PDF Version

November 5, 2018

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVIII No. 36

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I'd like

to welcome everyone back to the House of Assembly for another week. And, it

would also be my honour right now to introduce a very new Page to us. This is

Ben Pollard. Ben is from St. John's and he is studying International Political

Science and Culture Geography at Memorial University.

Welcome

to you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I will now recognize the hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, further to the

motion adopted by the House on Wednesday October 23, 2018, that this House

resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on a date to be announced in the

House by the Government House Leader following consultation with the House

Leaders for the Official Opposition and the Third Party, in order to receive the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards, for the purpose of answering questions

and providing clarity on the process of the recently tabled reports inquiring

into Members' Code of Conduct, I would note that I have consulted with my

colleagues and fellow House Leaders and that the Commissioner for Legislative

Standards will be presented to the House of Assembly today.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you very much.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today for Members' statements

we will hear from the hon. the Members for the Districts of Exploits, Torngat

Mountains, Stephenville - Port au Port, Placentia West - Bellevue and Terra

Nova.

The hon.

the Member for Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DEAN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today in this hon. House to recognize and remember a sombre tragedy that

unfolded in my District of Exploits on October 3, 1942. In addition to the

anguish of serving up the loss of our sons to World War II overseas, the Town of

Botwood awakened that morning to the heartbreaking reality of being host to the

crash on takeoff of the flying boat

Excalibur on the Bay of Exploits, and the ensuing deaths of 11 military

personnel, of which four souls remain on the missing list.

During

my tenure as mayor, the joint POW/MIA Accounting Command – JPAC – has been

dispatched twice to Botwood on assignment to recover and repatriate the remains

or personal effects of those not found. A second crash, that of the Canso 9384,

also continues to be the custodian of several souls as well; its final resting

place remains unknown to this day.

It most

certainly would be the prayer of us all to see the dawning of a day when all

lost are brought from the depths to the surface, and to the embrace of both the

sky over the Bay of Exploits and their families.

With

Remembrance Day on the horizon, I would ask all hon. Members to join with me in

a moment of silence for these crash victims, and indeed for all of our fallen

and living veterans, and current military personnel.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

(Moment

of silence.)

MR. SPEAKER:

I thank the Members.

The hon.

the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. EDMUNDS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last

week I had the opportunity to attend an event at Government House hosted by Her

Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

The sod

turning for the Heart Garden, the building of a memorial to recognize and

remember residential school survivors, victims and their families is a

significant milestone in recognition of the mistreatment done at residential

schools in the country as well as in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The

event was attended by Her Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, her husband as well

as descendants of residential school survivors. It is important to note, Mr.

Speaker, that there were many young children in attendance that showed their

support in the recognition of the dark days of our past, and to ensure that this

chapter in our history will never be forgotten.

Mr.

Speaker, I come from a family of residential school survivors, and understand

well the impacts on survivors and their families.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in honouring residential school

survivors and in remembering the 6,000-plus victims of residential schools who

never came home.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Stephenville - Port au Port.

MR. FINN:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

remember a heroic resident of the Port au Port Peninsula who passed away in

September at the age of 93 years following a lifetime of business, volunteerism

and military service to our country.

Mr.

Richard Alexander was born August 25, 1925 and enlisted in the Newfoundland

Militia at the age of 16 years in the fall of 1941. He served with the British

Navy and Royal Marine Commandos until war's end. Also, he helped rescue people

in the Knights of Columbus fire in St. John's in December of 1942.

married his wife, Dorothy, in England in 1945 and shipped home. In 1952 he

stepped up to serve again in Korea as sergeant with Princess Patricia's Canadian

Light Infantry and the Black Watch in 1953.

served as recruiter before taking his release from the regular force in 1956,

but once again re-enlisted in 1960 with the Regiment. He founded C Coy, 2nd

Battalion, Royal Newfoundland Regiment.

Mr. Speaker, he also helped established the Army Cadet movement on the West

Coast and was the honorary Lieutenant Colonel of the 2nd Battalion, Royal

Newfoundland Regiment, up to 2010. What a career!

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in expressing condolences to his 10

surviving children, 25 grandchildren, 36 great-grandchildren and one

great-great-grandchild as well as to his extended Royal Newfoundland Regimental

family.

Lest we

forget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Placentia West - Bellevue.

MR. BROWNE:

Mr. Speaker, if one thing is

for certain, it's that sheds across our province are dynamic places to be. This

was certainly the case for Rev. Fred Marshall of St. Michael's Anglican Church

in Arnold's Cove.

When

considering how to attract more men to his congregation, he offered his shed as

a place to gather around the woodstove and it was not long after this the group

decided to build a boat.

The

church's shed was too small for the 14-foot rodney there were to build, but

parishioner Lloyd Wareham offered up not only his much larger shed, equipped

with the necessary tools, but also his talent and expertise.

The

building of this rodney was a time for fellowship and knowledge sharing, and

they were pleased to donate it as a prize for the local fire department to put

on tickets to raise funds for equipment.

In fact,

Mr. Speaker, during the opening of the Arnold's Cove Heritage Week this summer,

I was pleased to be drafted as part of the group to carry the rodney from the

Drake House to the boat launch for its christening.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask hon. Members to join me in saluting all of those who participated

in Evenings at the Shed with Rev. Fred. I look forward to the next launch.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Terra Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Mr. Speaker, the Air Cadet

League of Canada helps youth build self-confidence, self-discipline and

leadership through effective public speaking, participation in healthy living

activities and personal development.

October 13 I had the privilege of attending the Newfoundland and Labrador

Provincial Committee's 69th Annual Awards Dinner, which was hosted in

Clarenville.

During

the awards dinner, cadets throughout this province were recognized for their

outstanding leadership and accomplishments.

Brianna

Ricketts from Gander was awarded the Leonard Outerbridge Award for Top Cadet for

Newfoundland and Labrador. At such a young age, Brianna's list of

accomplishments are truly amazing. Her career goal is to be a commercial airline

pilot and Brianna is well on her way to achieving this dream.

I am

told this year's meetings were a huge success and Air Cadet Squadron 567 Random,

Legion Branch 27 and the Town of Clarenville are to be commended for their

attention to detail and kind hospitality.

I ask

all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Brianna Ricketts on achieving Top

Cadet. As well, to the families, volunteers and sponsors of all Air Cadet

Squadrons across this province, thank you for your dedication to our young

people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

It has

come to my attention that we also have additional guests in the audience with us

today. In the gallery we have Ms. Sharon Goulding-Collins

and other members of

the group, Advocates for Senior Citizens' Rights.

Welcome

to you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, this morning at the College of the North Atlantic's Ridge Road campus I

had the pleasure of proclaiming this to be National Technology Week in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Also being celebrated is Skills Canada's National

Skilled Trades and Technology Week.

Throughout this week, students will participate in a variety of events and

programs where they can explore career opportunities in the skilled trade and

technology sector. This includes a Skills Work for Women Conference, which will

see 50 intermediate students participate in activities, including Try-A-Trade

demonstrations and a mentoring session with female role models employed in the

skilled trade and technology sector.

National

Technology Week celebrates rewarding career opportunities right here at home in

many of the sectors that our government is prioritizing through

The Way Forward, including technology,

mining, oil and gas, forestry, aquaculture and agriculture.

Our

government remains strongly committed to providing an affordable and accessible

public post-secondary education system. We also continue to strengthen and

modernize apprenticeship through online training for select trades and the

development of a new shared IT system to streamline every step of completing an

apprenticeship program.

I ask my

hon. colleagues to join me in encouraging students to participate in National

Technology Week activities throughout the province and learn more about the

current and future opportunities that exist in the technology-powered sectors

right here at home.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want

to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Increasing the

number of graduates in Newfoundland and Labrador with technology skills is

imperative for the substantial future of our province. I encourage students to

participate in the events and programs schedule, exploring potential career

opportunities in these sectors.

As it

currently stands under this Liberal government, and according to information and

communication technology council, the amount of jobs to be created in

Newfoundland and Labrador that are technology-related pale in comparison to

other Canadian jurisdictions over the next few years. More emphasis, resources

and training that embraces technology will be key to diversifying our economy

from traditional employment sectors.

Technology allows us to complete in the global marketplace and will be critical

to our success. I ask students to get involved and make Newfoundland and

Labrador a world leader in technology industries.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. I'm pleased to see the

recognition of National Technology Week, and I hope students enjoy and learn

from this week's activities. Fluency in technology is an important skill our

students will need today and into the future if they are to have fulfilling

lives and lives that bring in income that they need. However, unlike a number of

other provinces, we still do not have coding integrated fully into the K to 12

curriculum. I urge the minister, if he means what he said today, to make sure

this gets put in place.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further statements by

ministers?

The hon.

the Minister responsible for Natural Resources.

MS. COADY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

today in this hon. House to highlight Mining the Future 2030 – a plan to grow

the Newfoundland and Labrador mining industry, which was launched this past

Friday.

Mining

is a key contributor to the economic growth and employment in our province. In

2018, $48 million in exploration expenditures and $3 billion in mineral

shipments are forecast. This plan supports prospecting, exploration and

development of the industry. We have the opportunity to increase mineral

exploration expenditures, mineral shipments, revenues and jobs.

Our

vision is to strategically position Newfoundland and Labrador as a globally

competitive, top-tier jurisdiction for mineral exploration development – one

that is safe, environmentally responsible, maximizes benefits and opportunities,

and competitively produces quality products for global markets.

By 2030,

the provincial government envisions: five new mines; sustainable direct

employment of more than 6,200 people in operations; doubling annual exploration

expenditures to $100 million – or at least 5 per cent of the Canadian total; $4

billion in annual mineral shipments – or at least 10 per cent of the Canadian

total; a workforce that is more diverse and includes a minimum of 30 per cent

women, double the current level –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS. COADY:

– ensuring the province is

consistently ranked as a top three Canadian jurisdiction in permitting times;

and ensuring the province is consistently ranked overall as a top three Canadian

jurisdiction by industry.

Mr.

Speaker, Mining the Future 2030 delivers on commitments in

The Way Forward that strengthens the province's economic foundation.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. The mining sector in this

province, oftentimes I don't think it's highlighted enough. This sector provides

benefits and opportunities for many people often in rural areas of our province

and continues to have huge potential. The goals in creating more jobs,

establishing and finding new mines and doubling annual exploration expenditures

within the province are all positive goals if achieved.

In order

for these to be achieved, government needs to continue to ensure that

investments in geoscience are being used to help the industry find potential

sites and also to ensure that timelines for environmental approvals, exploration

permits, development agreements are all issued within a reasonable time frame as

we encourage growth in the industry.

While

the words used here today are a vision and a plan, they are not realized yet,

but we certainly look forward to continued growth in the industry at a time when

it is much needed here in the province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement. It is a good thing to be

optimistic for the future, but like her 2030 vision for the oil and gas

industry, the mining industry is 100 per cent reliant on good, global prices

which are completely beyond government's control.

I, too,

hope we have a future in sustainable mining of these non-renewable resources. We

can certainly promote mineral exploration so we know what resources we do have

but it can be precarious. Without viable global market prices, our mining

industry will not grow.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

statements by ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, I asked the

Premier last Wednesday if he had been in communication with the Premier of

Quebec on substantive issues, and I understood his answer to be that he had not.

Media reported since that he spoke to the Premier of Quebec on Wednesday

afternoon.

Does the

House understand that the Premier accepted the advice of the Leader of the

Opposition, and called Mr. Legault as soon as he left the Chamber?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

No.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I give the Premier full marks

for that one. It's the first yes or no answer I've gotten in the last three

weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

It is possible.

Mr.

Speaker, last Wednesday, the Premier referred to the recent Canadian Free Trade

Agreement and the free transmission of electricity through Quebec.

Would

the Premier explain to the House what steps his government has taken to exploit

this opportunity?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

we'll start with some education, and we will get some good questions. When we

get good questions, we give good answers. So no, I did not take the advice. That

was a call that we were arranging and one that we were trying to get set up with

Premier Legault for quite some time, as I had with many premiers from time to

time.

On the

Canadian Free Trade Agreement, this was some work that was done in 2016. There

are rules that already apply, so I would suggest to the Leader of the

Opposition, go to the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, the rules are there. There

is an energy

chapter for the first time in the history, really, of this

province. We were able to negotiate that at the Council of the Federation table.

The rules are there.

There is

a timeline, Mr. Speaker, between now and 2019, and a possible one-year

extension. And I cannot wait to talk about the Canadian Free Trade Agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the

hon. Premier would understand, these things require some negotiations, so we

will look forward to hearing about the progress of negotiations.

Every

lawyer and sophisticated client knows that cases can be settled pending appeal.

Would the Premier describe the efforts made, if any, to settle the Upper

Churchill Good Faith case while it was pending in the Supreme Court of Canada?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

It's really interesting when

you get up and start a

preamble and basically put out information that's not

quite factual, so I hope I'll get a chance to answer this question. But I really

want to address the

preamble when it comes to the rules.

The

energy

chapter exists. So the negotiation, Mr. Speaker, with the energy

chapter

is there. There is an opportunity for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,

and the Province of Quebec, to actually expand the rule, to change those rules.

There is a mechanism for that to allow. If that doesn't happen between now and

July of 2019, with a one-year extension to 2020, well then the rules could

potentially change.

But, Mr.

Speaker, let's keep in mind, the rules in the energy

chapter exists right now in

the Canadian Free Trade Agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you.

appreciate the answer, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can give the hon. Premier a new

lease on the question: What steps have been taken to settle the Upper Churchill

Good Faith case while pending before the Supreme Court?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, as

we know, the Good Faith case and the challenge started in 2010. There was a lot

of things that started in 2010, Mr. Speaker. Just to remind the people of the

province that was the same year that Muskrat Falls was started as well.

At the

same year, we had two things: one, challenge through the Supreme Court of Canada

talking about changing the rules around pricing; and, at the same time, they

were talking about a Muskrat Falls Project to go around and to break the

strangle hold of Quebec.

So, Mr.

Speaker, one thing I will say to the leadership that I have provided with other

provinces is one of partnerships – with the Province of Quebec around the mining

trough, the mining MOU that we signed and MOU on transportation. We will work

with other provinces to bring benefits to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

All of great interest, Mr.

Speaker, but it doesn't answer the question. Were efforts made to settle the

case while pending before the Supreme Court?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did

notice that the Leader of the Opposition, he put out a story after the fact,

which is what he does a lot lately when he sees a result, then he puts his

finger to see which way the wind is blowing, then he comes down on the side and

makes a decision. It's kind of like the baseball coach determining that I think

I should have changed the pitcher because the guy just hit the homerun, or the

player just hit the homerun, so after the fact, Mr. Speaker

The

strategy that we put in place started quite some time ago, is that it's – thank

you, Mr. Speaker, for –

MR. SPEAKER:

I'm staring at him.

Please

proceed, Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

So, the strategy that we put

in place was really in a general sense. I did visit and met with the former

premier of Quebec quite some time ago. It was there that we got the MOU in place

for mining, the MOU in place for transportation. Mr. Speaker, it comes to

working with other provinces and creating those strong partnerships.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, at this point we

can all arrive at our own conclusion; mine personally is that there were no such

efforts made to settle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CROSBIE:

All settlements are based on

the party's perception of risk, if the matter goes to court decision. Is the

Premier suggesting to this House that Quebec perceived no risk for itself in the

Good Faith case that had had 100 per cent certainty about the outcome?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just

remind the Leader of the Opposition, and Members of his caucus, that there's

still another declaration and opinion coming out of the courts on the Muskrat

Falls file, so this hasn't stopped when it comes to challenges.

I'm

getting a bit perplexed why the Leader of the Opposition would assume naturally

that this puts an end to the challenges that we're now facing. I think he's

forgetting or ignoring, or dismissing or simply forgetting the fact that the

whole water management agreement, as it's referred to, this is really – the name

changes because it's about availability of power, but there's still work being

done.

Premier Legault and I discussed last week, there are good things that we can do

together, let's find a consensus and work for the benefits of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians and for the people in other provinces as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Again, Mr. Speaker, I think

we all understand that settlements arise out of the perception of risk and a

chapter of risk has now been closed vis-à-vis Quebec.

The loss

of the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada raises the important point of

preparation for 2041.

I ask

the Premier. What is he doing to ensure that our province can get maximum

benefit come 2041?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Mr. Speaker, I want to go

back once again to the

preamble because I don't think it's fair to let that go.

That needs to be addressed. He makes this comment about having a negotiation,

about trying to prevent – before the final decision would have been made by the

Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr.

Speaker, I just remind people of this province that it was his party, it was the

PC Party in this province that would not negotiate with Quebec. What they did is

they put in place Muskrat Falls to go around Quebec. So I ask him, once again:

Are you now saying you do not support the Muskrat Falls Project? Your caucus

does. Do you support it or do you not support it, or are you waiting for the

inquiry is what you're telling the people of this province?

Well, I

say to the Leader of the Opposition, I don't need an inquiry to tell me that

doubling of electricity rates in this province is not a good thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, none of us on

this side need an inquiry to tell us that a doubling of power rates is a bad

thing.

I ask

this question, in part, to be helpful. Tens of thousands of documents that may

be invaluable for our future dealings with Quebec over the Upper Churchill are

in the possession of the province's law firm in Montreal. Will the Premier

assure the House that these documents will be preserved securely for future use

by the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I

will go back once again to the

preamble and not give the Leader of the

Opposition the liberty to just to say when he talks about – because it was his

comments when he talked about the inquiry that he needed to know the outcome of

the inquiry to determine if it was a bad deal.

Mr.

Speaker, doubling of electricity rates or any project that allows that to double

is a bad deal for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We don't need the inquiry to

say that.

Mr.

Speaker, once again, the Leader of the Opposition is actually assuming now that

he can't trust his own profession. So what he's saying is – is he suggesting

that his own profession would take legal documents that was given to them, in

their profession, and give that to somebody? Is that what he's suggesting today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

With respect, this was a tortured answer to a relatively straightforward

question.

The

House looks for reassurance from the government that these documents will be

treated with the respect and value that they deserve, on the basis that they may

have future application in dealings with Quebec.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well,

with my experience, this has been with CF(L)Co, of course, this challenge, but

you would automatically assume that a profession like the legal profession would

actually make certain that those files are kept in confidence.

Is the

Leader of the Opposition suggesting that in his own profession, that he'd have

any instances at all, that his own profession, that being a lawyer, would

actually take confidential documents and give that to somebody? Is he suggesting

that his profession would do that, or has done that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

The question is simply premised on the idea of the importance of maintaining

these documents in a secure repository for a future use.

The

Churchill Falls assets are aging, and I ask the Premier: What investments is

Nalcor making to ensure that the assets are functional in 2041 to ensure

long-term benefits for the province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes,

there are investments that are being made at the Upper Churchill site. Of

course, CF(L)Co there is operating that site; nearly two-thirds ownership by

this province and one-third ownership by Hydro-Québec. These assets are being

improved. I think it's important for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that

when this asset finally returns to Newfoundland and Labrador, the shareholders

here, that it would be in good shape. And there is a plan there to continue to

bring the improvements.

Mr.

Speaker, I'm not so sure if the Leader of the Opposition has been there

visiting. I've been there, it's a great site. It's a great part of the history

of our province. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is a bigger part of the future

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, this question will change topics now.

I just

state that I enjoyed the one-word answer that the first question in this

sequence elicited, and encourage the Premier that he may want to give more of

them.

Is the

Premier aware that one Jeffrey Ryan is the registered lobbyist for Canopy Growth

within this province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All

registered lobbyists have to register with Service Newfoundland and Labrador and

make their views known as being a registered lobbyist.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you to the minister.

The

Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation was lobbied on behalf of

Canopy Growth.

I ask

the minister: Does this lobbyist, to his knowledge, have any ties to the Liberal

Party?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When it

comes to any business dealings that Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and

Innovation does, we do so in a very professional way. I have no knowledge of Mr.

Ryan being affiliated with any political party.

What I

will say is that anybody who is registered as a lobbyist, this is a matter of

public record, they have to do so on Service NL as to who they're meeting with,

and that is a matter of public record.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

I thank the minister.

Is he

aware that one Gary Anstey is the registered lobbyist for Biome Grow in this

province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I

said, anybody who registers in a lobbyist form there is a registry of lobbyists

that they must register with, with Service Newfoundland and Labrador, to provide

who they would be meeting with and the dealings they would be having, and that

is a matter that would be filed and would be a public record.

When it

comes to the line of questioning of the Member opposite, I find it very

frustrating. Because when it comes to doing any type of business deal in

Newfoundland and Labrador, they are done by the professional staff in Tourism,

Culture, Industry and Innovation to make sure that we are evaluating the

benefits to the people of this province, Mr. Speaker. We did not have any

licensed cannabis producers here. We are growing an industry, we are creating

jobs and we are creating returns.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Thank

you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

To the best of the minister's

knowledge, does the lobbyist Gary Anstey have ties to the Liberal Party?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I do not carry

around a record of who is a Member of the Liberal Party or who is a Member of

the Progressive Conservative or who's a Member of the NDP. That is not a

checklist when it comes to people making applications to do business with the

people of the province. That is not a criteria for any of our funding.

When we

– at the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, we evaluate

business projects on their own merit and that is what we have done when it comes

to Canopy and when it comes to Biome.

If you

were there – if the Member opposite was in St. George's and saw the positive

response by business leaders, by municipal leaders, by people in the community

of the jobs that are going to be created and the economic benefits to the

region, he would be impressed as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Mr. Speaker, for the Premier,

your minister either does not have the answers or is avoiding the questions.

Would

the Premier ask the lobbyist commissioner to conduct a review of the suspicious

activities, lobbying activities and any political connections to the lobbyist?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly

not responsible as minister for the

Lobbyist Act here but anything – if the Member opposite has some questions

or something specifically then maybe he needs to take some specific action.

He spoke

out publicly in the media about The Rooms and filing human rights commission

complaints and saying, oh, I couldn't really do that; you know, that was an

error on my behalf but I put that out there. He puts a lot of stuff out there as

the Leader of the Official Opposition.

The fact

of the matter is that in the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and

Innovation we welcome proposals. We welcome and accept applications on behalf of

people across the province, and we're investing in good projects all across

Newfoundland and Labrador to create jobs and grow our economy.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, the announcement of Canopy Growth to come into the province by

government was premised in incentivizing a multibillion dollar company with $40

million in tax credits that would eventually pay off a $50 million facility in

the East End of St. John's.

That

government's announcement, I ask the minister, included the provincial

government and Canopy Growth as partners in the deal. I ask the minister: Are

they the only partners, or are there other partners involved in the deal?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we

entered into an agreement, a supply and production agreement with Canopy Growth

on December of 2017, we had done so with Canopy Growth and our registered

company, which we encourage them to register here in Newfoundland and Labrador

so that there could be additional benefits obtained. When companies register

here there are registration fees and there's other taxation that could be

obtained with that.

The

agreement is quite clear, that when it comes to this $40 million in reduced

remittances, the company can only recoup anything that is an eligible cost. If

something is not an eligible cost then they will not receive any benefit. The

more successful they are as a company and the more investment they make in

sales, the more returns we have as the people of the province. This is a good

deal.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for that and I'll ask him to clarify. So does your agreement with

Canopy Growth ensure that they are the only recipient or beneficiary of the $40

million in tax credits from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

answer is yes.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another

quick answer, which is good to hear.

Minister, capital costs for the $50-million Canopy Growth facility will be

recovered from the sale of cannabis. Will Canopy Growth own this $50-million

building which the people of the province paid for, or anybody else?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I would

encourage the Member to review the contract, which we made available. When it

comes to eligible costs and when it comes to recoupment, Canopy Growth would

have to be in receipt and have these eligible costs in order for them to receive

any money.

So, this

is a particular matter that we have a contract with them. There is no risk to

the taxpayers, the people of this province. We're not providing any cash or

upfront grants, or other incentives like other provinces have chosen to do, or

how the other administration across the way – when they were in government –

chose to provide all kinds of grants and subsidies to encourage people to come

here to the province.

What

we've done is we've taken an approach to create an industry here, jobs and

benefits, with no taxpayer dollars.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: The agreement with Canopy Growth, does it allow or permit for

partial tax credits to be remitted to Canopy for capital cost, a portion or all

of them, to be interrupted and then someone else own that asset at some point in

the future?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, the contract is

quite clear that Canopy Growth can receive up to $40 million in reduced sales

remittances on eligible costs towards their capital expenditures. They're a

publicly traded company and they have to make those expenditures. Anything that

is not of theirs or is not deemed qualified they would not receive any

particular recoupment for that cost.

What we

have done here in this province where we had no cannabis producer, we were able

to secure a leader such as Canopy and now we have Biome. What we have is we have

over 260 production jobs that are being created here in this province for 20

years, without putting a single taxpayer dollar at risk. They are going to be

here for the long term and returning benefits to the Treasury.

This is

a good deal, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

We have an agreement, Mr.

Speaker, but there's no product available on the shelves. That's quite an

agreement.

Minister, the current lease of land that the building is built on, do you know

if this is a lease to buy set-up, which makes the benefactor of the tax credit

somebody other than Canopy Growth?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All I

can say is that with the particular contract that we signed with Canopy Growth

is that was done in December of 2017, and it was done that they would have a

production facility here on the Northeast Avalon.

At that

time, they had not selected a site. They were looking at sites, or they were

looking at land to do a greenfield build. It is up to a company – a

publicly-traded company or any company. We do not dictate here in Newfoundland

and Labrador where companies are going to set up.

In fact,

when I was on the West Coast, the Back Home cannabis company, they had

highlighted that Mr. Callahan said: I was enticed to go to other areas like St.

John's, but I'm setting up right here in my hometown of Barachois Brook, so

those jobs stay here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last

week, the minister advised he did not know who owned the property being leased

to Canopy Growth, held in a numbered company, or the arrangement.

I ask

the minister: You were going to investigate it. Can you provide any update to us

since last week?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When it

comes to the contract that we entered with Canopy, what we had done is Canopy

Growth is one of the companies. There is a numbered company attached to the

contract as well, which has two officials with Canopy Growth and the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in contract with the Newfoundland and Labrador

Liquor Corporation to provide supply chain as part of our supply and production

agreement.

They

will receive benefit for any costs that are deemed eligible. Any cost that is

not eligible would not be paid out for the people of the province. We have clear

mechanisms for penalties, should they not follow their contract. We have been

working with Canopy. They are creating and building the structure, and steel is

being put in place. If they do not own the land of which the Member Opposite is

alleging, then they will not (inaudible) –

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Speaker.

As part

of Health Canada licensing process, they have a site ownership requirement and a

declaration is required from the site owner.

I ask

the minister: Were you aware of this requirement last week? Did you see this

declaration? And, again, were you aware of the land ownership last week, and are

you aware of it today? Because Health Canada requires it.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm very aware

of the Health Canada requirements, and that's certainly something that's very

important. In order for any production facility to become licensed, they have to

be inspected by Health Canada to secure their licence. They also have to meet

other requirements, and this is a federal requirement.

And that

is why it was very important for us to enter into a supply and production

agreement with a licensed producer in Canada, because we did not have one. We

attracted a world leader in Canopy. We now have another leader in the country as

well in terms of Biome Grow, and we encourage others to go through that process.

Mr.

Callahan, who is the president of Back Home Cannabis Corporation, is involved

with Biome Grow, and he had been involved through that process. But no

Newfoundlander or Labradorian had achieved licensing, so that's why it was so

important.

Once it

opens, Mr. Speaker, it's very important that they meet all the requirements of

their contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER :

Thank you.

The hon.

the Opposition House Leader for a very quick question.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I ask the minister: He

mentioned licences; how many licences are approved today in Newfoundland and

Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of TCII

for a quick response, please.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We've

entered into supply and production agreements with two particular companies in

Canopy Growth and Biome Grow, and we look forward to continuing to work with

others who are wanting to set up and create jobs and grow here, in Newfoundland

and Labrador, this new, innovative industry.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two

weeks ago, the Minister of Finance bragged about the jobs his government has

created since taking office. At that time, the minister took credit for jobs

that will be created by Husky Energy, Equinor, Vale and Canada Fluorspar.

I ask

the minister: Would he agree that it was the rising price of oil and minerals,

not his government, that has prompted these companies to announce potential new

jobs, some of which won't be created for some time in the future?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

No, Mr. Speaker, I do not

agree.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, it's very

interesting to see what the minister is taking credit for.

So, the

minister also talked about thousands of person-years coming from these and other

companies, as well as from long-term infrastructure plans.

I ask

the minister: Why did he put forward hypothetical estimates of person-years in

the long term, as if they were jobs his government had already created, and what

is he going to do in the near term for the current job crisis that we're

experiencing?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our

government, our Premier, ministers and Members of our caucus have been working

very hard with local industry to create employment, to diversify the economy, to

create opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to stay at home and

work at home.

Mr.

Speaker, in July of this year, employment grew by 1.4 per cent; in August of

this year, it grew by 3.1 per cent; in September, 2.9 per cent; and in October,

1 per cent.

Mr.

Speaker, we've been working hard to create employment in this province. If the

minister opposite doesn't like that, too bad.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

I am not a minister yet, Mr.

Speaker, but the annual unemployment rate is still 14.3 per cent in Newfoundland

and Labrador.

So I ask

the minister: How can he claim that his government created 1,800 jobs in Wabush,

when the jobs are only getting started, and even when they are created, it will

be because of the rising price of iron ore, not because of anything that his

government has done?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, in 2015, in

The Economy book, government of the day estimated that in 2018 there

would be 221,700 jobs in this province. The reality is that in the first 10

months of this year employment averaged 225,400, a considerable improvement over

what was projected in 2015.

Previous

government knew, as this government found out, that there were fiscal challenges

facing the province, that difficult decisions had to be made, but we've worked

very hard with The Way Forward , with

doubling the size of the aquaculture industry, with improving the agriculture

industry, Mr. Speaker, the tech industry. We've worked very hard on diversifying

the economy in this province, and we're going to continue to do so. It is good

government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's

try another question.

I ask

the Minister of Finance: Why government is bragging about 500 low-paying cubicle

jobs at an S&P call centre, when his government had to pay $1.25 million to get

them? Is that his idea of economic development?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm very

disappointed in the Member who represents City of St. John's for 500 jobs that

are being created right here in this very city that we have a company, S&P Data,

that is creating 500 jobs.

When it

comes to the investment that's made by our government, that is a loan – $975,000

is in a repayable loan. There's $250,000 provided in training. S&P Data had

opened up, they have never closed a contact centre. Unlike the Members of the

other way, whenever they have attracted a call centre they provided incentives

and incentives, and when those incentives ran out this company closed. That's

not the case with this particular one. We're creating long-term jobs here in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I say

that remains to be seen that these are long-term jobs.

When we

strip away the jobs that haven't been created yet, along with the ones

government had no role in creating, I ask the minister: How many jobs have

actually been directly created through government's efforts in the last three

years?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, we see month

over month over the last four months that the employment numbers in this

province are improving. That's as a result of the work that this government is

doing. An oil company or a mining company can't just come in and set up shop

without negotiating with government, without putting a deal together with

government, and we are looking after the best interests of the people of this

province.

We are

diversifying the economy, we are creating employment. We are, Mr. Speaker, doing

things on this side of the House to try and create opportunities to reverse the

aging population, to reverse the out-migration as a result of the situation this

province was in. I'm proud of the work that this government has been doing in

diversifying the economy. I'm proud of the work that this government has been

doing in creating jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The time

for Oral Questions has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Service NL.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, Bill 35.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Mr. Speaker, I give notice

that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The

Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act No. 2, Bill 36.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

notices of motion?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant

to Standing Order 11(1) I hereby give notice that this House not adjourn at 5:30

p.m. on Tuesday, November 6.

Further,

I give notice pursuant to Standing Order 11(1) that this House not adjourn at

5:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 8.

MR. SPEAKER:

Answers to Questions for

which Notice has been Given.

Answers to

Questions for which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to

provide some supplementary information to the Opposition House Leader for a

couple of questions he asked me earlier in Question Period.

One is,

I can certainly confirm that there are no licences approved by Health Canada in

this province yet to date, but the two companies that we've entered into supply

agreements they do have licences elsewhere in Canada and they're working through

that final requirement.

Also,

when it comes to a Health Canada requirement for any individual to own land,

that is not a requirement if a landlord is on a particular piece of land.

I just

want to put that on the record.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the

Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

Newfoundland and Labrador has one of the lowest minimum wages in Canada, and

minimum wage workers earn poverty incomes; and

WHEREAS

proposals to index the minimum wage to inflation will not address poverty if the

wage is too low to start with; and

WHEREAS

women and youth, and service sector employees, are particularly hurt by the low

minimum wage; and

WHEREAS

the minimum wage only rose only 5 per cent between 2010 and 2016, while many

food items rose more than 20 per cent; and

WHEREAS

other Canadian jurisdictions are implementing or considering a $15 minimum wage

as a step towards a living wage;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to legislate a gradual increase in the minimum

wage to $15 by 2020 with an annual adjustment thereafter to reflect provincial

inflation.

As in

duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, when I raised this petition last week, the Minister of AESL disputed

some of the information that I brought to the House about really where other

provinces were with their minimum wage and where Newfoundland and Labrador is in

relation to that.

Mr.

Speaker, the more updated numbers are: Nunavut's minimum wage is $13; Northwest

Territories, $13.46; Alberta, $15; Ontario, $14 – it was to be $15 by 2019, but

that's been cancelled; the Yukon, $11.51; Manitoba, $11.35; Prince Edward

Island, $11.55; British Columbia, $12.65, and they are pledging to be up to $15

by 2021; Quebec, $12; Saskatchewan, $11.06; Nova Scotia, $11, considering $14 by

2024; New Brunswick, $11.25; and Newfoundland and Labrador, $11.15. So we are

the third-lowest. We are at $11.15, Nova Scotia is at $11 and Saskatchewan is at

$11.06.

Mr.

Speaker, as I've pointed out in this petition, government is going to increase

according to the cost of living increase; however, our baseline is so low as it

is we will never catch up, we will never catch up to the other provinces. And I

ask the minister once again, does he think this is good enough for the

hard-working people of Newfoundland and Labrador? I say it isn't, it isn't good

enough for the hard-working people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation for a response,

please.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

certainly listened intently to the Member's petition. One of the things we've

done as government, as we committed to do, was to increase minimum wage and tie

it to consumer price indexing as the cost of living is increasing. But other

things that we have done as a government for minimum wage earners – and a number

of us may have been in a situation, I know I have in the past, where I've earned

minimum wage as well. It's certainly important when you're employed and as a

business owner when you're working, you work very hard on minimum wage.

It's

important that as a government we look at all the mix of programs and supports

that we provide, and one of the things we did in

Budget 2016 was we put in place the Newfoundland and Labrador Income

Supplement to help people that are lower wage earners and we've provided other

enhanced benefits that exist. Certainly, our goal as a government is to create

jobs that pay far more than the minimum wage.

I was in

Black Duck Brook on Friday with the MHA for Stephenville - Port au Port and the

MHA for St. George's - Humber and they announced 120 new jobs that will be

created, paying an average salary of $54,000 at a cannabis production facility.

That is far more than the minimum wage, Mr. Speaker. These are the types of

initiatives we need to happen more and more across Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There

have been numerous concerns raised by family members of seniors in long-term

care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with

dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions,

whereby loved ones who have experienced injuries have not been regularly bathe,

not received proper nutrition and or have been left lying in their own waste for

extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to government's

failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.

Therefore we petition the House of Assembly as follows: To urge the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which includes the mandatory

establishment of an adequate ratio of one staff to three residents in long-term

care and all other applicable regional health care facilities housing persons

with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions

in order to ensure appropriate safety, protection from injuries, proper hygiene

care and all other required care. This law would include the creation of a

specific job position in these facilities for monitoring and intervention as

required to ensure the safety of patients.

Mr.

Speaker, today in the House of Assembly I'm presenting over 3,200 signatures on

behalf of the group who is joining us today, Advocates for Senior Citizens'

care, and I believe my colleague from St. John's East - Quidi Vidi will be doing

likewise.

Mr.

Speaker, we know we have an aging population here in our province and we know

the challenges we have are only going to increase as time goes on. Certainly,

we've heard challenges in the community as it relates to home care. We've heard

challenges, most recently, as it relates to personal care.

This

particular petition relates to long-term care. What we're talking about here is

we're talking about our mothers, our fathers, our grandparents, and one day, Mr.

Speaker, ourselves that may indeed require long-term care as an option for us as

we age. We want to ensure that anyone who is in long-term care are taken care of

adequately. What this is calling for is actual legislation that would put in

place standards to ensure that our seniors receive the care they so rightly

require and that they deserve.

Putting

it simply, leaving it to regulations at the whim of the minister, leaving it to

policies at the whim of the health care authorities does not ensure that the

adequate care is in place. This group believes that by enshrining it in

legislation that will happen. That's what they want; that's what they want to

see happen. That's what I'm presenting today in the best interest of the seniors

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Further petitions?

The hon.

the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

There

have been numerous concerns raised by family members of seniors in long-term

care throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly those suffering with

dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating conditions

whereby loved ones have experienced injuries, have not been bathed regularly,

not received proper nutrition and or have been left lying in their own waste for

extended periods of time. We believe this is directly related to government's

failure to ensure adequate staffing at those facilities.

Therefore we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: To urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to instate legislation which includes

the mandatory established adequate ratio of one staff to three residents in

long-term care and all other applicable regional health facilities housing

persons with dementia, Alzheimer's disease and other cognitive debilitating

conditions in order to ensure appropriate safety, protection from injuries,

proper hygiene care and all other required care. This law would include the

recreation of a specific job position in these facilities for monitoring and

intervention as required to ensure the safety of patients.

I'm

honoured to stand today and add to what my colleague from Mount Pearl -

Southlands has done, as I present a total of over 3,000 signatures from people

who speak out because of what they're observing either in their own families, or

friends, or others, and their neighbours who are so unhappy with what's going on

in long-term care in this province, particularly when it comes to those with

dementia in the various forms in which it presents itself.

The

Advocates for Senior Citizens' rights want to see a legislated, regulated and

enforced staff-to-resident ratio. Our people are not getting the care they need.

Seniors who have given their lives to their families and to their communities

and to their provinces are not having their rights recognized. Inadequate care

inside of our facilities is just shameful. It's not something that we should be

accepting here in this province. It's absolutely shameful.

We have

a long-term care issue in terms of the long plan. We don't have a long-term plan

for looking at how we really should be taking care of our seniors. In the short

term, one thing we absolutely, definitely need is more staff to deal with the

people who are inside of our institutions, not warehousing like we have. We have

people in beds who can't feed themselves, for example. A tray is brought in by

the person who's only in charge of bringing the tray in; trays come out and they

haven't eaten. We have to stop this, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

many students in our province depend on school busing for transportation to and

from school each day; and

WHEREAS

there are many parents of school-aged children throughout our province who live

inside the Eastern School District's 1.6 kilometre zone, therefore do not

qualify for busing; and

WHEREAS

policy cannot override the safety of our children;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge government to eliminate the 1.6 policy for all elementary

schools in the province, and junior and senior high schools where safety is a

primary concern.

As in

duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I've presented, along with my colleagues, many times we've presented

this similar petition. We had a PMR on it last year. It's an issue we continue

to advocate for, for residents and our families in our respective districts.

without getting into the detail of our argument of the safety concern – it's an

obvious safety concern. I think everyone in this House can't deny that. But this

particular issue, just to let you know the importance of this to individuals,

there's a group of parents in my district, the children are 1.59 kilometres

away. They have to walk down this byroad. It's a very busy road, no sidewalks.

They have to go up Route 60, which again is one of the busiest roads in the

province, as I've stated, with no sidewalks to get to school.

It's a

serious safety issue, Mr. Speaker. I've spoken out about it many times. I've

attended protests. My colleagues here, we receive calls on a daily basis. But

this group of parents have actually gotten together, and they got hundreds of

petitions. They're notifying me, there are petitions coming from all other

districts. I'm sure Members opposite, it's in their districts. They're spreading

out.

This is

not an individualized district issue in Conception Bay South, or Cape St.

Francis, or Conception Bay East - Bell Island or Ferryland, this is becoming a

provincial issue. Our children are our most vulnerable, Mr. Speaker. I get the

fact this policy has been in place for a long time and have crossed party lines.

I'm not arguing that. I'm looking at hear and now – why don't we do an analysis

on the cost? Is there a cost-prohibitive factor to this? We've indicated as a

party and as a caucus here we're willing to look at that and examine it and make

the changes possible.

This day

and age we haven't got any longer a little car path; these are busy roads. These

schools are no longer your little community school; they're bigger operations.

We've got Waterford Valley High is down Topsail Road. The issues that come out

of there; people want a skywalk.

I can

list off schools, probably, in every district where things have changed,

families have changed, society's changed. No longer do you have a family with

all the supports around them, nan and pop, aunts and uncles in their

neighbourhood. They're on their own, single families, no vehicles. I can go on

and on. All these issues have been brought to my attention, and I'm sure to

Members opposite.

It's an

issue we're not going to give up arguing on. It's very important to people in

our districts. Families are very stressed out about this. It's a policy I really

believe it's time for it to be reviewed. There should be changes we've been able

to make. We can hear the political rhetoric on any matter, what party's in

power, we need action on this policy now, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Labour for a response, please.

MR. HAWKINS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I've

responded, I think, every time the Member has brought the petition up.

Obviously, as minister responsible for Education and Early Childhood Development

I know really some of the impacts. Safety is number one priority for us.

I don't

like playing politics on this, Mr. Speaker, because it's too important to play,

but the Member you wouldn't know that this is something that's happened within

the last three years. I'd like to know what the Member told his constituents

prior to 2015-2016, how they dealt with it, because obviously there was nothing

done.

I have

to tell the Member opposite; we have done a significant amount in this last

year. We have actually put in a 0.8, which we have now the best policy within

the entire country – the entire country. We have a 0.8 courtesy stop put in,

realizing that there are some issues out there and some students can take

advantage of courtesy stops within the 1.6.

So we

have made significant changes, Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Members

opposite and all the years that they had. They couldn't come up with the 0.8

when they were in power, but obviously didn't do that.

So, Mr.

Speaker, we do take safety very seriously, safety is priority number one for us,

and we are continuing to work and working with the school board to ensure that

we do have availability for students on a courtesy seating for them to take

advantage of the bus.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

Further

petitions?

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I call Orders of the Day, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day, Sir.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I call from the

Order Paper, Motion 4. I would move, pursuant to Standing Order 11(1) that the

House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock p.m. today, Monday, November 5.

MR. SPEAKER:

Thank you.

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

call from the Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of Bill 30.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move,

seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that Bill 30,

An Act To Amend The

Private Investigation And Security Services Act be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

CLERK (Barnes):

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services Act.

(Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill is now read a third

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

Paper.

motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services

Act,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

(Bill 30)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Public Sector Compensation Transparency Act, Bill 33, and I

further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Government House Leader shall have leave to introduce a bill

entitled

An Act To Amend The Public Sector Compensation Transparency Act, Bill

33, and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, “An Act To Amend The

Public Sector Compensation Transparency Act,” carried. (Bill 33)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Public Sector Compensation Transparency Act. (Bill

33)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 33 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources for leave to introduce a bill entitled, An

Act To Amend The Assessment Act, 2006, Bill 34, and I further move that the said

bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment shall have leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Assessment Act, 2006, and that

the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal Affair and Environment to introduce a

bill, “An Act To Amend The Assessment Act, 2006,” carried. (Bill 34)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The Assessment Act, 2006. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 34 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded

by the Minister of Natural Resources that pursuant to the motion adopted by the

House on November 1, 2018 the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole

to receive the Commissioner for Legislative Standards for the purpose of

answering questions and providing clarity on the process of the recently tabled

reports inquiring into Members' Code of Conduct.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the

Whole to receive the Commissioner for Legislative Standards for the purpose of

answering questions and providing clarity on the process of the recently tabled

reports inquiring into Members' Code of Conduct

Is it

the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All

those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Aye.

MR. SPEAKER:

All those against, 'nay.'

The

motion is carried.

motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker

left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Warr):

Order, please!

are now receiving the Commissioner for Legislative Standards for the purpose of

answering questions and providing clarity on the process of the recently tabled

reports inquiring into Members' Code of Conduct.

ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the Commissioner for Legislative Standards to

a seat in the Chamber, please.

Order,

please!

behalf of all Members, I welcome the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.

Does the

Commissioner have a preliminary statement to make?

MR. CHAULK:

Yes, I do.

Thank

you.

This

afternoon I am appearing voluntarily to assist the House. It is my understanding

that for the purpose of today's proceedings, questioning is limited to what is

stated in the resolution that is to provide clarity on the process of the

recently tabled reports.

As these

reports have yet to be debated before the House of Assembly and my statutory

authority has been fulfilled in presenting my opinion, it would be inappropriate

and reflect negatively upon my office's independence if I were to engage in a

debate regarding the substance of these reports.

Pursuant

to my legislation, I was required to provide an opinion to this House and I have

recommended penalties. My reports contain recommendations; however, it is the

duty of this House to choose whether or not to accept my opinion.

While

the nature of these issues are personal in nature, my legislation provides me

with no discretion and I must provide a report to the Management Commission. In

my opinion, a more private, restorative procedure would be more valuable to all

parties, but as the legislation was drafted it was my statutory duty to provide

these reports.

When

this issue first came to light, I communicated to all parties that given the

unique and serious nature of the allegations, I would be retaining assistance

from outside counsel with experience in workplace harassment and bullying. While

my office is statutorily independent, it was prudent to obtain counsel from

outside of the province to assist with these issues and I retained one of the

leading law firms in the country to provide assistance with these

investigations.

It is

important to note, that the Code of Conduct arose out of the House of Assembly

spending scandal and the recommendations of former Chief Justice Green. It was

this hon. House that created the Code of Conduct which provides guidance on the

conduct of Members discharging their legislative and public duties.

office has absolute jurisdiction to decide upon receipt of a complaint whether a

Member has violated the Code of Conduct; therefore, it is not the conduct of my

office or staff that is under review. It is conduct of these Members that is

under review.

Once

I've provided my opinion on an issue, the House may or may not agree with me;

however, the process laid out by the law ensures that all parties are provided

with an opportunity to defend their conduct throughout the process and be aware

of the case they have to meet.

respect the authority of the House to request my attendance; however, I have

concerns that the precedent that this House is now setting and requiring an

independent statutory officer to be subject to questioning after a finding of

misconduct has been made, may severely impact the independence of all statutory

offices in the future.

With

respect to the process, it is as follows: My authority is engaged when a written

request for an opinion is sent to me in accordance with

section 36 of the

House of Assembly Accountability,

Integrity and Administration Act . Similar provisions exist in the

House of Assembly Act , and

specifically in that act it is

section 42.

There

are four ways that a request can originate. Member to Member, which is

section

36(1); on my own initiative if I determine it is in the public interest to do

so, which is 36(2); by resolution of the House of Assembly, under 36(3); and,

finally, at the request of the Premier, under 36(4).

Upon

receipt of a written request for an opinion,

section 37 of the act requires me

to give the Member concerned reasonable notice. This notice includes being

provided with a complete copy of the complaint and reasonable opportunity to

respond.

Upon

receipt of the response from the Member concerned, I review the information

provided to determine if I'm going to conduct an inquiry or if I'm going to

provide a certificate in accordance with

section 42 of the act. It is not until

the assessment of a Member's response is made that I can determine if I'm going

to conduct an inquiry.

Once I

decide to conduct an inquiry, I have the powers of the Commissioner granted

under the Public Inquiries Act, 2006 .

These specific powers are limited to

section 9, which is the “Power to compel

evidence” and

section 10, the “Power to inspect.” No other provisions of that

act apply to me.

With

respect to these investigations, I retained the law firm Rubin Thomlinson of

Toronto to assist in the specific area of workplace harassment and bullying. My

office currently does not have a staff person with expertise in this area;

therefore, that expertise had to be retained.

Copies

of the complaints and the responses received were provided to the investigator

to assist with determining who should be interviewed regarding the subject

matter of the complaints. Rubin Thomlinson, being the expert in workplace

investigations, was not restricted in determining the number and identity of

witnesses to be interviewed.

attended all witness interviews to ensure I was fully informed of all the

evidence so that I could make a determination, if necessary, if there was a Code

of Conduct violation that went beyond workplace harassment. That was within my

statutory jurisdiction.

Representation by legal counsel is authorized by

section 37(2) of the act, where

the Member can make representations in writing, in person, by counsel or other

representative.

The

number and identity of witnesses was based upon the submissions of the parties

and the evidence that was put forward. While it is expected that not everyone

will always agree with who was called as a witness, investigators have to use

their professional judgment in determining who would be called. Furthermore, as

this process is meant to be timely and confidential, we do our best to balance

these two principles with procedural fairness.

Upon

receipt of the reports from Rubin Thomlinson, as I had been present for all

witness interviews and had reviewed all of the evidence, I was in agreement with

their findings with respect to the issue of workplace harassment and adopted

their findings in my report. In addition, having reviewed all of the evidence,

it was within my jurisdiction to make findings of a breach of the Code of

Conduct that I considered appropriate.

Rubin

Thomlinson's reports contained the identity of the complainants and therefore

have not been released. My reports have removed the name of the complainants and

have adopted their findings.

accordance with

section 38 of the act, my opinion is reported to the Management

Commission, which is then required to be presented to the House of Assembly. The

only exception is if the opinion is requested by the Premier in accordance with

subsection 36(4) of the act. In that case, the report is provided to the

Premier. All five of these reports were provided to the Management Commission.

Section

39 of the act provides four penalties that can be recommended under the report

filed under

section 38. The penalties are: that the Member be reprimanded; the

second one is that the Member make restitution; the third is that the Member be

suspended from the House of Assembly with or without pay for a period specified

in the report; or, the fourth one, is that the Member's seat be declared vacant.

As a

statutory officer, I have a solemn responsibility to administer the law exactly

the way specified in the law. In doing so, I am expected to behave in a

non-partisan manner.

For

these investigations, the definition of harassment that was used was:

Objectionable or offensive behaviour that is known or ought reasonably to be

known to be unwelcome.

Thank

you.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

Just a

few housekeeping notes. As we're all aware, a total of 400 minutes has been

approved and agreed to for this purpose. Any Member recognized to speak will be

given the opportunity to do so for 10 minutes. We'll be watching the clock and

the 10 minutes will be provided for you to answer the questions and the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards to provide answers to you.

standard procedure, we will go with government to the Opposition, government to

the Opposition, government to Third Party, government to independents and, after

that, I'll recognize first on their feet.

I would

certainly ask for respect of this process here today, and respect for each

other.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Commissioner, this is

regarding Principle 6 of the Code of Conduct.

The

portion of the October 18 complaint, which has been upheld by you, relates to

the attempts to influence the hiring process to fill a permanent managerial

position in the public service. It was my opinion and that of my counsel, that

this activity violated a number of principles in the Code of Conduct, including

Principles 3, 6, 7 and 10.

Principle 6 covers a number of different scenarios in the present context,

including the requirement to carry out official duties in a manner that protects

the public interest and enhances public confidence and trust in government and

in high standards of ethical conduct in public office.

relation to this complaint of October 18, the

Public Service Commission Act makes it

an offence for a person to directly or indirectly try to influence improperly

the commission, a member of the board of examiners, an employee of the

commission with respect to the appointment of himself or herself or another

person to the public service.

As the

Commissioner, you decided that the actions complained of did not violate the

principle cited, other than Principle 10. While I may not agree that it went far

enough, I respect that decision.

Commissioner, at no time in my complaint or in the complaint process did I

personally raise issues regarding the Member's personal finances. Can you

please, to the best of your recollection, confirm this for the House?

MR. CHAULK:

I don't specifically know

what you're speaking about in that – I have a suspicion I know what that's

about, but it's not in my report. There's nothing in my report about the

finances of any particular Member.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Thank you for that response.

Regarding the definition of harassment, even in our political arena, we should

not have to be subject to treatment such as I received. You outlined the

definition of harassment in the October 18 report. Can you please tell us why

you used that definition?

MR. CHAULK:

That particular definition

was the definition that Rubin Thomlinson used based on their expertise in that

particular field.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Thank you for that.

Commissioner, I appreciate that you treated each complaint separately. It leaves

open the question, however, whether consideration was given to the pattern of

behaviour or conduct that appears to have been present. Given that a number of

complaints were made, at what point does a decision maker begin to recognize

such a pattern? How many complaints are required for a pattern of behaviour to

be established?

MR. CHAULK:

I can't specifically answer

that question because it goes to the specifics of a report, and this is not the

venue to debate the reports. That's for the House as a whole when you debate the

reports themselves.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:

Thank you, Commissioner;

that's all the questions that I have.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Mr. Chair, I just had

discussions with the Leader of the Opposition and – or government, sorry, and

Leader of the Third Party. I thought it would be better if maybe we stay seated

when we ask the questions, if that's okay. Because it's back and forth, and you

may want to refer to notes and that sort of thing.

CHAIR:

Thank you.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank

you, Mr. Commissioner, first of all, for attending. I just have a couple of

questions in regard to process and clarity. Could you speak to your authority

and guidelines in terms of this process related to confidentiality when a report

or a complaint is received by you?

MR. CHAULK:

My procedure is not to comment on anything in the report, or any of the

complaint, to provide the complaint to, other than the people involved.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I'm not asking for specifics

in regard to individual reports and confidentiality. I'm asking, as the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards, what's your threshold or what's your

understanding of the legislation regarding confidentiality in a generic, broader

sense in regard to when complaints are filed?

MR. CHAULK:

When complaints are filed, there's no specific information. There's no specific

legislation dealing with confidentiality.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

You

indicated in regard to the expert assistance of Rubin Thomlinson and the type of

expertise they had. Was that expertise tied to the issue of harassment and

investigative natures of activities in the workplace, and did it also include

recommendations to you in regard to the Code of Conduct?

MR. CHAULK:

They're not experts in our Code of Conduct. So their sole purpose was to review

the workplace harassment allegations.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay.

So, the

recommendations or any recommendations, in a generic sense, that you would make

in regard to a particular case, the Code of Conduct conclusions would be your

conclusions directly?

MR. CHAULK:

They are.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

You

mentioned – and I just wanted to reference – in your opening statement – I think

it's important here. We're here in the Legislature and this is a unique

situation in regard to a statutory officer who reports to the House coming in to

give, I guess, witness evidence, or has discussions – you indicated that your

thoughts were that this may not be an appropriate venue or there could be

further indiscretions or issues in the future. Could you just expand on that? I

was interested to hear your thoughts on that.

MR. CHAULK:

The thoughts on that is that,

you know, willing to help the House out at any time on a specific issue but it

is, as you say, very unusual to have a statutory officer sitting in the

Legislature to talk about the process on one of their reports. So a lot of the

other statutory officers in our own jurisdiction would even find it unusual that

one of us would be called in to actually speak about the process in one of our

reports.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, but to speak just to

the process, irrelevant of a particular report, would you think that would be

valuable?

MR. CHAULK:

But I don't know that it

needs to be in the Legislature.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

You

referenced

section 38 as well in your opening comments. I'm just wondering, if I

remember correctly, that's a

section to deal with your authority under the

violations of the Code and what possible areas of recommendation could be.

Again, I

guess in a generic sense in terms of doing your job, do you feel there's a

requirement to give a recommendation if there's a finding of breach of Code or –

how do you land on that when you give a recommendation if you determine there's

a breach of Code, not give a recommendation, give a recommendation? What's the

process you go through there? Because, ultimately, I guess the reports come back

here to the Legislature.

there's not a recommendation I guess there's a two-step that needs to take place

here. It's either you concur with the report or not concur, and if there's no

recommendation for a penalty that has to be determined as well.

MR. CHAULK:

Well, I think you're talking

about a hypothetical situation because all of these – what I have here includes

recommendations.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

So in what case would you not

give a recommendation or feel not appropriate to give a recommendation in the

process?

MR. CHAULK:

If I file a report and the

report has a – it always has a recommendation. I haven't yet issued a report

where there was no recommendation.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay. I guess I'm more

specific referencing to the penalties. If you find a breach in the Code, I've

read reports where there is not specific reference to the penalties.

MR. CHAULK:

Right.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

It listed in the Code of

Conduct which: “The Member be reprimanded; The Member makes restitution or pay

compensation; The Member be suspended from the House, with or without pay, for a

specified period; or The Member's seat be declared vacant.

“The

Commissioner may also refer criminal misconduct to the appropriate authorities.”

MR. CHAULK:

Right.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

I guess that's written there.

I'm wondering, what's the discretion you use in regard to using one of those or

not using it when you find a violation of the Code of Conduct?

MR. CHAULK:

Again, it would depend on the specific report as to what the recommendation

would be.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you.

I think

my colleague, the original speaker, may have referenced – again, I don't know if

you'll comment on this but this could be in a report.

There

was reference made to the scope of behaviour and the actual behaviour that

occurs in a political environment. As Commissioner for Legislative Standards, I

wonder if you could give some thought to in terms of the process and what weight

that played into or would play into a current or a future review in a violation

of the Code that somehow this environment or workplace may have a different

standard or be held to a different standard than workplaces outside of this

Chamber.

MR. CHAULK:

I don't know that I can specifically answer that question.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

But do you think there would

be two different standards for inside this Chamber and outside?

MR. CHAULK:

I think when you're in debate it's an adversarial environment. It's designed

that way, but –

MR. HUTCHINGS:

But outside the debate.

MR. CHAULK:

When you're not debating, than this workplace should be no different than any

other workplace.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Okay, thank you very much.

Mr.

Chair, I think that's good for me for now.

Thanks.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank

you, as well, to the Commissioner for coming in today. We certainly appreciate

you taking the time to help us understand the investigation process that was

used by your office.

I have a

number of questions, and we'll see how much my time allows me.

As you

know, confidentiality has been a significant issue throughout this investigation

process. Personally, I experienced premature release of my letter of complaint

by both the Joyce and Kirby report, as they were released to the public via the

media before coming to this House for tabling and debate.

So my

first question for you, Commissioner, is: Can you advise, what is your

understanding of the House of Assembly

Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act with respect to keeping

this information confidential while the investigation was ongoing?

MR. CHAULK:

There are no provisions in the act that say that the entire thing has to be kept

in confidence. I know that I don't speak to anybody about anything that I'm

reviewing. That's because anything from a Member to me is privileged.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

A supplemental question: Does

the act speak to any persons or statutory officers that must keep the

information confidential while the investigation is ongoing, from your

understanding?

MR. CHAULK:

It's not in my part, but I believe – and maybe someone else can provide clarity

on it – there's another

section of the act which deals with the whistle-blower

section, where information is kept confidential.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Okay.

Thank

you.

During

the investigation, what request or direction did you give to either the

plaintiffs or the defendants about keeping the process confidential? And, if so,

did you experience any opposition to your request?

MR. CHAULK:

In general – and I'll only speak in general terms because I won't speak about

the specific instances – when anyone was interviewed by the investigator and

they were asked to keep things confidential, I have a statutory requirement to

provide the information to the parties concerned and that's what I did. But

during the interviews we asked people to keep things confidential.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

I'm not sure if you answered

the supplementary question about: Did you experience any opposition to your

request to keep it confidential?

MR. CHAULK:

Yeah, and that would relate to the reports themselves, and I'm not here to talk

about the reports themselves only the process.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

As you know, and as I

referenced already, the letter of complaint that I filed with your office on May

14 was leaked to the media on May 31. As a result, I was confronted by media

speaking at an event at the Delta Hotel.

Can you

tell the Members of this House who had access to the letter of complaint once

you received it?

MR. CHAULK:

Well, as required by the legislation, the respondents would have been provided

with a copy of the complaint. Obviously, the complainant would have a copy of it

and I would have a copy of it.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

So there were four parties?

MR. CHAULK:

Yes.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Okay.

I still

have some time. I'll continue on, Mr. Chair.

important aspect of investigating issues like harassment, bullying and

intimidation is procedural fairness, and, Commissioner, you reference that term

in your opening remarks. So generally – for everybody else's benefit –

procedural fairness requires decisions to be consistent with the bias rule, that

is free from bias or the abrogation of bias by decision makers.

Procedural fairness requires that applicants be informed of the decision maker's

concerns, and have a meaningful opportunity to provide a response to concerns

about the application.

As I'm

sure you know, Mr. Commissioner, there are seven elements of procedural

fairness. I'm going to talk about four – just highlight those.

One is

the process – so to process of complaint without undue delay; the right to fair

and impartial decision making; the right to be heard; and the right to reasons.

That is decisions are in writing, they must be clear, precise and

understandable.

So my

question for you is: In considering the process undertaken to investigate these

complaints of harassment, bullying and intimidation, can you advise what steps

you took to ensure that procedural fairness was demonstrated throughout the

investigation?

MR. CHAULK:

As indicated by the legislation, I'm required to provide the respondent with a

copy of the complaint, and to give them reasonable time to be able to respond to

that. That is procedural fairness. If they required additional time, they were

given additional time. Then those responses were provided to the other parties –

to the complainants, and them given a given a time to respond to those

complaints.

After

that, and based on all of the interviews conducted, the reports were written,

and the reports contained the reasons for the reports.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

So that we're clear, once you receive a complaint, you go to the respondent, you

go back to the applicant and that's the end of it. You do an interview, and

that's the end of it. There is no other seeking of clarification? Was that part

of your process at all?

MR. CHAULK:

No, no. If clarification is needed, then it's provided, but everybody is given

an opportunity to make representations in this process.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

I just want to speak to a point that you raised in your opening remarks. So, in

at least one of the investigation reports, the name of the plaintiff is omitted.

This is not the case for all investigation reports; although, I think I might

have understood that you said it might've have been. So, specifically, my MHA

title is contained in both The Joyce

Report and The Kirby Report .

At what

point in the investigation process did you give the option to any plaintiff to

have his or her name omitted from the final report?

MR. CHAULK:

In discussions with the complainants, they had asked not to have their name put

in the complaints, and they weren't. It wasn't possible in all cases if the full

letter of the complaint is already public, it's kind of hard to not mention the

complainant at the end of the day, despite, wanting to do that.

preference would be not to put the complainants in the report at all.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Mine too.

That's

all for me.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR:

Just before – anybody who

wants to get recognized to speak, I'd certainly appreciate it if I could ask you

to stand first, be recognized and take your seat and probably adjust your mics

as well. I'm finding it difficult to hear here – adjust your mics down.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Do you

mean for us to bend the mic down like this? I don't want to crack it off or

anything.

Mr.

Commissioner, thank you for appearing and obliging us in this way. My apologies,

I missed your introductory remarks and some of the initial questioning. Maybe

you've made this point but your jurisdiction, your power under the legislation

to do these inquiries, these investigations, is in relation not to bullying and

harassment but to the Code of Conduct and the investigations was taken out

insofar as they related to bullying and harassment because those might

constitute breaches of the Code of Conduct. Is that correct?

MR. CHAULK:

No. The allegations were that

there were Code of Conduct violations that were as a result of bullying and

harassment.

MR. CROSBIE:

I think we're saying

essentially the same thing. Your jurisdiction comes from the Code.

MR. CHAULK:

It comes from the Code, yes.

MR. CROSBIE:

And as you made clear in your

reports, bullying and harassment as you defined them in the reports if that were

found to exist would constitute potentially a breach of code.

MR. CHAULK:

Yes, I think it would be – if

there is bullying and harassment then that would automatically be a breach of

the Code of Conduct.

MR. CROSBIE:

So the investigators that you

retained, the firm of lawyers in Toronto – you've explained in other settings,

and maybe here as well – have a great deal of expertise in bullying and

harassment; is that correct?

MR. CHAULK:

That is correct.

MR. CROSBIE:

However, because of the

rarity of this kind of situation, in other words, investigations related to

codes of conduct for Members of a legislative body, they would have little to no

experience in that kind of investigation.

MR. CHAULK:

Well, they are not authorities on code of conduct.

MR. CROSBIE:

There were two occasions, the

only occasions in which you have made a recommendation of merit for sanction, if

I understand correctly, where the investigators did not in their own report to

you, their own written report, make a finding of breach of code; is that

correct?

MR. CHAULK:

Their responsibility was to do workplace investigation of bullying and

harassment. I didn't have to rely on them to determine if there was a Code of

Conduct violation.

MR. CROSBIE:

I understand. In fact, you

entered your own opinion, to use the statutory word, as to the existence of Code

of Conduct violations in respect of two allegations.

MR. CHAULK:

Well, that goes to the reports, which are not up for debate here.

MR. CROSBIE:

Very well. What I'm getting

at, Sir, is whether – if I can ask you this – in your view the investigators

gave adequate weight to the Code of Conduct in making their recommended

findings?

MR. CHAULK:

Again, you're asking a question about the specific reports and they are

workplace harassment investigators. That was their role in this process.

MR. CROSBIE:

Very well. The document

underlying the Code of Conduct is one with which I'm sure you're well familiar,

and we all refer to it as the Green report. At

Chapter 5, page 6, I'd like to

read you commentary. This is not on the Code of Conduct that you applied and we

have before us as binding on us and that we take an oath to follow, because it

didn't exist at the time the Green report was written. What he said was, as

follows, at

Chapter 5-6: “The importance of promoting high standards of

behaviour by public officials was emphasized by the Supreme Court of Canada” and

he goes on to quote a particular case – you can find it at that page, it's

called R. V. Hinchy, 1996. The judge in the case, the Supreme Court of Canada

case, said: “In my view, given the heavy trust and responsibility taken on by

the holding of a public office or employ, it is appropriate that government

officials are correspondingly held to codes of conduct which, for an ordinary

person, would be quite severe.”

And then

he goes on, on page 7 – this is the Commissioner – to say: “Many of the codes

that have been adopted are expressed in general, aspirational language.” He's

talking about codes of conduct, codes of ethics found in other walks of life.

“Their intent is not to set out a set of detailed rules to control every aspect

of Members' behaviour, but rather to set general public standards by which the

behaviour of parliamentarians can be assessed and, in so doing, provide general

guidance ….”

So, what

I want to come back here to is the language of general and aspirational. That

suggests – and I'm looking for your views on this – that conduct that one may

find to be ordinary or in existence at the time when a complaint, or at the time

a complaint refers to, may be generally the conduct that people follow, but it

may not be what we would all aspire to be our conduct.

Would

you agree with that?

MR. CHAULK:

My jurisdiction in here is only on the Code as it's written, and if it's

aspirational then it's aspirational.

I only

have to apply what's provided to me; what the law has put in place.

MR. CROSBIE:

Do you agree that the Code is aspirational in nature, then?

MR. CHAULK:

I would say that there are aspects of it that are aspirational.

MR. CROSBIE:

Thank you. I have nothing else.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr.

Commissioner, thank you for being here today. My questions are with respect to

the Speaker vote in The Kirby Report

of October 3.

With

respect to the Speaker vote, you decided to believe the former minister of

Education that it was a whipped vote. You believed his assertion that he was

told as much by a staff member, whom he refused to identify, an assertion you

found compelling.

Yet in a

media story published August 8, The

Canadian Press , Premier Ball was quoted as saying the “Liberals were free to

vote as they wished. He said he welcomed Parsons's challenge.”

He also

said: “'This was democracy in action today. We had a young woman who had an

interest in doing this. It's no different than the conversation that I had with

Miss Parsons when she came to see me.

'I told

her: “Go and do what you feel you should do. Follow your heart.”'”

Clearly,

this was not a whipped vote. This has been confirmed in this House just

recently.

questions are these: Were you aware of the Premier's position on this vote? If

not, why not?

MR. CHAULK:

It would be inappropriate for

me to answer that question, as it goes to the content of the report and the

potential merits of the debate. If I were to expand upon my written report, it

would be unfair, as the complainants would not have had an opportunity to

provide their input on any comments that are made.

MS. P. PARSONS:

What efforts, if any, did you

make to determine if what the former minister of Education told you was

accurate?

MR. CHAULK:

So there is no provision in

my statute that authorized me to comment upon a report or change a report once

it's submitted. My office is a creature of statute, and absent statutory

authority authorizing me to make additional comments, it would be inappropriate

for me to discuss this matter further.

MS. P. PARSONS:

So, having said that, my last

question pertaining to this topic: Are you now prepared to admit that you made a

mistake in declaring that it was a whipped vote?

MR. CHAULK:

I'm not going to comment on

the report.

CHAIR:

Order, please!

I'm

going to remind Members that we are here to listen to the Commissioner for

Legislative Standards, and the purpose here is to answer questions and providing

clarity on the process. I remind all hon. Members it is providing clarity on the

process.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The last

question for me, for now: What efforts did you make to ensure that complainants

who wished to remain anonymous were protected from being disclosed?

MR. CHAULK:

In my reports, where

possible, I removed the name of the complainant and tried to remove anything

that would specifically identify the Member.

MS. P. PARSONS:

Thank you.

That's

all for me now.

CHAIR:

The Chair recognizes the hon.

the Leader of the Third Party.

MS. ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Commissioner, I, too, would like to thank you for taking the time to work with

us today and also I would like to acknowledge the incredible amount of work that

all this represents, and particularly the high stakes for both complainants and

respondents, and then also for the reputation of the work that all of us do and

the strains on your office as well that there was a by-election during this

process as well. And I would like to thank you and your office for the

dedication and the commitment to this process.

I have a

question, Mr. Commissioner, about the process about any testifying or the

investigation process. Where those who were testifying under oath and is your

office able to ask that of anybody who would be testifying?

MR. CHAULK:

It was expected that people would tell the truth while they were standing and

while they were being interviewed. For the most part, it would become fairly

obvious in the written report if someone was not telling the truth.

As to a

specific oath or swearing an oath when they came in to provide their testimony,

no, that wasn't done. I'm not sure that it's the legislation that I can require

it. But under the Public Inquiries Act

I can certainly compel somebody to testify, and I can compel somebody to provide

evidence.

MS. ROGERS:

But not compel someone to

take an oath.

MR. CHAULK:

No.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay, thank you very much.

The

recommendation that you did making the reports, it would be beneficial if a more

private restorative justice model was implemented to allow these matters to be

resolved in a setting that will facilitate resolution of these important

workplace issues, while at the same time facilitate rehabilitation of

relationships, where possible, to allow Members to act in the best interest of

their constituents.

We've

heard a lot of concerns about the issue of confidentiality and how public this

process has become. Do you believe that this form of rehabilitation of

relationships and what we would hope would be an outcome – do you believe that

that is still possible, considering the process that was used up to this point?

MR. CHAULK:

As the legislation is written, that's – my hands are tied as to how I can

actually proceed. If the House, or the Members here, decide to change the

process, than that is certainly within your purview here to determine if there's

a different process needed.

MS. ROGERS:

This has been unusual in

terms of the breadth and the depth and the number of complaints. In another

scenario, considering the process that is stipulated in the legislation – my

question is basically about: Do you feel in any way, shape or form that this

process somewhat got off the rails in terms of how you would have proceeded if

it was completely in your control? And by that I mean, I would anticipate that

it would not have been such a public process. Is there anything you can say

about that in terms of how very, very public this process has become?

MR. CHAULK:

The only thing I can say on that is that the process would be the same. My

process is exactly the same because it's dictated by the legislation. If there's

more legislation put around that with respect to confidentiality then so be it,

but the process underneath would be exactly the same no matter if there was

additional confidentiality provisions in there or not. It is the same process.

MS. ROGERS:

Do you have any concerns

about the extensive of public nature of where the complaints are now for both

complainants and respondents? Do you have any concerns about where we are with

that right now, as the Commissioner and for the work you have to do?

MR. CHAULK:

I don't know if I can speak for everybody involved in this process, but I'm sure

that most people wouldn't want this to be debated in the media, period, whether

the complainant or the respondent. And as such, I've – I know what everybody's

been going through in this process, including myself.

MS. ROGERS:

Yes.

MR. CHAULK:

I've been attacked in this, and I've had to explain to my own kids about this

process and what's going on.

MS. ROGERS:

And I would hope, Mr.

Commissioner, you have had the opportunity to also make recommendations about

any process in the future in terms of the legislative responsibilities that you

have and what you may like to see happen differently. Is there anything you can

say to that at this point, again, in terms of the process?

MR. CHAULK:

Yes, and I'll refer to something I read very recently. It talks about the role

of a statutory officer. One of the things is that a statutory officer – and this

comes out of Australia – they said is that a statutory officer is expected to

not campaign for changing the act which they are charged with administering.

They say that to do so would be a major conflict of interest. And I can somewhat

see that perspective.

It's the

Members of this House that determine what the law is, and, as they say, I'm just

the person who administers it.

MS. ROGERS:

Okay. Thank you very much.

I'm sure

as the Members of this House, that we will also take into account the process

and look at whether or not legislation needs to be changed.

I want

to thank you very much for your time.

MR. CHAULK:

Thank you.

CHAIR:

The hon. the Member for Terra

Nova.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

certainly appreciate the Commissioner taking these questions, and I do certainly

understand that it's been difficult on everybody.

I've got

three questions. The first one: on May 14, do you recall how many letters of

complaint you had received from me?

MR. CHAULK:

Again, you're speaking about the reports themselves?

MR. HOLLOWAY:

No, no. Just do you recall

receiving more than one letter?

MR. CHAULK:

Again, I think you're talking about the specifics of that particular report, and

MR. HOLLOWAY:

All right. The point I'm

trying to make is that you received two. You received a short letter –

MR. CHAULK:

Mm-hmm.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

– and during that first

meeting, I also indicated there was a longer, more detailed letter. You had

asked for both. I just wanted to highlight that the first letter, as part of

your process, was that you would've looked at that and decided if an

investigation was in order or not.

At that

time, if you recall – and I'm just asking if you recall – if you recall having

that conversation that you wanted the more detailed letter to help you with your

process?

MR. CHAULK:

Well, what you're asking is about one of the specific investigations, so I can't

really comment on that. But as I did say in general, in order to proceed I would

need a complete complaint, and I would have to provide a complete complaint to

the respondent. I can't just give them part of a complaint.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

So it goes to a point that

was made earlier about a pattern of behaviour; if you had given it any

consideration.

In the

short letter, and I'll just quote. It says: This investigation cannot be done in

isolation, and it must be conducted in conjunction with other formal complaints

that have been brought forward by other MHAs.

So in

terms of your process, I'm trying to understand – because the letter that I

submitted talked about violations by two MHAs, until we have two separate

reports, and there was no consideration of patterns of behaviour. I'm trying to

understand your process of – if you saw any patterns of behaviour.

MR. CHAULK:

Again, you're asking about the specifics in a particular report or reports. I

know that when I sent the reports to the Management Commission, I indicated to

them in that letter, or that transmittal, that as there was more than one

report, that the Legislature should look at them as a whole as opposed to

dealing with them individually, that there was more than one report. So I

indicated that to the Speaker that the number of reports related to each

particular Member. So it was for them to look at all of the reports at the same

time, as opposed to dealing with them individually over a longer period of time.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Okay, thank you.

I'm

going to ask a question that I've asked you previously, but I'd like for you –

since we're here in the House. So detailed in at least two of the investigation

reports, there's a reference to retaining Rubin Thomlinson to assist with

investigating the complaints.

Can you

tell us what process was used for selecting Rubin Thomlinson; and, once hired,

were terms of reference developed to outline the scope of work required under

the contract; and is this contract available to the public?

MR. CHAULK:

In the beginning when these issues started to arise, I was contacted by a number

of people offering their services. I reached out to various people as to

suggestions on particular expertise in this area.

When I

had a listing of specific firms or individuals that could conduct this work, I

reached out to them directly and gave them a brief outline of what I would

expect them to do, which was to conduct workplace investigations involving

elected Members, and to provide me with a proposal, including any expertise they

had and rates of pay, as well as any – and this comes more from my other hat –

any political contribution that they would've made into this particular

jurisdiction, to ensure that anyone I had had no ties, politically.

From

that, I received a number of proposals from various firms. Given the nature of

this, I retained Rubin Thomlinson in Toronto because of their sheer experience,

as I said. They wrote the book on workplace investigations and, literally, they

have written the book on workplace investigations.

So, that

was who I decided on. Given the profile on what was going on, and their

experience with doing work with the provincial government in developing the

Executive Branch policy on respectful workplaces, it seemed the logical fit that

I would use them.

All that

exists between myself and Rubin Thomlinson is an engagement letter that they

sent me that I signed.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Detailed in the engagement

letter, is there a scope of work to be performed?

MR. CHAULK:

It would be that they would conduct investigations. They, like most

investigating firms, are very concerned about their ability to conduct the

investigations thoroughly and without any restrictions put on them. That was the

case with these. There were absolutely no restrictions put on them as to who

they wanted to interview at all.

As I

said in my opening remarks, they received everything and they developed the list

of who would be interviewed from that. Then, based on what happened in the

interviews, they would determine if they wanted to interview anybody else. I

certainly didn't put any restrictions on them. If they wanted to interview

somebody, it was done.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

So, let me ask the question in another way: Were there any deliverables that

were required as part of that letter of commitment?

MR. CHAULK:

Deliverables?

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Yes, a report, a number of interviews, a number of trips to Newfoundland and

Labrador.

MR. CHAULK:

No, there were absolutely no restrictions on them as to how many trips they

could make. As we were arranging schedules, they would fly in. There were times

that the investigator flew in in the morning and flew back out that night,

depending on the availability of the people that we had to interview.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

So, for argument's sake, they could have stayed in Toronto and done this

investigation?

MR. CHAULK:

No.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Okay.

I see my

time is winding down. I do have one other question. It's been stated in this

House that it appears not all witnesses were interviewed during the

investigation. Can you explain the process you followed to determine which

witnesses would be interviewed and which ones would be excluded?

So,

based on your comment thus far, was that left to Rubin Thomlinson to decide that

or was that something that was decided between your office and Rubin Thomlinson?

MR. CHAULK:

As I said earlier, copies of

the complaints and the responses received were provided to the investigator to

assist with determining who should be interviewed regarding the subject matter

of the complaints. Rubin Thomlinson, being the expert on workplace

investigation, was not restricted in determining the number and identity of

witnesses to be interviewed. So I think that was what I stated earlier.

MR. HOLLOWAY:

Okay, thank you.

CHAIR:

I remind the hon. Member his

time has expired.

The

Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Mount Scio.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks

to the Commissioner for coming in here today. I've a number of questions about

the process. If I stray outside of that, I apologize in advance.

Mr. Cory

Boyd was the person who I spoke to as part of this investigation. Was Cory Boyd

there as a lawyer or as an investigator?

MR. CHAULK:

Mr. Boyd is a lawyer and is

the investigator.

MR. KIRBY:

Okay.

Was Mr.

Boyd there as your solicitor or as an investigator?

MR. CHAULK:

I am not sure of the

relevance of that particular question and it goes towards a specific report.

MR. KIRBY:

For me, I'm just wondering if

he was your solicitor who would be providing you wit