PDF Version

December 4, 2019

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIX No. 25

The

House met at 10 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Is the Government House

Leader ready?

MS. COADY:

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER:

Ready.

Is the

House Leader for the Third Party ready? Yes. Okay.

Admit

Strangers.

Order,

please!

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and

good morning to everyone on this glorious sunny morning. It's nice to see the

sunshine.

I call

from the Order Paper, Motion 3, please.

MR. SPEAKER:

Motion 3.

The hon.

the Member for Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Continuing on a recent report that was filed in the House. I just want to talk

to the people that are involved here, and I know we talked about no one wins in

a situation like this. We talked about the individual who received the job and

took an opportunity. So there is no fault on her, herself. Of course, there are

also those who had applied for a position, which they believed would be merit

based, and they would have an opportunity to win the competition and have that

job.

There

are those people that are affected, but I think from the report that's done

here, there is a Code of Conduct. There is an expectation for how Members in

this House of Assembly should conduct their business and behave. I think that's

the crux of the matter here. I think Members who have spoken ahead of me have

well covered those issues.

In the

House over the last couple of days, we've heard mention of this is a

long-standing process of movement of executive-level people. I don't think

anyone disagrees with that. What we disagree with would be the use of the term

process here, because I think the process here was a little off track, to be

very polite.

We've

heard from the Government House Leader about the benefits and salaries would

remain and that individuals can be laterally moved. Laterally moved, in

reference to employment, is defined as a move to a different job with

essentially the same title, the same pay, the same role within your

organization. I think that's very debateable here.

We know

this job was advertised. We know when looking at the report here that in early

2018, with the aid of the Public Service Commission, they commenced a job

competition to fill a vacancy. Completion of an undergraduate degree in business

or commerce was mandatory. Approximately 77 people applied for the position,

interviews were conducted and a shortlist of prospective candidates was

established.

There

were numerous candidates that held master's degrees. Of course, Mr. Brinton

explained that he was not surprised at all with the number of candidates

applying for this job who held master's degrees. He goes on to say: “Members of

the senior executive of The Rooms have traditionally held professional

designations or Master's degrees.” The position that was being filled was on the

HL24 pay scale that ranged from about $76,000 to $90,000 annually.

It's

been mentioned in this House that the appointment that took place was necessary

to bring back the success of The Rooms, but I look at this and: “Mr. Brinton

explained that The Rooms was able, with existing staff, to function after the

Director of Marketing … position was vacant. This was possible because of the

great success of the 2016 History of Beaumont Hamel celebrations.”

They

brought in a high number of attendees to The Rooms, and they were able to

maintain that momentum through 2017, 2018. So there was no urgent need to come

up with a special position to come in and improve what The Rooms were doing,

because they were already doing it.

Going

through this whole process of hiring a director of marketing, the PD or

requirements, there were five: “Experience leading the development of marketing

and communication …; Experience with brand development and management;

Experience managing financial resources; Experience managing human resources;

Completion of an undergraduate degree in business or commerce” or equivalences.

We had

77 individuals who applied. They were shortlisted. They were interviewed. One

individual was given a job offer. That individual was given a job offer and

accepted the job offer at $85,000, coming in to a position that regularly had

people with master's degrees apply.

This

individual: “25 years marketing experience” – and you're looking for a marketing

director – “including international business development marketing and agency

side senior level business development and marketing” – development and

marketing. Bachelor of commerce degree, certified marketing director designation

and a digital marketing professional certificate.

I don't

think you would argue, this individual has what it takes to do the job based on

the description. Of course, we later find that, not too long after, this person

was removed from the job. This is one person that's getting lost in this whole

event, is the individual that applied on merit. Merit based, which we've heard

the Premier actually talk about the IAC – merit based. I'm not sure if there's a

difference in the definition, but merit is based on who has the best

qualifications and competencies and experience to do the job.

So we

look at the individual – and again, this person who got the job, it's

unfortunate. I'll try not to mention her name because, in my mind, she's a bit

of an innocent party in this as well.

When I

look at the qualifications for the individual who received the job, that person

has 18 years of experience in the communications sector. Not marketing, not

development and marketing, 18 years – that's six years less – sorry, my math.

Seven years less than the other individual who lost the job, and it's in

communications with private, public and non-profit organizations.

This

individual, not involved in development and marketing plans, but provided

strategic communications advice to a variety of sectors. One side has a bachelor

of commerce degree in the co-op program. This individual studied political

science, and is a graduate of the broadcast communications program. Fabulous

qualifications, but not for the job that was advertised, and not for the job

that was filled. The job doesn't change because you stick the word executive in

front of it. I would argue that putting the word executive in front of it, the

first candidate would still be the more qualified for the job.

So what

has happened and what process took place here? I'd argue that this process is

not the process that's happened over the years. I would argue that over the

years you've had actual lateral movement of executives who have moved into jobs

and job titles that are equivalent to what they're moving from.

We heard

it mentioned about professional development and succession planning. I've never

heard of moving someone from a top-level job that paid $130,000-odd, down to a

job that pays between $70,000 and $80,000 and call that professional

development. I don't understand the concept there. Professional development,

usually you're building on what you already have.

understand the salary. It's been said that we have to maintain the terms and

conditions of the contract that the individual left and to avoid legal or

liability issues after, but what do we do for the individuals that applied for

the job, offered the job and let go before he or she started? As I said, 77

people applied for this position. Completion of an undergraduate degree is

mandatory. In any other job competition, that's a screening issue and

immediately if you don't have it, you're not considered. Not the case here.

Apparently, you can be.

I go

back to merit based. We talk about merit based and the Premier talked about

merit based yesterday in terms of the Independent Appointments Commission and

talked about all the positions. A huge number of applications received and over

600-plus positions filled; 238 tier-one, 365 tier-two appointments and 46 per

cent women. I'd love to see that at 50 per cent but 40 per cent is fabulous. I'm

not arguing with those results – fabulous.

I go

back to the process on merit based. I think Members in this House will recall we

got called back in July to come in for a sitting to deal with an appointment to

the Privacy Commissioner's office. The reason we came in was because, of course,

a minority government; we need to all agree on this position. So we came in

because the person who placed under the first person was the one that government

wanted in the job. Government wanted this person in that job.

We sat

down as an Opposition and Third Party and that and we looked at the résumés, we

looked at the competition and we said no-brainer. If this is truly merit based,

the number one candidate by far is the individual who gets the job; however,

government wanted the second individual.

Now, if

I take it back a little further, when the Management Commission met on this to

fill the temporary vacancy, when Mr. Molloy left for greener pastures, it was a

similar situation. We sat in that Management Commission and I remember the

former leader of the Third Party spoke up on it and we all agreed. There was one

person there that had the best qualifications for the job and we thought that

person should be in that position.

The

former leader of the Third Party mentioned – because government, again, who held

the majority in that committee, wanted the second person, who just happened to

be also the same person they wanted to appoint permanently. Again, the former

leader of the Third Party mentioned if we do that, first of all, we're denying

the qualified person a job and, secondly, we're giving that other individual an

advantage when the position comes permanent.

She was

right. It was almost like you had a crystal ball. She knew what merit based

meant to government. Merit based is not based on the qualifications,

competencies and experience; it was based on who they wanted in the job. That

point is significant here because we're seeing what's happened again playing

over. It's unfortunate because it casts a bad light on the 600-plus positions

that have been hired. How many of those, through a majority government, placed

the top candidate? I have to question on that, I really do.

Now, in

this report, we're seeing a different process here. We're seeing a process where

you go through, you have the lovely organization charts done up – org charts are

done, planned out, ready to roll. I know from my experience working in

government, to put that together, you don't implement it the next day; you start

working on transitioning. I think the date on the PowerPoint presentations is

the third week of September – or, sorry – yeah, it was September.

Then we

turn around and within a week or two we have an individual in the job. Well,

first of all, we have an individual gone out of the job who won it based on a

merit-based competition, who won it, who's gone, and we have another individual

shift over.

We had

an applicant with 25 years' experience; international business development and

marketing; agency-side, senior-level development and marketing; bachelor of

commerce degree; certified marketing director, who we're hiring at $84,000, and

we turn around, we stick executive in front of the job now. We hire an

individual with 18 years' communications experience with a variety of sectors,

who has provided communications advice to a variety of sectors, who has studied

political science and is a graduate of broadcast communications.

I look

at that and I say, okay, that's lesser qualifications. I'm not arguing the

person's qualifications, but they're not the qualifications for the job that was

filled.

Guess

what else? Not only did this person walk in to the $85,000 job, but was given a

raise of about $40,000 for a job in which we just found out that a viable,

qualified and competent person who applied in good faith, wanting to be hired,

needing a job – along with the 77 others that had applied – was told a couple of

days later: sorry, service is no longer wanted. Out the door.

That's

atrocious. I don't believe it. I can't believe it. I think it's still a story

we're dreaming here, of what goes on. Total disregard for our residents and

those who want to work and want to do it in the right way – total disregard –

and we go and do this to that individual.

Then we

talk about – and I agree, there are individuals, there are families, there are

people involved here, but this should never have happened. Somebody here fooled

up. The Government House Leader, she's admitted there have been errors made

here. Everyone knows there have been errors. The minister responsible is talking

about apologizing. Don't apologize for nothing. I have never apologized for

nothing. I'll apologize for anything I've done wrong.

There's

a big issue here. I don't want to rag on the individual; I just want to bring

some light to what actually happened here in terms of the position and the

competition, the lack thereof. People out in the public, in our environment, in

our economy who are looking for jobs, want a fair shake and want to be employed

based on merit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to start my discussion today with the assertion that I will not be supporting,

nor will my caucus be supporting this motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COFFIN:

The issue at hand is, first

off, if we accept the findings of this report – and I unequivocally do accept

these findings. To put this discussion in context, I would like to just restate

our allegations and the findings:

“Allegation #1

“Commencing in March 2018 and continuing until October 2018, Minister

Mitchelmore directed staff of The Rooms Corporation … to hire Ms. Carla Foote as

Executive Director of Marketing and Development without competition or a

position description, in violation of generally accepted human resource

practices, including the application of the merit principle to hiring within the

Public Service.”

The

findings of that allegation: “Specifically, we find that Minister Mitchelmore

fundamentally mismanaged his obligations pursuant to the following provisions:

The fundamental objectives of his holding public office is to serve his fellow

citizens with integrity in order to improve the economic and social conditions

of the people of the province…. That he act lawfully and in a manner that will

withstand close public scrutiny…. That he base his conduct on the consideration

of the public interest…. That his relationship with government employees should

be professional and based upon mutual respect and should have regard to the duty

of those employees to remain politically neutral when carrying out their

duties….

“Allegation 3

“Minister Mitchelmore instructed staff to set the salary for the Executive

Director of Marketing and Development position to which Ms. Foote was appointed

at $132,000.00, far exceeding the salary provided for in the vacant Director of

Marketing and Development position at The Rooms, thereby grossly mismanaging

public funds.”

The

result of that allegation is: “… we find that Minister Mitchelmore grossly

violated his obligations as contained in

section 8 of the Code of Conduct.”

I am

reassured that the Premier also concurs with these findings. So I think now the

issue at hand needs to look at the punishment.

Before I

get to that, I would like to point out that the individuals writing these

reports, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, as well as the Citizens'

Representative, were fair, just, appropriate and professional in executing their

duties. I will point out that those individuals were hired using the proper

procedures as outlined in our own government regulations. I concur with their

findings and I do now want to look at does the punishment fit the crime.

My,

there's so much to talk about. Just to start, let's talk about who has been

harmed in this process. Not only have we seen the public service disrupted, have

we seen the integrity of the public service disrupted, have we seen that the

mutual respect of individuals working for the minister has been distorted and

disregarded, the staff involved have had a very difficult time dealing with

this. Not only is it the staff at the department, it is the staff here in the

House of Assembly, as well as anyone else that has been affected by this

particular issue.

We have

had time taken away from the House of Assembly regular proceedings; everyone

here has been affected by that. I have received a barrage of emails, and I know

been feeling about this.

We have

sullied the reputations of all House of Assembly Members. I am hearing it, as

well everybody else. This gets on all of us; this is very inappropriate. The

people of Newfoundland and Labrador are extremely disappointed and have also

been feeling the effects of this. They are slighted.

The

minister before me also pointed out how difficult it will be to rise above the

public perception of distortion in public hiring. That is a huge blow to a

province that is looking to attract new people to come work and live and set up

families here.

So the

reputation of government in general has been harmed. The perception of fairness

in public service hiring has been distorted. The integrity of the House and its

Members have been compromised. The working relationships and co-operation in the

House has been upset. Public funds have been mismanaged.

I would

be remiss not to point out that we are in a fiscal crisis and it would be very

nice to see the fall fiscal update to put that in context.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COFFIN:

But we ought not to be

throwing money around like this.

There

are more things. An apology will not suffice. As evidenced in this report, it

seems to be that there may have been a lack of training on the part of the

minister. I was wondering: Has he hired another person before? Has there been

training in the proper procedure for hiring executives? Has he used the same

procedure in hiring other executives? Does the minister require human resources

training? Does he require human resources training – not that I think he should

be allowed to hire again, at least until that training comes to fruition.

We've

also seen that since the minister doesn't seem to understand the hiring

procedure and his role in it, will there be a review of his other hires up until

this point?

Another

point I'd like to point out here: Does the punishment fit? We've heard the

Premier mentioned that it must be very difficult for the minister to sit here

and listen to these accusations and criticisms and have the report brought to

light. Well, Mr. Speaker, so does every other individual in this House of

Assembly. We are all having a difficult time with that right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COFFIN:

An apology is not enough.

Let's

talk about some of the other apologies or some of the other issues that have

required intervention or discipline on the part of the Premier and his Cabinet.

Certainly we have seen – and this was a potential question, but I think it's

more appropriate here. I was going to ask: Mr. Speaker, why is it that a single,

profusely regretted, inadvertent, although inappropriate act, results in an

ejection from Cabinet, while a series of deliberate, sustained and manipulative

acts gets a pat on the back and requires only an apology?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COFFIN:

We have seen other incidents.

Certainly, there are Members sitting in this House right now who have been

ejected not only from Cabinet, but from caucus for simply voting on a private

Member's motion.

I have

some questions about the appropriateness of the restitution or the remediation

that needs to be done here and I would like to have some sense how we mete out

this punishment. Is there a graduation or is it simply a matter of circumstance?

Because, as we know, we're in a minority government right now, so perhaps the

circumstance in which we sit may be predetermining the punishment that is meted

out and, quite frankly, that is inappropriate.

Let's

keep talking about this. Let's look at these things in context. We've heard the

Premier mention that the résumé of the individual hired for this position, she

was highly qualified. However, the highly qualified individual was not evaluated

in the context of all of the other highly qualified individuals. That person was

identified and reviewed in a very specific circumstance, and not in the context

of anyone else. There was no competition. That, in itself, is inappropriate.

The

Premier also raised the point that we would not be mentioning this had the

individual in question not had this particular surname. Mr. Speaker, I think,

no, that ought not to be the case. Perhaps the unfortunate coincidence of the

surname, that is inappropriate and that may have other implications, but the

fundamental problem here is the mismanagement and inappropriate hiring of an

individual. That individual's surname has nothing to do with the

inappropriateness and deviation from the proper process of hiring, so, yes, we

would still be discussing this because this was very inappropriate.

Let's

talk about what has been done. I've noticed timelines in here and I notice that

immediately after the tabling of this report, two days ago – two very long days

ago – we found that the Premier decided that an independent review was

absolutely necessary, and issued the call for the independent review with no

terms of reference, no discussion of how they were going to hire this

individual, independent individual, to do the independent review.

This

seems like very much a knee-jerk reaction designed to distract us from the core

issue. I'll point out this, in particular, what I've noticed, if one would

follow along some of the timelines here, we found that in August 28 there was a

response from the minister to the original report. Days later, the minister and

his deputy were hastily shuffled out of that department and other ministers

moved in.

So that

suggests to me that the far more important thing here was to make this go away

as opposed to address the fundamental issues of, one, this was done and done

inappropriately, and the distraction that we're having over here, we need a

better process to be able to move executives around government.

No where

in this report, either one of these reports, does it say that the process for

moving executives around government is inappropriate. And, in fact, I found a

quote earlier saying that if there was process, it was the responsibility of the

clerk of the Executive Council to point that out. However, what I found is that

the only action on this item was the Premier's response to Minister

Mitchelmore's lawyer's submission that this process be reviewed, and the

minister was shuffled out of his post.

That has

been the response. It has not been the response to, one, address the

mismanagement of public funds and the appropriateness or the inappropriateness

of the deviation from the prescribed process.

So what

we are seeing is a lack of addressing the fundamental issue of the integrity of

the House of Assembly, of the processes in which we embody and we stand by and

our oaths of office. We need to address that issue specifically and not at the

noise that is being thrown at us along the way.

There's

more. Does the punishment fit the crime?

MR. SPEAKER:

I just want to caution the

Member and ask her to withdraw those remarks. I'm familiar with the phrase, does

the punishment fit the crime.

MS. COFFIN:

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

I think that may be

misinterpreted, so I'd ask that the Member withdraw those remarks.

MS. COFFIN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for

pointing that out to me.

That was

a turn of phrase. I have used it inappropriately. I unequivocally apologize for

doing that.

continue: Is the response to the accusation appropriate? An analogy: I had a

conversation with someone about appropriate responses and we used an example of

if someone stole $500 from you, would it be appropriate for the person who stole

that $500 to repay you?

Well,

yes, that is a form of that, but that doesn't get at some of the fundamental

things. If someone steals from me, one, I wasn't expecting it; two, it was at a

time that was very unfortunate for me; and, three, you have invaded my personal

space and you have violated some of my own personal safety. So I think the

appropriate response is not to pay restitution of $500, but to perhaps take $500

from the individual, who stole, at a time when they least expected it and

perhaps when they could least afford such a thing, and then maybe we're thinking

about something that is comparable.

To roll

this up to the circumstances we are in right now, when we talk about the gross

mismanagement of public funds and violations of public trust, perhaps an apology

is insufficient. I think we need stronger measures and I think that needs to be

very resoundingly heard, not only here in the House of Assembly, but by the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador who elected us to this office and who expect

and have very high expectations of us to uphold our oaths of office and the

public trust. That is what has been egregiously mismanaged in this process.

This

needs to be remedied. It needs to be addressed rather quickly because we have an

enormous number of other things that we need to address in this House of

Assembly, and because this has been prolonged, we now have extra work that is

hard on absolutely everyone. Not only us here in the House of Assembly, but the

staff here as well, anyone else who supports us in our process.

This is

inappropriate. The motion does not go far enough and I will, again, reiterate,

we will not support it.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I just

want to offer some perspectives on the issues around lateral moves in government

and maybe a slightly contrary point of view to the Member for Mount Pearl North.

We're

talking about lateral moves here. We're not talking, in my mind, about hires, as

such, in the traditional sense of HR issues, as alluded to by the Member of the

Third Party. This is fallen really through executive levels of government and it

runs out across multiple areas of government and it runs out into multiple areas

of not just core government, but our agencies, boards and commissions for which

we have responsibility.

I really

want to take a little bit of time just to talk about my own field of

responsibility, which is the Department of Health and Community Services and the

agencies, boards and commissions for which I have responsibility and authority.

That would include the four regional health authorities, but it also includes

the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information. Interestingly

enough, it also has links with federal organizations, such as the Public Health

Agency of Canada.

What I'd

like to place on record here for the House to consider is that in each of those

areas, there are both members of core government employees seconded out into the

regional health authorities, into NLCHI, and we also then in turn have

individuals from the regional health authorities, from NLCHI and from the Public

Health Agency of Canada embedded in government and, in the case of PHAC,

Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information.

The

Member for Mount Pearl North laid great stress on titles, equivalency and

compensation and benefits.

MR. LESTER:

I rise on a point of order.

Nothing serious, but –

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl North.

MR. LESTER:

Section 44 – I don't recall

saying any of that. I think he's misquoting me.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE:

My apologies, Mr. Speaker.

In my

excitement, I confused the Member for Mount Pearl North with the Member for

Topsail - Paradise. I apologize and I will try not to do that again, Sir.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Same haircut.

MR. HAGGIE:

Same haircut, yes, okay. My

apologies. I didn't mean to offend anybody or misquote.

The

titles, from our point of view in Health, are irrelevant. There is no

equivalency between our executive and some of the operational titles within the

regional health authorities or within Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for

Health Information. In actual fact, their roles are often significantly

different. I'll get to that in a moment as well, because, again, there was talk

of equivalency of qualifications and interchangeability almost and, again, the

issue of compensation and benefits, because the regional health authorities

management scales are, to an extent, aligned with core government, but the

titles don't always match the HL scale, vice versa.

I think

the key reason for these transfers, in our world, relates to a value add and, to

pick up on themes from opposite, it is in the public interest. Because with this

exchange of experience and knowledge, laterally, there is considerable benefit

to the public. Someone talked about winners and losers yesterday. The winners

are actually the people of this province.

So, for

example, we would be looking at bringing in new skills into the department. The

clinical world changes quite rapidly in terms of current fashions, current best

practices in various areas, and it's very hard within the environments of core

government to appreciate that. The independent Member for Mount Pearl -

Southlands referenced repeatedly yesterday about the idea of a bubble and us

getting out into the coffee shops.

Well,

from a professional point of view, our coffee shop in Health are the regional

health authorities. They're the front-line workers. They are the front-line

managers and directors. We need to bring those experiences into the department.

They may not have master's degrees. They may not have years of administrative

experience. What they have is a different view of the services we need to

provide. If I've heard one thing over the last four years, sometimes it's a

criticism and sometimes it's a compliment, is the need to contact and be in

communication with front-line workers, with hands-on care providers.

This is

one of the ways that we can do that in our department, but there is no

equivalency in terms of titles. A lot of these individuals are on management

scales. Some are in collective bargaining units. To ensure that they are not

disadvantaged by these lateral transfers, we will often to look to ring-fence

their benefits, their seniority, their pensionable years, these kinds of things,

to make sure that in providing those with that expertise, that experience, they

do not lose out and we gain and everybody gains.

Equally,

there is a significant benefit to the system for moving executive-level members

out of the Department of Health into the regional health authorities. I can

think over the years of examples of staff members within core government, a

director, executive director and assistant deputy minister level who have gone

to regional health authorities on a lateral transfer, with their compensation

ring-fenced, their benefits protected, their seniority acknowledged and worked

in a role that's labelled director.

Again,

the titles don't matter from my point of view, but in terms of the process – and

I'll get around to that in a moment or two – they do matter. Because that is how

in government people's seniority is identified, people's place in whether or not

they fall under the Executive Council, whether OCs are needed to move them, this

kind of thing. The titles at the outside end do matter.

Health, they don't. We are not at all interested in that. We are interested in

exchange of knowledge, exchange of skills. We might move people – with their

agreement, obviously – for professional development.

So it

may well be that we would send someone from the Department of Health into a

regional health authority who actually lacks a skill set, who actually has not

got the qualifications on paper to fit into that job but brings a whole series

of other skill sets, and in a sense is going to get on the job training because

they're placed into a network in a support system.

There is

no impact on the quality of care. Indeed, the system will benefit from the

transformational knowledge and, I think, particularly of lean technology or

techniques that we've introduced into the RHAs and have introduced into the

department where we've taken people who really just have that skill set which is

unique to them and put them in a clinical setting with support.

So,

again, it's very difficult in my world, in the Department of Health, to

acknowledge and accept the arguments of the Member who last spoke from the

Opposition side that the titles, the qualifications and the labels on paper are

as germane in my world as they might be when you first look at them from the

outside.

To then

take the issue of process, because a lot of comments have been made around the

process by which people get moved one way or another. Quite frankly, my humble

observation is this was never designed as a process. What has happened is we

have inherited a practice over the years, and a bit like a skiff on the water,

it has got barnacles on its bottom. They've accumulated over time and slowed the

thing down, quite frankly; or made it less efficient than it should be.

I would

applaud the Premier's suggestion, that once he had the opportunity to read the

report, as did all the Members here, except those that read CBC, once he'd done

that he realized the obvious. That there was a flaw with the system and that

this needs to be actually looked at from an organizational and a systems

behaviour point of view.

That

system, I would argue, did not exist. This is where we end up with the

discrepancy around what titles are on the outgoing end and what titles might be

on the incoming end, how they line up with pay and compensation, how they line

up with benefits. It's done for the benefit both of the receiving organization

and to allow development in the donating organization, if you like.

Again,

to emphasize some of the comments that have come in a negative way from the

other side, the winners of these kind of knowledge and experience transfers are

actually the people of the province. It does serve a public interest and it

makes the system, such as it is, a better one.

I would

argue that one of the things I saw when I read the report, and I being a Member

of the Management Commission had sight of it in advance of the House – and just

for the record, I have not spoken to anyone about the contents of that since I

received the password for it from the Clerk of the House. I want to state that

very clearly for the record, and I would be happy to co-operate and, indeed,

keen to co-operate with whomever the Speaker and the Privileges and Elections

Committee should chose to investigate what I would regard is a gross contempt of

this House in leaking that document to the media.

Having

digressed a little bit, I think the message I took away was that there seemed to

be a gap in communications between the clerk and her submissions to the

investigating bodies, be they the Legislative Commissioner or the Citizens'

Representative of the day. There seemed to be a gap in appreciation of the

nature of these lateral transfers. Despite the clerk's obvious communication

skills, I don't feel that was reflected in the deliberations that I saw. That's

my two cents' worth, for what it is worth.

I have a

reference here to a comment, and I don't know to whom it's attributed but

Hansard would be able to unravel that.

There was a reference to mistakes being made. What I would argue, however, is

there may be some errors of process but what if the actual mistake we're really

referencing is a systematic, long-standing, cross-party government practice that

we have now been forced to recognize was never designed as a system. This system

is not unique to this government, it's not unique to this department. It has

existed for decades.

I can go

back through my own department – and I'm not going to name names. Names have

been bandied around here way too much. I can go back through my department for

at least two decades that I have access to and show lateral transfers in and out

with protection of salaries and benefits, with no OCs written, and this is not,

in my view, an egregious abuse of anything. This was done with the betterment of

the health care system at its core and a desire to find better ways of doing

what we do; and, really, in a sense, fulfilling my mantra as minister, which is

spending smarter, working smarter and bringing ourselves into the 21st century.

I'm not

going to take all my time, Mr. Speaker. I think I've made the points I wish to

make: that in whatever review comes forth on this, I would suggest that we do

not throw the baby out with the bathwater because there is a huge benefit to

Health, and I would argue that my colleagues in Education and other government

departments would be able to make very similar cases for their own areas of

responsibility. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I look

forward to co-operating with the Privileges and Elections Committee into what I

see as a rather neglected but major issue that this House now has, and also to

support the contention that it is unreasonable to unduly victimize one

individual for a mistake that is embedded in the system.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Bennett):

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista.

MR. PARDY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope

that in my short time standing here, I represent the sentiments of the district

of which I serve well in relation to the issue that is at hand.

I would

think the House has been a tremendous learning experience for the short seven

months that I have been in as an MHA. One of the things I would look at is lots

of times we must make sure – as we heard, Mr. Speaker, when you and I and two

other colleagues of the House were in BC at the Canadian Parliamentary

Association, a colleague from Alberta had stated that when we address and we

speak, we speak to the issues and the practices, the ideas, the policies and not

the individual. I want to make sure I'm not speaking to the individual in this

case, but it's strictly to the act and what we've got in the report that would

be here.

One

thing I did state with my colleagues was that probably not to count on me to

stand and defend something which is really indefensible. I made it clear to

expect me to stand and to try to give some kind of credence or normalcy for

something that is blatantly incorrect is not in my nature to do.

It's

been interesting watching, in my short time in the House, Members stand up to

try to give credence or to validate or support something which, in my opinion,

would be indefensible. That is probably one of the learning experiences that

I've had in the House in the short time I've been here, is that I've seen now

probably three occasions where I would see some valued colleagues in the House

that would stand to try to defend something that is, in my opinion, and as the

report would say, would be indefensible.

colleague that stood recently before me – and the word egregious has come up

several times. In light of what I just stated, I just want to reference

something from Hansard from Monday.

After the report was tabled in the House, this report that we're speaking on

now, the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources stood and he made a comment. I

want to read a portion of it, because it has a context on the report. He said:

“There are two important considerations to be held by the Privileges and

Elections Committee. One is, of course, to determine if there can be a course to

investigate and uncover the perpetrator or perpetrators to the contempt of the

House.”

The

Minister of Health and Community Services just referenced it in his address

about the leak of a finished document. The Minister of Fisheries and Land

Resources went on to say that: “The second element to this may be to ensure that

this not happen again.” The leak. And concludes with: “None of us here want that

to be able to continue. We recognize that sometimes it is difficult to uncover

who those perpetrators were of the most egregious – one of the most egregious

offences to the House would be a contempt, so we recognize that this has to be

resolved.”

I would

say in my opinion, and I would think the constituents in the District of

Bonavista, that is not the most egregious thing that this House has seen in the

short time that I've been sitting here referencing the leak that would have

occurred with a particular document.

I have

made many predictions since I've been in the House with my colleagues. I said

tomorrow here's what's going to happen because that is what maybe ought to have

happened, and I referenced three other situations of which I sat here and heard

debate around that I thought was not appropriate for this House.

Defending it is tough. The minister who spoke before me had referenced that –

and he talked about lateral moves. Well, it was clear in the report that we're

debating that this is not a lateral move. It was determined that it is not a

lateral move, so why are we talking about lateral moves when the report that

we're debating states that this is not a lateral move?

The

Member for Conception Bay North referenced last night: inefficiencies. We're

talking about inefficiencies: the dollars that we're talking about in this

report – and I look at that as being very significant because there are dollars

that are gone to this affair that I would think I would like to see serve some

other needs.

If I

just may mention a couple, to make my point, Mr. Speaker? I drafted a memo to a

representative in the Advanced Education, Skills and Labour and it was about a

gentleman that were trying to a range for in Bonavista, a stove, because his was

32 years old and he was on income support, but we did it. We got a stove for him

and, through the help of the department, we did that.

referenced, in my address, that there are two other issues that we have not

resolved and if I can just take a moment to –

MR. SPEAKER:

I remind you to stay

relevant.

MR. PARDY:

Stay on the topic – because

it is significant when we're looking at the inefficiencies and the dollars that

we're looking at here to give credence to the significance of this report.

This

gentleman in Bonavista doesn't have glasses, but he is $197 short on getting

glasses. Even with what was provided, those glasses remain and the gentleman

does not have them. We've tried and we've tried hard to get them.

The

second thing and the last thing on this point is that the gentleman in

Bonavista, as well as others – and it's been spoken I think by the Mount Pearl

North MHA previously – is down to $37 every two weeks because he's paying for

the overrun on his hydro over the course of the winter. What they do is they

take the portion out, which I was unaware of, and it's down to $37 every two

weeks.

When

we're talking about the significance of this report, I would say to you we are

not tackling an individual, we're tackling what happened here and how

significant it is for the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would say

one case in point I just reflected and there are others.

We are

entrusted, as a Code of Conduct of all MHAs that we were sworn in, the part of

our Code of Conduct was that we be accountable. We have courtesy, we have

honesty and we have integrity. That's what we have. Those are four things that

we all ought to strive for.

When we

look at the inefficiencies – and, again, remember, we're talking about thousands

of dollars of people's money that are wrapped up in this here – we ought not to

be looking at the most egregious, being the leak of the document, we ought to be

looking at what the impact would be for the residents in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

If we're

going to spend a lot of time on some other issues, we are missing in what our

Code of Conduct would state that we are. We are accountable to the residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. PARDY:

I would say to you in this

report we failed on the accountability measure, not personally, but it was a

complete failure. There is no doubt about that.

I think

the Premier spoke yesterday, and I stand to be corrected. He talked about we

need a precedent in matters such as this. I think he might even have referenced

that this could have happened to almost all ministers.

I found

that to be incorrect because if we look at data over time, I would say that is

not the case in the affairs of all ministers that have situations such as this.

I would say there are ministers sitting across from us now that I would say

would not have entered into something such as this situation here. I found it,

because in the same report, when we talk about precedence, we had what they

refer to, and the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands had stated, he said he was

referenced in The Joyce Report .

So if

we're looking at precedence, we don't need to go back too far. Basically, the

same government, a short time ago, when they talked about that he was held, or

his position, I would assume he stepped from his position, or the affair was

centered around him trying to influence the hiring of a person in a department.

I would

say to you when we look at that, if that is the case, then that serves as a

precedence. It's not that long ago that we can't extrapolate that and say in our

recent memory to know, well, here's an example of a situation that provides

precedence.

In the

same vein – and then I'll leave it, Mr. Speaker – I know the Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board, there are times he stood up here and I

listened. He talked about and said there were people on the other side of the

House – me and all of us here – looking to spend more money. He referenced that,

but lost in that was the accountability piece that we have for the residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador, the accountability of bringing them the optimal

service.

recall, I think probably the Member for Stephenville talked about the dental

program some time ago, but the come back to us raising the dental program for

the seniors in the province, covering it and what a benefit that would be on

efficiencies in saving money for the province, let alone the enhanced lifestyles

that the residents would have.

quickly refer back to the fact that here they are looking to spend more money. I

would say to you, we are looking at representing the residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador. We want to increase their well-being. We often made a good case to

say that sometimes you spend more but we save money in the long run with future

health care costs. I agree fully with that. There is lots of this, but the

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, in this report, would say there is no

return for this. This is money that is gone and not for their benefit.

Just to

conclude on a couple of points. In the report it states: “We have had the

opportunity to consider the very able submissions of Minister Mitchelmore's

solicitor on this issue. A key theme of those submissions is that the hiring of”

– the lady in question – “at The Rooms could not happen without the approval of

Mr. Brinton, and that if he or the Board disagreed with the hiring, that fact

was not made known to Minister Mitchelmore.” It goes on to say: “With respect,

we disagree.”

“We

conclude that Minister Mitchelmore's actions in intervening to facilitate the

hire of” – the lady in question – “at The Rooms not only breached his Code of

Conduct, but grossly mismanaged his obligations under that Code.”

Another

thing I found, if the difference in the salary that was as a result of this

transaction was somewhere in the range of $40,000 to $50,000 of taxpayers'

money, of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador's money, the $40,000 or

$50,000, I know in here it says that the person who was hired, and subsequently

let go, has made a claim for damages against The Rooms or the government. It's

here in the report. That's another one with a potential cost that has to be

borne by the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Finally,

to conclude, in a letter that was by Minister Mitchelmore's counsel, he had

stated that Minister Mitchelmore states that the hiring of the lady in question

for the position of executive director of marketing and development at The Rooms

was carried out appropriately and in accordance with the act, the Code of

Conduct and generally accepted human resources practices applicable to

government and The Rooms.

I would

say to you, when we look at precedence, I can look at some ministers over and

know that would not occur. I would expect that it would not occur on the watch.

To try to defend something that's indefensible, I think that violates the Code

of Conduct as well, when we're talking about having integrity and

accountability, courtesy and honesty.

Mr.

Speaker, thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Scio.

MS. STOODLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

rising today primarily because I feel like the debate that we've had so far

doesn't fully accurately reflect, in my opinion, the report. My colleagues joke

with me that I wasn't a Liberal before May. I wasn't, and so I hope the

residents of Mount Scio listening to this, and maybe some of the Members of the

Opposition, will take my point seriously, as someone who's read this three times

now cover to cover.

I'd

first like to say that I do think that Minister Mitchelmore has a significant

amount of integrity. As my friend, I was Minister Mitchelmore's parliamentary

secretary –

MR. SPEAKER:

I remind not to use the name.

MS. STOODLEY:

Sorry.

MR. SPEAKER:

Unless you're quoting from

the document.

MS. STOODLEY:

Thank you. Sorry.

I was

the hon. Minister of AESL's parliamentary secretary for a few months and I saw

the minister every day. My understanding and experience with the minister is

that he had a high degree of integrity and took his responsibility very

seriously.

When I

would go to events on behalf of the minister – arts and culture events, I'd go

to The Rooms for events on the minister's behalf – members of the arts community

would always come up to me unsolicited and they'd say how happy they were with

the minister. They would say how much they respected him and how the minister

had done a significant amount of work for the arts and culture communities in

the province. That was directly from the members of those communities.

I think

more so than I would be if I was in that position. I think the minister placed

particular importance to culture and arts in the province. I'm personally sad

for my friend, that this report now has potentially damaged their reputation.

I would

like to raise some of the facts in the debate and I would like to walk you

through them, Mr. Speaker, in detail. I'd like go to Allegation 1 first. As we

know, there were five allegations and two of them were found remaining. I'd like

to go to Allegation 1 and I'd like to refute some of those facts from within the

report – all staying within the report, Mr. Speaker.

Allegation 1, as we know, “Minister Mitchelmore directed staff of The Rooms … to

hire Ms. Carla Foote as Executive Director of Marketing and Development without

competition or a position description, in violation of generally accepted human

resource practices, including the application of the merit principle to hiring

within the public service.”

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. STOODLEY:

Firstly, as my colleagues has

already mentioned, the clerk of the Executive Council has already mentioned that

Minister Mitchelmore did nothing wrong, that Minister Mitchelmore followed all

of the – sorry, the minister followed all of the – on page 5 of appendix SR-3:

“In my opinion, the information provided above demonstrates that the Minister

did not support any actions that deviate from government policies and

practices.” So the clerk of the Executive Council is stating that the minister

was following government policies and practices.

I'd also

like to speak to the point around when the role was posted in 2016 and 2017, Mr.

Speaker. So 2016 was two year prior to this happening. There was a role posted

two years prior, but a lot changes in two years. In my former life, we would

post a job, we'd decide not to hire and the needs of the organization could

completely change in two years.

personally don't find logic in the argument that because there was a position

posted in 2016, that there were candidates for, that they were never hired. That

is almost unrelated to the current situation. The needs of the organization

would have changed, and we don't know why they didn't hire someone in 2016. That

was not mentioned in the report. We do not know why they did not hire someone in

2016. That was two years prior to this. So I'd like to clarify that.

Moving

on, then, to the next point under the allegation, this is where the CEO hired an

individual on a nine-month contract. I have a particular issue with this point

because, two pages later, the Citizens' Representative himself indicates – I

direct everyone to page 30 of the Citizens' Representative report, on the bottom

of that

section it says: The minister has every right and indeed responsibility

to order the rescission of the contract.

So as we

look in the legislation, the CEO of The Rooms did not have the authority to hire

someone on a contract – did not have the authority. They needed the minister's

approval and the CEO needed to go through the government's HR practices. That is

very clear in the legislation and that was outlined in this report, which is why

Allegation 2 did not stand. I take particular, I guess, exception to a

justification of Allegation 1, the issue around the nine-month contract.

Many of

my friends and colleagues I've seen on Facebook recently have said: How dare

they fire someone just to hire this other individual? I have an issue with that

because, in this situation, the CEO had no authority to hire that individual on

a contract. If this report hadn't come out – for example, this report could

easily say the CEO did not follow the practices and procedures that they were

supposed to. That was a mistake the CEO made that is clear in this report.

The

Opposition could and should have very well stood up and said if we hadn't

terminated that contract, we allowed someone to be hired using the incorrect

policies and procedures. Which, as soon as we found out, my understanding – and

based on the report – is that contract was terminated because the CEO had no

authority to hire that individual. It did not go through the proper HR

procedures and the minister did not sign off on it. The ministers have to sign

off on every hire at The Rooms. Mr. Speaker, that is that point.

I'd like

to move on then, to the point later down the page. I'm at page 27 of the

Citizens' Representative office: “There was no evidentiary basis for the Board

to elevate the position from 'director' to 'executive director'” in “2018, but

for the intervention of the Minister.”

I would

like to remind the House and to anyone listening that the board, in consultation

with the minister, elevated another role. There was an executive director of

galleries and museums. The board was already planning on elevating another role,

so I take exception to this argument as well.

Moving

on to the next section, in terms of the part of the application form that was

not completed, so this is, again, lower on page 27: “That Form was not in

compliance with explicit Human Resource Secretariat instructions, in that the

section dedicated to outlining the rationale for staffing was not completed.”

That's accurate. I can't argue with the accuracy of that, but what I can argue

with is the clerk indicates that was very acceptable.

The

clerk is the top civil servant in the province who oversees our 47,000 employees

in the province. Air Canada is one of our largest companies in the country and

they have 30,000 staff. The clerk of the Executive Council oversees over 47,000

employees, so the clerk is saying herself that it's normal for this

section of

the form not to be completed.

I direct

Members to Appendix SR-3 on page 4 where the clerk indicates there is no

requirement for this to be completed unless the signing authorities are not

otherwise satisfied that they have the right information they need to determine

whether or not it should be approved. The clerk herself is saying that is not a

requirement, so I disregard, or I have challenge with the fact that this is an

argument against the minister in this instance.

I would

like to then go to Allegation 3. Allegation 3 on page 30 of the Citizens'

Representative report, I also disagree with the Citizens' Representative's use

of the words “the uncontradicted evidence,” because the Citizens' Representative

contradicts himself multiple times during this report. For example, when the

Citizens' Representative uses the nine-month contract as an argument, when in

fact later on the next page, on page 30, the Citizens' Representative indicates

that that was very acceptable that the nine-month contract was not a legally

binding valid contract.

So under

Allegation 3 – and the Citizens' Representative uses this again here for an

argument, the second point: “The contract of employment negotiated … A.B. to act

in the Director of Marketing and Development position for an eight-month term

provided for an annual salary of $85,513.”

I'd like

to refer everyone back to the previous page, page 30, where the Citizens'

Representative indicates that the minister “had every right, and indeed

responsibility, to order the rescission of the contract.” So that was not a

valid contract, because the CEO could not, should not have created that contract

with the individual, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd also like to refute some of the other facts that my colleagues have

mentioned. Yesterday we heard from the Member for Windsor Lake and the Member

for Windsor Lake argued that the candidate who was moved into this role was not

qualified for the role because she had a communications background and the role

was in marketing.

I have a

Bachelor of Commerce in co-op, with a concentration in marketing, I have a

master's in political science and I did my thesis in political marketing. I have

worked in marketing communications for Memorial University, I've worked in

marketing communications in the UK, and I would like to assure the Members that

the argument that because the individual was in communications and moved into a

role that had marketing in the title is not a valid argument. As people who work

in marketing and/or communications will know, the areas are very similar. There

are marketing elements required for communications, there are communications

elements required in marketing, and the job title does not dictate someone's

suitability or unsuitability for the role. As an expert, I take a strong

disagreement in that area with the Member for Windsor Lake. This was raised

again by other Members, so I refute the grounds that Ms. Foote was not qualified

for the role.

conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe the minister followed the process

outlined by the public service. As the executive clerk indicates on page 5: “In

my opinion, the information provided above demonstrates that the Minister did

not support any actions that deviate from government policies and practices.”

The

clerk of the Executive Council indicates that. I think it's also telling that –

we have this Office of the Citizens' Representative; we also have the Office of

the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. The Commissioner, on reviewing the

report of the Citizens' Representative, has deemed that the most serious

punishment is reprimand.

personally disagree with the finding of gross mismanagement, but I support the

minister in his apology and I support the motion. I also do believe that the

minister is an excellent minister. I personally have a lot of trust in his

integrity and I would support the minister. I wouldn't say that for all my

colleagues, I have to say, but I will say that for the minister.

Mr.

Speaker, in conclusion, I believe the minister and the teams followed the

processes outlined and I support the motion and the minister. I feel for him;

it's a very difficult situation. As some of my other colleagues have mentioned,

though, we need to look at the process and I support that as well.

As a new

Member, new to public service, it's been very challenging trying to figure out

all the rules that are unwritten. I don't envy the role of any minister

navigating through the web of unwritten and written bureaucratic rules, but I

support the minister. As his former parliamentary secretary, I believe the

minister has a great deal of integrity and I would be happy to chat with any

constituents or anyone else about that at any time and go through the logic.

Having

read the report three times in great detail, I can point you to any

section at

any time. So I do support the motion.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To speak

to this report, from my gathering, from my reading of it, there's a lot of lack

of oversight; oversight in the minister's department, oversight of the DMs,

oversight of individuals.

Most

notably, when you look at Appendix E, the draft letter to the CEO calling for

the termination of someone who was hired, who was qualified for the position,

even reading that draft letter, it sends a lot of lack of oversight; especially

that it wasn't even on the correct letterhead of The Rooms organization.

When you

read some of this report, where was the oversight in decisions made? Where was

the oversight in actions carried out? It's very concerning, it's very troubling

that these allegations are made asking for deletion of emails, things like that.

This is where good quality oversight would come in and make sure that these kind

of things would never, ever happen.

From the

Member for Mount Scio who said that the CEO never had authorization to hire an

individual and the minister never signed off on it, wouldn't the minister take

into consideration the 15 years of Mr. Brinton's work at The Rooms? I'm sure if

he didn't have the authority to hire, I'm sure his advice would be soundly

recognized in the fact of hiring. I would definitely listen to the advice of

someone who had 15 years running an organization.

Lack of

oversight is very, very concerning to me. It's very concerning that we're even

in this position to actually have to do this. The checks and balances should

have been in place. I think the checks and balances are in place. I'm sure the

Citizens' Rep, when going through this, has noticed that the checks and balances

were there. They were just not adhered to – lack of oversight.

So we

need to continue on with that. When you have a recommendation on those job

requests and a whole

section dedicated to the qualifications of an individual

completely left out, yet still makes its way through the system, another lack of

oversight. Why was the system not followed to the T, as it was supposed to be

met, in place?

The

research is done, everything is done, why do we have to do it again? This is

where we have to think. There are so many errors in our ways with this. There

are so many errors that have come up with this, so we have to look at that.

When we

come to this, we have to look at the fact that is a simple apology good enough,

that the ministers never followed procedures, the oversight was lacking there.

We've never really come to it. I have to agree with my colleague behind me here

for Mount Pearl – Southlands, that an apology is not good enough.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to move the following amendment to the current resolution

being debated: That the resolution respecting the Member for St. Barbe - L'Anse

aux Meadows be amended in the last clause –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BROWN:

– by adding immediately after

the word “Assembly” the second time it appears, the following: and furthermore

instructs the Premier to remove the hon. Member for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux

Meadows from his Cabinet; and direct the board of The Rooms to vacate the

position of executive director of marketing and development, reassess the

position, and fill it using the proper human resource procedures.

This is

seconded by the hon. Leader of the Third Party.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

This House will recess and

review the proposed amendment.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

We have

the reviewed the proposed amendment and ruled that it's not to be in order, as

it exceeds the scope of the current amendment.

The hon.

the Member for Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That

will conclude my remarks for this.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I

got elected to be MHA representing my district, I anticipated a lot of emotions,

stuff like fear, speaking publicly; being nervous, intimidated. A lot of

different emotions I expected. I also expected to feel joy at being able to put

forward concerns, not just for my district but for the whole Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, issues and concerns.

Mr.

Speaker, I stand here today with two emotions. One of them is actually anger.

I'm actually feeling anger at what's going on in this House today. I also feel

ashamed; ashamed at the defence of the indefensible, as my fellow colleague

pointed out.

There's

a report here with findings in black and white. I find it difficult to actually

sit through a lot of these proceedings where people, actually good people, rise

and defend bad behaviour, people that I actually respect across the House.

Unfortunately, it's not the first time that I witnessed that. I find that very

disheartening, which gets back to frustration, anger and actually shame because

the actions of this House affects all of us, whether we're innocent of

wrongdoing or whether we're actually guilty – I don't know if I'm allowed to use

that word – of wrongdoing. Because eventually the public tars us with the same

brush.

As my

fellow colleague pointed out, we're here to represent the people. We're here to

try and better the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the living conditions,

the life that we want for our fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and I

find it difficult.

I had to

actually sit yesterday and watch the Premier stand and defend the hiring of Ms.

Foote – a good woman, and of course the Lieutenant-Governor, her mother, another

really good woman who's put in a lot of time and service to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. So why would you have to defend the hiring? Why would

you talk about how good a person is at their job, from his personal experience?

That's our premier.

The

reason why he had to defend it is because the proper process for hiring was not

followed, and whatever can be strung together from this report to try and

fabricate acceptable excuses is wrong.

I'm just

somebody from the North Coast of Labrador. I actually was very, very pleased and

I felt honoured to get elected and to stand here and to look at the behaviours

here, that's shameful, shameful.

I'm

going to say right here, right now, I'm not going to be a part of it. I will not

be shamed, I will not be shamed by the behaviour of this House and to have

respectable people stand that I respect and have to actually defend the

behaviours, it's not right. There are acceptable human resources practices for

hiring within the public service. This book outlines in black and white that

that wasn't followed, and stringing together pieces of report to defend it, to

try to make it sellable, we're going back to Trump. Everybody knows about the

Trump government. It was pointed out by actually our Leader because, with his

government, he doesn't expect his biggest supporters to read the documents. All

we can say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is in here in black and

white.

Looking

at the hiring process, the board of directors from The Rooms, very decent people

– that's why they're on the board of directors; we expect them to be decent

people – they expected the hiring process to be based on merit, the merit-based

principle of recruitment and selection process. In this book, in this report, in

black and white, it says it wasn't followed. So what's wrong with this picture?

Why are we going into two days now, wasting the money?

fellow colleague talked about somebody who can't afford glasses. I know people

who can't afford glasses. I know people who can't afford to get their dentures

replaced, and those are our senior citizens, our elders that we're supposed to

look after. The reason why they need dentures is when they were growing up, we

didn't have the funds, we didn't have the benefits that we take for granted now.

So we need to look at who are the most vulnerable in the province and we need to

look after them. We shouldn't be here wasting our time. It's shameful.

I want

to say, some of the defence that was said – lateral transfer. As my fellow

colleagues pointed out, this book outlines it was not a lateral transfer. There

is no way to justify it. Why are good, decent people rising at ministerial

levels and defending it? I don't understand. It's there, it's in black and

white.

Also,

too, is there is and has been in the past the ability for an appointment. In

this book, it talks about appointments: “The

Executive Council Act gives the

premier and cabinet the ability to appoint deputy ministers and assistant deputy

ministers within the government departments.” It's right there in black and

white. When you read, it says here that in actuality, it wasn't followed, the

conditions to meet that requirement. I can go on.

actually listen to the Premier stand and defend why Ms. Foote was hired is not

right. Ms. Foote's character, her ability to do a job and to do a job well is

not in question. Basically, what's in question is why did she get that job? Why

was the process not followed?

Also, I

have to listen to the Premier stand and defend the minister in question. The

defence was: he's a good guy, he's a constituent person, a hard worker. You know

something? None of that's in question. Because if you're a minister in Cabinet

you have to be a hard worker, you have to be a good guy. You have to be a

constituent man in order to get elected, in order to keep your seat and in order

to keep your job. But what I found here that's really, really, really shameful

is in this book it outlines how it was an abuse of a ministerial position.

So my

biggest concern is how this is being perceived to the people who actually elect

us, to our constituents, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Do they

actually believe in us? Do they have respect for us? Is there any credibility?

Because when we defend bad behaviour, when we defend things that are not

defensible we lose our credibility and we all get tarred with the same brush.

This is not the first time I had to sit and actually listen to good, decent

people stand and defend bad behaviour. I just wonder, how can they justify that?

Because we're all being lowered when that happens.

The

thing is – I might get in trouble here – the House Leader stood yesterday and

defended it. I have a lot of respect for the House Leader, and I still do. I was

taken aback and I felt really uncomfortable listening to it, because I read this

book. I started outlining, highlighting in yellow until the pages became all

yellow and I had to stop. But the facts are here in black and white, and to

listen to somebody that I have a lot of respect for stand and be forced to

defend it, I think that's very unsettling. I think it should be unsettling to

everybody here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. EVANS:

Now, when the Premier got up

I didn't have high expectations. I did not have high expectations and I wasn't

disappointed. I listened to what he said – I didn't believe what he said – but I

tell you right now, right here, I had low expectations, the Premier of our

province. And I'll say that right here, right now.

I'm

elected from the Torngat Mountains, probably the smallest district. No roads,

totally isolated. The thing about it is my communities are in chaos right now,

chaos, wondering how they're going to be able to actually feed themselves this

winter, and we're spending two days discussing this.

I have

to say, my district has been treated unfairly but the whole Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador has been treated unfairly by the farce that I see. Not

the first farce since I got elected either, the second one.

When

people make mistakes – I was taught at an early age, when we make mistakes we

own up to it. Also, it's not just about apologizing. You have to know what was

wrong and, you know something, sometimes you have to take the consequences.

That's the way we were raised. That's how I was raised.

Another

thing, too, I was watching a documentary on behaviour of children, and in the

schools there was a problem. When they did an investigation, it was a problem

with bad behaviour. What they found is when the children did something wrong or

harmed another child or did something really, really, really bad, they were

forced to apologize. There were no real consequences because they didn't

understand what they were apologizing for, so there was no deterrent. An apology

was empty.

So what

they did is they worked with the children to change the behaviour, to understand

the consequences. When we were small and growing up, we learned that. I was from

a small community, if we did any harm we lived with that. We saw it everyday,

the harm we caused, whether it was intentional or not.

What

we're saying here is that an apology really is not enough, because it's so

blatant and it does so much damage to our credibility as MHAs.

When I

got elected, I thought I was going to be working on doing some good, but it's

very, very important for us to understand. I think what my fellow colleague

talked about is the need of the people in this province.

This

morning when I was getting ready to come into this House, I was listening to the

news and they were interviewing somebody, a heart attack patient who spent the

night on a gurney. Did you hear that? Two nights on a gurney. During the

interview process it came out, that wasn't the only person on a gurney in the

hallway, there were other people.

So when

we look at our health care, when we look at all our resources, when we look at

all the things that we need to be working on for the betterment of Newfoundland

and Labrador, this is the second time that this House has been derailed by bad

behaviour. I say derailed because good people stood to defend the bad behaviour

by, I would actually say, fabricating things. Fabricating things to justify, to

make it believable that it wasn't as bad as what it was, but in this report it

says it's bad – it's very, very bad – and it shouldn't be tolerated. Good people

should not stand to have to justify this bad behaviour and, you know something,

I'm not going to do. I'm not going to be tarred with this brush. The thing about

it is if I do something wrong, I'm going to own up to it and people who know me

know that. I'll be the first one to admit when I'm wrong, but not only will I

admit that I'm wrong, I will actually try to find out what was wrong and how I

could right it. An apology really is not good enough.

There's

one other thing that I wanted to get to was I was wondering why some people are

thrown under the bus and I have to listen to it. People talking about being

thrown under the bus. Then there are other people who are sent to the

backbenches after the apology, willing to work on improving things, making a

difference. Contrite, remorseful and still very, very decent people who may have

made a mistake, but are willing to work to improve the betterment of people in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. EVANS:

The way this is operating is

why do some people – in black and white: “We conclude that Minister

Mitchelmore's actions in intervening to facilitate the hire of Ms. Foote at The

Rooms not only breached his Code of Conduct, but grossly mismanaged his

obligations under that Code.” Yet they're still trying to have him sit as a

minister while other people are thrown under the bus, while other people are

sent to the backbenches. The thing about it is I was raised to believe that

everybody needs to be treated fairly and part of that fair treatment is equal

treatment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS. EVANS:

The last thing I'm going to

say is I was also listening to the news about this independent review on how

executives move around. Why do you need an independent review, another one? How

much is that going to cost when this report in black and white outlines what

went wrong. That's all I'm going to say.

This

document here basically shows what went wrong. A review is not going to solve

that. Cleaning up your government will. That's all I have to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Considering the hour, I move, along with my Minister of Health and Community

Services, that we recess until 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER:

In accordance with paragraph

9(1)(

b) of the Standing Orders, the House is in recess until 2 p.m. this

afternoon.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Reid):

Are the House Leaders

ready? Is the Government House Leader ready?

MS. COADY:

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER:

Yes.

The

Opposition Leader ready? The Third Party ready? Yes.

Order,

please!

We have

several guests today with us, some in the public gallery and some in the

Speaker's gallery.

First,

in the public gallery, I think I see Mr. Calvin White. He's the former chief and

current elder in the Mi'kmaq community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Dr. White has also received a

doctor of laws from Memorial University. He's a recipient of the Order of

Canada, the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as being a recipient of

the Human Rights Commission Champion Award.

Joining

us in the Speaker's gallery today for a Member's statement, I'd like to

recognize Mary Martin and Eileen Field.

I would

also like to welcome Mary Dinn, mother of the Member for St. John's Centre and

Topsail - Paradise. Mrs. Dinn is here today for a Member's statement and is

joined by their sister, also named Mary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Before we move to proceedings

today, I wish to rule on a point of order raised by the Minister of Natural

Resources following Question Period on Monday, December 2, of this year.

The

Government House Leader raised a point of order in relation to remarks made by

the Member for Terra Nova. I have reviewed the

Hansard and I found that the remarks were contrary to Standing Order

49; first, in that they were offensive to the Member and, second, in that they

commented or revisited a vote already taken in this House. I'm going to ask the

Member for Terra Nova to withdraw his remarks.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the

remarks.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today, we'll hear Members'

statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Windsor Lake, Placentia

West - Bellevue, Torngat Mountains, St. John's Centre, Topsail - Paradise and,

with leave, the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

The hon.

Member for Windsor Lake.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I rise

to honour the accomplishments of fourth-year student Elizabeth Tuck of Mount

Pearl, who has been awarded the prestigious Rhodes Scholarship to pursue

post-graduate studies at the University of Oxford.

Her

honours thesis at STU, “United States Workplace Harassment Jurisprudence in the

era of #MeToo,” explores modern understandings of workplace harassment,

specifically in California and New York where state laws have already begun to

evolve.

“'I love

law, and I'm passionate about gender issues; how the two relate to one another

is evolving so rapidly. It's important to be studying this now,' she said.”

addition to her academic success, Elizabeth's community and leadership

involvement has been extensive. She's completing a B.A. with honours in human

rights and majors in political science and great books. She plans to continue

her research on how different social identities, particularly gender, affect

policy during her studies at Oxford.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

(Inaudible) material on the

reverse here, quickly.

In 2015,

she was selected to represent the Girl Guides of Canada at the Sangam

International Guiding World Centre in Pune, India, where she participated in a

women's leadership development program.

I ask

all Members to join me in congratulating Elizabeth Tuck on receiving the Rhodes

Scholarship to pursue her post-graduate studies at the University of Oxford this

fall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. DWYER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to represent the beautiful, well-maintained District of

Placentia West - Bellevue.

I rise

in this hon. House today to tell you of a team. A soccer team, Mr. Speaker. The

soccer team of St. Joseph's All Grade School in the Town of Terrenceville, the

Timberwolves.

Wednesday, October 23, the Timberwolves were unbeatable and became gold

medalists of the regionals held at Parkers Cove.

During

October 25 and 26, the Timberwolves competed in three games on Friday, followed

by another game Saturday morning and the championship game that afternoon

against King Point School. The Timberwolves became the silver medalists of

Division 2A at the provincials held at St. Lawrence.

These

team members range from grades seven to 12, and their names, in no particular

order, are: Laytoya Layhey, Morgan Bolt, Jasmine Bolt, Olivia Layhey, Gabrielle

Hickey, Gracie Cox, Abigail Bolt, Kailey Hickey, Alexis Hodge, Marissa Bolt,

Chloe Labour and Keisha Evans.

The

coaches of the Timberwolves are: Mr. Hayse, Mrs. Mitchell and Mr. Gill.

I ask

that all my fellow colleagues join me in sending a great big congratulations to

the Timberwolves on their victory.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today in the House of Assembly to pay tribute to the life of Mary Jane Nui, a

true advocate, noble leader and vital member of the Innu community.

Born in

1952, as a young girl she witnessed great change in how the Innu lived,

including the settling of Davis Inlet and Sheshatshiu. As the lives of her

people changed, she worked to ensure the Innu culture and practices remained.

Mary

Jane Nui successfully pursued formal education and became a public health nurse

aide at Peenamin McKenzie School. In the early days, there was no infrastructure

and services such as running water, yet Mary Jane ensured youth had access to

programs, services and supplies essential to good education and health.

Her role

of advocate evolved when she worked with the children, youth and family

services. She believed that all Innu youth needed to know their culture and

those in care did not lose this knowledge. After retiring, she continued to

share her Innu culture.

She

served many positions, including Innu Nation board and the Sheshatshiu First

Nation band council. She is most remembered for her strong advocacy for Innu

youth, education and culture. She raised concern regarding the children in care

and their need to return back to the Innu communities of Labrador. A true life

of service to the Innu of Labrador, I ask you to applaud her legacy with me.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MR. J. DINN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today in honour of our mother and our late father. Our father was a railway man

and our mom worked at home raising seven of us.

It's

safe to say that neither my brother, nor I, held lifelong political ambitions,

let alone serving as Members of the House of Assembly. Certainly our mother and

father never held those ambitions for us. They instilled in us a sense of

service and giving back to our community but not necessarily political service.

Yet, they sowed the seeds nevertheless.

When I

think about it, rearing seven children required a considerable amount of

political skill in balancing needs, personalities and, of course, the family

budget. However, it was the values instilled in us by our parents that mostly

likely prepared us for our current roles.

Chief

among those values was education, evident in the fact that all seven of us

completed at least one university degree; five of us went on to become teachers.

Our parents saw education as a key to success and success at school was

non-negotiable – made clear in the hours spent doing homework with us, learning

multiplication tables – how I remember that – attending parent-teacher

interviews and concerts, or providing the opportunity for music lessons. It

wasn't until I had my own three children that I fully appreciated what my

parents helped us accomplish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Topsail - Paradise.

MR. P. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow

the Member for St. John's Centre to blatantly lobby to become his mother's

number one son. So let me speak to our loving parents, who have sacrificed so

much to raise seven children on a single income.

Our

father was a hard worker and we were never in want for anything. His work ethic

was evident and he was recognized as a trusted friend to many. At his funeral

mass, for a person who wasn't in a prestigious job – he worked at the railway –

St. Patrick's Church was packed, and I was in awe at the number of people that

were, in some way, affected or connected to my father.

Both our

parents were strong in faith and instilled values in us, including respect for

everyone and anyone, regardless of background, job or social standing.

Since

the passing of our father, our mother, though small in stature, has been the

pillar of strength for us all and has always provided guidance. Like our father,

Mom is well respected within the community and volunteers frequently.

Mr.

Speaker, our story is not unlike many in this hon. House. With the ultimate

family season fast approaching, I would ask all Members to stand in recognition

of our mother but also those special people who have shaped each and every one

of us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Virginia Water - Pleasantville, with leave?

AN HON. MEMBER:

Leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

With leave.

The hon.

the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.

MR. DAVIS:

What a tough act to follow,

Mr. Speaker.

I would

like to recognize two senior women who live in my district – Mary Martin and

Mary Moylan – for the work they are doing to raise issues related to seniors in

our province and Canada as a whole.

I met

with Mary Martin and Mary Moylan, among other members of the advocacy group they

have formed called Support Our Seniors – SOS. They raise important issues of

seniors in poverty and near poverty in our province and specifically highlighted

programs that they feel are not adequate for many seniors. SOS is making a

significant contribution by bringing these issues to the forefront, and I thank

them for that.

It's

important to hear senior voices – from the women and men who built our province

and continue to work, volunteer and provide a positive example for younger

generations. I am proud that the House of Assembly has appointed the province's

first Seniors' Advocate, Dr. Suzanne Brake.

I ask

all hon. Member to join me in recognizing Mary Martin, Mary Moylan and Eileen

Field and all members of SOS for their contribution and advocacy on behalf of

seniors in our province and across Canada.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

highlight National Safe Driving Week, which takes place every year from December

1 to 7.

National

Safe Driving Week is an opportunity to promote defensive driving habits, raise

awareness of potential road hazards and prepare for winter driving conditions.

Mr.

Speaker, public safety is a top priority for our government, and the

Highway Traffic Act is constantly

reviewed to identify opportunities to enhance safety. Our government will

continue to modernize the act to ensure it meets the needs of all road users.

With

winter approaching, it is important to be prepared. As road conditions

deteriorate, ensure you have winter tires on your vehicle and drive according to

the weather. Keep a shovel and road salt in your trunk in case your vehicle

becomes stuck. To ensure proper visibility, clear windows of snow and, in case

of an emergency, place a first aid kit in your vehicle.

Mr.

Speaker, we all have a role to play in keeping our province's roadways safe. I

invite all my hon. colleagues to join me in promoting road safety awareness in

our province.

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 thank

the hon. minister for a copy of her statement.

We, in

the Official Opposition, also recognize National Safe Driving Week. It goes

without saying that winter driving comes with extra challenges, but enhanced

road safety is critical in every season and every day of the year.

I agree

that we all have a role to play in keeping our roads safe, and we certainly

support every effort and opportunity to encourage safe driving practices on our

province's highways.

Thank

you very much.

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 an advance copy of her statement.

As a

rural MHA in Labrador, my constituents travel hundreds of kilometres each way

through their communities. Road safety is important in all seasons, especially

on the remote Trans-Labrador Highway.

It's

paramount and important and always top of mind. I hope to have continued

discussion with the minister's colleague, Transportation and Works, on expanding

Wi-Fi access for the travelling public in our province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.

MR. BRAGG:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today to highlight the importance of practicing fire safety throughout the year

and particularly during the Christmas holiday season.

As we

enter the festive season, there are countless gatherings for family and friends

to plan and host, and it is important to remember to keep safety top of mind

during the preparations.

Whether

you are baking, using candles, lighting a fire or finding the perfect place to

put your freshly cut tree, take the time to ensure there are no potential

hazards and to prepare in case of emergency.

Ensure

your smoke and carbon monoxide alarms are installed correctly on each floor of

the home and in all sleeping areas. Alarms should be properly maintained and

tested and the batteries should be changed regularly. Make sure you and your

family know two ways out of every building in case of a fire.

Beginning on Monday, December 9, my department will launch the annual 12 Days of

Fire Safety public education campaign. Each business day until Christmas, we

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all our first

responders, both volunteer and paid, who risk their lives daily to take their

time from their families and put forth extraordinary efforts to help residents

and communities in their time of need, regardless of the day of the year.

With

that, I'd like to wish everyone a safe and happy holidays.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Grand

Falls-Windsor - Buchans.

MR. TIBBS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Mr.

Speaker, unfortunately the holiday season can bring with it an increased risk of

fire. Public education is very important and the tips provided through the

annual 12 Days of Fire Safety campaign can be a useful resource in promoting a

fire-safe holiday season. I commend the minister and his department for doing

that. I encourage everyone to share these tips with your families and your

communities to help promote home fire safety and to help reduce the risk of

holiday-related fires.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the first responders for the

very important and selfless work that they do in assisting and protecting our

residents in the holiday season. We in the Official Opposition would also like

to wish everybody a happy, safe holiday season.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

As a

former volunteer firefighter in Labrador West, I join with the minister in

emphasizing the importance of fire safety as this holiday season approaches. Our

paid and volunteer firefighters and first responders take time away from their

families over the holidays to protect our citizens, our communities. We

recognize their courage and dedication.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier

confirm that he has a deal with the minister subject of the

Mitchelmore Report , that in return for

the minister staying silent on who ordered the hiring of Ms. Foote he will keep

him in Cabinet?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I have to be

honest with you. I've listened to a lot of debate over the last couple of days,

answered a lot of questions. No, there's no secret deal. There are no secret

conversations. The minister has made it quite clear of what his intentions are.

Mr.

Speaker, this is the kind of theatre and the kind of politics that's occurring

in this House. We've been accused of many things; we've been accused of not

agreeing with the report. One of the first things that we said was that we would

concur with this report.

The

minister has offered his apology, Mr. Speaker. I've been accused of – when we

talked about this – not accepting the report. Then the writer, the author, has

been saying that there has been a very comprehensive review of what's happening.

Then all of sudden when he makes the recommendations, now we're in a situation

where there are all kinds of questions on what that would look like.

Mr.

Speaker, it's very clear. There is no deal with the current minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

The Premier says that he's

willing to keep a minister in Cabinet who has committed gross mismanagement.

If he is

a hard worker, why didn't this standard keep the Member for Humber - Bay of

Islands in Cabinet?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, it is two

different situations.

Right

now – and speaking to all Members of this House of Assembly, these were

decisions that were made at the time. I've often said, Mr. Speaker, publicly

that the Member for Bay of Islands, a colleague of mine, went through a review

and issued the apology. As a matter of fact, there were conversations that

would've occurred with the restorative justice process, a willingness to work

with caucus Members.

There

would be absolutely discussions and ready for this caucus to actually move

forward on embracing people in a situation like this. There was a restorative

justice process that offered participation. It's yet to be taken, Mr. Speaker,

but this is working in collaboration and co-operation.

Regardless of which party they're working or if they're independent or not,

we're committed to working with all Members of this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, in view of the

fact that two Officers of this House of Assembly have found the minister liable

for gross mismanagement in the squandering of public funds, who will be paying

the minister's legal fees?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, there has been

no discussion about legal fees at all. That would not be a discussion that I

would be encouraging or having with anyone.

I will

want to go back to the other question as well. When we speak of the Member for

Bay of Islands, if I remember, when that debate was occurring in this House of

Assembly, you, as Leader of the Opposition, or your party were putting in

amendments wanting harsher penalties to that resolution. All of a sudden today,

Mr. Speaker, they're here now suggesting that process was wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier was

adamant yesterday that he did not order or promise Carla Foote the job at The

Rooms; however, this is contradicted by the evidence in the reports.

I ask

the Premier: Will he waive the gag order on the former CEO of The Rooms so that

person can speak in the public interest?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, when I've been

listening to the debate over the last couple of days, it's very clear that many

Members of this House that are weighing in and speaking to this have not even

read the report. If you read the report, the evidence has already been supplied

by and provided by the CEO.

The CEO,

in providing that evidence, never once said that this was a direction from me –

not at all. That was not said. As a matter of fact, that is in another part of

the evidence here, but that was no conversation that I had with those board

members.

How

those board members actually – where that came from, it certainly didn't come

from me, Mr. Speaker, because I had never given direction to the minister. In

the uncontradicted evidence – and when you look at the findings and the report

as it's been reviewed by the Commissioner for Legislative Standards – it is not

suggested that direction came from me at all and the CEO did participate already

in this report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In his

report of June 11, 2019, the Citizens' Representative stated on pages 29 to 30:

“We conclude that Minister Mitchelmore's actions in intervening to facilitate

the hire of Ms. Foote at The Rooms not only breached his Code of Conduct, but

grossly mismanaged his obligations under that Code.”

Does the

Premier accept these findings of the Citizens' Rep, an Officer of the House,

that the minister grossly mismanaged his obligations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, we have already

said in part of the resolution that we're putting forward there – concurring

with this report. This resolution is in and

be it resolved, we'll be debating

that again, I guess, tomorrow. That resolution is already in about concurring. I

said this many times last night.

What is

really becoming the question of what we're arguing here in the last few days, is

the recommendation on a reprimand, Mr. Speaker. There are four options that the

review Commissioner had in determining what the consequence would be. There were

four options. The Commissioner himself said that it would be a reprimand. That

was his suggestion in this report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the

Premier agrees that there was gross misconduct here by the minister. He can do

the right thing and remove him from Cabinet as he has in the past. That would be

the right thing to do to start, to bring integrity back to the House of

Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Does the Premier have

confidence in the Citizens' Representative, an Officer of this House? If he

does, why is he rejecting the Officer's conclusion that the minister grossly

mismanaged his obligations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, going back to

the previous reports and reviews that have been done, when these people were

removed from Cabinet at the time, it was pending the review that would be

ongoing. This review has now been completed.

The

consequence, or the recommendation of what the action should be following the

review has been articulated and described. That being one of four, that being a

reprimand. There are five areas of allegations, two of which are mentioned, and

where the consequence or the reprimand that the Commissioner actually suggested

it should be.

So that

is what we're debating here in this House today, the reprimand based on the

Commissioner's review.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

going to read again, in his report of June 11, 2019, the Citizens'

Representative stated on page 30, and I read: “We conclude that Minister

Mitchelmore's actions in intervening to facilitate the hire of Ms. Foote at The

Rooms not only breached his Code of Conduct, but grossly mismanaged his

obligations under that Code.”

So I ask

the Premier: How can you keep such a minister in your Cabinet who grossly

mismanaged his obligations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

what we've seen from the reports that were done by the Citizens' Representative

and then referred to the Commissioner for Legislative Standards who would then

determine what the suggestion would be based on the findings in the reports –

suggestions came out of that, Mr. Speaker, of a couple of things, really.

One was

a reprimand, which is one of the four, as I just mentioned. So a reprimand was

what was suggested.

There

was one other thing that was suggested, and clearly when we listen to the debate

today, one of the things that I mentioned yesterday was doing a review of the

movement of executive around government. I spoke yesterday quite often about why

that was important.

Ironically, today, people getting involved in the debate today were suggesting

there should be something very different. But clearly, the author of that report

said it should be done by the clerk of the executive. Mr. Speaker, those are

some of the things that are getting clouded in today's debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In his

report on June 11, 2019, the Citizen's Representative stated on page 30, and I

quote: “Specifically, we find that Minister Mitchelmore fundamentally mismanaged

his obligations pursuant to the” Code of Conduct provision 2, which states: “The

fundamental objectives of his holding public office is to serve his fellow

citizens with integrity in order to improve the economic and social conditions

of the people of the Province.”

How can

the Premier justify keeping this minister in Cabinet who fundamentally

mismanaged his obligations?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, as I said

yesterday, I've worked with this minister for quite some time. We all know

what's being debated and what's being questioned here too is not just this one

action, but what's being debated here is really a process that has been around

for decades.

Mr.

Speaker, I said to some Members here in this House this morning, if we went in

and did a complete review of all RSAs over the last 25 or 30 years, I think

every Member in this House of Assembly that would have had experience, whether

you would've been involved in government or not, would have known that these

RSAs have been something that we all would have questions about appointments

that had made by prior administrations.

That is

the reason why, yesterday, we will be putting together terms of reference;

hopefully, they can be completed today. It's been suggested in this report by

its author, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.

Mr.

Speaker, we want to fix this and we will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MS. EVANS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm

going to quote the Premier now. In this House of Assembly on March 10, 2016, the

Premier stood in the House and he said: “ Our

objective here is to give Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the confidence in the

actions of their government. It is now time to take the politics out of these

government appointments.”

Will the Premier concede he's failed miserably to take

the politics out of government appointments, as now confirmed by the two

independent officers of this House?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, once again,

we're getting politics mixed up with some of the decisions that are (inaudible).

What the Member is referring to there is IAC, the Independent Appointments

Commission, and these are about tier-one and tier-two appointments.

As I

mentioned yesterday, over 2,600 people have been included in that process, and

over 600 people that would never have had an opportunity in this province to be

sitting on one of those boards and commissions, because in the past they were

appointed politically.

That's

the change that we have made, Mr. Speaker. We are seeing more women, we're

seeing more Indigenous people participating on those boards as a result of that

position we took in 2016, as the Member was just referring to. That reference

was not to these reports that we're discussing here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In his

report, June 17, 2019, the Citizens' Representative stated on page 8: On

September 21, 2018, The Rooms executive committee stepped out of the room while

Mr. Brinton received a call from the minister and the deputy minister. When they

returned, they were advised that the minister and the deputy minister had said

that the Premier has offered Carla Foote the position of executive director of

marketing with The Rooms.

Premier,

did the minister lie when he told Mr. Brinton that the Premier had offered Carla

Foote the job? Because that's what we're being told. That's what the public are

hearing.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, when you look at

the evidence that was provided by the CEO, that was not there. The minister has

already said, Mr. Speaker, and I can clearly tell you that there was no

direction given by me to hire Ms. Foote. That is not the case, even though I

know the politics around this all sounds great and you keep asking those

questions.

What I

do know is in the past we have clearly seen direction that's been given by many

people that have sat in the chairs, and ministers of prior administrations that

did give direction, clearly gave direction to put certain people in key

positions. Not in this case, Mr. Speaker. That direction certainly did not come

from me and the CEO is not in these findings as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess

he's saying the minister is lying. We live in the present and the public today

are looking for answers. The Premier and this government are not giving them.

Ms.

Foote was a senior official of the Executive Council, an official office under

direction of the Premier. Who offered the official job at The Rooms if not you,

Mr. Premier?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, right now there

was a process that I was not involved in at The Rooms that put – that Ms. Foote

went in there. What I will say is that Ms. Foote, as I said yesterday so many

times, is clearly qualified for this job.

On that

day there were two executive director positions that were put in place: one was

about museums and galleries and the second one was the marketing and

development, which Ms. Foote eventually is now that executive director, Mr.

Speaker. These decisions were made at the time. Of course, the RSAs, as they've

now become very publicly known, these were executed and Ms. Foote is in that

position today, as well as the other executive director.

We've

seen tremendous advancements at The Rooms within the last year, Mr. Speaker, all

as a part of the great team that's now in place there. The board is now

stronger. We all need, collectively as a province, to see The Rooms as a much

better institution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is

astounding. The Premier needs to tell – someone needs to tell us who offered her

the job. She just never showed up at The Rooms' doorstep one day and said I'm

here to work. Somebody did this. You're here telling us – we're being led to

believe that no one approved it. It's incredible. I'll leave it at that. The

public can decide on this.

According to the narrative the Premier is putting forward, when did the Premier

first find out the Cabinet Secretariat official working under his direction was

offered a job at The Rooms? Who told him?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I want to

address the

preamble again, because once you look at the report and read that

report, how that was executed is all clearly in that report. We talk about the

Cabinet Secretariat that would have signed off on that, the CEO, the board and

so on; all of that is clearly outlined in that report.

Mr.

Speaker, this is the way that it was executed and implemented at the time, but

the direction did not come from me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to remind the Premier I'm not totally green, I was on this other side. I wasn't

in this Legislature but I was in the backrooms. I know these positions do not

get offered without the blessing of the Premier. That's just the way this works.

You come from Executive Council; it's the minister and Premier in conversation.

Someone has to tell the people the truth. This is not fair to the people of this

province. They deserve better.

Final

question, Mr. Speaker: Has the Premier ever had discussion with Ms. Foote's

mother about Ms. Foote's position at The Rooms?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, well, clearly

what the Member just said is one of the reasons why we might need to go back a

few years. We might need to go back a few years, put that spade in the ground

and see where the skeletons that the Member opposite just said that they were

part of. He just said then, clearly, to his own admission, talked about how

appointments were being done. He just said clearly that it was all done by the

Premier's office or the minister's office, whoever was responsible, Mr. Speaker.

We're

not saying here that this process was perfect. No one is saying that. That is a

reason why the review has been done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER BALL:

We have agreed to the

concurrence, and the minister has agreed to apologize based on the

recommendations of a reprimand that has come out of these findings, Mr. Speaker.

I don't

know what else we can say about this. Clearly, I'm not going to agree with what

the Member opposite is saying because that's not the way it happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Harbour Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, no

one on the government's side is talking about the employee who was personally

impacted by the decision to hire Ms. Foote.

I ask

the minister: Is there a statement of claim filed against government by the

former employee who was dismissed to make room for Carla Foote?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, thank you for

the question.

I'd just

like to talk about some of the positive things that are happening at The Rooms

today. We've had the opportunity to make several changes at The Rooms over the

last year or more. We've had two executive directors put in place. If you don't

want to hear it, that's okay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for

the protection.

We've

had two executive director positions put in place: one that handles museums and

galleries and one that handles marketing and development. We've also expanded

the board of directors, all in an attempt to make the relationship between

government and The Rooms stronger and better for the people of this province.

The

Rooms has seen 123,000 people go through the doors this past year. That's

impressive. It's increased over the previous year. There are exhibits that have

been done. Retail sales have been up at The Rooms, 15 per cent over last year.

It's amazing to see how improvement is. It's a full team effort down there of

highly skilled –

MR. SPEAKER:

We're going to move to the

next question.

The hon.

the Member for Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker, we

need answers to these legitimate questions.

I ask

the minister again: Please answer the question. Is there a statement of claim

filed against government by the former employee who was dismissed to make room

for Carla Foote?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can't

speak to individual HR matters that happens at The Rooms from day to day. I'm a

new minister in the role. All I can speak to is the impact that has happened at

The Rooms over the past year. It's been positive. There's been an increased

number of visitations at The Rooms, more exhibits and donors have increased.

It's an impressive situation that's happened at The Rooms and it's all about the

highly skilled staff that we have at The Rooms and the great work that they do

each and every day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Member for Harbour

Main.

MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:

Mr. Speaker,

perhaps this question can be answered: Given that there were 77 applicants

applied for the original competition for the director of marketing and

development, have any of these individuals filed court action, made complaints

to the Public Service Commission, or asked any other Officers of the House to

investigate this gross misconduct?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. Minister of Tourism,

Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, thank you for

the question.

One of

the things that we're getting confused here – and I'd like to highlight it for

the people in the public – this is a competition that happened two years ago

which we have no viewpoint in and have no reason why the CEO at the time would

have stopped that competition. Seventy-seven people applied for a job. That's

great, it's awesome to hear, but we have no view to why the CEO stopped that at

that time in 2016.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, we just heard

the Premier stand up and talk about going back 25 years for RSAs. The current

government has been in – this is their fifth year I'll remind him.

Are they

only now looking at doing a review of these policies because they got caught in

a lie?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

To refer

that way to another Member is inappropriate. I ask the Member to withdraw those

remarks.

MR. PARROTT:

I apologize.

Mr.

Speaker, the chair of the board of directors for The Rooms has spoken out about

the flawed process to hire Carla Foote and the resulting damage done to the

reputation of The Rooms.

Mr.

Speaker, is the minister concerned that the government's gross mismanagement has

permanently turned away donors and volunteers?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I have to

correct some of the statements. The Rooms is in a very good spot with respect to

a relationship with the government. We've seen expansions of 123,000 visitors

coming to The Rooms, up 5 per cent over the previous year; retail sales up 15

per cent in the gift shop that's downstairs. This is impressive. There are

exhibits that have been in place.

It is

the cultural epicentre of our province. It's important that we support it. I

know the individuals in our province support it and I'm going to continue to

support The Rooms each and every way I can. I know fully how much the previous

minister supported The Rooms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. PARROTT:

Mr. Speaker, corporate

sponsorship at The Rooms has dropped by over $100,000 under the Ball

government's current gross mismanagement.

Is the

minister going to replace the lost revenue?

MR. SPEAKER:

I remind the Member that he

can't refer to Members by their name, but w