident even prior to COVID, but now

they are exacerbated; now they are heightened. They are compounded because of

the pandemic, so we need to engage our women to seek ideas for more innovative

solutions, like an economic recovery plan. We need to engage women's groups to

ensure that any future economic planning, it needs to take women's existing

inequalities into consideration.

So, yes,

I am so pleased and very proud to see this step that's being taken, but we have

so much more to do. Government needs to really take this on and get prepared in

the future more to face the, I would submit, mental health crisis that many

women are going to face because of the effects of the pandemic.

It's a

progressive, it's a positive step, but more needs to be done. However, I applaud

the government for this amendment. I also join with everyone to express our

excitement for our colleague who is expecting a child. She will be the first to

put this amendment into play, and we look forward to that and supporting that

wholeheartedly.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Before we have another

speaker, I think we're going to have a recess for a second and see if I can get

those bells stopped.

I ask

Members to stay nearby and we will try to get these (inaudible).

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

House Leaders ready?

Is the

Government House Leader ready?

MR. CROCKER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Ready.

Is the

Opposition House Leader ready?

MR. BRAZIL:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes?

And the

Third Party House Leader is ready?

MR. J. DINN:

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes. Okay.

Order,

please!

We're

going to start the proceedings again.

The hon.

Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

just spend a few minutes to speak. There are a lot of positive changes in the

Standing Orders Committee. In

section 1.1, now they don't have to stand. This is

great for people with disabilities that sometimes may be in the House also, so

that's a great addition to it.

section (3), I know my colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands will speak on

that one soon, so I'll just skip on that one.

Mr.

Speaker, there are some great initiatives here to encourage more women to get in

politics and make it more friendly, so I recognize that and I think that's

great.

The

section (5), more than 200 words, I think that is a good move also because some

people do speak a bit slower than others.

The one

I have a problem with is section (2). I just want to explain why and how that

came up. I'll just read it into the record: “Except as noted in these Standing

Orders, all other motions, including adjournment motions, shall be decided

without debate or amendment.”

How this

came about was when we were into the pandemic, there was a motion made. I

requested that we could speak a few extra minutes on health care. There were a

lot of issues not being addressed through health care, and I wanted to bring it

up in the House of Assembly. We were denied the opportunity to bring it up in

the House through questions.

What we

did, myself and the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, to ensure that we got

our points out – and people were in distress on why we needed it done – we spoke

during the adjournments. Now we can see that's been stopped. In my opinion,

people very rarely speak on adjournments, but because of the dire circumstances

and the dire needs of the people that were contacting myself and the Member for

Mount Pearl - Southlands we spoke on the adjournments to get our points across.

One of

the issues that I did was because of a guy who couldn't get in for eye surgery.

Luckily, he had surgery just a while back. He had one eye done and now he has to

do the surgery on the other eye. It wasn't that it was just some flimsy medical

conditions that I was trying to get brought across to government; it was very

serious issues. Now I can see that in Standing Orders they're shutting down an opportunity in dire

circumstances that a Member, especially if you're an independent, to raise

issues in the House of Assembly.

I always

thought that the House of Assembly would be more inclusive and be able to speak

in dire circumstances, but obviously the Committee feels that we should shut

that down. I disagree with that. In general, the whole concept is great but that

part of the changes to the Standing Orders ,

I disagree with totally, Mr. Speaker, because it does stifle debate. It stops

people, like myself who are stifled by government, to not bring up very serious

issues. It was something that I knew you could always speak on, but it was very

seldom ever used in my years. When both parties and everybody agree, you shut

down the House, you shut down, but when it comes to very serious medical issues

I refuse to be quiet on it because I wasn't given the opportunity.

Go back

again, it was during the pandemic and probably a month, two months ago when this

House was open we asked for two extra questions and we were refused by

government – absolutely refused by government to bring up medical questions. I

disagree with that. I just want it on the record that it's an opportunity for

any government that's in to stifle debate in this House. We always talked about

let's be open, we're all inclusive, bring up your ideas, but this is one area

where definitely you're not practising what you preach, I say to both parties –

to all parties, actually.

I can

assure people in this House there will come a time when some government get a

majority and you don't have the opportunity to bring very serious points across,

that you're going to wish that was there. I can assure you of that. You can go

back in Hansard from this day and

remember I said this. I know how it works. I've been in government and it's

something that's very rarely used. I guess myself and the Member for Mount Pearl

- Southlands are the ones to blame for this because we refused to be stifled.

I'll just move on from that but it is an opportunity to stifle debate in the

House of Assembly.

Mr.

Speaker, the other issue that I have is 9(2): “The chair of the committee, in

consultation with the clerk of the committee, may determine the manner of the

meeting.” Many Committee meetings, you should always have consultation because

if a Chair of the Committee sometimes got their own way, if it's the government

or the Opposition, you may want to sway one way or the other the way the meeting

is determined. So that part there will be in consultation with other Members of

the Committee. I feel that it should be in consultation with other Members of

the Committee.

I've

been on Committees where before you even start the meeting, you have very frank

discussions with the Chair on how the meeting was put forth, how it was

arranged, what's on the agenda. I warn people of that, of having a Chair of the

Committee who's going to be dealing with the Clerk of the Committee on how it's

going to be done. That will cause problems down the road; I can assure you that.

We all

know politics. We know when it's something very contentious and when we know

it's going to a Committee, there's always going to be some way to sway it one

way or the other. If you are leaving it up to the Chair and the Clerk of the

Committee, I can assure you that somewhere, someone is going to use that to

their advantage to sway the meetings. That's just politics. You want something

done a certain way; if you're in Opposition or the Third Party, you're going to

want it done another way. This is going to be problems down the road; I can

assure you of that.

I'm just

throwing this out if anybody wants to make an amendment that if there's a

Committee that you held in this structure, the meeting will be in consultation

with other Committee Members, instead of just having the Chair of the Committee.

I'll

leave section (3) up to my colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands; he will have

a few words on that.

Mr.

Speaker, most of this is a great piece of document. It does show up a lot of

things in the House of Assembly and I will be supporting this here. There may be

some consultation on section (3), but in general it makes it friendlier, it

makes it more efficient and I just want to thank you for your time to speak on

that.

I just

feel a bit sad that I caused section (2), and the Member for Mount Pearl -

Southlands, but on behalf of the people that I represented for that week when on

adjournment and on debates we brought up those issues, I make no apologies for

that. Because of that, you can see how now you're being stifled. Independents

are being stifled in this House.

When we

met with the Premier last Wednesday, the Premier said no, no, it'll be open.

You'll have the same opportunities, but now this is put in front of us here

today. Obviously, this didn't go through the Premier. I'm not even sure if the

Premier seen it, but he was saying last week that we would all have an

opportunity to speak in the House; there would be no changes in the House. Here

we are today with the changes in the House to stifle people and emergencies.

I feel

sad for it, actually. I feel sad because there may be more independents. Now, if

there are more independents there are less opportunities for them to be able to

speak in the House and bring up very important issues.

I say to

the Premier, when you have meetings with MHAs and you're making a commitment,

you should pass it on to your Government House Leader and Deputy Premier that if

there's a commitment made there's going to be more opportunity, but here you are

stifling in this House of Assembly an opportunity that was rarely used, but only

in dire circumstances, to be able to speak on issues.

thought health care, heart operations, eye surgery and people in hospital for 25

or 30 days waiting to get surgery were dire circumstances that you should have

brought up, which we did bring up, but because of that now we're being stifled

because of it. I think it's a sad day for democracy.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad

to have the opportunity to speak to this as well. Again, I don't want to repeat

everything my colleague for Humber - Bay of Islands has said, but, no doubt,

there are some good things in here, and I want to make that quite clear.

The

issue around Members who may have children and making it more family friendly,

if you will, and encouraging women to be involved in politics more than they are

now, I think that's a great thing. Recognizing the piece that perhaps somebody

has some – whether it's a disability, a medical issue or whatever and they can't

stand, to make it a fair and even playing ground for everybody and be inclusive,

I support all that 100 per cent.

There

are a number of other things in here which have already been talked about, and

I'm not going to get into it, but from a general point of view, the things that

are in here I do support. A but is coming, though, of course; an however moment.

I just

want to say, Mr. Speaker – and I've raised this in the House of Assembly a

number of times – I understand the traditions. I understand the traditions of

the House of Assembly and how the things always were, but times change, things

evolve; hence, the reason why we're putting in legislation to allow a Member to

bring a child into the House of Assembly in recognition of that, and that's a

good thing. I totally agree with it.

Something else that has changed, whether people like it or not or agree with it

or not – and people have their own views one way or the other – but the reality

of it is that we have in this case, in this Assembly, two duly elected

independent Members. And I'm not talking someone who got tossed from a party and

got stuck in the corner, which I was one of those for a couple of years, but

since that time I've gone back to the people in my district and I got elected as

an independent. They rejected all three parties. They chose me. The same thing

for the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

Federally, an acquaintance of mine, who I have a lot of respect for, Jody

Wilson-Raybould did it federally. The people of her riding decided they didn't

want any of the parties, they wanted her. So we're seeing that.

In the

last election I think there were nine independents that ran, or something like

that, and I suspect there are going to be more independents who are going to run

the next time. Now, whether they'll get elected again or not, I don't know.

Whether I'll get elected or not again, I don't know. I feel comfortable. I'm not

afraid to go to the polls tomorrow, I'll tell you that, but I don't take it for

granted. I will run again and hopefully I'll be back here again.

The

bottom line is we have to recognize that this is a new dynamic. There are

independents, and the rules and the

Standing Orders have all been based on the concept of political parties.

That's what the rules have always been. That's what the tradition has been.

Well, guess what? Times have changed. That's no longer the reality, like it or

not, too bad. If you don't like it, tough, that's reality.

Our

Standing Orders and our rules, in

order to be inclusive and democratic, the same rights that are afforded to

Members who are parts of political parties should be afforded to every Member of

this House of Assembly, including independent Members, and we haven't seen a lot

of movement on that. Even the Standing Orders Committee itself, the group that

came up with this, did not include independent Members.

It is

one thing, I suppose, we didn't get a vote on it, but we didn't even get a say

on it. Nobody even consulted. They consulted with each other and came up with

this. Nobody came to us and said, here's what we're thinking about doing with

this or this, what do you think?

I know

somebody can stand up and say you could have wrote the Committee yourself or you

could have tuned in, but the reality of it is if there was true inclusion here

we would have – at least, at the very least – a system in place whereby we would

have been notified in advance, here's what we're looking at doing, what do you

think? That wouldn't have been too much to ask I don't think, but it didn't

happen.

Certainly, as a result, we've seen one particular piece here that my colleague

referenced under

section 6, point two, about no debate on adjournment motions

any more. That was changed and, as he said, we know why it was changed. Everyone

here knows why it was changed. It was changed because the last time the House

was open the three parties got together and they decided how the week was going

to go. Here's what we're going to do; here's how long we're going to stay open;

here's how Question Period is going to go; here's what we're going to debate;

here's when we're going to adjourn.

They

decided all that amongst themselves, and nobody had the courtesy to come to

myself or the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands and discuss it, other than

that's what we're doing, too bad if you don't like it, go along with it. As a

result, the Official Opposition in particular – and I understand they're the

Official Opposition, I'm not disputing any of that. They get the lion's share of

Question Period, fair enough. The NDP on a much lesser scale, but they'll get

their three or four questions everyday during that time.

For

myself and the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, we get a question each, or in

this case we decided two questions – we'll rotate. I'll take two questions one

day a week and next week you take two. The last time I think I got the two

questions and he got no questions.

Even

though we're in the middle of a pandemic, even though we had all these issues

going on in our district, we were being bombarded with emails and Facebook

messages and phone calls from our constituents who had concerns about what was

happening with health care and people requiring surgeries and a whole host of

other issues, but we never had the opportunity to raise them; therefore, we had

to find a way. We had to find a way.

The way

that was made available to us – which I don't really see what the big deal was,

to be honest with you. The House of Assembly doesn't close until 5:30 p.m.

That's the time. We all know that's the time. Sometimes it closes 5 o'clock or

quarter to 5 or whatever when you get through legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. LANE:

Yes, or 10:30, the Member said, last night.

The

reality of it is that under the normal

Standing Orders , the House is open until 5:30. All we did was if we couldn't

get the questions in and no one was willing to co-operate with us and we never

had the opportunity to bring forth those concerns, well, when five minutes to 5

came and the motion to adjourn was called, we said, okay, we're supposed to be

here until 5:30, so we have 35 minutes so we're just going to take an

opportunity to raise the questions that we were asked by our constituents to

raise. For that we were accused of hijacking the agenda of the government. I

believe the Leader of the Official Opposition said it was a publicity stunt, he

told the media. Imagine the Leader of the Official Opposition talking about

publicity stunts in the media.

We were

accused of all that, and why? Because we were trying to find a way to raise

issues on behalf of our constituents, which we were all elected to do. If the

time is there available to us, we're all here anyway. The reality of it is that

it's not as if by shutting down at 5 o'clock or half past 4 that that's somehow

saving money. All the Members are in here anyway. You all have to come in from

out of town. All the expenses are all the same regardless of we're here until

5:30, 6:30, 10:30 or 12:30 at night. I know nobody wants to be here that late,

but in terms of cost to the public, there's no difference.

I didn't

see a thing wrong with what we did, to be honest with you. It wasn't a publicity

stunt and it wasn't about just trying to make a point or to be nasty or to try

to not co-operate. It was about legitimately trying to find a way to bring forth

issues on behalf of the people that elected us. Now this has been shut down and

I feel that it certainly does not reflect the spirit of co-operation that the

Premier expressed to us. Quite frankly, I find it just being vindictive. That's

my view on it – nothing but vindictiveness. Anyway, I don't agree with it; I

don't support that part.

The

other thing that I want to reference in particular, I want to reference bullet

point (3): “That the Standing Orders be amended by adding immediately after SO 9

the following: SO 9.1-Manner of meeting.” This has been put in place to deal

with virtual proceedings of the House of Assembly, which I support.

Interestingly enough, this was talked about yesterday when we were talking about

Interim Supply and we were saying that we had to have 90 days and we said, no,

we can have a virtual meeting of the House if we need more Interim Supply.

Interestingly that this ties in nicely to that.

It's

just basically recognizing the fact that in a COVID environment we could have

virtual proceedings of the House of Assembly to deal with the business, whatever

that business might be. Interim Supply is a great example if we needed more.

Nothing wrong with it; I agree with it 100 per cent. But here's the little rub

that I have a problem with, again, in recognition of the fact that we have two

independent Members duly elected and we could very well have more independent

Members next time around. I can't predict the future but who knows, it could

happen.

Under

that

section it says: “The House may meet in a hybrid of virtual and in-person

proceedings and the Speaker” – fine – “following consultation with appropriate

officials” – fine, here's the rub – “and the House leaders, may determine if

those proceedings are required.” I don't have a problem with the House Leaders

being consulted, obviously they need to be consulted and they should be

consulted, but once again no mention of the independent Members. We don't need

to be consulted; we'll just go along with whatever you fellows say.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. LANE:

Yeah, someone said that's the

way it should be. No, that's not the way it should be, whoever said it. I can

tell you that the people of Mount Pearl - Southlands and the Humber - Bay of

Islands disagree with whoever said that. It's not the way it should be.

MR. JOYCE:

Tell them to stand up.

MR. LANE:

Yes, stand up and say it.

Stand up and tell everybody that's the way it should be, that democracy doesn't

matter, that the people don't have a right to choose who they want to represent

them.

MR. JOYCE:

No one stood up.

MR. LANE:

Nobody stood up, of course

they didn't.

The

bottom line is that here we go again, no consultation with the independent

Members. That is fundamentally undemocratic. It is undemocratic and we do not

support that notion.

With

that said, I'm going to bring forward an amendment to the

Report of the Standing Orders Committee of September 14, 2020. I

will move, seconded by the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands that

recommendation (3) of the report be amended by inserting immediately after the

words “House Leaders,” the words “and any independent Members.”

I have

copies here for everybody, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

We're going to recess to

examine the amendment and report back in a few minutes.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the Opposition House

Leader ready?

Order,

please!

We've

considered the proposed amendments and found it to be in order. So we're now

going to begin a debate on the proposed amendments.

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And this

time for real, because my colleague from Virginia Waters - Pleasantville is

always saying every time you say you're only going to be a minute you go on and

you take 10 or 20 or something. This time I'm not. I've said, really, all that I

need to say, all I wanted to say about this. I encourage all Members to give it

due consideration.

This is

something that, obviously, if it doesn't impact you or your particular party and

so on maybe it's not a big deal, but I think we all have to look at it from the

perspective of the rights of the people of the province in every district to be

represented. That's what it comes down to.

We have

40 districts and people voting in 40 districts, and the whole idea of an

election and a democratic process is that the people get to decide who they want

to represent them. In this case, the people in two of the 40 districts decided

they wanted independent Members to represent them, and all we're asking for is a

little bit of courtesy and respect. We're not trying to take over any agenda.

We're not trying to say that whatever we say go, we understand that. It's a

numbers game, we understand that. It's all really a number's game.

understand the government is the government and we understand the role of the

Official Opposition and the Third Party. We're not knocking any of that. I know

sometimes we can get a little bit passionate about speaking about these things

but I put it on the record, neither one of us are trying to be adversarial,

we're really not. We're just trying to be included. That's all we're asking for.

A bit of courtesy, a bit of respect, to be included.

In this

case, all we're saying is if you're going to go to a virtual session just let us

know. If you're going to consult with the Opposition Leaders just give us a call

and say, b'ys, we're going to go with a virtual session. Here's when we're doing

it, here's why we're doing it, here's how it's going to work. We're not going to

say, no, it's not going to happen. We couldn't stop it if we did.

All

we're asking for is a bit of heads up and just include us in it. The discussion

we had with Premier Furey just a couple of days ago was around that. We're here

to co-operate and work with everybody.

The

people of Newfoundland and Labrador have been quite clear, they want us all to

work together. Right now, at this particular stage, we're in the middle of a

pandemic. On top of that the ship is sinking, taking on water fast, from a

fiscal point of view, financial point of view, and people are scared. And they

have a right to be scared and worried; worried about what's going to happen with

this province, worried about their jobs, worried about electricity rates. There

are a lot of people worried about a lot of things and they want us to all be

working, co-operating together, and that's all we want to do.

All

we're saying in this particular thing, a very simple thing, pick up the phone

and give us a call and let us know what you're going to do. It's just a gesture

to demonstrate that we're all in this together. If we feel that everyone is

willing to work together than we're willing to work with you, but if we're going

to be continually left out and shut down and so on, then we will have no choice

than to find every mechanism possible to get our points across. We don't want to

have to do that. There's nothing in it for us, but if constituents come to us

with issues, we have to find ways of getting stuff forward. We just want to be

included. That's all we're asking for.

That's

all I'll say, Mr. Speaker. I hope that Members take that into account and

hopefully support the amendment.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly take seriously the comments that have been made by the independent

Members and their concerns about having a voice here within the House of

Assembly. I support that. I cannot support this motion as is written.

concern is with the “and any independent Members,” in terms of if we have five

independent Members, if we have 10, are we now looking at consulting 10

individuals and they must all be on side? Right now, as House Leaders, they

represent a group of people they speak for and it streamlines the process. It

works here with two independent Members easily enough.

What I

would support and what I would suggest – and I'm supportive of the idea – is

that we do have a Standing Orders Committee and what I would support strongly is

that this idea be brought back to that Committee with the intention of finding a

mechanism of making sure that independent Members – because that is a reality –

have a voice in this. How do we work it?

I can

tell you that in my own previous experience, either with the Canadian Teachers'

Federation or the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, that usually

when an amendment like this came up, it was rarely decided, especially if it was

first on the floor, in that body. It was usually sent back to a committee for

proper consideration.

In this

case, I can see where a jurisdictional scan of how other jurisdictions include

independents into the decision-making, and more importantly, if there's not, how

we can do that. I would definitely support that notion and bring it back with an

actual proposal that we could then look at.

I'm not

opposed to the idea of having any independent Member or independent Members

being represented or having a voice. I totally get where they're coming from.

They made a decision to sit as independents. More importantly, their

constituents made a decision to send them back as independents and we might very

well see more of that.

How do

we accommodate that? I think we need to find some way in the Committee to have a

good look at that. Not with the intention of whether it should or shouldn't

work, but with the intention of how do we make it work. Maybe not just some

virtual proceedings but in other aspects of it as well. I would support that.

Right

now, I have no way of really knowing how amendments are made here and the

precision with which they are made. We can probably come back with something but

I would like to see if we needed a resolution to direct the Committee, or if we

as individuals or I as House Leader would send a letter to the Chair of the

Committee to have a look at that. That's something I would do.

This

amendment as is written causes some concerns, but I would support the whole

notion of having the Standing Orders Committee to look at this seriously and to

bring back a recommendation as to how we go about including all Members, and

recognize the rights and privileges of those who are sitting as independents. As

it stands, I cannot support this amendment but I do support the principle behind

it.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Humber -

Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the Member for his statements on that and his frankness on it. I understand that

(inaudible) is great and I'll just give you some good examples. The virtual when

they did the – we could do this virtually. The Member for Mount Pearl -

Southlands is on the Committee.

When we

had issues with the school buses across the province, we decided – the Member

for Mount Pearl - Southlands – that we would have our own discussions and he

would bring all the concerns to the school boards. It worked well.

understand the concern saying that if there's more. I'm of the belief that if

there are six, seven – what's wrong with a teleconference with six or seven and

say here's what we're doing. The concern you're going to have – and maybe

someone else here may be an independent or maybe more here – if there's a major

issue like the pandemic, when you're coming back to the House, and if you're

going to have a virtual session and constituents have concerns asking you when

is the House open, what are you going to do? You're left in the dark and you

can't answer those questions. This is when you're left out. People get

frustrated and anxiety steps up when there's a lack of information.

Throughout this pandemic – and I will give government credit on a lot of those

issues. I know Dr. Haggie's office, we've been in contact. We spoke about his EA

last night; just great, fantastic, it worked well. The Department of Education

officials, we worked well with them during this.

Once we

can get the information and pass it on to the constituents, it eases a lot of

concerns and a lot of anxiety. If you're left out as an independent, and if any

Member is left out, you can't answer to your constituents about why and how

you're going to raise their concerns because you don't know, yet you're duly

elected in this House.

understand the concern from the Member for St. John's Centre about what if

there's a big number. That is a concern. If there's a conference call and you

want to make a friendly motion, you can. Here's the concern I have also, it may

sound – but it's going to go back to the Committee and there are no independents

on the Committee. So, again, no independents on the Committee. They're going to

say, okay, well, there's nothing we can find. I take your points very serious,

what if there are eight or 10 or something. It would become a bit of an issue.

Then,

again, in our conversations with Premier Furey he said you will be included, you

will be part of it, you will know things that are happening. I think he means

it. I honestly feel he means to be inclusive for the independents. Because if

there is an election call tomorrow, I'm sure that Premier Furey and the Leader

of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP are going to be down in Humber - Bay

of Islands knocking on doors trying to get a candidate and getting a candidate

and meeting with people in the area. I know that, but if you're going to do that

and you're going to say, by the way, if you elect an independent they're going

to be left out of it. That won't sound very good.

Maybe

there are going to be other independents, maybe not. I don't know, but it's

always nice to have it in place so that you will be consulted. Because I can

tell you – and I'll use the Minister of Health as a good example – if the

Minister of Health didn't include the independent, I know for myself, and I'm

sure I'm speaking on behalf of the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, if he

didn't give us access to his office to get information, there would be a lot

more anxiety in Humber - Bay of Islands, Corner Brook area than what there was

during this pandemic. I can assure you that. This is what we're saying, without

the information that we can pass on to our constituents, it's going to cause a

lot of anxiety.

I'm

going to support the motion and the amendment, obviously. I just think that we

can find a better way to do it. It's up to both sides.

Besides

those two points that I made, it's a great piece of paper for a lot of great

orders here in this House of Assembly. I'll be supporting the amendment and,

hopefully, the House will accept the amendment or make a friendly amendment. The

Deputy Premier can make a friendly amendment to include the independent on the

Committee and bring it back to Committee to see if they can find some

resolution.

What the

Member for St. John's Centre suggested, I would agree with that friendly

amendment if the Deputy Premier or the Government House Leader wants to make

that. I'm sure we'll be fine with that.

MR. LANE:

(Inaudible.)

MR. JOYCE:

The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands said we'll be fine with that, if that

wants to be done, bring it back and consult us on this.

I'll

close it at that and thank the Committee for all the work they did because,

obviously, there's a lot of work going through this, and the staff that was on

the Committee for doing this. We need to do this on a regular basis, a yearly

basis or every second, third year to bring up the

Standing Orders to match our culture, match how things change and

match pandemics that we have here.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further speakers?

Seeing

none, I'm going to call a vote on the amendment. Copies of the amendment have

been circulated to the caucuses, I believe. I'm going to call the question.

All

those in favour of the amendment as proposed by the Member for Mount Pearl -

Southlands.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

amendments are defeated.

motion, amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER:

We're back to the main motion

now.

Further

speakers to the main motion?

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

happy to see this report. When most people look at these reports they look at it

as housekeeping, and, yes, there's a bit of housekeeping in there but there are

three areas that I'm going to focus on as quick as I can. And no reflection on

anyone else, but we probably should have been focusing on these sooner than

later, but it's good that we're getting to it. That's in dealing with virtual

committees and virtual meetings and the like. I think that's something very

progressive that we need to be doing and, unfortunately, it took something like

COVID to push us along that route.

dealing with virtual meetings, I think it's the way of the future. I think we

need to be doing more of this. I think it highlights also for businesses and

education facilities and anything around this Island that if you're able to do

things virtually, then we should be doing it. It does highlight some other

challenges around broadband Internet across the province, so we need to be

dealing with that.

The

other issue there that was highlighted, and that's in terms of a Member to rise

at his or her place. I think that's progressive in terms of it dealing with

disabled individuals that may not be able to do so. Again, very progressive. I

say progressive; I mean, we're moving forward, but in actual fact this should've

been looked at a lot sooner, but we're moving forward with it and that's a good

thing. I think we need to look at other orders and such in that light as well.

The

amendment that's around infant care, I 110 per cent support that. I live in a

household with three daughters and my wife. I know how progressive they are and

how well they've done. I'm quite proud of them all in terms of their education

and moving forwards in their jobs. I'm also aware of the challenges that are

faced by many women and many of the decisions they make around their careers. It

relates a lot to they also want to have families. Creating a progressive

workplace that allows an infant to be brought to work is, again, something we

should've looked at sooner, but I'm glad we're looking at it now.

I will

look at the clause. I assume when we talk about infant, we're looking at the

definition under the Child Care Act ,

which is from birth to two years old. Because I could have some older infants,

I'm sure, that we might have running around, but I guess we're looking at birth

to two years old and that's good. I do acknowledge that this clause is

predominantly dealing with mothers, although it does say parents, so that is a

good thing there because I guarantee you, if my wife had to work and I had to

mind the infant, it would be right here with me too.

But it

does affect predominantly women. When we look at our workforce, when we look at

our population, we know that our natural population is declining. Of course,

natural population is your fertility rate versus your mortality. So we have an

older population, we have an aging population where more people are dying than

are being born. So anything that we can do to allow families and mothers in

particular to look after children while also pursuing a career should be utmost

what we do.

I think

right now as a government, as a House of Assembly we really need to be leading

by example. I think this is a good start on that. When we look at the virtual

meetings and look at putting in measures to allow disabled people to

participate, and of course to allow mothers and mothers to be to participate.

People

up in my district will know – I mean, Topsail - Paradise is a very young

district. They know my office is – I always promote I'm a child-friendly and

pet-friendly office. I have toys there for kids that come in. It should not be a

detriment to people meeting with me. Bring your kids. I have dog beds and dog

toys on the floor. Bring your pets. And that's the way we have to be. Of course

in some cases pets are kids to some people. So we need to ensure that we're open

to that. My office is certainly open to that.

politician, they always talk about you go around cutting ribbons and kissing

babies. I'm not that keen on the cutting ribbons, but b'y, I can tell you, I'll

be the first one to run over and grab a baby to hold. And it got nothing to do

with politics. So the Member for Mount Scio I'm going to tell her right now and

give her a warning in advance that I'll be first in line to hold that baby when

he or she or them show up here.

I think

this is a wonderful change, amendment we're putting forward here. It is

progressive. It's just going to do so much more. It runs a lot deeper than just

simply having a Member come in with their child here in this House. It lets the

public know that, look, we need to be progressive; we need to do things to make

sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce.

We talk

about child care. Child care is a huge piece of this equation as well. And there

are people out there who cannot afford child care, so if we're going to have

these progressive workforces where you can have your child with you, next to you

and work away – and I think a lot of people are realizing that with COVID where

we work virtual – then we need to promote that.

I know

my wife on our first child was able to take her child to work. She actually had

the crib and everything set up in her office next to the desk. No one was worse

for the wear on that, other than some people probably didn't work as much

because they were in to hold the baby, but that's one thing you go with.

I won't

keep you much longer on this; I just wanted to speak to this. I wish the Member

for Mount Scio all the best in health. We're all looking forward to the baby. I

felt bad for her last night, 10:30, I really did, when you should have been home

resting, but I'm sure you get that from your husband.

All the

best and I really appreciate what we are doing here with the

Standing Orders .

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to say that it was a privilege to actually work on this Committee with these

Members, especially allowing an infant into the House with the care of their

mother. It's kind of interesting that we – and I'm sure the Deputy Premier can

understand this, when we were to talk about that question my first thing was we

don't already have that?

It's

nice that we were able to move forward in this more modern world. It's nice that

we're following the other jurisdictions of this country of providing a space

that a mother can look after their child in their workspace, especially here in

the House of Assembly. This House of Assembly is a part of this province. It

represents everybody in this province; therefore, families are a big part of

this province, so making this space family-friendly is very important. I

congratulate all the Members here for agreeing unanimously that this is a

family-friendly environment and we move forward.

I also

want to mention we talk about standing in place and speaking, which is a long

time-honoured tradition in the Westminster system, but also it can be a

hindrance for people with disabilities. I'm very happy that we are moving

forward with that, allowing people who cannot stand in their place and speak.

It's very important.

We all

have to do it now with the current restrictions with COVID and so we now can see

that standing in your place can sometimes be harder for others. Now I'm glad to

say that people with disabilities and stuff hopefully will see in this House

that they are also accommodated and can also voice their opinions in debate in

this House in a safe manner for them as well. This is great stuff that we're

moving forward as a province and making this House a more inclusive place for

all individuals to work and a place for debate. Really, most of what I want to

say is that I'm very happy to be a part of this and that we are now moving

forward with these progressive changes as a House of Assembly and making this

place a family friendly safe space for all individuals to work, debate and

discuss the matters of this province.

I want

to thank all Members of the Committee as well, and all Members of this House as

we all seem to agree that this is a good path forward as a House of Assembly and

making it an inclusive and great environment to work in.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

want to speak briefly on the amendment; especially – well, the only one I'm

going to focus on is the changes to Standing Order 22. I want to talk about why

it's important.

I think

this House of Assembly – it's such a privilege to be here. When we speak we

should be speaking on things that matter to us as MHAs for our district and for

the province. I also think we should be judged on what we speak about. What that

means is if it's so important to you to bring forward to the House of Assembly,

it's very, very important and that matters to you. I think you should be judged

on that. If I'm wasting your time talking about frivolous things or if I have my

own agenda, I think you should judge me on that. I really think it's important.

I really

want to thank the Minister of Digital Government. I'm not thanking you for

having a baby or whatever, but basically for giving cause to this important

issue. It's very, very important because if we want acceptance for anything and

we talk about diversity, the only way you're going to get acceptance is by

having a presence. The only way you're going to normalize something is by having

a presence. By having an infant in here with the parent really will start to

normalize it.

You know

something? We're leaders here. We are MHAs, where we're called honourable.

Ministers are actually talked about by their titles and talked to by their

titles. It's such an honour to be here. The time here is so important but I just

want to talk about normalizing, leading to acceptance, we as leaders here. Why

is it so important?

I have a

lot of role models, too many to count, but I want to talk a little bit about – a

role model to me was my aunt Ruth Flowers ,

Randy Edmunds's mother, Muriel Anderson's daughter, my mother's sister. She's

passed away now. She was awarded the Governor General's Award. She was a member

of the – I should have looked it up. I was very, very familiar with it, but she

was a leader in our communities on the North Coast.

grandmother was widowed with six children. My aunt was the oldest of the family,

a daughter, a woman. It was very hard to have money in a small community. You

had to fish, and that didn't lead to money, it led to credit. My aunt actually

needed money to support our family, my mother's family. She wanted a job in the

store and she wasn't allowed because she was a woman. She was actually a

teenager.

Now, you

see the way I fight for my people. When you say no, I say I accept the reasons

for your no, but we have to come to a yes.

My aunt

got the job. She was the first woman to actually work in the store. One of the

few jobs that brought money. Do you know something? Presence leads to

acceptance.

We talk

about diversity, but we have to make sure that if we want women in government,

we have to find a way that women can be present in government, and that leads to

acceptance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. EVANS:

Another one of my role models was Dr. Penny Allderdice, who discovered the

Allderdice syndrome. She was a research doctor, a female in the '60s and '70s,

and I worked for her as a genetic student.

I don't

know how I got the job, actually. I went over there and all the stuff I was

doing, I was learning a lot and one time I asked her, I said: Dr. Allderdice,

why did you hire me? She said: Lela, you come from a place where people don't

actually go into post-secondary. She said: I need you to be in post-secondary. I

know what it's like to be a woman surrounded by men who don't listen to you,

even though you're smarted than them. She said: I need you to go to school. I

need you to succeed, and how are you going to succeed without any money?

What she

was saying was she wanted me there as a presence from the North Coast so the

people on the North Coast could see not only a person going into post-secondary,

but a woman. The thing about it is we have to have presence to have acceptance.

It's very, very, very important for us – very important.

I have

something written down here, it says: Women should be allowed the opportunity to

participate in all job opportunities. Now I used the word, allowed, because you

know something, right now a lot of women are not allowed to go into jobs. In

actual fact, there are still some jobs out there where it's an unwritten rule

that women are not allowed to apply, and we're not saying as women that you

should give us the jobs. It's not about giving women jobs, it's about giving

women the opportunity to access the jobs.

You know

something, we will get the jobs. We will do well in the jobs on our own merit

and then we will gain acceptance. Presence actually leads to acceptance. It's

very, very important for us.

The

thing is with changing this rule, it's not about just the infant; it's about

normalizing infants in the workplace. It's talking about diversity, it's talking

about opportunities. It's talking about opportunities for single males and

single females, as my fellow MHA talked about. It's not just about women.

The

thing about it is we have to be able to create opportunities for people. As my

fellow MHA talked about women, our numbers, she used the word: awful. The thing

about it is we have to lead by example. So we need changes, and not just changes

here for the House of Assembly but for all jobs, all job workplaces. It's very,

very important for us.

starts with child care; we need support for child care. Here we are decision

makers, and everybody in the House saw what COVID did to us. COVID really

brought a lot of problems to light, and one of the problems is staying at home

with your kids. Who stayed home with the kids? Most of it was women, engineers,

doctors, nurses, educators. The thing about it is women had to stay home to be

the supporters. It brings that to light. So we need to make changes, and like I

say, having the presence lead to changes.

Another

issue is rotational workers. I remember back in 2002, I was on a project. I was

just hired by Inco and we had the Premier come in, we had the MPs come in, we

had the President of Inco come in, and I was there on the ground running around

because I was trying to manage everything and it was just really funny. They

wanted to take pictures of me because I was a woman walking around with a

hardhat on. They could tell by my boots that I was actually doing the work. It

wasn't just for the photo op, and I said, no, no, I'll get you somebody, and I

went down and I got somebody. It was an Innu woman who was driving the 769 –

great big trucks, the biggest trucks we had on site then, which is actually

small compared to some of the larger ones now.

One of

the things that really surprised people – they took the pictures of her and all

that and they just started talking to her. One of the things is they were in

construction, both her and her husband started working and all of a sudden they

had kids, somebody had to stay home with the rotation because they were on a six

and two – six weeks in, two weeks off. Of course they both couldn't do it. So

what ended up happening was the woman kept the job and the man went home and

looked after the kids. And the Premier – I won't say his name – and everybody

was very impressed with that. They said: Why did that happen? She said: Because

I'm the better worker and I'm making more money.

The

thing about it is presence leads to acceptance, and we need to make sure that

women have opportunities too. I'm not going to continue to go on and on.

The

independent down there talked about Jody Wilson-Raybould. Do you know something?

She is a huge role model for me. She talks about honesty and integrity and it's

something that we could all learn from. But it's very important for putting

everything in context. We've got to make sure that we're inclusive; we've got to

make sure that we're allowing for diversity. Women have 52 per cent of the

population, yet in 2020 it's sad – I won't say it's shameful, because I use that

word too much. I don't want you to become too used to me saying that. It's

really sad to still be talking about trying to increase the numbers of women in

the workplace. It's really sad to talk about trying to increase the number of

women actually at the government level in the House of Assembly that influences

the decisions, that brings in changes in law. Also it's very, very, very sad to

talk about non-traditional jobs for women.

The only

way we can actually get acceptance is by having presence, so then we don't talk

about non-traditional jobs because everyone then has opportunity. I just want to

thank you for actually providing this opportunity to bring this to our attention

and to make sure that we actually make changes. It's very, very important for us

to have presence that leads to acceptance.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Digital Government and Service NL.

MS. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to just speak briefly on point (4) of the

Report of the Standing Orders Committee . So I believe I might've been an

instigator for this change for allowing that an infant is not included in that

definition, especially if they're cared for by a Member who is that infant's

parent.

Obviously, I'm pregnant, and in August I thought, oh, I should let the Speaker

and the Clerk know. I sent them both an email and I was very impressed by how

supportive everyone has been. The House of Assembly and Transportation and

Infrastructure, I believe, in short order, added change tables to the washrooms

outsides and changed them both to be gender neutral. That's very much

appreciated. Thank you very much. It's very supportive for women who are having

children, but also for any of our male colleagues whose partners have children

or who might have children themselves, or infants, specifically. I just wanted

to say thank you and I'm very supportive of this.

I have

three weeks left. Who knows what's going to happen, but I am planning on taking

a few days off because the parental leave in one of our policies allows Members

to not be here for one sitting without having to get special medical permission,

which I didn't realize that was the case. I won't be using too much of that, but

we will see how it goes. A week or two maybe, and then I'll be in with my little

infant hopefully.

I'm

going to hopefully be wearing him, or I have a little travel bassinet, so he

might be here asleep next to me. If he's too disruptive or something, I'll make

other arrangements. There's a big, long line of people who are waiting to hold

him and stuff. Anyway, we won't be too disruptive, I promise.

I just

wanted to say I support this. Thank you to the Members of the Committee and the

House of Assembly and all staff who've been very supportive. I really appreciate

all the other Members' positive words as well, so thank you very much.

Hopefully, in a few weeks I'll bring my little guy in with me.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Any further speakers to this

motion?

Seeing

no further speakers, I'm going to call the vote on the motion.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. CROCKER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If it's

the will of the House, I would suggest we recess now. I think we're all

anxiously looking forward to getting outside and supporting the oil and gas

workers. So we'll take our lunch recess a little earlier today and we'll

reconvene, Mr. Speaker, at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

The House is now recessed

until 2 p.m.

Recess

The

House resumed at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Admit strangers.

Order,

please!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will hear Members'

statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Terra Nova, Exploits,

Placentia - St. Mary's, Conception Bay South and Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

I understand that the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate will ask to present a

Member's statement by leave.

The hon.

the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, today I want to

talk about an individual in my District of Terra Nova, a business owner and

operator and an avid community supporter.

We all

know how hard COVID has been on students, and extremely difficult on graduates

of both high school and kindergarten. Early in May, this individual called a

parent of a high school graduate that is also a friend and a kindergarten

teacher because he felt bad that the students wouldn't get their planned

graduations. He wanted to do something special for the students.

decided to call a local store with a bakery and order 111 individual cakes, each

individually named for each high school grad to be picked up on their graduation

day. The bakery staff stayed all night to get this order ready for May 8.

The high

school students, parents and staff were grateful, but not surprised by this

individual's actions. He is well-known in the community for helping people when

they are in need, even so much as fixing basketball nets and never expecting

anything in return.

He chose

to do the same thing for the kindergarten grads, all 93 of them, and they were

delivered Monday, June 8.

I'd like

to thank this individual, Mr. Craig Haines, once again for his support and

congratulate all the graduating classes of 2020. Not all heroes wear capes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Exploits.

MR. FORSEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, Ms. Courtney Locke, a graduate of Botwood Collegiate, recently was

awarded the 2020 Ted Rogers Scholarship. This scholarship helps inspire young

leaders to overcome barriers to access post-secondary education and help fulfill

their educational dreams.

Ms.

Locke is currently a student at Memorial University faculty of nursing. She is a

caring, compassionate and active student who thrives on academic success.

Courtney also plays an active role in school functions as well as community

involvement and volunteerism, such as volunteering at the Dr. Hugh Twomey Health

Centre, the 2019 flu clinic, the Botwood Boys and Girls Club and community

committees.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all Members in the House of Assembly to join me in congratulating

Ms. Courtney Locke on receiving the 2020 Ted Rogers Scholarship and wish her all

the best in her future endeavours.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia - St. Mary's.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the Dildo area has a long history, going as far back as 2000 BC when

Maritime Archaic people resided at Anderson's Cove. By 700 AD, people of the

Dorset culture had inhabited Dildo Island.

During

Dildo Days 2020, the local service district, in partnership with the recreation

committee, hosted a community flag contest. On Monday, August 31, I attended an

event in Dildo whereby the community celebrated in social distancing fashion the

new community flag and the winner of the community flag contest, nine-year-old

Addison Stead.

The

beautiful flag flies proudly near Jack Spratt's Brook in the heart of the

community. The colours that Addison used are the same as the colours in the

Newfoundland and Labrador flag. The anchor on the flag symbolizes security and

strength. The codfish represents the community's history in the fishery and the

importance of the cod hatchery on Dildo Island to the economic viability of the

residents. The dory on the flag represents the traditional boat that is still

used in Dildo today.

The flag

as a whole represents the past, the present and the future of the community.

Congratulations Addison Stead and the community of Dildo.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, today I'm going to go in a direct direction with my Member's statement,

as what we normally do. As opposed to highlighting an individual, group or

event, I want to give kudos to the many parents, students and teachers who have

shown a great deal of patience and understanding while dealing with returning to

school during this pandemic.

I've

spoken to many parents who have expressed fear, stress and concern with

returning to school. We all know this has been a stressful situation for

parents, students and teachers and they're doing their best in these COVID

times.

As the

school year unfolds, I have no doubt that there will be many more challenges

along the way. As we are in these uncertain times, unchartered waters is a more

appropriate term. But rest assured, we will get through this together, face

whatever challenges come along the way, work together to achieve what we believe

is right for all children in my district and, of course, our province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Winsor - Buchans.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sit in

this House today to honour rotational workers throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador. There are thousands of workers who leave their homes and province for

weeks and months to earn a living, away from their families each and every day.

These workers contribute millions of dollars to our economy each year. The

stress and hardships these individuals endure with their families should never

be underestimated and misunderstood by those who have never done it.

travelled back and forth from this province and drilled oil for 17 years,

putting every cent into the economy of our beautiful province like so many

today. My rotational brothers and sisters could have left this province and

never returned. No flights, no travel and no strain on their families would have

been the easier way. These workers chose not to do that; they seldom do.

Instead, they stay home and contribute to the place we call home.

Whether

you are throwing tongs, driving vac trucks or working at an isolated camps in

Alberta, Saskatchewan, BC or offshore here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we

thank you. I have bled with you in minus 50 and will never forget the pride in

working side by side to contribute to our families in this province.

rotational workers in this province, in oil and gas or any other service

industries throughout this country, thank you for getting 'er done.

Stay

safe and God bless.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Lewisporte - Twillingate is asking leave to present a statement.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member has leave.

MR. BENNETT:

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a Canadian hockey community from my

district that, this year, stands above all others.

August 15, the Town of Twillingate was crowned Kraft Hockeyville Canada 2020.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BENNETT:

The winning bid was the

result of an only-in-Newfoundland story of an old aircraft hangar transformed

into a sporting centerpiece of a community, and the overwhelming support of the

people.

Despite

the challenge of COVID-19, supporters of the bid showed an unbeatable passion

for hockey and an energy that was inspiring to behold. Credit is due to the

and TV. In classic Newfoundland and Labrador fashion, all the province backed

them all the way.

This win

will bring new life into the historic George Hawkins Arena, with $250,000

available for much needed upgrades. On the list is replacing the 33-year-old

Zamboni, repairing the roof and improving the ice plant.

The win

also brings a future NHL pre-season hockey game to the region. Once again, we

get to show the world what Twillingate, and our great province, has to offer.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in thanking everyone who contributed, and together

recognize Twillingate as Kraft Hockeyville Canada 2020.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

MR. CROCKER:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased

today to offer my congratulations to the first graduates of the Drug Treatment

Court.

Drug

Treatment Court started as an idea in 2016 and grew because of the persistence

of the legal community. Today we are celebrating how far we have come, but no

one should be more proud than our four clients who have successfully completed

this program. They made a choice, and with help along the way, they can stand

tall today knowing they are on the road to recovery.

Mr.

Speaker, Drug Treatment Court is an alternative approach for offenders with

serious drug addictions who commit non-violent, drug-motivated crimes. Drug

Treatment Court establishes long-term supports outside the criminal justice

system by offering court-monitored treatment, random and frequent drug testing,

incentives and sanctions, clinical case management and social services support.

Drug

Treatment Court held its first sitting to review applications on January 18,

2019. Over the last 18 months we have had 20 offenders participate actively in

various stages of the 12 to 18 month treatment plans.

Mr.

Speaker, in addition to recognizing the hard work and accomplishments of the

graduates, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank our partners

including the Provincial Court, the Crown Attorney's office, Public Prosecutions

of Canada, the Newfoundland and Labrador Legal Aid Commission, Eastern Health

and the Department of Health and Community Services.

I wish

the graduates from the court continued success.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

I thank the

minister for an advance copy of his statement.

behalf of the Official Opposition, I join with the minister in congratulating

the first graduates of the Drug Treatment Court.

Mr.

Speaker, hearing that four individuals are on their road to recovery and towards

a life free of drugs and addiction is a very positive story. I congratulate

these graduates on their perseverance, their courage and their willingness to

participate. I wish them a bright future full of success. I know that these four

individuals will continue to be role models for others going through the

program.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd also like to take a moment to recognize those who have made the

program possible, including the court staff, members of the legal community,

health care providers and the families and friends who supported them. I look

forward to hearing more success about this program in the future.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Than you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Congratulations to the first graduates of this program and to the many officials

in the justice and health fields who worked so very hard to see the drug court

come to fruition. I hope to see more Drug Treatment Courts around the province

and, in order for them to succeed, more community-based supports for when

participants are past the treatment period.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker, and, again, congratulations to the graduates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize Sexual Violence Awareness Week from September 14 to 20.

The

theme for Sexual Violence Awareness Week 2020 is “Listen. Believe. Support,”

which recognizes the importance of listening to survivors and believing their

stories, which will support their healing.

Mr.

Speaker, I offer thanks to our leaders and advocates who are raising awareness

of the devastating effects of sexual violence this week and every week. For

decades they have been informing us all on the insidious and widespread issue of

sexual violence, while also highlighting the strength and resilience of

survivors and communities through incredible events like the Take Back the Night

March.

While

COVID-19 has meant many of this year's events have had to be changed, I applaud

our community groups for finding ways to adapt and move many activities online.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to continue to educate themselves on the

realities of sexual violence and the impacts it has on survivors. Let us keep

survivors and their stories not only close to our hearts, but also use their

stories as a driving force to create a province free of violence and inequality.

Together, we can create the change we want to see.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

behalf of the Official Opposition, I join with the minister in recognizing this

week as Sexual Violence Awareness Week.

Mr.

Speaker, sexual violence is unacceptable. Violence of all types is unacceptable.

It is my hope that through awareness initiatives, such as Sexual Violence

Awareness Week, that more supports can be made available to survivors and that

we as a society can move towards violence-free communities.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd also like to thank the dedicated individuals who work to provide

supports to survivors. These individuals, whether paid or volunteer, go above

and beyond in providing services whenever called upon. These individuals can be

a true beacon of hope for a survivor during a time of despair and desolation.

During

this Sexual Violence Awareness Week I will keep survivors of sexual violence in

my mind, and I ask that we all do the same and together continue to take action

towards a violence-free society.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

commend the advocates and service providers who work so hard in this area and

whose efforts during COVID-19 led to the creation of a helpline for victims of

violence.

encourage all hon. Members and others to participate in the online events these

groups are organizing. I also note support is needed not just to help victims

heal, support is also needed for proactive measures towards eliminating sexual

violence in our society.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland

and Labrador federal Liberal caucus was dramatically absent from today's rally

in front of the building.

May I

ask the Deputy Premier: Where were they?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

say that the value of the oil and gas industry cannot be overstated nor replaced

by any other sector in our economy. Upwards to 30 per cent of our GDP, 13 per

cent of our labour compensation, 10 per cent, I think, of all employment is

attributed to the oil and gas industry, Mr. Speaker.

We have

been working very diligently and hard as the Liberal provincial government to

really work hard with all the industry, so operators, supply services, the

unions and we've done a tremendous amount of work. We've written to the Minister

of Natural Resources as early as March. We wrote a very comprehensive report in

April. We followed that up. We had a press conference, of course, in May, Mr.

Speaker.

I'd like

to ask the Leader of the Opposition, has he written or spoken to Minister

O'Regan?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I think the questions here

are usually one way.

The next

one is: Premier Furey said he's turning over every stone. Obviously, this has

not worked. So when is the Premier going to start throwing them instead?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is

about people, not politics. I want to remind the Member opposite, we're all in

this together. This has been very, very difficult on industry. We've petitioned

the federal government, a partner in our offshore, for support. We have written

constantly. We have spoken with them endlessly and, hopefully, they will come

forward. They have said they're going to come forward. We take them at their

word they're going to come forward.

Mr.

Speaker, this is important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's not

about politics. It's about people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Well, Mr. Speaker, clearly, the government is now down to hopefully this and

hopefully that.

The

government engaged an individual with ties to the Liberal Party as a special

advisor on economic recovery. I would ask the minister: Has the government

received the Paul Mill's report, and will they table it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I say

hopefully because we do not have it in our hands, but we are fully anticipating

it, Mr. Speaker. I, again, say to the Leader of the Opposition, we've been

working on a solution for the oil and gas for quite some time. I'm glad he's now

joined that chorus of calls for support.

Mr.

Speaker, regarding the Executive Council who engaged a consultant around the

economic response to COVID, the short-term measures that were required. I have

tabled the report of what we used that funding for, Mr. Speaker, and we've

provided those expenditures.

These

are short-term efforts to ensure that people get through the COVID crisis, Mr.

Speaker. I think we're weathering our storm very well here in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

The question was fairly specific: Has the government received the report from

Mr. Mills? I didn't hear an answer.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, I could look at every single action this government has had and

done for the people of the province, for the businesses of the province, for the

tourism industry. He worked with deputy ministers and had a whole-of-government

approach to supports during this pandemic, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, if he wants each individual report, he can see it as we move forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the only problem with that non-answer is that the Premier himself

told me six weeks ago that he had the report.

Will you

table this report?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS. COADY:

There is a lot of drama in the room this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

I will

endeavour – one of our other colleagues in this Chamber has already asked if we

could table that report. I'm endeavouring to speak with Executive Council

concerning the same and certainly, if it's available to be tabled, I certainly

will ensure that we would be able to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, finally half an

answer.

The

Mills mandate required him to analyze The

Way Forward on Oil and Gas and examine practices adopted by other

jurisdictions.

Did Mr.

Mills recommend exploration incentives such as those of Norway?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Deputy Premier.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, if the Member

opposite, the Leader of the Official Opposition, had bothered to read any of the

correspondence that we presented to the federal government, which is readily

available on our website, he would know that we were calling for incentives in

offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I

have said to this Chamber, as I have said to the people in the industry, we have

asked for those supports. We have spoken to Ottawa about those supports.

Mr.

Speaker, we have a tremendous opportunity off the Coast of Newfoundland and

Labrador. We have great prospectivity, exploration is essential and important,

and we're going to continue to work with industry to make sure it happens.

What's he doing?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

recent leak of information at the Labour Relations Board has sent shockwaves

throughout the province. This unprecedented act resulted in certification cards

being shared with the actual company that was involved in the certification

process. The Federation of Labour has called for an independent investigation,

of which the minister has refused to get involved.

How does

the minister believe that the Labour Relations Board can investigate itself?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Immigration, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

welcome my hon. colleague to the post of critic for Immigration, Skills and

Labour.

I'm

delighted to have this question because it provides an opportunity for me to

enlighten the House about the nature of the Labour Relations Board. It is a

statutory, it's a judicial guiding body. It sets, makes decisions. It sets and

makes decisions which are binding in law. As such, it is a quasi-judicial body.

It is the equivalent of a court; therefore, it is very important for political

actors, such as ourselves, both the critic and myself, not to intervene in the

activities of a quasi-judicial body.

With

that said, however, it is important to point out that some time ago an Officer

of Parliament, an Officer of the Legislature, the Privacy Commissioner did say

he was conducting an independent review of this situation. It is occurring.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail – Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Labour Relations Division is responsible for promoting a stable and constructive

labour relations climate while fostering productive work relationships. That

division falls under the minister's purview and his responsibility.

I ask

the minister once again: Why does he feel that he should not be involved in some

way in ensuring that this independent investigation gets done and gets done

quickly?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Immigration, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon.

Member does flatter me, because he says that I'm responsible for fostering a

solid labour relations environment.

Mr.

Speaker, through the assistance and with the support of conciliation officers

from the Department of Labour, we were able to resolve in a very important,

very, very testy at times, labour dispute between ferry captains in this

province. I just want to take this opportunity to say on behalf of each and

every one of us in this House how proud we are and how satisfied we are with the

labour professionals within the Department of Immigration, Skills and Labour,

for their expertise that they lend to a successful labour relations environment

for our province each and every day.

With

that said, Mr. Speaker, there is an independent Officer of Parliament conducting

an independent investigation. What part of yes does he not understand?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Placentia

West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

constituents who signed these cards in good faith have had their confidence

shattered and the system we're at now, the company knows who signed up.

Employees feel intimidated and fearful of backlash from the company, as some

individuals who have signed cards have already been laid off.

What is

the minister going to do to protect employees?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Immigration, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I would not wish

to prejudge the outcome of the independent investigation of the Privacy

Commissioner of Newfoundland and Labrador which was appointed by this House as

an independent officer. With that said, I also take consideration to the fact

that the chair of the Labour Relations Board has provided a public statement as

to how they are dealing with this matter.

Mr.

Speaker, to put this in a certain perspective, there are situations that occur

in our courts that are maybe somewhat similar. I won't cast a direct parallel to

anything that has occurred nationally or directly, but it had the appearance of

human error. That will be decided by the Privacy Commissioner.

It is

incumbent upon political actors such as ourselves not to interfere with a

quasi-judicial body such as the Supreme Court of Newfoundland or the –

MR. SPEAKER:

The minister's time has

expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

employees' privacy has been illegally breached. People have signed cards, have

been laid off and others are living in fear.

Why does

the minister continue to wash his hands of this matter and when is he going to

stand up and protect the workers' rights against this gross abuse?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Immigration, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Mr. Speaker, I might ask if

this is the position of the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and

Labrador that political actors should indeed become engaged in the matters of

quasi-judicial body. That would be an interesting answer, because I think, as an

officer of the court himself at one point in time, the Leader of the Opposition

would recognize that matters before quasi-judicial bodies, where there are

independent oversights, whether it be from the courts themselves, which is a

matter under statutory availability, for such matters or matters which are

available for adjudication of officers of Parliament, there is a process in

place.

I do not

take this responsibility lightly, but I also do not take lightly an intrusion on

a quasi-judicial body by a political actor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, this party gets involved when there's an injustice. That's our

stance.

Yesterday in the House of Assembly, the Minister of Transportation and

Infrastructure stated 95 per cent of workers on projects in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador are being worked on by Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. Unfortunately, we continue to hear reports of workers in Corner

Brook hospital, Central Newfoundland long-term care facility and the Core

Science building at MUN.

Can the

minister table proof to this claim?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, what I have before me is not coffee-shop news, it's not rumour,

it's not gossip. It's a document that was produced in August of 2020. Botwood

protective care, 20 out of 20 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; Gander Academy,

48 out of 50 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians; Paradise Intermediate, 45 out of

45. Do I need to say where they're from? Coley's Point – where's Coley's Point –

54 out of the 54; Gander long-term care facility, 67 out of 71 employees; Grand

Falls long-term facility, 83 out of 86; Bay d'Espoir, Mr. Speaker – wait, hold

it. You asked the question; I'll give you the answer – 27 out of 27, 100 per

cent. And wait for the final one, the West Coast medical facility, the West

Coast hospital 30,265 hours, 27,901 hours, 92 per cent Newfoundland and

Labradorians, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

I assume the minister wasn't

at the airport to greet the Quebec workers this morning that went to Corner

Brook.

Despite

cries from workers, the Liberal government still is not committed to putting

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians first, requiring all public infrastructure,

construction projects to require a community benefits agreement.

I ask

the minister: When will you implement such a policy?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, great question;

I look forward to answering this question. The Member for Grand Fall-Windsor

earlier today admitted to 17 years of finding employment outside of this

province as a rotational worker. We are showing 95 per cent.

Might I

add, Mr. Speaker, those are only the major projects. Let's look at the road

projects in this province. Let's look at J-1 in Clarenville, 100 per cent

Newfoundland and Labrador employment. Let's look at the water and sewer. In

every one of our districts, 100 per cent owned and operated by Newfoundland and

Labradorians, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, workers in our

province need jobs and they need them now, and the pandemic is more than enough

reason to make that happen. They're ready and they're able to go to work.

Why does

the Liberal government continue to sit down when they should be standing up for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians through a community benefits agreement?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

MR. BRAGG:

Mr. Speaker, this year, as we

all know, COVID changed the world, but I had the opportunity every Friday to

have a meeting with the Construction Association of Newfoundland and Labrador

who applauded us on a number of projects that we were getting out in April, May

and June of this year, that we were getting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians out

to work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, just over two weeks ago, the minister said the future of the offshore

in this province was bright despite the exploration rigs leaving the province.

Does he still agree?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

what I actually said was that I was optimistic about the future of this industry

and certainly I still remain optimistic about this. I'm not going to go around

living with pessimism because I don't think that's what people want. People want

us to look forward, to be optimistic and to do our best. What I will say is we

continue to work to try to help workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, to try to

help make these projects work.

Again,

we spoke about it today. I was glad to see all my colleagues out there in front

of this building today in force to support the workers that were gathered there

today, and will continue to work for them and on their behalf going forward.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the executive director of Trades NL said this morning that Husky is a

symptom today but not the problem. The reduction in exploration is also a

symptom of the stress in the oil industry.

I ask

the minister: Have you gotten a commitment for exploration incentives yet?

MR. SPEAKER:

The Minister of Industry,

Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We're

continuing to do what we can as a province as it relates to the success of the

offshore industry. In fact, I have a letter here that my predecessor in the

department wrote to the minister and to the federal government, I believe about

six months ago, talking about the different things that we need in this

province. We pressed for exploration incentives and, as we all know, we continue

to wait to see what is coming.

continue to try to work with the companies which also have a role to play here,

because at the end of the day we all want what's best for these workers; we want

this industry to thrive. Again, I'm proud of the support here and I was proud to

see I think every Member of this House out there today, because at the end it's

not about the politics that gets played, it's about finding some solutions to

the issues that we're faced with.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, Norway's oil industry is withstanding the global downturn. Norway has

invested in exploration, meanwhile, the Transocean Barents is leaving our

province, the West Aquarius and Henry Goodridge are tied up at Bull Arm and for

the first time in 20 years there's no exploration happening in this province.

I ask

the minister: When will this exploration resume?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a

couple of points that I would address here. Again, I would reiterate here that

while we're getting in the cut and thrust of this, I do appreciate the question

because they are important.

What I

would say are a couple of things. It's very hard to compare Newfoundland and

Labrador to Norway per se, given that they are a federation as opposed to a

province here. We have to look at Canada as a whole.

The

second thing I would say is that there was exploration going on here in this

province this summer. In fact, one of the first meetings I took was an excellent

meeting with OilCo, with people like Dr. Richard Wright, with Jim Keating, to

look at the amazing seismic work that's being done here when we talk about 3-D

seismic.

It was

only last year, I think – the minister ahead of me might correct the amount –

$640 million in money that was spent on bids. That comes from the exploration

work that's being done right here.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to caution you, Minister, based on the crowd of people we saw out on that front

step in front of this building today, our oil industry is in serious danger and

words are not going to cut it. We all have to step together. We need you guys –

you're the government – to speak to the federal government, get them on side.

Without

the federal government, our oil industry is in dire straits. Investment dollars

will go to countries who value their oil industry and give incentives, like

Norway.

I ask

the minister: Where are the incentives for our industry? We have to get the

federal government onside. Minister, we understand it's incumbent upon the

provincial government to get the federal government onside.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the comments the Member is making. I get the fact that he's coming

around. He is not blaming this particular government for what's going on, but

there are a couple points I would have to make that I think are needed out there

for clarification.

One is

that we are competing in a huge global economy here, one that lost a trillion

dollars last year. It's a huge loss, and you only have to read the stories that

come out every single day talking about demand issues and supply issues that are

going on. That's one of the issues.

Secondly, I do agree that our federal government has a role to play, and we've

been at the table with them and talking with them.

Two

things I would say; I heard today at the rally as well that I thought I would be

remiss if I didn't address it. Your leader has not written once to the federal

government until today, and that wasn't to say you needed to do anything, expect

to make a political statement and get rid of a minister.

We need

to work together on this to get the results for those workers out there in

front.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, today, we heard loud and clear the importance of our offshore. Noia

and its partners have worked hard to develop a supply and service industry in

this province. When the offshore industry prospers, the supply and service

industry prospers, and in turn all of our local and small businesses prosper.

I ask

the Minister of Finance: How will small and medium local businesses survive if

our offshore industry crashes?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Industry, Energy and Technology.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I echo

the comments of the Member opposite when he mentioned about Noia speaking today.

What I can say is I've enjoyed a long relationship with the head of Noia, from

the arguing that went on in this House, but right now working together, with not

cross purposes but the same purpose of trying to get a solution. Again, we

realize the challenges and they trickle down through. We have a huge supply

chain that has been built here that is affected by this, as it is affected

globally.

What I

would also point out that I thought was important that she said today, Charlene

Johnson, was that Noia, CAPP and the provincial government work together hand in

hand to make sure that we are going to get ahead of this.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Time for a quick question and

a quick answer.

The hon.

the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, small and medium local businesses are still suffering with the

economic crisis caused by COVID. Now they have to worry about the economic

impact of cancelled oil projects.

I ask

the Minister of Finance: Will your budget include supports for small and medium

businesses?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can

say that of course we are concerned; this government has been concerned about

the small- and medium-sized businesses that are involved with the oil and gas

industry. That's why we've worked so closely with industry over the last number

of months.

course, the budget is coming up, and I can only say to the Member opposite, of

course we're considering all aspects of what we need to do in that budget and we

want to continue to support small- and medium-sized businesses.

There

are a number of programs under my colleague's Industry, Energy and Technology

department as well to support them, and, as you know, the federal government has

been supportive during this pandemic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Women

have told me it is difficult to find the number for the new Domestic Violence

Help Line. In fact, if you search the gov.nl website with the words domestic

violence, helpline and NL, you will not find the number. Using those same search

keywords in Google or Explorer will eventually get you to the link to a news

release partially titled “Provincial Government and the Transition House

Association …” which does have the number if you thought to click that

ill-titled link.

Mr.

Speaker, a helpline is meant to help, not hinder. Individuals experiencing

domestic violence do not need the extra stress of not being able to access the

help they need.

I ask

the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women: What is the Domestic Violence

Help Line number and how will you ensure it is easier to find?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for the Status of Women.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for her very important

question during what is now being recognized as Sexual Violence Awareness Week.

It was

on the 30th of June that the Office of the Status of Women issued a news release

indicating a provincial domestic violence line was now operating. Mr. Speaker,

that number is 1-888-709-7090. We're very pleased to partner with our transition

houses. It's my understanding that the call volume coming into that line has

been active, and that tells me, Mr. Speaker, that the people out there needing

access to the line are aware of how to find it.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

will try again soon.

Front-line workers have kept the Confederation Building clean throughout COVID,

working for a private contractor for low wages and no benefits. They are still

waiting for the COVID-19 wage top-up that went into effect July 1.

I ask

the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure: Will he take some

responsibility for the fact that these workers, who provide an essential service

to government, have still not received their COVID wage top-up three months

later?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Immigration, Skills and Labour.

MR. BYRNE:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

What an

opportunity this is to join with the hon. Member in highlighting and celebrating

the incredible service that essential workers did for each and every one of us.

The

provincial government in Newfoundland and Labrador joined with the Government of

essential workers. We followed the guidelines and the parameters around a

federal program to provide that. We put in an intake portal. We have received

over 2,000 applications and we have disbursed tens of millions of dollars to

employers; 95 per cent of all applications have been processed. Tens of millions

of dollars have been disbursed to employers. We call on employers now to do as

they promised to do, which is disburse the money to eligible employees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West, time for a quick question and a quick answer.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Labrador

West is about to transition to a period of crisis where 50 per cent of its

family physicians are going to leave the area. Even before they decided to leave

many families were without a family physician. LG Health has just recruited one

physician, but this will not fill the gap.

I ask

the minister: Will he instruct his department to create a province-wide

recruitment program and action plan with focus on rural and remote communities?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Recruitment and retention of physicians and health care workers in general is a

significant challenge. We do offer significant bonuses, both as bursaries and as

grants for Newfoundland and Labrador graduates who wish to go there.

I am

aware of the situation there. Quite frankly, it's been exacerbated by the lack

of air communication between Lab West and anywhere because these practitioners

wanted to rotate to visit with their families who were in other provinces. I

acknowledge the challenges there. We do have nurse practitioner-led clinics

available in Lab West.

In terms

of prenatal care, we're looking at moving in midwifery, and certainly physician

recruitment is a hot topic in rural areas.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, the provincial

government were seeking bids for a P25 province-wide radio system, estimated

value of $250 million. The lead deputy minister was Charles Bown, and a sole

source offered to present a proposal to come back to government with a proposal

was Bell.

I ask

the minister: Why weren't local companies given an opportunity to present a

proposal instead of a sole source?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Infrastructure.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, as everyone in this House would know, I've spent a short time in this

portfolio. I spent much of the first three weeks dealing with a ferry strike,

and of that conversation and the questions asked, I'm not 100 per cent up on it

and I wouldn't want to give any misleading information.

I will

report back to this House as soon as I can get the relevant in