PDF Version

June 9, 2020

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 36

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

Before

we start this session of the House that's a little unusual, I know, the Clerk of

the House has provided us with some information in advance of the reconvening

today. This guidance material is developed in consultation with the latest

public health measures and advice from the chief medical officer. In terms of

the Chambers, we've revised the configuration of the House to allow for more

physical distancing between Members.

addition to the revised configuration, the chief medical officer recommends the

use of non-medical masks by Members and House officials when moving around the

Chamber and other areas of the precinct, such as the caucus rooms, washrooms and

offices in the area. They are not required while Members are sitting in the

Chamber or when they are speaking in the Chamber but when they move about the

Chamber, people should be wearing a mask.

In her

approval of the Chamber configuration, the chief medical officer also stated the

following: I would like to reinforce that the safety of the six feet of

separation only applies when talking is happening at a normal volume and force.

If there is shouting or singing – we don't have too much singing here, but if

there's shouting, then droplets can travel further, so we must encourage MHAs to

keep their volume at a normal conversational level and use their microphones as

much as possible.

I also

recommend staying seated to speak if at all possible, as the tendency to move

around when standing could narrow the six-foot distance. These issues are small

compared to the space issues, but we want to set the best example possible.

that's from the chief medical officer. Based on the advice, Members will need to

first stand to be recognized and then when they're recognized, immediately sit

down and speak while sitting down, as I'm doing now. A temporary change in the

Standing Orders to accommodate this has been drafted and will require approval

in the House today.

In order

to minimize to the extent possible the number of persons physically present, we

don't have any Pages on duty today. Bottled water is provided, and should you

require more water or other things, you can indicate to the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Access

to the Chamber: To reduce the contact points in the House, the doors of the

Chamber will be left open while Members are in sitting so we don't have to touch

the doorknobs to open the doors. If you require someone to drop something off to

the House, get something to you in the House, you should bring it to the Clerk's

office and the Clerk's office will arrange to get the material into the House.

Members

should also note, as I said before, moving around all the precincts of the

House, which includes the hallways and the caucus rooms and offices, people are

asked to wear a non-medical mask, when moving around. And other precautions have

been taken in relation to the number of people in an elevator, washrooms and

things like that.

So you

all should have this information prior to the House opening and if you require

any further information on this, you should talk to the Clerk of the House. I

just want to make you aware of those things before we start today's session.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you for clarifying those –

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MS. COADY:

Oops, I'm the first one to

break the rule.

MR. SPEAKER:

It's going to take some time

to get used to.

MS. COADY:

I haven't made the motion

yet.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me. I see that there are 40 Members in today's

sitting, and it's wonderful to have everyone here and everyone back.

Mr.

Speaker, I give notice, and seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works

and Deputy Government House Leader, to move the following motion: That for the

period of the sitting of this House from June 9 to June 18 inclusive, this House

will sit in accordance with the times prescribed in Standing Order 9(1) except

that the House will not sit on Wednesday morning on June 10, 2020, or June 17,

2020; that for the purpose of this sitting of the House, the Speaker's gallery

and the public gallery shall be considered to be part of the Chamber of this

House; that notwithstanding any Standing Order to the contrary, a Member may be

recognized by the Speaker from any place in which they are sitting in the

Chamber; and that notwithstanding any Standing Order to the contrary, a Member

shall stand to be recognized by the Speaker but shall speak in debate from a

seated position in accordance with the recommendations of the chief medical

officer of Health.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask leave for this motion to be debated today.

MR. SPEAKER:

We have received a copy of

this motion in advance and it is in order.

Does the

Member have leave of the House to introduce this motion now?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the leave of the House to debate this motion.

Mr.

Speaker, these are the requirements because of the pandemic in which we find

ourselves in. It is good to have Members back in the House of Assembly in full

force today, Mr. Speaker, but we are still on Alert Level 3. We have consulted

with the chief medical officer and we have protocols in place to ensure that we

can indeed progress the House of Assembly, including having Members sit in the

public galleries, in the Speaker's galleries, having Members recognized from any

place in which they are sitting, and, of course, Mr. Speaker, debating from a

seated position which is new to this House as well.

As well,

Mr. Speaker, we have delayed the House sittings on Wednesday mornings to allow

for the All-Party Committee on the pandemic to meet, and, of course, going into

the afternoon sessions for the public press conferences that are held, of

course, multiple times during the week. So allowing that opportunity to discuss

pandemic-related and economic-related issues.

So, Mr.

Speaker, I'm glad I have leave for this today and that we are able to progress

the House of Assembly. I ask all Members to support this motion so that we can

indeed do the people's work in this House; albeit in a modified manner, but

still getting the work done that needs to be done in this House of Assembly and

for accountability to be held as well.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's

indeed an honour, and I know I can speak on behalf of definitely our Members of

our caucus here in the PC and our Leader, but I would think all Members of the

House of Assembly, to be back in doing the work for the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador and those people who elected us.

As the

Government House Leader has noted, it's a very unique time that we find

ourselves in, something that nobody could have ever imagined when they put their

name forward to be elected, nor would I suspect the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador ever expected this is how they would have to do their day-to-day

operations and how we, as parliamentarians, would have to represent them in

addressing legislation and the laws and the policies that operate this great

province of ours.

We've

come a long way in the last – less than three months. I recall the first meeting

of the joint party committee to look at the pandemic health emergency and how

that would unfold, and the decisions that had to be made in the best interest of

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We collaboratively worked together.

There

are times when discussions can't take place immediately. There are times when

some information gets shared that wasn't shared with everybody else,

unfortunately. There are times when there are different entities that can't be,

at a moment's notice, engaged in the process, but it's never meant to be

deliberate. It's meant to be a collaborative approach, and working in a very

unique situation, in unique times with unique challenges, we've all worked

together to try to find the best way to make things happen.

In this

House alone we have four direct entities. We have the government, we have the

Official Opposition, we have the Third Party and we have our independents. There

are approaches to try to engage all of them around the decision-making process

and having input. At the end of the day, certain decisions have to be made to

move things forward. If not, we'll be at a stalemate forever and a day. Things

have to happen. The people deserve work that's necessary to improve their lives

to continue, and for us to get beyond this and get back to some sense of

normality.

What

we're endeavouring to do this week is to do that. There have been pieces of

legislation, for those who may not know, that has been on the docket from March

when we recessed the House, and we only recessed the House, not because people

didn't want to do the work that they had been elected to do, but because the

pandemic was the immediate necessary situation that we had to deal with.

We've

since been able to come back on a couple of occasions to deal with

emergency-related things, and that's due to the co-operation of the Members in

this House. Also, I have to note the staff. They've had to work diligently

around certain protocols, abilities to redefine their roles and to work within

unique situations to make this happen. We've managed to get to that point to

ensure that the rules, regulations, the policies and the ability to be able to

provide services for people of Newfoundland and Labrador didn't get hindered

because we couldn't operate in the same standard process that we had in the

past.

What

we're trying to endeavour here is to get back to some sense of normality. For

the people who may not know it, there was a Committee struck of virtual

parliament that we wanted to look at, because nobody had any idea – and still

have no idea – how long this may go. We're hoping that because of the great work

of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we've managed to squash the

curve, but we want to ensure that we're ready for whatever happens, to be able

to keep the needs of the people forefront when it comes to responsibility we

have as parliamentarians.

We've

been working through a virtual parliament Committee process. All four entities

have input to that to ensure we have a process that moves forward. Part of that

debate was finding the best mechanism in the quickest period of time to ensure

as many parliamentarians as possible, but in this case all – because while you

can talk virtual, we know the virtual parliament process can work but it's not

as efficient. It's not the same collaborative approach. It's not the same

interaction as you have if you're sitting in the people's House and having that

debate. We've managed to work through co-operation between all the entities, the

staff, the House of Assembly and all the government officials to make this

happen.

I'm

proud to say that we were part of a collaborative approach here to get everybody

here. We have one of our key government Members who's volunteered to sit in the

gallery, who's still apt to do their job and answer questions, so there's

collaboration. We've had other Members who have agreed to sit in the Speaker's

gallery. We've had Members agree to all kinds of restrictions. That's a

testament to what we do first and foremost, and that's to represent the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Will we

still have an opportunity over the next seven days to debate the question? Maybe

even to banter a little bit about policy and operations. No doubt, but that's

what people expect us to do. At the end of the day they expect us to get into

the House, deal with what's necessary, get answers to questions and move towards

moving the best processes and policies forward so that we move beyond the COVID

emergency and get back to doing our day-to-day activities.

We've

come a long way in a short period of time. We've come a long way because the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador supported what we did and we've come a long

way because, as parliamentarians, we also supported each other.

I'm

looking forward to the debate. We have four pieces of legislation that may not

change the world, but they're important to the industries that they're relevant

to and we need them to move that forward. No doubt we'll get back to normality,

if it's in September or if it's back in our fall sitting in October or whenever

it is, hopefully as normal as possible. But this is bringing everybody together

to find the best way to do what we were elected to do, and that's serve the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm looking forward to a good dialogue; good, open debate; good

question and answers; and an opportunity to sign off on some legislation for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR.

J. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, I will echo the sentiments of the Government and Opposition House

Leaders. This is, indeed, certainly an exercise in collaboration and

co-operation. We may not agree on certain issues, but on this we've all come to

the agreement that we do need to get back to the House.

Certainly, if someone had said to me that a year ago, when I first got elected,

that I figured that was going to be the biggest change in my life, serving as an

MHA; nobody said about serving during Snowmageddon or during COVID-19, a

pandemic, so it's been a learning exercise in so many ways. Certainly,

throughout this process I would like to say that there has been an awful lot of

communication between our party, our Members and other ministers in dealing with

issues. It's been very open. There has been a real attempt, while the House is

not in session, to work through problems, and to get questions answered and to

get business done.

And

that's been evident in the Joint Public Health Response Committee that really

began almost immediately following the March – my God, it seems like an eternity

ago, but in the middle of March. At that time, to be honest, this was something

unprecedented. How do we deal with this, deal with the fear, the anxiety that

was out there? The Joint Public Health Response Committee was dealing with ways

of how do we deal with the – almost like an emergency situation – emerging needs

as they came out.

Certainly, as it went on and as we, indeed, successfully flattened the curve, a

lot of other questions came up, namely about how do we live with COVID-19. Well,

this is living with COVID-19 right now. There is no going back to normal – or

whatever normal was – until a vaccine is developed. So if at that time we're

still looking for ways of how do we carry on with the business of society, the

business of this House in a way that protects people, not only ourselves, but

also for the people who do the lion's share of the work for us in many ways, the

people behind the scenes, the executive assistants, the constituency assistants,

the secretaries, the support staff, you name it, how do we make it safe for all

people to do that work and also tend to the needs of the people in this province

who depend on us.

Certainly, as being part of the Select Committee on how to get the House of

Assembly up and running, there was a – I join with the Opposition House Leader

in thanking certainly the staff, because they've done yeoman service in getting

us the information, doing the research necessary to make some key decisions. At

first, it was about whether we were going to have a virtual House of Assembly –

and we've explored those possibilities and we'll have them in place if need be,

but there was a clear attempt as to how to make a physical House of Assembly

work in the COVID-19 world. This is what you see here.

This is

not the first iteration, either. This is multiple iterations and the logistics

in terms of wiring, getting the proper airflow. It seems pretty self-evident,

but it takes a bit of work to get this physical set-up so that we can carry on

the work that the people expect us to carry out.

There

will be glitches; I'm sure of that. I think the fact that we're here, we're

going to do our level best to make this work, says something about, irrespective

of political differences, we are committed to serving the people and to debating

the issues and to make sure that these pieces of legislation get through and

that the people who depend on them are served.

Without

any further comments, I will leave it at that and say that I look forward to

seeing how this new House of Assembly works and I suspect that if it needs to be

refined and improved, that's what we'll be doing. So it's an opportunity here

for all of us to participate, to try it on for size and to give feedback to the

Speaker, to Members of the Select Committee to see how we can improve this for

everyone.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

welcome back everybody and, of course, to you and the staff also for all the

work.

Mr.

Speaker, there has been a couple of times mentioned here of collaboration. I

have to say that I don't know about the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, but

we haven't been involved with any of the meetings on COVID, so the information I

get is on VOCM.

There is

a new era here of independents in the House. I commend the Premier, the Minister

of Health and Dr. Fitzgerald for the work they did – I said it here publicly and

I'll say it again – but there are issues that we must raise.

The

first I heard that Wednesday mornings were going to be cancelled was yesterday

when I got an email from the Government House Leader. Of course, in the spirit

of co-operation, I wrote back and said I have concerns expressed to me from

people in the district. Mr. Speaker, people from your own district have

contacted me on some issues and I'll raise them now in a second.

I wrote

the Government House Leader back and said, can we get two extra questions a

week, myself and the independent, so that we can raise these issues and it was

flatly no. So this idea of co-operation may work with the three parties but not

with the independents, I have to say that.

These

aren't going to be gotcha questions. This is too important what's happening in

our province. Every question I asked the minister on the opposite side, I gave

him a copy of the question. I want answers. I want results. I don't want to

embarrass anybody in this House – you get results. Mr. Speaker, that is one of

the concerns that I had that we tried to get questions raised, because I do have

a lot of concerns from people out my way – a lot of concerns. This is the only

avenue I have, this House of Assembly, to get them raised.

To be

fair, Dr. Haggie, there was some – when the last session was in I gave Dr.

Haggie some concerns. He did look into the concerns, so I have to be fair that

when you see Dr. Haggie face to face, he will do what he can to help out. I have

to put that on the record. This is the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for us and I

know me – the only opportunity I have to raise the concerns of the people that

are giving me concerns.

commend everybody for working through this. This session – just to let everybody

know, this is the way we should be trying to work together, everybody. I agree

and I remember bringing this up in the last debate of how we can handle having

everybody in here: use the Speaker's gallery and use the gallery. I brought that

up in the last debate of what we should do. I wrote and said here's what we

should do. Here we are today.

So, Mr.

Speaker, some of the concerns I have – I just got an email today from this

person who's a cardiac patient waiting for surgery and can't get in; in bed and

can't get out. Because his heart is so bad he can't get out.

How can

we find some way in this House – what ideas can we give to open up for health

care? That's the big thing for me. It's the big thing I'm hearing, Mr. Speaker,

is health care. There has to be a way that we can do it. I don't know the

answers, I'm not a professional, but if we got in this House of Assembly – what

is it the professionals will need for it.

There's

another lady who contacted me a month ago about her husband waiting for surgery,

and can't get in for surgery. There's a lady I spoke to on Monday morning, her

mother is waiting for a hip replacement and can't get it done. They told her

mother to sit down, because if she falls we can't visit you. What are we doing?

Why can't we discuss that this in this House?

We're

bringing in four pieces of legislation, which is important to people – which is

important. Some of them, I believe, were already in this House of Assembly. We

debated some of them already in this House, but don't you think that somewhere

in health care we have to try to bring up that we can resolve in this House,

that we can bring forward. I get to ask four questions, myself – two questions

each, so we can bring it to – even answers for them. There is anxiety out there.

There is

one person I know finally getting in this Thursday; gone blind in one eye, just

after beating cancer. There has to be a way that we can help in this House, and

the only way for us to do it is to debate in this House and see what solutions

we can give.

The

email I got back is that we want to extend Question Period; yet, we can't ask

questions about these major concerns – major concerns.

This is

my issue about this idea of collaboration. If you're going to collaborate, we

have to collaborate with everybody, because I tell you the health care issues,

that I'm sure a lot of Members in this House are receiving, are also in Humber -

Bay of Islands and it is also in Mount Pearl – Southlands. So this is not

confined in one area, we all have them.

The only

avenue we have to bring it up is in this House of Assembly, either through

debate or Question Period. Then when you're denied the opportunity to ask

questions for some reason, which you weren't even involved in the discussion in

the first place, to ask two questions, four questions a week, an extra three

minutes on Wednesdays, and you can't do it; yet, we're going to lose five hours

of debate. One of the reasons given is you want to get ready for the COVID

briefing.

The

Premier of this province, nine chances out of 10, won't be in here Wednesday. He

shouldn't be. The Premier of the province should not be here Wednesday mornings

if we're debating issues. That's not a knock on the Premier, that's not a knock

whatsoever, but if we have concerns that we want to raise about health care, we

should have the opportunity somewhere. If you're going to take five hours off

debate, let us ask the questions in the House of Assembly so at least the people

know that it's going to be brought to the people's attention. That's all.

there's an opportunity that we all can help out in some way, what do they need

to help with the health care issues? What can we do? This is the biggest issue I

have, this is the biggest issue: how can we open up for surgeries? There are

people home in bed and won't leave because they're scared of their heart. One is

waiting for a pacemaker; contacted a pacemaker, hardly can walk now. This is

what we need to do somehow.

I'm

pleading to the House of Assembly, if there's any way we can bring something

into the House that we can discuss or give us answers of what we can do in this

House or the reasons why it can't be done or what do the health care providers

need to do this here, I'll be more than happy.

This is

no knock on anybody whatsoever, because I said it publicly. This has hit all of

us. This is new to all of us, but I can tell you there are a lot of people out

there suffering, people are suffering, people with anxiety, people with heart

conditions, people who are sick, who are losing their eye, people who can't walk

because they're scared if they go in hospital they can't be visited. These are

real concerns.

I'm

asking the House for some way that we can raise these issues, because I can

assure you the four pieces of legislation that we have, Mr. Speaker, you can't

bring it up. You can't bring these up in the four pieces of legislation. You

can't do it.

So I

just had to raise that as part of my duty as the MHA and the concerns that I'm

hearing, but I will find a way to get them raised, I can assure you.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to echo a number of the remarks that my colleague from Humber - Bay of Islands

has made. We talk about collaboration; I can remember, even after the last

election, everybody stood up in this House talking about the people have spoken.

The people have said we need true collaboration, we need all Members working

together. That's what everybody said.

Before I

go down that road, I do want to, as well, acknowledge the fact I understand that

we are in unprecedented times, and I respect that. I absolutely do want to

co-operate, and I've said that time and time again. I also want to point out, in

fairness, there have been a couple of ministers in particular that I will single

out.

I have

no problem singling out the Minister of Education. I have to say that I had

issues, a number of issues – whether it be with child care, whether it be issues

around schools and so on – and he has been nothing short of fantastic. I don't

want to give him a swelled head now, but it's true; he has – and his executive

assistant. I've told him that; I've told her that. They have been very

co-operative.

I have

had – not as many – a few issues as well that went to the Department of AES, and

I give the Minister of AES full marks, and his executive assistant, in getting

back to me on things. They have been great.

The

Minister of Health, I have to say his executive assistant has been absolutely

fantastic. She really has. They have been doing these daily meetings with all of

our CAs and stuff. I know my CA participates pretty much daily on these update

meetings on COVID-19 and what's happening and what they're doing and answers to

questions. We appreciate that, and it's great information.

But it's

pretty sad when I'm getting information from my CA. I'm the Member. She's

getting a daily update and a briefing of everything that's going on and

questions about this and that and everything else. She's coming to me and

saying, do you have any questions you would like me to ask, instead of the other

way around. It's crazy when you think about it. I'm the elected member and I

have to go to my CA to get her to ask questions at some meeting. I'm the one

who's elected.

We're

having these so-called daily All-Party Committee meetings, as the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands has said, and we're not included at all. We're getting

our information from VOCM. We're listening to the Premier and Dr. Fitzgerald and

we're having no input, no say on nothing. That's where we're finding out our

information, and we're talking about collaboration and co-operation.

The

Opposition House Leader was talking about the four entities working together. We

have three entities working together. Now, albeit on the virtual Committee, I

will give credit there. On the virtual Committee, on the virtual Parliament, the

independent Members were invited to participate. I participated and I appreciate

that. I really do. I will go back to the Member for Humber - Bay of Island to

let him know what's on the go and if he has any questions or any input, then I

will bring it forward on his behalf. That's what we've tried to do.

But when

it comes to COVID-19 and all these meetings everyone is having every morning to

update everything that's going on and now you're talking about the economy and

everything else, and here we are. I'm representing a group of people who decided

they wanted independent representation, and so is the Member for Humber - Bay of

Islands. Somehow we're like outcasts or something. We don't have any input, we

don't have any say, and we don't get the information. I have to find out from

Paddy Daly or something what's on the go. It's wrong, Mr. Speaker. It's

absolutely wrong.

So in

terms of this particular motion, I want to sort of go to another aspect of this

particular motion. This motion, one

part in particular, is talking about not

having the House of Assembly open on Wednesdays in the morning. We're going to

forgo that because of the All-Party Committee, which we're not part of, is going

to have their daily discussion.

Well,

first of all, they're having daily discussions, as we say. So they're all

meeting four days a week anyway. I'm not sure if one morning, one meeting is

going to be a major issue. And even if it is, the Premier is part of that and

the couple of Members on the Opposition and one of the Members of the NDP or

whoever is on it, sure they can have their meeting. That doesn't mean that the

House can't still operate. That doesn't mean that the House can't be open on

Wednesdays. We're all in here anyway. The people are already incurring the cost,

the expense to have the House open and bring all the Members in, whether we sit

on Wednesday morning or we don't sit Wednesday morning. So I see no reason why

we can't be open on Wednesday morning.

Wednesday morning – I would take it a step further – we should have an

opportunity through the format of Address in Reply or whatever that format is

going to be to allow Members to be able to stand up in this House and talk about

issues that are important to them and important to the people of their district.

Like the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands just said, you've got people here

with major concerns over health care.

I'm

getting all kinds of calls, Mr. Speaker, and emails and Facebook messages and

everything else from people about health care – people who are waiting for

procedures that at the time were considered non-emergency, now they've shifted

into emergency. Imagine being told three months ago or four months ago that

you've got some kind of a growth or something going on in your body, something

growing and you don't know what it is and you're waiting to find out and you're

worried to death. Or you need bloodwork or you need this type of diagnostic work

done. Imagine if you've got a bad heart, as the Member just said, and now all of

a sudden you can't get out of bed and everything is on hold.

These

are important issues, Mr. Speaker, that we need to be talking about and

debating, finding out. I mean, it's one thing to say we're going to have a

gradual return to health care services, but if everything went back to normal

now, in terms of our health care system, even at the best of times there were

significant wait times for certain procedures.

So how

do we play catch-up? How do we deal with the backlog? What's the plan for that?

Do we need to extend the hours of clinics and hospitals, do tests in the

nighttime, open on the weekends? I don't know. Are those the types of things

that we need to consider doing? If somebody is waiting for a particular test

here in St. John's and it's going to take a month to get it done, for argument's

sake, is there an opportunity to say to that person, listen, you can go out and

get that test done in Carbonear or you can get it done out in Burin if you're

willing to drive there to get it done, because we're not at full capacity at

that facility as an example. These are the types of things, Mr. Speaker.

There

are people who are really concerned about how the K to 12 went this year, in

terms of did their children really get the instruction that they required.

That's no knock against teachers or anybody else, but it's just the reality of

the situation we're in. There are a lot of parents worried about what happens

next year. What's that going to look like?

Mr.

Speaker, there are tons of issues. There are issues with daycare. A lot of

people are contacting me lately about daycare. I'll be touching base with the

minister on that one again; he knows, I'm sure, the issues. There are a lot of

concerns over daycare only being able to open – and they can only fit about 50

per cent of what they had before. How are they supposed to operate that way? Who

are going to get the spots when people are trying to get back to work and

everything else? There are all kinds of things that we need to be talking about

and we need to be debating.

If we go

forward with this particular way that we're going to go forward now, we're going

to have Question Period which myself and the Member is going to get – I get two

questions tomorrow, he gets two questions next week and that's it, that's our

only opportunity to ask a question even, as is. Beyond that, there's no

opportunity to raise any of these issues because we're going to have four

specific bills.

I think

there's a forestry bill or something, about I can cut wood for my grandmother –

I think that's the one if I'm not mistaken – without a permit, or I don't need

two permits like I used to, how am I going to talk about health care? You're

going to rule me out of order. I have to be relevant so I can't talk about any

of these issue. Where's the opportunity? Wednesday would be a great day to open

the floor up and let Members talk about, debate and discuss the issues that are

important to the people in their districts beyond these four bills, but as it

currently stands, that's not going to happen.

With

that said, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to move an amendment to the resolution that

clause 1 of the resolution be deleted and the following substituted: That for

the period of the sitting of the House from June 9, 2020, to June 18, 2020,

inclusive, that this House shall sit in accordance with the times prescribed in

the Standing Order, including Wednesday mornings, and that on Wednesday mornings

the House shall move to debate on Address in Reply.

That's

seconded by the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands. I have a copy here, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Okay, we're going to take a

short adjournment to see if the motion is in order. We're going to take a short

recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Are the

House Leaders ready?

MS. COADY:

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER:

The scope of the original

motion, the intent of the motion – the resolution – is to establish the rules

under which we will operate for the next two weeks. As such, I find the

amendment consistent with the scope of the original motion and I find it to be

in order.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have

been listening intently to the debate and I want to answer a few of the

questions that have been brought forward by independent Members of this House

whom have been engaged – I make sure every week the House is open, I do engage

with the independent Members to ensure that they are aware and advised as to

what the processes are and what we're hoping to achieve in this House of

Assembly.

setting this amendment – allow me to speak to the amendment first, Mr. Speaker,

because that is what is before us – they have set their own agenda for Wednesday

mornings and have determined that they want to only deal with Address in Reply.

Now, just for those sitting at home, Address in Reply is to the Speech from the

Throne that was given over a year ago, Mr. Speaker.

We have

major issues before this province, not just with the pandemic, but the economic

result of the pandemic. We have many issues to debate and discuss and we're

spending time here today debating the rules of the House for the next several

weeks. This is the first time we've been able to assemble as Members of the

House of Assembly in totality since March, and I had hoped to get to our agenda

as quickly as possible and to Question Period.

The

reason why we had said in the original motion that setting out the processes

over the next number of weeks was to ensure that, first of all, the nine people

on the pandemic Committee, which represents the parties in this House of

Assembly, was so that nine people could discuss the requirements and the needs

arising from the pandemic and it's economic aftermath, Mr. Speaker.

setting out that time, and removing that time available for debate of

legislation, only means that we will have to have other days to debate that

legislation, which does include Members' Statements, Ministerial Statements,

Question Period and also means that debate for those pieces of legislation will

continue.

I am

perplexed as to why the Members opposite, the independent Members, are

requesting for Wednesday mornings to continue, and realizing that if we have

pieces of legislation debated in the morning and we do not debate it, it might

mean an extra day that would allow those routine matters, Members' statements,

Ministerial Statements, Question Period to arise.

Regarding the issue of Question Period and the request for additional time for

independent Members, all Members of this House, Mr. Speaker, have the

opportunity to ask questions. We made sure of that by allowing the independent

Members to have time available on Wednesdays. It was carved out of the

Opposition's and the Third Party's time allotted.

There

are Standing Orders of this House, long-standing, traditional Standing Orders of

this House that govern us in the rules around Question Period. We did allow, by

consent in this House, for the Members opposite, the independent Members, to

have questions. It was never permitted previously and there have been other

independent Members of this House. This Assembly has made sure that we've carved

out time.

Members

opposite – and I'm speaking here of the independent Members – can make a

petition to the Standing Orders Committee which governs the rules of this House,

Mr. Speaker. I happen to be chair of the Standing Orders Committee. The Standing

Orders Committee do meet to discuss the rules of this House. We bring it back to

this Assembly to be decided upon, but we do have a Standing Orders Committee and

there can be matters put before the Standing Orders Committee. It has not been

put to the Standing Orders Committee.

Mr.

Speaker, we want to make sure – and I think I speak on behalf of every Member in

this House – that we have the opportunity to ask questions, we have the

opportunity to debate matters, that we have the opportunity to ensure the

functioning of the House of Assembly and to ensure that we're dealing with the

matters of public interest.

I think

the original motion does set out good ground rules for the next number of weeks,

Mr. Speaker. It gives opportunity for several Wednesdays which would allow the

independent Members to ask questions. It allows for Question Period. It allows

for the Members of this House of Assembly that happen to be on the pandemic

All-Party Committee to be able to meet.

Mr.

Speaker, I am disappointed, I guess, that the independent Members feel it

necessary to try and co-opt the agenda of this House of Assembly by putting

forward this amendment. But I will say this to the people of the province: What

we're doing this afternoon, in the last hour and twenty minutes, has been to

debate the rules of the House of Assembly. We haven't gotten to Question Period

yet, Mr. Speaker. If the original motion is defeated, then I guess we'd – and

the amendment is defeated, then we don't have rules by which this House can

continue to operate, so we'd have to adjourn.

There

are several ways that the Members opposite can ask questions of this House. They

can ask it in debate; they can ask it in private Members' resolutions. There is

notice on the Order Paper under Routine Proceedings for answers to questions for

which notice has been given.

So I

find it challenging, Mr. Speaker, to support this amendment. I find it

challenging that some Members of this House are not recognizing the requirements

that we need to meet. We need to continue to address the pandemic; we need to

continue to address the issues around the economic aftermath of the pandemic.

There is plenty of opportunity for debate in this House of Assembly. By not

having a Wednesday morning does not mean we will close early, it only means that

we will close later, because those matters that we would be dealing with on a

Wednesday morning will be dealt with on another day.

I say to

this House of Assembly, and I say to my colleagues, I will not be supporting

this amendment to the resolution. I will support the resolution; I will not be

supporting the amendment to the resolution. I don't think it establishes the

rules by which is optimal for this House of Assembly. It allows for us to do

Address in Reply, which I think it's been well over a year since the Speech from

the Throne, Mr. Speaker. Some Members of this House have already spoken to

Address in Reply, and that would take time away from legislation, that would

take time away from other matters of this House.

I will

not be supporting the amendment, and I ask Members of this House to follow my

lead, Mr. Speaker, and not support this amendment. But recognizing that

independent Members have opportunity to raise, before the Standing Orders

Committee, any changes to the Standing Orders that they wish to bring forward.

They have opportunity, during the regular course of business of this House of

Assembly, to raise matters, whether they be through Members' statements, through

petitions, through debate or through, again, answers to questions for which

notice has been given.

There

are many, many ways for them to raise the matters they wish to raise to this

House of Assembly. It does not have to be through trying to change this

resolution that would govern the rules of this House that make good sense, based

on what the chief medical officer is requesting.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I don't mean to take up too much time, but just a few of the points

that the Member has made.

These

are unprecedented times. Yesterday, when I said, look, I have major issues – I

said to the minister – about health care; I want to ask four questions, three

minutes this Wednesday, do you know what I was told? Don't give me leave. That's

what I was told. So I have to go back to these people and say I can't raise your

issues because I didn't stand up for you. Six minutes.

MS. COADY:

(Inaudible.)

MR. JOYCE:

Do you want me to read the email?

Look,

I'm not here to fight over this. I have major concerns about this. I will just

say to the Government House Leader, when you just mentioned that we – the

Committee, which I gave credit to and I always did, I always will. There are

some things we need to open up quicker and find a way. If not, we can't do it.

We need the answers.

But

we're going to look at the financial crisis. If you're looking at the financial

crisis for the Committee, so we're excluded from the issues of the $2-billion

deficit. So we're excluded, by her own words. When you talk about that we can go

back to the Standing Committee, I'm not talking about when things get back to

normal to ask questions. I'm fine with that. I'm just talking about in this

pandemic. This pandemic is all I was asking for. I'm not here to fight with

them, but I have to stand up for these people. This is just a few of the people.

When you

mentioned the word, that I'm going to co-opt the agenda. Does that mean the guy

who now is trying to see a specialist, who's blind in one eye, that I can't

raise his issue because I'm going to co-opt the agenda? Or the mother who

doesn't move? Or will I go back and tell the person whose heart surgery – who's

lying in bed, you just keep staying there now, because I can't raise your

concerns or find out why we can't move this –

MS. COADY:

(Inaudible.)

MR. JOYCE:

This is what I'm trying to bring up in this House. We need to ask questions; we

need some forum.

In the

Address in Reply – I'll just let the Government House Leader – it's an open

debate so you can debate these issues; you can bring them up. That's what

Address in Reply is. You can bring up any issue you like that's in the budget.

We all know that. We all do. We bring up things in our district. We always do

it. This is just something that for whatever reason when I asked yesterday,

well, can we get a few extra questions because of these concerns? I was told,

don't give me leave. I'm not going to do that, but I have to raise these issues.

I'm not

trying to be hard-nosed about this here. I ask anybody – again, I get along

great with all of them. A lot of work through this here, but this is an

opportunity for me to be asking questions and to bring up these concerns. I

refuse, I absolutely refuse to let the Government House Leader think that I'm

co-opting an agenda for a person who's lying in bed, who's too scared to move

because he doesn't know if he's going to get a heart surgery. Or another one

this morning that I noticed and needs work on his heart, can't get it done. Or a

guy who's going blind in one eye just after beating cancer. You're talking to

the wrong person if you think I'm not going to – I will find a way.

It was

all I ever asked yesterday, and I don't even know if the other ones were

notified and even asked. If we can change the Standing Orders not to have debate

on Wednesday morning, it's all I ask to be included, that the independents, by

leave of the House, we ask two questions each Thursday, extra questions. That's

all it was, so I can get these issues raised.

So I'm

not going to belabour this here. My point is made. I'm just standing up for the

people that asked me to stand up who have major health concerns.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands, to the amendment.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm not sure, I've been around this House now, I think this is my

ninth, going on 10 years. So I have a fair idea by now, I think, of how the

House works and how the procedures work. I don't pretend to be any expert

parliamentarian by any stretch, but I've been around long enough to know how it

works. I have to be honest with you, when I hear – and I believe the Member for

St. John's West, the Minister of Natural Resources, would know as well. So I'm a

little confused by her comments.

When I

said in this motion, Mr. Speaker, about having Address in Reply on Wednesday,

I'm not talking about now all of a sudden – like she suggested, that all of a

sudden now the legislation that we would do on Thursday or on Tuesday or

whatever is now going to be done on Wednesday morning and it's going to cut our

time short. That's foolishness. That's not true, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

saying we will go on as was planned with the legislation on everyday, but on

Wednesday I'm saying we're going to have an opportunity to discuss and to debate

important issues that our constituents want us to discuss and to debate. On

Wednesdays. The alternative that the Member is promoting is we do nothing on

Wednesday morning.

She has

her Committee meeting, nine Members – nine select, special Members get to have

their Committee meeting, which they're having everyday anyway, apparently, at

the exclusion of the independent Members. Have your meeting earlier, have your

meeting later, don't have the meeting on Wednesday, have two meetings on

Tuesday, I don't care. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, this is not

disrupting anything. We're saying let's open the House on Wednesday, we're all

here, that's the normal – we're not changing the Orders; they're the ones who

want to change the Orders.

The

Standing Orders say we're supposed to be opened on Wednesday morning. That's the

Standing Orders. Maybe the Member should go to the Standing Orders Committee

herself and suggest that we won't open on Wednesday. She's telling me to go to

the Standing Orders to say that we will be open on Wednesday. She should go and

say we won't be open on Wednesday. Because they're the ones who are changing the

Orders; I'm not. They want to change the Orders.

We're

supposed to be open on Wednesday morning and all Members are here to represent

their constituents. To say that independent Members will have lots of

opportunity to debate the issues – when? She talked about Members' statements.

She actually quoted Members' statement. Now, if you're at home listening to

this, you probably think that he can debate the issues in Member's statements. I

mean, how foolish is that? We all know what a Member's statement is.

Member's statement is that we get to stand up and say congratulations to a

citizen in our district that got some award or thank you to the Lion's Club for

the great work you did with whatever. It's all important stuff, it's all good

stuff, but that's not debating the issues. Then we talk about the Private

Members' Day. I haven't had a Private Members' Day in two years. It will

probably be another two years, if I ever get one. So Private Members' Day,

there's no opportunity for me to raise the issues in Private Members' Day.

As far

as Question Period goes, they'll have their opportunity in Question Period. I'm

getting two questions tomorrow and my colleague is getting two questions on

Wednesday. I got two questions for the entire session – two questions. That's my

opportunity to debate the issues. I know that the Member knows the difference.

They all know how it works, Mr. Speaker, but somehow trying to give the

impression that we're trying to – and then to suggest that because we're raising

these issues somehow we're disrupting this major agenda.

What's

on the docket today? The wildlife, I think it is today.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Forestry.

MR. LANE:

Forestry. That I'm allowed to cut some wood for my grandmother and I don't need

two permits.

That's

the major legislation that we're going to be debating today, as far as I recall.

Now, I agree with it by the way. I commend the Minister of Fisheries and

forestry or whatever it's called. I commend him for that because that's

something that a lot of Members have been asking for, for a long time, actually,

that you don't need two permits to cut a bit of wood for your grandmother. I

think that's what it is that we're talking about today. I could be wrong on

that, but I think that's it.

At the

end of the day, we're talking about being able to raise important issues for the

people in our district, so what's wrong with it? What is wrong with not changing

that Standing Order and debating in the House on Wednesday – I don't care if you

call it Address in Reply. Let's just have an agreement that we're going to talk

about the economy. Let's have an agreement we're going to talk about health

care. Let's have a back and forth on health care and on the economy. Let's do

that.

I don't

care if you call it Address in Reply or whatever you call it. I call it Address

in Reply because that's the only thing that I'm aware of available to us to be

able to give us the opportunity to stand up and talk about the issues that we

want to talk about. Not the four pieces of legislation that's on the books. I'm

not saying that the four pieces of legislation don't need to be debated or that

they're not important or whatever. I'm not saying that at all, but there's going

to be opportunity to do that every day except Wednesday morning.

We have

an opportunity, for two Wednesday mornings, to be able to stand up and talk

about the issues, the concerns that people have with health care and wait-lists

and dealing with the backlog, to talk about the issues around child care – which

I know Members are getting calls about child care centres. I'm sure they are. I

know I'm not the only person getting calls on child care, guarantee it, and

people with concerns with the economy and businesses.

Let's

talk about the oil and gas industry and all the concerns we have with that.

Let's talk about rate mitigation. Where is that? What happened to rate

mitigation? What about the Muskrat Falls inquiry report? What's being done with

that, the investigation that's going on referred to the RNC, the RCMP and all

this kind of stuff? What about all these issues? So these are all important

things, Mr. Speaker, we want to speak about. This is not about trying to take

over some agenda. The Member saying that we want to change the Standing Orders

when she's the one who's changing the Standing Orders, we're saying keep the

Standing Orders as is.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm not going to take any longer to talk about this, but I would

encourage all Members just to think about for a second, regardless of what side

of the House you're on or what party you represent or whatever the case might

be, we have a process put in place here that was decided on upon the parties.

This process is basically going to say that even though we're all in town anyway

– everybody came in, flew in, drove in, all the expenses associated to the House

of Assembly – we're going to forego that on Wednesday mornings. We're not going

to do that. When we could be in here talking about issues that everybody's

constituents are calling them about and we're not going to do it. That's what's

proposed.

That's

why we put in the amendment. We think we should be here and we should have an

opportunity to raise these issues because there is no other venue. There is no

Private Members' Day for me or the Member for Bay of Islands this sitting of the

House. Just two questions in total for me and the Member for Humber - Bay of

Islands in this sitting of the House.

There's

a Member's statement that I'm going to do about the Frosty Festival. That's

really going to address the issues of health care and concerns. It's important –

I want to congratulate the people on the Frosty Festival, they did a wonderful

job, but that's not debating the issues in the House. These are the things she's

throwing out as our opportunities and, other than that, I can write the Standing

Orders Committee. I might get a response or I might get that resolved in two

years from now.

Mr.

Speaker, it's not acceptable as far as I'm concerned. We should have had the

opportunity to be more involved in this. We should be part of this Committee

that's meeting talking about everything. We've been treated like outcasts as far

as I'm concerned.

The

minister talked about – and I give her credit; she does. I have got to say when

it comes to the House and all this and we were talking about the House, she did

call me and she called me every time, let me know what's on the agenda, what

we're doing today, what the legislation is going to be – very cordial. I

appreciate it 100 per cent. I really do. This is not personal, it's really not,

but it's still telling me, what happened yesterday, basically, telling me and

the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, this is what we have decided. Just

giving you a heads-up; letting you know what we've decided.

Originally, a week or so ago, they were talking about only having 14 people on a

side, 28 people in the House and the rest of the people up in the galleries and

asking myself and the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, you switch out. I

said, no, b'y; I want to speak to every piece of legislation. I'm not switching

out and neither is the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands. That was going to be

a problem, but all of a sudden, the Official Opposition raised it saying no, no,

all our Members want to be in the House and we all want to have the opportunity

to debate everything and whatever. Guess what? We're all here, because they

raised it. They said it had to be, so now we're doing it but when we raised it,

oh well.

The

bottom line is that we were duly elected in our districts and we have a right to

speak up on behalf of the people that we represent and we need to be included.

We have not been included. We weren't included in Snowmageddon and everything

that was going on. Actually, I don't even think the Official Opposition was

included in that one; didn't know what was going on; listening to the

Open Line to find out; and now the

same thing with COVID with myself and the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.

It's not good enough and we're not going to sit back and be quiet and pretend

that it's okay because it's not okay.

Mr.

Speaker, I encourage all Members to support this amendment. If they don't,

that's fine; that's their prerogative. Everybody has a right to vote. We will

move on from that particular amendment and we will see what happens next. At the

end of the day, we are speaking up for the people we represent and I'm not going

to in any way be intimidated or suggested that somehow I'm co-opting the House

of Assembly and delaying important business because I want to talk about

important issues to my district, as opposed to getting right on down to Nan's

permit to cut a bit of wood instead.

I'll

leave it at that, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The House Leader for the

Official Opposition.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to speak to this for a few minutes for a number of reasons. I'm disappointed;

I'm bewildered and I'm a bit angry. We have spent an hour and a half on a simple

leave request here to have a discussion around changing one minute part of our

daily operations in a unique emergency situation, and to address the issues that

the public health authority has imposed on us to operate in the same manner

we're asking every citizen in Newfoundland and Labrador to conduct themselves

during this emergency.

The only

leave that was asked for here was that on Wednesday mornings, the two hours that

we normally would have debate – don't forget, we have four pieces of legislation

that have been hanging for a number of months that we wanted to get to, that

were important to have done, that certain entities are waiting to have the

legislation passed so they can do their daily activity and their entities can do

what's relevant to being able to provide a particular service – we asked that

that would be exempted on the occasion for two weeks only – two weeks, not a

Standing Order of the House of Assembly forever and a day – for two weeks

particularly because we have an operational Committee made up of nine Members of

the House.

Unfortunately, I'm sorry, everybody can't be on a Committee; all 40 Members

can't be on a Committee to have it function. It's a reality that at times,

certain people get on Committees because they represent a certain title or a

responsibility and that's how it works in the world. I haven't seen it any

different and I've been on national, international committees.

I have a

problem when I read the motion that was pretty simple – and I could have lived

100 per cent had you come in and not give leave because you wanted to stand by

the principles of the House of Assembly and you don't deviate from that, but

when I see 5 per cent of the Members in this House try to hijack an agenda –

because that's what it is here. You're hijacking an agenda on Wednesday mornings

not to get back to debate the Forestry Act ,

or the Social Assistance Act or the

Social Workers Act ; it's to hijack it

to get an Address in Reply because you want to talk about whatever it is, is

relevant to your district. And not that things in your district are not

relevant, because they're all relevant to everybody else here, but no other

Member here saw that that most important thing was to hijack an agenda of the

House of Assembly, based on principles that you're not really following here.

We asked

for simple leave to do something because there's still a Committee that's very

important to the operations of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador during

this pandemic. We've seen that by the co-operation we've gotten from the

citizens of this province; we've seen it by the results. We're one of the

best-positioned provinces right now to get through the COVID challenge and

that's because we co-operated and we worked hand in hand. All three parties

collaborated.

Unfortunately, independents – the ability to put a process in place. We talked

about House Leaders, leaders of the parties themselves and, in particular,

ministers that had to be there because at the end of the day when the trigger

had to be pulled on certain programs and services, there had to be people move

that forward.

This

wasn't a deliberate attempt to leave anybody out, by no stretch of the

imagination. It was a living entity that we made work through interaction with

the line departments and, particularly, the chief medical officer. But to get in

the House and use this opportunity now to hijack something for some other

benefit, other than the betterment of what we're trying to do in this House –

we're temporarily back because we need to address some pieces of legislation.

We're temporarily back because we want to show to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador we're getting back to some sense of normality. So hang in there.

There's light at the end of the tunnel. Things will get better. That's what this

is about.

I will

tell you unequivocally, the Member for Conception Bay East and I would suspect

every Member in the PC caucus – I can't speak for the NDP but I would hope that

they would support this also – will not be voting for this amendment. We would

be voting to put in play the original motion that was put forward, because we

want to move things forward in the House of Assembly and we want to get back the

two hours that we just lost that belong to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll

only be one minute.

MR. SPEAKER:

Sorry, I was confused there.

I knew you had spoken to the other motion but I wasn't sure you had spoken to

the amendment.

MR. JOYCE:

I'll speak to the motion.

MR. SPEAKER:

It's my understanding you

spoke to both.

MR. JOYCE:

Just one minute. Okay, no

problem.

MR. SPEAKER:

It's my understanding from

the Clerk's records that the Member has spoken to both amendment and the main

motion.

Further

speakers?

The hon.

Member for St. John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will

not be supporting the amendment. It's interesting. The comments have been made

that Wednesday mornings is when we should be able to do the business of the

House. I would have assumed – and I have – that whether the House is sitting or

not, we can still do the business of the House. That has never stopped anyone.

While we debate here, there are an awful lot of conversations that take place on

the outside to resolve issues, even between who've just been going at each other

hammer and tongs. So there is that element there because there is that

opportunity. Since I've been back here, there is that opportunity already to

speak to a number of ministers about issues that I've raised.

I'm a

bit mystified, because a lot of these issues were brought up at the Select

Committee and there was an opportunity to raise the issues. This sitting right

here wasn't just developed out of a hat or presented; it was a subject of the

input of all Members on that Committee, of which the Member for Mount Pearl -

Southlands sits. There is an opportunity at that point to influence how this is

going to unfold today. So I am mystified as to why now it's an issue.

I will

tell you that somehow when it talks about a Select Committee or about special

MHAs, I don't know if I consider myself a special MHA or not, but I guess I'm

sitting on the joint health Committee because of my role as House Leader. But I

can tell you that in this House there have been certain elements of

co-operation. Take Question Period and the fact that on Wednesday the

independent Members do get to ask the questions. That disproportionally affects

the NDP, the Third Party, in terms of the ability to ask questions. But that's

fair enough. To me, that's legitimate.

We've

put forward a motion in this House that was supported unanimously of electoral

reform Committee that calls for representation by all party Members and

independent Members. A Select Committee of the House of Assembly on how we're

going to proceed involves representatives of all parties and independent

Members.

I'm not

sure what my definition of relevancy is before I became a Member, but it's

changed significantly in that it seems you get an awful lot of issues in talking

about in a debate that seem to have nothing to do with that debate but they are

brought up and there's leeway given for that.

Standing

up for people: I can tell you in the three months since this has begun – and I

would assume that this is the case for all Members of this House, and I'll speak

for my Members of the Third Party, dealing with the important issues – I've been

in constant contact about issues that affect me and my constituents and issues

that are near and dear to my heart.

Education: I have been in contact, and frequently, with both the Premier's EA,

who is a former teacher, and the Minister of Education on what are the plans for

this year, and what are the plans for next year and what are the issues that in

my experience as a teacher of 32 years, president of a teachers' association,

member of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, what is important. We have had

those discussions.

Child

care – huge issue. I'm still dealing with those, and they will be dealt with.

Small businesses in my district – anxiety. They don't know yet if they can make

it to Alert Level 2.

Since

the beginning of this, another issue that's near and dear to my heart has to do

with poverty, food security and it's because of that I ended up sitting on the

COVID food security group with Food First NL. I have been dealing with those

issues and they're all important to people in my district. Housing and

homelessness: I've compared it, in talking to my constituency assistant, as a

game of whack-a-mole, and it's frustrating because I cannot solve the problems.

Before you can solve one problem, the issue is coming up again. It is an

emergency.

But I

can tell you that's a discussion we have been pushing. I know myself, whether

the House is open or not, I have been dealing with these issues. Whether it's

extended by another half a day is not going to help me resolve these issues

because I'm going to be working on the ground to resolve these issues, and I

would assume that's the same for all MHAs here.

I will

bring them up, but I can tell you the lion's share of the work is done behind

the scenes and there will be time and I will be bringing them forward, but right

now a lot of these issues that we deal with here are being dealt in the

conversations. To me that's the value, in many ways, of being in the House, of

being able to have contact and access to people who can help and make those

decisions.

But

again, I think it's a bit unfair to suggest that somehow that a lack of

consultation – I will concede the point that certainly on the House Committee

that yes, an independent Member wasn't represented there and maybe we should

have. That's an oversight on all of our parts, but I will tell you that when it

came to the Select Committee, there was participation by all MHAs representing

all aspects of this House.

I think

there was an opportunity at that point to raise these concerns and have these as

part of the plan. I'm really having an issue, though, with the notion that

somehow there's an attempt to shortchange the democratic process in this.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Seeing no further speakers,

is the House ready for the question?

The vote

is on the amendment to change the original motion. I'll read the amendment

before we take a vote so Members – the original motion, the first clause is: “ That ,

for the period of the sitting of this House from June 9, 2020 to June 18, 2020

inclusive this House will sit in accordance with the times prescribed in

Standing Order 9(1) except that the House will not sit on Wednesday morning on

June 10, 2020 or June 17, 2020.”

The

amendment is: “That clause 1 of the resolution be deleted and the following

substituted: That for the period of the sitting of the House from June 9, 2020

to June 18, 2020, inclusive, that this House shall sit in accordance with the

times prescribed in the Standing Order, including Wednesday mornings, and that

on Wednesday mornings the House shall move to debate on Address in Reply.”

We're

voting on the amendment first.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Nay.

MR. SPEAKER:

The amendment is defeated.

motion, amendment defeated.

MR. SPEAKER:

We now revert to the main

motion.

believe the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands had some time left when we left

CLERK (Barnes):

(Inaudible.)

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member moved the

amendment and he had not used all his time, so he has approximately 10 minutes

left to make comments on the main motion.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

going to take 10 minutes, but I do want to reiterate a couple of points and

address a couple of points that were made. Again, Mr. Speaker, there is no

attempt on my behalf or my colleague, the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands, to

do anything to disrupt the House of Assembly. We are not the ones who brought

forward the motion to change the Standing Orders. Let's get that clear for the

record. We're not the ones who tried to change the Standing Orders; we are the

ones who are objecting to the changing of the Standing Orders.

The next

point I want to reiterate is that by opening the House on Wednesday, as we

normally would be doing in any case if it was not for this particular

resolution, the bottom line is that if we were to open we're talking about

having the opportunity to address issues which will not be addressed through the

normal legislative process. The pieces of legislation that are on the Order

Paper, unless there are more coming that we're not aware of – but, currently,

the four pieces of legislation are specific. They're not money bills, so it's

not like there's some sort of a money bill, a loan act or something where we're

allowed to stand up and speak about whatever we want.

there's a change to the Forestry Act

around woodcutting permits, or if there's a change to the

Social Workers Act to allow them to enter, I think it's some college

of their own, some governing body, whatever the case might be, then that's what

we have to speak to specifically. We can't talk about the other important

issues.

We're

simply saying this was an opportunity to not change the Standing Orders, to come

in on Wednesday and have an opportunity for Members to address issues of

importance that they're hearing from their constituents, that are mostly

stemming from this pandemic; issues around health care, issues around child

care, as an example, issues around education and many other important issues.

That was our whole purpose.

Now, we

may have taken some time here this afternoon and somehow it was suggested we're

wasting the people's time and so on. Well, I can tell you, I believe we wasted

two or three days here just over some remarks made from one Member to another,

bullying or whatever it was perceived as at the time. We spent three days doing

that. So in the context of that, I certainly don't consider this a waste of

time. This is about wanting to bring forward issues of importance to the people

of our districts and doing it in the normal time allotted instead of changing

it.

Again, I

will say, if the nine Members – of which we're not included – want to go ahead

and have their meeting on Wednesday morning, they can go ahead and have it.

There are still 31 Members left. We came in here the last time with 10 Members,

only 10 Members.

Twice we

came in here with only 10 Members in the House of Assembly debating the issues

back and forth because of the social distancing. So if we could do it with 10,

we can do it with 31. We don't need all 40 here to do that. That's nothing but a

lame excuse, as far as I'm concerned. That's why we're bringing it forward, Mr.

Speaker, because we think there are important issues that people want us to talk

about, and we're simply not going to have the opportunity to do it.

Again,

to suggest that somehow we have all these other opportunities, I'd like to know

where they are. Private Members' Day, we won't be having one in this next two

weeks. Question Period, I'm going to get two questions in the next two weeks,

and the Member for Bay of Islands is going to get two. That's our Question

Period. And as far as Members' statements go, that was laughable. Members'

statements is a minute to stand up and say something good about something in

your district that somebody did. That has nothing to do with debating the

issues.

The

opportunities are simply not there, Mr. Speaker, and to suggest that because

we're taking this and taking the time to talk about this important issue that

we're going to somehow disrupt the business, I can tell you that's not true.

Because I'm pretty confident that what was on the agenda for today, I have a

feeling between now and 5:30 we're going to have Question Period and we're going

to make it through that piece of legislation. I have a feeling we'll make it. I

know it might be tight, but I have a feeling we're going to make it through that

piece of legislation today and it won't be disrupted at all.

The only

thing that'll be disrupted today, Mr. Speaker, is that instead of us leaving

here at quarter to five or five o'clock or 4:30 or something, it'll be 5:30 –

which we're supposed to be here anyway. That's the only thing that's disrupted.

I couldn't care less about that disruption; I really couldn't.

So thank

you, Mr. Speaker, for the time. I'm not surprised this got defeated, one bit,

but we need to have the opportunity to bring these issues forward, myself and my

colleague from Humber - Bay of Islands. We report to the people in our district.

We don't report to anyone in this House. Well, actually, I report to you, Mr.

Speaker. You're my constituent, but beyond you, nobody else in this House voted

for me. You're the only one that voted for me, and I appreciated it. But beyond

that, Mr. Speaker, nobody else did. So I'll stand with the people in my

district, and I'm sure my colleague from Humber - Bay of Islands will do the

same.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Before we move forward, I just remind the Member that I voted in the District of

St. George's - Humber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We spent

almost two hours, Mr. Speaker, establishing the rules of the House during

pandemic times and the protocols required by the chief medical officer, I will

note that. And I will say to the Member who spoke a few moments ago, that every

single person in this House who represents their districts –

MR. LANE:

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

believe the Minister already spoke to the (inaudible).

MS. COADY:

I'm concluding debate.

MR. SPEAKER:

The minister is speaking to

close the debate.

MR. LANE:

Oh, okay.

MS. COADY:

Many, many disruptions this

afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

I will

continue with my thanks to those that did speak to this debate this afternoon. I

will say, two hours discussing the rules of the House during pandemic times was

interesting and the protocols required, of course, by the chief medical officer.

I was

saying, before I was interrupted, that every Member of this House, every single

Member of this House, takes an important oath and ensures that they represent

their constituents well; they make sure they bring the issues that are required

to the floor; they make sure they participate in debate and in Question Period

where possible. I will say anyone to suggest otherwise is not being fair.

I will

say before I conclude my remarks this afternoon, I want to say a special thank

you to the Clerk of the House of Assembly, the Table Officers, and Members of

the Department of Transportation and Works, the Department of Health, who worked

very hard to ensure that 40 Members could be here in the House of Assembly

today, and for the next number of weeks, as we debate important issues,

important matters for the people of this province, and that's exactly what we

will be doing, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

We'll now have the vote on

the main motion.

Are the

Government House Leaders ready? Opposition House Leader ready? Third Party

ready? We'll have a voice vote first.

All

those in favour of the main motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Division.

MR. SPEAKER:

Division has been called.

Division

MR. SPEAKER:

All those in favour of the

motion, please stand.

CLERK:

Mr. Ball, Ms. Coady, Mr.

Davis, Mr. Crocker, Mr. Byrne. Ms. Dempster, Mr. Osborne, Ms. Haley, Mr.

Mitchelmore, Mr. Warr, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Bennett, Ms. Stoodley, Mr. Loveless, Mr.

Trimper, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Crosbie, Mr. Brazil, Mr.

Dwyer, Mr. Tibbs, Mr. Forsey, Mr. O'Driscoll, Mr. Wakeham, Ms. Evans, Mr.

Petten, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Parrott, Mr. Pardy, Mr. Lester, Ms. Conway

Ottenheimer, Mr. Paul Dinn, Ms. Coffin, Mr. James Dinn, Mr. Brown.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against the motion?

CLERK:

Mr. Joyce, Mr. Lane.

The

ayes: 35 and the nays: 2.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is carried.

We're

going to move to Routine Proceedings.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today, we will hear Members'

statements from the hon. Members from the Districts of Lewisporte - Twillingate,

Mount Pearl North, Lab West, St. John's East - Quidi Vidi and Harbour Main.

Before I

recognize the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate, one of the changes that I

didn't mention at the start was we have a tradition where if someone is

celebrating a hundredth birthday, we usually stand and applaud and help them

celebrate their birthday. I ask that given the circumstances, in the case that

such a situation should arise, that Members applaud while sitting down, under

these circumstances.

The hon.

the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.

MR. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise,

but now sit, to recognize a constituent of mine, Ms. Myrtle Hoddinott, a

resident of Pleasantview Manor in Lewisporte. Myrtle was born on the Indian

Islands of Notre Dame Bay on May 16, 1920, and spent her early years with her

two brothers and sisters on Perry's Island.

Her

father was a fisherman by trade and owned his own schooner, so most of their

summers were spent exploring the island and picking berries while her dad fished

the Labrador Coast.

Ms.

Hoddinott married and had two children, Lorraine and Allan, before making the

move to Lewisporte in the early 1950s. People around our area know her for being

a master seamstress and she still keeps busy using her quilting and sewing

skills. Mrs. Hoddinott is also a talented, self-taught pianist and even took a

few minutes to play a song at her own party.

In spite

of COVID-19 restrictions, celebrations were held virtually with messages of love

from family and friends both near and far. I'm told that she had a wonderful

time.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to extend best wishes and continued health to

Ms. Myrtle Hoddinott on celebrating her 100th birthday.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

February 27 at the Mount Pearl Sports Alliance hall of fame and annual athletic

awards ceremony, Gerald “Jed” Butt was inducted into the hall of fame's

athlete/builder category.

Jed's

career began in baseball in the late 1950s when he first joined the Little

Leagues. In the '70s he played with the Mount Pearl senior league, winning many

awards and championships. After his playing career, Jed began building the

sport.

In the

early 1980s, he was instrumental in re-establishing Mount Pearl Minor Baseball.

In 1994, Jed helped form the Mount Pearl Baseball Umpires Association. He

umpired games for several years and served as a coordinator of umpires during

the Canadian National Championship in 1997.

He has

served on the executive of Mount Pearl Softball Association and Tennis Club –

two other sports which he also played and contributed to. He has also coached

soccer and baseball and, as a junior high school teacher, coached male and

female basketball teams for over 20 years.

Thirty-five years ago, Mr. Butt was my Grade 7 homeroom teacher. As an amazing

teacher, I really looked up to him and I still do today for his contribution to

sport and community.

Please

join me in honouring Jed Butt for his dedication to sports and sports

development in Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to give recognition to an individual and a group of volunteers who have

gone above and beyond to help their communities.

Shannon

Curlew started a group called, A Mask for Everyone in Lab West, to help slow the

spread of COVID-19. Shannon has set out on a mission to make a mask for every

individual in Labrador West.

Thanks

to Shannon and her intake team including Noreen Careen, Bridget Baker and Jean

Brown, the delivery team, and the 22 volunteer mask makers, over 800 masks were

produced and delivered to residents so everyone could have one.

Partnering with Twin City Seniors group, they secured funding and were able to

offer masks at no direct cost but on volunteer donations. With the donations

raised, they were able to purchase 50 gift cards valued at $50 each from local

grocery stores to help seniors in the region.

There

has been many similar stories throughout Labrador of groups stepping up making

masks. Masks for Labrador and Labrador Upholstery in Happy Valley-Goose Bay had

similar missions and have helped many people in our region and beyond. The

ability of our constituents to help during a crisis just goes to show how strong

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in thanking these groups across the province that

have worked hard and their dedication to their communities during these

difficult times.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Through

his system-based mindset and his appetite for social change, Doug Pawson leads

the team in developing and implementing the St. John's community plan to end

homelessness.

Doug

brings over a decade of community-based economic development experience to this

role, having championed many social enterprise initiatives in the Ottawa region.

End

Homelessness St. John's exists to prevent and end homelessness in St. John's. As

they work in collaboration with community stakeholders, End Homelessness are

leaders in the St. John's community plan to end homelessness.

The work

of End Homelessness is important and extensive. You will find members of his

team implementing the coordination and standardization of the homeless-serving

system while using the Housing First philosophy, leading collection, analysis

and sharing of information to support ending homelessness in our community and

securing the necessary leadership and resources to support the community plan to

end homelessness, while ensuring representation from all stakeholders integral

in ending homelessness.

It is an

honour to celebrate Doug Pawson and his team and to support them as they work to

make St. John's the next city to end homelessness.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I am

pleased today to recognize a woman from Chapel's Cove in the District of Harbour

Main. I find it fitting to speak of this lady today on the very first sitting in

this hon. House with Members being present after COVID-19.

Mrs.

Rita Hickey is a 92-year-old woman who's well known for her amazing smile, her

kindness towards others and her strong, fun-loving spirit. Mr. Speaker,

everything changed for Mrs. Hickey on April 2, 2020, when she learned she had

contracted the coronavirus.

At 92

years of age, she knew she was a member of the most vulnerable group to survive

the virus. Although a terrifying time for Mrs. Hickey and her family, I'm happy

to report that through inner strength, prayer and the outpouring of love and

support from neighbours, friends and people throughout the province, she won the

battle against COVID-19. Although feeling blessed and incredibly grateful, she

is also saddened that other people were not as fortunate in surviving the

disease.

I am

proud as her MHA to acknowledge Mrs. Hickey today and I would ask all Members to

join me in celebrating the spirit of this resilient woman and her victory

against the odds.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sit in

this hon. House today to speak to the successful repatriation of the remains of

two Beothuk, Nonosabasut and Demasduit.

The

remains were repatriated from Scotland to Newfoundland and Labrador.

It was a

remarkable accomplishment, where we honoured the return of the remains during a

solemn but moving occasion which was held at The Rooms on March 11.

At that

occasion, I was joined by Indigenous leaders and representatives.

With

their co-operation and leadership over the past five years, we achieved an

important milestone in our history in Newfoundland and Labrador and our journey

to reconciliation.

The call

to return the remains was spurred on by Chief Mi'sel Joe, and what he said about

this is: When you look at the history of the Beothuk people and how their demise

came about, I think we owe it to them and their remains. And their spirit will

never be free – we need to do something about it. These were his words.

With the

help of the Indigenous leaders and the federal Department of Canadian Heritage,

we have done something about it.

Repatriation honours the memory of the Beothuk and the important lessons their

history can still teach us today.

We trust

their spirits may now freely roam over the lands and the waters which they, the

Beothuk people, once so proudly occupied.

The

repatriation is an event of historical and cultural significance for all

Indigenous peoples of Newfoundland and Labrador.

However,

this is not an end, but a continuation of a further dialogue.

While

there has been much speculation about the final disposition of the remains, no

decisions have been made.

They

will remain in a safe and secure manner at The Rooms until a decision on their

final resting place is reached with Indigenous leaders in the province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, thank you, and I

thank the Premier for the advance copy of his statement.

I join

with all Members of the House to recognize the repatriation of the remains who

have been returned home to the province.

I'd like

to thank Chief Mi'sel Joe for leading the efforts to bring these remains back to

the province. His dedication and efforts are appreciated and inspiring. I thank

also the Indigenous leaders and representatives who have helped with

repatriation and who continue to ensure that all residents of our province are

aware of the Beothuk and Indigenous history within the province. My appreciation

also extends to those in the federal government who worked to make this

possible, and those officials at The Rooms who continue to provide safe storage

of the remains while they await their final home.

Mr.

Speaker, repatriating these remains honours the Beothuk who walked these lands

before us. It also prompts all residents, especially our younger residents, to

ask questions to learn important lessons from history.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too,

thank the Premier for an advance copy of his statement.

Congratulations to all who worked on the repatriation of the remains of

Nonosabasut and Demasduit. This is an important moment for all Indigenous

communities. I agree that repatriation honours the Beothuk and the lessons their

history can still teach us.

We need

to continue efforts to recognize Indigenous history in this province and to

educate our children on the importance of Indigenous culture and how it has

shaped this province today.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Children, Seniors and Social Development.

MS. DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

pleased today to recognize June as Seniors' Month, and June 15 as World Elder

Abuse Awareness Day.

As we

celebrate our Seniors' Month, I encourage everyone to also take this opportunity

to reflect on our shared responsibility to raise awareness about elder abuse in

our society.

Our

seniors have always been a source of inspiration, for their resilience and

tenacity in the face of tremendous challenges throughout our province's history.

We look

to them for guidance in difficult times, and we draw on their strength and

wisdom in our everyday lives, as their communities benefit from the gifts of

their time, talents and knowledge.

I extend

my sincere appreciation to our community partners, who provide vital supports to

seniors throughout the year.

Together, we have been working to help ensure seniors continue to have access to

programs, services and supports throughout this public health emergency.

I would

especially like to thank SeniorsNL for the critical supports they continue to

provide, including their information and outreach services, which help keep

seniors connected to their communities.

The

Provincial Advisory Council on Aging and Seniors, the Newfoundland and Labrador

50+ Federation and the Seniors Coalition, as well as the many 50-plus clubs and

other local organization are also to be commended for the innovative ways they

have been supporting seniors during this unprecedented time.

In the

spirit of honouring seniors for their contributions to our communities, I am

pleased to note that nominations are now open for the 2020 Seniors of

Distinction Awards.

encourage everyone to visit our website to find out about how they can nominate

a senior for this honour, and I also invite all residents of our province to

celebrate seniors during this special month.

Thank

you.

SOME

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is

a little bit unprecedented. I'm usually having to face the minister, but I do

appreciate an advance copy of your statement.

I join

with the minister in recognizing our seniors and also recognizing June 15 as

Elder Abuse Awareness Day.

Today,

we are in a pandemic. While this is the first time many of us have faced daily

living outside the norm, many of our seniors can reflect on war and poverty

while they blazed a trail for us all. Their guidance in helping many families

adjust to living during a pandemic, seniors residing at nursing homes and

personal care homes are still showing strength in waiting for visits from loved

ones.

Each and

every community within our province can identify organizations, community

groups, church groups – and the list goes on – which provide supports to our

seniors. Our shut-ins, our seniors' homes, especially the visits from community

groups. And a big thank you goes out to all our senior musicians who've

entertained residents at homes on a weekly basis.

Nominating an individual to receive the Seniors of Distinction Award identifies

the spirit of thanks throughout our communities.

I ask

all citizens to reach out to a senior on June 15 and let them know you care.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement and join her in recognizing

June as Seniors' Month, and June 15 as World Elder Abuse Awareness Day.

In many

cultures and societies, elders are held in high regard for their wisdom and

their perspective and experience. Their sacrifice, struggles and accomplishments

helped lay the foundations for our society, but these are just words if not

accompanied by meaningful actions.

COVID-19

served to highlight the many challenges facing our seniors: poverty, loneliness,

health care, housing, mental health issues and homelessness. The best way to

celebrate Seniors' Month is to address these concerns with their input.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. WARR:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Although

I want to rise, I stay seated today to congratulate the high school graduating

class of 2020 in Newfoundland and Labrador.

These

young women and men were faced with an extraordinary situation with the onset of

COVID-19 and the closure of their schools in the last few months of the school

year.

Despite

this situation, students across the province stepped up to meet the challenge of

continuing their learning in the midst of a global pandemic. There's no doubt

that learning remotely was new for many and not easy. Enhancing the ability for

remote learning in the school system, if needed, is a key consideration in our

planning.

recognize students' hard work during these trying circumstances. I would also

like to acknowledge our school districts, teachers, principals, school staff and

all parents and caregivers for their efforts over the past year, and

particularly these past three months.

Finally,

Mr. Speaker, students this year were unable to hold their normal graduation

ceremonies, something they plan and looked forward to all year long. To protect

us all, graduates and their families have found many creative ways to mark this

important milestone virtually. Thank you all for your efforts to help flatten

the curve.

I ask my

hon. colleagues to join me in congratulating all graduates of 2020.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

would like to thank the hon. minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Mr.

Speaker, my colleagues and I join the minister in offering sincerest

congratulations to the many high school graduates throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador. As a former teacher, administrator and parent of four, myself, I

recognize and appreciate the milestone achievement it is for these young people

and their families.

I would

also be remiss if I did not note the unique circumstances of 2020. These young

people will never forget being graduates during COVID-19 and will have quite the

story to tell their children and grandchildren.

Mr.

Speaker, in closing, once again, congratulations to all 2020 graduates and very

best wishes for all future endeavours.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement and I join the minister and

my colleague, and former educator in the Official Opposition, in congratulating

the high school graduating class of 2020.

The

final year of school is a significant milestone, marking an exciting new

chapter

for our students. It's a testament to the resilience and determination of

students, parents and teachers that they have achieved so much in these

unprecedented times.

behalf of this House, best wishes to our young graduates as they begin the next

chapter of their lives.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Question

Period.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier

ended his March letter to the prime minister by saying, our province has run out

of time.

What has

changed between then and now?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

the letter that was written near the end of March, at that particular point in

time we had difficulty as a province to actually borrow. We made that quite

clear in the letter. Since that time, of course, the Bank of Canada stepped up

with some measures that made it a little easier for us to borrow. It was backed

and supported by the Bank of Canada. Since that time, we've been able to go out

and actually borrow as a province some longer term financial solutions to where

we are.

The

borrowing last year remained the same at $1.2 billion. This year, we were able

to borrow both with the Bank of Canada and on our own as a province. I will also

say, Mr. Speaker, this is not unusual. Other provinces find themselves in the

same place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

We could add, Mr. Speaker,

that our credit rating has been downgraded, thousands of people laid off, many

businesses are closed.

Did Mr.

Trudeau tell the Premier how long the federal government will backstop our

ability to borrow before we run out of cash?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

once again, I think there was an unusual situation that happened this year,

because we were fully anticipating that we would be in a position with the

federal government to have their budget in place. There has been months of

negotiations and discussions around a new arrangement. I think everyone in this

province would know that we do not receive equalization based on what I consider

to be poor criteria around that program.

There

was a need for Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta and Saskatchewan, with the

support by the way of all provinces, to put another program in place that would

reflect the current needs of provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador. We were

very active, Mr. Speaker, in those discussions.

That

arrangement, the fiscal stabilization program, we were expecting would have been

in the budget of this year but, of course, the federal budget has not come down

yet. So that's one of the things that have changed and hopefully when the

federal government gets to their own budget, we will see provinces like

Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly Newfoundland and Labrador, find some

support under that new program

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How long

does the Premier expect the emergency temporary borrowing backstop to continue?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

right now, we haven't been notified of when the Bank of Canada would not support

provinces. That was just not an initiative for Newfoundland and Labrador; that

was a federal initiative.

Mr.

Speaker, right now, as I said, we do not have a federal budget in place. We will

continue to work and lobby the federal government to support provinces like

Newfoundland and Labrador. We need it without question, Mr. Speaker, but let's

not forget the fact that since those late days in March, as a province, we've

been successfully able to borrow on our own as well, with some long-term

financial measures to support the borrowing that we needed at this difficult

time.

Mr.

Speaker, I will tell you that this province needs support from Ottawa, no

question about it. We need support for the oil and gas industry, no question

about it. Mr. Speaker, there is no other province in Confederation within this

country right now that needs support any more from Ottawa than Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

It's clear to many that some

of those supports will not arrive, Mr. Speaker.

reassure public servants and others, will the Premier announce a budget date

before he leaves office?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, of course, right now, as I've said so many times, putting in place

a budget, given the situation that we're into with this pandemic right now, is

something that will be very difficult to do. It would not be realistic. In best

days, putting together a budget is really a forecast of projections. We've done

a very good job of doing that. I think everyone on the floor of this House of

Assembly, when you look at what we inherited since 2015, it was very difficult.

We put in place budgets that actually reduced our deficits year over year and we

were on track of getting to a fiscal surplus, as we know.

Mr.

Speaker, this pandemic has changed all of that. I think provinces who have put

budgets in place realize, as I've said so many times, it's really not worth the

paper that it's written on.

Right

now, the date of the budget, we will be working with officials within the

Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance to see when it's best so we

can actually position this province to put in place what would be a realistic

budget.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

believe the value of our essential workers has never been more apparent than

during the current pandemic. I think we all thank them for their dedication to

the job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. P. DINN:

With that in mind, I ask the minister responsible: Why haven't these low-income

essential workers received the wage top-ups?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree.

The essential workers stepped up. I can tell you, when this economy was closing

down people did not have a choice. We required our essential workers. I think

there has been a new definition of essential workers within our province as

well.

We had

truck drivers, Mr. Speaker, that were bringing in essential foods and very

basics of life. The irony in all of this is they couldn't even really find a

place to eat, as goods and services came and were delivered to Newfoundland and

Labrador. It was people like the Salvation Army that stepped up in places like

Port aux Basques who actually supplied meals, Mr. Speaker. That only

discontinued on Sunday of this week. So the essential workers definition itself

has changed quite a bit in recent months.

Mr.

Speaker, the program we're talking about is a cost-shared analysis with the

federal government. We're still waiting on the federal government for final

approval for this program. It will be a one-time payment that will be delivered

sometime after July 4, because that's the end date where we will reflect and

support the essential workers that worked over the pandemic time frame of some

16 weeks by mid-March.

It will

be sometime in July that there will be a one-time payment to support those

workers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

understand other provinces have already worked through the criteria and

eligibility requirements for low-income essential workers.

I ask

the responsible Member: What are we using to determine the criteria and when

will that be finalized?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, we have a

proposal that's already gone to Ottawa. We're working with the Minister of

Finance and his officials. It's a real good program. It's very different in some

other provinces.

Mr.

Speaker, Ontario and Quebec had put in an hourly wage prior to the program that

would have been put out, but from my knowledge, no province right now has

approval from the federal government for the essential workers program.

Ours

will be based on those that have an income of less than $3,000 a month, and

there will be a tiered approach. Some people that work a number of hours will

get a certain amount, and those that maxed out the number of hours at 40 hours a

week when required to go to work as an essential worker will receive the higher

amount of that bonus.

Mr.

Speaker, it will be a one-time payment available sometime after July 4, when the

number of hours that have been worked will be tabulated. We will work with the

employers. That will be the fastest way that we can get the money in the pockets

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to support the work they did during this

pandemic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Essential workers, at the time they answered the call. They went to work. They

put themselves at risk to serve the public, and they've been waiting now for a

top-up to their income. They are struggling because they are low-income earners.

I ask

the responsible minister: Why is it not done quickly, and who exactly are we

talking about in terms of the definition? Who falls under the definition of

essential worker?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

some of the information that would've been coming out through our panel

discussions, Mr. Speaker, there is a definition that has been used by public

safety, it's a federal definition of essential workers. What we've been able to

do in Newfoundland and Labrador is to make this a very broad approach so people,

as an example, that have been cleaning the buildings that we – customers would

actually have to frequent, they're included. Truck drivers are included. People

that work in our grocery stores, they're included. So it's a very broad range of

people that would have worked – it includes some part-time workers, too, that

had to juggle some family priorities that would've been occurring in their life.

They will receive part of this money as well.

Now, the

timing of all this, Mr. Speaker, the program doesn't end on July 4. On July 4 a

determination of the number of hours that would've been worked during this

16-week time frame, that is how the incentive will be based. This is a

recognition for the work, the hours that they put in to support Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians during the pandemic.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, the

policy restricting any support person from accompanying a patient into hospitals

must be re-evaluated. A 96-year-old senior in my district was brought to

emergency department twice by ambulance. This elderly lady was hallucinating,

could not provide adequate medical information to medical staff, and even with

her family doctor intervening to advocate for the presence of a support person

family member, no one was allowed to be present with her. She has suffered

significant mental decline as a result.

How can

the Premier continue to support these type of restrictions in the face of such

suffering and mental distress on individuals and families?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you,

from public health officials these are some of the most difficult decisions that

had to be made. We understand the impact on especially seniors and visitation,

as an example, as the Member opposite just mentioned, at long-term care sites.

Mr.

Speaker, I think on any given night all we need to do is look at the news coming

out of other provinces and you can see the impact on some of the most

vulnerable. Nearly 80 per cent of the people that would've passed away as a

result of COVID are people that were over the age of 80, some of the most

vulnerable that we have in our society.

Tough

decisions, Mr. Speaker, but some good news on the horizon for those that are

looking for visitation rights for people in personal care homes, some of the

loved ones that we see in long-term care sites. We're anticipating, and in a

position very soon, to be able to make some changes to visitation. We understand

the emotional stress this puts on those most vulnerable people and we want to

get those visitations and those supports in place as quickly as we can.

Hopefully, you'll hear some news on that later this week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, we

all understand the importance of restrictions but surely cases have to be

assessed on a case-by-case basis. Another constituent's spouse, who was weak and

frail, had to go to the hospital for diagnostic imaging emergency visits and

during one of these visits was told he had cancer, while his spouse was not even

permitted to be with him during this traumatic experience.

Why did

the Premier and officials ignore the pain and suffering of families and the

anxiety experienced by so many people in these situations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, in my own life,

I think I spent nearly 33 years in health care. A large part of that was dealing

with seniors. So I do take exception to think that as Premier of this province,

that this is something I would personally ignore. That is not the truth.

Difficult decisions were made. They were made with the advice on evidence and

science from the public health officials. I think all Members of our all-party

Committee would understand how difficult decisions were. On a case-by-case basis

there are provisions. We've seen it where children were born, we seen in it in

palliative care situations; very difficult situations, Mr. Speaker. Decisions

were made to protect some of the most vulnerable we have in our society.

I don't

know the case that the Member opposite is talking about, but I will tell you I

spent many hours during this pandemic talking to families on specific issues,

and I'll continue to do that in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. I do take exception on the comment that this was ignored by me, as

Premier. It definitely was not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, we

continue to hear from constituents, all of us in the Opposition, and we need to

know how it is possible that these vulnerable people are not given the dignity,

the comfort and compassion of family support and accompaniment in these painful

and trying circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I think the

Member opposite is – we just talked about essential workers. The decisions that

were made in this situation were to protect essential workers as well. It was

very difficult for people who are working as essential services to go to work

under the stress and anxiety of what could occur if, indeed, they had to become

a positive case of COVID and bring that home to their own families. These are

the difficulties that were made in that decision.

Mr.

Speaker, I think you look no further than what happened in Nova Scotia at

Northwood where we saw nearly 50 seniors pass away. In some cases, COVID was

brought into that facility as a result of people coming in, visiting or

supplying services. Mr. Speaker, that is the level of what was happening across

this country.

Decisions were made. We were able to do, by all the analyses that we're seeing,

a very good job in flattening the curve here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I

appreciate the work that essential workers did. We did what we could to protect

them, but also to protect some of the most vulnerable in our society.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has indicated that there is some relief coming or there

is some suggestion that these restrictions will be relaxed.

Can the

Premier please indicate when the families and individuals who are in these

circumstances can expect these restrictions to be lifted?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will

just mention to the Member opposite that if we're in the position that these

restrictions are something that could be changed as early as this week, even

with the restrictions being lifted and the easing of currently what's happening

in those homes, there will still be restrictions put in place.

Keep in

mind that if you're a senior that lives in a long-term care site or in a

personal-care home these days, you're some of the most vulnerable that we would

have seen anywhere in this country. Just look at the statistics that we're

seeing. These are the people that were impacted the most by this virus. They

have, in many cases, a compromised health situation on a normal day, and that

has been extremely compromised with the impact of this virus. They have been

compromised just with the thought of having this enter their home by a visitor

or coming in through one of our essential workers.

Mr.

Speaker, when the public health officials are ready to lift those restrictions

based on the evidence and the science that they have available to them, that is

when this will be released.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the

last three months, I heard gut-wrenching stories from constituents being denied

the proper right to say goodbye to a loved one. One of the family's grief led to

an exasperated statement in the media saying that maybe we should host the

funeral at Walmart because 40 of us could have gone there.

Minister, do you think this is right, and how would you feel if it's one of our

family members or your family members?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, back in late

March of this year, during the early days of this pandemic, there were many

people in our province at this point asking officials to consider an all-down

lockdown of this province, telling everyone to stay inside and suggesting that

no one would even be allowed out for what would have been some very basic

services.

As a

matter of fact, I think when the minister used to speak very regularly on this

issue, he would say what's non- essential today might be essential in a few

weeks time. So these were the types of decisions that were being made.

Mr.

Speaker, I would speak to just one event that happened over a period of two

days, when we saw somewhere up to around 170 people that were impacted in this

province as a result of visitation at a funeral home. We had three people that

passed away in this province, some of them as a result of what happened there.

This is how the decisions were made. It was based on evidence, based on science.

Public health officials made those decisions without political interference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you for that answer.

Hopefully we can get back to some normalcy for those families that – if it

happens in the near future that we can get back to, hopefully, some normalcy for

those people. I certainly appreciate your answer. Thank you.

Minister, I know a constituent that had a requisition for blood work that was

denied to get the test. Feeling unwell, this person approached me for some help

and found some private collection agency that got a number for me that arranged

for this person to get some blood work done. The sample was taken, the

individual was later diagnosed with cancer and had to wait a long period of time

and I understand the situation.

I ask

the minister: How does this person be denied to a critical diagnostic test?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't know

the details around the specifics of the individual that you just mentioned here,

but I know that what I've been told and understood that those people who would

have required emergency services, these were provided during the course of this

pandemic.

Mr.

Speaker, as we speak today, just under 70 per cent of the capacity within our

hospital acute-care setting is being occupied by people that are receiving

services within our health care system. The specifics of an individual case,

unfortunately, I would not be able – if I had the answer to that I would share

it. But what I've been told is that those that required emergency services

throughout the pandemic could receive those services in an acute-care centre

within our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, this House of Assembly has approved $200 million in contingency

funding for COVID-related expenditures.

I ask

the minister: How much of that money has been spent to date, and will the

minister table the details?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've

got about $74 million allocated out of the $200 million. The thing with the

contingency fund, departments have to use available savings prior to going into

contingency fund. So while we've earmarked $74 million, that may not necessarily

be $74 million out of contingency, once departments determine whether or not

they have other sources of revenue they can use prior to going to the

contingency fund.

There's

been $30 million for the new home renovation; $20 million for the compensation

grant for regulated child care; $20 million for tourism and hospitality support;

$2.5 million for Newfoundland Power; and the Canadian emergency rent is $1.4

million.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. WAKEHAM:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer.

Mr.

Speaker, this government has authority from, again, this Legislature to spend up

to $4.8 billion in taxpayers' money. We a