PDF Version

November 20, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 21

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Admit strangers.

Order,

please!

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Order 2,

third reading of Bill 15.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

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

15,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that Bill 15,

An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act, be now read a

third time.

All

those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against?

Carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Liquor Corporation Act. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER:

The bill has now been read a

third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the

Order Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Liquor Corporation Act,” read a third time,

ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 15)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just

looking at my Order Paper. Give me a moment here now.

There we

go.

Mr.

Speaker, Order 8, second reading of Bill 18.

That's

why I needed my Order Paper.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill 18,

An Act

Respecting The Demise Of The Crown, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

Bill 18,

An Act Respecting The Demise Of The Crown, be now read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act Respecting The Demise Of The Crown.” (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

demise of the Crown is a legal form for the end of the reign of a sovereign king

or queen, whether by death or abdication, retirement, et cetera, and transfer to

the Crown to the sovereign's successor. The term signifies the immediate and

automatic transfer of sovereignty and royal prerogatives to the late king or

queen's successor, without any period of time between the close of the

sovereign's reign and the ascension of the successor.

Canada

is a constitutional monarchy. Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, is Queen of

Canada and Canada's head of state. She is the personal embodiment of the Crown

in Canada.

At the

federal level, many people are familiar with the Queen's representative in

Canada, the Governor General, currently Her Excellency, the Right Honourable

Julie Payette. At the provincial level in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Queen's

representative is the Lieutenant-Governor, currently Her Honour, the Honourable

Judy May Foote.

Newfoundland and Labrador, as in other provinces in Canada, executive, judicial

and legislative powers flow from the Crown. Examples of this include: for the

executive, Members of the provincial Cabinet are appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor on the advice of the Premier. Judicial: Provincial Court

judges are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on the recommendation

of the Minister of Justice and Public Safety. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council

signifies the Lieutenant-Governor acting with the advice and consent of Cabinet.

Legislative: The House of Assembly consists of 40 elected Members and the

Lieutenant-Governor. After a bill has passed third reading, the

Lieutenant-Governor may provide Royal Assent in order to make the bill become a

law.

There

has not been a demise of the Crown – thankfully, in Canada – in over 65 years.

The last demise of the Crown occurred when King George V died during the night

between February 5 and 6 of 1952. Immediately upon his passing, Queen Elizabeth

II ascended to the Crown and became the Queen of Canada.

Traditionally, the demise of the Crown had a number of effects upon the

functioning of various parts of government in the United Kingdom. Parliament was

immediately dissolved, legal proceedings were discontinued and various office

holders who were appointed by the previous sovereign ceased to hold those

offices. Over time, in the United Kingdom, various acts of parliament were

passed to modify these legal effects of the demise of the Crown. Some of these

United Kingdom statutes date back to the early 1700s.

recognition of the historical effects of the demise of the Crown, federal

legislation and legislation of many Canadian provinces exists, with some

variance from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to clarify the demise of the Crown

does not: one, affect the holding of public offices under the Crown in right of

the province; two, affect the right or capacity of a person to practice, engage

in or pursue a profession, occupation or calling; three, require a person to

retake an oath of office or oath of allegiance in respect of a public office

under the Crown in right of the province or in respect to a profession,

occupation or calling, discontinue or otherwise affect ongoing legal proceedings

or dissolve Parliament or the provincial Legislature.

There is

currently no statutory provision addressing issues arising from the demise of

the Crown in Newfoundland and Labrador. The bill before the House of Assembly

would provide clarity and certainty in respect of these matters so that, upon

the demise of the Crown, these matters do not become outstanding questions. For

example, for public office holders. Newfoundland and Labrador does not currently

have a statutory provision that clearly states that the demise of the Crown does

not affect the holding of any office under the Crown and that it is not

necessary, by reason of demise, for public office holders to again take an oath

of office or allegiance.

While

the Oaths of Office Act does include a

provision that a person shall not be required to retake an oath in respect to an

appointment to the same office, there is no specific reference to the demise of

a Crown. This bill includes provisions that the demise of the Crown does not

affect the holding of any office under the Crown in right of the province, and

does not require public office holders to retake an oath of office or oath of

allegiance.

Professions, occupations and callings: Newfoundland and Labrador does not

currently have a specific statutory provision confirming that the demise of a

Crown does not affect the right or capacity of any person in the province to

practice, engage in or pursue any profession, occupation or calling. Three

provinces, namely, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, have such a provision.

Similarly, there is no statutory provision in this province that it is not

necessary upon the demise of a Crown for a person to again take an oath of

allegiance to the new sovereign in respect of professions, occupations and

callings. This legislation will provide clarity in this respect for members,

governing bodies and others.

Legal

proceedings: Newfoundland and Labrador does not currently have a statutory

provision that states that legal proceedings are not discontinued or otherwise

affected by the demise of the Crown. Such provisions exist at the federal level

and in some provinces, including Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and

Saskatchewan. For surer clarity of law and to ensure that this does not, one

day, become a question that a court must decide, the bill provides that the

demise of a Crown does not affect any writ, action or other process or

proceeding, civil or criminal, in or issuing out of any court.

Dissolution of the House of Assembly: the province does not currently have a

statutory provision that states that the House of Assembly is not dissolved upon

the demise of the Crown. It would be much clearer, and in line with all other

jurisdictions in Canada, to have a statutory provision directly addressing this

issue.

summary, this bill will provide statutory provisions for Newfoundland and

Labrador so the province is legislatively prepared for the demise of the Crown.

It also achieves consistency with legislation in other Canadian jurisdictions.

As a demise of the Crown can be a time of upheaval, providing clarity and

certainty at such time is important for stability in matters of government and

administration.

Now, Mr.

Speaker, clearly, we wish Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II many, many, many more

years of good health and a prosperous reign.

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.

This

bill really is about peace of mind and, as well, it's about certainty, clarity,

precision and the law.

We were

told in the briefing that this bill's title uses the word demise to, ultimately,

mean transfer, and I think that is supported in the information that we have.

Really, Mr. Speaker, it's about the clean succession from one monarch to another

and that is included, really, in this legislation and in our law now, once it's

passed.

We were

told also, and we know, that the authority of the Crown will transfer

immediately. It's like an automatic process without interruption. For example,

after the sovereign's death, for example, Charles would automatically become

Canada's head of state, the moment his mother dies. Therefore, the monarch

endures.

What

about court cases and decisions referencing the monarch by name? Would

Parliament dissolve? Would some people be out of their jobs? This legislation

addresses that in theory.

Mr.

Speaker, there hasn't been much opportunity to test this theory, though.

Thankfully, we do not have much experience with changes in monarchs. The last

time there was an abdication was in 1936 when Edward VIII was replaced by George

VI, and the last time there was an actual change of monarch in Canada by reason

of death was in 1952 when George VI was replaced by Queen Elizabeth II.

Hopefully, the next transition will happen far into the future because there is

no world leader who commands greater respect and admiration than the Queen and

it is hard to imagine not having her there.

Mr.

Speaker, as the minister has pointed out, there are many other jurisdictions –

most jurisdictions, have brought forward similar legislation to provide for

greater certainty and we, in the province, now are doing the same: Saskatchewan,

Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia, Ontario, PEI and

Manitoba. I would submit that we need to also follow suit to avoid uncertainty

and to provide that consistency.

The bill

states that “the demise does not affect the holding of any office under the

Crown in right of the province; (

b) the demise does not affect the right or

capacity of a person in the province to practise, engage in or pursue a

profession, occupation or calling; and (

c) a person is not required to retake an

oath of office or oath of allegiance with respect to a profession, occupation,

office or calling by reason of the demise.”

We see,

if we look at the explanatory notes, it is made clear that the bill would

“provide that the demise … does not affect any writ, action or other process or

proceeding, civil or criminal, in or issuing out of any court.” These will

remain in full force because of this act, as if there had been no demise, no

transfer of the monarch.

Finally,

the bill would amend the House of Assembly

Act to province that the House shall not be dissolved by the demise of the

Crown. It shall continue in the exact same manner as even if the demise had not

occurred. Notwithstanding that, the Lieutenant-Governor may still, by

proclamation, prorogue or dissolve the House when the Lieutenant-Governor sees

fit. This is just as it is now, so nothing changes.

It seems

like passing such a law in this province is a good thing to do – why not? Many

other provinces have already done so, but the question might be asked: What

would happen if we didn't? It is better, I would submit to you, to remove any

uncertainty than to test it.

Another

question might be asked: Does this bill cover all the bases? Does any other

jurisdiction cover bases that we are not covering? Some questions to consider.

Historians might ask: What happened in 1952 and even in 1936? But, Mr. Speaker,

the records from those times are not as easily searched as the records of today.

We also have a different kind of society today. We live in a time when people

are more educated on matters of law, and more willing to challenge things in the

courts, to ask the questions. The flow of information is greater. It is not a

time for us to be risking any uncertainty, that's where this law will step in to

assure that we don't have that uncertainty any longer.

I would

submit it's better to be clear and precise and certain and consistent than to

risk the consequences of being otherwise. With this legislation, that happens;

therefore, Mr. Speaker, we support this bill.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaking

to the act (inaudible) here, it's very important we continue on doing these,

that we streamline the processes, especially in the more modern era as this is.

To have to go through the process of having lawyers and judges and everything

re-swear allegiance to the Crown, and especially where we have more judges and

lawyers and more people working in the system probably than in 1952, the process

itself would backlog considerably. Having

an act like this that also brings us

in line with the rest of the provinces is very important.

There's

not much more to speak to it on that. We're following suit with our Commonwealth

friends with this and we have to make sure that government and the legal

processes are not delayed or backed up because of an event on the scale that

that would be.

With

respect to this, as a caucus we are fully supportive of streamlining the

processes and making government work for everybody.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once

again, it's a pleasure to stand and speak to a bill. I really don't have a whole

lot to say that hasn't already been said. I just want to, for the record, say

that I do support the bill.

Obviously, what we're talking about here is that Her Majesty is getting up in

years. We all know – it's inevitable for all of us – that at some point in time

there's going to be a change. So this just allows, of course, for her successor

to be recognized in law here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

course, if we didn't do it, we're told that because of judges, lawyers and so on

that have to swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, what would happen if she

was no longer there and her successor was in place. Then that calls into

question a whole bunch of potential – I'm not saying it would be successful, but

certainly there could be potential legal challenges on all kinds of cases before

the courts, whether they be civil or criminal or whatever the case might be.

ensure that doesn't happen, we're changing the legislation to say whoever the

sovereign should be at the time, that it would be that smooth transition to the

new king, I guess it will be – yes, it should be king, whenever that happens and

it won't interfere with any of the running of the province, the judiciary and

the courts. That's what we're doing. It makes perfectly good sense.

As the

minister said, we certainly wish Her Majesty many more years of health, but when

that time comes, as it comes for us all, we want that smooth transition.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm not

going to belabour this too much, but this is an example of kind of living

history, if you want to look at it, and it speaks to the nature of the

constitutional monarchy and the Westminster system. We are in the situation of

having one of the – if not the longest serving monarch ever and, in actual fact,

the only head of state to have ever served in World War II left alive today.

Whilst we wish her good health, the clock is ticking, Mr. Speaker.

It also

speaks to the nature of oaths to the Crown, and they have evolved over the

years. They were intensely personal. I refer you back as far recently as the

nature of the Prince of Wales oath of accession where he described himself as

her liege man of life and limb. It was personal; it was not to the institution

of the Crown. The Member opposite referenced the fact that the monarchy endures

even though the monarch may not.

All bets

were off on the death of the monarch. Everything ground to a halt. The lack of

personal oath to a new sovereign paralyzed the legal system, it paralyzed the

political system. There are examples through history of changes in monarchs

where there have been significant disruptions. You can start as far back as you

want, but in recent times there were changes in 1936 and in 1952 that were

necessary as a result of that lack of oath to the Crown rather than the Crown

and a person of a specific individual.

Again, I

just felt I would like to add my two cents' worth to this and I think I hear

all-party support for what is a necessary piece of legislation.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Government House

Leader, if she speaks now she will close the debate.

The hon.

Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank

the Member for Harbour Main for her remarks and thorough dissertation on this

matter, and to the Member for Labrador West, the Member for Mount Pearl -

Southlands and the Minister of Health and Community Services.

As you

heard, Mr. Speaker, there is recognition of the great work of our sovereign. We

wish her good health and a long life, but this demise of the Crown refers to the

transfer of the power of the Crown from one sovereign to that sovereign's

successor. It's important that we have that certainty, that we have that

clarity. I'm glad I have support of the House to move forward with this

legislation.

On that

note, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my seat.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is that Bill 18 be now read a second time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act Respecting The

Demise Of The Crown. (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

second time.

When

shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

motion, a bill, “An Act Respecting The Demise Of The Crown,” read a second time,

ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill

18)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that the House resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 18.

MR. SPEAKER:

is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said bill.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All

those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a

Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the

Whole

CHAIR (Bennett):

Order, please!

We are

now considering Bill 18,

An Act Respecting The Demise Of The Crown.

A bill,

“An Act Respecting The Demise Of The Crown.” (Bill 18)

CLERK:

Clause 1.

CHAIR:

Shall clause 1 carry?

The

Chair recognizes the Member for Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

I only have one

question on this act because it is a very straightforward one, but I'm wondering

why now? Has anything happened that we need to be aware of to bring this

legislation in at this point in time?

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Thankfully not, but there is a recognition that this is an important piece of

legislation and that we should move toward that. As I know, all Members of the

hon. House wish long life and continued prosperity to her sovereign, but it is a

recognition that this was needed within our legislation and therefore we've

advanced on it at this point in time.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Seeing no other questions,

shall clause 1 carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK:

Clauses 2 through 4

inclusive.

CHAIR:

Shall clauses 2 to 4

inclusive carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, clauses 2 through 4 carried.

CLERK:

Be it enacted by the

Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as

follows:

CHAIR:

Shall the enacting clause

carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK:

An Act Respecting The Demise

Of The Crown.

CHAIR:

Shall the title carry?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, title carried.

CHAIR:

Shall I report Bill 18

without amendment?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

Against?

Carried.

Motion,

the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move

that the Committee rise and report Bill 18.

CHAIR:

The motion is that the

Committee rise and report Bill 18.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

CHAIR:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the

Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Order, please!

Before I

recognize the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate, I just wanted to note that we

have circulated a new Order Paper for today. There were some errors in the first

one that was distributed. I think the Members of the Public Accounts Committee

was left off, so that has been changed, addressed and a new copy has been

circulated. I just want to make Members aware of that.

The hon.

the hon. for Lewisporte - Twillingate.

MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of

the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to

report Bill 18 without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER:

The Chair of the Committee of

the Whole reports that the Committee has considered the matters to them referred

and have directed him to report Bill 18 without amendment.

When

shall the report be received?

MS. COADY:

Now.

MR. SPEAKER:

Now.

When

shall the bill be read a third time?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From the

Order Paper, Motion 3, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and

Works, the following motion:

BE IT

RESOLVED that the Committees of the House of Assembly for the 49th General

Assembly be reconstituted as follows.

Mr.

Speaker, would you like me read them into the record again, or shall we dispense

with that?

MR. SPEAKER:

They're on the Order Paper

and correctly on the Order Paper now, so I think we'll just refer to it as the

motion.

MS. COADY:

Shall I read them?

MR. SPEAKER:

No, I don't think that's

necessary.

MS. COADY:

Okay, so they're before you.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works that:

BE IT

RESOLVED that the Committees of the House of Assembly for the 49th General

Assembly be reconstituted as on the Order Paper.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that the motion related to Committees of the House be now read a second

time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, the following motion as on

the Order Paper, Motion 2:

WHEREAS

in accordance with subsection 38(1) of the

House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act , the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards has submitted a report respecting his

opinion on a matter referred to him under the authority of subsection 36(1) of

that act;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly concur in

The Parsons Report of June 25, 2019.

MR. SPEAKER:

It has been moved and

seconded that the said motion now be read a second time.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have

received the report of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. Mr. Speaker,

this resolution comes by way of the House Management Commission. It is made up

of Members from all sides of the House, from all three parties and is

essentially a guide of the House of Assembly in manners affecting MHAs.

This

report has been compiled by the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. He has

the opinion that there has not been any violation, and therefore no action is

needed to be taken.

Mr.

Speaker, I thank the Commissioner for Legislative Standards for his diligence in

this matter and his report. I thank him for his continued efforts on behalf of

the province and, of course, on behalf of all of us in the House. This matter is

now resolved by way of the legislative commissioner, and I say to the House that

it is resolved and that they concur in this report.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

going to stand and speak on the report itself as a whole. I ask the Government

House Leader: Who did this report? I'm not sure if she knows, but she should

find out because the Commissioner himself said publicly that he doesn't have the

ability or the expertise. I'm just wondering who comprised this report. Did he

go out and get outside help for this report to be done?

I think

before we even accept this in the House, we should at least find out who

actually did the report, because when you have a Commissioner who publicly

states that I don't have the expertise – so did he do this report? I think

before we even concur with this here, that's something that we should actually

find out. I ask the Government House Leader that brought in the report if she

can actually confirm that it was done by Rubin Thomlinson or some expert outside

because he already stated that he doesn't have that ability.

Before I

go any further, I just want to clarify a few statements. Last week when I was

speaking, it was to the best of my ability that I knew this, and then I was

later confirmed by three people. I know I made statements that the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island, the Member for CBS and the Government House

Leader – that they were going to bring something to the Management Commission.

They agreed to do it, and I stated that they didn't do it, but the reason why

was that the former Speaker refused to have the meeting. That's what these three

people confirmed to me, the Government House Leader – and I apologize to her –

and the other two Members.

I just

wanted to clear the record and withdraw those remarks from the record and say

that I did write the Management Commission in June, but they never did have the

meeting. I'll just let the public know that I did pass it on to this Management

Commission this morning to deal with these serious allegations that I made.

I just

want to make it very public that I wrote back in June – I'll tell you the exact

date now. It was June 19. It was never ever dealt with by the Management

Commission. I just resubmitted these here to this Speaker to have a Management

Commission meeting because I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that these are

allegations that I would like to have resolved by the Management Commission.

I just

wanted to put that on the record, the Government House Leader and the other two

Members, that I withdraw those remarks that it wasn't brought, that it wasn't

your concern.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to table a letter. I'm usually not allowed to do it but I'm

going to ask consent to do it. It's something I spoke about last week. So if I

have leave of the House to table the letter in the House. I'm assuming I have

leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

Does the Member have leave?

MS. COADY:

Is it on this matter or …?

MR. JOYCE:

Yes, it's concerning this

matter.

MS. COADY:

This matter?

MR. JOYCE:

This particular matter.

MS. COADY:

To table a letter?

MR. JOYCE:

Yes, it's a letter saying

that the Premier was involved with the process, and I spoke about it last week.

MR. SPEAKER:

Does that Member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Yes.

MR. JOYCE:

I do have leave.

MS. COADY:

If I may, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

It's hard to give leave for

something of which we're not aware, Mr. Speaker. Is it pertaining to this

particular report? The legislative commissioner has made rulings, so I'm not

familiar with what is going to be tabled or the direction.

Perhaps

the Member opposite could give us more in his discourse – which he has time

available – and then we can see where this is going.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. JOYCE:

(Inaudible) I read it in the

record last week.

MS. COADY:

Okay.

MR. JOYCE:

I read it in the record last

week, so it was already read in the record.

MS. COADY:

I don't know –

MR. JOYCE:

That's fine, I'll just

distribute it. If I haven't got leave, I won't table it but I will give it out.

MR. SPEAKER:

I'm getting a sense that the

Member doesn't have leave at this point.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay, I do have leave.

Thank

you.

The

reason why it's so important, as we know these reports – and this is another

report that came back, and I just want to read into the record again, Mr.

Speaker, and this goes to not just to this report, but all the reports. I just

want to read into the record. This is from the Premier of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a quasi-judicial person.

MR. SPEAKER:

I just want to remind the

Member of relevancy to this debate. I'm not sure where he's going or what the

contents of the letter are, but I just want to make sure that he understands

that we're discussing The Parsons Report

and the debate is related to the facts and the information contained in that

report. I just want to remind the Member of that.

MR. JOYCE:

It is about the facts and the

information because who was involved with the report is – when the report was

done up – we are all under the understanding here in this House – and I will

even give a date when the Premier of this province made a statement in this

House that he had no involvement.

I have a

letter, which I tabled, and I need to read for the record because it is from the

Premier of this province. This relates to all the reports, and this happens to

be one of the specific reports, because if his office is speaking to the

Commissioner, how do we know it's not about this report? I just wanted to read:

I can confirm there was limited occasions whereby my office contacted the Office

of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards for estimates on timetables when

reports might be completed.

Mr.

Speaker, I just wanted to read into the record also the actual act that we have

here. It's already in legislation when reports are put back to the House of

Assembly. “Where a request for an opinion is made on subsection 36 (1) or (3),

or where the commissioner conducts an inquiry on subsection 36 (2), he or she

shall report his or her opinion to the commission which shall present a report

to the House of Assembly within 15 sitting days of receiving it if it is in

session or, if not, within 15 sitting days of the beginning of the next

session.”

Mr.

Speaker, I just wanted to have it for the record that there is legislation here

for when this report must be put back to the House of Assembly. The Premier in

his letter said it's for logistics, which has nothing to do with the act. I'm

now asking the question to this House and to the people here that if the Premier

was involved with an independent officer of the House of Assembly, and he

confirms it, what effects did it have on the reports, if any?

I just

need to put that on the record because, first, we don't know who completed the

report. Bruce Chaulk himself publicly stated, I don't have the ability to do it.

So who completed this report?

Now I

know because I'm going back in August, September of 2018 when the Premier told

me that the Joyce report of October 19 and Dale Kirby's report were coming out

together. The Colin Holloway report, sorry. It was the Colin Holloway report,

that two of them were coming out together. They did come out together.

How did

the Premier of the province know that? Why was the Premier of the province

involved with an independent officer of the House of Assembly?

Now, he

can use the weasel words on occasion for logistics, but, Mr. Speaker, I have

many occasions where this Premier – and I use one of the text messages and I ask

the Minister for the Status of Women, were you on a phone call when text

messages were about Mark Browne? I know you aren't going to lie.

MR. SPEAKER:

Again, I want to caution the

Member in relation to relevancy. We're dealing with

The Parsons Report , and the debate has

to be strictly related to that report.

MR. JOYCE:

Okay, that's fine, but this

is some of the reasons – when the Premier stands in this House I think it was

November 5 and he said: I had no involvement. My only involvement was putting in

the letter that it was done, but I had no involvement. Now, I have a letter

saying that he was involved. So how can we accept all these reports in this

House?

I'll get

into the report, Mr. Speaker. I'm just going to read a statement here when the

report came in, Dale Kirby's report. The statement was made by Bruce Chaulk

here, and the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands asked the questions about who

did the report. On his statement, on Bruce Chaulk's own statement, he said:

Rubin Thomlinson, they're the experts in doing this report, you'd be a fool not

to accept it. You would be a fool not to accept it. That was the

Hansard , that's what the person said.

So, here

we are in The Parsons Report , and I'm

going to read The Parsons Report ,

that's in this. I'm going to read this here, what this man, Dale Kirby, went

through. I'm going to read this, what's in it: “' You're beautiful and I love you' and he explicitly states that he does

not dispute making the comment. Being collegial with someone does not permit,

invite or condone such comments .” That was the Member for Harbour Grace -

Port de Grave who said that.

But

here's what the findings were, the factual findings. This is in the report. I'm

reading directly from the report. Here's the factual findings that were in

The Kirby Report that's put in here as

evidence. It's actually astonishing what this man went through over this here.

It's actually astonishing. I just want to read the factual findings of Rubin

Thomlinson, the expert, which Bruce Chaulk hired, which he said he would be a

fool if he went against. I just want to read it in for the record of what this

man went through and what people in this House voted for, your colleagues voted

for, your friends voted for. I just want to go through this, Mr. Speaker.

“The

parties agree” – one second, I was looking for what disingenuous meant, but –

“that while at the Liberal convention, they had a one-on-one conversation,

although they provided different locations and context for interaction. I found

MHA Kirby's evidence relating to this conversation to be compelling in that he

provided details that did not paint him in the best light and which formed a

more coherent story than that of the Complainant. I note that the Complainant

did not deny the context provided by MHA Kirby in her reply, but rather stated

that it did not justify the conduct. As such, I found that the way she initially

presented the meeting in her complaint to be somewhat disingenuous . ”

That's the witness that this expert said, the person who made the complaint is

disingenuous.

We have

to keep that in mind. When he puts that in his report, that the person who makes

the complaint is actually disingenuous, Mr. Speaker – and we'll go on. “I also

note that her evidence during her interview, that a particular comment was not

sexual in nature, did not align with her written reply that alleged that the

same comment was 'sexualizing talk.' To that end, I have preferred MHA Kirby's

evidence on this allegation.”

It goes

on to say: “That is, I find that he made the comment in a friendly manner within

the context of a casual conversation … I do not believe that the comment was

intended to be sexual in nature, nor do I believe that the Complainant genuinely

perceived it that way at that time. I find that during this casual conversation,

MHA Kirby told the Complainant that he wished to work with her and that her

approach of working against him, his colleagues, and the Premier was not helpful

to any of them.”

Here's

the sentence Bruce Chaulk puts in there – I just want to let Members know what

you did to this man. Here's the comment Bruce Chaulk put in: “While this conduct

may not have been intended to be sexual in nature I do find below that this

interaction was a violation of Principle 5 of the Code of Conduct.” That's the

sentence Bruce Chaulk put in.

Here's

the next sentence that the experts put in – the experts of this province put in:

“With respect to the remainder of the specifics of this allegation, I do not

find there is sufficient evidence to conclude that MHA Kirby specifically

advised the Complainant not to submit her survey, nor do I find that he made the

other alleged comments about her actions as an MHA on behalf of her

constituents.” That's what the experts found.

Dale

Kirby was found in violation of Principle 5, even though the Commissioner said

the person who initially made the complaint was disingenuous. He doesn't believe

what she said. She changed her story, but yet Dale Kirby was failed in Principle

I just

want to go back to Principle 5. I'm just saying what this House of Assembly did

to this guy. Dale Kirby's lawyer wrote Bruce Chaulk and said: What is Principle

5? I don't have to tell you. Here's why Principle 5 was developed. This is why I

have to question why were things done. Even in my case – and I'll get into that,

too, because the Commissioner has to come in question here.

Principle 5, it was the understanding that if you're in a Cabinet position or

some position, you can't give out information that's going to benefit your

family. That's what we always thought Principle 5 was and there was nothing

there. I'll tell you what I dug up. Here's what I dug up, Mr. Speaker. I'm going

back to May 13, 2008, when this here was developed. I was in the House of

Assembly in 2007 when we had discussions.

May 13,

2008, here's the guidelines that they were making up then for Principle 5:

Members shall disclose all interests as required under House of Assembly;

directorships, employment offers, gifts, hospitality, reimbursement of other

material benefits on his or her knowledge, financial sponsorship, land, travel,

the names of companies or other bodies paid or chairmanships or memberships.

That's the discussions they had at the Management Commission back in 2008 about

Principle 5.

Now, we

found the person, Dale Kirby, in violation of Principle 5. Bruce Chaulk will not

verify what Principle 5 was to his lawyer. Principle 5 was around what we always

thought, and I always thought, was that you can't divulge information for

personal gain for your family or whoever. I'm going back to

Hansard in the general terms of what

was done. Can anybody tell me in this House how you can put a man through what

he went through for six, seven months when you don't even know what you were

found guilty of? The evidence shows here that it has something to do about

receiving gifts, about giving private information out to benefit your family.

For some

reason, which is beyond me, Bruce Chaulk had to find something, so he said: You

made a statement. The statement that was made that Rubin Thomlinson, the experts

who were brought in, said her complaint was disingenuous, her statement changed,

yet here's a man who went through torture for six, seven months over Principle

5, which was dealing with receiving gifts. Do you realize what you did? Do

people in this hon. House realize what you did to this man? It is actually

shameful, Mr. Speaker. It is shameful for what happened in this House.

I've got

to say – and I'm going to bring this up – during the election, Dale Kirby came

out with me for a week, campaigning, and I'm glad he did. He's a friend, he

called, he said: What do you think? Come on, bring it on. He was so happy to be

– do you know why he was so happy? Forget about great campaigner he is, and

we're having fun for a week. Do you know what the great thing Dale Kirby was so

proud of when he left? When we knocked on so many doors and women answered the

door, do you know what the women were telling Dale Kirby – which I told him I've

been hearing all the time? She said these complaints in here puts the women's

movement back. This is not about someone being abused or someone being sexually

abused or someone being aggressive, this is just plain old – when he heard that

so many times at the door, he felt so good, Mr. Speaker.

I have

to ask here in this hon. House, Mr. Speaker – and I'll go through this report

also – who did the report? I hope the Government House Leader can find that out

or the Speaker through – sorry, it's not the Government House Leader. Sorry

about that. The Speaker, through the Management Commission. Who did the report

because he doesn't have the ability – remember, he said it publicly he doesn't

have that ability.

How is

this report derived? How did this report come about to this House? Who did he

hire to do the actual investigation? That's what I need to know. How can we

accept it until we know that? Because there was a big hullabaloo here back in

April 25, 2018, all this big House of Assembly was rocked by scandal. Some of

the allegations: putting two drinks on a bar tab. Yeah, really rocked by

scandal.

There

are other things I can bring up here, Mr. Speaker. I even use the Bruce Chaulk –

and this is why it's relevant to this report because Bruce Chaulk apparently did

this report. I have a note here, even from the Premier of the province that he

made. It was Question Period, I think it was December 5 by the Leader of the

Opposition when he asked him about some comments I made. The Premier of the

province even said, as I always said, that Bruce Chaulk would never take into

account or even call the Premier. He said the allegations against me; they even

changed by the time they were first made.

What did

Bruce Chaulk – who now apparently did this report and he's under scrutiny here.

Why didn't Bruce Chaulk investigate the allegations changed? Why didn't he do

it? We have the highest person in this land, Mr. Speaker, who took the

allegations, who publicly stated they changed by the time they got to him by the

time they made it to Bruce Chaulk and he either wouldn't go as a witness or

either Bruce Chaulk wouldn't call him as a witness. The rights of a Member of

this House of Assembly – because Bruce Chaulk didn't do his proper work – was

wrong.

Mr.

Speaker, that's the kind of thing that we're faced with here.

MR. SPEAKER:

Just as a point. We have a

tradition of not referring to people by their names but by their role in this

House. I would ask that the Member be consistent with that practice.

MR. JOYCE:

Sorry, I didn't know I did

it. I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker. I didn't know I did it.

That's

the kind of thing when you look at this report, which relates to Bruce Chaulk,

who apparently did this report – oh, sorry, the Commissioner for Legislative

Standards. Sorry, I now know what you mean. I saw the Member for Baie Verte -

Green Bay smiling at me. The Commissioner for Legislative Standards – I'm sorry,

I apologize.

You can

see, Mr. Speaker, why I questioned this report that's being brought into this

House. You see why I'm questioning it. The Commissioner for Legislative

Standards stood in this House and statements that he made in this House – and

this goes back to some of the reports that he actually went ahead and did.

When he

stood in this House and he was talking about – and he was going on that a

respondent can make a complaint, then he can get their lawyer or he can do their

own writing. The part he forgot in this House of Assembly – and this is part of

the report that has gone in there, Mr. Speaker, as part of this House of

Assembly. It says, the respondent, upon every part of the – shall be given the

opportunity to be present, a reasonable opportunity to be present. He said that

in this House many times – many times.

Take a

guess who was never interviewed. This is where this report comes in, because

this is the man who did it, apparently. Take a guess who was never interviewed.

Me. Then –

MR. SPEAKER:

I remind the Member again

that we're dealing with The Parsons Report

and that we should stick to the content of

The Parsons Report .

MR. JOYCE:

You have to allow me leeway,

because the person who did The Parsons

Report , you allowed the question – the Commissioner's ability to do this

here and the other things that he made, which is going to make up this report.

You have to allow that.

If a

person is out making these reports, you have to allow me the opportunity to

explain why I feel this is flawed, when you can show other cases where he made

statements in this House which were not true. You have to allow me that. I'm

sure, Mr. Speaker, if you're talking –

MR. SPEAKER:

I ask the Member to take his

seat for a little while.

The

matter before us is The Parsons Report .

The other reports have been dealt with by this House. I've been giving the

Member a lot of leeway in terms of relating some other materials to the content

of The Parsons Report , but the issues

related to the other reports are related to the other reports and they've been

dealt with in this House. The way they can be brought back to the House is on

another different motion. We're dealing with the report before us now, and I'd

ask the Member to relate his comments to this specific report.

MR. JOYCE:

I'm going to ask you a

question, Mr. Speaker, because I guess I'm a bit confused here. Any court that

you see – and I know there's a lawyer here; for sure there's one – if there's

someone who made statements in the past, are they allowed to be questioned to

justify the report now? Sure, you are. So how can you say that these reports

don't matter, they do matter.

If a

report is coming in this hon. House, Mr. Speaker, and this certain person made

this report, how confident are we that this report is accurate? I'm not saying

it's not. How confident are we that this report is accurate until we question

what was said prior by the same – which I know and, by the act, people in this

province know and I know the people opposite know weren't true.

You have

to allow me that leeway, Mr. Speaker, because the questions that I'm going to be

asking – and, again, I'll ask the House for what happened to Dale Kirby. I look

at the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay. You're a good one, RNC. I'll ask you a

question. What if, Mr. Speaker, through you – just think about this, what if a

witness came in to you and you did a statement. Then you proved that this

witness is disingenuous, changed the statement. You believe the other person and

you took it to court and you tried to charge that person after your statement

says this person is disingenuous. Changed the statement, we don't believe you;

we believe this person, but we're going to charge you anyway. What would happen

to you? How long would you stay on the force when it went higher up and you

found out?

That's

exactly what happened to Dale Kirby. Just to let you know, it's exactly what

happened to Dale Kirby. Guess what? You all voted for it in a big hullabaloo

here in this House of Assembly, in the big harassment scandal rocking this

House, the big – rocking this House over a bar tab?

I know

in the Member's statement she's – Dale Kirby, would he say to a guy, I love you.

He says it to me all the time. I love you, man, like a brother. He says it to me

all the time. How many people do we say here, love you, man? By the way, that's

a violation now according to Bruce Chaulk. That's a violation now. Any of the

guys here now we do each other favours or love you, man, thanks, violation,

according to Bruce Chaulk.

That's

what this man went through. This is going to be taken up in other venues. This

is not dead by no means, but then again, I'm just hoping that the Management

Commission is going to deal with what I put in about the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards.

When you

accept this report – and I know everybody is going to accept this report. I know

that this is going to be just taken, see you later, let's try to get this gone.

Let's get this under the water. Let's just move on from all this here. I have to

say, Mr. Speaker, I have to stand up for my friend Dale Kirby because I can tell

you if anybody that is reasonable went through the file of what happened to Dale

Kirby, you'd be ashamed to say that you voted for it, because you never took the

time to read it.

something ever happens serious – you hit somebody, you sexually assaulted

somebody – anything serious, I'm sure most Members here, if we ever did

something that was that serious, we would walk out the door. We wouldn't have to

wait to leave. When you get this situation, Mr. Speaker, that's in the report,

how someone like Rubin Thomlinson who was brought down who said this man did

absolutely nothing wrong. Absolutely nothing wrong. Then you have Bruce Chaulk

who says – and he said in the report and I can track it down, I have it here –

in the report, who says in a question in this House: I'm the expert because the

legislation tells me I'm the expert.

I think

it was the Minister of Justice who asked him the question: How many reports did

you do? One. But he's an expert. Then you bring down $120,000, bring Rubin

Thomlinson down, do all the information, go through all the witnesses, get all

the information, put it in there, that there's absolutely nothing to this here.

This man is found in violation of Principle 5, which means accepting personal

favours because you can't give out information that your family may benefit.

That's what he was found guilty of. Can you imagine? Can you imagine what

happened here, Mr. Speaker? It is actually unbelievable.

I have

to say to Dale Kirby, keep your head high. We will get to the bottom of it,

absolutely no doubt. I know in my case, Mr. Speaker, I'm vindicated. Win by

almost 70 per cent as an independent. I'm fine. I am more than fine.

I ask

you one question, Mr. Speaker. I ask anybody in this House and anybody who wants

to listen: Name me one jurisdiction in Canada, just one – I'll even go a bit

further than that – anywhere in the British Commonwealth where an officer of the

House of Assembly goes into a Management Commission, makes a false statement,

the former Speaker admits he made a false statement, and the Minister of Justice

and Attorney General of this province goes public and says he made a statement

in our Management Commission that was later proven false, and there are no

repercussions and the reports are still here. Name me one jurisdiction of the

British Commonwealth, and that's exactly what happened here. Name one.

That's

exactly what happened here. Bruce Chaulk walked into the Management Commission

and said there's one person who refused to participate, and they were asked, who

was that? It was Eddie Joyce, and I produced the letters from the lawyers that

morning. The former Speaker turned and said to me: That's not what he said this

morning; he said you were definitely willing to meet. Turned to Bruce Chaulk, he

said: Oh, I forgot about those letters. I'll correct the record. The Minister of

Justice and Attorney General went public, public, and the same person that was

receiving this report, he said he made statements we found out later not to be

true. What are the repercussions?

If any

of us in this House makes a statement here that we can prove documentation that

it's false, what do you have to do? Apologize. You have to stand up and

apologize. You know the repercussions in this House? Dale Kirby kicked out of

Cabinet and caucus, banished. Eddie Joyce kicked out of caucus and Cabinet,

banished. All across Canada, bullying and harassment, but we have an officer of

the House which has yet to be investigated for making statements to the – and I

ask how many people on the Management Commission at the time were there? I think

there are one or two.

Mr.

Speaker, in the report that I made to you, you're going to see why – and I'm

going to give it to the people on the Management Commission also – why this is

so bitter. And this is why when you ask people what's the most bitter part about

this here, is that when you have an officer of the House who made a statement –

and the person who I have to give credit to, the Minister of Justice, had the

courage to go outside and say what he said was wrong.

Whatever

happened? Can you imagine an Officer of the House running into this House of

Assembly and doing what he did?

Now we

find out the Premier of the province was involved with the process. What

involvement, I don't know. I'm sure there are other statements he made that I

know for me, personally, and other things, that weren't true. They actually

weren't true. There's documentation and people witnessed it. How can I believe

it was only just on the logistics? Which I don't believe.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible.)

MR. JOYCE:

Is it? I'll find out. How are

we ever going to find out, unless this hon. House stands up? It's time to stand

up.

I'll

just use me again, Mr. Speaker, on the Principle 10. This is important, because

this man did the same thing to Dale Kirby on Principle 5. I've read the

guidelines that were back in 2008, what they were doing, the Management

Commission when they were discussing it. That was around the discussions about

getting gifts and land and making sure, you can't divulge information like that.

That's what Principle 5 was.

Can you

tell me what – someone is saying outside: b'y, we got to work together. You're

embarrassing the Premier. Me and the government have to work together for

personal benefit. The only thing someone can come up with is you're going to

make a minister look good. Do you realize what this man went through?

Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to speak a minute on Principle 10, because this, again, goes

to the credibility that Bruce Chaulk made the statement in the report that

Principle 5 – which, again, was shown. I'll just go back to Principle 10 where

government employees – Mr. Speaker, I have it here. I can produce it very

easily, and I can read it actually.

What

happened was the Clerk of this House and Bruce Chaulk, when we applied under the

Privacy Commissioner to get the Rubin Thomlinson report, both of them confirmed

in writing that Members of the House of Assembly are not government employees.

Principle 10 is between Members and government employees; yet he said I violated

Principle 10. The same way, he said, Dale Kirby violated Principle 5. The exact

same way, Principle 10.

You go

back to Principle 10, we're not government employees according to the Clerk and

to the Commissioner himself, who made the statement to the Privacy Commissioner

(inaudible) to Rubin Thomlinson. We are not government employees, yet he

classified this here as the Member who made the complaint as a government

employee, which is not true.

I'll

just give you May 13, 2008, again. This was in

Hansard . The person who made the

statement was Roland Butler. Roland Butler was a Member of the Management

Commission who developed this. Here's what Roland Butler said, Mr. Speaker, and

this just goes back to the evidence that I'm saying about the report we're

presenting here today, how much validity is in that report.

Another

one I really like here, I think everyone of us, is the relationship between us

as Members and the people in the various departments, the civil service. I have

to say, prior to being elected I worked in the department of social services and

how we must keep a relationship.

Back in

2008, that's what Principle 10 was all about. It was between government Members

and government employees. Here it is in

Hansard . The man who developed it said it is between government employees,

between Members; yet when the Commissioner needed to find something on Eddie

Joyce, he said Principle 10, government employees. The person who made the

complaint is not a government employee.

MR. SPEAKER:

I remind the Member, while

Principle 10 was one of the items dealt with in this report, an explanation of

what it is, is fine. But in relation to another report, I think we should,

again, keep our comments related to this report and the relevant principles

related to it.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, it is very

relevant because we're going to be discussing this here and what principles were

developed and how the Commissioner – it is very relevant. I don't know how it's

not relevant when you have a person who's out making these principles and you're

showing that it's not true. How do we know how relevant – what's in this report

now?

Just on

the last thing on that, Mr. Speaker – and I'll move off that then – we're going

to be debating pretty soon the final report of the House of Assembly legislated

specific harassment-free workplace policy. April 2019 that came in. I want the

people – whoever wants to go to page 13, if you ever get time to read it. You

know the funny part about that? It's strange, Mr. Speaker, you were the Chair of

that committee.

Imagine

now, Eddie Joyce was banished, was a big bully over Principle 10 across the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Even you in the report, as Chair of the

report, Mr. Speaker – just by coincidence you're Chair of the report. It's

stating that Principle 10 is between elected Members and government employees.

It's right in the report that was going to be brought in this House.

How can

anybody in this House, after you, Mr. Speaker – you know now, you even brought

this in. How can anybody in this House, when something is brought in and you

know is false – so any violation of Dale Kirby on Principle 5, which deals with

gifts and land, is false. Any allegation now that was brought to this House and

this House approved it and Eddie Joyce was found on Principle 10 – which you're

saying yourself is between elected people and government employees. How can you

stand for it?

You can

see why the frustration with myself and Dale Kirby. It's in the report, yes; yet

no one took the time to ask him.

When I

asked a question here in this House of the Commissioner, when I asked the

Commissioner in this House, he said Members are plural, but back in the debate

in 2008 and back in your own report, it definitely distinguishes between elected

officials. Even in the act, it's distinguished as elected officials and they

distinguish employees.

So you

can see why this House of Assembly jumped to a conclusion because of the

hullaballoo. You can see why I'm so frustrated now that I know the Premier was

involved with the process, which is very upsetting. You can see why I have a

problem with this report being brought in here today and we just got to take it

and rubber stamp it. I just can't take it and rubber stamp it, I'm sorry.

It's

very sad when you take a report and you just got to take it and rubber stamp it.

I'll tell you why I can't take this report and rubber stamp it, because the

House of Assembly took two reports – one, the Eddie Joyce report and, one, the

Dale Kirby report – they took it and rubber stamped it. I can't do it. I

personally can't do it.

Mr.

Speaker, I just feel that it's a sad day – I just presented a case for this

Legislature and the only person who ever stood up and had the courage was the

Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I'm saying to all my colleagues and

friends who I've been with a long while, now that you know the information that

was presented to the House of Assembly when you made a vote, it's time to make a

decision, then if you want to refer it back and do it, I'm fine.

We're

going to be fine with all this here, trust me. Dale Kirby is going to be fine.

Eddie Joyce is going to fine. But I can tell you one thing, when you stand up in

this House and you voted against people, now you know that the information you

voted on is inaccurate, it was stretched – and even the people on the committee,

Mr. Speaker, that you chaired, are saying what Bruce Chaulk put in that report

on Principle 10 is wrong.

Mr.

Speaker, you have to make a decision. As Chair of the Management Commission,

when it comes to this report you have to make a decision. Now that you know

Principle 10 is even in your own report, and once it refers to me – okay,

Principle 10 didn't work for me, which now you, Mr. Speaker, in presenting your

report, confirms what I've been saying all along, is that principle 10 does not

hold – you have to take a stand, you and the Management Commission. Once you

take a stand here on Principle 10 for the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands,

which is me, you have to take a stand for Dale Kirby also. I'm not in this here

for myself. Myself and Dale Kirby were put in this not because we wanted to,

it's because of the hysteria that was created around all the bullying and

harassment which never occurred, according to Rubin Thomlinson.

I see

the Member smiling a bit. Yes, I would smile too, if I went up and charged

someone for harassment for putting two drinks on a bar tab and got away with it

– yeah, winking. She's over there winking, Mr. Speaker. She's over there

smiling. That's the kind of stuff, the hysteria that this House created. That's

the kind of hysteria that this House created.

I just

want to say to the Members opposite, I just know you aren't going to stand up

and do it. I know that. You should, because you know something, do you know who

would be the first two that would do it for you? Eddie Joyce and Dale Kirby and

you all knew it. The first two who would stand up over there would be Eddie

Joyce and Dale Kirby if someone was in a mess and make sure you're treated

right. Everybody knows that. You all know that. I'm going to have a problem

accepting this report. I know it's going to be passed in the House absolutely,

no problem whatsoever.

One more

thing that was put in the report that I find ironic – and I won't get into it.

There's no need to get into it because I'd be dragging another report into it. I

won't do that today. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to sit down now and just let

everybody reflect. Except for the Member s that were just elected in 2019, just

let you know this is what the Legislature was in here. This is the Legislature

that existed back then and the complaints, something like laughing. Something

about a school – I think one of the complaints was about a school. I'll lasso

one and drag it up for you – that was the complaint. Putting two drinks on a bar

tab when caucus was out, that was one of the complaints.

The

complaint about out in Gander. The strange part about that, Mr. Speaker, the

complaint out in Gander, which Rubin Thomlinson said himself – the report said:

disingenuous, not true, didn't happen. Don't believe the person who made the

complaint. Yet the person, the respondent was found two weeks prior and I have

to put this on the record, Mr. Speaker. Two weeks prior the same Member who made

the allegation was up in his house playing guitar, stamping on the floor. We

were all there two weeks prior.

All of a

sudden, then, the big hysteria, you can't get something you want. The same with

me. You wouldn't cancel the compost, come on. The next thing I know the big

complaints are coming out, boom, gone, big hysteria about bullying and

harassment. Can you imagine what this went through?

Mr.

Speaker, now that you know that even in your own report Principle 10 was

violated by the Commissioner it's time for you now and the Management Commission

to take a stand on this. It's time. Now that you know there were statements made

in this House where the Commissioner for Legislative Standards – and he also

said in this hon. House, and I could drag it out very easily for anybody because

I do have a copy here. I do have a copy where the Commissioner made a statement

in this House. He made a statement saying when I asked a question in this House,

why did you interview everybody else except me.

The

statement was made in this House – it is in

Hansard and I have it right here, it's

in your report – is because the rest of them didn't put in a submission. That is

100 per cent false. The three people who made a complaint against Eddie Joyce at

the time, presented submissions that I received or they could never, ever file a

complaint. The Commissioner sat in this House in that chair and I said: why did

you interview the rest? They didn't put in submissions. That's why I never got

interviewed because I put in a submission.

Not only

did he not be interviewed, he walked into the Management Commission in, I think

it was October 24 and said I refuse to participate. This is the same person, Mr.

Speaker, who is presenting this report now. How much validity is in it? I don't

know. I know my past experience – you have to be careful because I have the

documentation that the statements that he made were not true.

When you

present to the Commissioner a letter from your lawyer saying I'm willing to meet

– even though my lawyer couldn't make it, I agreed to meet. He said: no, wasn't

expecting you guys, wasn't expecting your person to show up at the meeting.

After that, just to let you know, this is why I have this report here. It just

goes back to how much of this can you believe. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, after

that date, August 1, just for that case alone there were four or five other

interviews.

I just

want to put it on for the record. Like I said, anything I say here is about

myself and Dale Kirby, it's just not about me. We're tied into this. Dale and I

are good friends. We're in constant contact. He's welcome in my house any time

whatsoever because he is a strong friend. He was a strong friend to every person

over there, by the way, just let you all know. You all know that anyway.

Mr.

Speaker, there were three complaints made against myself. Every one was thrown

out for bullying and harassment. They found one Principle 10, which now you have

to deal with because you even said yourself in your report the relationship is

not between Members. You have to deal with that.

Out of

the three reports that were against Eddie Joyce, I was never interviewed for one

of them – not one. Strange, not interviewed for one. I ask the Member for Baie

Verte - Green Bay, again, he's a former RNC officer: when is the last time you

brought someone to court, charged them, got them in jail and never interviewed

the person? Just think about it.

Then,

I'll say to the Member – and I'll just use you for example, because you

understand the process of it. Then, you go up to the Crown prosecutor and

saying, oh yeah, that guy wouldn't be interviewed, but his lawyer came in –

jeez, here are the letters that we were giving you, wanted to be interviewed.

How long would you be in your job? That's what happened. That's exactly what

happened.

Then

once you get the issue of the Premier being involved, what his involvement was –

and hopefully I'll find out eventually – who was involved, who contacted him,

were any notes taken. Because if the Premier never called him personally – if it

was somebody else from his office, which I know who it was one of them from the

office – how do you know if no notes were taken? How do you know what was

discussed? How can the Premier put in here that your rights weren't violated if

he doesn't know if he wasn't on the call, if he wasn't over to the meetings, if

there were meetings? How do you know? You don't.

Once you

get a Commissioner who, in my opinion, stated in this House on many occasions:

I'm independent. My independence is very important. Once you get your

independence questioned, you have a problem. Once you get the Premier of the

province stating in this House that he did file something under 36(4) but it's

withdrawn and he makes a statement in this House, this is my only involvement.

That's wrong.

Mr.

Speaker, there are a lot of wrongs to this case and I don't think anybody in

this House is going to stand up and say let's go revisit. I know that's not

going to happen. It takes courage and I know that's not going to happen. I have

to commend the Minister of Justice for the courage. I have to commend my friend,

Dale Kirby, for not giving up the fight on this. Dale Kirby is just fine. He's

putting in a new hot tub, actually – a $40,000 hot tub I think. Dale Kirby is

doing just fine, have no worry about that.

Who

knows, if it didn't happen maybe the Member who filed the complaint, maybe

they'd be up tapping on that with the guitar like they were two weeks prior to

the complaint. Maybe, up tapping in that one too, two weeks before the

complaint, guitar going in the kitchen. I was there, Mr. Speaker, but two weeks

later when there's a big hysteria, oh my God, what a big bully.

It is

laughable. I hear people laughing, but it is. That is a fact, by the way. Those

are the facts. If it wasn't so serious it would be funny. If you never took a

person and threw them to the wolves, it would actually be funny. But you're

dealing with people's lives, you're dealing with families, you're dealing with

someone like me who put in 28 years.

Mr.

Speaker, I go back to the constituency scandal when the Green report came out.

When they started this in 2003, 2004, the Auditor General, you know the longest

person they went back to check on was me. The longest person they went back at

the time to check on receipts was me from 1989 when I got elected and I

continued on with Clyde Wells. I think they found one – there was a double bill

on something. Someone sent in a bill $137 or $87, that was it. Fifteen, sixteen

years, that's it.

I follow

the rules. I always follow the rules. I might bend them sometimes but I never

break them. Sometimes there's always a grey area that you can make a decision

on, okay, I'll make that decision. You're not breaking the rules. You may say we

can – and I think we all knew that.

Mr.

Speaker, that is why this is so important to me, as someone who spent so many

years being elected and so many years helping people out. This is why it's so

important to me to bring up the facts here every chance I get, because once

you're outside the Legislature no one wants to hear this anymore, except the

people who really know me and the people in Humber - Bay of Islands. They do,

they don't want me to give up.

I have

to thank the people for Humber - Bay of Islands for their support. When you get

elected almost 70 per cent as an independent – and when you think about running

in the last election, if you knew how many people called me and knocked on that

door: If you give up, we'll be so disappointed in you. That's the word I got:

we'd be so disappointed in you; they'll win. That's what I heard.

That's

why, Mr. Speaker, you win by almost 70 per cent as an independent, because of

the people who say: Don't give up, this is all foolishness. When I showed people

the actual cases of myself and Dale Kirby, the actual cases about it all, people

were astonished that it ever got to that level – astonished.

Now you

find out that the Premier of this province was involved, and the people of

Humber - Bay of Islands said you and him were quite good friends. I said, all I

asked of him was tell the truth.

I have

it in Hansard where he said even the

complaints changed from when they first went to him, April 25, which everybody

said they didn't. Now the Premier of the province is saying the complaints

changed, which I always said.

There

are staff at the Premier's office who put in the notes about what the complaints

were, and they changed. Do you know why? Because you had to develop something.

The

Premier of the province is even admitting now what I always said. The complaints

that were first relayed to me by him, as he always said, they were all BS, about

turning my back on people, sitting in a swivel chair turning my back, grunting

as I walked by the Minister of Finance there. Those were the complaints made to

me by the Premier of the province. He confirmed it here that they can change

from April 25 to the date that they were filed.

Now, I

ask the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay again, because you're an RNC. What

would happen if someone walked in to you and made a complaint today, as an RNC

officer, or any – I know there's a lawyer here also. What would happen if a

person walked in and made complaints to you? You sat down and did them up, and

the next thing you know, two months later, different complaints. What

credibility is involved there? Seriously. That's what happened. That's exactly

what happened.

Mr.

Speaker, I see I have another few minutes left, and I won't belabour this point

anymore. I'm just glad I got the opportunity to stand up again to defend myself

and to defend Dale Kirby. I just want to let you know, Mr. Speaker, this is far

from over.

I just

want to thank the people from the Humber - Bay of Islands, and people around the

province, not just – and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to single

anyone out here in this House, but a lot of people sent me texts in this House

and sent me other stuff saying, b'y, you got shafted. We didn't know all this.

We didn't know all this was going on. You'd be surprised, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the people for that.

understand you had to stand up because of the hysteria about this big bullying

and harassment, it all took place here. I understand all that, but now that you

have the facts it's time to take a stand.

The

Minister of Justice and Attorney General took a stand, and I tell you, I'll

never forget it. I admire his courage. When you say an Officer of this House of

Assembly made statements that were proven false, and what are the repercussions?

I ask the Members opposite: What are the repercussions? I ask the Opposition:

What are the repercussions? Right now, there are no repercussions to it all.

None. It's sad. It is actually sad about what happened. Actually sad.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to take my seat. I thank you again for indulging me in this

here because it's a very serious matter that myself and Dale Kirby went through

for six, seven to eight months. We went thought this House and the debate. Then

we had the Commissioner sitting here, Mr. Speaker, who wouldn't answer a

question about it but made statements like: Oh, everybody else, they didn't

present any reports. They didn't file their reports. You filed one, so I didn't

have to interview you.

Under

the act, it says under every step of the way the person shall be given every

reasonable opportunity to be present. That's in this submission that I made to

you, Mr. Speaker. That's in this submission I made to you.

Mr.

Speaker, again, I thank the people from Humber - Bay of Islands for sticking

with me on this. I thank them for the encouragement back when I was deciding if

I was going to run or not. I was going to run, but they just made sure that I

wasn't giving up on it. I want to thank a lot of people across the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador who feel that you – public life is good, by the way,

let me tell you. Let me tell you something.

I went

through – so did Dale Kirby – a rough time, but let me tell you, all the good

things we've accomplished in 25, 27 years I've been involved was well worth it.

I can tell you that. I don't regret getting in public life. I don't regret it

one bit that I'm in public life, because there's a lot of good you do in public

life that I'm so proud of, Mr. Speaker. A lot of times, when people, during the

rough times you're there with them, they appreciate it. So I don't regret being

in public life, not one iota.

That

period, that six months, was tough on the family more so than me, Mr. Speaker.

It was tough. I lost a good friend over it. I lost a good friend of the Premier

of the province over it. It's all I ever asked the Premier of the province – and

I'll make it quite clear in this House – it's all I ever asked the Premier of

the province: tell the truth. That's all I ever asked. I would never ask one of

my friends ever, Mr. Speaker, never to say something that wasn't true.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm going sit down now and take my seat. I just want to thank everybody

for indulging me. I know a lot of people didn't want to hear this this morning

and I'm fine with that, but if you went through what myself and Dale Kirby went

through, you'd understand why we got to push our cases as much as we can and put

it on the public record exactly what happened.

Mr.

Speaker, again, I know there's going to be no Division on this report. I know

that, and I understand that: Let's push this through, get it through, it's not

big deal. Personally, I have a problem, Mr. Speaker, accepting this report

because I know of the past statements that were made by the Commissioner and I

know, personally, the statements that were made to the Management Commission

were false. I know statements that were made in this House of Assembly about how

other people didn't put in submissions. I know about Principle 10. I know about

Principle 5. So it's pretty hard for me to accept a report that's done by a

person that you know that a lot of the facts that you have were just not

factual.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll take my seat here today, and I'll say to Dale Kirby now, I don't

think he's listening. I'm sure he's probably not. Hang in there, the truth will

always prevail. I'll say to people over on the opposite side, the first two

people who would ever stand up for anybody over there if you're in a mess, to

get to the bottom of the truth, would be myself and Dale Kirby.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do

want to take just a few minutes to have a few comments. I'm not going to get

into the nitty-gritty and the details of the report. I'll reference the report,

I want to speak more in general terms.

Mr.

Speaker, I think it's very important that all Members of this House of Assembly,

that we all reflect and we all realize that the situation that's occurred,

whether it be with my colleague here, with our former colleague and with my

college from Harbour Grace, the former Member from the Clarenville area and so

on, forgive me I'm forgetting the names of districts, but you get the point.

There's been a number of people who have been involved on various ends of these

reports and it's important to realize that this could be any one of us tomorrow.

I think that's a very important point for all Members to remember. That could be

any single Member tomorrow, it could be you, it could be I.

So, it

is important, therefore, to ensure that we have the appropriate processes in

place and that justice is being done. That everybody has an opportunity to have

their – I'm going to use the term – day in court, and I have to say without

getting into it, I'm not going to get into the merits of this report or the

other reports or what one Member said and what some other Member said, that's

been dealt with. The first two reports were dealt with by Rubin Thomlinson who

are supposedly experts. They came back with their findings. We know what those

findings are. I would have to agree with the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands,

or I would want to know, as he wants to know, who did this report. I think

that's a valid question.

That's

not saying that the report is wrong or I don't agree with it or I don't believe

it. I will vote to concur with the report, and it has no reflection on my

colleague from Port de Grave or anybody else – none. But I think it is a valid

question, because the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, he is right, he

did say in this House of Assembly, as was read, that he would be a fool not to

agree with the experts, and that he was not qualified. He said that in the House

of Assembly. He was not qualified to do these reports.

Members who might have been here, he was sitting or standing, whatever, right

there on the floor of the House, and we were trying to ask questions – he

wouldn't answer any questions which was very frustrating to me, as one Member of

the House, I have to say – wouldn't answer any questions about process or

anything else. But he did say and he did indicate that he was not qualified to

do the report.

So, I

think it is a very valid question, as I said, did he do this report? Again,

that's not saying I'm against the report or I don't agree with the report, but

did he do the report? If he wasn't qualified to do the other reports, what makes

him qualified to do this report?

Again,

that's not about this report, this is about future reports. This is about if

this is any other Member tomorrow, we need to understand who is doing the

reports, who is qualified. Are they being done properly? Not for this one, but

for future ones that could involve any of us. So I think that's very valid.

I also

think, as I reflect and I'm trying to do the right thing here and say the right

things, it's not to offend anybody in any regard, but I will say to the Member,

at the time when all this went down, as he said, and there was all this hysteria

and so on and the reports were being done and the accusations were being made

and so on, I'll be the first to say, and I've said to him privately, I'll say it

publicly, I was sitting here as an independent Member at the time when all this

went down.

There

were two Members over there that were in hot water, so to speak, and there were

two Members – this Member in particular, I guess perhaps as a spokesperson for

the Cabinet, playing that sort of pit bull role, that I played at one point in

time with a former PC administration, who every day when I came in this House of

Assembly, after I was kicked out of caucus, would be taking jabs, making

remarks, bawling out, heckling, saying I was a coward for not supporting the

budget and so on.

I'll be

the first to say, I was not a member of the fan club, I really wasn't. So I

didn't have a whole lot of sympathy in the sense when all this went down. I

didn't have a whole lot of sympathy. I will be the first to admit that I did not

dig in to the reports. I read the reports and I saw the findings of the reports,

but then there were two principles cited, one

section 4 and one

section 10, I

think the numbers are.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Five and 10.

MR. LANE:

Five and 10, sorry. I'm

saying to myself, we have a process; we have an independent Officer of the House

that's presenting it who is eminently qualified to be in that position, using

experts that supposedly are experts in the field. Then he is coming down with a

report and then he is making a recommendation under

section 5 and

section 10.

Now, I

don't believe – and I stand to be corrected – when he said guilty of

section 5

or guilty of

section 10, I don't think he quoted

section 5 and

section 10 and

tied it together of how you were guilty of

section 5 and 10. He just said here's

what happened, I find him guilty of

section 5; here's what happened, I find him

guilty of

section 10. I didn't go looking through the regulations to say: What

does

section 5 mean?

When the

Member is saying here that

section 5 has to do with you can't use your influence

as a minister to give someone the heads-up where you can gain or family members

can gain, financially, and so on. Then the other

section that the other Member

was found guilty of,

section 10, which is involving members of public service of

which we're not employees and that distinction, that's not something I looked

up. I bet you it's not something any Member of this House looked up.

I can

guarantee you – I am willing to bet – that not one Member in the House of

Assembly at the time said let's look up that

section to see what it says and see

if what the Commissioner is saying here is correct. I bet you nobody did. I

didn't. We kind of just went along with the report, felt that we had two guys

that were – whatever happened there and guys that gotten under our skin at

various times and we said: Do you know what? They had it coming – they kind of

had it coming. I think that was certainly part of the sentiment at the time, but

in reflection, we have to divorce ourselves from those emotions and from the

politics and from the outside pressures. We need to be making decisions based on

the evidence, based on the legislation, based on the facts and ensuring there

was due process done and all the regulations and rules were followed and that

everybody was treated fairly. Again, that is because it could be you or me

tomorrow.

I have

to say that now that it has been brought to light about the

section 5 and the

section 10, which clearly – I have now read it, I've listened, I've read it,

I've looked at it – I can't see how the Commissioner could have drawn the

conclusions he did on those sections of the act. I really can't. I have to agree

with the Member in fairness.

That has

nothing to do with the allegations or what was said happened or didn't happen.

That was all investigated, but those sections of that act that the Commissioner

have put in there, I have to agree, I have a concern about how he got there.

MR. SPEAKER:

I want to remind the Member

that we're dealing specifically with The

Parsons Report . We dealt with the other reports in this House. I want to

remind the Member to keep his comments specific to the contents of this

particular report.

Thank

you.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the leeway and I apologize for kind of straying a little bit but,

again, I feel it's all relevant to the final point I kind of wanted to make.

That

point is that based on what has happened and has been brought to light, you have

to question how these processes have been followed. You have to now question – I

have to question – who has been involved. We have evidence that's been presented

that the Premier was involved in having contact with the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards. Yeah, he's showing me the letter he already read. Did he

have contact on this report too? I don't know.

Again,

it has nothing to do with the content of the report or if it was right or wrong,

but was he involved in any way? Was there any influence that came to bear? That

is a problem. That's a very, very serious allegation. If that happened – and I'm

not saying it's happened, although he's saying he talked about timelines and

everything else. He shouldn't talk about anything. There should have been no

conversations, zero. Shouldn't have spoken to him at all. The fact that he did,

it does raise very serious allegations.

I also

have to call into question now some of these findings and I have to call into

question the decisions of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards and whether

he made these decisions in error, if it was a case of not knowing what he was

doing or if it was a case of knowing what he was doing and trying to find

something. Was he directed by somebody to try and find something? I don't know,

I don't know. But those are the allegations that are being made, and those

allegations need to be investigated, as far as I'm concerned.

If we

are to move forward, whether it be this case or future cases – I hope there are

no more future cases, by the way, I hope there aren't – but if there should be a

future case, then I think every Member in this House needs the reassurance that

they're going to be treated fairly, that they're going to be given every

opportunity to defend themselves and that they're not going to be railroaded

with sections of the act that are not even applicable. That should concern us

all.

Right

now, my faith in the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, based on this new

information that I really didn't know at the time – should I have dug into it

and known it? Probably I should have, but I didn't. Neither did anybody else,

other than the Members that were accused because obviously it was in their best

interest to – I'm sure they read every single piece of legislation and every

word in the report, obviously. Did the rest do it? I would say, no, they didn't.

I really

believe that, yes, I will concur with the report. Not taking any sides with

anybody on allegations or whatever. There was a process to deal with that; it's

been dealt with. Recommendations are made. I understand there are going to be

further processes out of this House of Assembly, and that'll be between the

parties involved. Has nothing to do with me; I don't want anything to do with

it, nothing. Sad that it's happening, sad, but I don't want anything to do with

it. I'm not taking any sides with it.

I will

say that I really believe the House of Assembly Management Commission now, based

on the fact that we've got allegations of the Commissioner for Legislative

Standards giving false information, and based on the allegations of the fact

that now – or I don't know if it's even allegations; it's facts, actually, now –

that there were sections of the act that were not applied, clearly not applied

properly and needing to understand were they not applied properly because the

Commissioner doesn't know what he's doing, or not applied properly because it

was intentionally done. Those are questions that need to be answered.

certainly, as one Member, would recommend that the House of Assembly Management

Commission needs to do an investigation not into the merits of the case, that's

done. Not into the merits of the case and the allegations of who said what and

who was right and who was wrong, but to look into the allegations of was the

process followed properly. Was everybody involved treated fairly? Was there any

outside interference by the Premier or anybody else?

Did the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards do his job properly? Were the

recommendations just? If the recommendations were not just, he needs to explain

what happened, how it happened. Then we, as a House of Assembly, have to

determine if this person is capable of doing that job. That's the reality.

We have

to remember, the person holding that position reports to the House. We don't

report to him; he reports to us. He is our employee, and we need to review what

has happened to make sure that job is being done properly and I say once again,

not just because of what has happened, but what could happen in the future to

any other Member.

We can

sit back and say, it wouldn't happen to me. All it takes is for a complaint,

legit or not. I'm not saying the complaints were not legit or felt to be legit –

I'm not saying that; I'm just saying that all it takes is a complaint and one of

us finds ourselves in the same or a similar situation. If that was you tomorrow,

I would say to all Members would you want to make sure that you were treated

justly, fairly; had your say; gave your information; had the opportunity to

respond to complaints and allegations; and to have an assurance that when the

decisions are made, they're made by qualified individuals, that they can be

substantiated and that it actually ties to a

section of the Code that makes

sense, that we're not just picking random things out of the air to have people

found guilty of.

With

that said, Mr. Speaker, again, I will concur with the report. It's not about the

individuals involved. It's not taking sides. That's been dealt with. I

understand it's going further. It's about process, it's about fairness and it's

about making sure that the person holding that office is doing the job properly.

We have allegations that may not necessarily be the case. We also need to ensure

that there are no outside influences, whether it be from the Premier's office or

anybody else, having any influence whatsoever on this process that could impact

any Member of this House.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

MS. COADY:

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes.

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Nay.

MR. SPEAKER:

Carried.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just

looking for my Order Paper. Mr. Speaker, Order 5, Bill 9.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill

9,

An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It's been moved and seconded

that Bill 9 now be read a second time.

Motion,

second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act.” (Bill

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, in the last

session of the House of Assembly I introduced a number of amendments to the

Automobile Insurance Act in an effort to help stabilize insurance

rates and provide the best product possible for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

With

more than 376,000 vehicle renewals in 2018, automobile insurance is a topic that

affects many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in all regions of our province and

from all walks of life. The need for insurance reform was a message our

government heard loud and clear.

In both

our government's vision document, The Way

Forward , and my mandate letter, direction was provided by our Premier to

commence a review focused on identifying opportunities to help lower rates and

also help bring stability to the automobile insurance industry. Mr. Speaker, the

last review of auto insurance in the province was conducted between 2004 and

2005. In August of 2017 we provided the terms of reference to the Board of

Commissioners of Public Utilities, the PUB, to conduct public consultations as

well as two independent closed claim studies. One closed claim study focused on

rising automobile insurance claims costs and the other focused specifically on

claims related to taxi operators.

The

PUB's report on their review of the auto insurance noted that even with the

highest premiums being paid in this province compared to the other Atlantic

provinces, the total private passenger premiums paid by consumers for the past

number of years were not sufficient to cover industry costs for the business.

This highlighted the increased pressures on both consumers and industry, Mr.

Speaker. It also showed us that we didn't arrive at our current reality

overnight and we weren't going to be able to solve high insurance rates

overnight either.

Instead,

Mr. Speaker, we developed a plan, each element of which focused on addressing

the priorities of consumers in Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said last spring

in this House, whenever we talk about skyrocketing insurance rates, it is also

important to have a discussion about road safety and good driving habits. It is

imperative that the driving public in our province exercise care and control

when they are behind the wheel.

Increased safety on our roadways contributes to lower accident rates. This, in

turn, has an impact on our automobile insurance rates. We need to truly

understand the link between the two in any discussion of automobile insurance in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Over the past several years, we introduced a number

of measures that are aimed at improving safety. We have strengthened legislation

around impaired driving, distracted driving, excessive speeding and street

racing provisions and included a new provision for stunting in the

Highway traffic Act . We enhanced Move

Over provisions, updated the act to reflect legalization of cannabis, introduced

a one-metre rule and we are currently working with the Canadian Council of Motor

Transport Administrators on a national work plan for commercial motor vehicle

safety.

We made

amendments to the Highway Traffic Act

which came into force in 2018, which placed the onus on the driver to prove the

vehicle they were driving was insured at the time the proof of request was made.

As recently as last week, Mr. Speaker, we passed Bill 5 in this House to

introduce further amendments to the

Highway Traffic Act to enable the use of camera technology on our roadways

as another means of improving safety.

Mr.

Speaker, time and time again, we are made aware of incidents whereby a driver is

pulled over with no licence or registration, no insurance and unpaid fines.

Before amendments were made to the

Automobile Insurance Act , it was mandated that all insured drivers carry

uninsured automobile protection to cover them in the event they're hit by an

uninsured motorist. In this province, the benefits of up to $200,000 were

available for any one accident.

Uninsured drivers impose costs which must be paid by those of us who are

insured. This results in higher premiums being paid. In fact, the PUB report

noted that over a five-year period from 2012 to 2016, over $26 million in

damages were paid in which an at-fault driver was reported as either uninsured

or unidentified. In its report, the PUB also noted that several US states have

adopted the principle of no pay, no play, where uninsured drivers are prohibited

from receiving compensation or filing a lawsuit for non-economic losses such as

pain and suffering. We amended the act to prohibit access to the uninsured

automobile fund for losses by uninsured motorists. This included a 30-day grace

period for individuals who, either through error or some unforeseen

circumstance, may have inadvertently had their policy cancelled and are working

toward renewal.

It is

important to note, Mr. Speaker, the amendments we made do not impact passengers,

cyclists or pedestrians who may be injured in an automobile accident. Rather, it

sends a message loud and clear: Auto insurance is mandatory and other drivers

should not have to pay the cost of someone who refuses the responsibility of

maintaining an insurance policy.

Subsection 45.1(3.4) of the Automobile

Insurance Act states: “This

section applies only in relation to injuries

sustained on or after the date this

section comes into force.” Since the bill

was passed last spring, we realize that the wording in this

section requires

some clarification. Given that this is not a new

section that is being enacted

but rather a pre-existing

section that is being amended, the wording required an

amendment. Instead, subsection 45.1(3.4) should state: “Subsections (3.1) to

(3.3) apply only in relation to injuries sustained on or after subsections

(3.1) to (3.3) come into force.”

This

amendment came into effect August 1 of this year. The language required

correction so as to avoid an injustice to the uninsured who suffered injuries

prior to August 1, 2019, but have not yet applied to Facility Association.

Mr.

Speaker, I have stood numerous times on the floor of this House and said that it

is incumbent upon us as a government to continuously review our legislation to

ensure it is modern and easily understood, in an effort to ensure it best meets

the needs of the people it serves.

As I

previously stated, the provision which prohibits uninsured drivers from

accessing the uninsured automobile fund and receiving compensation for

non-economic losses came into effect on August 1, 2019. The amendments we have

introduced today will help ensure that this

section of the act is appropriately

applied for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

like to thank the minister for the briefing that we had, and the officials as

well. When we went over to the briefing, it was pretty quick because there's not

a lot of information there, just a few changes.

Just to

read out some of the stuff that we went through: In 2019, the Public Utilities

Board reviewed this. It was something that came up. The review was

comprehensive, and two bills were introduced to the House of Assembly to amend

the Automobile Insurance Act ,

Bill 3; and the Insurance Companies Act ,

Bill 6. Both bills received Royal Assent in April 2019.

April, Bill 3 amended

section 45.1 of the

Automobile Insurance Act to prohibit the owner or driver of an uninsured

automobile from applying to the Facility Association for damages arising out of

the operation or care or control of the automobile. This is commonly referred to

as no pay, no play, as the minister had referred to.

Department officials explained to us that it was pre-existing, that the

reference to the

section coming into force was not appropriate. The amendments

in the proposed Bill 9 will correct that error.

We're

not going to prolong it too much. We have a couple of questions when we get to

Committee. We'll certainly appreciate the minister's response on that.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I won't

take up too much of the House's time. This is a technical amendment, to fix an

error that was found when the act was introduced in the spring. It clarifies the

Automobile Insurance Act to correct a

referencing error. This is just good housekeeping here. We won't take much time

and we'll get to Committee. We support this fix so that we can make sure that

people who are not insured are not dipping into any funds and that.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not

going to belabour the point. I just want to say, for the record, that I will be

supporting the bill.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL, if she speaks now, she will close the debate.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like

to thank my colleagues from Ferryland, Labrador West and Mount Pearl -

Southlands for indicating their support of this change and that it is, in fact,

just an amendment to do some housekeeping.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

The

motion is that Bill 9 be now read a second time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Automobile Insurance Act. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER:

The bill has now been read a

second time.

When

shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?

MS. COADY:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Automobile Insurance Act,” read a second

time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Mr. Speaker, considering the

hour, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that we

recess until 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

Before I recess the House, I

just want to remind Members, I think we've received an invitation – I think the

group is called Drive Electric NL. They have some cars out in the front of the

building. I just wanted to remind Members of that before I recess the House.

It's related to the motion that we're going to be debating this afternoon. I

just wanted to make Members aware of that.

The

House is recessed until 2 o'clock today.

Recess

The

House resumed at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Admit strangers.

Order,

please!

In the

Speaker's gallery today, I would like to welcome David Young and his father

Steven Young. They're joining us this afternoon for a Ministerial Statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

We also have several guests

visiting us this afternoon in the public galleries. I would like to welcome

representatives from the Canadian Blood Services: Juanita March, event

coordinator and Gordon Skiffington, territory manager.

I would

also like to acknowledge Skye Taylor and Thea Cammie, both with the Association

of Early Childhood Educators Newfoundland and Labrador. They are visiting us for

a Ministerial Statement.

Also

here for a Ministerial Statement, I would like to recognize: Kimberly French,

president of NLAR, the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Realtors and

eastern regional director of the Canadian Real Estate Association; Janice

Briffett, director at large and chair of NLAR REALTORS Care committee; Bill

Stirling, CEO of NLAR; and Ed Hollett with NLAR as well.

Also,

I'm pleased to welcome Jon Seary, Adrienne King, Joe Butler and other members of

Drive Electric NL, along with Marian Templeton of the Automobile Dealers

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador. They're joining us in relation to a

private Member's resolution this afternoon.

Also,

I'd like to note that Jon Seary is also the grandson of our first Speaker here

in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Also, I want to mention that

we have some birthdays here on the floor of the House today as well. The hon.

Member for St. John's Centre, it's his birthday. I'm not sure exactly what age.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Also, the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Environment, it's his birthday.

AN HON. MEMBERS:

No, wrong Derek.

MR. SPEAKER:

No? Oh, the Member for

Lewisporte – Twillingate. Sorry, the other Derek.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today, we'll hear Members'

statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Exploits, Humber - Bay of

Islands, Mount Pearl - Southlands, Conception Bay East - Bell Island, Fortune

Bay - Cape La Hune, and I understand the Member for Humber - Gros Morne will be

asking leave to do a Member's statement as well.

The hon.

the Member for Exploits.

MR. FORSEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Monday, May 20, 2019, a traumatic accident changed the life of Ms. Judy Newhook.

Judy was doing a renovation project, using a chop saw, when she completely

severed her left hand. While Judy was frightened and weakened, she cried for

help, and her neighbour, Mr. Gary Regular, appeared in front of her. Gary

shouted to his wife to call for an ambulance. He then ran into the house,

grabbed some paper towels and a butter knife. He immediately tied the fabric to

Judy's arm, creating a tourniquet to control the blood flow, and used the butter

knife to tighten the tourniquet. As the blood flow slowed, Gary retrieved the

severed hand and placed it on ice until the ambulance arrived.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like for all Members in the House to acknowledge the quick actions

of Mr. Gary Regular.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber - Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, we all know

volunteers are the heart and soul of every community. While they are often

involved in raising money to support their own organizations and programs, there

ware many times they reach out to help others in need.

I rise

in this hon. House today to recognize one such group, the Meadows Recreation

Committee. On Saturday, September 28, the recreation committee held its first

annual Shannon Tucker memorial ball hockey tournament. Shannon passed away on

September 3, after a brief battle with cancer, at the age of 30. While Shannon

grew up in Meadows and most of his family still reside there, he resided in Baie

Verte for the past three years where he was a volunteer firefighter in Baie

Verte and in Meadows.

Players

throughout the Bay of Islands, and a few from the Northern Peninsula, came

together to show their support for the family and this great cause.

The

success of the event surpassed even the committee's expectations with $2,000

raised that day. All proceeds raised were put towards a scholarship that has

been set up for Shannon's eight-month-old daughter, Alexis.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating the Meadows Recreation Committee and

everybody involved in making this a truly successful event in Shannon's name.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, this coming

Saturday, hundreds of players and coaches from the Mount Pearl Minor Hockey

Association will be hitting the doorsteps throughout the City of Mount Pearl, as

well as the Southlands and South Brook areas, as part of their eighth annual Big

Give Community Food Drive.

Once

again this year, they will be joined by a number of other sport and community

groups, as well as many individual volunteers. In addition, to door-to-door

collection, there will be food bins set up at Mount Pearl's four grocery stores

throughout the day. All food and monetary donations will be in support of our

three local food banks located at St. Peter's Parish, Mary Queen of the World

and the Salvation Army.

This is

a tremendous initiative, which not only fills a very real need, but also teaches

these young players the importance of sharing with others and giving back to

their community. I certainly encourage all citizens to please give generously to

this very worthwhile initiative.

For

residents who may not be home on Saturday morning, I encourage them to place

their non-perishable items in a plastic bag and hang it off their doorknob or

lay it on their front step and a volunteer will pick it up when they canvass the

neighborhood.

I ask

all Members of this hon. House to join me in commending the Mount Pearl Minor

Hockey Association for taking up the challenge to ensure that nobody goes hungry

in our community.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay East - Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I stand today to acknowledge an organization that is not only important

in my district, but in all districts of our province. I speak of the Royal

Canadian Legion movement.

The

Legions in our province represent tens of thousands of veterans and volunteer

legionnaires who daily volunteer to ensure support for veterans and their

families, while also educating educational institutions, youth organizations and

the general public about the role past and present members of our various

branches of the military have played and continue to play in ensuring the

protection of our freedoms.

Legions

also are key contributors to our communities they are situated in through their

involvement in other community activities such as schools, community events,

social agencies and their contributions to the economy of the provincial

Legions. In our province, they employ hundreds of individuals, offering dozens

of programs to citizens and generate tens of millions of dollars in resources

each year.

A few

weeks ago, we witnessed the true value of our Legions and their volunteers with

the nearly 100 Remembrance Day ceremonies organized or sponsored by a branch of

the Canadian Legion in our province.

The

professional, classy, respectful manner in which our Legions honour our veterans

on Remembrance Day is a testament to the volunteer members of this great

organization.

I ask

all Members to join me in this House in congratulating and thanking the members

of the Royal Canadian Legion movement in our province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.

MR. LOVELESS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to recognize a noted citizen of Gaultois, Mr. Adolph Crant.

Mr.

Crant was born in Gaultois in 1938, went to school there at a one-room school at

what people of the area called School House Point. He became a teacher in 1959

and worked with our young people for over 40 years in Gaultois in a profession

that, according to Mr. Crant, he came to love.

His

community was a vibrant one back then with Gaultois being in the centre of the

cod fishery.

Mr.

Speaker, Mr. Crant always believed that the people of the area and the residents

of Gaultois were a memory worth preserving, and he decided to take up his

passion for the history of Gaultois and its people in paint – and paint he did.

His

memories have been preserved in paint and have become a visual history of

Gaultois. In June of this year, I had the pleasure to attend the grand opening

of an exhibit of his paintings and his book, his visual history of Gaultois,

titled, The Golden Town .

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Mr. Crant and thank

him for his preservation of the memory of our people and the history of

Gaultois, the Golden Town.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier, by

leave.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to a community leader

and a dear friend of mine, Clyde Williams, known in Deer Lake as Stump.

Clyde

was widely known for his involvement in hockey in this province, and he was an

avid volunteer and a fundraiser in the Deer Lake area.

Stump's

man cave was famous. A common drop in place for friends, and it could happen at

any time during the day.

Clyde

will forever be remembered for his commitment and passion in the roles he took

on, from being a husband, a father and a grandfather, right down to organizing a

local golf or hockey tournament. Clyde gave you everything he had and he always

had your back.

Clyde's funeral on October 30, tributes were read out from those thinking of

Clyde's family. One tribute in particular that Clyde would be proud of was a

message from Kyle Dubas, of course he's the general manager of Clyde's beloved

Toronto Maple Leafs, who sent condolences to his family.

Clyde

met Mr. Dubas just recently in St. John's at the training camp. He had a brief

conversation with Clyde, who left a lasting impression on Mr. Dubas. It was

regarding Clyde's vision on how to fix the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Mr.

Speaker, today, I ask all hon. Members of this House to keep his wife, Jean, his

children: Chuck, Luke and Beth and their families, in our thoughts and prayers.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statement by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, November 18 to

22 is Realtors Care Week, designated by the Canadian Real Estate Association and

the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Realtors.

Realtors

volunteer their time and raise money for causes and charities close to their

hearts. Some of the activities they will be participating in this week include

supporting a local safe haven for women and children experiencing domestic

violence, collecting food and money to support a school lunch program and

volunteering at a homeless shelter.

behalf of my hon. colleagues, I commend the members of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Association of Realtors for their volunteer service and encourage the

people of the province to support realtors this week, and throughout the year,

in their efforts to build stronger communities.

Mr.

Speaker, we will soon bring forth proposed changes to the

Real Estate Trading Act . I would like to thank members of the

association for their tremendous effort and their focus on helping bring about

improvements for their industry. The proposed legislation will better protect

the real estate profession and consumers, now and in the future.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Ferryland.

MR. O'DRISCOLL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the hon. minister for an advance copy of her statement. We, in the Official

Opposition, are pleased to recognize the launch of Realtors Care Week. I

understand that realtors across the province, and indeed across the country,

will be engaging in a wide variety of volunteer activities to support various

causes in these communities.

Certainly, there is a deep tradition of helping others throughout our province

and I commend the members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of

Realtors for getting involved in their communities in this way. I know their

support is valued by many individuals and groups across this province.

I wish

all realtors great success in the activities they have planned to mark the

Realtors Care Week.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of her statement. It is fitting that during

this week we recognize the good work of realtors. This House has taken up the

important and meaningful work of modernizing the

Real Estate Trading Act . This is to protect customers and bring

legislation up to date with the best industry practices.

I join

the minister in congratulating realtors for their volunteer and community work

as well.

Thank

you.

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.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize November 20 as National Child Day.

Blue

ribbons have been distributed to all hon. Mem