March 5, 2020
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIX No. 29
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
Admit strangers.
Order,
please!
In the
public gallery today, I would like to welcome representatives of the board of
directors of Emmaus House Food Bank: Chairperson Susan Halley, Vice-Chair
Georgie Chalker, Gary Sooley, Sharon Ready, Shirley Hearn and Norma Summers.
They are joining us this afternoon for a Member's statement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we will hear Members'
statements by the hon. Members for the Districts of Lewisporte - Twillingate,
Exploits, Labrador West, St. John's East - Quidi Vidi and Harbour Main.
The hon.
the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate.
MR. BENNETT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to recognize the oldest resident from my district, Mr. Victor
Baker, who celebrated his 103rd birthday on March 3.
Victor
grew up in Badger, where his father worked as a cook in the lumber camps. He
later moved to Botwood and spent most of his life there working with his
brothers in retail and wholesale distribution.
He
married the love of his life, Mary, and together they had one son, Maxwell.
Victor
now resides at Pleasantview Manor in Lewisporte, and on Tuesday they celebrated
his birthday in fine style where he danced, sang and told a few stories.
As a
testament of Mr. Baker's sense of humour, when asked by Reverend Art Elliott if
he was getting any girlfriends since he moved into the manor, his response was:
My son, I got to beat them off with a broom.
To end
the party, as he done on his 100th birthday and so many times in his youth,
Victor enjoyed a horse and carriage ride.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members to rise as we celebrate Mr. Victor Baker's 103rd
birthday and to wish him continued health.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
MR. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, this year the Kinsmen Club of Botwood celebrated their 46th anniversary
in conjunction with the 100 anniversary of Kin Canada.
In 1973,
Mr. Phillip (Den) Billard of Labrador came to live and work in Botwood. The
following year, they established a clubhouse and rented from the local paper
workers. The paper worker's union committed to its motto: Serving the
Community's Greatest Needs.
Mr.
Speaker, over the years, traditions and projects started and are still ongoing
today. Some of those are: Christmas dinner and dances for seniors in the town,
equipment for the local fire department, engagement in municipal projects, and
individual and group fundraisers.
Mr.
Speaker, at present, the Kinsmen Club of Botwood has donated over $3 million to
their municipality and region. The club is one of the top clubs in Canada and is
very active with 46 serving members and seven charter members.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members of this House of Assembly to join me in
congratulating the Kinsmen Club of Botwood on their 46th anniversary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to congratulate Cain's Quest Snowmobile race 2020 as they prepare for the
start of the race on March 7.
Cain's
Quest was started in 2006 by Todd Kent from Tourism who felt that a snowmobile
race had the potential to showcase Labrador and attract new visitors. A small
committee was formed and one staff person was hired. Since 2006, Cain's Quest
has grown to be an international sensation. It's been led by Glenn Emberley up
until 2014 and now by Rob Pilgrim.
It takes
months and months of planning and organization by a large group of volunteers
and staff to make such an event happen. Without them, the race would not be
where it is today. It makes me feel proud and a great sense of community from
every volunteer, from Lab West right on over to all corners of Labrador.
Every
layover and checkpoint throughout Labrador showcases our unique culture and our
Labrador spirit to the world. This year is the biggest race yet, with a record
of 50 teams including, for the first time ever, two female teams will be
competing for the finish line.
I ask
all hon. Members to join me in thanking everyone involved with making Cain's
Quest possible, and wish them all the best race possible on their journey
through the Big Land.
Thank
you so much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the Emmaus House Food Bank is a collaborative food bank operated by
five parishes in the St. John's area. They are the Basilica of St. John the
Baptist, the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, St. Thomas', St. Patrick's, and
St. Michael and All Angels. It is run by a board of directors consisting of the
clergy and two elected representatives from each parish. A dedicated team of
volunteers handles day-to-day operations in Emmaus House.
Emmaus
House is one of several food banks served by the Community Food Sharing
Association and serves our vulnerable friends and neighbours with the support of
its parishes, sponsors and volunteers.
In 2019,
the Emmaus House Food Bank served 8,500 community members – 2,000 of those being
children in need.
During
Snowmageddon 2020, the volunteers at the Emmaus House faced the weather to open
their doors to support a community of people heavily burdened with food
insecurity.
I ask
all hon. Members to join in a round of applause for the parishes, sponsors and
volunteers that bring us Emmaus House Food Bank – a crucially important
community group for my district and the St. John's area.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
International Women's Day is celebrated this Sunday, March 8, 2020 and is a
global day celebrating the social, economic, cultural and political achievements
of women.
This
year's theme is: I am Generation Equality: Realizing Women's Rights. This day
provides an opportunity to recognize strong women in our lives. For many that
would be our mothers. For me this Sunday, International Women's Day, is
especially meaningful as I will be remembering my mother, whose birthday falls
on this special day.
I will
proudly be attending an event in my district in North River on Sunday to
celebrate women's achievements, and will be joined by almost 250 individuals.
Each year a woman who has distinguished herself is recognized, and this year
it's Alice Frances Baird Innes. Funds raised that day will be donated to
O'Shaughnessy House in Carbonear, a shelter for people who suffer domestic
violence.
The
emerging global consensus, Mr. Speaker, is that despite some progress, real
change has been agonizingly slow for the majority of women and girls in our
world. Imagine a world where gender equality is the norm. Where men and women
getting paid equally for work of equal value and sharing the care when at home.
I ask
all hon. Members to join with me and work together to make this a reality.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to acknowledge the receipt of the Muskrat Falls inquiry
report.
As
legislators, we are all keenly aware of the profound impact that the Muskrat
Falls Project has on ratepayers and the financial situation in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
In 2017,
a public inquiry was called to provide a
greater understanding of whether all options were considered in the 2012
sanctioning; secondly, it was called to ask why there are significant
differences between the actual cost of the project and the estimated cost; also,
whether it was justified and reasonable for the project to be excluded from the
Public Utilities Board oversight.
Mr.
Speaker, we put a process in place to ensure all information was provided to the
inquiry. Justice Richard D. LeBlanc received approximately six million documents
and the report he delivered today is over 1,000 pages in length.
The Muskrat Falls inquiry was a comprehensive and detailed investigation that is
of great importance to the people of our province.
I would
like to thank Justice
LeBlanc and his team, and everyone else who participated in the inquiry,
for their commitment and their dedication.
Mr.
Speaker, while we can't undo the past, we can learn from it and make informed
decisions as we take actions to minimize the impact of this project on current
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and future generations of our province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for an advance copy of his statement.
On
behalf of the Official Opposition, I would like to extend our appreciation to
Justice LeBlanc for presiding over the inquiry, also appreciation to the
Commission co-counsel: Irene Muzychka, Barry Learmonth and Kate O'Brien, now
elevated to the Supreme Court of Justice for the province.
Mr.
Speaker, I look forward to reviewing the report when it's publicly released in
the coming days.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Premier for an advance copy of his
statement.
I am
sure the whole province is eager to read the findings of Justice LeBlanc. The
inquiry, an investigation into a disastrously publicly funded project, was paid
from the public purse. Justice LeBlanc wrote this for the public: I am deeply
concerned that the Minister of Natural Resources noted to the media that it may
be released with redactions. There cannot be redactions.
I am
sure Justice LeBlanc, a well-respected and competent jurist with decades of
experience, knew what he could and could not say in his report. The public needs
to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth without redaction.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member's time has
expired.
Further
statements by ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to acknowledge the start of midwifery services in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HAGGIE:
Welcome to our four midwives
– Renee Boland, Catha McMaster, Brianna Thompson and Maud Addai. Three of these
registered midwives started providing services in mid-December, while the fourth
midwife joined the team in January.
Budget 2019: Working towards
a brighter future
provided $370,000 for the establishment of these services in Gander.
Establishing a collaborative and supportive environment for midwifery has been
key to getting this program launched. We will use the lessons from Gander to
begin implementation across the province over the coming year.
This
team is a positive contribution to collaborative maternity care in the
community, and at James Paton Memorial Regional Health Centre.
I would
be remiss today if I did not acknowledge Gisela Becker, our provincial midwifery
consultant, who provided quality leadership and guidance in bringing this
implementation process to fruition.
I also
wish to acknowledge the Association of Midwives of Newfoundland and Labrador,
the Newfoundland and Labrador Council of Health Professionals, Pearl Herbert and
Kay Matthews, Central Health, midwives from across the country, educators and
others, who were instrumental in helping to develop regulations that will
facilitate the safe governance of midwifery in our province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to join with the minister and acknowledge the beginning of
midwifery services in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Official Opposition also
wishes to acknowledge all four midwives: Renee Boland, Catha McMaster, Brianna
Thompson and Maud Addai. We hope that you and other midwives, which will join
you in the future, have a long and prosperous career serving the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
We also
thank the many professionals and organizations that had a role in developing the
necessary regulations to provide safe and accessible midwifery services to our
province, such as the Association of Midwives of Newfoundland and Labrador and
the Newfoundland and Labrador Council of Health Professionals and Central
Health.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and
I, too, thank the minister for an advance of his statement.
I'm
proud to say in the 1940s, a time before electricity and running water, my
great-grandmother was a midwife on Fogo Island. Her work in Joe Batt's Arm
inspired generations of women, including my own mother, to become a nurse.
Midwifery services are very close to my heart and I am proud to join the
minister in celebrating these great accomplishments.
Congratulations to our new midwives.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise in this hon. House today to recognize the efforts of the employees of the
Department of Transportation and Works who worked tirelessly during and after
the storm this January.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
We all saw the photos and the
impact the snow had on Eastern Newfoundland and the Avalon Peninsula and we all
know, through our own experiences and challenges, what we faced to clean up
after the storm.
Mr.
Speaker, I commend the employees of the department who went to great lengths to
ensure public safety.
Our plow
operators pushed through snow drifts that were 15 feet high on provincial
highways. Our mechanics and welders and clerk staff worked tirelessly to keep
our snow clearing equipment in working order; the crews that weathered the storm
on the ferries to keep them safe in 140-kilometre an hour winds; our security
staff who watched over government buildings and were unable to get home to their
families.
Mr.
Speaker, our employees regularly go above and beyond their normal
responsibilities. Their efforts during this storm and the days following were no
exception.
On
behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, thank you to our Department of
Transportation and Works employees for a job well done, and to everyone who
helped somebody else out following the storm.
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.
Mr.
Speaker, we in the Official Opposition welcome this opportunity to applaud
Transportation and Works employees for their incredible work during and
following the January blizzard.
I have
often said we have some of the very best crews, not only in the province but
across the country, especially with the difficult, ever-changing weather
conditions that they have to deal with. They do tremendous work to keep our
roads safe for the travelling public.
Our
operators, maintenance crews and crews on our ferries are skilled, dedicated
professionals and while their work, perhaps, gets more attention during
exceptional weather events, I know that all residents of our province are
grateful for the amazing service that Transportation and Works employees provide
each and every day.
Mr.
Speaker – it might be a surprise based on yesterday – I would also like to add
that the minister personally reached out to me and other MHAs whose districts
and residents were impacted by the snow, and I want to acknowledge this and
thank him for doing that.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
We all
recognize the sacrifices made by workers at Transportation and Works during what
became known as Snowmageddon. From my vantage point in Lab West, I was heartened
but not surprised of how workers went above and beyond the call of duty, how
communities came together and how many showed kindness and support to their
friends and neighbours. Without the kindness of most people, a lot more people
would have been a lot harder hit.
Let us
give thanks to everyone.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, thank you.
Yesterday, the minister said, referring to OilCo: we've also asked them to look
at not only the requirement for having a consultant but also the contracts
themselves. We expect to have some results very soon.
I ask
the minister: Will she table the results of this in the House as soon as she
receives it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, we've been
dealing with this the last number of days and, of course, the last number of
weeks in public. I did indeed ask the oil company to review its contracts. The
contracts went over to the oil company the first of January, Mr. Speaker. I've
asked them to do – which I think is prudent and responsible – asked them to do a
review of the contracts, asked them to look at what requirements they have going
forward for consultants and look at their contracts.
Mr.
Speaker, if there is something that I do receive – it is in their purview to
look at their own contracts, but I have asked for that diligence, Mr. Speaker,
because it is a new entity. If there is anything that is received – again, I do
say, Mr. Speaker, there is a board of directors that is responsible for the
corporation but if there is anything received, I'm always happy to table
whatever I have in this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of
the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you for the answer.
We know
that the contractor in question, the one who has the bloated contract for
$350,000 for part-time work and a $3,000-a-month housing allowance has attended
a trade mission in Guyana and that Guyana is now on track to surpass us in oil
production.
What
business has he generated for us, and how many jobs has he created for us here?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Member opposite is indeed correct, Guyana has made a number of discoveries. I
believe it's eight billion barrels have been discovered, Mr. Speaker, which is a
tremendous amount.
We
signed a memorandum of understanding with Guyana in the fall of 2018, which was
prudent on our part, I thought. We want to have as many supply and service jobs
as possible around the world. I know our companies are doing incredible work
around the world in this industry. I know of, I think, 17 different memorandums
of understanding between companies, some trade relations between various
companies.
Yes, Mr.
Speaker, we will continue to work diligently and robustly to make more contacts
and more opportunity for our supply and service industry. Some of our largest
industry is now working in Guyana, and that's a very positive thing for jobs and
growth creation in Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
People of the province
continue to be outraged about the $350,000 part-time contract and $36,000 annual
housing allowance for an individual who rarely comes to the province and doesn't
pay taxes here.
Instead
of waiting for a review, will the minister stand in her place now and cancel
this lucrative contract?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much for the
question, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
surprised that the Member opposite doesn't know more about corporate governance.
Mr. Speaker, there is a board of directors at the oil company, there is a CEO at
the oil company. If they require consultants – they are reviewing what
consultants they need going forward and moving forward, and continuing the
growth and opportunity in our oil and gas industry. They're reviewing what
contracts they have.
I will
leave that decision-making authority within the corporation itself, Mr. Speaker.
The Member opposite does know governance, I know he does, so I'll leave it at
that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
We've learned in the history
of this matter that the board of directors of the OilCo does exactly what it's
told to do by the government.
Would
the minister confirm that?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
are indeed some very honourable Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are serving
in boards of directors around this province. In particular, with our oil
company; in particular, with Nalcor, Mr. Speaker. I can name more. They are
learned individuals, they are dedicated individuals and they're giving greatly
of their time.
I can
say to the Member opposite, from time to time government can make written
directives to the corporation, and I have given some written directions – I
alluded to this the other day. Again, we're making repeated questions now on a
matter that has been dealt with. But I will say again, I have given written
directions on two very important things. One is on continued use of seismic, and
the second is on allocations for the Bay du Nord project.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
provincial government is supposed to have five wildlife officers and three
occupational health and safety officers stationed in Labrador. These positions
are very important to the management of our wildlife populations, especially our
vulnerable George River caribou herd and the three Woodland caribou herds that
are threatened, actually, also for safety concerns with our vast mining industry
we have in Labrador. These positions are important. However, the media is
reporting that these important positions are not all filled. Actually, they're
not even advertised.
Given
that the Premier is retiring, I ask our only minister in Cabinet from Labrador:
How many of these positions are not filled?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, we appreciate and understand the importance of having those
positions filled, not only for our caribou, but for the other positions in
Labrador. What I would like to report to the hon. Member – and I thank her for
the conversation that we had just yesterday about this issue – we are actively
engaged in not only seeking short-term, temporary arrangements to be able to
make sure that those positions are filled but, more importantly, we're looking
at long-term strategies.
I
alluded to just yesterday a more substantive effort to improve conservation and
enforcement, not only in Labrador, but throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
I'll have more details on that in the coming days. What I will report to the
hon. Member, our addition of $5.4 million in a conservation agreement for
caribou leads to guardianship as well.
We have
the resources. We have the will. We're going to get the job done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
Right now, the Member for Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair is our only minister at
the Cabinet table from Labrador. When the minister was asked on social media
about the vacancies, she indicated that things are in play, but I learned later
that the vacancies are not even being advertised, and that, actually, is a
signal that they've given up.
We need
to have enforcement. Occupational health and safety is very, very important in
our type of industry; management – as the minister talked about – of the caribou
herds.
I have
to ask the minister: When you do expect the jobs to be filled?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If
there's one thing that I am proud to stand in this House and talk about, it's
Labrador and the progress that we've seen in Labrador under this government, Mr.
Speaker. Everybody around this province knows the fiscal mess that we were in
when we formed government.
Despite
that, despite the fiscal challenges, hundreds of millions of dollars invested
from the Trans-Labrador Highway to broadband, to cell coverage, to investments
in communities, to water and sewer. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on.
Forty-five seconds in answering a question doesn't permit me to answer.
What I
can tell the people of this province is that Labrador and advancing Labrador,
mental health issues and the list goes on, has been a priority. There is a long
list of accomplishments that we are able to point to, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
I thank the minister for her
answer. I might say that all the benefits she talked about, none of them are
coming to the District of Torngat Mountains. None of those benefits is coming to
my district.
I also
want to point out the Labrador Affairs office in Lab West has been closed and
the executive director position eliminated. There's no Minister Responsible for
Labrador Affairs.
We're
forced to use a ferry for both the North Coast and South Coast that doesn't meet
our needs. The potential extinction of the George River caribou herd is not
being adequately addressed. Residents are facing food security, not only on the
North Coast but the South Coast.
Safety
is being jeopardized at the airstrips. Our main airstrip doesn't even have
running lights, so a medevac won't be able to get in at night. Residents are
telling me that Labradorians are simply not a priority – very, very important.
I ask
the minister: What's being done to reverse all these things that are happening
to our district?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I really
appreciate the question from the Member opposite. There were a couple of things
there that she had mentioned in her question. Number one, the office of Labrador
Affairs within Labrador with the current deputy minister, is now looking for
recruiting the next deputy minister, which will be located in Labrador, Mr.
Speaker. That was a decision that was made by this government for the first
time; as has been mentioned before, some of the first of many of the investments
that we've been able to make.
But it
doesn't necessarily mean that there's not more work to be done. Mr. Speaker, we
will continue as a government – all of us as a caucus and as a Cabinet will
continue to make investments in Labrador. The Member opposite addresses some of
the current concerns that we all know. More work needs to be done; we recognize
that, on top of the investments that we've been making for many years in
Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, back on February
7 we submitted a letter to the Premier as part of the budget consultation
process. I ask the minister when we can expect to receive a response.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, Mr.
Speaker, the officials in the Department of Finance have looked at the letter.
Some of the items in the letter we will be able to respond to prior to budget;
some of the items in the letter can only be answered in budget. All of the
items, I submit to the Member, will be answered either before or during the
budget.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
I thank the Finance Minister
for his answer.
I follow
up with: When will the budget be tabled in the House?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
surprising question. I wasn't expecting it this year.
Mr.
Speaker, officials in the department are working hard on putting the budget
together. It is a very comprehensive document. As you know, Mr. Speaker,
mid-year update was a little bit later, in December, than ordinary as a result
of the budget being debated last year later than normal. We're hoping to have
the budget done within the normal time frames this year. The budget date I will
be happy to announce very near in the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
I look forward to the
minister's definition of very near in the future.
Mr.
Speaker, each year government comes to this House with a bill, Interim Supply.
As a former civil servant, I know that this bill normally covers all of the
expenditures that may be needed for the first three months of the year, from
April to June, make sure we pay our salaries to all our staff, make sure we pay
our bills.
The
Interim Supply bill has normally been around $2.7 billion to $2.8 billion. This
year the Finance Minister is asking for double that amount and I'd like to know
why.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm absolutely
hopeful that Members on the other side will vote for the budget this year. But
in the spirit of being absolutely willing to allow Members to vote whatever way
they want, I want to ensure, in case they decide they want to try to bring
government down, there's sufficient money to see us through the process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, is the minister
now telling the House and the people of the province that he intends to spend
$4.6 billion, 53 per cent of current year budget expenditure, without bringing
down a budget?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
No, Mr. Speaker, absolutely
not. Ordinarily – and this would not be the first time in the province's
history. In fact, last year we brought in Interim Supply for three months, then
we added an additional three months last year. We've had other years where we've
needed six months of Interim Supply.
To offer
the Members of the Opposition whatever option they choose in voting on the
budget, Mr. Speaker, we're putting in a six-month Interim Supply. They now have
the freedom, should they decide to vote against this government – which I don't
think they will, because we'll see what's in the budget – but they have that
freedom.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, the minister
referred to the fact that last year they had to bring in two Interim Supplies.
One, I would argue, was brought in for the first three months of the year. Then
they threw in a snap election on top to the people of the province, and as a
result of that, had to go back and bring in another Interim Supply.
So is
the minister now telling the people of the province that we can expect to be
going to the polls this spring?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
I certainly, hope not, Mr.
Speaker, but they'll make that decision.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
According to Debbie Forward, president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses'
Union, only 40 per cent of the nurses feel ready should there be a COVID-19
outbreak in this province. The minister said yesterday we are ready as any
province in this country, and better prepared than some.
What
does the minister say to the 60 per cent of our nurses who feel that we are not
ready? Do other health care workers feel the same way?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
With
regard to preparations for a potential outbreak or a sustained community
transmission of this virus, the regional health authorities have been working
very closely with government, and we in turn have been working very closely with
our national colleagues. We have a plan in place, that plan has been explained
through the RHAs, and we've modified it in the light of their input. We have
personal protective equipment stockpiled and distributed across the province,
and a rolling program, starting with emergency department staff and first
responders, to do the fit testing.
I can't
speak to the results and when their survey was done, but I can tell you that the
preparedness is increasing on a daily basis and we will have further measures to
announce as the situation unfolds.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, the minister talked about fit testing and redistribution of N95
masks.
Can the
minister confirm that we have secured an adequate supply of N95 masks for all
health care workers including front-line workers and first responders?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
The short answer to that
question is yes, Mr. Speaker.
To
elaborate a little further, we have engaged in a redistribution exercise between
various depots within the regional health authorities. Our shared services are
purchasing on a national and international basis where needed and we actually
have applied to the federal government for NESS stockpile access, that's
National Emergency supplies.
You will
recall from this time last year, that we actually have one of the few regional
depots based in Labrador which was a request of this government to the feds
because of difficulties with access to Labrador, particularly in the winter as
alluded to by the Member for Torngat Mountains.
We do
have the supplies, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister, the regional health authorities, are they conducting fit testing for
all first responders, not just for those who work directly for regional health
authorities such as private ambulance operators or fire departments?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, we have a
provincial planning committee which has various acronyms, which I always forget,
but essentially it involves emergency services; that would be fire and emergency
services, as well as representatives of the ambulance companies.
We have
been in discussions with the ambulance groups – be they private, community or
regional health authority – to ensure that we understand what their needs are.
If they need additional resources we have asked them to let us know, and that
dialogue continues. But the short answer, again, to the question from the Member
opposite is yes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
province has a HealthLine that people can phone in if they need health advice.
Has the
HealthLine been provided with guidelines should an individual call in that are
suspected that they may have COVID-19?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What
about education for the public to ensure that they are taking the necessary
precautions to prevent acquiring the disease. Do you have a plan for public
awareness?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
These are very good
questions, Mr. Speaker, and it's nice to see substantive issues being discussed
at Question Period and I welcome the opportunity from my colleague opposite to
address these, so thank you very much.
Again.
the short answer is yes. Health and Community Services has a button on its
website which will take you to the federal website. We are refreshing our
handwashing messages. The staple for containment of this virus is simple,
straightforward, hand hygiene.
Masks
outside of the aerosol environment in health care are not recommended despite
the pictures that one sees across the province or across the globe. There is no
benefit to these from our advisors at the federal level and provincial level.
Should this situation change, obviously we will change tact, but, yes,
communications is a key part and we're using new social media rather than
conventional methods, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Opposition House Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While I
welcome that the health professionals in the regional health authorities are
doing an immense amount of work to do this, the fact is the individuals need
some tangible pieces of information so they would be aware of exactly what may
be a notice that they may be exposed to a particular issue around the COVID-19
disease.
Can we
have, as we had in the past, a public awareness campaign which would include
print media and access for every individual in Newfoundland and Labrador, so
that we can reassure that everything is being done to make sure they're safe and
if, indeed, they do contract the COVID-19, that we have a process in place that
they immediately can access.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I like
these engagements where we have a chance to listen to some ideas. I am not
averse to the idea. I think if the Member opposite feels that this is a
deficiency in our current approach, I'm happy to address it and we have some
techniques to do that.
I think,
however, for the bulk of people, the approach we have adopted is satisfactory.
Should this be a gap, then we would be happy to work with them and with any
other stakeholders to address that, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, Canopy Growth
has shut down two facilities in British Columbia and thrown 500 people out of
work.
After
receiving tens of millions in taxpayer subsidies, being a mysterious company on
7 Plank Road, what discussions has the minister had with Canopy Growth about the
effect of their operational review on their Newfoundland operations? What
assurances can he offer the job seekers that lack the inside track with the
Liberal government?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let me
just be very clear: No grants, no loans, no direct investment has ever left the
provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to a business agency, either
Canopy or any other growth agency, with respect to cannabis in this province.
One
thing I can say, it's a very good question that the hon. Member did ask. What
have we done to assure this is going to happen? As soon as I heard this from the
changes with respect to what happened in BC – and by the way, I'm very
disappointed that happened, disappointed for the individuals that were impacted
by that from the West Coast of our country.
I spoke
to the management of Canopy. They assured me that they are full steam ahead with
the process, that we have a $90-million facility on East White Hills Road. I
encourage any Member in this House to take the opportunity to drive by and see
the investment that was put in this province by Canopy Growth.
Also, in
addition to that, there's going to be a job fair that they're going to be
announcing in the coming weeks for April. They're going to open the facility in
the spring of this year. I (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
The minister's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
The assurances from the company that's been lying for so long is probably not
that assuring.
Mr.
Speaker, in addition to the closures in BC, Canopy Growth has announced it will
no longer open a third greenhouse in Ontario.
Again,
given there appears to be a national glut of supply, why has the government not
mandated secondary processing in Newfoundland?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, all I can say is wow.
We've
set-up an industry here; two years ago this industry didn't exist. We've built
an industry. They've put an over $90-million facility in the east end of St.
John's that's going to employ some 140-plus people in this province. There's a
job fair that's coming in the near future for April and I look forward to being
here to cut the ribbon in the facility in my district – in my district – later
on in this spring.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Terra
Nova.
MR. PARROTT:
Mr. Speaker, this government has entered into various lucrative deals now
totalling over $100 million in subsidies to various numbered companies with a
production capacity of 42,000 kilograms.
Is the
minister still confident there is even a market? Will he admit these deals
should have included processing and packaging deals?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. DAVIS:
The answer is yes. Our deals have included all of what the Member has talked
about.
It's
important; this is an industry that we're trying to grow – pardon the pun – in
this province, we're trying to grow the industry. It's an export marketplace for
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Would
the Member sooner us import the product here and not create the hundreds of jobs
in this province? We've already created hundreds of jobs with respect to the
construction jobs. There will be hundreds more created when the production
facilities gets up and running. I look forward to that day. Every Member in this
House should look forward to it.
I know
every Member in this House has contacted Canopy, in particular, about looking
for jobs for their own constituents, like we all should. We all should be
looking for opportunities for people in our districts to get employment.
These
are good jobs for the people in our province.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, now that we know the Premier present is in charge, let's talk about
what he's doing.
The PUB
report on rate mitigation clearly outlines seven actions that must be completed
within the first three months of the reports release. We are now almost halfway
through this first three-month period.
I ask
the Premier: Which of these seven actions has he completed? Please be specific.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
We do
indeed have a team of people on rate mitigation, rate management. There's a
secretariat set up within the Department of Natural Resources that is working
diligently every day on this matter, Mr. Speaker. They have taken the PUB report
and the timelines that the Public Utilities Board has requested in its report
itself and they are working towards the implementation.
I can
tell you, Mr. Speaker, they have advanced on many of the key issues including,
for example, electrification. There has already been an RFP put out there on
that matter. They've advanced on ensuring more electrification for rural and
remote communities.
I'm out
of time. Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That was
a remarkable lack of specificity.
The
opening of Bishop Feild school in St. John's East - Quidi Vidi has been delayed
several times now.
I ask
the Minister of Transportation and Works: What assurances can he provide that
Bishop Feild school will reopen in time for the fall 2020 semester?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for the question.
It is a
good question. I share the frustration of the students, teachers, families and
everybody with those delays. The reality, the envelope of repairs that we went
in to do originally, Mr. Speaker, have been completed. When removing the coal
room on the back of the building, we discovered infiltration of water in the
gymnasium. Right now we have to wait for spring to come so we can excavate on
the back of the building. The gymnasium is below grade.
What I
can assure the hon. Member is we will certainly work for September, but at no
time will we put children in an environment that's not safe. There's a water
issue here and we have to resolve that before we can put children back in this
facility.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last
week, two members of the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves Advisory Council
resigned over the minister's failure to release the natural area system plan. In
the wake of their resignations, the minister has since decided to release it.
I ask
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources, since he has apparently had an
epiphany moment and realized the errors of his ways: Will he invite the two
members who resigned to return to the council?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
We
deeply value the work of WERAC and all of its members. There was a context and a
preamble that was incorrect.
One of
the things that I think the House would gain benefit from is learning that WERAC
provides advice to government; WERAC has not ever tabled their advice. They're
independent of government. I would never suggest to WERAC, nor I don't think any
Member would, that they should be stymied or stifled or censored.
I did
not ask WERAC permission to release the report; I asked them if they would
consider releasing it themselves in its entirety without any reservations,
without any qualification. WERAC has agreed to do that. They have not yet
completed their plan. I asked them to do it at their earliest possible
convenience and they have agreed to do –
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. minister's time has
expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
I take it the answer then is,
no. It would've been simpler.
Since
2017, government has lost two court challenges launched by conservation groups
and concerned citizens as a result of its decisions to release major aquaculture
projects from thorough environmental assessment. Government appealed the first
and lost. That's three for three. It would seem government would rather spend
public money on court cases and appeals rather than doing the right thing.
I ask
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment: Will he table a full
accounting of the public funds his department has spent in legal fees and other
resources to fight these court cases?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. BRAGG:
Mr. Speaker, it's not
uncommon for a case to end up in court when you have a group of people involved
in the environment. The environment is very close to everyone's heart. There are
a number of people in this province and throughout this world who take the
environment very seriously, as we do.
We do
our due diligence in those projects; we do everything we possibly can. But when
a case comes before the courts the outcome of that is left in the hands of the
judge. When the judge rules on these proceedings and in these cases, Mr.
Speaker, we are left to deal with the outcome of that result, which we plan to
do in the case this Member has referred to.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
A simple follow-up: Will he
release the amount of money that they have spent in resources and public funds
in fighting these court cases? I don't need the process; I need to know will he
table that amount here in this House.
MR. SPEAKER:
We have time for a quick
answer from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. BRAGG:
Of course, Mr. Speaker, but I
would like to know how far the hon. Member would like me to go back. Would he
like me to go back since 1949, the history of this province, or would he like me
to go back in the last two or three years?
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
on a point of order, Standing Order 49, Mr. Speaker. During the Ministerial
Statements there was a statement made by the Member for St. John's East - Quidi
Vidi concerning – what she attributed to me was that I had said about redactions
of the report.
Mr.
Speaker, what I did say about the Muskrat Falls report – A Misguided Project is the name of it – is it comprises six volumes
and over a thousand pages. It will be reviewed for legal sensitivities and for
legal interests. That is prudent and responsible and at the advice of counsel
who was with me this morning.
I do not
– and I said this publicly, I do not – anticipate any deferral of information,
but we are going to make sure that the legal teams do have a chance to have a
quick view at this for legal interest.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I will take this matter under
advisement and report to the House at a later date.
The hon.
the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to
stand on a point of order regarding the inaccurate information that the hon.
Member for Terra Nova cited about the millions and millions of dollars offered
to Canopy in this case. That is not the case. That is not true information
that's been spoken in the House of Assembly.
I would
ask the hon. Member to stand in his place and apologize because it's inaccurate
information. This is about standing up and providing the general public with an
opportunity for –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. DAVIS:
Right, so it's very important
that we get that apology, please.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Opposition House Leader,
to this point of order.
MR. BRAZIL:
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to
speak to this to outline. What my colleague from Terra Nova had outlined was the
amounts of money that have been discussed around what would be given to that
company. There was no discussion here around the total amount of money or that
millions and millions – he was referring to what is known in the public domain
as the agreement with Canopy Growth. I feel there is no point of order in this
discussion.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further to this point of
order?
MR. DAVIS:
No, this is the second one.
That was my first point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
To that point of order, I'm
going to take this matter under advisement. It seems to be a disagreement
between two Members, but I'm going to review what was said and make a ruling at
a later date.
The hon.
the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. DAVIS:
On a second point of order
that was said later in that exchange about the fact that I was lying about the
information that was coming forward, there's nothing further from the truth in
that case. All I can say is that I'm disappointed that was the case.
The hon.
Member for Terra Nova, I know he probably didn't mean it in the way it came
across, but that's the way I took it and that's the way I guess the general
public would. If that was what he meant, fair. I'd like him to clarify that or
apologize for it if that was what he meant.
MR. SPEAKER:
To this point of order, the
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Just for clarification sakes,
the question that was asked to the minister was not inferring in any way, shape,
or form that the minister was lying, but that the information wasn't accurate
that the company was sharing with the general public, Mr. Speaker. I do
encourage you to review it, but we feel there's no point of order on this
particular issue.
MR. SPEAKER:
I will take this matter under
advisement and report to the House later on.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Labrador
West.
MR. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a
petition here from Labrador West. These are the reasons for this petition.
Since
2010, the province has seen significant work stoppages, including a 16-month
strike at Vale in Voisey's Bay in 2010 to 2011 and a two-year lockout at D-J
Composites in 2016 to 2018. These work stoppages involve multinational
corporations that have practices that have altered the balancing of collective
bargaining.
The
industrial inquiry into the Voisey's Bay strike recommended changes to the
Labour Relations Act to include the
imposition of binding arbitration as an effective means for fair collective
agreements when all else fails. The only way to uphold the workers' right to a
strike is to ensure companies are not permitted to replace their workers during
a labour dispute.
Therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bring forward amendments to the
Labour Relations Act to impose binding
arbitration – when only one of the two parties make application – in cases where
strikes or lockouts are prolonged, where collective bargaining has failed or
when it's in the public interest to do so; and bring forward amendments to the
Labour Relations Act to ban the use of
replacement workers.
Mr.
Speaker, I have 163 signatures here for this. This has been called upon time and
time again. There has even been, at one point, a private Member's motion in this
House to look at changes to the legislation.
Like I
said, I have 163 signatures here of members of my community who feel that it's
time to make these changes to the Labour
Relations Act and to impose these changes that will stop prolonged work
stoppages and to limit the use of replacement workers during labour disputes.
This is one of the root causes of prolonged work stoppages and the breakdown of
the bargaining process.
I agree
with this petition and that we should have this. It's been in the Voisey's Bay
report. I have a copy of the Voisey's Bay report. That was one of the two
recommendations that have not been implemented in that report.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, thank you for
the opportunity and I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward a petition.
I'd just
like to make sure I stand on the record. It's very important as the minister
responsible for labour that we always have to strike the balance between the
needs and the wants of employees and the needs and the wants of employers. It's
always important to strike that balance.
I thank
the Member for standing on his feet and bringing forward a petition. I'm sure
that the department will in turn look at that petition and deal with it
accordingly.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To the
hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland
and Labrador humbly sheweth:
WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest incidence of cardiac disease
in Canada and we need to do what we can to improve our ability to save lives;
and
WHEREAS the implementation of a new registry can be completed for less than the
cost of a new vehicle; and
WHEREAS after implementation, the annual cost will be five cents per resident;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to enact legislation requiring all AEDs in the
province be registered with an online registry. This registry must also be
linked to the 911 system to enable faster response times in the case of cardiac
emergencies.
And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that I've presented pretty well since 2016,
thereabouts. It's a very serious issue in that these AEDs are wonderful
machines. They're a life-saving piece of equipment, but they're not looked
after, registered – when I say being registered, we're talking about the
batteries checked and the pads checked.
In a lot of government buildings and municipalities, they look after the
maintenance of these machines. In other places, they're used as coat racks. It's
a reality that we face, but it unfortunate. Even though they save lives, people
don't understand the importance of keeping it up to date.
I use the example similar to a fire extinguisher. If you're not going around
checking fire extinguishers, making sure they're operational, they're not going
to be there when you need them for a fire. They're not there for coat racks,
they're there to save lives and we need to enact something to have these
registered that they're ready when needed.
Another example is a 911 call. If they're integrated into the 911 system, when
you call 911, the 911 operator can quickly tell you, if you're in the
Confederation Building, they'll know where the nearest AED is. That's what first
responders need to know. It's not always for first responders, it could be
someone in this Chamber – heaven forbid – and we may need to know where the
nearest AED is. That's the reality we live with.
Right now, they're everywhere and they're great life-saving pieces of equipment,
but without this registry, to be able to know where they are, to be able to know
they're always up to date, to be able to tie them into our 911 system, is a
serious flaw.
Mr. Speaker, we're the only province in the country without a registry. I
actually have been involved with this. I have a family in my district who suffer
from this. One of them just had a heart transplant, the son, from this
arrhythmia. Suddenly your heart – I'm lost for the word now, but they have the
gene in this family. It's very common throughout the province, as we know.
They've championed it, the Delaney family, and I've worked with them. I've also
worked with the Heart and Stoke Foundation over the years with this as well.
This registry is right across the country, but we don't have one here. It's very
cheap. It's not expensive. I know it falls down the priority of all the bigger
issues in a lot of government departments, and I get that because one time I was
behind the scenes with the previous administration, I understand priorities in
all department, but people need to really take a serious look –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. PETTEN:
Be respectful on the issue,
please.
This
issue is very serious because, heaven forbid, if someone were to ever lose their
lives for the lack of a battery or bad pad because it could have been done so
simply and easy and inexpensively, or the fact that you call 911 and there was
an AED around the corner but no one could direct you to where it's too, the end
result is unimaginable. One life is way too many. They save lives.
I
respectfully ask government to take this as a serious matter, work with the
Heart and Stroke because they're reaching out to us. They've reached out to
government, they've come to me and they're speaking publicly about it. I support
this cause and I think we all should support this cause; it's a very important
issue.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member's time has
expired.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. BRAGG:
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to
comment on that. Being the minister responsible for 911 and Fire and Emergency
Services in this province, I know the value of an AED first-hand; I've used it
first-hand. I've actually helped save someone's life first-hand, so I know the
value of those AEDs, having their batteries checked and people knowing where
they are. I think it's a great point if the 911 people know where these AEDs
are. Most are in public buildings throughout this province.
I know
this government have provided a grant in the last number of years to the Heart
and Stroke Foundation to put them in numerous building. You go and you will see
AED signs everywhere, Mr. Speaker, in a lot of our public buildings. It's very
important because at events is when you see a lot of people congregated, so it's
nice for your first responders to know where they are. Most would have them on
their equipment, but it's nice to know when they get to an event that they're
there. Sometimes there are volunteers actually in that area; it's nice to know.
So
having a registry, Sir, to know where they are, I'd love to talk to more about
this because I think it's a great idea. If you'd like to have this conversation
with us and with me, I look forward to it.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, the Adult Dental
Program coverage for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug
Program under Access and 65Plus Plans was eliminated in
Budget 2016.
Low-income families and low-income individuals, particularly seniors, are
struggling with the cost of living and struggling to meet some of their basic
needs. Many seniors and low-income individuals and families can no longer access
basic dental care and those same individuals can now longer access dentures,
leading to many other digestive and medical issues.
Therefore, we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the
undersigned, call on the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the Adult Dental Program to cover seniors
and low-income individuals and families to ensure better oral health, quality of
life and dignity.
Mr.
Speaker, I presented this petition on several occasions and it continues still
to go underneath the radar of our province's administration. It's often said
that the gateway to good overall health is good oral health. Good oral health
has been linked to other issues within your mental health and your physical
health, but one of them I would like to speak to today is mental health.
I've
read several studies and I'm a big believer that a smile is a powerful way to
change the way you feel and the way you think. It's actually clinically proven
that smiling does improve how you feel about yourself. If those individuals who
are not able to afford good dental care don't feel confident about smiling, how
do you think they feel on the inside? This is a practical investment in our
province's health and it will result in savings in medical issues.
Right
now, what happens is if people cannot afford dental care, they just cannot
afford it, so a problem that probably could have been fixed with a $200 or $300
visit to the dentist is allowed to magnify and accelerate to a point where it
may result in a 10- or 14-day hospital stay at $900 a day.
Mr.
Speaker, I cannot see the financial reasoning for cutting out this program and
allowing our people to suffer. The reality is if people cannot afford dental
care, they can't afford it. That's where government should be stepping in.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
From the
Order Paper, Motion 5, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Environment, the following resolution:
BE IT
RESOLVED that the Select Committee on Democratic Reform to be established
further to a private Member's resolution passed in this House on December 4,
2019, will comprise of the following Members: the Member for Carbonear - Trinity
- Bay de Verde, the Member for Mount Scio, the Member for Windsor Lake, the
Member for Topsail - Paradise, the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, the
Member for St. John's Centre, the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands; and
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Committee shall establish its priorities within the
scope of authority set for it in the resolution adopted by the House on December
4, 2019; and
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Select Committee on Democratic Reform may, in the
completion of its work, travel from time to time within the province; and
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Select Committee on Democratic Reform report its
progress to this hon. House before the end of the winter-spring sitting of this
House, 2021; and
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution of any further matters relating to the
mandate or operations of said Committee be brought to this House for approval.
Mr.
Speaker, I believe it's very straightforward. It allows us to move forward,
then, with the establishment of this Select Committee, which I think is
important and has the support of the House. So I'll leave it at that.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to
speak to that, and I thank the minister.
I do
notice that – with some amusement, actually – the date that's set out in the
resolution for when the Select Committee on Democratic Reform will report its
progress to the House and that is before the end of the winter-spring sitting of
this House, 2021. That could be a year down the road. It could be a year and
several months down the road.
There
are many wise people in the House of Assembly on all sides who would probably
think that it's highly likely that there'll be an election before that point in
time.
The
problem with efforts made in this House on democratic reform since 2015 and the
advent of the Liberal government has been a lack of interest in doing anything
on the part of the Liberal government. This has been expressed by delay, by
statements from the responsible minister – not my friend here today, but a
different minister – that he, in fact, was too busy to be seized with and pay
any attention to democratic reform.
There's
a general lack of interest, lack of will and sense of awkwardness with the fact
that in 2015, during the course of the General Election that brought the current
Liberal government to power, they actually made a promise to act on democratic
reform.
As we
well know, we're now doing more procedural things that make it appear like
something is actually happening, but will it? Because there does not seem to be
a will on the other side to actually achieve anything along the lines of
democratic reform. So, Mr. Speaker, you'll forgive me if I inject a note of
skepticism into my remarks.
The fact
of the matter is that there's a hunger in many sections of the population of
this province for meaningful democratic reform that that embraces as well the
reform of the electoral process. In fact, in the 2015 Blue Book my friends
across the aisle in the Liberal Party resolved that the Committee, which they
promised to set-up to examine into democratic reform, would examine electoral
reform, finance reform and along those lines would also consider the need for
regulation of party leadership election finances.
We have
seen that the Liberal Party itself – and I appreciate that the Liberal Party is
not the government, but the government is a Liberal government – in the context
of the current race for Liberal leader and Premier, has displayed a remarkable
dinosaur attitude on the question of leadership campaign finance reform. In
fact, they have brought forward not a set of rules around that but no rules.
Some
people call that dark money rules. Dark money simply means that there's no
reporting of how much, from whom or how spent. No receipting, no accountability,
no transparency, that's what dark money is.
It's
astonishing that in this day and age, with the hunger for democratic reform and
with the precedent of political parties across the country requiring more
transparency – it is absolutely remarkable that the Liberal Party of this
province, which is the party behind the government opposite, would have the
temerity to tell –
MS. COADY:
Point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
Point of order.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order, SO 48 - Relevancy.
The
Member opposite seems to want to get into a robust debate on issues within a
political party rather than the merit of creating a Committee. I'll leave that
to your good judgment, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Does anyone want to speak to
that point of order?
I'll
just remind Members to stay relevant to the debate. We're talking about the
establishment of the Committee. I think Members will be given some leeway in
terms of talking about why we need to establish such a Committee, so I'm not
going to rule that it is not relevant to the debate.
The hon.
Leader of the Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Sir.
My
reason for bringing this in is that electoral reform is part of democratic
reform. Electoral reform is more specifically focused on how we run our
elections and also on election financing; in fact, election financing has been,
in the last House, a particular focus of the government within the context of
democratic reform.
It is
the government that campaigned on the premise that there might be a need to
extend electoral financing regulation – which we do now in the context of
general elections and by-elections – to the process of selecting party leaders.
That's why I was making that remark. It's relevant to democratic reform, within
which we have the topic of electoral reform.
It's the
government itself that thought there might need to be regulation around that. It
is the activity of the – or inactivity, depending on how you see it – of the
Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador that shows the relevance of the need
to regulate leadership campaign financing.
Mr.
Speaker, much remains to be done in the area. There was a book published about
democratic reform – we're all familiar with it, I think – by many contributors.
Short essays on various aspects from people from all walks of life in the
province, showing that amongst many people in the province there is a desire
that we do get on with the job of overhauling how we do democracy here.
Let's
face it; we are a democracy, a liberal democracy, a constitutional democracy,
which means that the majority will does not always carry, because there are
minority rights which are enforceable by the courts. They are constitutional
rights and override things that Parliament or the Legislature sometimes want to
do which infringe those rights.
We are
all proud to be citizens of that system, of a great country, Canada, and a great
province, Newfoundland and Labrador, but it needs improvement. That is the need
for this Committee. That is the need for the Members of this Committee, of which
I am pleased to be one, to get on with the work in a serious fashion of serious
democratic reform – serious democratic reform, not just go through the motions
for it. On that basis, I support the resolution.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker, and thanks for the opportunity this afternoon.
I'll
just take a few moments to respond to some of the remarks made by the Leader of
the Official Opposition. First of all, I want to thank Minister Parsons and the
staff at the Department of Justice for the tremendous work they did behind the
scenes, because I can tell you, you wouldn't think listening to the Leader of
the Opposition there was any work done.
There
was volumes and volumes and volumes of work done, Mr. Speaker, because when you
get into something like democratic reform – this whole process has been tried in
many jurisdictions across the country and even around the world and it's a very,
very delicate thing to actually reform. The Department of Justice, under
Minister Parsons's leadership, did a tremendous job.
MR. SPEAKER:
I just want to remind the
Member not to use a minister's name in the House. You did it twice. You should
refer to a Member by their district name or their title.
MR. CROCKER:
Well, Mr. Speaker, I've been
here going on six years and this is the first time I had to apologize. I do
apologize to the hon. Minister of Justice for using his name, but I do want to
thank him and the Department of Justice for the tremendous work they did.
Actually, that work that was done by the Department of Justice is now, my
understanding, being transferred to the all-party Committee, so I think what the
Members of this new Committee will quickly find is that there was significant
work done previously. I want to thank the Leader of the Third Party for their
leadership in actually bringing this to the floor and convincing, I think, this
entire House to support that private Member's motion just before Christmas.
I don't
think there's anybody in this House, Mr. Speaker, or in this province, that
isn't looking forward to democratic reform. I fully support a lot of the things
that will come out of this – campaign finance reform. I had the opportunity last
week to actually join the Premier and his Youth Council over in the West Block
in the afternoon. We spent I think it was little over an hour with the Youth
Council. It was youth from all around this province. I can tell you of that day
and in that hour they had a real keen interest in democratic reform and how they
got involved in politics and how we get young people involved in politics.
For me,
it was easy. I've been voting since I could find a way to vote, whether it was
14 as a youth or 16 or when I became old enough to vote in general and regular
elections at 18, but we need to find a way to engage people. It's important. If
we don't put the fundamentals like campaign reform, finance reform in there, it
does make it harder to engage young people. I'm not going to belabour this, but
I just wanted to correct some of the information from the Leader of the Official
Opposition talking about nothing being done and that type of false information
because there has been tremendous work done.
As a
Member of this Committee, along with my colleague for Mount Scio, I look forward
to getting the Committee up and running. I look forward to the involvement of
the independent MHA on this Committee, because as democracy transforms, I think,
or as our democracy evolves – if you look at European countries with our
parliamentary system, they've long since evolved into many different political
parties and independents. So we have to also define the role of independents and
other political parties in a more fractured, I think, system that we'll see in
the future.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time. I look forward to the Committee getting
down to work.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and it's a pleasure to stand and speak to this private
Member's motion.
I have
to say there's a little bit of skepticism here – just a little bit. When I first
came to government, which is a little over a year ago now, we formed the
Committee. We sat on the Committee and we had perhaps two meetings – maybe three
but two for sure.
I agree
with the Member for – I'll have to find out now, I don't want to say his name –
Carbonear - Trinity - Bay de Verde. I have to agree with him that there has been
work done behind the scenes, but bringing it together as a Committee and
starting to get down into the brass tacks of it all hasn't been always on
schedule.
To have
a Committee in place and, hopefully, have some regularly scheduled work as we
move forward would be fabulous. I know we've set a deadline for winter and
spring of 2021, which is fabulous. We need a deadline; you need a target in
which to work towards.
I look
back to when I first started campaigning and people were asking me back in the
by-election what you think about running and different things around that. One
of the things I talked about – it relates to democratic reform – is the amount
of money that people can utilize to run. There are so many individuals out there
who may not have access to the funds that others have. So we're eliminating
individuals that could be fabulous representatives of the people of their
districts; yet, because of affordability, they can't run.
In terms
of democratic reform, that's something that we should be looking at. Are we
electing the person with the most signs on the road or are we electing the
person that's going to do the best job? Unfortunately, sometimes finances come
into that play. Either they don't run or they don't have enough opportunity to
go out and see the people and take available of the different mediums that are
available to promote themselves, at a cost.
I really
applaud the move forward here. We talk about the voting systems, we need some
democratic reform on that. You talk about electronic voting and you talk about
different ways of getting people to the polls, this is something we certainly
need to address through democratic reform.
Voting
age; voting age has always been an issue. How old should an individual be in
order to cast a vote? I know it's a little different when you talk about your
party politics and the age limit of how you can vote there, and it's for all
parties. It's a lot lower than 18; you know, 14 or 16. We really need to look at
some consistency there in terms of what's the age or what's the proper age in
which people can be deemed to be responsible to vote? Some of those are issues
we have to address.
Again, I
talked about the funding for individuals, or what individuals can get to run.
Like I said, I think it eliminates some people who could be running but can't
run because they can't afford it.
We also
need to address the funding around political parties. That's something we need
to address through democratic reform. We really need to talk about individuals
who can really and truly represent the people in their district. Again, not the
person who has the bigger access to a bank account.
The role
of third party groups in elections, we need to address that through democratic
reform, making sure that everyone is represented. Democracy is representing the
people through an individual.
It's
wonderful to see, through this motion, that independents are going to be on this
Committee, and I think that's a good thing. I think we really need to have full
representation on this Select Committee to make it work, because we're all
elected to represent the individuals in our district. If an independent is
elected, then we should have that voice at the table. '
There
has been a lot of work behind the scenes. There have been reasons why we haven't
been able to meet on a regular basis, and a lot of those are perhaps beyond
anyone's control. Other things take priority; other things jump in and throw
your meetings off track. I'm really, really hopeful, moving ahead with this,
that we have a time limit, winter-spring of 2021, to get something done. I hope
we set some regular meetings, make regular scheduling to sit down and make sure
we progress this along.
I know
in working with the past Committee and the Department of Justice and Public
Safety that there was a tremendous amount of literature compiled – binders and
binders. There are lots of templates and benchmarks, information that you can
utilize out there. It takes a while to compile it, but it certainly takes an
even bigger effort to go through that information. That information hopefully is
still available and there's a lot of sifting through on that.
You
don't want to push this too quickly. I realize that, because you want to do a
good job on it. But democratic reform is so important that having a Committee
together with representation from all groups within the House here will cover
all the bases, hopefully. As we move forward, we can start having some real
discussion on the issue, come up with some real thoughts and recommendations on
the issue, with all the goal to make this a better run House in terms of how we
deal with issues, how people are elected and what people can do and say.
As we
talked about the other day with the artificial intelligence, things are
changing. Technology is changing. Technology is affecting democracy, so we have
to be ahead of that. We have to look at ways in which voting is done. Your
population is changing. Your demographic is changing. Your election base is
changing. It's probably getting smaller.
I look
at the issues we talked to on the previous democratic reform. Some of the issues
we were looking at there were the voting systems and methods, which I've already
mentioned. So hopefully that will remain as an item. I don't see anything
changing here.
Voting
age was an item we had there previously, so I don't see that changing. Funding
of political parties was there previously, I don't see that changing. I
mentioned already the role of third party groups in the election campaigns. I
see that as remaining on the agenda for this.
Timing
and date of elections, that's what we had on the past one as well. I hope
that'll stay there as well, because at the end of the day, you want to be aware
of when your election is happening. People out there want to be aware of when
the election is happening. It's not fair, I don't believe, to the individuals
out there – depending on the issue, the reason for it – calling snap elections,
jumping in there. Most of that is done for political gain and not for to
represent people.
So I
need to ensure that those remain on the agenda, and I certainly will be
supporting this Committee. I'm looking forward to our first meeting, and I'm
looking forward to us making some advancements here and getting down to some
real work and working as an all-party group.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted
to stand and agree with this motion. This is a real joy to see that democratic
reform is going to be done quite democratically. I am pleased to see that we
have a proportional or an equal representation of ideas and parties at the
table, and we have a broad mandate that will allow us a great deal of latitude
at looking at all aspects of true democratic reform.
Certainly, the Member for Topsail - Paradise and the Member for Windsor Lake
brought up very good points about some of the things we can consider in that
mandate. I'm not sure if any of the other Members have been attending the Green
New Deal sessions they've had, but they are also quite interested and have
offered a great deal of suggestions around democratic reform. I look forward to
engaging them on helping us get a good sense of what our mandate ought to be and
getting started on that work.
So I am
delighted to be able to say that I support this motion and I'm sure my caucus
also supports this motion and we look forward to getting started on this work as
soon as possible.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
certainly is a pleasure to stand up and speak to this motion. Obviously, I will
be supporting it.
The
first thing I want to say is that, really, when we look at the Committees of the
House of Assembly that currently exist, in my view, and I know people can have
their own views, but, in my view, this will be the first truly democratic
Committee that we will actually have in this House because it will include an
independent Member of the House. Whereas, in all of the other Committees of the
House, independents are not recognized, which is something that needs to go on
the list. It definitely needs to be recognized based on the fact that we now
have two elected independent Members. We had a number of other people run as
independents in the last election and I suspect there will be people that will
run as independents in future elections. I think it's important to recognize
that fact.
I don't
want to belabour or get too much into what the Leader of the Official Opposition
said. I'm not looking for any controversy in terms of the current leadership
race within the governing party, but I do concur with him from the perspective
of that current race that it indeed is very relevant to this House of Assembly
and it is indeed very relevant to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is
indeed very relevant to the whole concept of democratic reform because, in this
particular case, this is not just about a party selecting a leader, this
particular race is actually about selecting the next premier of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Whoever
should win this particular race is not just going to be the leader of a
particular party, they're actually going to be the premier and that person could
be the premier for a year or more, potentially. It could be sooner than that, we
don't know what's going to happen, but that person could be the premier for a
year.
It is
absolutely relevant, when you think about it, that we are going to be selecting
a premier – my understanding is that under those leadership rules, similar to
the last leadership rules, anybody in the province can sign up and vote for that
leader, if they so desire. So it absolutely is very relevant when you think
about the issues around disclosure of donations and so on.
Now, I
know one of the candidates, to his credit, placed his own self-imposed cap on
spending; albeit way, way too high in my opinion but he still did it,
nonetheless. He has indicated that he will disclose, on his own, any campaign
donations. I think that's admirable. I hope the other candidate, and if there
are other candidates who come forward, that they decide to do the same thing. I
definitely think the party needs to look at changing their rules to make that
mandatory. Anyway, that's their business what they do, but, again, it is
relevant because it does impact us all, we're selecting a premier.
There
are so many things, Mr. Speaker, that I could stand up and speak about when it
comes to democratic reform. Certainly it's been something that I've raised in
this House of Assembly on numerous occasions, as well as outside the House of
Assembly through the media, the open-line shows and social media. I've written
the minister a number of times; I've written the Premier on it. I'm very, very
pleased to see that we're finally going to be moving forward. I'm certainly very
pleased to be part of this Committee.
I do
want to thank my colleague from the Bay of Islands because he, too, had a keen
interest in this but he decided, after a lot of discussion, to allow me to be
the independent Member on the Committee. I thank him for that.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a number of things that need to be looked. Certainly campaign
financing, as has already been mentioned, that's a big one. I really believe
that is a huge one.
One of
the things that I think I was able to do and establish – I can't speak for my
colleague here from Bay of Islands, but I know, in my particular case, the last
two times I had run, I had spent somewhere in the $25,000 range. Maybe a little
more on one, a little bit less on another, but around that $25,000 mark. I
believe I could have spent $35,000, $40,000, somewhere in that range, based on
the formula and the population. This time around, the last election, I did it on
$8,000. I didn't need to spend $25,000.
I think
that goes to show that the amount of money that we spend on these campaigns and,
therefore, the amount of money that we need to raise to compete, that it
absolutely be significantly reduced; don't need to be spending that kind of
money. It's not necessary.
When we
look at things such as election signage, as an example, do we really need to
have a big election sign competition? I can understand, yes, if someone wants to
put a small sign on their lawn or whatever, their personal property, fine and
dandy. But do we need to be getting into this situation where I put up a two by
two, somebody has to put up a four by four next to me so then I counter it with
a four by eight? I put up one sign, my opponent puts up two signs, the next guy
puts up three signs and we have the whole place littered in signage. What a
waste of money.
Why not
have a system by which – I'll just use my area as an example, Mount Pearl -
Southlands – we designate four or five locations at each corner of the district
and every candidate sticks up one sign and that's it; no more signs allowed on
public property. What you do on private property is your own business, but I'm
thinking of the rural areas. We put one at the beginning of the small town and
one at the end; one coming this way and one coming that way; people can see.
Everybody in the community knows who's running anyway and give up the rest of
the foolishness. What a waste of money, what a waste of time and what a waste of
volunteer effort. Then they blow down and you have to fix them up again. They
get damaged with vandalism; you have to fix them up again. Think about it.
That's one little thing that costs a ton of money, all kinds of time and
resources and everything and for what? How foolish is it?
We
should be debating the issues. It shouldn't be about who has the glossiest
brochure or who has the most brochures. I've said in the past, do we really need
party leaders to have a great big giant bus with their face on it? What's that
all about? Is it just a big ego trip or what is it, really? Is it necessary?
We can
have our debates. The leaders can have their debates. Usually they'll have four
or five around the province or whatever. The media will put off one or two; I
think the university usually will put off one. There's one on the West Coast,
there's one in Labrador or whatever. Let the leaders get out there and have
their debate and let everybody watch.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Ban Brazil's rig.
MR. LANE:
Do what?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Ban Brazil's rig.
MR. LANE:
Ban Brazil's rig. Yeah. Well,
at least he's recycling. I will say for the Member for Conception Bay East -
Bell Island, at least he's recycling. He kept his vehicle with his face and his
number on it so he'll recycle. That's good, I suppose.
My point
is that if we're really supposed to be debating the issues and people really
want to make informed decisions based on what that candidate and/or that party
has to offer, then that's really what it should be all about. I definitely think
that we can be reducing the amount of money that we spend and, therefore, reduce
the amount of money that we need to raise. It puts everyone on a more even
playing field and then you're not beholden. Then parties are not necessarily
beholden to big corporations. Whether they are or whether it's real or whether
it's perceived, if it's only perceived, then the perception is gone because you
don't need them anymore. That's definitely something we need to do.
I think
the use of Committees in the House of Assembly, we call them all-party
Committees. I like this. Again, a Select Committee that involves – if there are
independents, they should be involved as well, but the use of Committees, I
think, is a very positive thing. We need to do more of it, particularly when it
comes to legislative review.
I know
we did a little pilot project on one piece of legislation for sure and I think
it worked out well. I think we need to do more of it. We don't need to have a
Committee meet on every single piece of legislation, particularly if it's just a
housekeeping thing, something minor, but when we have a significant piece of – I
think back on, for example, the Procurement Act that came through here. That
involves the expenditure of literally billons of dollars of taxpayers' money –
billions. You come in, you get a briefing a day or so before it comes to the
House, comes on the floor and then you're expected to debate that. So much of
that was in the regulations and we had no input into the regulations.
When it
comes to significant pieces of legislation, why not have all representation from
all parties or Members and so on to actually have some meaningful input. I know
there will be some who will say: You had your opportunity for input; it's called
the floor of the House of Assembly. But we all know the reality of it is that
government, particularly if they're in a majority, which, except for now – this
is the first time, I think in our history, we never had a majority government. I
could be wrong but I think so. Traditionally, government brings in the
legislation and whatever they bring forward passes.
I can
stand up here forever and say I have a concern about this clause or that clause.
I can ask questions in Committee of the Whole and so on but, generally speaking,
all I'm doing is recording my disagreement or my input for the sake of
Hansard so if it gets passed and
people have problems with it and they come to me, I can say: Yeah, I spoke about
that. I said I didn't agree with that. That's all you're doing but you're not
actually changing it.
As Tom
Marshall said in this House of Assembly one time – a man I have great respect
for, by the way – Oppositions have their say. Government gets its way. He was
absolutely right. That's the way our system generally works. I understand;
governments need to govern. I get that and I'm not against that principle, but
the issue I have is that everybody in this House of Assembly was elected by the
people. We all represent a portion of the population and we should all be heard.
So,
yeah, at the end of the day it's democracy. We can vote and so on, but make sure
we all have the opportunity for input and I mean meaningful input. If I can
raise a point or my colleague can raise a point, someone in the Opposition or
the Third Party can raise a point and it make sense that there actually was an
oversight, that somebody over here actually thought about something that someone
over there didn't think about, that somebody acknowledges it and says: You know
what? You're right. We never thought of that. That's a good point. We can make a
little amendment if required. That's where we need to get.
I think
that work would work better in a Committee structure where there are no cameras,
there's no soapbox, there's no grandstanding, there's no politics. It is just
individuals sitting around the table, hopefully all with the best intentions to
do what's right that can compromise, can work together and can make things
better. That's really what it's all about. That's what it should be about. The
use of Committees, I think, is a good thing.
I think
about things such as fixed election dates. Someone raised the issue about the
elections and how elections are called. We have fixed election date legislation;
however, the problem is that it sets a date for the election and then it gives
this escape clause, basically, where the government can say, yes, fixed election
date, but I've decided that I'm going to just ignore that and go the
Lieutenant-Governor and call an election. Simple as that.
What's
the point of a fixed election date if the government of – the idea of the fixed
election date was supposed to be that there was continuity, there was certainty
and that government, whatever government it was, wouldn't be calling elections
based on: we better call it now before the bad news comes, or we better call it
now because there's good news or the polls look good so for our advantage. No,
it's a fixed date and the chips fall where they may on that date. That was how
it was supposed to be put in place.
The
problem, of course, is the legislation has that loophole that says even though
there's a fixed date, as the government we can just go in and call an election
whenever we feel like it. That's something that needs to be fixed as far as I'm
concerned.
I could
go on and on and on with the different issues that could be looked at. Recall
legislation is something that was brought to the floor of the House of Assembly
here in the past. My former colleague for Mount Pearl North, I believe, brought
it in. I think it was a private Member's motion if I'm not mistaken. It got
defeated but they do have it in BC. I know people will say there are mixed
reviews on it, but it's something that should be looked at.
Recall
legislation doesn't mean that government can't govern. It's not as simple as you
make a decision and all of a sudden the government is overthrown or members are
overthrown. That's not how it works. For a Member to be ousted in BC I think
there's a requirement of, I want to say 60 per cent – I could be wrong – of the
population. It would require a concerted effort by someone in that community to
go door to door to door to door to door and obtain the signatures of the
majority of the district.
First of
all, who's even going to go through that hassle and then who's going to actually
sign that at the door, unless it was something so egregious, so egregious that
the population as a whole said, yes, this person has to go. If they did
something that was so bad, so be it, let them go but, again, it's something else
that could be looked at and should be looked at. There are so many things, I
think, that we could be doing, that we should be doing, to improve our
democracy. Those are just a few.
I know
the Member for Windsor Lake referenced the book – I think he's referring to
The Democracy Cookbook. I think that's
what he's referring to. There are a whole load of ideas, things around how do we
better engage people in the democratic process. How do we make it easier for
people to run? How do we make it easier for people to vote and encourage them to
vote? How do we try to encourage more diversity in terms of who the candidates
are and who is encouraged to run. There's a whole host of things. These are
things that we need to consider.
Obviously, we're not going to agree on everything; it's a Committee and, again,
it'll be a democracy. But I'm hoping that we will be able to get a lot of
feedback from the public and that we can make a lot of good decisions to change
our democracy for the betterment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I'm
starting to run down on time, so the other thing I just wanted to throw out
there – and again, this was kind of alluded to by my colleague for Windsor Lake
– and that is the fact that right now in this motion we're naming seven people
and we're basically saying to report back in a year with progress. I'm wondering
how this is going to work.
For
example, what about if we start this Committee and in three months from now,
four months from now, we have an election? Does this just die and that's the end
of it? I see nothing here. I see no commitment, nothing written here that would
say that should an election occur between now and then and people are displaced,
there are new Members or whatever, which obviously could happen – I'm not
planning on going anywhere, I hope not, but we all hope that.
Bottom
line is if there's an election in three or four months time and now there are
new people involved and people get defeated or they decide not to run or
whatever happens, what happens to this Committee? What happens to the work of
this Committee? Does it all just fall off the radar until someone brings in a
private Member's motion again in four years from now? I don't know. That's what
could happen. There's nothing here to guarantee that should an election be
called before the work is done, nothing to guarantee that this work will
continue.
So I
don't know, Mr. Speaker, from a procedural point of view, I'm not sure if it
would require an amendment to this, which I don't have, because it sort of just
occurred to me listening to the Member. I don't know if it's something that the
Government House Leader, when she closes off debate, if she is willing to stand
up and make a commitment. Perhaps bring in another motion sometime in the near
future to supplement this to address that issue.
I would
like to see some kind of a firm commitment that should we find ourselves in the
middle of an election in a few months' time and there are different players here
and everything is rearranged and so on, the desks are all moved and whatever,
that this work will carry on.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader, if she speaks now, she will close the debate.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'll
begin by thanking all Members who contributed to the discussion here this
afternoon. We had a rather robust discussion in December surrounding this and
previously. So it was interesting to hear some of the discourse here this
afternoon.
I will
say to the Member for Windsor Lake who raised his skepticism, it is unfortunate
that he feels skeptic that this House is now putting together a Select Committee
on Democratic Reform. I would've hoped he would've been enthusiastic about a
Select Committee on Democratic Reform, as they all voted in favour of this mere
months ago, Mr. Speaker.
I will
also say that he raised issue with “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Select
Committee on Democratic Reform report its progress to this Honourable House
before the end of the Winter-Spring Sitting of this House, 2021,” Mr. Speaker.
The Committee can decide to report at any time before the end of the
winter-spring sitting. We put it in just to be helpful to this House to make
sure it reports back. I did discuss this with House leadership to make sure they
were in concurrence and they were, so I'm a little surprised that he would not
be in concurrence with that.
I did
note that the Member opposite also said that – it was raised a couple times that
he was skeptical about this process. Mr. Speaker, this is a House of Assembly
process, not a government process. I will remind the Members opposite of this.
I will
say this: We need a spirit of optimism and hope, not only in this House of
Assembly but in this province. I ask Members to provide that hope and optimism
going forward on the Democratic Reform Committee. I think there has been great
work done. Again, I join my colleague in thanking the Justice Department who was
leading this. They've done volumes of work and have advanced work on this very
important issue. It's a complex issue, and I thank the Minister of Justice and
this team for doing that. But it's now out of their hands and into the hands of
the House of Assembly, which is what we all decided, together, in December.
Mr.
Speaker, I will say, once the Committee is now struck, following today's debate,
they will move forward to choose a Chair. The Committee will choose a Chair and
we'll move forward then with deliberations and work.
To my
hon. colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands, he talked about having impact on
legislation. I remind him that he does, indeed, have impact on legislation. I
recall very vividly this past fall when we made changes to legislation based on
his recommendations and discussions. So he does have impact and I thank him for
that impact. It was a great recommendation for improvement to legislation.
As we
move forward, working to have more of a committee structure – I had committee
structure when I was a Member of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, I speak highly to the
committee structure, I think it's a valuable thing for this House of Assembly
and I support it. We're working to utilizing it even more than we already have
and we already have had legislation go through that.
To my
hon. colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands, he raised the issue of compelling
a future Legislature to continue with this work. I don't think anyone in here
can compel a future Legislature. I will say that should something occur, we are
in a minority situation, I recognize that, so if the Members opposite decide by
whatever means and mechanisms to call an election, if they decide to call an
election, they can certainly come back to this House and restrike the Committee.
That is always a possibility. I would hope that future governments – we had
already moved and actioned this item with our own Committee, Mr. Speaker, and
had invited Members opposite to join us on that Committee. Now that it is a
Committee of the House of Assembly, I would suggest that we would have to compel
that future Legislature to do that work.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a very positive thing. There is an opportunity under the last
section that the resolution that “any further matters relating to the mandate or
operations of said committee can be brought back to this House for approval.” I
would say that we would likely anticipate to hear of this for the future. I am
merely a conduit of a private Member's resolution to bring this forward today.
I hope
all Members, based on their commitment in December, are supportive of moving
forward with the Democratic Reform Committee but we'll await the vote.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, second reading of Bill 24.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Again,
I'm a conduit in this House this afternoon.
I move,
seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader ,second reading of a bill, An Act
To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act,
Bill 24, and that the said bill should be now read a second time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
Bill 24 entitled, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity And Administration Act be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity And Administration Act.” (Bill 24)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm the
conduit again of this legislation through the House of Assembly and I'll give a
few remarks. We have dealt with this, of course, back in the fall of 2019 and
it's now coming forward in its legislation form.
On May 2
of 2018, the House of Assembly unanimously passed a private Member's resolution
directing the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to undertake the
development of a Legislature-Specific Harassment-Free Workplace Policy.
Following the passage of this resolution, the Privileges and Elections Committee
prepared for work it would undertake, including extensive cross-jurisdictional
research and an analysis of applicable legislative and policy provisions. A
significant portion of the work conducted throughout the summer and fall of 2018
was focused on consultations, as required by the resolution, with Members,
employees and independent external groups.
The
Committee developed a proposed Harassment-Free Workplace Policy applicable to
complaints against Members of the House of Assembly and recommended that it be
adopted by the House. In addition to the proposed policy, the Committee
recommended changes to the principles of the Code of Conduct for MHAs, as well
as the Code of Conduct provisions outlined in the
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act.
There were also recommendations for other consequential statutory amendments to
the House of Assembly Act.
While
the final report has already received concurrence in the House of Assembly, the
Privileges and Elections Committee have no ability to introduce a bill in this
House and has requested that the Government House Leader do so on behalf of the
House of Assembly. All public bills must be introduced in the Legislature by the
Executive Branch of government.
The
amendments being proposed to the House of
Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act are as follows:
One, to change the process for initiating a review under the Code of Conduct by
removing the ability of the Premier to request that the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards give an opinion on a matter respecting the compliance of a
Member with the Code of Conduct and the related requirement for the Commissioner
report the opinion to the Premier and Member concerned.
Two, to
require that Members annually file a declaration with the Clerk of the House of
Assembly to reaffirm their commitment to the Code of Conduct and declare that
they have read and understood the policy.
Three,
to add provisions to protect the confidentiality of the identity of the person
requesting an opinion under the Code of Conduct.
Four, to
provide for consequential amendments to give effect to the Harassment-Free
Workplace Policy applicable to complaints against MHAs. That's definitions,
separation between the Code and policy, authority of the Citizens'
Representative under the policy, and confidentiality of the complainant and
witnesses.
Five,
notwithstanding the report of a code violation to the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards, if that violation involves a harassment complaint against
a Member, the matter shall be dealt with by the Citizens' Representative.
Six, if
the Citizens' Representative determines that a complaint does not fall within
his or her jurisdiction, the complainant may then request an opinion from the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards.
Seven,
where a matter has been referred to either the Citizens' Representative or the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards under the act or the policy, and that
Officer has issued a report or discontinued an investigation, the decision of
the Officer is final and the matter may not be subsequently referred to the
statutory Officer who has not yet heard it.
Eight,
reports by the Privileges and Elections Committee arising from investigations by
the Citizens' Representative shall be taken up and disposed of by the House
within six months, or a longer time as determined by the House. Recommendations
must be concurred in by the House.
Nine, if
the complainant is the Citizens' Representative, the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards shall have the powers and abilities of the Citizens'
Representative under the policy. This is consistent with the motion to concur
with the final report. The proposed bill would come into effect, if it is passed
in this House of Assembly, on April 1, 2020.
I know
the Privileges and Elections Committee, Mr. Speaker – of which you were Chair at
the time – deliberated long and hard and put a tremendous effort into ensuring
that you considered all the matters at hand. As I indicated earlier, a very
significant cross-jurisdictional scan, major deliberations, put the report
forward to this House, which the House has concurred in. This legislation is
enacting that concurrence.
With
that, I will take my seat.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
First of
all, I'd like to just go through. For clarification purposes, I think it's
important to set out again the brief historical background with respect to this
bill and to place it in context.
When we
go back, first of all, to February 12 of 2018, our leader, the Leader of the
Opposition, Mr. Crosbie, called for a new workplace harassment policy to be
introduced for the House of Assembly. At that time, he recognized that the
policies in this House needed to be updated and modernized.
Then we
move to May of 2018, the House debated – this was on May 2 – and passed a
private Member's resolution from the PC caucus. We see the private Member's
resolution which, in essence, resolved that the House support the introduction
of the Legislature-Specific Harassment-Free policy. It was similar in principle
to the policy in effect in Nova Scotia's provincial Legislature, where elected
representatives and their staff were held responsible for inappropriate conduct.
As well,
the resolution called for the introduction of this policy to recognize all forms
of harassment including bullying, cyberbullying and intimidation of all forms.
Finally, it resolved to call for the consultation with all Members and employees
of the House and with independent groups who had experience and expertise in
handling harassment complaints.
The
private Member's resolution was then passed without descent. Then in May of
2018, from there we see it go to November of 2018 where that Standing Committee
on Privileges and Elections issued the interim report to the House on this new
policy.
From
there we see it go to April of 2019, where the Privileges and Elections
Committee issued or tabled the final report. Then December 2, 2019, the House
concurred in this final report. It was at that time that I also rose in the
House to speak on this matter.
Just for
clarification purposes, concurring means that the House approved the policy and
it was set to come into effect April 21, 2020. By concurring the House also
approved other recommendations, including the amendments to this act.
Mr.
Speaker, when we look at this particular bill, Bill 24, it does include
amendments to the act that were recommended by the Privileges and Elections
Committee and already concurred in by the House in December. This is simply the
next step in this legislative process, I guess you could say. It's really
nothing new in its form.
As I
pointed out, in December we concurred in the resolution to move this forward
with the amendments to make this policy happen. This bill really, in essence,
includes those amendments. It's the final step in the process. Once we pass it,
hopefully, we will have the policy we have been – and all parties have been –
working on so hard to create.
Getting
to that point, I think I would be remiss if I did not say that it has to be
acknowledged, the work of the Privileges and Elections Committee who presented
this final report. They spent many months of analysis, consultations and
deliberations that were involved.
I think
that is very important to recognize, that the Committee saw the importance of
this work and the importance that the Legislature must recognize that we have to
lead by example in this area. They worked diligently to see that there's a clear
and fair process, that due process is followed and proper procedures are
followed. It gives options for resolution. It protects confidentiality. It
fosters a better work environment. It holds all of us, all elected officials, to
the highest standard.
So I
would submit, Mr. Speaker, we much be diligent to ensure that the House is not a
place where harassment is tolerated but a place where everyone who wants to
serve feels welcome, and that includes women who also wish to run for public
office. I think this is a very important step in ensuring and encouraging women
to do that in the future.
Mr.
Speaker, another couple of points I'd like to emphasize with respect to this
bill and the underlying, I guess, policy which is the foundation. This
Legislature-Specific Harassment-Free Workplace Policy – which is the name it is
called – outlines a really comprehensive definition of harassment. Again, it is
an attempt to update the law, to modernize the law with respect to issues of
harassment. I think the most important element of this is it separates the
treatment of harassment from other aspects of the Code of Conduct. I think that
is a really important piece. This is very necessary.
I would
say on that point, we've learned in recent years that concerns about harassment
have really come to the fore. It is now necessary to update the law to reflect
our determination and our commitment to deal seriously with issues of
harassment. By separating out that issue of harassment, this bill introduces new
definitions related to the Legislature-Specific Harassment-Free Workplace
Policy. The bill also gives direction for separating harassment issues from the
Code of Conduct so the appropriate legislation can proceed.
Mr.
Speaker, I think it's important to note that harassment investigations will be
conducted by the Citizens' Representative, and I think that's an important point
that we need to mindful of. This bill will give the Citizens' Representative the
authority to act in accordance with the policy. I think that was a really
important element to have and I think that needs to be recognized. It's very
encouraging to see the reforms and the attempts that have been made with respect
to the harassment piece of this policy and this legislation.
Also, I
feel very comfortable, very encouraged about the confidential support mechanisms
that are in place. These mechanisms protect confidentiality. I think that is
something that is vital. That we need to protect the confidentiality of not only
the complainant but witnesses and, as well, the respondents, at least to the
extent possible, to comply with fundamental principles of procedural fairness.
That is very important and needs to be, certainly, applauded and celebrated.
With
respect as well, I find it very good to see that this bill will assign
jurisdictions for complaint and resolution process to the Office of the
Citizens' Rep. I think that is very necessary.
The
other point I think we need to recognize, that I think is acknowledged in this
bill, is that there's a clear process now for complaints. There's a process to
provide for informal and formal resolution options. As well, there's the
mandatory requirement to have respectful workplace training for MHAs. Those are
some of the points that I just wanted to highlight.
Also,
when we look at other changes that came from the Privileges and Elections
Committee, in addition to the policy there were changes to the Code of Conduct,
changes to the Code of Conduct provisions in the actual
House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act.
As well, we see these amendments to the consequential statutory amendments to
the act. Those are some points that I wanted to mention.
As well,
finally when I look at this bill, I think it's important for us to remember why
we are doing this. There's no doubt that the House of Assembly has to lead by
example. Each of us have to lead by example. The House of Assembly, it goes
without saying, should be a harassment-free workplace; otherwise, the good women
and men will not step forward to serve here if they do not see this as a place
where they are welcomed and where they are safe. I think that the good
governance of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be undermined if we
do not see more women, for example, coming forward to run for public office.
I think,
Mr. Speaker, we have all demonstrated that we're committed. By this legislation
as an example, it demonstrates that we are all committed to raising the bar on
our behaviour. Each of us, including myself, will strive to ensure that's done
and to strengthen the process. We need to strengthen the process but ensuring
that we do protect due process and fairness for all people, all men and women
within the Legislature. We have all committed to that for dealing with
violations whenever they occur.
By this
policy, we are giving the new policy real teeth, if you will, to ensure that all
Members are held to account for their behaviour. Hopefully that will deter that
behaviour and it will ensure that there's a fair process for investigation
wherever harassment has occurred.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just
going to stand and speak a few minutes on Bill 24 and talk about how it came
about. I just want to make it quite clear to everybody in the public, this came
out of allegations last year. I just want to let everybody know there was no
bullying or harassment found in any allegations. I want to make that quite
clear.
Everybody is talking about this whole Legislature with the bullying and
harassment. There was absolutely no bullying and harassment last year found in
the House of Assembly in the investigations that were done. I just want to make
that quite clear.
Mr.
Speaker, where I disagree a lot with this being brought in now, is that if we're
going to look at the accountability act, we should look at the whole act. We
should not just look at portions of the act, just relate to a situation that
came through. Why don't we look at the whole act? Why don't we look at the act
where the procedures took place last year where there were so many faults?
That's where we should go.
There's
a timeline in place of 90 days. Why was that 90 days broken? How can the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards set his own time when he's going to start
an investigation when under the act it states it? How can the Commissioner say
who should and should not be interviewed when the actual act says who has to be
interviewed?
Why
don't we just take the whole act instead of making a band-aid on this just
because of incidents that happened last year? This is what happened. This is a
reaction. Everybody knows this is just a reaction. This is a reaction but we
won't look at the full bill because there will be someone next. If we don't look
at the full act, we don't look at the whole accountability act in general, right
from an appeal process right on through, this is what's going to happen.
Do you
know what I'm going to have to do, Mr. Speaker, to get this out straight? I'm
going to have to go to court. That's what I'm going to have to do. The only
process that a Member in this Legislature has is court. I look at the Government
House Leader; she was in the meeting that day. The Minister of Justice and
Attorney General was in the meeting that day. The Speaker – everybody knows. I'm
going to have to go to court in a legal action for the only possibility of
appeal. Why don't we put an appeal system in here? Name one other incident where
you can be accused of anything except in this Legislature and you don't have an
appeal process. Forget me. The next one, there should be an appeal process.
I'll
just talk about some of the steps they went through that's causing now so many
changes in it. I know the Member mentioned it, the Government House Leader
mentioned it – is now removing the Premier from requesting an opinion. Do you
know why that's in place? I'll just go through it generally. The Premier of the
province, last year, made a complaint to the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards. I've accessed the information stating that. Do you know to this day I
could not get a copy of that complaint? My lawyers couldn't get a copy of that
complaint.
The only
reason why this is in to remove the Premier because last year he looked so bad.
The Premier of the province, the Member for Humber - Gros Morne looked so bad
where he stood here – well, I didn't make a complaint. I did make a complaint.
He even asked one of the Members here, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La
Hune, to withdraw her statement because he never made a complaint, but I have it
in documentation that he did make a complaint.
What
process do I have to get it? Go to court. The only process I have right now to
get a copy of what the Premier made. It could be nothing, I don't know – I
honestly don't know – but the only process I have is to go to court. These are
the changes we should make in this. This is all just a band-aid for what
happened last year. We all know that. This is just a band-aid, just a reaction
to try to make everybody look good. Typical of what the Premier does and a lot
of times with the government, let's make ourselves look good now. Let's say
we're going to really move on something.
Mr.
Speaker, they didn't tackle the real issues. How can the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards – we should make him or her, whoever's there next, to
follow the legislation. We should strengthen the legislation so everybody would
have the same opportunity. That's where we're failing as legislators in this
here. There was a lot of great work done with this, no doubt, but when we bring
this in all we're doing is putting a band-aid on it and saying here's what
happened last year, we have to move aside. That's what's happening here. We
never had the courage as legislators to tackle the whole act. We never had it.
We just didn't have it.
Mr.
Speaker, I just look at the declaration of all Members. I agree with that,
absolutely. We should have a declaration. Confidentiality of the complainant –
this is something I take a lot of exception to. Last year – well, in 2018, when
some of this got up, do you know where this was brought up at? In the House of
Assembly by the Leader of the Opposition, the Member at the time for Topsail. He
was the former premier of the province. What confidentiality is in that? How did
he get that information? Was there ever an investigation done to find out how he
found out?
Do you
know what I'm going to have to do? I'm going to have to take a civil action to
find out how he found out the information. I will find out. That's what I'm
going to have to do because there's no appeal process. There's no teeth in this
legislation that if someone leaks something out, to do an investigation on how
it got out – absolutely none.
This is
the kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, that when I look at this here and you look at
the whole incident that happened back in 2018, this is just a band-aid. There's
absolutely no teeth in this whatsoever, when what you're saying here is
confidential. How about the confidentiality of the respondent? There's nothing
in here about the confidentiality of the respondent – absolutely nothing.
If there
is a complaint made against anybody else, you're allowed to go out and talk
about it because the respondent doesn't matter. You're allowed to be taken
(inaudible) to be thrown out, do what you like because there's no accountability
in this for the respondent. This is why, Mr. Speaker, this is only a band-aid.
No one
wanted to really tackle the accountability and integrity act; they didn't want
to do it. If they did, we would hold that act and hold the Commissioner to a
higher standard. That's the issue that you're facing here today – band-aid. So
why isn't there something in there about the respondent? I ask the Government
House Leader: Why wasn't there something put in here about the respondent? Do
you know why? No one cares. Who cares about the respondent?
Myself
and the other Member, what happened? We got thrown out of Cabinet right away.
Once the Premier throws you out of Cabinet, you're identified, but yet here
you're not allowed to identify anybody. The Premier of the province identified
the two people last year. They already knew, of course, through Tammy. We'll
work that out, too, through the courts.
Mr.
Speaker, that's the kind of thing here. You're talking about confidentiality,
but yet when the Premier dismisses two ministers that's all public knowledge
then, but that's all right, though. You see the issue with this? There's no
accountability. This is why I have a grave concern with this. I did back then
and I still do.
Again,
Mr. Speaker – and I'm allowed to speak about this; this is all part of it – I
take when the report comes back to the Management Commission, I have a grave
concern about this. I wrote the Management Commission three or four times and I
get back the standard. I guess whoever helped you do up the letters wrote back
the standard thing: We don't administer it; it's the House of Assembly. We just
take the report and we pass it on to the House of Assembly. That is absolutely
false what happened to myself and Dale Kirby – absolutely false.
Once the
Management Commission got the report, they asked for or received – or it was
offered and received – a technical briefing, they immersed themselves involved
with the process. They had no authority under the act to receive a technical
briefing, but they did. The minute they received the technical briefing, they
were involved with the process.
What was
said in that technical briefing should have been brought back to this House of
Assembly. Mr. Speaker, that's where this has no teeth. The Management
Commission, who had a technical briefing from the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards – and there were statements made in there about the process – was
never brought back.
Who's
accountable to the Management Commission? What authority do we have to say to
the Management Commission you have to follow your fiduciary responsibility and
bring information back to the House of Assembly? Who?
Do you
know what's going to happen? I'm going to have to go to court to get it. I'm
going to have to go to court to find out who has the responsibility to all this.
This is
the kind of stuff, Mr. Speaker, why I say this is just a band-aid; complete
band-aid. If we're going to go at the accountability and integrity act for this
whole issue of bullying and harassment, we should do it. We shouldn't just say:
Okay, what, last year, can we say do something just to make ourselves look good?
Because it's bad because we are not doing our duties as legislators.
Mr.
Speaker, it's pretty sad when I start naming people in this House. The former
Speaker, the Government House Leader, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney
General of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador can make statements, yet
no one wants to deal with them. It's pretty sad. You just think about it.
Anywhere
in the system of Canadian Parliament, if you were in any system in Canada and
the Speaker made a statement, a Commissioner made a false statement, when he
confirmed it in front of the Deputy Speaker; the Government House Leader is
aware of it, the Minister of Justice and Public Safety publicly said what was
done and the false statement, but there's nothing done – absolutely nothing
done. We're not going to tackle this here because we just want a band-aid put on
it.
We have
the Premier of this province here who made a complaint. I don't know how serious
the complaint was. I have no idea. I really don't. But you can't even get a copy
of it. The only way I'm going to get a copy is file in court. That's the only
way for me to get a copy – the only way to get a copy.
What I
find also in the act, Mr. Speaker, is now they are separating the harassment and
the Code of Conduct. I find that kind of interesting actually because last year
when Bruce Chaulk went out to the media and he said: I'm no harassment or
bullying expert but I have people who are willing to do it. So he went out and
got Rubin Thomlinson. Do you know, to this date, we can't get a copy of that
report.
A
government employee – this is what we're fighting, that we're not government
employees. If we were government employees, we can get a copy of that report,
but because they're saying we're not, which I know the Clerk of the House gave
confirmation that we're not government employees, so we can't get a copy of the
report. We don't even know what was said in the meetings. Can you imagine? Just
think about it. You don't even know what was said about you. You don't even know
what you should've responded to because you can never get a copy of the report.
Just think about that.
Anywhere
in a court of law, if someone makes a statement about you or to you, you have
access to it, but in this Legislature, you can't. It's just unbelievable the way
this Legislature is just moving around this whole issue.
I use
the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay as an example, as an RNC officer. I'll use
you for an example. What if you did up a complaint, if you're doing an
investigation, isn't the person who you did the investigation against, aren't
they obligated to get a copy of your complaint? Sure, they are. Yet, in this
Legislature you won't allow that. Any court in Canada, you have to get it, but
in this Legislature you can't get it.
Mr.
Speaker, last year when you were moving out the harassment and bullying – moving
out – I remember Bruce Chaulk – sorry, the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards, I remember him standing in this House, and I don't know who asked the
question, I think it might have been the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands
asked the question. No, no, it was the Leader of the Opposition, actually. They
asked and he said: No, the complaint is under the Code of Conduct for bullying
and harassment. That was the complaint. Then someone asked the question later
about the investigators. He said: Well, you'd only be a fool to go against your
investigators. He made that comment here in the Legislature.
He said
the complaint was on the Code of Conduct, bullying and harassment. When there
was no bullying and harassment, he found the Code of Conduct anyway and we have
no way to defend what was said in the Rubin Thomlinson reports. The man said in
this Legislature: You'd only be a fool to go against the experts. He said that
here.
Guess
what? He went against the experts, and the only way for us to get a copy of the
Rubin Thomlinson report, I say again, is to go to court. Yet, anywhere in
Canada, if any of us tomorrow was charged with a speeding ticket, we would get a
copy of the speeding ticket, all the information there, you have a right to
defend. But here in this Legislature – this is why this Legislature, in my
honest opinion, is not tackling the real issue of the whole act. It's just
taking enough flash for to cover up, to say – the Premier, of course, that's his
normal procedure. If there's a problem, I'll fix it and just smooth everything
over. That's the whole issue with it, Mr. Speaker.
If
you're going to attack the whole act, you attack the 90-day limit, Mr. Speaker,
make sure that every respondent has an opportunity to appear and present their
evidence. You get what evidence is presented against you, which, in this case, I
never received. I don't know about the other ones, yet we're not even looking at
that.
Then
also what the Citizens' Rep is doing. Is the Citizen's Rep qualified to do the
investigation? Bruce Chaulk is not. Is the Citizens' Rep qualified?
MR. SPEAKER:
I remind the Member to refer
to the Commissioner –
MR. JOYCE:
Commissioner, sorry.
Is the
Citizens' Rep qualified, because I know the last investigation he did we asked
the questions: Why wasn't the Premier interviewed? Why wasn't the chief of staff
interviewed? Did we know about the $20,000 severance that the other person paid?
The Citizens' Rep, is he or she qualified? Those are the questions we have to
ask, Mr. Speaker. It's easy to just say, here's who's going to do it. Are they
qualified to do it? Obviously, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards
wasn't. He went out and got somebody else. He went against their advice.
So what
grounds, Mr. Speaker, does a person have to appeal? None, because we won't
tackle it in this Legislature, because what they did last year is just try to
push this aside, get this out of the way. We wouldn't even bring it in before
the election. This here was delayed before the election; wouldn't even bring it
in, got scared we were going to bring it all up again before the election last
April. What a reason. What courage, the Premier wouldn't even bring it in;
wouldn't even bring it in because he didn't want to have it brought up during
the election.
Mr.
Speaker, do you find something very interesting now in this here, where they're
separating the bullying and harassment from the Code of Conduct? You know the
funny part about that now? Last year, when it was put under the Code of Conduct
for bullying and harassment that it would've been a Code of Conduct violation,
that's what the Commissioner for Legislative Standards said in this House, if it
was. But, right now, what we're saying in this Legislature, the Commissioner
said here if there was bullying and harassment, it would be automatic Code of
Conduct. What we're saying now, no it's not – no it's not.
So, last
year, when all this was going on, if any allegation was found, automatic Code of
Conduct. What we're saying now, it's not a Code of Conduct. It's not a big deal.
That's exactly what we're saying here. So we're taking the severity away from
it. The severity of a Code of Conduct violation, which last year was a
complete violation, now it's not a violation of the Code of Conduct for a Member
in this Legislature. So it's diminishing what we can do. It's actually taking
away the severity of bullying and harassment for a Member of this House of
Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing that I find interesting in
here, and seeing my time is getting short, the other interesting part is when
the Citizens' Rep does a report, and he makes the recommendation that goes to
the Committee, do you notice now in the Committee that the respondent and
whoever is the accuser now has an opportunity to appear in front of the
Committee before a final decision is made. How ironic. Isn't that just kind of
ironic?
You talk about putting a band-aid on something. So, now, if
someone here – any allegation is made, whoever the accuser is and whoever is the
responder, before it's brought to the Legislature, before anything is handed
out, you have a right to appear. Under the act right now you still have that right, but no one in this
Legislature wants to stand up and say that – no one. Yet we're going to put a
little band-aid on it now and say, okay, here's what we're changing. We don't
want to go back and say okay – and I look at the Government House Leader again
and I'll tell you why I have to look at the Government House Leader.
You were
in that meeting that day. Your government is the one who brought the amendment
here – and I don't know what the Speaker is going to rule on, but it should be
your government now to bring in, because you know, the former House Leader was
in that meeting and the Speaker was in that meeting. He admitted in front of the
former Speaker that I was right on what he said and it's up to the government –
it's all according to the Speaker's ruling. If he doesn't, it's up to the
government to correct this. I put the responsibility right on the government.
I
absolutely refuse, Mr. Speaker, to walk through and put a band-aid on stuff
because if we're going to do something, let's do it right. But it's just very
ironic that now you can sit down in front of Committees, seven Members, and
explain yourself. Oh no, because last year we can't let that happen any more.
Even though the act was violated, no one has the courage to stand up. This is
what happened in this whole report. We should look at the whole act,
Accountability and Integrity Act, not just put band-aid on it.
I can
guarantee you, as sure as I'm here, there will be someone next and you're going
to wish that you followed my recommendation to look at the whole act to make
sure that your rights aren't violated and it's followed by law. I can assure you
one thing, Mr. Speaker, I will get to the bottom of it, one way or the other,
with or without the co-operation of the House. There are some Members that did
stand up and got a lot of courage. But if we're going to do it and protect
people, the complainant and the respondent, we need to look at the whole act.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. BRAGG:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I look
forward to the opportunity to speak on Bill 24 this afternoon, An Act to Amend
the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act. I
listened intently to the speakers before me and it's good to know the power of a
private Member's motion that brought this to the floor, and I would like to
thank the Committee that came before us, before this legislative Committee
that's established today, to bring this bill forward.
There
are a lot of good things in this bill. There's a good reason this bill is here.
I try and live by the motto never say to anyone, anything that I wouldn't say to
my mother. I have the biggest sense of humour and the biggest sense of, I guess,
blurting things out that sometimes I am so good at saying I'm sorry and this is
all in a joke. But when it goes beyond that limit, when you find yourself in a
situation that it becomes a conflict, this is why this act is written.
This is
why this is very important to the Members of this House because on any given
day, anybody can say something in this position to get their self in trouble.
You hold yourself to a higher standard. You try your best, but there are times
anybody, if you are made of steel, sometimes there will be a crack in that.
Anything can happen at any given time, so we have a great policy and a procedure
now to bring forward. It's good to know back in 2018 when this bill came to the
floor that it's being entered today to be an amendment.
I look
there and the Explanatory Note I think basically says it all. Most everybody
have had their chance to say something before me now. “The Bill would amend the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act to give legal effect to the Harassment-free
Workplace Policy Applicable to Complaints Against Members of the House of
Assembly as approved by the House of Assembly.” I guess it's a new world, Mr.
Speaker, we find ourselves in these days and these times, but as the world
evolves we must evolve with it. This is something we've done.
This
bill would repeal sections of the act for the Premier's ability to initiate a
review that would follow a different reporting mechanism if initiated by another
Member. It includes definitions relating to the policy and separation of what is
investigated under the policy versus Code of Conduct. Code of Conduct, as the
Member before me just said, is separated.
It gives
authority to the Citizens' Representative to act in accordance with the policy
and it also provides a role to the Privileges and Elections Committee and the
options available to the Committee for the recommendations of penalties and
sanctions. It also provides confidentiality of the complainants and the witness.
I guess
a little bit of a backgrounder, Mr. Speaker, to this is on December 2, 2019, the
House of Assembly concurred in the final report of the Privileges and Elections
Committee a development of Legislature-Specific Harassment-Free Workplace
Policy. The report was released by the Committee April 2019, after the Committee
took a year and a half to complete this report.
That
might seem like a long time for some people, a year and a half to write a
report, but when you have something to do that's as valuable as this and what it
means to everybody in this House of Assembly, for the people that sit here today
and the people who will sit here tomorrow, it takes time to get it right. In
doing that, I think the past Committee did a great job in bringing these
recommendations forward to us.
The
policy to be reviewed every five years, but obviously it will be amended from
time to time. But every five years there will be a full review of the policy.
The
Commissioner for Legislative Standards requests that the confidentiality aspects
in this policy be the same as whistle-blower protections. Those are some
similarities there we could use. The respondent has a right to know who
initiated the complaint. The respondent will know who made the complaint against
him – very important.
The
harassment policy is now separated from the Code of Conduct and all reports and
harassment complaints will be completed by the Citizens' Rep who has authority
to act on all complaints. After this policy is enacted, the Management
Commission will begin the process of removing the interim policy.
I'm
going to give you some of the highlights of this act. It will apply to
complaints of harassment against a Member of the House of Assembly by another
MHA or by an employee, as defined in the policy of the employee of Legislative
Branch. The Executive Branch of the Harassment-Free Workplace, effective June 1,
2018, will continue to apply to employees in the context of making a complaint
against another employee.
It
outlines the definition of harassment: abuse of authority; discriminatory
harassment; sexual harassment; and bullying. It allows for an independent
support advisor. This position is to be established independent of the
Legislature. If it's outside the Legislature it's independent of the
Legislature, obviously. It will provide confidential advice, support and
guidance to individuals navigating the process and options available to them;
and also in understanding and dealing with their feelings and concerns as they
deliberate on the course of action best suited for them.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm sure nobody ever wants to find themselves in this position, but if
you do find yourself in a position where you're either the person that's being
accused of harassment or being harassed, you need a policy that's clear and
defined and help you and guide you through the process. Again, both sides, the
person laying the complaint, the 'complainee' or 'complaintor,'whichever that
terminology may be, there will be some guidance for those people.
Submitting complaints is very important. How long do you wait? Do you wait five
years? Do you wait five minutes? The complaint should be filed as soon as
possible, but must be filed no later than six months after that last incident or
the last allegation. So it's not something where you can say five years ago
something happened. You have a six-month time frame which you can deal with it.
The
complaint must be in writing and include the following: a signature, very
important; description of the nature of the alleged harassment and identity of
the respondent; and the detailed information, but not limited to, time, date and
location of alleged harassment. Like anything, Mr. Speaker, documentation is
very important. This is all about making sure things are documented and we
outline in that what we expect in harassment.
The
complaint process: The responsibility rests with the Office of the Citizens'
Rep. It's a dedicated position for intake of complaints and requires an intake
officer to have the necessary skills, knowledge and training to receive and
provide advice on complaints of harassment. It outlines the clear process with
steps and associated timelines once a formal complaint has been received. It's
not something, you make a complaint and you wait again three or four years.
There has to be a mechanism and a motion that people follow the guidelines. You
need to get things to go through.
Anonymous complaints won't be permitted. If it's not signed, it'll be deemed not
a complaint. I worked for years in a municipal setting, Mr. Speaker, where
people would phone in complaints, where people would tell you complaints on the
roadside and you'd say to them: Would you please put it in writing? They're not
willing to put it in writing. Unless you put it in writing and sign your name,
it will not be registered as a legitimate complaint. I guess it will be filed
but it will not be worked on. It has to be signed by someone. That's very
important.
There
are some resolution options – complaint driven, of course. The decision as to
which option to pursue rests with the complainant. A complaint sometimes may
result in a resolution as a simple: I'm sorry. Genuinely say you're sorry and
you move on from there. The more and more it goes, the more extent, I guess the
more detail goes into it. The Citizens' Rep would handle that.
The
timeline for formal complaints to be switched from formal to informal would
resume if the complainant decided to switch back. There's an informal complaint
and a formal complaint. There is lots to this that's underlying. There are a lot
of options we have there to figure this out.
Again, I
hope I never find myself in a situation where I'm either on the receiving or the
giving end of this. People who hold this office, who hold their head high
everyday as they walk in the door, to be proud to walk here in this building, to
be one of the very few ever in the history of this province to sit in this seat,
you hold yourself to an accountable level, more so than anyone else.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAGG:
I sometimes joke about it, because in my past life, God knows, I was probably
fit to try anything or do anything, but when you're in this role – and everybody
around here, you know where I'm coming from. Not a lot of us, I would think,
drives the Trans-Canada at 100 kilometres or 99. There are times you may be a
little over, you may be a little under; you're not supposed to, but you bend it
a little bit. Here, you hold yourself to the speed limit. If there's any such
thing as in here, you hold yourself to the speed limit. You hold yourself within
the realm of what you should be, as an elected official.
When
people mark their X for you, they put it there because they have faith in you.
You're not here by one X, you're here by a multiple number of Xs, many thousands
in many cases. So a lot of people put you in this position to hold you
accountable for your position. This is very important.
The
harassment policy and the harassment-free workplace, it's very important. There
are times in this House the debate could get heated and we'll throw jibs and
jabs back and forth, but that's all in the good nature of politics, I would say,
in the running of this House. Sometimes it may go a little further. I think
you've seen more apologies in this House this year than probably any other year
before – just saying.
So as my
time runs down, I look forward – I sit as the Chair of the Privileges and
Elections Committee. This will give us the guidance we need. This will give us
the supporting documentation we need to deal with whatever comes our way when it
comes to harassment in the workplace. Any complaints, any reports that come back
to us, it gives us a guidance and it gives us a set of rules to work by.
Before I
sit, I'd just like to encourage everybody – it's terrible to say, but we have to
be on our best behaviour. Anybody can have a bad day any day of the week, but
when you get the opportunity to sit here in this House and you look around this
building and you look around the walls of the people who first – and I don't
know the gentleman's name way over in the corner there, but it's probably from
'18-something that the gentleman sat there. The honour to sit here is greater
than anything you –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. BRAGG:
I would never imply that we are better than anybody else. That is not what I'm
saying, that we are better, but we hold ourselves to a higher standard when we
sit here, that we do the best job we can and respect the laws and the rules and
each other's personality. We have 40 people in this room here. We know we're not
all family, we know we're not all friends, but we all find a way to work
together.
I spent
a lifetime volunteering, Mr. Speaker, in which there were a lot of people – my
time is running out, I'm being told my time is running. I spent a lot of time
finding a way to work with people. Not so much work around with people –
everybody has multiple different personalities and this is a great way and a
great lesson for many of us in how to hold yourself and how to conduct yourself.
On that
note, Mr. Speaker, I will take my chair, and I thank you very much for the
opportunity to speak.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I say to
the minister, I thought we were all friends, but anyway.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm not going to take a long time to speak. I know I have 20 minutes,
I'm certainly not intending on taking that.
As has
already been said, Mr. Speaker, basically, we already had the debate over the
harassment policy. It went through the House of Assembly Management Commission.
It came before the House; we had a great discussion on it. We all agree with the
harassment policy specific to Members of the House of Assembly.
Really,
all we're doing is simply taking that policy now and we're tying it to the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act. We're basically taking that policy and
tying it to a piece of legislation, which makes sense. It's a procedural thing
but it's really nothing new. I supported it then, I support it now.
I'm not
going to go through that policy; I'm not going to go through what landed us
here. The only thing I will say, though, is that I listened to my colleague from
Humber - Bay of Islands and what he had to say. I'm not getting into his
personal situation, who was right, who was wrong, who said this, who said that.
That's for him to deal with. He's indicated if he can't deal with it here, he's
going to deal with it another way, fine and dandy.
I will
comment, though, I will say that as I said when we talked about this before,
everybody in this House of Assembly, everybody, it doesn't matter if you're on
that side of the House, you're on this side of the House, it doesn't matter what
stripe you are or no stripe at all, any one of us, potentially – I would hope
not, we all would hope not, but anyone of us could be on the giving or the
receiving end of this. It's quite possible.
This
should be here to, really, protect us all. It's here to protect us all.
Particularly, if you should find yourself on the receiving end, I will say, and
it's important obviously for the person who was the victim, I'll say for lack of
a better terminology, obviously, a lot of the focus here is on the victim, as it
should be. Nobody in this House of Assembly or any other workplace should go to
work and be bullied, harassed in any kind of way. We all agree on that, but
there is a thing called procedural fairness as well. There's a thing called
procedural fairness.
What
I've heard my colleague say, the point he's made; I don't think he's against
this amendment to the legislation. I'm going to speak for him, I don't think
he's against it. I'm certainly not against it, and I'm going to vote in favour
of it because it's something that needs to happen and it's something we all
agree to.
But,
with that said, I do think he makes some valid points that if there are other
things that are related to this – it may not be the actual policy itself – from
a procedural point of view that relate to this that ensures that every Member of
this House of Assembly is treated fairly and equitably and that time frames are
followed and that the legislation is crystal clear so it's not open to
interpretation, that time limits are met, everyone who's supposed to be
interviewed is interviewed, that there's a mechanism for appeal, all those
things. If those things are not being dealt with here, right here and now, and
there are concerns, they definitely should be.
I'm not
suggesting that we don't vote for this – as I said, I'm going to vote for this –
but I am suggesting to my colleague from Humber - Bay of Islands that he should
write the Management Commission about the things that he indicated that are not
being covered here, the concerns he has in terms of procedure that are not being
dealt with here, write the Management Commission.
I would
certainly encourage whoever's on the Management Commission – I'm not sure who it
is off the top of my head; doesn't really matter – that once you receive that,
to take a serious look at what he is saying. And that if there are other
amendments that need to come forward to the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act that are required to ensure that when this
policy gets applied, it's getting applied fairly and equitably. That justice is
done, that everybody has the opportunity to defend themselves and appeal and all
that stuff – which the Member is indicating it may not necessarily be the case
right now or it may be ambiguous and needs to be clarified – then I would
certainly encourage all Members and Members of the House of Assembly Management
Commission to bring forward further amendments to this legislation at a later
date – hopefully not too late; the sooner the better – to accompany what's
already been done to ensure that we have a policy that protects us all.
Again,
this is not about this Member right here. It's not about him. He was involved in
what brought this here, but it's not about him. It's about everyone here and
it's about whoever's going to follow. It's about everyone who's going to follow,
because he is right when he says that anybody in this House can find themselves
at the wrong end of this, because anybody can go in, I can write a complaint, I
can go up to my office here now and write a complaint that someone said
something or did something or whatever that I found offensive or whatever and it
can happen.
I would
hope it wouldn't happen that nobody would just do it in a mean-spirited way but
it can. Maybe it's a misinterpretation, whatever, but I think we all need to
have the comfort of knowing that should such a complaint be brought forward that
falls under the harassment policy, that the legislation within the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act,
that legislation around, not just the policy but the other procedures that sort
of tie in to the utilization of that policy, I think it's important that we all,
for our protection, know that it's going to be bulletproof. That not only is it
going to protect the victims, which is the primary purpose for having this
particular policy, obviously, but also ensures fairness and also ensures that
those that are being accused have absolutely every right to defend themselves
and that they have a right to appeal.
Furthermore, we have to ensure that if there are any frivolous – and I'm not
certain because I don't have the actual harassment policy, I think it maybe
addressed in the policy, but I will also add that if there was any frivolous
complaints, unfounded complaints that were done maliciously then there has to be
accountability for whoever does that as well.
There
are a number of things around this whole policy that, as far as I'm concerned,
we need to ensure that we dot the i's, cross the t's and everything is covered.
So,
again, I will support the bill, bringing in the harassment policy, but, once
again, if there are other pieces of this legislation that need to be amended to
accompany this policy to make sure that everyone is treated fairly, I certainly
again encourage the Member to write the Management Commission. I certainly
encourage the Management Commission to take a look at it and make whatever
adjustments that need to be made as soon as possible to protect us all.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously, we are debating, of course, An Act to Amend the House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, Bill 24. Just to reiterate
some of the definitions that pertains the bill. The bill would give effect to
the policy designed by the Privileges and Elections Committee for a
Legislature-specific harassment policy and to outline some of these changes that
are important, that are obviously different from the process experienced just
some time ago here in our Legislature.
This
bill would repeal the Premier's ability to initiate a review that would follow a
different reporting mechanism than was initiated by another Member. So that in
itself right there, Mr. Speaker, would set us on an entirely different track
than what we did experience.
I was a
Member – and still am, of course – of the Privileges and Elections Committee
that was struck and, of course, that was tasked with designing this new policy,
as were you, Mr. Speaker, the Chair, actually, to that Committee. As you know,
we spent a lot of time – we spent the whole summer in here, into the fall,
creating, doing consultations with different groups: Respectful Workplace, Human
Rights Commission, Egale and Equal Voice. A number of these people that we heard
from in organizations, a lot of work was done. Of course, the final report
includes the proposed Harassment-Free Workplace Policy applicable to
complainants against Members of the House of Assembly and a recommendation that
it be adopted by the House.
The
Privileges and Elections Committee, of course, was pleased then to recommend the
proposed policy that outlines a comprehensive definition of harassment, which is
important. As you know, those definitions can get tangly and there can be
loopholes, as we've seen and experienced: provides a confidential support
mechanism through the establishment of a position, independent of the
Legislature including its statutory offices, to provide support and guidance to
individuals throughout the process. Again, it's a major contrast of night and
day, what was experienced here previously going through this process –
the lack of process, if you will – that was available to Members at the time.
Assigns jurisdiction for the complainant and resolution
process, including formal investigations, to an independent officer of the
Legislature, the Office of the Citizens' Representative; establishes a clear
process for complaints; provides both informal and formal resolution options;
includes mechanisms to protect confidentiality, which we know there was no
respect for confidentiality in the process that was undergone here just some
time ago; includes mechanisms to protect confidentiality of the complainant and
witness to the extent possible, complying with principles of procedure and
fairness; and make respectful workplace training mandatory for all MHAs – and
we've all undergone that training.
I've heard some interesting comments made by Members here
throughout this debate here this afternoon. Some Members have suggested that it
was simply relating to the process that we've just experienced here recently
less than two years ago. But, Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say with great
confidence that there has been questionable conduct and treatment that have gone
on in this Legislature for many, many, many years prior to 2015, and not just this Legislature
but legislatures across Canada.
That
said, one of the groups that we did consultations with, of course, was Equal
Voice. Just last month I was invited to come to the Equal Voice national
conference, which was held in Ottawa, to present the work of the Privileges and
Elections Committee that we undertook here in our Legislature and all that work
and what we're trying to accomplish here today. I really have to give hats off –
especially during the week before International Women's Day, which is coming up
on Sunday – really give props to this group because they are designated, of
course, to empowering women.
Statistics have shown that the victims of harassment or bullying or sexual
assault mainly are women. It's great to say some people can't relate or they
think it's an inconvenient topic or it's uncomfortable. Yes, it's uncomfortable
but if we don't have these conversations now and make these legislative changes
now, how can we expect healthy change? I put that question out to all my
colleagues here in this House, on all sides of the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. P. PARSONS:
Absolutely. It's an
uncomfortable conversation but we have to have it. I know there are a number of
people in this House, the new class that have come in, of course, in just the
recent election, that are dedicated to enforcing this very, very needed good,
healthy change.
I would
like to recognize the national organization Equal Voice, a non-partisan network
with chapters and campus clubs across Canada dedicated to electing more women to
political office. As we look around here in our Legislature, we have 40 seats
here, Mr. Speaker, and only nine are occupied by women. So right there and then
that says something. That speaks volumes.
In
February, as I mentioned, I travelled to Ottawa to present as a panellist at the
Equal Voice forum on gender sensitivity legislatures to identify and address
some of the systemic barriers women face within legislatures across the country
and to help create a political culture conducive to attracting and retaining
more women in politics.
My
neighbouring MHA – actually, my colleague for the District of Harbour Main –
said: How are we going to attract more good strong women, and men for that
matter, to legislatures if we can't get it right in here? We do have to lead by
example. As politicians we're on the ground, we're talking to our constituents,
we're getting that feedback and it's safe to say that the residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador have expressed great disappointment in what they've
seen here lately in our Legislature, Members. You know what, it's not one
Member; it's not two Members. Every MHA in this House wears that, so we are
responsible to have these conversations.
I don't
care if they're uncomfortable. If we don't do it, how can we make it better for
the next generation coming up? How can we make change? Unfortunately, we find
ourselves having these uncomfortable situations and conversations, but they have
to be had. Please, God, we can create some good change here and that's what's
happening in this bill.
I
certainly believe there's room to improve on the bill. I agree with the comments
made from other Members about what should be included. We can certainly build on
that, but this is a start and it's certainly more than what was available to
Members at the time.
This
forum in Ottawa was focused on solutions and opportunities for action. The
agenda began with identifying systemic barriers women and gender-diverse people
continue to face. This was followed by a panel, of which I was a Member, on how
to bring about change. It was followed by group discussions to further explore
these issues and identify ways to make politics better for everyone – not just
women, not just men, for everyone.
I also
presented the work, of course as I mentioned, of the Privileges and Elections
Committee, an all-party Committee in establishing a Harassment-Free Workplace
Policy for the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, as you know, progress has been
made but there's more work to be done.
You
think about it. Sure, we've made progress across Canada since 1916 – 1918 when
women won the right to vote, and then again later in 1929 when women were
finally considered persons, based on the lingo and based on language in a law.
It was only until then when women could be eligible to be appointed to the
Senate. Imagine. So, yes, we have taken small steps.
Some
people think that it's not necessary to make these changes when they make
reference to a certain incident, but let me put this question to you. I'll take
you back to 1989 – and we recognize this every year in December. Do you think if
the women in that post-secondary establishment in Montreal back in 1989 on
December 6 would have appreciated tougher and better policies when that gunman
walked in that post-secondary educational institution and separated the men from
the women? Told the women to go to one side, told the men to leave and then shot
and killed so many women in what we know as the Montreal massacre. Do you think
that they would have thought these policies are not something that we should be
discussing here on the floor of our Legislature?
Like I
said, Mr. Speaker, work has been done but a lot more has to be done. I stand by
that. I'm committed to that. I'm proud to represent the District of Harbour
Grace - Port au Grave. I get a lot of great feedback from my constituents saying
we're proud of the work you're doing. Stand your ground. Stand strong. That's
what we have to do.
The onus
is on every one of us here to do that. There's just no room for bullying of any
kind or intimidating or cyberbullying. Of course, we have to contend with social
media. I'll use the Twitter platform. Anyone can create an anonymous account,
put up a silly picture of anything of their choice and go on and attack someone.
If you look, statistics prove that it's women who are more so attacked than men.
There are a lot of systemic barriers.
I want
to recognize we're coming up on International Women's Day. We have a big day on
Sunday out in my neighbouring MHA's district, North River actually, the
community. I'll be attending. Our Lieutenant-Governor is going to be there as
well to be our keynote speaker. I look forward to seeing that room full of
strong women empowering women, just like I was part of, of course, in Ottawa at
that Equal Voice forum. I understand Members on this side of the House – the
Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development also just waving out. She's
going to be there. I encourage everyone to come and be there if you can.
We need
to do these things. Again, this is a step, Bill 24. I certainly believe we can
build upon it. I believe and I agree with my colleagues across the way who said
it needs to be a complete, fair process. That is absolutely, positively the way
to go. I stand by that. I think this is something we can build on. That said, we
didn't have this process previously. This is putting something in place now, but
it's something that we can build on.
On that
note, Mr. Speaker, I don't need to belabour this issue. Everyone here knows this
is something we have to do and we have to stand up for if we want change. Ladies
and gentlemen, we have to stand strong and we're committed to that change.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to discussing this further.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
thank everyone for their speeches.
I just
want to say, I come from a different world than the job that I'm in, the role
that I'm in. But I want to say one of my disappointments is how far behind we
are because it's been over 20 years. When I went to work for a company – and in
actual fact, one of the first trainings I did was on a respectful workplace over
20 years ago. I'll tell you now, the definitions that included harassment,
included gender, included sexual orientation. It also included things like
social isolation.
I'm glad
we're actually updating the terms to include behaviours that are part of
harassment that we're aware of, but it's very, very important for us to
understand that in the House of Assembly the province looks to us for guidance.
As my fellow MHA for Harbour Main said, we lead by example so we have to set the
bar high.
In
support of Bill 24, I'm not going to go into a lot of the history that led us to
here because my co-worker, my peer, did a lot of that. She did say this is the
next step, the final step in the legislation process, but I'd just like to
mention to people why it's important.
We're
elected officials and one of the things that I'd like to point out is the
importance of what we included, as the PC caucus, when we put forward our
private Member's resolution. We talked about supporting the introduction of a
Legislature-specific harassment policy, where elected representatives – that's
us and our staff – are held responsible for inappropriate conduct.
The most
important thing that I'm going to say, and it doesn't matter who's listening,
because once we put this into law everybody else will have to follow, but one of
the things that is very important for me is the trickle-down effect.
When I
worked in industry we would always talk about best practices, whether it was
safety, environment or workplace – best practices. Basically, what are the best
leading companies out there doing? Basically, that determined whether you got a
contract or whether you renewed your contract. As a consultant, I spent a lot of
time working – and my fellow MHA across the road from Lake Melville understands
this quite well is we have to follow best practices. Where does best practice
come from? It comes from leaders in industries. Well, do you know something? We
are the leaders. We are the people that put the legislation in place.
So it's
important for us, two things, one is to provide protection for people who may be
harassed in the workplace. We have to make sure when we conduct our business as
MHAs and our staff that work on our behalf, that there's no one being harassed,
no one being bullied. The trickle-down effect will be that other businesses and
companies will have to follow suit. It's disappointing to learn that we are
actually behind – 20 years ago, b'ys, I learned about this stuff that we're
proposing now.
The
other thing, too, is fairness. We also have to make sure that nobody is falsely
accused, because you can't actually have faith in the system if people are not
treated properly. That's why we have to have the processes. A formal process for
people who want to go through the formal process, and also the informal process.
But like I said, too, we need to send a strong message that harassment in any
form is unacceptable. That's why this legislation is important to say: What is
harassment? What's unacceptable behaviour?
Coming
from industry for over 20 years, some of the practices that I witnessed and that
I know about are, in actual fact, if you didn't want somebody in a job, you
harassed them out of it. You harassed them to the point where they rebelled and
either got fired for acting inappropriately or they just went quietly and they
quit.
The
thing about it is, that's why legislation is so important and that's why we have
to be the leaders. This is why this legislation is so important to me and to
everybody. We have to modernize the law. It's long overdue.
One of
the things I'd also like to point out that I really like is, for any complaints
it's going to be the Citizens' Representative that will do the investigation and
that there will be a set process. So whether you're on one side as somebody
who's being harassed and wants to stop and you've made the complaint, or if
you're on the other side where you've actually been accused of the harassment,
everybody has rights and we, as leaders, have to make sure everybody's rights
are respected. That's why we have to put this bill in place. We have to update
things and we have to make sure, because we conduct the business of government
and we lead by example. That's probably the most important thing for me.
I think
it's about 18 years ago I went to work with Voisey's Bay and one of the main
contractors there was a huge international company: engineers, planners,
everybody there. The way they were actually paid was on the bonus system. If you
completed a job ahead of schedule you got a bonus. That's a practice that goes
on today.
It was
about 18 years ago so I was really young, I was probably about two then – I was
young and a part of my job actually resulted in me shutting down jobs; shutting
down jobs, interfering with the timeline, interfering with their bonus. So you
know what happened to me a lot of the times. The most blatant, brutal
harassment: bullying, sexual, physical. I actually had a guy put his hand up to
the door and close the door, he was a bodybuilder. The only thing that wasn't
really well developed on him was his calf muscles. So there's a lot of different
forms of harassment and physical and verbal are not the only ones. It's
important for us to update that.
I have
to tell you as somebody on the receiving side of harassment, it's very, very
important to have strict policies in place so that you can protect yourself. On
the opposite side, we're very vulnerable, especially here as elected
representatives if we're falsely accused. Like I said, we are leaders, we need
to make sure there's a balance, that people are treated fairly.
The
other thing that I just want to mention here, too, is I'm really – I don't mean
to be tooting our own horn, but the PC caucus, the private Member's resolution
we talked about not only when we develop the legislation and bring it in, we
need to consult with Members and employees of the House – very, very important –
but also independent groups who are experts and have experience in handling
harassment so that when we put something in place it's going to be fair to
everybody. It's very, very, very important. I've actually witnessed harassment,
I've also seen how devastating it can be.
Actually, one of the most devastating stories I've heard was not something I
witnessed personally, but I know it to be true, and it happened out West. A lot
of our people go out West – and it happens here as well – where a supervisor
basically didn't like a worker and he wanted to get rid of him, so everyday he
basically picked on him. Toolbox talks on the job – you know what I mean –
picking on him. To the point where one day, actually in the lunch room, the
young fellow snapped and he actually took his hardhat and he jumped across the
table and started actually attacking, physically attacking his supervisor.
Do you
know something? That's a perfect example of why we have to make sure we lead by
example, and that our legislation trickles down to the companies. Because you
know who got fired that day? It was that young man that was harassed, that was
bullied by somebody who was in a position of authority that didn't like him.
That actually, if you go out and you talk to people, you will hear that same
story repeated over and over and over again with just different individuals.
So we
here, we're at the height of power because we are the elected Members of
government, we actually bring in legislation and we manage staff.
I want
to point out one of my personal experiences as an MHA that I actually kind of
found it shocking. In actual fact, when me and my fellow Labrador MHA from
Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair, we were going into a meeting in Goose Bay. She's
actually the Minister of CSSD, so she's a minister. It was my first time
actually seeing how a minister was treated by staff – yes, Minister; no,
Minister; do you need this, Minister?
I talked
to her a little bit about it. The power behind being a minister is so great. I
think that's the ultimate.
I think
we're very, very lucky because, in actual fact, my co-worker and my fellow MHA
from Labrador, the Minister of CSSD, I find her to be a fair minister; I find
her to be very respectful, honest and she treats her workers with respect. The
thing about it is not everybody has that type of personality, that sense of
fairness, so we have to make sure that our staff are protected, that our staff
are treated fairly. Because how can we lead by example if we don't do that?
Also, we
have to be protected because whether we're in government or we're in Opposition,
our opinions are going to differ with our counterparts. We're going to have
differences within our own parties and what happens – and I've seen it in
industry – if you don't like what somebody is saying, you try and change it. One
of the venues that's open to you is harassment, social isolation.
When I
went to work in Voisey's about 18 years ago, social isolation was a tool for
this international company. But you know something? I didn't care because I
didn't want to sit and eat with them; I didn't want them to actually come over
and talk to me. The people that were disrespectful to me, I didn't care and I
was able to actually overcome it. But I saw the impact it had on our people.
Within our own caucuses, we have to be mindful of harassment. It's not just
physically intimidating or verbal; it's things like social isolation.
Like my
fellow counterpart for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave talked about, the other
definitions: cyberbullying. You know something? Another venue is damaging
somebody's reputation – the devastating effects of that, so we have to be
mindful of all these things.
More
importantly – I'm not going to stand here and talk all day – very, very
important for us is we have to lead by example. We actually have to catch up and
make sure that we're setting a good example and that we are protecting
everybody. One of the things I do say is in 2020, unfortunately, we have a lot
of people now that are suffering from stress. It actually causes mental illness;
it actually causes a lot of social issues, family issues. One of the
contributors to the stress that people encounter now is actually harassment.
Like I
said, I just thank everybody for looking at the bill, but more importantly for
us to support it.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
want to pick up on something that my colleague from Torngat Mountains talked
about: the respect for the office. I guess one thing about this, the House of
Assembly and other organizations to which I've belonged, it's about respecting
the position and about the office, regardless of the differences. It has an
awful lot of procedures in place that are designed for that, even to the point
of addressing the Speaker or the Chair, depending on what institution you're
involved with. So there is an element here, there's formality, and it's about
trying to create some decorum over issues at times which are going to be very
personal to us.
I will
say this, in many ways I look at it, we're talking about power, a power
imbalance or a power balance and trust. I know I belonged to many organizations
where people would say that it has an open-door policy. But open-door policies
only have an effect as long the people have the courage to walk across the
threshold of your door and make the complaint or to have that conversation.
Certainly, as I used to say even in my background as president that people could
always come in and have that conversation, we could have a yelling match, but
under the assumption that when we walked out we walked out and had a beer,
walked out as friends and the problem was solved.
We all
know that's not always the case. When I say talk about trust, I can think of the
colleagues. I'll start closer to home – I'll start with home. Growing up with
three sisters and brothers I can tell you that if there was a harassment policy
around at that time, I'm sure each and every one of us would've been guilty of
harassment at some time or another – most of them trying to pick on me because I
was the favourite son, that kind of thing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. J. DINN:
But anyway, I digress.
But the
point is that there is an element of trust. You knew that we had each other's
back. I think of my colleagues in a formal workplace, yeah, I can tell you that
if people listening to the outside figure that we were – it's a wonder that
charges haven't been brought. But it was an equal amount of abuse hurled at each
other, but I can tell you that in all of that there was an underlying sense of
trust that we were not out to purposely humiliate. It was give-and-take. You
bring that into a workplace environment and it changes because many times we
don't have that relation of trust built.
What I
like about this, what I see here in this legislation, is an attempt, basically,
to bring a procedure in place that is fair. It lays out a procedure that is
objective, it's fair and it's transparent. It uses terms such as
“investigation,” “informally,” “expeditiously as possible,” “the right to
procedural fairness” and then there's a report, and a report which both the
respondent and the complainant have a chance to react to. There are many steps
along the way in attempt to resolve this or to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
I do not get the feeling from it that there is an attempt to be punitive;
although, there is that option at the end if it gets to that stage where you do
have it.
I think
most importantly, though, the benefit of this, it's about changing attitudes. We
went to the harassment training; is that enough to change a person's attitudes?
No. But it does set up within whoever is taking it that, okay, this is something
that this organization, this body has determined is important; therefore, it's
important that you know about it. It sends a very clear message. It's something
we all need to be reminded of regardless of the institutions that we came from
before. I can think of a number of the organizations I've been with. There have
been harassment, bullying, respectful workplace policies in place for a long
time.
We come
here; we expect that. That doesn't mean we can't have intense debate and that we
can't argue our point, but it does mean that we have to argue it respectfully,
that we not only respect the position of the person but the person themselves. I
won't belabour this, but I do say that I think this is something that's very
important. The amendments here are certainly designed to create a more, as I
said, transparent, objective and a fair approach.
I'll
take my seat now with the intention that should my colleague from Topsail -
Paradise wish to rebut anything I said, he can have the stage.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the minister speaks now,
she will close the debate.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I
thought it was a valuable afternoon listening to my colleagues on this very
important matter. I will remind everyone in this House that an all-party
committee of the Privileges and Elections Committee took considerable time to
make these recommendations, that we debated those recommendations here in this
House and that now we're debating the legislation. We've had plenty of
opportunity to make the required changes that we see fit. We've had plenty of
opportunity to voice our concerns.
I
thought it was a great afternoon of listening to Members of this House all
acknowledge that as a House of Assembly it is not only important, it is
imperative that we understand the concerns around harassment, the concerns
around making sure that our conduct is appropriate. Not only because that is the
right thing to do in society and, more importantly, we are leaders in this House
of Assembly, we should be modelling the behaviour. I think it's very important
that we recognize that.
Some
Members questioned whether we should do something a little differently or change
it. I accepted the hard work of the Privileges and Elections Committee but, I
will say this, if there are more changes that we think are important, if there
are better processes, more robust processes that we need to undertake, then
let's have the Privileges and Elections Committee review them. We should be a
House of continuous improvement. Just like government should be a government of
continuous improvement, this should be a House of continuous improvement.
I ask
Members, as we continue down this path – and I agree with my colleague, the MHA
for Torngat Mountains when she said it seems like the House was a little behind
in getting this done, that she had been involved in this 20-plus years ago in
the corporate world. I agree with her completely, that is the case, but we're
here now. Continuous improvement is I think the call of the day.
On that,
Mr. Speaker, I'll take my seat and we'll move forward with the vote.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 24 be now read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act. (Bill 24)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity
And Administration Act,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of
the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 24)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment, that the House resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 24.
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 consider the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Bennett):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 24, An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity And Administration Act.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Accountability, Integrity And
Administration Act.” (Bill 24)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK:
Clauses 2 through 7
inclusive.
CHAIR:
Shall clauses 2 through 7
inclusive carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 through 7 carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.
CHAIR:
Shall the enacting clause
carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The House Of
Assembly Accountability, Integrity And Administration Act.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 24
without amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move
the Committee rise and report Bill 24.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee will rise and report Bill 24.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Lewisporte - Twillingate, Chair of the Committee of the Whole.
MR. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 24 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole has reported that the Committee has considered the matters to them
referred and directed him to report Bill 24 without amendment.
When
shall this report be received?
MS. COADY:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the bill be read a third time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Great
co-operation this week, several bills moved through the effective process here
in the House of Assembly and resolutions as well.
Considering the hour of the day, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and
Community Services, that we do now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the pleasure of the House
that we shall now adjourn?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
The
House is now adjourned until Monday at 1:30.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.