May 2, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 16
The
House met at 10 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I call from the
Order Paper, Order 4, second reading of Bill 5.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, that Bill 5, An Act To Amend The
Pension Benefits Act, 1997, be now read a second time.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today to speak to an amendment to the
Pension Benefits Act, 1997. Here in
Newfoundland –
MR. SPEAKER:
Standby, sorry.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Sorry.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to
rise today to speak to an amendment to the
Pension Benefits Act, 1997. Here in Newfoundland and Labrador –
MR. SPEAKER:
No, I'm sorry.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
No?
MR. SPEAKER:
I wasn't ready.
It is
moved and seconded that Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997,
be now read a second time.
Motion,
second reading of a bill, “An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.”
(Bill 5)
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister of Service NL.
My
apologies.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Here in Newfoundland and
Labrador, and indeed throughout the world, people move through their careers and
have an expectation that a time will come when they will be able to retire. Many
individuals pay into pension plans throughout their work lives. Pensions not
only provide retirees with the financial support they need, but also provide a
benefit to the overall economy.
Pension
plans are highly complex financial vehicles and the pension plan's financial
position is changing constantly due to many factors including the stock market
or interest rates. When there are potential negative impacts to pension plans,
we recognize the effects on those who rely on this income at the end of their
careers. We have seen this unfold throughout our province's history.
As an
example, the former employer at Wabush Mines filed for protection from its
creditors under the federal Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act impacting the pension plans of retirees and former
workers at the mine. Within hours, Mr. Speaker, of the commencement of our
mandate, this administration made a series of decisions all in the best
interests of those most affected by this difficult position created by the
employer.
Most
recently, however, we were successful in our application to have the
Pension Benefits Act deemed trust
clause upheld by the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal confirming our
belief that pensioners deserve to be recognized as a priority in creditor
claims. If money is available in the CCAA process, we will work with all
stakeholders to ensure the best possible outcome for the members of the Wabush
Mines pension plans. My department continues to monitor the situation and work
to ensure members' best interests are upheld and the plans are compliant with
the Pension Benefits Act.
Last
year, Mr. Speaker, our government worked with the Corner Brook Pulp and Paper
Limited to develop a solution to secure the future of the company's pension
plans, while allowing the company to focus its financial resources on
maintaining the viability of its operations. Our government worked to protect
the interests of pension plan members. This arrangement helps ensure the
sustainability of the pension plans into the future. This innovative solution
enabled the company to meet its pension funding obligations while allowing it to
focus on meeting its commitments to capital investments and operations under
agreements made in 2014.
I want
to acknowledge the support of my colleagues in the House of Assembly for the
necessary amendments to the Loan and
Guarantee Act, 1957 to facilitate this arrangement.
Mr.
Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador's pension legislation is among the strongest
in Canada. Provincial laws require all pension contributions to be held in a
separate trust that cannot be accessed by the company or affected by bankruptcy
so as to ensure the money people contribute is safe.
Since
2008, provincial laws prohibit a solvent company from terminating a pension plan
in a deficit without making the required payments to fully fund the benefits
promised to the members. This is known –
MR. SPEAKER:
Sorry.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
I may have heard incorrectly,
but I thought the Government House Leader opened up the second reading on Bill
5, the Pension Benefits Act.
Am I
correct? I thought that was the debate he started.
MR. SPEAKER:
It was Order 4, Bill 5.
MS. MICHAEL:
Okay, which is –?
MR. SPEAKER:
Pension Benefits Act,
1997.
MS. MICHAEL:
With a permanent exemption
from the requirement to fully fund pension benefits on the termination of a
pension plan is very specific. It has no relationship to anything that I'm
hearing the minister talk about. That's why I wanted to get clarification.
MR. SPEAKER:
I would ask the Minister of
Service NL if you have a comment.
You are
addressing Bill 5?
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, please proceed.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Since 2008, provincial laws
prohibit a solvent company from terminating a pension plan in a deficit without
making the required payments to fully fund the benefits promised to the members.
This is known as terminal funding.
The
province's Pension Benefits Act
protests pensions earned by workers in the province by legislating minimum
standards for pension benefits and be requiring minimum funding to ensure, to
the extent possible, that the pension promise is met; however, not all pension
plans are based on a typical employer-employee relationship, some are unique
relationships. Small pension plans can be set up by business owners for their
own benefit or for key executives to maximize tax deductible retirement savings,
rather than target a specific benefit level. These types of pension plans are
generally referred to as individual pension plans, or IPPs, as they have only
one or two members in the plan.
The
federal Income Tax Act recognizes
these unique employer-employee relationships regarding individual pension plans;
however, the provincial Pension Benefits
Act does not. All pension plans registered under the
Pension Benefits Act must also be registered under the
Income Tax Act.
Any
instances where a conflict exists, the
Income Tax Act prevails over the
Pension Benefits Act. The Income Tax
Act recognizes differences between individuals within pension plans and
defines specified individuals as employees earning above a certain threshold,
currently around $140,000 per year, or employees who have connected with the
employer such as shareholders of the company.
Mr.
Speaker, there are three parts to the amendment before the floor of the House of
Assembly today which will address current financial concerns for some employers
that have existing individual pension plans. I also anticipate that these
amendments will make it more beneficial for employers to register new individual
pension plans in this province.
Part one
of the bill proposes two amendments to section 2 of the
Pension Benefits Act adding a definition for an individual pension
plan, which means a defined benefit pension plan with two or fewer members or
former members where at least one of the members is a specified individual; and,
adding a definition for a specified individual which has the same meaning as in
the federal Income Tax Act Regulations.
These
changes recognize that individual pension plans set up for business owners or
executives are a unique type of pension plan under the
Pension Benefits Act. The
Income Tax Act limits the contributions permitted for these types of plans
while the plan is ongoing to avoid excessive tax deferral or sheltering.
Despite
the requirements under the Pension
Benefits Act to fund the pensions, because of the conflict with the
Income Tax Act the necessary funding
is not permitted while the plan is ongoing. This results in many individual
pension plans developing very large deficits.
When the
plan terminates, the Income Tax Act
limits no longer apply to paragraph 61(2) of the
Pension Benefits Act. It requires that the employer fund the full
benefit promised under the plan. This is known as terminal funding.
Very
often the employer and the employee are in fact the same in an individual
pension plan. This complicates the issue as the employer is required to fund
their own pension even if they would choose otherwise. In some cases, the large
contribution required can negatively impact their business and possibly result
in job losses.
Terminal
funding was not always a requirement under the
Pension Benefits Act. Prior to an amendment in 2008, an employer
could choose to terminally fund or reduce benefits to the level that could be
provided by existing pension fund.
Throughout the early 2000s, due to volatility in financial markets and lower
interest rates, many pension plans had significant deficits. The termination of
plans with deficits and benefit reductions led to a trend across the country
where many jurisdictions introduced full funding on termination.
Individual pension plans established before April 2008 were not designed with
terminal funding in mind. They were designed to maximize tax-sheltered savings.
Terminal funding hampered the ability of the employer and employee to use the
plan as originally intended. Now that some plans have matured and the
individuals are looking to retire, the significant cash flow required to fully
fund the pension is negatively impacting these individuals and their businesses.
Part two
of the bill proposes two additional subsections to be added to section 61 of the
Pension Benefits Act. Subsection 61(3)
exempts individual pension plans from the terminal funding required under
subsection 61(2). Subsection 61(4) provides an exemption for individual pension
plans that exist on the coming into force, provided that the members of the plan
and their spouses or cohabiting partners who will be beneficiaries of their
pension consent in writing to the exemption from terminal funding.
The
protection of terminal funding would remain if they do not consent. The consent
must include a certificate of independent legal advice to ensure that all
parties are aware of any rights or benefits that may be given up. Any new
individual pension plans created after the legislation is amended will not have
terminal funding as a requirement.
In order
to register a new individual pension plan, the superintendent of pensions will
require clear language in the plan documentation to this effect. Section 18 of
the Pension Benefits Act provides
authority for the superintendent to require certain information be provided when
registering a pension plan. Such requirements are typically outlined in a
directive issued by the superintendent which is copied to all pension plans and
other interested stakeholders and posted on the Service NL website.
The plan
document must be submitted for approval and the superintendent would review it
to ensure it's in compliance with act regulations and any directives before
approving a new plan for registration. Any amendments to a pension plan must
also be filed and approved by the superintendent. So the same process will be
applied before an amendment is registered.
Directive 1 would be an amendment to require that any new individual pension
plans registered after the bill will come into force on December 31, 2018,
include a statement that the employer is not required to fully fund any deficit
that may exist when the plan is terminated, and that this could result in
reduction of benefits. This would ensure all parties including spouses or
partners are aware of the rights or benefits that will be foregone prior to
entering into an individual pension plan.
The
third part of the bill we are introducing today sets December 31, 2018, as the
date for these changes to come into effect. While the changes we propose today
are not unlike the rules in other jurisdictions, the introduction of an
independent legal advice and consent is unique. It aims to protect those
individuals in existing individual pension plans who want their benefit to be
fully funded. Most jurisdictions provide some form of exemption for pension
plans associated with specified individuals or connected persons.
Mr.
Speaker, the amendments we are debating today only apply to a unique group of
pension plans that are set up for shareholders of companies or very high
earners. I cannot stress that, Mr. Speaker. It is for shareholders of companies
or very high earners. It will not affect any pension plan in the province that
has more than two members or diminish the protection for workers or retirees who
have pension benefits.
By
adding a definition of individual pension plans along with providing a permanent
exemption from terminal funding for these plans these changes will allow
businesses to provide retirement savings for members without imposing
challenging funding requirements for the employer who can negatively affect the
business operations.
Mr.
Speaker, in The Way Forward our
government committed to better services and better outcomes to promote a
healthy, prosperous province. It is essential that we continue to work with the
business community throughout Newfoundland and Labrador to eliminate barriers to
their operations. Amending legislation to ensure it is meeting the needs of the
people we serve is a responsibility that we take seriously.
As I
stated earlier, the requirements associated with the majority of pension plans
in the province are not affected in any way by these changes which deal with a
small number of individuals; however, they will address current financial
concerns for some employers.
It is
important that we as a government continue to address matters like this one
which help create a better business climate for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It is
indeed a privilege to get up here this morning and speak on Bill 5, An Act to
Amend the Pension Benefits Act.
I
listened to the minister explain the different changes in the act and why the
act is going to be changed. As a caucus, we have some questions that we do want
to ask when we get into Committee because there is a lot of different
information that I'm sure the minister can provide, but for the general public
out there, pension plans are very, very important. People spend their livelihood
paying into pension plans so they have a future that they can ensure that when
they do come to the part where they can retire, there is a fund in place so that
they can secure their later years in life and know there will be an income for
them and their family.
The
pension plan that we're talking about today is an individual pension plan. So
these are plans that are set up for different – not corporations mainly,
it could be companies, it could be a law firm, it could be a doctor's office or
something like this. And these pension plans are set up for two or fewer people.
So it's not for a company that has a group of employees,
like the minister mentioned about Wabush Mines, but this is completely different
altogether. These are set up for individuals that probably own a company or have
a small business where it could be just two people in that business and they set
up a business plan.
Right now, this particular pension plan that we're talking
about this morning – and this is the reason why we'll have more questions down
the road – there are only 50 of these individual pension plans that are in place
right now. Most of these pension plans came into effect before 2008.
To give you an example – and the minister, I'm sure, will
explain when we do get into Committee – it could be a small company that could
be a construction company that the owner of that company sets up a pension plan
for himself, and it could be a spouse, it could be a minor partner or something
like that. But it's only two individuals that are set up in this pension plan.
Sometimes this is set up for different purposes. It could
be for the actual pension itself, which some do, but it's also set up,
sometimes, for tax relief. That plays a major role in everything too, how people
set this up, because high earners and people have to look and say which way am I
going to pay less taxes. So that's reason why some of these pension plans –
again, it's a very few.
I think the gist of what I'll do, once we get to Committee,
is to dig down some more information and find out what the purpose is, who was
consulted. I know that when we were in our briefing they talked about the board
of trade and different groups that were involved. So I'd like to know what their
role was in this and to find out what the reasons are for doing this.
Again, I understand that it could be important too, for
example, if a company was up for sale, that these pension plans – what they call as windup. So you could wind
up the pension plan so there wouldn't be a huge liability to anybody that wanted
to purchase the company or had to pay this forever and a day until the pension
was over basically.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm not going to talk too much about it, but I think once we get to
Committee I will have lots of questions for the minister. A lot of it will deal
with reasons for this, who was looking for it, why it was done and stuff like
that so we can get a clear – because it's a very limited few that this does
affect.
It would
be interesting to see what happens to those individual pension plans, where they
go forward and what this will do for future individual pension plans also. Will
this mean that there will be a lot more set up or will it mean that – I think
there are only 18, like I said, since 2008 that were actually set up since then.
I will
have lots of questions when we get in Committee. That's all I have to say about
it.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, thanks a lot.
I'm
delighted to speak here today to Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits
Act, 1997. I've had the opportunity to stand several times in the House of
Assembly to speak to legislative amendments since I became the parliamentary
secretary to the Minister of Service NL. Over that time, and each time, I'm
struck by the far-reaching impacts the department has on the lives of residents
of our province.
I once
said that it touches everyone's lives, from birth to death and everything in
between. The Pension Benefits Act is a
prime example, given that so many of us contribute towards pension benefits with
a goal of reaching retirement somewhere down the road.
As the
Minister of Service NL just stated, the pension funding rules in Newfoundland
and Labrador are some of the strongest in our country. The act protects
pensions, our pensions earned by workers in this province, by legislating
minimum standards for pension benefits and requiring minimum funding to ensure
that these pension promises are met.
In the
case of an individual pension plan, small pension plans are set up by business
owners for their own benefit or for key executives to maximize tax deductible
retirement savings rather than focus on a specific benefit level. They are
example of a pension plan that isn't based on a regular employer-employee
relationship. Rather, it is a plan with two or few members where at least one of
the members is considered a specific individual under the
Income Tax Act, as alluded to by my
colleague across the way.
It is
important to note that the federal Income
Tax Act has special rules that limit the amount of tax deductible
contributions that can be made while such plans are ongoing to avoid excessive
tax deferral or sheltering. This is also important to note that the federal
Income Tax Act recognizes these unique
employee-employer relations while the provincial benefit act does not. Because
of the income tax limits, the minimum funding requirements under the
Pension Benefits Act generally cannot
be met and many of these plans develop large deficits while they are ongoing.
When the
plan terminates, the Income Tax Act
funding restrictions no longer apply and then the
Pension Benefits Act requires the employer to fund the full benefit
promised under the plan.
On plan
termination, it is common for an employer with an individual pension plan to be
caught off guard by a large required contribution that they cannot comfortably
afford without a significant impact to their business. The large contributions
requirements, often hundreds of thousands of dollars, can be detrimental when an
owner is trying to close or sell their business. Very often, the employer and
the employee are the same. This complicates the issue as the employer is
required to fund their own pension even if they would choose to do otherwise.
Mr.
Speaker, terminal funding was not always a requirement under the
Pension Benefits Act. As the Minister
of Service NL indicated prior, a prior amendment in 2008, an employer could
choose to terminally fund or reduce the benefit to the level that could be
provided by the existing pension fund.
Throughout the early 2000s, because of the volatility in the financial markets
and lower interest rates, many pension plans had significant deficits, as we
know with our own provincial pension plans. The termination of plans with
deficits, the benefit reductions related to many jurisdictions introducing full
funding on termination.
Terminal
funding is vital for the security of pension benefits under most types of
pension plans, but in the case of individual pension plans it has hindered the
ability for the employer and the employee to use the pension plan as originally
intended. Now that some of these plans have matured and that the individuals are
looking to retire, the significant cash flow required to fully fund the pension
is negatively impacting these individuals and their business.
Stakeholders have requested that the terminal funding requirements be eliminated
for these plans, arguing it's unnecessary and noting that many other
jurisdictions have recognized the need to exempt these plans from such pension
rules, including funding requirements. In addition, the St. John's Board of
Trade has recently brought forward this issue as the current rules are
considered to be an impediment for businesses trying to sell or restructure
their business.
Providing a permanent exemption from terminal funding would allow individual
pension plans to provide retirement savings for the plan members without
imposing funding requirements which can negatively affect their operations.
While
the Minister of Service NL has spoken to the individual amendments in detail, I
want to highlight some of the important changes that will come into effect the
end of this calendar year. In order to register a new individual pension plan
after this bill would come into force on December 31, 2018, the plan documents
must include a statement that the employer is not required to fully fund any
deficit that may exist in the plan if the plan is terminated that could result
in a reduction in benefits.
This
will ensure all parties, including spouses or co-habiting partners, are fully
aware that the terminal funding is no longer a requirement. If any party has a
concern with the plan, they can opt not to enter into this type of an
arrangement. For existing individual pension plans, members will be required to
seek independent legal advice and provide consent to ensure they are aware of
the rights and benefits that they would be foregoing. The protection of terminal
funding would remain if they do not consent. Now, that's an important piece.
We need
to be clear that this change only applies to the unique group of pension plans
that are set up for shareholders or companies of very high earners and does not
diminish the protection for workers or retirees who have pension benefits
somewhere else. It is also very important that I echo the important message that
the amendments to the Pension Benefits Act
we have brought to the House today will not – and I repeat will not – affect any
pension plans in the province that have more than two members. Mr. Speaker, this
is a very unique group of individuals.
As the
minister stated in her opening remarks, we have many residents in our province
who work throughout their careers with an end goal of retirement. The changes we
are proposing today will not, in anyway, affect the pension plan that are
comprised of more than two members. This is about providing flexibility within
the pension legislation for a very select group of individuals in Newfoundland
and Labrador. This is also about our government making changes that will help
make improvements to the business environment in our province.
Since
2015, we have continuously looked for ways to improve the lives of the people we
serve, trying to deliver better services, which will result in better outcomes.
Bill 5 is one more example of our ongoing efforts in this area.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Member for
Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
St. John's East - Quidi Vidi,
Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
St. John's East, sorry.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much.
I'm
happy to stand and speak to Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act.
Different explanations have been given to it by the minister and by the former
speaker. I'm happy to speak to it. They are being accurate around what they're
saying. The bill is a minor amendment to our
Pension Benefits Act and it changes rules around private pensions of
a very select group of people, of companies that are made up of two or less.
I find
it interesting talking about relieving the financial burden for these
situations. Yes, I guess it is a financial burden in a sense that companies of
two or fewer people, which is a very small group of people in this province – as
has been indicated – can have these pension plans, and according to our current
act that when they come to a point where the plans are closed out, the company
ends, or they decide to close out the pension – right now if the plan cannot
support what a pension plan should be able to support, they have to put money
in. They have to make up for the deficit that's in the fund before it's closed
out.
I'm sure
that it's quite possible that somebody all of a sudden after years of having
this fund, whether it's five years, 10 years or whatever, may not like the idea
of having to pay in and make up for the deficit that they've allowed to
accumulate – because they would have allowed that to accumulate. They probably
would very much like not to have to do that.
I can
understand why there was lobbying by the Board of Trade for the 50 or 60 people
that this covers, and that's how small the group is; we were told that in the
briefing. The minister has said that it's a very, very small group of people.
I'm not saying that these people shouldn't be cared about but, in actual fact,
these people could have RRSPs just as well as a pension plan. They could have
RRSPs, which would sound very logical, but the thing is that with RRSPs you
can't be sheltered as much as with these pension plans. So that with an RRSP the
maximum shelter is $23,000 to $24,000 a year; whereas with a private pension
plan, they can get tax shelter upwards of $40,000 a year.
Basically it's a tax haven, and it's a choice of the people who set up these
plans to do it that way. Now, they're getting protection under our
Pension Benefits Act. They're getting protection by exempting them
from having to make sure that the pension fund is fully viable when it comes to
an end.
I think
it's important for us to fully understand that. In the act, in section 61 of the
pension and benefits act, it says: “Where, on the termination, after April 1,
2008, of a pension plan, other than a multi-employer pension plan, the assets in
the pension fund are less than the value of the benefits provided under the
plan, the employer shall, as prescribed by the regulations, make the payments
into the pension fund, in addition to the payments required under subsection
(1), that are necessary to fund the benefits provided under the plan.”
So our
act does protect employees. However, as has been pointed out, if you're talking
about one of these pension plans, which is basically one or two people who in
most cases are family, they're saying this doesn't fit because it's a different
situation. Having to fully fund the pension at the end could be hard on them.
Maybe their business will end.
Well,
I'd like to know what the businesses are, actually, of these 50 or 60 wealthy
people in the province. They're probably most likely professional businesses. We
don't have the details. I'm agreement with my colleague from Cape St. Francis
that I'm going to want to have some answers too about, well, what exactly are
these very tiny businesses where the pension is for one or two people.
What is
going to happen is – I just read that subsection from section 61. What will
happen is this bill shall not apply to an individual pension plan, which is what
these plans are called. They will not have to make payments in addition to fund
the benefits under the plan. They won't have to protect themselves under their
own pension plan, basically. That's what it is, and that's fine.
If we're
going to say these pension plans can exist, I can understand doing this, but
let's not say we're showing tremendous care for the people of the province by
doing this. It's helping these people with this plan, which is a valid plan.
It's legal, they can do it. They're choosing to do it rather than have RRSPs
because they get more of a tax saving by doing it. So we'll be honest about all
of that. If we want to do that, fine, but let's not make more of it than it is,
because that's what it is. That's what it is. That's fine, but I'd like to have
some more information and we will get that in Committee.
I'd like
to point out that if this province really cared so much about people and their
pensions, why isn't the government of this province banging on the door in
Ottawa and saying make a change toward the corporate tax rules in this country?
Why not make a change to the rule around bankruptcy that a company like Wabush
Mines or Abitibi in Grand Falls-Windsor can go under – or Sears, it might be a
large company outside but it affected an awful lot of our workers in this
province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
A company like Sears, that
they can go under, they can go bankrupt and the last people to get considered
are the workers of those companies who never get considered. Their pension plans
die. They died in Wabush, they died in Grand Falls-Windsor and they died with
the workers who've worked for Sears.
So if
this government is so caring about people having pensions –
MR. A. PARSONS:
Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader on a point of order.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm certainly one for free
debate, but I would ask that debate be relevant to the bill that's being
debated.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Anyone else like to speak to
that point of order?
I would
remind Members, the intent of this bill is very restrictive and I ask Members to
keep relevant to the subject of this bill.
MS. MICHAEL:
May I speak to the point of
order, Mr. Speaker, please?
MR. SPEAKER:
To the point of order?
MS. MICHAEL:
May I speak to the point of
order?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
The
Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi, to the point of order.
MS. ROGERS:
He said there was no point of
order.
MS. MICHAEL:
No, but I need to have an
opportunity before he makes that ruling.
I want
to speak to the point that was made, not to what the Speaker said, but to the
point that was made, the point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
MS. MICHAEL:
The reason I want to speak to
it is that I understand in second reading we are talking to the general
principles of a bill. The general principle of this bill is protection of people
with pensions. To me, I've been talking about protection of people with
pensions. I respond to the point of order saying that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, I would say the Member
has been speaking generally to the principle of the bill and I would encourage
all Members to remain relevant to the subject of this bill.
MS. MICHAEL:
I'm speaking about the care
for people in this province with regard to pensions. I heard the minister talk
about the care that the government has, the concern it has for people in the
province. The minister talked about what happened with the Abitibi workers. So I
think I'm speaking to the spirit of this bill and saying let's care. I'm asking
this government to also show their concern.
If the
board of trade can lobby government for 50 or 60 wealthy people, I can stand
here and ask this government to care about our people in this province who have
lost their pensions and to fight for them in Ottawa and to get Ottawa on the
track with regard to changing the corporate laws in this country.
MR. A. PARSONS:
A point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
A point of order from the
Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Under section 48, relevance;
I just made this point. I think you made a ruling that we continue on. I would
ask that we be relevant to the bill. I don't believe the commentary from the
Member opposite is relevant to the content of the bill being debated by the
Minister of Service NL.
MR. SPEAKER:
Anyone else who would like to
speak to this point of order before I rule.
The
Member, in my estimation, is speaking to the order of the general principle of
the bill in terms of she's talking about pensions and the principle and how it
should be applied.
I ask
the Member to remain relevant to the subject of this bill.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
You have
indicated that I have been, and I will not make my point again. I think I've
made my point clearly, so I will not repeat it, but I do ask the government and
the minister to listen carefully to what I did say. I look forward to when we're
in Committee to ask specific questions that I'd like to have answered.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
going to take a whole lot of time and I'm not going to repeat everything that's
been said. I think it's been explained, the details, but basically I guess at
the end of the day this is not – so that we're all clear and anyone watching is
clear, this is not creating some new bill that's going to shelter some people in
big business and so on. This bill already exists.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LANE:
So there's nothing new here.
Really,
all we're doing here is taking a bill and a circumstance that currently exists,
that allows private pension plans to be able to contribute up to $40,000 per
year as opposed to $26,000 – is the maximum, I think, under the RRSP, like my
colleague for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi stated.
That
provision already exists. The problem we have is there's basically a clash
between the Pension Benefits Act and
the Income Tax Act so that when an
individual – and we're only talking about individuals here, it could be up to
two people but generally an individual – when that person decides to retire and
shut down their pension plan, under the current provisions there's a clash with
the Income Tax Act and they end up
having to basically pay themselves because we're only talking about the same
person. All that's happening is they're saying that you should have – under the
pension plan maybe you're underfunded by, I'm just going to say $100,000. It
could be $200,000, it could be $500,000, I don't know, but say $100,000. The
reason why it was underfunded is because under the
Income Tax Act they weren't allowed to pay that $100,000.
Now when
they shut down their plan, there's $100,000 that you owe. It makes no sense
because all I'd be doing is just taking $100,000, paying it into my own plan and
then taking my own money back again. It just doesn't make any sense. That's the
problem that's created under the act as it currently exists. All that's
happening is that it's just recognizing that situation and fixing that situation
so it doesn't happen again. That's what the bill is all about as I understand it
and from the explanation I received. Based on that, I have no problem whatsoever
in supporting the bill.
I will
say this in fairness, that's not to say the Member for St. John's East - Quidi
Vidi is not making relevant points about the problem we have with pension plans
and the average person. We know how they have – we've seen situations. She gave
some good examples where workers who had paid into a pension their whole life
ended up getting shafted, to some degree, because of the system. I certainly
agree with her there. I think we all should strive to lobby the federal
government to change that.
I do
agree with her, but while she's speaking in the spirit of it, and I agree with
the spirit of it, really what this bill is about is what I just said. Based on
the bill, based on what's written, based on what I understand of it, I will
support the bill.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you for the opportunity to stand and have a few comments on Bill 5. I certainly
did listen to the minister as she introduced the bill and went through the
particulars in regard to the intent and some of the information that was
received in regard to challenges with the current bill and what some of the
provisions here in Bill 5 are all about. As my colleague from Cape St. Francis
indicates, I'm sure when we get in Committee we'll have a further discussion
specific to the parts of the bill.
The
Pension Benefits Act, 1997 required
plan sponsors to fully fund deficits for windup of a pension plan. Bill 5, the
intent of that is to look at the Pension
Benefits Act, 1997 to exempt certain existing individual pension plans with
two or fewer members or former members from the requirement in the act for
pension plan sponsors to fully fund any deficits on windup of the plan if
certain conditions are not met.
Now, I
know when the minister talked about this she talked about some of the difference
in regard to the employer-employee relationship with this smaller group. My
understanding, and we'll probably talk about it more in Committee, is this is
relevant to those that owned the actual small business. I am not sure if it's
just something that's incorporated, would it be involved proprietorship,
partnership, and those kinds of set-ups. As we go through, we'll certainly have
discussion about that as well.
She
spoke to provisions of the bill that talks about those that are either married,
cohabitate, have a partnership, and how any windup would affect those
individuals. And some provisions are mentioned here in the bill in regard to
some protection for that. Because as we know, someone, it could be a partner of
an individual, who one individual could be involved in the business, it could be
a director of an incorporated entity, others may not be aware that in some cases
maybe the pension plan even exists.
So what
transpires with the clue-up, with the sale of that business or with bankruptcy
or a number of things that could occur. What protection is there for that
individual or individuals who, as we know with small business, may not have
participated directly, could have participated in some form, but still that fund
and that benefit is for them and has been put aside and their expectation is
they would avail of that at some time in the future as part of a pension plan.
That's
certainly significant and relevant that we have a discussion on that and how
that exactly is set up for those that may not be aware of it, for those that are
aware of it, that full understanding is grasped by all concerned to make sure
everybody's protected as we go through the process.
Just a
little background in regard to the Pension
Benefits Act, 1997, it governs employer-sponsored pension plans and the
minister referenced that when she spoke in regard to this particular bill and
the Pensions Act. The objective of the
act is to protect the accrued pension entitlement of plan members in the
province, and to assure equitable treatment of all plan members. So the general
principle of a pension benefit, you start out, you put aside in a registered
pension plan, part of your employment; sometimes it can be contributory by the
employer and the employee, whatever that basis; it's looking to the future to
make sure at a time when you leave that employment you have a benefit, and maybe
other benefits as well as you leave that place of employment.
Since
2008 the Pension Benefits Act has
required plan sponsors to fully fund any deficits on windup of a pension plan.
This is what we're talking about here today in regard to this bill. I think the
minister indicated and in some of the briefing information there were about 50
cases of this where it exists. This bill specifically deals with those cases.
There
are certainly different pension plans. The amendments outlined in Bill 5 apply
only to certain existing individual pension plans, as I said, with two or few
members or former members. The individual pension plan is a registered defined
benefit pension plan designed to provide the maximum benefit permitted under the
Income Tax Act. The minister has
indicated some of the concerns or some of the relevancy to the current set-up
and what it would mean in regard to Canadian tax law, how they intertwine and
what the said results could be.
The
pension plans are often set up by business owners, incorporated professionals
and executives, it could be through financial specialists and advisors, to look
at what the income would be at a point in time when you would leave the
operations and go on and have a secondary income. There are also Registered
Retirement Savings Plans when you look at deferred taxation; RRSPs are one
registered means to do it today. I guess there is concern in regard to this
particular instance in regard to whether this will be perceived as a tax shelter
and how that money is protected from taxation under both provincial and federal
taxation law.
We
hadn't had any discussion before. We know recently the federal government has
looked at small business legislation in regard to small business. I'm not sure
if there's any relevance here in regard to how that's intertwined, if there are
concerns here in regard to that. That is something we'll probably talk about in
Committee.
Some of
the moves that were made then – and I know there were concerns for small
business in regard to infringement on their ability to save for that point in
time in the future where they would retire and would have benefits available in
the form of a pension. It could be monies in that incorporated entity at the
point in time that would stay there. They could use that at a later date to draw
down when they sold their company, when the company was passed on to a family
member, but they would have that to draw down on. So it's something we can
certainly talk about when we get in Committee about if there's a connection to
that as well.
We know
in the discussions, the superintendent of pensions indicated – as I said, there
are 50 more of these type of pension plans currently registered under the
Pension Benefits Act in the province.
The majority of these were set up somewhere around, prior to 2008.
Approximately, 15 to 20 were set up since 2008.
As well,
according to the superintendent, some have started to mature and issues have
emerged. I guess that's why we're here today talking about Bill 5 related to the
requirements in the Pension Benefits Act
for these sponsored plans to fully fund the pensions plan upon wind up. I guess
that's what we're talking about.
Under
these plans, certain circumstances result in individuals being forced to
potential bankruptcy, possibly, for their company in order to find their own
pension plan upon windup. As you get to windup of the particular company, the
unfunded pension plan – currently, my understanding is that deficit today, under
the current legislation, would need to be met. That would be finding the dollars
within that corporate entity or within that structure, within that business to
meet that requirement.
According to the superintendent, there's certainly increased pressure to address
the issue surrounding the requirement for the plan sponsors of the pension
program to fully fund any deficits upon windup. He said his office received
correspondence over the years concerning the issue. There are others who lobbied
for changes that it would improve the ability of business owners to close out
their financial affairs. Other financial consultants and planners have, as well,
expressed interest in seeing the amendments outlined in Bill 5.
My
understanding is the bill will come into effect in December of 2018. It would
look at – from the taxation point of view in regard to when it would come in, it
would be a full year then in terms of operation for a taxation year. The
department is not, as I said, bringing it in until 2018.
When we
get into Committee, as I said, my colleague for Cape St. Francis talked about
some of the questions we'd want to ask in regard to protection for those that
are involved or involved in the business, corporate entity to make sure they're
protected. I know the minister did talk about that, some of the provisions and
definitions in the bill. We'll probably drill down a little bit on those to make
sure that protection is there for those concerns.
Those
are some of the thoughts as we go through in regard to the exact nature of why
we're bringing this forward at this particular time, how those involved are
protected, what the framework is going to look like going forward.
So it's
an interesting bill. We're certainly looking forward to discussion in Committee.
At that time we'll have some questions and we'll go from there.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
If the hon. the Minister of
Service NL speaks now she will close the debate.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the
Members for their comments.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
The
motion is that Bill 5 now be read a second time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
Carried.
CLERK (Murphy):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Pension Benefits Act, 1997. (Bill 5)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
second time.
When
shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997,” read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave.
(Bill 5)
MR. A. PARSONS:
I thought you were going to
recognize me, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader, sorry.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I don't speak until you tell
me to speak, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes, okay.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, seconded by the
Minister of Service NL, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the
Whole to consider Bill 5.
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 for consideration of the said bill.
Is it
the pleasure of the House that we adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, ‘aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, ‘nay.'
Motion
carried.
On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker
left the Chair.
Committee of the
Whole
CHAIR (Warr):
Order, please!
We are
now considering Bill 5, An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.
A bill,
“An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997.” (Bill 5)
CLERK:
Clause 1.
CHAIR:
Shall clause 1 carry?
The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
It took you a long while to
figure that one out, Mr. Chair. I can't believe it.
Amendments requiring the pension sponsor to be fully funded any deficits or
windup has been there since 2008, why are we introducing these amendments now?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, I think it's in
the best interests of the House that I kind of give an example of what's going
on here so people can get a clear understanding of why we're doing this.
The
individual pension plans are generally set up for owners or key executives of a
company. Due to privacy legislation, Mr. Speaker, it would not be normally
acceptable to name a specific company with an individual pension plan without
their consent. I have arrived at that consent from Atlantic Home Furnishings
Limited. They provided me with that consent to identify them.
This
company, Atlantic Home Furnishings, is an established employer in the province.
They presently have a number of employees in their Mount Pearl location. A prior
owner of this company, Mr. Speaker, set up an individual pension plan as a means
of savings for retirement; however, when the ownership changed, the individual
pension plan became an obligation of the new owner of the company. The
significant cost of this funding to the pension is a burden now to the new
owner.
Instead
of being able to invest in the company and into his employees, Mr. Speaker, the
legislation as it exists today requires the company now to invest in this
pension plan. Even though the individual that owned the company prior consented
for him not to do this, but the regulations – the legislation now requires him
to do it.
We're
here today, Mr. Speaker, to try to change the legislation to assist – there are
50 of these plans in the province, 15 since 2008. We're here today so we can
allow small business owners the opportunity to invest in their business, to
invest in the company, to employ individuals, and not to have this over their
head that they would have to invest in a pension plan that the owner who owned
the pension plan agreed they didn't have to do. That's the issue.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
What sort of consultations
were done with any different groups about this pension plan?
CHAIR:
The Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, we consulted
with Kevin Dunphy. He's the financial advisor for the company that I just
identified. We also consulted with the St. John's Board of Trade. They were
clear that this was a good thing to do and it was needed to do because it was
hindering the growth and the development of some of the businesses in the
province.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I want
to go back, actually, to the first question that the Member for Cape St. Francis
asked and the minister's response to it. I'm really glad to know, Minister, that
you have the example, but would you be able to give us more in the sense of,
sort of, general areas of who the companies are? Are there retail companies, are
there professional, are there doctors' companies, are there lawyers' companies –
can you do that? That wouldn't be against privacy, I don't think.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, there are a variety of companies and, take note, it's only 50;
however, the plans are for two or less people, not exactly the company. I gave
the company example so you would understand that it was the owner himself that
owned the pension that's required to be funded and he's agreed for it not to be
funded.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I'm just
wondering if there were any jurisdictional scans done on this and see what other
jurisdictions are doing.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Yes, Mr. Chair, there are
variations in how these individual pension plans are treated across the country
and most jurisdictions provide some form of exemption for the pension plans.
In our
province, we have developed our own made-in-Newfoundland-and-Labrador approach.
Actually, Mr. Chair, I do have a jurisdictional scan sheet here. It's quite
lengthy. I don't know if the Member wants me to enter it or read it all out, or
table it.
Table
it, okay.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
I know the minister gave an
example of a business that had a problem with this individual pension plan and
the reason for it. But has there been other individuals come to you? You
mentioned it could be a law firm; it could be a doctor's office. Has there been
other individuals also come forward with this problem?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, the Board of Trade
came forward on behalf of other companies and individuals.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wonder
if I could ask the minister under the definition of specified individual,
there's reference to individuals connected at any time of the year with the
employer who participates in the plan. Does that mean there's a one-year period
where the connection to the plan is established and anything outside of that
would be a disconnect as having a connection to the plan?
Someone
could have interrupted service with a small business. It may not have been in
the year prior to the plan winding up or the company being sold. So would they
still have a right to the pension plan?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, it's two or less
people who are in the agreement at the time. I think the Member opposite is
asking me if there's a break in the period of time. Is that what you're asking?
I'll have to get that answer for him.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Yes, so just to be clear the
issue is – and it's in the definition here as specified individual. It talks
about a year and the connection. There could be two people in a company, they
may be owners, they may be shareholders, a minority shareholder. They could
leave the company. They could come back. They could have different interactions.
The
question is related to the one year. Does that disentitle them if there's
interrupted service or they haven't been involved in a company actively in the
year prior to this occurring – would they be discounted from a pension that
originally was intended for them? I guess that's my question.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, I think if I give
the definition of specified individuals it may, in fact, answer that question.
Specified individual is an individual specified for the purposes of paragraph
1(a) in respect to a pension plan in a particular calendar year if the
individual was connected at any time in the year with an employer who
participates in the plan.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Okay, just to be sure, so if
that individual wasn't involved in the year with the employer, they wouldn't be
entitled to the benefit?
CHAIR:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Chair, it's for ownership
shares only.
CHAIR:
Shall the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
Clauses 2 and 3.
CHAIR:
Clauses 2 and 3.
Shall
clauses 2 and 3 carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, clauses 2 and 3 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?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Pension
Benefits Act, 1997.
CHAIR:
Shall the title carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, title carried.
CHAIR:
Shall I report Bill 5 without
amendment?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
Motion,
that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I move, Mr. Chair, that the
Committee rise and report Bill 5.
CHAIR:
The motion is that the
Committee rise and report Bill 5.
Shall
the motion carry?
All
those in favour?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
CHAIR:
Those against?
Carried.
On
motion, that the Committee rise and report Bill 5 carried without amendment, the
Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
The hon. the Chair of
Committees, Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.
MR. WARR:
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of
the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to
report Bill 5 without amendment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Chair of the Committee of
the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them
referred and have directed him to report Bill 5 without amendment.
When
shall the report be received?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Now.
MR. SPEAKER:
Now.
When
shall the said bill be read a third time?
MR. A. PARSONS:
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.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
call from the Order Paper Motion 10. I would move that the notwithstanding
Standing Order 9(1)(a) this House meet at 2 p.m. on Thursday, May 3, 2018.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The
motion is that the House meet at 2 p.m. on Thursday, May 3, 2018.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
certainly won't belabour this point, but this, I think, is obviously a very
necessary motion to be moved here. To those that may be listening and wondering
why we would make such a motion, normally on Thursdays this House meets at 1:30
p.m. to start regular proceedings. However, tomorrow is certainly a very special
day in this province, where we have the installation of a new a
Lieutenant-Governor in this province, Ms. Judy Foote.
That
will be tomorrow in this House, actually. There are certainly some festivities
planned, and the anticipation is that regular business may be delayed due to
these ceremonies which are taking place. In order to ensure that there's no
discrepancy here and that the House is not conflicted out, we'll say, what we're
asking is that Members meet and this House open at 2 p.m. I think, obviously,
it's going to be a big day for this province. There are a lot of positive things
about the appointment of Ms. Foote to this position.
I might
not get a chance to say so publicly, what I'd like to do before I sit down is
just to take this opportunity publicly to thank the current Lieutenant-Governor,
Mr. Frank Fagan and his wife Patricia, their Honours, for the great that they've
done over the last number of years for this province. I, like many in this
House, have had a number of opportunities to be in their company and to be in
their presence, and have heard many of their speeches. I have to say, they're a
very warm couple, very giving, always willing to talk to people, to talk to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. So the service they've provided to Her
Majesty, to our country and province, certainly they've gone above and beyond.
In fact, I think his term is actually – he served a bit longer than perhaps
anticipated in order to allow for this transition.
To those
fine folks, I would say: Thank you for everything you've done and for allowing
us to be in your presence.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
To Ms. Foote and to her
husband, Howard, who will be sworn in tomorrow, I'm sure they're going to do a
wonderful job for this country as well. We all know Ms. Foote's background in
public service to this province and to this country. I'm sure she'll carry that
same record over in service to the country and province in this brand new role.
I look
forward to tomorrow. I think it's going to be a very – it's a big day for this
province and this country. I would be remiss if I didn't note that I do believe
it will be our first female Lieutenant-Governor in this province, and that's a
great milestone.
I thank
the Prime Minister for his wonderful selection and I thank Ms. Foote who has
already served a number of years in public service and taking on this new role.
It says a lot about her commitment to the people here.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the debate on this motion and hopefully
seeing it passed and look forward to the installation tomorrow.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As well,
I concur with the Minister of Justice and Public Safety in regard to this
particular motion at 2 o'clock on Thursday for the installation of the new
Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador.
My
understanding is the regular orders, business of the day, will proceed that
activity here in the House, which is indeed, as the minister said, a special day
for the province as we have a changeover of Lieutenant-Governor.
I, as
well, would like to acknowledge and thank the service of Frank and Patricia
Fagan, their Honours, on the work they've done in their tenure. As an elected
official in the province during that time, I've certainly seen the elegance and
the presentation they have brought to the role as Lieutenant-Governor and their
Honours and thank them for that and for their dedication.
As well,
from the new installation of a new Lieutenant-Governor, we're going to see the
first female Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,
as the Queen's representative, as us as a member of the Commonwealth acknowledge
that and look at it as a new age in terms of our province and acknowledge that
and the Prime Minister on making that appointment with the blessing of the
Queen.
Again,
we certainly recognize this motion and we support it, and looking forward to
Thursday and the ceremony here in the House.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
happy the Government House Leader took a moment to explain what is happening
tomorrow for those who are watching and to give us all an opportunity to
recognize this special moment. I think it is most appropriate that we change our
schedule in order to have the installation of the new Lieutenant-Governor in
this House, and noting, along with my colleagues, that it is a very special day
when we have the first female Lieutenant-Governor in our history and for some of
us, somebody whom we sat with in this House, actually.
I am
looking forward to that. I think it is – I mean this in a non-political sense –
a red letter day. I realized as I went to say it.
The
Lieutenant-Governor plays a special role with us here in the House. Albeit it's
a formal role that the Lieutenant-Governor plays but it is part of our
parliamentary system and it's something we all respect.
I'm
proud to say as I stand here, that this actually will be the fourth
Lieutenant-Governor that I will have been an MHA with. So this is significant
for me at this point in time that it is a woman. We all should celebrate that.
Again, I
join with my colleagues in thanking Frank and Patricia Fagan for the wonderful
job they did while in that role.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
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.'
This
motion is carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
call from the Order Paper, Motion 3, the Concurrence Motion.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure for me to –
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. LETTO:
I'm speaking to the Resource
Committee.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. LETTO:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's a
pleasure for me to rise this morning to have a few words on Concurrence. I just
want to talk a bit about the district that I represent and I want to thank the
people of Labrador West for giving me this privilege to represent them in the
House of Assembly, as all hon. Members do in this House, I'm sure.
Right
now, Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of things said about the budget and some
good, some not so good. I want to focus on an industry this morning that is a
bright light for us – it has been for 60-or-more years, 100 years – and that's
mining. I think that is a great part of our future. We only scratched the
surface, pardon the pun, on what mining can do and the contributions that it
makes to our province.
Labrador
West, as you know, is a big part of that. It's our raison d'être. We would not
be there if it wasn't for the iron ore mines and the great riches of the
Labrador Trough that exist within that region. It's fairly new in relative
terms. Labrador City was established in the early 1960s and Wabush came along
shortly thereafter. In relative terms to many communities in this province,
Labrador City and Wabush are fairly new.
We built
there because our pioneers and prospectors found a great resource in the region
of the Labrador Trough and that's iron ore. Mr. Speaker, I just want to have a
few words this morning on what this industry has done for the region of Labrador
West and what it continues to do, and the prospects and the possibilities that
exist within the region to make it an even stronger region for us.
Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I want to say that if we were to go on today's terms of
what's happening exactly at this very moment, we would not be very prosperous
because, right now, due to an unfortunate labour dispute, the production is at a
standstill. This, too, will pass. We've had many, many of these interruptions
since the 1960s. They're never good. They're never good for the workers. They're
never good for the region. They're never good for the company.
Mr.
Speaker, we have to respect the wishes of the people. When the union members
voted they voted unanimously, I would consider, in the 90-plus range. You have
to respect that. You have to respect their convictions, and I certainly do. That
doesn't mean we sit back and do nothing. I have been very active as the MHA for
the region in dealing with the union and the company to try to get this
unfortunate stoppage resolved. It's in the best interests of everybody within
the region, within the province and within the country.
Mr.
Speaker, we continue to do that. Of course, back in 2014 we had the unfortunate
incident of the stoppage and the shutdown of Wabush Mines. Again, I want to say
that was most unfortunate and the region has suffered terribly because of it.
The people of Wabush have been certainly dealt a severe blow. When you talk
about Wabush, I can't help but talk about the pensioners. The Member of the
Third Party referred to them earlier in her conversations.
Mr.
Speaker, when a group of people – when you work 30 or 40 years and you find out
in your retirement that you're going to lose 25 per cent of your pension, that's
never good news. You were there with me when we had to go to – it was my first
task as an MHA, actually.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Twice.
MR. LETTO:
Twice. Yes, you were there.
My first
task as an MHA was to go and explain to the members, to the pensioners, that
their pension plan was being terminated. Mr. Speaker, that was not a very good
evening. When you start off your rookie career as an MHA on that foot, you know
that you're into the thick of it now.
Since
then, we've been working with the pensioners. One of the things that we did as a
government was referred the section of the pension act to the Newfoundland and
Labrador Court of Appeal for an interpretation and a reference. We did get a
very favourable reference from the Court of Appeal. Since then, we've been very
active. I've been working with the lawyers, the company, the union members and
the staff members to try to get some resolution to the loss of pensions that
they've experienced.
I can
honestly say, Mr. Speaker, we're making progress. It's taking forever, in their
terms certainly, because that's 2014, so we're talking now four years later.
It's a long, tedious process, but I think there is light at the end of the
tunnel. We will see some resolution to what they've encountered. We hope that's
going to happen very shortly.
Mr.
Speaker, when you look at mining in general, it is a bright spot in our
province, it is a bright spot for our future. When you look at
The Economy, the book from our
Budget 2018, you will see what mining
really means to this province. It says the value of the Newfoundland and
Labrador mineral shipments totalled an estimated $3.6 billion in 2017,
representing an increase of 24.6 per cent from 2016.
Part of
that, of course, is due to the commodity prices. The last two years we've seen a
drastic drop in commodity prices, whether you're talking about oil, whether
you're talking about iron ore, nickel – all the minerals and natural resources
have taken a severe blow. We are seeing some rebound. It's not as fast as we'd
like, but at least it's steady. Because of that, we are seeing renewed interest
in the mining industry.
So, Mr.
Speaker, when you look at some of the mines that exist within the Labrador West
region – and I would start there – and Iron Ore Company, of course, despite the
stoppage right now, the Iron Ore Company is a great contributor and it's the
largest iron ore mine in the province and is the largest mine in the province.
AN HON. MEMBER:
And the best iron ore.
MR. LETTO:
And the best iron.
What the
iron ore of the Labrador Trough has going for it, even though it has to be
processed, but when it is processed it's some of the best quality in the world.
It's the best quality in the world, and that's why it's in such demand, and
that's why it continues to be a commodity on the world market that is in big
demand. So we will get through this, and we'll get back to production, I'm sure.
IOC have
big plans. As you know, this year they had the Wabush number 3 deposit approved,
released from environmental assessment and that is a big part of the future of
that mine. So what we see, that's already started to develop, and we hope to see
some production from that by the third quarter of 2018.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, I got to go back to Wabush. Since the closure of Wabush Mines,
we've been working very closely with different companies to look for a new owner
for Wabush. As you know, as the people of this province know, Tacora Resources
is the new owner of Wabush Mines. We're in close contact with them pretty well
on a daily basis. They have been released from environmental assessment. So
that's positive.
They are
going through the procedures and the motions to raise the capital they would
require to restart the mine. There's a lot of capital work that needs to be
done. We hope to be there within the next couple of months and we will see,
hopefully, the rebirth of Wabush Mines, which would be a tremendous, tremendous
boost to the region of Labrador West, and to the province, because everyone
benefits from such a development as that. I mean, you're looking at employing
250-300 people, maybe more, in a mine that's going to be there, hopefully, for
the long haul.
Mr.
Speaker, as well, because of the renewed interest in mining and the prices have
been rebounded, a project that's been shelved for four or five years, as a
result of the downturn, is Alderon. We've seen renewed interest from that group
as well. Again, I'm keeping in close contact with them, helping them along the
way and we have seen a great renewed interest and they've shown interest in
restarting the Kami project to rebooting, they are called. Again, there's a lot
of work to be done, absolutely, and there are a lot of things that have to come
together in order for it to happen. But the fact that there is a renewed
interest gives us hope for the future.
There's
a mine that's just across the border into Quebec called Bloom Lake that's just
restarted. That was shut down the same time as Wabush. The same company,
actually, at the time, Cliffs Natural Resources, they were shut down. They've
since been sold to Champion and they have begun production, so they have
restarted.
You may
question and people may question well, that's in Quebec. It is in Quebec, the
mine itself is in Quebec. I can tell you, as I said in my last few words that I
had, anything that happens on the border is a benefit to all of us. We have to
remember that the Bloom Lake operating in Quebec across the border, the railway
comes through Labrador, they are serviced by the industrial park in Wabush.
There's a lot of work going on in the Wabush Industrial Park in relation to
Bloom Lake. Mr. Speaker, what happens across the border is a benefit to
everybody.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LETTO:
We certainly are very pleased
to see that train running across the overpass again because it didn't for four
years. I tell you, people felt that effect too when Bloom Lake shut down. It's
not until you lose something do you realize the benefit that it has.
Mr.
Speaker, things are looking positive and we have to get beyond the doom and
gloom. We know we had a couple of rough years but there is a bright future for
all of us. What happens in Labrador West is good for province, is good for the
country, and that's what we have to remember is that we all benefit from renewed
interest in the mining industry.
Mr.
Speaker, in March I attended the PDAC, which is the Prospectors & Developers
Association of Canada, and I can tell you we have prospectors in this province,
not only in Labrador but on the Island of the province, that have some very good
stakes and claims that they've been optioned to junior mining companies, and we
saw that at PDAC.
I have a
prospector in my district who's partnered with a prospector from the Island. I
won't say their names, but they've been very successful. They just optioned off
a property on the Great Northern Peninsula, a sink property on the Great
Northern Peninsula that could possibly develop into a mine, because that's where
mines start. They have to start with a prospect, and prospectors are the root
and they're the beginning of any mining development. It has to start. Just look
at Voisey's Bay, for instance. It started because two prospectors found a nickel
deposit that was the richest in the world, Al Chislett and Christopher Verbiski,
and we all know where that went.
Mr.
Speaker, speaking of Vale, the ovoid is getting mined but we're still very
hopefully that Vale will see the ways and means to go underground into the
eastern deeps and to extend the life of that mine for the next 20, 30 years.
That's very important to my friend, the Member for
Torngat Mountains, and the people of Nunatsiavut. Again, it's a mine that has
fingers everywhere.
Long Harbour, for instance. The smelter in Long Harbour
is there to smelt the ore from Voisey's. Mining has it's fingers everywhere and
its tentacles everywhere. It just doesn't benefit the particular region the mine
is in. It has far-reaching effects.
Mr. Speaker, I can't get up and talk about mining, of
course, without talking about my good friend from Baie Verte - Green Bay. We
know that area is doing very well. That region is doing very well in its gold
deposits. We know there's lots of gold there to mine yet. We have to be
optimistic and we are optimistic that Anaconda, Rambler, these are going to do
well. These are going to do well, and it's good for the province.
Then, of course, we go down to the Burin Peninsula –
AN
HON. MEMBER:
St.
Lawrence.
MR.
LETTO:
–
in the great Town of St. Lawrence, the fluorspar. They are in their infancy stage of putting the production
in place and we will see production from there, sooner rather than later.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, that's a mine that's been dormant for years. We, as a government,
were very happy to invest in that with a $17 million loan to help them develop
that new mining prospect, and it's something that's going to benefit all of us
again.
Mr.
Speaker, when we talk about mining, of course, I go back to the prospectors and
developers. We're seeing more claims than ever in the mining industry, not only
in Labrador. Labrador is doing very well. We look down on the South Coast of
Labrador, of course, the Search Minerals, the Rare Earth – my friend in
Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair – that's now going through an environmental
assessment process. Mr. Speaker, who knows where that could go.
Rare
Earth is the way of the future when you look at all the technology that's taking
place today and the electric cars and everything is all developing. You have
one, Mr. Speaker, you know. You may have Rare Earth operating in your car, I
don't know. Anyway, it's something that's going to be in big demand for the
future.
That's
what we have to do, Mr. Speaker. What happened in the past, what happened in the
last two years, we can't forget it because it's been very bad for our province.
We understand that, but we have to get beyond that now. We have to put that
behind us. We've dealt with it. Now let's look to the future because the future
is very bright.
I'm just
concentrating on mining because that's where I spent my career. I love the
industry. I think it has great potential. I follow it every day.
The
first thing I do when I get up in the morning is check the iron ore prices. So
it's something that's near and dear to my heart. It's near and dear to the
district I represent. It's very important for our province, very important,
whether it's on the Burin Peninsula, whether it's the Great Northern Peninsula,
whether it's the Baie Verte Peninsula, whether it's Labrador, the South Coast,
the North Coast, West, East, it affects everybody. We all have a part to play in
that. It's a great boost to our economy. It creates jobs, lot of jobs. It's
high-paying jobs. It creates lots of expertise. It creates lots of royalties. It
creates lots of taxes.
The
supply sector, the spinoff industry; there's probably no other industry in the
world that has a bigger spinoff industry than mining does because you need parts
every day, whether it's a piece for a tractor, whether it's a piece for a
filter, whether it's inflatable tents. There are so many moving parts in the
mining industry that the service industry is huge, not only in parts but in the
expertise, the technical part of it.
Mr.
Speaker, this government, our government, is committed to the mining industry
because we see the benefit in the mining industry. We see how beneficial it is
to our province, and that's what we have to start believing in, Mr. Speaker,
because it's not only for the one region where the mine is, it's for everybody.
It's good for the province, it's good for the company.
We have
to get beyond the doom and gloom that people are leaving in droves and the sky
is falling. Mr. Speaker, there's so much potential in the mining industry that
for anybody who understands it, we've only scratched the service, as I said. The
future is so bright for mining. Prices will rebound. The commodity prices will
become stable again.
It's a
very cyclical industry, Mr. Speaker. We know that. It has its ups and downs, its
peaks and valleys, but I tell you what. We have to be ready for the peaks and we
have to be ready for the valleys because they are going to happen again. As a
matter of fact, the point I'm trying to make is we have to be ready for both,
Mr. Speaker, and mining is a bright part of our future.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's
indeed a privilege to get up here again today and represent the beautiful
District of Cape St. Francis and the beautiful people in Cape St. Francis.
I want
to thank the former Member who just got up there. He did a Member's statement a
little while ago on a resident from the Town of Flatrock. I heard a lot of
residents want to make sure that I said thank you to him. It was Gord Parsons.
He was a resident and had a big family in Flatrock. I'm not sure, I think there
was like 19 of them in the family all together; a big family. I live very close
to them. I knew Gord personally. He was a fine gentleman and you did a great job
on the Member's statement.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Great last name.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Yes, great last name. You did
a fine job, and I know the family really appreciated what you did, so I just
want to say thank you for that.
Mr.
Speaker, today we're going to be talking about, and I am going to try to stick
my best to it, is the resource sector. What we're looking at in this sector is
there are different parts of Estimates that we did. I did Estimates on the
fishery part but there's also Advanced Education, Skills and Labour. There are
Fisheries and Land Resources, Natural Resources and Tourism, Culture, Industry
and Innovation.
Now, I'm
going to try to touch on a little bit of all of them in my time that I have here
this morning. Mr. Speaker, this side of the House and our party has never looked
at the sky falling. We've never looked at this as, oh, she's gone b'y, she's
gone type thing. I go back to a few years when I heard – I think it was at
dinner, not the Premier at the time but the leader of the Opposition described
Newfoundland as the least, the last and the lowest. I don't think we've ever, on
our side, or our party has ever considered Newfoundland the least, the last and
the lowest.
To that
day, I'll always remember those statements because what we need in society, we
need people to be optimistic and we need people to believe in what we have in
our province, and we need to believe in who we are as people. That's the one
thing I can really say that's changed in society in Newfoundland and Labrador,
and I'm going to give you a little example now before I start to go into the
resource area.
I can
remember before, when I was working in the industry I was working in, I used to
do a lot of training. I remember in the '90s and in the '80 that I was training,
we'd go to, it could be Toronto, it could be Halifax, all over Canada. Do you
know something? The attitude that was in other parts of Canada about
Newfoundland and Labradorians was disgusting. In the 2000s and the later couple
of years, it changed because we changed it. We, as a people, changed it. We, as
a government, changed the attitude that people had toward us. We were the
brightest, we were the newest province and we were the most exciting province in
Canada.
Everywhere you'd go, they talked about what we were doing in Newfoundland and
Labrador. That's what we have to continue to do. That's what we have to show
people around the world, in other parts of Canada, that this a great province.
It's a great province to invest in.
I know I
had a brother of mine that worked all over the world and he always used to tell
me that the name Newfoundlander and Labradorian, once it went to the workforce,
people knew that they were getting great workers because we were known around
the world for our ethic of how we worked, hard workers and great individuals.
That's who we are as people, so we always have to stay on the positive side.
There's no sky falling in Newfoundland and Labrador. As long as our people are
here, we're going to be rich because we have the richest thing in the world: the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to just start talking today – I'm definitely going to get
into the fishery, but I want to touch on natural resources. I know the Member
just before me spoke a lot about mining. I do a lot of hunting in Central
Newfoundland; it's around Millertown, in that area. Costigan Lake is where we
have a place. I love it. I'll have a trip up this summer and I'll have another
trip this fall. We have a cabin up there. It's a beautiful part of this country.
It's just amazing.
There's
a lot of activity on the go up there too with mining and stuff like that, and
it's amazing to watch it. Like the Member before me said, what happens is the
spinoffs, the road construction. You go up one year and you're in towards
Valentine Lake – a lake they're doing up there now. There's mining actually
right under the lake. I think it's gold they're looking for. They're doing it
right underneath the lake.
The road
going in there now is as good as the Trans-Canada. From the main road going up
through to go into Valentine Lake, it's 24 kilometres. It opened up the whole
country forest and stuff like that. And just to see the number of people – it's
amazing, last year, when I went up. There were all these young, I guess,
university students that were there. They were doing some kind of course. There
were young people there and they had all the core – it's amazing when you look
at this because what they do, I guess, they drill into the rock and they haul
out this core. It's about two inches around and they take it out. It doesn't
look like there's any gold there, at least I didn't see it shining or anything
like that, but it was amazing how these young students were in and the spinoff
that our mining resource does. It is huge.
We are
very rich. I know the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, the mining is huge in
his area, but in the Central area also it's huge. Mining is very important.
That's something that we have to work on. That's one industry that we can
because we're very rich – if you look how Voisey's Bay was discovered, it was
just a fly over in a helicopter, I do believe, and look down and saw okay, that
looks a little bit different, here we go. Our mining and our natural resources
are very important to our province. That's who we are. We are a province with
huge natural resources.
I look
to the offshore also. I look at the offshore and I know, over the years, I've
had a lot of good friends, a lot of good buddies of mine, that was their
livelihood and they're still at it today, going back and forth to Hibernia.
I can
remember the day the Ocean Ranger went down actually. It was a hard day for my
family because at the time my brother was out on the Sedco 706. We heard that
morning. I can remember exactly where I was; I was going up Hamilton Avenue when
I heard there was a rig in trouble offshore. I can remember hauling in,
listening to it and concerned about what would happen to my family.
Offshore
oil has been around a long, long while for people in the province and it's done
great for some people in our province. It's been an industry that – not only the
wealth, what oil comes out of the ground and what it does to our province but
it's the people that work there. It takes a special individual too to be able to
fly out there three weeks at a time and come back in three weeks at a time.
I've
seen a lot of people with young families and basically you are six months away
from your family. It's not easy. It's the same thing as going to Alberta or
whatever, but our offshore oil industry has brought wealth to our province and
has helped all areas of our province. You can have people from Grand Bank or you
can have people from the Northern Peninsula, you can have anyone. There's a lot
of employment after being created. Again, like the former Member said it's the
spinoffs that these industries that bring the wealth to our province, gives us
employment and stuff like that.
Our
natural resources are so important to us and it's so important that we manage
them correctly and we do what we can to ensure we take full advantage of what we
have to offer. We have to make sure that our environment and everything else is
taken care of too, whether it's our fishery or whether you are in Central
Newfoundland mining at Valentine Lake, Pats Pond, or one of these places. Once
you go in there and see the environment I'm sure that if everyone in the country
could come and see what I see when I go to Millertown, they'd all want to go up
there and see the caribou, the moose, the bears and everything else that I've
seen, because it's absolutely beautiful.
That's
one part of our Resource Committee. It's very important. It's huge to this
province the income that it brings. Next I'm going to talk about the fishery,
and I know I'll end up going back to the other two because I think I'm going to
end up almost taking up the rest of my time in the fishery.
Mr.
Speaker, there's a lot of talk today about cod fish and whether the food fishery
should be going or if there should be a food fishery or should not be a food
fishery. I believe there should be a food fishery. I really do believe there
should be a food fishery, and I partake in it. I have my own boat and I enjoy,
absolutely love being on the water. To me, and I know there are other Members
across the way, the Minister of Finance, we've talked about it before, about
being out catching a cod, different sides, and the feeling you get just to be
able to go out and catch a codfish and the feeling you get when you bring it in
and you fillet it or you take it and whatever you want to do. If you have a boil
up in the garage or you have a boil up here and what it does, because it makes
you feel like: that's our resource. It's a resource we have. Again, it's
something that I think everyone who partakes in it enjoys it.
I can
always remember, a good few years ago there was no food fishery. Actually, the
moratorium wasn't even on. I had an instructor come from Montreal down to teach
a course. He came out one evening with me and I took him out cod jigging. About
10 years after he told me it was the greatest trip he ever had in his life. He
couldn't believe – he was used to catching something about six inches long and
here we were out catching fish 24, 26, 30 inches. Real nice cod and he was just
blown away that we had this resource right on our shore that we could just get
in a boat and go out and catch it.
The cod
fishery is a huge part of who we are to people. I'd like to see more studies
done on the cod. I believe that science and things have changed. We always
looked at the cod fishery that the capelin would come first. In the last number
of years, I have a big concern with capelin. I have a huge concern with the
capelin fishery.
I
trucked capelin for years. We'd start in St. Mary's Bay and we'd come to
Conception Bay. We'd go right around, and that's what I did for the summer. I
used to take time off work where I was and we'd catch capelin. I saw capelin
seven, eight inches long, nice size capelin, lots of females. They were there.
They'd come in – the seine would go out and we'd get 50,000 in the seine.
Last
year, I saw capelin down in Middle Cove Beach that was three and four inches
long. We have an issue with capelin. We need to do more science on capelin.
Capelin is a food that cod will eat. Capelin is something that attracts cod. The
reason why I believe the cod was so late coming last year is because capelin was
so late coming. They follow it. That's like anything, if that's what you eat
that's what you're going to follow. I believe we really need to have a proper
science on everything.
Now last
year in the cod fishery, we never saw it down our way before, that you'd catch
cod in October and November. For the last three or four years now harvesters
down our way have been out fishing, and its rough. I'm telling you right now, I
watched the boys come in last year, to see them coming in a 26-foot rodney in
seas like you wouldn't believe. I couldn't believe they were out there at it,
but they're diehards. The fish they were catching last October and November was
never seen before.
There
was a change in what's happening. I think people need to look, science and what
we have, DFO need to do a bigger evaluation on what's happening with these
different stocks. The capelin stock is something that really needs to be looked
at because it seems like every year they're getting less and less and we need to
make sure because that's the food the cod likes to eat.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about the shrimp fishery, especially in
Area 6. I talked to a couple of harvesters here in here in St. John's actually,
only a little while ago. I go over every Saturday morning, over to the basin
over in Prosser's Rock. I know a good few of the people over there and I have a
chat with them and stuff like that. Right now, the shrimp fishery is not worth
their while to go and harvest shrimp.
Last
year, they had the buddy up where they could put two licences on a boat. I think
this year it's changed again, that they can put three or four. I know myself and
the Member for Cape Freels talked about it the other day. The whole area, Area
6, is a huge issue. That's where most of our inshore shrimp is caught. Now, the
offshore are still in Area 6 and they also have options for 5 and 4 to go a
little bit further North and catch some, but we have some serious issues there
in that fishery.
Right
now, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, there are eight shrimp
plants. These are eight communities that rely on these plants for their
employment, for their communities to survive. Like we talked about the mining,
there are a lot of spinoffs from those areas.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to talk a little bit about the crab. Just yesterday, my son
left at 10 o'clock in the morning. They went off 80 miles, dropped their pots
and they got in again at about 11 o'clock last night. So they were gone for 24
hours. They'll go back again.
The
mid-shore crab seems like it's not bad. It's as good or on par with what it was
with other years. Offshore, further out, the 200-mile stuff, that seems pretty
good, but inshore has a real issue. It's a concern because there are lot of
spinoffs on the inshore. There are a lot more harvesters inshore than there are
mid-shore and offshore.
On
Saturday, over in Prosser's Rock, I saw boats come in with 1,200 pounds, 700
pounds, 1,400 pounds. These boats usually came in with, this time last year,
3,000 and 4,000 pounds. So that has a spinoff effect too in what's happening
with the plants and stuff like that.
I
believe we need to really – I know that DFO, we're just a little small part of
DFO here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I brought a motion to this House last
December on joint management. It's time for our province and it's time for the
people in our province to have some say in our fishery. That's how we're going
to get it. I don't care if it's an all-party committee or what it is. I know we
have the Atlantic Accord for our offshore. We should have some accord with our
fishery so we get a say in our fishery because it's who we are, it's what we are
as people and we really need to manage our stocks.
I just
mentioned a couple that are a huge concern of mine. I know that proper
management and input from people that are on the water, input from people that
know a little bit about the industry is needed. We need to do more. We need to
do a whole lot more because I know it's not the industry it was. It's not the
industry it was where there were fish plants in every second community, we know
that.
It's so
important that – while harvesters will catch the crab and while they'll do
something with shrimp, but there are a lot of communities in this province that
rely on that fish plant that's in that community, and not only that community.
It could be on the Baie Verte Peninsula. It could be down in Fogo. It could be
on the Bonavista Peninsula. It could be anywhere at all. That's where we need to
be, but we all have to work together on that.
Mr.
Speaker, I've got three or four other things marked down. I wanted just
to mention about the surf clams. I'm really disappointed in what happened with
allocation of quota for surf clams. I think there were a couple of good
proposals made by companies here with Aboriginal groups with them, and I think
it should have stayed in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think most people in this
province agree with me that the 25 per cent we're going to lose should be here
and should be harvested in Newfoundland and Labrador. Again, I think that's
something we should all work together and make sure.
The last thing I want to mention – and I know I had
conversations with both Members for Baie Verte - Green Bay and the Member for
Fogo Island - Cape Freels. We had a great conversation the other day, and it was
on the seals. I got up the last time – it wasn't the last time, the time before
I got up, and I think I spoke about 15 minutes on seals.
Mr. Speaker, we need to do something. I know back in 2011
there was real close, we were so close to striking a deal with China that would
have made a huge difference in our sealing and the market itself. Listen,
there's no doubt about it, the market for seals has been cut like you wouldn't
believe with the European, American and different markets, but the Chinese
market is a place where we can be. There is so much of seal that we can use.
Mr. Speaker, we have a country that's out there, and we're
known around the world to be one of the best countries in the world that when we
see a crisis anywhere where there's starvation or anything at all in this world
that we step up and we take care of people. I can think no better way of
stepping up and being a leader in the world and donating food to countries.
We have 20 million people a day that are starving in this
world of ours, and what a better – the leader of the Opposition asked me today
if I'd go to a dinner up in Topsail. The Topsail church are having a seal flipper dinner and I said I'll
definitely be there because I love eating seal –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. K. PARSONS:
You're going too; good for
you.
There
are other things – omega-3, the oil that's coming from them. There are markets
out there. We just have to work – the federal government has to come through for
the people in this province.
Seals,
just to let you know, are eating a lot of our fish. We say there's 7.4 million –
DFO's estimate now; it could be a lot higher – harp seals that are here off
Newfoundland and Labrador right now. Estimates show that 7.4 million harp seals
in six days will eat the total amount of catch that we have in all our
fisheries, whether it's shrimp, crab, cod, you name it. It will take care of it
in six days.
That's a
huge problem. I think that us, as a province, and us, as people in this
Legislature, should be getting together and demanding that Ottawa step up
because the seals are the reason, I believe, that our fishery is in the state it
is today and I think –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
I really believe –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
I really believe it's
something we can do something about.
I think
all of us working together – and like I said, I spoke to my two colleagues
across the way and we agree that something needs to be done.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Baie Verte - Green Bay.
MR.
WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. Member on his comments, the hon.
Member for Cape St. Francis who just finished. We did have a wonderful
conversation and I'll refer to that a little bit later in my notes as well.
I guess before we get started, I always want to say
thank you to my District of Baie Verte - Green Bay for giving me the wonderful
opportunity to represent them here in this time-honoured building that we're in,
known as the House of Assembly. It's always a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to
represent the good people there as well.
Just a short while ago, the Government House Leader, as
well as Members from the Opposition ranks, got up to thank the outgoing
Lieutenant-Governor, Frank and Patricia Fagan. I do want to thank them as well
at this particular point in time. They've been wonderful ambassadors in their
roles as Lieutenant-Governor. I certainly want to thank them for all that
they've done for us here in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I want to congratulate and
welcome our newest Lieutenant-Governor to be sworn in tomorrow, the hon. Judy
Foote, and her husband as well and family, and wish her all the successes. I'm
sure she will make us proud as well.
It gives
me pleasure to stand and speak to Concurrence. I had the opportunity to sit on
two committees. I had the opportunity to chair the Resource Committee. This
year, I sat on the Social Services Committee as well. I thank my hon. colleagues
for giving me that opportunity as well.
While I
spoke to the Resource Committee just a couple of days ago, the Resource
Committee represents the Departments of Fisheries and Land Resources; Tourism,
Culture, Industry and Innovation; the Department of Advanced Education, Skills
and Labour; and last, but not least, the Department of Natural Resources.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to thank the Members:
the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port; the Member for Fogo Island
- Cape Freels, who's sharing the seat with me this morning; the Member for
Harbour Grace - Port de Grave; the Member for Exploits; the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi; the Member for Mount Pearl North; and the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
Again, Mr. Speaker, those meetings of the Estimates
would have never have taken place without the help and guidance of our Table
Officers, the Broadcast Centre, our wonderful Pages who continuously do a good
job from day to day and the ministers and their departments. The last time I
rose to speak to the budget, I talked about the role of Estimates and the
wonderful education that it is. It really is, Mr. Speaker, when you get an
opportunity to sit down and look at the budgets, what was budgeted last year,
what was spent and obviously what the budget speaks to this year.
Members of the Committee and, in particular, the
Official Opposition and Third Party and our independent Member had the
opportunity to go line by line and discuss the budgets of that particular
department. I have to take my hat off to both those committees
and the departments that were represented in both those committees this year.
The ministers went above and beyond to speak to any question that was asked of
them in the three hours that we did have for each committee.
In
particular, take for instance the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources, I
know that we didn't ourselves finished on time and, cordially, he gave the
Committee extra time to make sure that they asked the questions that were
pertinent to this year's Estimates. I know they appreciate it as well. Mr.
Speaker, my hat is off to both those committees that I had the opportunity to
represent.
Mr.
Speaker, when I spoke to the budget the other day, I sort of finished off, I was
speaking to some highlights in my district, or highlighting opportunities
provided by this year's budget in my district, but I just want to take a few
minutes to discuss – I think, first of all, I'll talk about this year's ice
conditions. I know last year with the ice conditions that we had along the
Northeast Coast, which is where my district falls into – and you've all often
heard me say before I did have 42 communities in my district, of which 41 of
them are touched by the salt water. The community of Sheppardville is the only
community in my district that doesn't touch the salt water.
As you
know, fishery and aquaculture are huge in my area. Last year I remember, in
particular, the port of La Scie. La Scie used to be the home of a national sea
plant. They were processing many species at that particular point in time and
100 per cent employment in the community of La Scie. Actually, they had to go
out to outlying communities to fill their employment needs.
Today,
Mr. Speaker, it's probably one of the largest longliner ports in the province
and probably one of the largest offloading ports in Newfoundland as well. I know
last year, again with the ice conditions, we saw that port practically shut down
until well into mid-season and it was devastating. It was devastating for that
whole part of that Baie Verte Peninsula because in a good year, we have – and
you've heard me say that here in the House of Assembly before as well – anywhere
upwards to $350 million to $450 million of seafood that travels up over the La
Scie highway, up over the Baie Verte highway and on to plants throughout the
Island.
It goes
without saying that it was a huge downfall in that part of my district last
year, but things are looking good. I wish the crab and the shrimp were looking
just a good, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately that is not so. Hopefully, the
harvesters will get an opportunity at least to fill their quotas.
I want
to talk about the aquaculture industry for a bit. We had the opportunity last
year to host an aquaculture summit in the area of the Member for Fortune Bay -
Cape La Hune and certainly in my area of Green Bay. It was an opportunity for me
to highlight to my colleagues that part of my district, especially in Green Bay
South.
We have
two harvesters in Green Bay South, Sunrise sea farms which is operated by the
Halfyard family and Badger Bay Mussel Farms which is operated by the Roberts
family out of Triton. I can't forget the mussel farms in Shoal Arm which are
operated by the Simms family out of Little Bay.
I shared
with some of my colleagues yesterday a picture that was on Facebook of the
mussels. It was low tide in Little Bay Islands. For those of you who saw those
pictures yesterday, it was absolutely amazing the amount of mussels that had
come to shore.
It's
just a wonderful industry, Mr. Speaker. I certainly want to highlight that.
There are lots of jobs that are created by that industry. I know in
The Way Forward document we are hoping to grow that industry to 8.3
million metric tons, and certainly we want to be a huge part of that.
I can't
leave the aquaculture industry, Mr. Speaker, without talking about a
post-secondary plant that I had the opportunity to visit in Triton. I spoke with
the owner, Mr. Jason Roberts, maybe just a short while after I got elected,
maybe sometime in mid-2016. He took me down to a plant that had never operated
and told me of his plans.
At that
time, I spoke with the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources and had the
opportunity actually to bring the Minister of Tourism, Culture, Industry and
Innovation to that part of my district, as I did the Minister of Municipal
Affairs had the opportunity to go down and visit that plant as well.
I'd like
to announce today the plant is up and running, doing an absolutely fabulous job.
I did bring in some product for my colleagues here in the House of Assembly to
share. There are some colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that are still waiting for their
product. They know I have it readily available for them to sample, and sample
they will: three types of mussels that they are processing out of that plant,
and bottling as well. We have mussels in garlic and vinegar, mussels in vinegar
and a mussel salad.
They
have 18 to 20 people working in that plant now. They have picked up a contract
with Sobeys enterprises. Just a little while ago, Mr. Roberts reported that he's
picked up a huge contract in Quebec as well. Things are looking up for the
mussel industry in that part of my District of Baie Verte – Green Bay, certainly
in the Green Bay South, Green Bay North area.
Mr.
Speaker, I only have a few minutes left and I want to touch on the Member for
Cape St. Francis, my good friend, on the seal fishery. I want to talk about – I
have an advocate of the seal fishery as a constituent in my district. I keep
reminding him he's forgotten more about the fishery than I'll ever know, and
that's Captain Wilfred Bartlett. Those of you who know Captain Wilfred Bartlett
will know his passion for the fishery. It goes without question, Mr. Speaker,
that Mr. Bartlett is – I don't know if he'd like for me to say his age, but I
can tell you that he's not 79 anymore, nor is he 80.
I tell
you, Mr. Speaker, he's a man who I have a deep respect for, especially his
opinions around the fishery. I shared some of those comments with the Member for
Cape St. Francis and the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels. We had a
wonderful conversation. I, too, agree with the Member for Cape St. Francis.
We've got way too many seals. I think we have a cull of a total of probably half
a million animals this year. Mr. Speaker, we won't take 100,000 animals. We're
not hurting the industry. I mean, the industry is actually hurting us when you
look at what it does to our groundfish industry.
We have a plant, Mr. Speaker, probably one of only a
few plants. I think there's one in the Member for Bonavista, in his district as
well, but one of the only few plants in Fleur de Lys as well. It's a busy plant
when there are animals that are harvested. Again, I agree with my friend with
regard to his comments on we have an abundance of seals.
We have people all over the world that, as a country of
Canada and Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we're very generous to with
our support and our giving to these countries that are less fortunate than what
we are. Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why we shouldn't be harvesting an animal
that is depleting our stocks to help people all around the world. I agree with
his sentiments on that as well.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk briefly on the forest
industry of which my district for centuries – I come from an area that has
harvested wood for hundreds of years. My own family's business, we were probably
one of Bowater's largest contractors for many, many years. I want to talk about
a business in my district, Arthur Fowlow Limited from South Brook that received
notice just two or three weeks ago with regard to the anti-dumping tariffs that
are being put on Canadian companies from the US government and –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. WARR:
I will take my time, Sir –
from the US government and, Mr. Speaker, it's caused the demise of a company in
my district – one that was just recognized a few short years ago as contractor
of the year for the Kruger plant in Corner Brook and today they find themselves
out of business.
I
understand somewhat the decisions behind the Kruger company, but it was
unfortunate that those decisions weren't spread out over the three or four major
contractors that they have. Right now, we're going to have maybe 24 to 30 people
without employment. Some of those other workers have found employment through
the bumping system, I guess, in their unions.
Mr.
Speaker, like I said, I continue to work with the Minister of Fisheries and Land
Resources, I have brought my concerns to the Premier as well and, hopefully,
we'll see a light at the end of the tunnel with regard to that.
Mr.
Speaker, I hope that I get an opportunity to speak to this again. Like I said, I
want to thank again my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to sit on those
two committees. I appreciate the comments from my good friend from the lovely
District of Cape St. Francis.
With
that, I will take my seat and ask for the opportunity at a later time.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
adjourn debate on the Concurrence Motion that we were just debating.
At this
time, I would suggest we recess, but prior to doing so, I just to put on the
record for posterity, I'd like to wish a very happy birthday to the Member for
Bonavista today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
In accordance with Standing
Order 9, this House is in recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon.
And
Happy Birthday!
Recess
The
House resumed at 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
In the
Speaker's galley today, I would like to welcome Ms. Sarah Lewis, who will be
mentioned in a Member's statement this afternoon. Sarah is joined by her
parents, Tracey Shave and Peter Lewis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
I would also like to welcome
to the Speaker's gallery and recognize members of the Avalon Chapter of the
Multiple Sclerosis Society. With us today we have Cindy Clouston, Peter
Clouston, Heather Mercer, Zita Kavanagh-Taylor, who is the Multiple Sclerosis
Avalon Chapter Chair, and a very special guest, we have Buffy, who is a loyal
service dog belonging to Ms. Mercer. Buffy also acts at the society's mascot.
Welcome
to you all.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements
today, we will hear four statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of
Burin - Grand Bank, Bonavista, Cape St. Francis and St. John's East - Quidi
Vidi.
The hon.
the Member for Burin - Grand Bank.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. HALEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Once
again the month of May is upon us, and with it, its annual and eternal offer of
hope.
With
hope being the central theme of the Multiple Sclerosis Society, it is fitting
that May be designated as MS Awareness Month, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday was a very busy day. I had the pleasure of joining members of the
Avalon Chapter of the MS Society for the signing of the proclamation, a
flag-raising ceremony to mark the commencement of this year's MS Awareness
Month, and the annual light up of the Confederation Building in commemoration of
this worthy cause.
I was
pleased to have been joined by Zita Kavanagh, Cindy Clouston, Heather Mercer and
the chapter's mascot, the petite and adorable service dog, Buffy, who are all
here in the gallery with us today.
There
are hundreds of individuals suffering from MS, Mr. Speaker, here in Newfoundland
and Labrador, but those are not individuals living without hope. I too am
hopeful one day a cure will be found.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in thanking Zita Kavanagh and the Avalon
Chapter for their efforts in helping eradicate this terrible disease.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you very much.
The hon.
the Member for the District of Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, April
22, I was honoured to attend the CLB Trinity - Conception Battalion's spring
parade and church service. The Trinity East - Port Rexton Company hosted the
event and were joined by companies from St. George's, Harbour Grace - Carbonear,
Upper Island Cove, Bay Roberts, the Battalion youth band, the CLB Regimental
Band, RCSCC Clode Sound and local guiding units.
Under
the command of Major Wayne Lilly, the parade marched from Bishop White School to
Christ Anglican Church in Port Rexton. The service was presided over by Rev.
John Nicolle with a wonderful homily provided by Bishop John Waddon. One of the
highlights of the service was when the jam-packed church was educated on the
different uniforms of the CLB by both the young members and officers.
Many
honours and awards were presented, recognizing the hard work and dedication of
those who serve this wonderful organization. Congratulations have to be given to
2nd Lieutenant Michael Cooper who became the new Commanding Officer of the
Trinity East - Port Rexton Company.
Please
join me in congratulating the Trinity - Conception Battalion, and wish them many
more years of: Fighting the Good Fight. Keep the Flag Flying.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Sarah and
Nicole Power, two young women – cousins actually – from Logy Bay-Middle
Cove-Outer Cove who are making their mark on the Canadian acting scene.
Mr. Speaker, Sarah attended Ryerson University's
Theatre School and landed roles in many successful Canadian films and television
series such as Random Passage,
Rosewood,
The Good Witch, Schitt's Creek
and the Killjoys.
Nicole is a graduate of Sheridan College's Musical
Theatre Program as well as Second City Conservatory. She also performed across
the country in roles in productions of
West Side Story, Bonnie and Clyde,
Legally Blonde,
Evangeline and Anne of Green
Gables. Nicole is currently playing a role as Shannon Ross on the hit series
Kim's Convenience and was
nominated for a 2018 Canadian Screen Award.
Mr. Speaker, Sarah and Nicole Power are excellent
representatives of the amazing talent our province has to offer. I know they're
shining starts of their parents Sylvester and Eunice, and James and Chris Power,
and also to their grandparents and their entire families.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating these
young women on their achievements and wishing them continued success in their
acting careers.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I'm delighted today to congratulate Sarah Lewis, a grade 11
student at St. Bonaventure's College, who was recently awarded the Lester B.
Pearson scholarship to attend the prestigious Pearson College in Victoria, BC.
Sarah was chosen for the award due to her excellence in a
broad range of academic and extracurricular, community involvement and athletic
achievements. Sarah is a President's Honour student at St. Bon's and holds a 92
per cent average. Sarah is also the president of the St. Bon's Social Justice
Club and competes provincially in debating.
Sarah is an avid runner and won the provincial gold for
cross running in 2017. She also plays competitive soccer and was the youngest
member of the 2017 Women's Canada Games soccer team.
The Pearson College United World College is a part of 17
schools worldwide that create a global framework for learning. The Lester B.
Pearson scholarship will allow Sarah to attend the school for two years of
pre-university study in the International Baccalaureate Program at Pearson.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Sarah
Lewis on her academic achievements.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate two members of
the Provincial Advisory Council for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities
on being invested into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador. Earlier this
year, advisory council member Katarina Roxon and Chair Marie Ryan were among the
recipients who received our province's highest honour from the
Lieutenant-Governor.
The Order of Newfoundland and Labrador recognizes
individuals who have demonstrated excellence and achievement in any field of
endeavour which benefits our province and its residents in an outstanding
manner. Both Katarina Roxon and Marie Ryan certainly meet this description.
Marie Ryan is a long-time advocate for social justice and
inclusion and has worked at the local, regional, provincial and national levels
with organizations of persons with disabilities.
Katarina Roxon has won multiple medals in national and
international swimming competitions, including a gold medal at the 2016
Paralympic Games in Rio, Brazil. She is also an ambassador for Para swimming and
for Para sport, addressing youth and adults on the importance of sport for
healthy living. Katarina is the youngest person to ever be invested into the
Order.
Mr. Speaker, as Minister Responsible for the Status of
Persons with Disabilities, I greatly value the contributions of Ms. Ryan and Ms.
Roxon to the Provincial Advisory Council, and I am thrilled that their
outstanding contributions to make our province more inclusive have been
recognized in this very prestigious manner.
I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Marie
Ryan and Katarina Roxon on being invested into the Order of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.
On behalf of the Official Opposition, I also offer my congratulations to
Katarina Roxon and Marie Ryan. Being awarded to the Order of Newfoundland and
Labrador is the highest honour within this province. It is reserved for
individuals who truly excel in their area, whether it be academia, public
service or, as in the stories of these two passionate individuals, the inclusion
of persons with disabilities.
Mr. Speaker, I thank both Ms. Roxon and Ms. Ryan for their
involvement on the Provincial Advisory Council for the Inclusion of Persons with
Disabilities and encourage them to continue their advocacy efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The
hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of her
statement. I'm delighted to stand and congratulate Marie Ryan and Katarina Roxon
for being invested into the Order of Newfoundland and Labrador, and was
delighted to be there that day.
Each of them has contributed greatly towards making our
communities and our society more inclusive. Obviously, the Provincial Advisory
Council benefits very much from their participation. I also commend the Advisory
Council and the minister for its hard work over the years for improvements to
the Buildings Accessibility Act and
for disability rights legislation in this province.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by ministers?
The hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood
Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in this hon. House to recognize steps being
taken in response to the recommendations of the Premier's Task Force on
Improving Educational Outcomes.
The Newfoundland and Labrador English School District and
Conseil scolaire francophone provincial de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador have informed
the 40 schools that have been selected province wide to participate in the Phase
1 implementation of the task force recommendations, including a new Student
Support Services Model.
Mr. Speaker, the school districts collaborated with the
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development to determine the 40
schools across the province that will be part of this implementation, with
consideration given to a fair balance based on demographics that included
regional distribution and school size.
A number of committees, with representation from teachers,
school administrators, district-level professional staff, professional staff
from the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association and officials across
several government departments, are working on policies and processes to
implement recommendations within all nine focus areas of the Premier's task
force report. This includes details around a new Student Support Services Model
that will provide an allocation of reading specialists, teaching and learning
assistants, and an increase in the allocation of learning resource teachers.
Phase 1 of the task force implementation will include
in-depth professional learning for all teachers and administrators, beginning
this month.
Mr. Speaker, this phase of the implementation has a
determined timeline that will see full implementation of the Student Support
Services Model in every school by September 2020, and will ensure that the
implementation of all recommendations will be completed or well underway by
2022.
I ask all Members of this House to join me in acknowledging
these important steps forward as we continue to provide quality education for
students throughout our province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. We are happy to see progress
being made with this important file despite the department not having a
dedicated minister. The quality of our children's education should be paramount
for all governments.
To be
clear, this side of the House remains optimistic around the recommendations that
have been outlined in the Task Force on Improving Educational Outcomes. We are
pleased to see that Phase 1 is beginning.
This is
a department that is vitally important to the future of our province. Decisions
made by the minister of this department have direct impacts on students, parents
and teachers. There will certainly be many questions that we have of the
government in the days ahead as it relates to the student support services
model.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of the statement. It is good to see this
very important task force recommendation for a new student support services
model being implemented in the first 40 schools. This September, many parents
and teachers will be hopeful that the new teachers, instructional assistants and
other resources will make a difference for all the children in these classrooms.
I'm very
glad the budget supported this change, and I hope that as we move forward the
resources are there to ensure the remaining recommendations are fully
implemented with all the meaning the task force meant.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Commissioner for Legislative Standards today issued a statement which stated
that the reports on harassment complaints, once completed, will be provided to
the Premier.
I ask
the Premier: To ensure that this process is completely independent, will you
commit to change this process and request the Management Commission to engage an
independent body with the specialized expertise to investigate these complaints?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the Member for the question today. As you know, when the complaints were lodged
we met with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, who under the
jurisdiction could have come into the House of Assembly without any request. He
really could have come in and talked to Members and dealt with this issue.
I sent
an email inviting the Commissioner to come in and review the allegations and
making sure – I think the media release, maybe, that the Member opposite is
mentioning – allows for the independent process, making sure that all the
resources that are required to do this review are available to the Office of the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards. These reports, as I understand, then
would also go back to those who have filed the allegations for their use as
well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Fortune Bay -
Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Mr. Speaker, I'm not
comfortable submitting a complaint until the process for an investigation is
changed to ensure the investigation is completely independent of this
government.
Will the
Premier do the right thing and commit today to change this process and support
the engagement of an independent body to investigate complaints?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, number one, the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards has the authority to come in without
request. He's made that quite clear.
When you
look at the independent Officers of the House of Assembly you think of the AG as
an example. This is the same level. This office exists at the same level as the
AG. This is the Office of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards which is an
independent Officer – office of this House of Assembly which the Member opposite
is aware of.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to make it quite clear, that this Commissioner can come in
at any time on his own accord and can use the resources of independent people.
I've said from the beginning, if anyone that's going through this process is not
satisfied with it, you should speak to the Commissioner who is independent from
this House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the hon. Member that the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, the structure
for that is under the House of Assembly Accountability Act and so on. It's not
appropriate to question the Premier on that point. It's a question for the
Management Commission.
Thank
you.
The
Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
(Inaudible) ready to go but I
really don't have a comfort level with this process, especially in light of some
of the discussions that have happened in the past 24 hours.
I ask
the Premier again: Will you remove yourself from this process and ensure that
the report is submitted to the –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Again, I
would ask the Member to recognize the fact that the structure of the
investigation is under the Management Commission which reports to all of us. The
matter should be brought before the Management Commission.
Thank
you.
Further
questions, please.
The hon.
the leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, we seem to have a bit of a difficulty here because of the process
that's been followed.
I ask
the Premier: Did you submit the complaint yourself to the Commissioner or have
individuals submitted the complaints?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, the leader of
the Opposition – when you look at politics in this very serious issue, I have
said so many times in this House of Assembly it is not up to me. I've left this
in the confidence of the people and the allegations as they come forward. I've
left this for them to file a complaint.
Mr.
Speaker, I can tell you, I don't even know if there's a complaint filed. I
couldn't tell you that. I appreciate the confidence. I did not go outside of
this building and put people's names out there. It's not what I want to do. This
is an independent process. It must maintain the integrity and the confidence of
those who are dealing with it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier may have not gone outside of this building and named names but one of
his ministers did, Mr. Speaker. It's a serious matter that's under
investigation.
Under
the very act, the House of Assembly
Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act of this House, under
section 34 the Premier may request, and when the Premier does it's the only
section where the Commissioner reports to the Premier.
My
question to the Premier is: Why did you submit a report to the Commissioner? Why
did you not do the right thing and have it independent and leave yourself out of
it?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Interesting enough, the Member opposite suggests that Members of this Cabinet
who are now no longer Members of this caucus; yet, one of his own Members stood
outside this door and blocked the door and he still sit's in of his own caucus.
Right
now, there are a number of options. I've met with the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards. As I said, the information that will come forward is in
the purview of this House of Assembly. These were the two options.
As I
said, if Members that are in – ongoing with issues with this review, if they
take exception, I would ask them to speak to the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards on their issues.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
just point out, it's my understanding officials in the House looked into that
circumstance that the Premier is referring to and found there's no evidence to
support any wrongdoing by the Member of the House of Assembly.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
On the
matter that the Member is referring to, the appropriate action would have been
for the Member who felt compromised to have filed a point of privilege, which
would have precipitated an investigation by the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards. That did not occur.
I would
ask the Member to proceed, please.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You're
right; there was no point of privilege raised. There was no issue raised through
the processes of the House.
Mr.
Speaker, my question to the Premier relates to what is covered under
legislation, whereby the legislation indicates that the Commissioner only
reports to the Premier when the Premier requests an investigation.
My
question for the Premier is: To ensure there is independence on a very sensitive
and important investigation, why did he choose to immerse himself in the process
when his advice could have been to go to the Commissioner and file your
complaint, leave himself out of it so there would have been a much higher level
of independence?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When I
met with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, these options were
considered and the option through that meeting was to invite him in.
Mr.
Speaker, I will tell you, I am not interested in inserting myself in this
independent review. That's not what this is all about at all. What I want to do
is make sure that there is a very thorough review and those that are
participating, all parties that are participating in this review will do so and
the recommendations that will come out this, hopefully, will make sure that this
House is a much better place to live.
Mr.
Speaker, this is not something that any of us – I take this very seriously and I
just want to make sure that the comfort level of all those that are involved, as
they participate, that they are comfortable with the process.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's not
the first time the Premier has said that. He said that on the release on April
27: “It is extremely important that the complainant is comfortable with the
process and that it reflects their wishes.” We just heard from the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune who her, herself, just stood here in the House of
Assembly and said she is not comfortable.
Premier,
what are you going to do to make sure there is a comfortable process, as you
yourself had committed to?
MR. SPEAKER:
Excuse me, but I do believe
that as per my earlier remarks in terms of the structure as to how the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards can proceed is really a matter for the
Management Commission, and I feel that would be a much better audience for
addressing that.
The hon.
the leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Can I speak to that, Mr.
Speaker?
I think
we're probably on a point of order here now. I'm not asking or questioning the
process of the –
MR. SPEAKER:
I would suggest that you are,
Sir, so I would ask you to return to another line of questioning.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I'm asking
questions about the Premier who has immersed himself in a process.
MR. SPEAKER:
Sir, please, my decision is
final. I'd like to discuss the matter after Question Period, if I may.
Let's
continue on, please.
MR. P. DAVIS:
This is my line of
questioning today about an independent process by Members of this House who may
have complaints about the actions of the Premier or the government.
MR. SPEAKER:
Again, Sir, I feel that
you're challenging the structure that has been put in place by this House
through the Management Commission, through the act, and that's really a matter
for the Management Commission.
I would
ask you to go to another line of questioning.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, this is
certainly unprecedented for my experience where I'm shut down in Question
Period.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask the Premier can he state unequivocally that the former minister
never raised a single issue or concern with him – the former minister who spoke
publicly yesterday has not raised a single issue or concern with him or his
staff regarding the harassment and intimidation that she faced from her
colleagues.
Can the
Premier unequivocally state that none of that was raised with him? Let's see if
we can get a straight answer from the Premier.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
made it quite clear yesterday that I've always supported MHAs, supported our
ministers when they brought forward questions or issues and I'll continue to do
so. I've done a lot of this in the last week or so, just like I've done in the
last 2½ years, Mr. Speaker.
When
Members, ministers or MHAs require support from me, Mr. Speaker, I've been
there. There are a lot of questions that happen that come to me as Premier and
as leader of this province. As those ministers, in some cases our MHAs, it's
probably not appropriate for me to stand on this floor of the House of Assembly
and deal in specifics of what those meetings would be all about.
I will
tell you, Mr. Speaker, I will not tolerate bullying, not tolerating harassment.
We dealt with it very promptly in the last week or so.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, can the Premier
state unequivocally that the former minister of Finance never raised a single
issue or concern with him or his staff regarding the harassment and intimidation
that she faced from her colleagues?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I think it was
in the media yesterday about some processes. We did talk about that.
Mr.
Speaker, it's interesting today with the line of questioning of where we're
going with some of the things that have been said publicly and on social media
and how a couple of years can make a big difference. If you go back over social
media you will see that Members opposite put out many releases, Twitter
accounts, social media messaging about the very minister of the day that many
people would consider to be intimidating.
Those
are still out there. Social media – you just need to look right in the library.
All of us, Mr. Speaker, from Members opposite have been, I would say, the target
of many social media intimidation and (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The leader of the Official
Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier just stood for 45 seconds and never answered the question.
Can the
Premier state unequivocally that the former minister of Finance never raised a
single issue or concern with him or his staff regarding the harassment and
intimidation that she faced from her colleagues?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Any
issues that were raised by me, by any minister or any MHA, I have dealt with
them. I've added support where it was required, Mr. Speaker.
I ask
the Members opposite: Why is it you stand here today and you will not apologize
for the harassment and the intimidation that you laid on many ministers through
social media in this government? Why is it that you can stand here today – I
have supported my ministers, supported their MHAs, and you stand up here today
in Question Period when you, yourself, the leaders of the Opposition and Members
of the Opposition, deliberately attacked Members on this side of the House with
many disparaging comments that were made on social media, yet you stand up today
and say that is wrong, or you still support that?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the leader of the Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. P. DAVIS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Premier if he can state unequivocally that the former
minister of Finance never
raised a single issue or concern with him or his staff regarding the harassment
and intimidation that she faced from her colleagues.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
As I said, Mr. Speaker, there
have been intimidation and all we need to look at is where the source of that
would have been, and I can tell you there are lots from the Opposition.
Mr.
Speaker, as I've said, when ministers, no matter which portfolio, have come to
me, I've always supported them. And sometimes we've had great discussions from a
lot of ministers about the impacts of the Official Opposition and the comments
that have been made by them. They impacted people.
Where I
want to get this House of Assembly to is we should, as 40 Members of this House
of Assembly, we need co-operation. We need collaboration. What we've seen in the
past is not good enough, we're expected to do better, we must do better and it
will take collaboration and working together. We must learn a lesson from what
we've seen in the last week or so in this House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, the former president of the NLTA has spoken out about the dismissive
behaviour of the former Education minister. This bad behaviour pattern has left
the residents of the Mobile-Witless Bay school district wondering if decisions
made while the minister was in that position were based on professional
evidence, or based on a personal agenda. Both the English School District, the
consultant's report, and certainly the school councils in the area thought the
decision to cancel the school in Mobile was a terrible decision.
I ask
the Premier: Based on all of this, will you review that decision?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
One of
the first comments I'd like to make is to let the hon. Member know that I am
dedicated to what I'm doing as a Cabinet Member, whether it's one portfolio or
two portfolios.
Mr.
Speaker, I have had some preliminary briefing on the Mobile situation and the
information that I've been given, my understanding is the tender has been let
for that extension and construction has started and will continue to be. And the
target that we're setting now is sometime late in 2018 for having that extension
completed, to accommodate the growth and the number of students that are in that
particular area. We will continue to monitor that and work to make sure that we
have the best possible facilities that we can have in that particular area of
the province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Respectfully I say to the minister, maybe you should be updated that the
proposed extension is going to be out of space by '21-'22, so we're spending
money and in 2021-22 we need a new school. You need to be updated on that, I say
to the minister with all due respect.
When a
parents' group met with the minister to discuss the issue of the new school, he
referenced the fact: why would people want to live up there, they would all move
to Galway. I brought this up here in the House of Assembly to the Premier.
So I ask
again: Based on the performance, based on what we heard today, based on this
minister, will you please meet with the students, the school district and the
people of my district to have this addressed and to look at it once and for all?
The
Minister of Finance wouldn't meet with us; the Premier wouldn't meet with the
people up there. So I ask now, based on all this, can we have another look at
this?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
certainly thank the Member opposite for his information and for the history on
the demographics. Again, the information that we've been provided within the
department, the decision was made based on that information that there will be
an extension to this school in Mobile and that would be adequate for the
projected population increase and student enrolment over the next number of
years, Mr. Speaker.
That
decision was made based upon the information that the school board had given at
the time and the information that within the department a clear understanding of
exactly what would be projected for that area. The decision was made to proceed
with the extension to that school. A tender has been let for that, construction
is beginning and will continue through 2018.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Mr. Speaker, I'll ask the
Premier. Based on what we know today and over the past several days, and what
was brought to this House over a year ago by myself in relation to the
commentary by this minister, based on commentary by the former
president of the
NLTA, based on comments by people in my district, I'm asking the Premier, based
on all of that: Will you at least meet with the parents, the student councils,
the English school district who wanted to support a new school, will you please
meet with them and have a discussion to see if this decision was based on the
right decision or based on other elements that have been discussed by the former
president of the NLTA?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. HAWKINS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My
understanding that I have in the very limited time I've been in that department
is that the former premier did not meet with the group. They were in government
at the time. So they did not even get a meeting with the former premier.
Mr.
Speaker, what we have and what we've done, we've taken the analysis, we've taken
the information that was provided and we have looked at the projections, the
numbers that were given by the school board, the projections for the student
enrolment over the next number of years, and a decision was made that within the
context of those numbers, that the best option, with the less expensive option,
would be to provide the facilities that would be an expansion to the school.
That was a decision that was made, Mr. Speaker, and construction continues
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Your
time has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I will
not tolerate interruptions today.
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
former chair of the Western Newfoundland Waste Management board stated that the
former minister of Municipal Affairs operated using back-scratch politics and
dealing with him was a terrible, intimidating experience. These call to question
the decisions by the former minister.
I ask
the Premier: Will you call an immediate review of decisions made on the West
Coast with regard to waste management by the minister of Municipal Affairs?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
certainly very happy to talk about this again as a resident of the West Coast
and a person who met with the former chair, Mr. Don Downer, who I would note was
Premier Tom Marshall's campaign manager.
What I
would say is that Mr. Downer, in his interview, clearly states his bias towards
the former minister. Now, the good thing, though, is that regardless of the
chair, there's an excellent administrative body there that we believe are making
excellent decisions on behalf of the people of the West Coast.
I've
worked with them when I was in Opposition, I've worked with them when I was not
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I'll continue to work with them for the
benefit of Western Newfoundland.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the
2017 Salary Details document, the Women's Policy Office has seven employees.
Can the
minister indicate how many positions are listed in the 2018 Salary Details?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much for the important question, Mr. Speaker.
As the
Member opposite may be aware, and I would like to inform those that aren't
aware, there is one position less this year with the deputy minister of Women's
Policy Office now having moved shared responsibility with the Children, Seniors
and Social Development Department.
Mr.
Speaker, there have been some changes in employment at the Women's Policy
Office. We are looking for some new employees as people retire and move to other
positions, but I can assure you, and I can assure all the people in this in
province, that we're dedicated to the essential work of the Women's Policy
Office, the essential work of the Status of Woman and the essential work of
equality for women in this province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
The Women's Policy Office,
according to the government's own documents, now only has three employees. The
deputy minister, two senior program and policy development specialists and an
administrative officer have been removed from the budget.
I ask
the minister: How can this department ensure a gender-based approach to
policies, support the Provincial Advisory Council and the Violence Prevention
Initiative with only three staff?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister Responsible for
the Status of Women.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just for
clarity of purpose here, I'd like to advise who it is comprised. We have very
senior staff within the Women's Policy Office, including a manager of Economic
Policy, a manager of social policy and, most recently, a manager of Violence
Prevention. We also have two full-time senior policy people, policy planning and
research analysts, as well as support staff, Mr. Speaker.
This
work is very important to all of us in this province. Female equality in this
province, I think, has been really something that this government has really
focused on and will continue to focus on. We have a committee of senior Cabinet
ministers, Mr. Speaker, moving forward on a lot of new initiatives.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune for a quick question, please.
MS. PERRY:
In Estimates, we were told
that the Women's Policy Office found savings due to reduced requirements for the
Intimate Partner Violence prevention program; however, we were also told that a
constable position, which is critical to this program, was vacant for some time.
I ask
the minister: How long was this position vacant?
MR. SPEAKER:
The Minister Responsible for
the Status of Women.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
initiative is critically important to the Violence Prevention Initiative that we
have in the province and we're continuing to work through this. The position
that the Member opposite is referring to is a position with the RCMP. They were
recruiting, are recruiting and getting finalized to having a new position
available. It is a position that we fund through the RCMP, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Third
Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, it certainly is
time to get back to the number of timely issues that have not been addressed in
this House lately.
The most
recent spill of toxic drilling chemicals offshore reported by the C-NLOPB was
serious. There has been no independent assessment of the effects on the marine
environment. Recently, government announced a plan to double offshore oil and
gas exploration.
I ask
the Premier: Now more than ever, will he implement Recommendation 29 of the
Wells Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry calling for a powerful, independent and
knowledgeable offshore safety authority responsible for worker safety and
protection of the environment?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
was an incident that has been reported by the C-NLOPB on Friday of 28,000 litres
of synthetic-based mud that was accidentally released from the mobile offshore
drilling unit, Transocean Barents.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a serious incident, which has caused the suspension of drilling
for Suncor and for Terra Nova as they investigate. That investigation is
continuing, so the suspension is continuing. The Canada-Newfoundland and
Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board is working with Suncor in their investigation
to ensure that the monitoring is done, first and foremost, and as well then
looking at the cause and how we not have that again in the future.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, we definitely need an independent investigative body to deal with
this, particularly with the doubling of exploration.
Mr.
Speaker, the burgeoning aquaculture industry promises much needed jobs. It is
important that this industry is environmentally sustainable so it can provide
long-term secure jobs. The Newfoundland and Labrador Coalition for Aquaculture
Reform is calling for a multi-stakeholder advisory committee to provide input on
all issues related to aquaculture to ensure the development of this industry is
safe, sustainable and can provide long-term, good jobs.
I ask
the Premier: Let's get this right for the people, will he strike this expert
advisory committee?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, we seek advice
wherever it could be offered, especially those with knowledgeable opinions and
information that could be provided.
One of
the stakeholders that I have reached out to and depend on are trade unionists,
members of the FFAW, people whose jobs depend on aquaculture, who want to see,
whose best interest it is that aquaculture be conducted in a sustainable,
environmentally friendly way.
Mr.
Speaker, trade unionists have asked me to ensure that this industry continues to
grow, grows responsibly and grows for the benefit of jobs not only on the South
Coast of Newfoundland, but on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and throughout
Newfoundland and Labrador. We support trade unionists.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Voisey's Bay open pit mine will be exhausted in 2022. If Vale does not go
underground there will be no more work. When last asked about this situation the
Minister of Natural Resources spoke about exercising financial remedies in the
development agreement with Vale.
I ask
the minister: Can she table what exactly are the remedies that she was talking
about?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the
people of the province know, Vale has done a global review of their minerals
industry. We continue to encourage them to make their investment to go
underground. We think it will be a good investment for them. It certainly is a
good investment for the province. There is a development agreement. There are
remedies, should they decide not to go underground.
The
development agreement is actually on the Natural Resources website. I'm so happy
to have a copy if the Member has had challenges accessing that website.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
really happy to hear the minister talk about what is on the website; however,
when we took down what was on the website with regard to the amended development
agreement with Vale there was quite a bit of redaction.
I will
ask the Minister then: Will she, in the spirit of openness and transparency,
table an un-redacted copy of those amendments so that we can really see what
these remedies are?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm glad
the Member opposite has a copy of what is available because there are commercial
sensitivities, of course, when we're dealing with these international companies.
Mr.
Speaker, we're very hopeful on this side of the House that we would not have to
use those remedies available to us under the development agreement. We're still
working with Vale – hopeful they will go underground. They are doing, as I've
said in this House before, streaming of cobalt. I think that's a very positive
step forward, Mr. Speaker, for them going underground.
As they
move forward with that streaming of cobalt, we'll continue to work with them to
make sure they understand the value to them and to this province of doing so.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Oral Questions
has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Presenting Reports
by Standing and Select Committees
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Government Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred and
have directed me to report they have passed without amendment the Estimates of
the Department of Transportation and Works, the Department of Service
Newfoundland and Labrador, the Public Procurement Agency, the Department of
Finance, Consolidated Fund Services, the Public Service Commission and the
Executive Council.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
reports by standing and select committees?
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
happy once again to stand with a petition concerning universal public child care
and after-school care program.
The
reasons for the petition: Our licensed child-care system is a patchwork of
private for-profit centres, non-profit community-based centres and family
daycare, plus a small number of education- and workplace-based centres.
It is
nowhere near meeting the child care needs in our province. Affordable licensed
child care is often in short supply in rural parts of the province. Even in St.
John's there are long wait-lists for quality child care programs.
Child
care programs have both social and financial benefits for society. Studies show
that high-quality child care and early childhood education programs –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. MICHAEL:
– result in better cognitive,
language and numeracy skills. They help economically disadvantaged children
transition to school on the same level as other children.
For
every $1 spent on early childhood education, the benefits range from $1.50 to
$2.78.
Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly as follows: To
call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to take immediate steps to put in place a plan for a gradual transition
to a universal, regulated and publicly funded and fully accessible child care
and after-school care program.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to pick up on a couple of the points in this petition; one
in particular that has to do with children starting on the same level when they
go into kindergarten. It's great that we have all-day kindergarten but when
children have not been in child care and have not had any kind of structured
development prior to kindergarten, they're not on the same level when it comes
to their reading skills, their numeracy skills and just the level of development
that is necessary going into kindergarten with children who have been in child
care. That's a fact.
One of
the factors that stops that from happening is the different levels of income. If
we had a publicly funded and regulated child care program like the rest of our
educational system, then children would be going into kindergarten on an equal
footing.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Mr. Speaker, once again, I'm
honoured with the opportunity to present this petition. These are the reasons
for this petition:
The
Adult Dental Program coverage for clients of the Newfoundland and Labrador Drug
Prescription Program under the Access and 65Plus Plans were eliminated in
Budget 2016.
Many
low-income individuals and families can no longer access basic dental care; and
those same individuals can now no 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 hon. House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to reinstate the Adult Dental Program to cover
low-income individuals and families to better ensure oral health, quality of
life and dignity.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a petition presented with signatures largely from seniors.
Seniors are one of the ones who are mostly greatly affected. We all know that
oral health, yes, it does contribute greatly to your physical well-being but one
of the biggest issues facing seniors today is mental well-being. A lot of these
individuals are challenged by social issues, not being able to get out. So not
having proper oral health or dentures is a big thing for them, preventing them
from interacting socially.
It's
shameful that our seniors are going without basic dental care because they can't
afford it. It's only creating a further complication when they have to show up
to the emergency departments costing our health care system much, much more
versus if we had addressed the problem before it got severe.
I thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further petitions?
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
many students within our province depend on school busing for transportation to
and from schools a day; and
WHEREAS
there are many parents of school-aged children throughout our province who live
inside the Eastern School District's 1.6-kilometre zone, therefore they're not
qualified for busing; and
WHEREAS
policy cannot override the safety of our children;
WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House
of Assembly to urge government to eliminate the 1.6-kilometre policy for all
elementary schools in the province and in junior and high schools where safety
is a primary concern.
And as
in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr.
Speaker, this petition, I believe my colleague from Cape St. Francis introduced
a similar one the other day. This past week, we presented a PMR on this one and
unfortunately when the leadership of the former minister was changed, the
context of our PMR was changed to not reflect what we had asked for.
It is
pretty simple what we're asking for. We're asking for the safety of our children
be put first and foremost and that policy and finances not be put ahead of the
safety of these children who have to walk these roads on a daily basis to get to
and from school through all times of the year, all weather.
Ironically, this past week, with all the occurrences that has gone on, I had an
email from a constituent of mine who has been spearheading to get this policy
changed. Her question was: With the former minister gone, will they revisit this
policy? It was an interesting question and I said I'd bring it up. I guess by
virtue of bringing up here today, I will throw that question out there. I know
it's more of a government policy but in saying that I did commit that I would
bring it to the House of Assembly and to the floor, which I'm doing.
Mr.
Speaker, I won't belabour the point. I've spoken about it many times and I'll
continue it. I support the parents and all the school-aged children that are
worried about the safety of their children. As the school year is winding down,
the weather is improving, the pressure is off a lot of parents, this will come
home again to rear its ugly head in September and we'll be dealing with this
once again.
I
believe this is a win-win for government to change this policy, to make
revisions to this policy. Again, dollars and cents can't override the safety of
our children.
Thank
you very much.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
petitions?
No
further petitions.
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
MR. SPEAKER:
This being Wednesday, I now
call on the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune to introduce the resolution
standing in her name. It is Motion 9.
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move:
BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House support the introduction of a
legislature-specific harassment policy, similar in principle to the policy in
effect in the Nova Scotia provincial legislature, where elected representatives
and their staff are held responsible for inappropriate conduct;
BE IT
FURTHER RESOLVED that this hon. House, through the introduction of a
legislature-specific harassment policy, recognize all forms of harassment
including bullying, cyber-bullying and intimidation of all forms;
AND BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this hon. House develop this legislature-specific
harassment policy through the Privileges and Elections Committee of this House
in consultation with all Members and employees of the House and with independent
groups who have experience and expertise in handling harassment complaints.
This is
seconded by the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune to please continue her debate.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you so much, Mr.
Speaker.
Let me
begin moving the resolution today by talking about the last two weeks that have
been certainly very challenging for us and no issue, I think, is going to define
this particular sitting of the House more so than harassment. I believe this is
a reflection of a significant shift in public opinion. Harassment, bullying and
intimidation, they have all been dominating our workplace for far too long.
We've been talking about it for decades, about the need to put an end to bad
behaviour. But talk is cheap when progress is slow to come.
Last
year, on the heels of the American election, as public discourse slipped deeper
and deeper into the cutter, a movement began. With slogans like TIME'S UP and
MeToo, this movement grew exponentially in response to a barrage of stories of
harassment and assault. The movement spread into every sector of American
society. It spread into Canada. It spread into the realm of politics in Ottawa,
in Ontario, in Nova Scotia, and now, Mr. Speaker, it is here.
In
January, our caucus wrote to the Speaker, including the Premier, urging an
overhaul of our policies on harassment. In February, our new leader, Ches
Crosbie, called for the implementation of a workplace harassment policy for the
House of Assembly.
He said:
“It is important that we hold our politicians, and their staff,
responsible for inappropriate conduct. That is why I am proposing the
introduction of a new, robust, workplace harassment policy for the House of
Assembly.”
He said: “We need to create an environment where victims of
harassment are supported, and that means implementing a meaningful policy, with
formalized processes, to provide that support.”
He also said: “There are growing concerns across the
country about the failure of harassment policies, within the political sphere,
to protect those who suffer harassment and hold accountable those whose conduct
is found to be inappropriate. It's time to change that.”
I have great confidence, Mr. Speaker, that our new leader
firmly believes in what he has stated and is very committed to making this a
reality. His proposal included a non-partisan – non-partisan, which is very
important, Mr. Speaker – committee of this Legislature, in consultation with the
public, to develop this policy.
His commitment to introducing a Legislature harassment
policy is part of a plan to restore confidence in government. He has talked
about the need for democratic reform and bringing a greater measure of decorum
and functionality to the House, as part and parcel of that.
We all remember hearing about
The Democracy Cookbook edited by Dr. Alex Marland and author Lisa
Moore. The book was serialized in The
Telegram and its themes were posted around the lobby of Confederation
Building. It's accessible for everyone to read online if anyone hasn't read it
yet, and you absolutely should because there are many short chapters full of
ideas for re-thinking the way we do things. There are many contributors but
there is a cohesive message running throughout the book that it's time to take
ownership of our democracy and shape it in a way that reflects our values
much better.
Face it;
we don't want our province's children or their parents behaving as bullies. So
let's not tolerate bullying among the Members of the Legislature who are elected
to represent them. We have to set an example. Just as importantly, let's create
an environment that welcomes people who want to contribute to public life.
Talented
people don't want to serve if it means they will be bullied and humiliated in
the spotlight on a daily basis. They'll simply stay away, and that hurts us as a
province, Mr. Speaker, because we need their contribution right here to deal
with the challenges we face, identify opportunities and make our province
stronger.
Addressing harassment is not just about making this workplace more respectful,
it's also about serving the people more efficiently and building a vibrant,
resilient Newfoundland and Labrador. That's our job. That's what this hon. House
is for. We need to get on with fixing what's broken inside this House before we
can properly fix what's broken outside the door.
Nova
Scotia, Mr. Speaker, brought forward a policy in 2016 that is perhaps the best
in the country. It raises the bar. It lays out expectations clearly in writing
and requires everyone to read the documents and sign them. People are educated
about the process, about what's expected of them, about what's intolerable,
about where to go if there are issues, about what will happen when they do,
about the supports available to them and about the resolution they can expect.
Having gone through my experience in the fall and here again this week, none of
this exists for us, Mr. Speaker, right here at present in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
There is
no guesswork in this process they have in Nova Scotia. That's what we need here,
and we need it now. The level of toxicity continues to be high, even this week,
even today. We are exposing wrongs that need to be brought to light but we also
need to turn down the temperature and raise up the level of mutual respect. We
probably need counsellors, Mr. Speaker, to come in here and talk to all of us,
to hold up a large mirror and teach us how to engage with one another in a way
that from now on will be more respectful.
Today's
resolution is not a veiled attempt to score political points or embarrass
anyone. It's a sincere attempt to change our working environment. It has three
simple provisions. First, let's develop a policy specifically for this House and
everyone who works here. The Nova Scotia example is a good model.
Second,
let's ensure the policy includes all forms of bullying and bad behaviour. Let's
cover all the bases, now that we have the opportunity. Let's make sure we do
this right.
Third,
let's direct a committee of this House to consult and engage people who have
experience in determining what's best. The Privileges and Elections Committee
already exists and its mandate includes matters like this. All parties are
represented and the committee has the power to engage people. Things can happen
right away through this process, Mr. Speaker.
I know
that resolutions like the one I'm bringing forward here today are not binding,
but if we are all supportive of this initiative and this motion here today,
there is no reason why we can't turn the page this very afternoon within a few
hours, Mr. Speaker. Let's make it an all-party initiative.
I call
on all my colleagues to give this very serious consideration and to use your own
judgment in making your decision on how you vote today. It doesn't matter that
my name is on the resolution. If we do this right, then it's a win for all of
us, all Members, all parties and all of the people we are elected to serve.
This
House has often been called a kindergarten. That's an insult, Mr. Speaker, I
think to kindergarteners because children of that age are far more accepting and
forgiving. We need to learn from them how to get along, despite our differences.
In our system of government, parliaments are adversarial. Providing vigorous
opposition is an obligation some of us have to bear, but that doesn't mean we
can't be respectful and honourable and even empathic toward one another.
Perhaps
we need to add a place on the Order Paper for saying nice things about our
opponents at some point in each day. Can you imagine what a better place this
would be, Mr. Speaker? Whatever we do, we need to find ways to behave with more
courtesy and civility; basic stuff, Mr. Speaker, that we expect in every other
workplace yet we fail ourselves here.
Maybe we
need photos of the province's children posted on the walls of this Chamber to
remind us about the people who are out there counting on us, the people who may
be watching us, that they are impressionable and very precious, and we owe them
our best behaviour even when we're riled up about something.
It's
picturing all the faces of those little children and those beautiful little
girls and young boys that expect us to pave a better way for their future that's
given me courage in the last two weeks, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps,
if we tone things down here, tone the rhetoric down and improve our behaviour,
perhaps that's going to make politics a bit boring. Perhaps the theatre element
won't be as exciting, but I would rather get excited about our province growing,
flourishing and creating opportunities for people.
This
week, as we debate decorum, families are packing up and moving away for jobs.
They need us to deal with our harassment issues now so we can focus more clearly
on dealing with the challenges pressing down on them. Yes, this is a leadership
issue but every single one of us has to shoulder this responsibility.
We are
called on to be leaders in our district. Let's be leaders for our districts. If
enough of us step up, this House will change; that's a fact. But we have to step
up and we have to step up together. I'm ready. I have talked with Members of
every single caucus here who are ready. We've debated this many times in this
sitting and we voted unanimously that this is a priority.
Yet here
we are and the events of the last two weeks have unfolded as they have, so the
debate so far hasn't gotten us to the place we need to be. The question I pose
to all of my Members and all of my colleagues here today that you vote with your
own hearts, your own morals and your own values. I say to you how about it – how
about directing the Committee to start this process?
There
are good Members on the Privileges and Elections Committee, Mr. Speaker, and I'm
sure they'd be eager to hear from all of us. There are experts and advocates in
society who are ready to map out the direction we ought to take.
Mr.
Speaker, I've had teleconferences with Equal Voice as recently as this morning.
There are many entities out there willing to help us. Some of them have earned
their stripes leading conflict resolution in other toxic workplaces. They can
help us heal our broken system and weave new kinds of relationships. They may
even suggest democratic reform initiatives that will lead to a healthier
democracy.
Whatever
we do, Mr. Speaker, we have to find a way to create an environment here in this
hon. House that invites the brightest and best people in our province to step in
and make their own contribution, to offer their talents to making Newfoundland
and Labrador a truly better place for each and every one of us to live and for
our children.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm looking forward to hearing what all of my colleagues have to say
here in this hon. House today. I'm certainly looking forward to our vote at the
end of the day. Because right here, right now, the opportunity to change
history, to change the way parliaments work and to bring us into the 21st
century is before us, right here, right now.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister
Responsible for the Status of Women.
MS. COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
As I
begin, just for those who may be tuning in, we are debating a resolution that
was brought forward by the Opposition.
“AND BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this honourable House develop this legislature-specific
harassment policy through the Privileges and Elections Committee of this House
in consultation with all Members and employees of the House and with independent
groups who have experience and expertise in handling harassment complaints.”
I
applaud the Member opposite for bringing this forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. COADY:
I thank you for the opportunity to stand today and speak regarding this private
Member's resolution on legislature-specific harassment policy.
The
Member opposite pointed out in her remarks, and she didn't quite use this term
but I'll use it, we're at a tipping point and I'm very pleased to be able to
witness this tipping point, Mr. Speaker. I think the debate and discourse over
the last two weeks in this House and outside of this House on harassment, on
bullying, on intimidation have been very important discussions.
As I've
said many times in this House of Assembly, it's not acceptable. Any form of
violence – and I consider intimidation, harassment and bullying to be a form of
violence – is not acceptable. I think we're in a changing world where we are now
stepping, in some ways, into the sunlight on this issue.
I can
tell you as a business leader, as a person who has been involved in politics,
who has been a leader in her community, I can say that I am very pleased that we
are now debating this, now discussing it, now having, I guess, really a
spotlight shone upon it, Mr. Speaker.
Before I
get into the substance of my remarks this afternoon,
I
want to praise my colleagues on all sides of this House for stepping forward and
talking about this issue. I want to thank them for making sure that we are
having a discourse and a conversation about this. Making sure that we are at the
point where we are saying this is no longer acceptable and we have no tolerance
anymore.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS.
COADY:
It's difficult. I've been absent the last couple of days on business for the
province, but I've sat here thinking this is very, very difficult for those that
are coming forward. It's very difficult for the Legislature. It's very difficult
for the people of the province, but this is where we can really make a
difference. So let us all stand together to make that difference.
I love the phrase TIME'S UP because I think today
that's what we're all saying in this Legislature; all of us, men, women,
legislators, all of us are saying TIME'S UP.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS.
COADY:
Oprah Winfrey said this, and I'm quoting here, I think it was really good quote:
“Step out of the history that is
holding you back. Step into the new story you are willing to create.” Today, we
are creating that new story for politics in this province and, hopefully, for
society, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, this is extended beyond these walls.
As
parliamentarians, all of those in this House, we have a responsibility to be the
leaders in our communities, to be above reproach. I really believe that, Mr.
Speaker. I think that we have a responsibility to be examples in our community,
and especially to the young people. I think it's incumbent upon all of us to
model good behaviour, to model the behaviour that we want to see in our
children.
I've said this time
and time again over the last number of days: Would you want your children to be
subjected to any kind of harassment or bullying? The answer, of course, is no –
of course, is no. So we have to model that. We have to listen with kindness. We
have to debate with decorum. We have to – I don't like to use the word argue but
it is argue, but with accountability for what we're saying. That's what we're
talking about here today, Mr. Speaker.
My colleagues have
been speaking, not only for this Legislature over the last number of days;
they've been speaking for everyone in this province. That's why I am so proud of
those who have stood up, those who have stepped forward and those who have
continued to debate this very issue. I salute them and I
thank them for that.
The
issues of violence against women, in particular, harassment and indeed all forms
of bullying have been increasingly been brought to light and more and more the
incidents and experiences of women and by men are being openly discussed and
that's thank you to the TIME'S UP and the MeToo movement, the campaigns that are
really driving societal change, and I thank all of us for continuing that
discussion.
Mr.
Speaker, as move through some of the comments this afternoon, the Member
opposite in her opening remarks talked about a model; there are models of
harassment policies across the country. I know we have a Code of Conduct in this
province that needs to be modernized. I think that it's incumbent upon all of us
in this House to really place the workplace values that we want to see. I think
things like respect, empowerment, accountability, co-operation, honesty,
openness, collaboration and caring really should be our mantra in this House,
really should be what we stand for.
I know
each and every person that sits in this hon. House is here by best intention.
They've offered themselves, they've stepped out of their businesses, they've
stepped out of their offices, they've stepped out of their homes to come forward
to say I want a better province and I want a better tomorrow for my children, my
grandchildren and the generations to come.
We know
the value and the importance of our great province. I love the phrase from the
Ode: where once they stood, we stand. I love that phrase because I reflect upon
my father and I reflect upon my forefathers who helped build and shape this
great province. I know all of us in this House today are reflecting on our
families that came before us and our families yet to come.
When we
talk about improving the way we conduct ourselves, improving the way we conduct
ourselves in this House in doing the good work of governments, the good work of
Oppositions, the good work of making sure that we are leading the charge for
this great province, I know in everybody's soul here today they want to do
better, be better and we can be, Mr. Speaker – we can be.
It's not
just a discourse that's happening in this Legislature today; it's happening
across the country. There are models that we can – I know the Member opposite
talked about Nova Scotia. I'll just, for the sake of the discourse this
afternoon, talk about some of the things that the Nova Scotian harassment policy
contains.
The
policy applies to every Member of the House of Assembly, every staff person and
every contract person within the precinct. It defines the workplace as any place
where the business of the House of Assembly is being conducted, all offices, all
locations and situations.
In this
policy, harassment means any behaviour, act, conduct or comment, whether sexual
in nature or not, whether occurring at one time or reoccurring basis by a person
to whom this policy applies, directed at, offensive to another person to whom
this policy applies that would be unwelcome or cause offence or harm, would
demean, belittle, intimidate, threaten, distress, humiliate or embarrass, would
affect a person's reputation, would endanger someone's job, would be a
discrimination under the Human Rights Act, would be bullying defined under the
Education Act, or cyberbullying for that matter.
The
purpose of the policy in Nova Scotia, which I think is – the Member opposite
mentioned, I'll mention it again – a model that we can look to when we, as a
House, start to look at the new policies that we need for this Legislature to
prevent harassment between persons, to encourage early identification of
harassment complaints and encouraging people to come forward, initiate early
resolution of harassment situations in set out processes, formal and informal,
and establish a resolution process that is complaint driven, and there are
remedies.
The
Member opposite talked about how important it is for independence. I hear her,
and I heard the discourse during some of the questions that were being asked. I
sit as a Member of the Management Commission, Mr. Speaker, and I think it should
be a topic within the Management Commission as to how we conduct our business
within this House. I'm sure that will be coming forward. I'm sure there will be
lots of discussion over the months and weeks and days ahead.
Mr.
Speaker, effective June 1, there will be a Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador – the Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board brought in a Harassment-Free Workplace Policy committed to providing a
safe learning and work environment for everyone, but especially girls and women.
Earlier
this year, as I said, the Minister of Finance announced an upcoming
implementation of a strengthened, modernized Harassment-Free Workplace Policy.
As this House knows, but I'll say it for those listening or for people reading
Hansard to understand that we all
debated this in a private Member's motion brought forward by the Member for – my
apologies – Windsor Lake. It's a new district, I always stumble over it. A very
important private Member's resolution talking about improving and updating
legislation around this very important issue so that it's not just for this
Legislature, not just for this government, but, indeed, all businesses in the
province. That work is underway, Mr. Speaker; I think it's very important.
The new
policy will provide unprecedented support for provincial government employees in
our province who've experienced harassment at work. Combined with this, there is
training that will be taking place. It will bring greater awareness of workplace
harassment. It will increase accountability for those in authority. It will
establish timelines for formal investigations and will include a comprehensive
complaint resolution process.
All very
important points that I think as we move forward with this new consideration of
how we conduct our business and our work within this Legislature, how we conduct
– what's our code of conduct? What's our code of practice? What is the new means
and methods of making sure that harassment, bullying, intimidation no longer
exists, are no longer the standard course of business in politics, that are no
longer acceptable in our society, that are no longer acceptable in our
workplaces. So bringing that support, bringing those resolutions and changing
the discourse around how we conduct ourselves, Mr. Speaker, I think it's very,
very important.
I'm
coming to the close of my time here today, unfortunately, but I wanted to quote
another famous person, Amelia Earhart. She said: “The most difficult thing is
the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity.”
May we
be tenacious as we move forward; tenacious in ensuring a workplace free of
harassment, intimidation and bullying; a workplace that has, as I said earlier,
respect, empowerment, openness, accountability and courage as it's mantra, as
it's values, that supports one another to build a great province, to continue to
build on a great province.
As I
said earlier, I often reflect back on my father, and I often reflect on the
strength and his contributions to this province, but I equally reflect back on
my mother and her contributions. I'm sure everybody in this House, every single
person sitting here, all of us want to make our past generations proud but we
want to build a better society and a better opportunity for future generations.
Our opportunity is today, Mr. Speaker, today. Our opportunity is to take that
tenacity that we all hold and drive for a better society.
Mr.
Speaker, I support the Member opposite in this private Member's resolution and I
encourage all Members to do the same.
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.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to address the private Member's
resolution from my colleague, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, today.
Before I
read my notes, I guess on a personal note, being elected to this House in 2015,
for me to say the last two weeks have been surreal is probably an
understatement. In saying that, on a really personal note I guess, some people
relish – or you might think there are positives of it, me personally, I had a
lot of difficulty with this, not as an elected representative but as a husband,
father, son. I have a lot of important females in life and I have a lot of
important people in my life both males and females.
My mind
went back to a lot of things over my own life, my own shortcomings sometimes,
and it gave me a lot of time to reflect, pause and reflect. It was a very
difficult few days personally, because I started thinking about what we all
aspire to be and what's happening with all of us. There was a time when, as a
young person, if you became a Member of this House it was a pretty prestigious
role. It is a prestigious role.
My
colleague, when he did his maiden speech the other day, he said: I'm not an
important person but I do a very important job. I think that's true for all of
us. I think we all set out with that in mind. I do hope all the – regardless of
whatever else happens in the outcome of what has gone on in the last few weeks,
I hope we come out of this better, stronger and united.
We all
come here to do this for the right reason. We all come here to do this for our
constituents. The love of politics – me personally, I've always loved politics.
I've always loved helping people. It was a huge honour to be elected in my
district and it's something I'm very proud of. In this last week it's something
I'm probably not as proud of as I should be proud of.
We bring
these private Member's motions in, we debate, we have our back and forth, but at
the end of the day I do hope we come out on the other side of this stronger
individually and as a group, and bring more honour back to this House, Mr.
Speaker.
For the
folks tuning in and wondering what's happening in their House of Assembly, we
are simply saying today time's up, let's identify solutions to get the
fundamental problems fixed. The resolution we brought forward has three
provisions:
First:
“BE IT REOLVED that this Honourable House support the introduction of
legislature-specific harassment policy, similar in principle to the policy in
effect in the Nova Scotia provincial legislature, where elected representatives
and their staff are held responsible for inappropriate conduct ….” In other
words, let's look to the Nova Scotia model and develop a harassment policy for
our House.
Second:
“BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that this Honourable House, through the introduction of
the legislature-specific harassment policy, recognize all forms of harassment
including bullying, cyber-bullying and intimidation of all forms ….” In other
words, let's make the definition of harassment broad enough to capture a wide
range of bad behaviour.
Third:
“AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Honourable House develop this
legislature-specific harassment policy through the Privileges and Elections
Committee of this House in consultation with Members and employees of the House
and with independent groups who have experience and expertise in handling
harassment complaints.” In other words, let's do it through consultation, all
parties, all Members working together, with the advice of people with the
experience and expertise. Let's get this right, Mr. Speaker.
The
Privileges and Elections Committee is already a functioning committee of this
House, with Members identified and supports it needs to do this work. A lot of
things have been said in the past few days about the things that have happened
in the past, the recent past, the not-so-recent past. We need a proper mechanism
to look at those things.
We also
need the proper mechanisms, policies and procedures to guide us as we move
forward. Three months ago, our new leader Ches Crosbie called for the
implementation of a workplace harassment policy for the House of Assembly. We
needed it then and we need it now.
Here is
what he said: “It's important that we hold our politicians, and their staff,
responsible for inappropriate conduct. That is why I am proposing the
introduction of a new, robust, workplace harassment policy for the House of
Assembly.
“We need
to create an environment where the victims of harassment are supported, and that
means implementing a meaningful policy, with formalized processes, to provide
that support.
“There
are growing concerns across the country about the failure of harassment
policies, within the political sphere, to protect those who suffer harassment
and hold accountable those whose conduct is found to inappropriate. It's time to
change that.”
The
proposal we are bringing forward today reflects the proposal that Ches Crosbie
brought forward in February. It directs a multi-party committee of this House to
develop a new policy in consultation with Members, staff and experts in dealing
with harassment and preventing it. The outside lens is critical. This is about
restoring confidence in the way this House operates.
A decade
ago Mr. Justice Green addressed this crisis of confidence caused by the
mismanagement of finances in the House. The latest crisis of confidence focuses
on harassment. It calls for a dedicated process to improve on the system we
have. There's been a real sense of uncertainly in recent days about the steps
that need to be taken to address the complaints of harassment. People aren't
sure where the process will lead. It feels ad hoc. That's not good enough. It's
not fair to the complainants or the accused, or members and staff who work in
this workplace, or those who are charged with conducting the investigation and
bringing forward the recommendations. Nova Scotia is miles ahead of us on this.
They
have developed a solid policy with clearly defined mechanisms to address
harassment and avoid harassment. It's a model we may be able to implement here.
It's worth examining, with the collaboration of members and staff and experts.
The Nova
Scotia policy can we viewed online on the website of the Nova Scotia
legislature. It is lengthily and appears to cover all bases, taking out the
guesswork. The Nova Scotia House of Assembly approved the policy on May 19,
2016, two years ago, so they have had some time to test it. It's called the Nova
Scotia House of Assembly Policy on the Prevention and Resolution of Harassment
in the Workplace. Let's look at some of the provisions.
Section
2 is titled Context and it reads like this: “Everyone has a right to be
treated with respect and has a responsibility to treat others the same way. It
is in the best interests of everyone to foster a workplace that supports respect
and dignity and prevents harassment by promoting awareness of and early informal
resolution of harassment complaints.
“To prevent harassment all communications and interactions
should be professional and respectful. Showing courtesy and politeness can go a
long way to preventing misunderstandings that could be perceived as harassment.
“Behaviour considered harmless by one person may be
considered offensive by another. Individuals should be sensitive to how others
react to their remarks and behaviour. Body language is important: non-verbal
behaviour, such as facial expressions, posture, tone of voice or silence, may
indicate that another person is not comfortable with the behaviour.”
Section 3 defines Workplace as follows: “The workplace is
any place where the business of the House of Assembly is being carried out
including, but not limited to; all offices, premises and locations that are used
by persons identified at Section 4 of this Policy as their workplace; all
premises where the business of the House of Assembly is being conducted; and all
locations and situations, including business travel, conferences and
work-related social gatherings, where House of Assembly-related activities are
carried out.”
Section
4 is called Application and here's part of what it says: “This Policy
applies to every elected Member of the House of Assembly (MLA); every staff
person, be he or she permanent, contract, casual, intern, page or other, whose
salary or remuneration is paid from the Legislative Services budget of the House
of Assembly; any contract staff person whose salary is paid
from budgets other than the Legislative Services budget of the House of Assembly
and who works at the workplace defined under Section 3 including security staff;
and volunteers who work with MLAs.” – in Nova Scotia, of course.
Listen
to the definition of harassment in section 5, Mr. Speaker. “Harassment means any
behaviour, act, conduct or comment, whether sexual in nature or not, whether
occurring on a one-time or recurring basis, by a person to whom this Policy
applies, directed at and offensive to another person to whom this Policy
applies, and that the person knew or ought reasonably to have known would be
unwelcome and cause offence or harm; would demean, belittle, intimidate,
threaten, distress, humiliate or embarrass; would affect a person's reputation;
would endanger a person's job, undermine job performance, threaten economic
livelihood or interfere with one's career.”
A lot of
those comments sound familiar to some of the comments we've heard in the last
week, Mr. Speaker. As you go on, it strikes you that way, there's no doubt.
“Would
be discrimination on account of one or more factors listed in the
Human Rights Act; would be bullying as
defined under the Education Act; or
would be cyberbullying as defined under the
Cyber-safety Act or under another
Act.”
Consider
the purpose in Section 6, it shows just how extensive this policy is. “The
purpose of this Policy is to encourage open communication to ensure that the
workplace is free of harassment and that persons in the workplace are respectful
of each other; prevent harassment between persons to whom this Policy applies;
encourage early identification and reporting of harassment complaints; promote
and encourage both informal and formal reporting of instances of harassment;
initiate early and informal resolution of harassment situations, whenever
possible; establish a resolution process that is complainant-driven, that is one
where it is the complainant's choice as to whether the complaint brought forward
is informal or formal and it is also the complainant's discretion to bring an
end to the complaint process at any given time in the process;” – that's a
pretty important clause, too – “ensure that any allegation of harassment is
taken seriously and provide procedures for the speedy and effective resolution
of allegations; make everyone aware of each person's responsibilities; ensure
confidentiality throughout the complaint resolution process, unless otherwise
provided for in this Policy; and provide, in situations where harassment is
found to have occurred, remedial, corrective or disciplinary measures, up to and
including termination of employment in the case of staff or in the case of an
elected Member, a referral and motion by the Internal Affairs Committee to the
House of Assembly.”
Section
7 guarantees confidentiality. It also requires that “Within 5 business days of
receiving the Policy, each person must individually sign and return to the
person providing them with a copy of this Policy, a form acknowledging receipt
of the Policy and confirming they have read the Policy.”
It
further states: “The Chief Clerk or the Chief Clerk's delegate shall develop and
offer appropriate orientation and ongoing training sessions to all persons to
whom this Policy applies, to assist them in understanding the respective duties
and responsibilities and, in particular, in applying and complying with this
policy.”
I'm just
skimming. The actual provisions are actually even more detailed than this, Mr.
Speaker.
Section
7.7 states: “Informal resolution should be attempted prior to the submission of
a formal complaint except where the complainant refuses to participate or has
been advised, by the person designated in the Policy to receive the
complainant's complaint, not to participate in the informal process.”
Section
7.9 states: “The parties to a complaint made under this Policy have the right to
be informed, to be heard and to obtain an impartial decision.”
Section
7.10 states: “A complainant and a respondent can each be accompanied by a
support person at all steps of the informal or formal complaint process. For the
purpose of this Policy a support person is a personal friend or confidant.”
Section
7.11 requires timelines. “All complaints should be dealt with in keeping with
the time lines under this Policy and any remedial, corrective or disciplinary
action should be implemented expeditiously and consistently.”
Section
9 defines the person and “The Complainant makes the complaint to” – and it
varies according to the person the complaint is about. It also provides a
mechanism for circumstances: “When a complainant lacks confidence that the
person designated to receive the complaint will process the complaint fairly or
give it the attention it deserves.”
Section
10 describes in detail the actions that the person receiving the complaint must
take; the actions for all other persons or bodies that are involved in the
process, the guesswork is eliminated and the details go on for pages.
Section
11 defines procedures step by step, Mr. Speaker. Informal Resolution, step 1;
Filing a Formal Complaint, step 2; Acknowledging and Filing of a Formal
Complaint, step 3; step 4 – Review of a Formal Complaint; step 5 Investigation;
step 6, Decision; and step 7 is the Appeal, if needed. It defines what happens
next in the House of Assembly. The report, the sanction motion and so forth.
There
are general provisions that cover such matters as costs and reviews of the
process itself, the storage of information and so forth. It ends with an easy to
follow flow chart. It appears to be a good policy, superior to what we have
right now and certainly something we need. Until we can find a process like this
and work out the checks and balances, Members may be reluctant to move forward
not knowing what to expect.
Let's
set the Privileges and Elections Committee to work on this immediately and
develop a process that will work for us. Let's deal with harassment systemically
and create a welcoming environment so people we need working for people in this
House are not scared away.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's my
privilege to stand on Wednesday on this private Member's resolution. I want to
thank the Member opposite for bringing this to the floor of the House of
Assembly.
Mr.
Speaker, the decision will be about how we deal with harassment, how we deal
with conduct of MHAs in this House of Assembly. There's been a suggestion that
we refer to other jurisdictions and take this work to a committee of the
Privileges and Elections Committee, a committee that has been around this House
of Assembly, around this Legislature for quite some time. The thing is, what
we're trying to get to here is to improve the decorum, to improve the conduct,
raise the integrity of this House of Assembly.
Mr.
Speaker, over the last few days there is no question that people around the
province are watching. People are talking and people are listening. There are a
lot of questions that have been raised. People are talking about accountability.
People are talking about integrity. People are talking about conduct of Members,
what happens on the floor of the House of Assembly and people expect better.
People expect a higher standard of accountability. People are asking, what does
accountability mean? People have a right to ask those questions.
I would
say, Mr. Speaker, when you look around, to all of us as Members, there is time
for some self-assessment, there is time for self-reflection. Self-assessment and
reflection at our own actions is part of the accountability process but it's
also part of how we improve the conduct of Members and how we improve the
decorum and what happens on this floor.
Mr.
Speaker, we can talk a lot and say some fancy words, and words do matter, but
it's the actions of the individuals that can lead to poor conduct, as words can
as well. I would suggest and challenge from time to time that's appropriate for
every single Member of this House of Assembly, do that self-assessment of each
of us, our own self-assessment.
It is
okay sometimes to look in the mirror and ask ourselves: Does our own actions
represent truly the integrity, the expectations of people across our province,
people who are watching and people who are listening to us as leaders in this
House of Assembly? We should never lose sight of the privilege that we have to
sit in these 40 chairs in this House of Assembly. It's a privilege that's been
given to us by people in this province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, we know that the
world we live in is far from perfect. We also know the individuals that live in
our world are all far from perfect, but, as Members of the House of Assembly,
one of the things we do is we interact with people on a daily basis. It's our
constituents. It could be through our phone calls. It could be through text
messaging. It could be through email. It's those interactions that matter, Mr.
Speaker.
When you
look at the conduct and the integrity of people in this House of Assembly, it's
important for us to continue to co-operate to bring improvements because things
evolve. What might have seemed okay 10 years ago is not okay. It was not okay 10
years ago but people now are more empowered to speak up and speak out. We have
evolved to a better place but we have a lot of work to do.
When I
talk about the interaction with our constituents, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't end
there. We have interactions with our own staff. We have district offices where
we have CAs that are working. Our constituency assistants are working those
offices on a daily basis representing us. We interact with them, making sure we
take care of the needs and provide the services to help them to get to those
services. As MHAs it is critically important how we engage with our own CAs.
It's important we do that to maintain integrity with our constituents, but with
our own staff as well.
People
have reached out to me in recent days as they've watched this unfold in this
House of Assembly. I can tell you there are still people out there living in
fear and are not comfortable in coming forward. Mr. Speaker, that has to change.
How we interact with our own staff is critically important. We have executive
assistants for those that would – in leadership roles. It's critically important
we maintain that integrity, that balance between work and life. Mr. Speaker,
people are watching.
I ask
every single Member in this House of Assembly, does your actions truly represent
the words? It's important to self-assess. It's important to reflect on our own
actions. People must be free to work without fear of consequence. Ask yourself.
I encourage every single Member to look in the mirror, ask yourself.
This
issue is far too big to be political, Mr. Speaker. This is not a political
debate. Every single Member of this House of Assembly, every single Member, it
is time to self-assess. It is time to reflect on where we are. People are indeed
watching.
It's
only those that sit in those chairs that are free to – you can't be judgmental,
Mr. Speaker, but we can improve the work environment that we live in. It is time
to be accountable. It is time to assess our own actions. We must change. We must
change the environment we live in.
I ask
you to put yourself in the shoes of others. Put yourself in the shoes of those
we interact with on a daily basis. Switch chairs with your CA for a day. What is
it like to be an EA? What's it like to be a staff member? What is it like to be
a constituent? How are you interacting with all those people?
We are
in a position of influence. It's the 40 Members of this House of Assembly who
can change the way we interact with those that work with us in the future. It's
an important step that we must take, but that first step starts with us in this
House of Assembly.
Do we
measure up to the benchmark that we are setting for others? We must, we must. We
cannot tolerate bullying or harassment in any form. We cannot brush things under
the rug.
I was
just asked: Why is this different than former and other administrations? Other
administrations were afraid to talk about it. They would not allow it to happen
publicly. It would not happen before. People have spoken up. I've encouraged
people to come forward and start a review process where we can create effective
change. That is what I want to do. That is what we all want to do.
Mr.
Speaker, this administration, under my leadership, we will deal with the issues,
but we must also consider as we deal with the issues the frame of reference.
What is the frame of reference? What might be timid to one – what might not seem
like a big issue for one individual can be tempered to someone else. It can be
very different. Depending on your frame of reference, depending on the
perspective that you come from, it can be very different. What someone might
think is tolerable, is intolerable for someone else. Look at the frame of
reference that we engage to people we represent.
Mr.
Speaker, in the last few days many people have reached out, many people that
would have worked and interacted with people from many years ago. So people are
watching what we're doing. They are expecting us in this House of Assembly to
bring improvements to making sure that this workplace is a safer workplace.
It is
also important that we – it is to the point where we can encourage others. We
can encourage more women to enter politics. I said publicly quite a bit in the
last few days, that based on the proceedings we've seen here in the last few
days, most people are telling me this is not the environment they would want to
put their self forward to, to seek election, to take one of those seats that we
see here in this House of Assembly.
Mr.
Speaker, think of a world where people do not step up into this Legislature,
where people do not see it fit to put their names on a ballot and seek election.
Think of that, Mr. Speaker. We have to improve. It's okay to self-access, it's
okay to reflect.
There
are people for years that would not bring their issues forward. There are people
today that are dealing with physical strains, actually physically strained by
the work, by the interactions. The mental impact on people's lives based on
their experience has to change.
I can
assure you, from my perspective, this is not about politics. This is truly,
genuinely wanting to make a difference for those that will come behind us, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, we have a number of options available to us. The Members opposite
have put forward a private Member's resolution, which is important. While I'm
not going to get stuck on what the specifics would be, what I want to get to is
a solution. What I really, genuinely want to get to is improving this system.
We will
be supporting the Privileges and Elections Committee. The process we enter into
should include engagement from all Members of this House of Assembly which will
ultimately land up at some point, in all likelihood, within the Management
Commission involvement as well.
Mr.
Speaker, the important thing is that we put in place the policies that will
allow Members of this House of Assembly to work in a harassment-free
environment, to make sure they can go to work and other staff can go to work
feeling safe. We want people to return home to their families on a daily basis
knowing their work is important, knowing they've made a contribution to the
people of our province, and we can do that.
We can
do that in collaboration and working in co-operation on a non-political issue
because let's not forget, this is not the first time in the history of any
jurisdiction that this has happened. This has been around for far too long. It's
the Members who exist right here on this floor of all political parties that can
make a difference. Yes, sometimes it takes courage to self-assess. Sometimes it
takes courage to look in the mirror and ask yourself but we must do that from
time to time, Mr. Speaker, if we want to make sure the Legislature is indeed a
safer place to live.
Mr.
Speaker, it is about making change. So I see this as an opportunity for all of
us to be able to start that change. I look forward to getting this in Committee.
I look forward to having a great debate, like suggestions and work that will be
done within the Committee and eventually getting new policies in place that will
reflect the workplace, reflect the code of conduct.
We have
a Green report that was established in 2007. The code of conduct we currently
work under was in 2008. The harassment-free policies we will be bringing in for
our public sector workers will be in June of this year.
Mr.
Speaker, we are on the right road, but it will take co-operation and
collaboration, and probably some courage from people in this room to get the job
done. I am more than willing to start that process. I want to start this process
on behalf of all the Members of this House of Assembly, recognizing that we sit
in our seats, the privilege given to us by those that have elected us.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Here we
are Wednesday, and it sure feels already like a week. It's been a very
interesting time in our House of Assembly. It's been packed and it's also been
extremely, extremely, extremely difficult for some of the Members of our House
of Assembly, for some of their families. I say has been, but it continues to be,
I am sure. It's been a confusing time as well, and that really points to what
happens when we don't have proper procedures and processes in place; or, even if
we do, people aren't completely aware of what those might be, how difficult it
can be.
I
commend my colleague from
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune for presenting this private
Member's motion, and I'm sure all of us will support this. There's no reason not
to, Mr. Speaker. There is every reason to support this. We all know this is the
right thing to do. We all know this is the right way to go. So often, as said in
this House, our rights are never given to us, they are hard-earned. They are
hard won and oftentimes those who are activists are the ones who do the work
often at great personal sacrifice.
I would like to commend those in this House and my
colleagues who have stepped forward. It has taken courage. It is my hope that
whatever personal sacrifice has been spent to do this that they are paid back in
multiples by being able to feel they have, in fact, effected some change.
It's unfortunate that it often costs great personal
sacrifice and courage but our rights are never given to us, they are often hard
won. To have political change,
whether it be in our civil society, whether it be in the Chambers of our
House of Assembly, whether it be in our workplaces, there's often resistance and
it takes us a long time to do it.
I'd also
like to commend those in the women's movement who have done this kind of work
for years. I would particularly like to commend those in the labour movement who
have been great leaders in making safe and harassment-free workplaces a priority
for workers all over the world.
I'd also
really like to commend the labour movement here in Newfoundland and Labrador for
the great work they have done in developing policies and procedures, in doing
research, in doing the really hard work that has created a foundation and a
basis from which we can go forward as a Legislature in looking at the issues of
harassment and intimidation on any level. We benefit by the great work they have
done. The work they have done with passion and compassion, with expertise, and
the women's movement as well who have done so much of that work.
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, all this work and pressure from a number of areas will
bring us to the point of having the best anti-harassment and anti-intimidation
policy on the plant – I would like to say on the planet – because we have so
much to draw from. We have people who are passionate about it here in our House,
and I know we are ready to do this.
I just
finished reading a new article by Drew Browne, who is a political commentator
and writer. Drew was doing his Ph.D. in political science. He put that on hold
for a while. He's doing political writing and political analysis, writing for,
among other publications, VICE
magazine. He wrote a new column today about what's happening here in our
province. I encourage people to read it.
Drew is
sometimes hard-hitting. He's very smart. He can be pretty cheeky. Sometimes
that's what we need in terms of looking at what's happening in our province from
different perspectives. He presents to us a very interesting prism, and a prism
refracts light so you can see things in different ways. One of the lines from
that article, he said: “Our political system is built out of personality
conflict, not policy dispute.”
Really,
that's what we all want to be doing. We all want to be doing the work of policy.
We all want to be doing the work of policy debate, of policy dispute, not
personality conflict. That's not where we want to be. We want to be able to move
beyond that.
We've
heard a lot about this, this past week and a half, which it feels like months.
It feels like we've been at this for months. The reality of it is that we've
been at this for years. We really, really have been at this for years. Now we've
come to a time, a critical moment, where it's time to really act and to do
things.
Our
Premier has asked the Commissioner for Legislative Standards to examine the
current harassment allegations to see if there have been any violations of our
Members' Code of Conduct. That's a process we have right now. There is still
some confusion about that. There's still some confusion of exactly how the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards will approach this. Will he bring in an
outside expert, an expert who has – because it is an area of expertise, the
issue of harassment and allegations. Often there is a gender issue as well
that's at play.
When we
look at our Houses of Assembly, our legislatures, whether they be across the
country or also across the globe, there is a gender imbalance in most
legislatures. Sometimes then the issue of gender and power imbalance really
comes to play. That takes a certain level of expertise to be able to address all
that.
The
Commissioner will provide an opinion back to the Premier, as per section 36 of
the House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act and it is the appropriate interim measure,
perhaps, but we need a stronger and more directed and complainant-driven process
for dealing with harassment of one MHA by another.
We're
not talking about what happens here in the House because that's also the purview
of the Speaker to keep decorum and to ensure that what happens in the House is
not personality conflict but really is policy dispute. We need to protect the
areas where we have real vigorous debate on policy.
I would
like to commend Speaker Perry Trimper for the work that he has done to ensure
that we have a better decorum here in this House. Not because it's just nice to
have it but because it facilitates our work and that's the important thing, that
we're able to do the work that we need to do, get on with the business at hand
so we can work on behalf of the people who've elected us. There is a lot of work
to do, we all know that.
There
are a number of policies that are already in place in a number of jurisdictions
in the country and I would like to just point out a few of them. I have them
here at my desk and I'm sure that many of my colleagues have already perused
them. Some folks have talked about Nova Scotia. Here I have an anti-harassment
policy from Saskatchewan. That's a pretty new one and then there's one from
Alberta.
We also
know that Ontario was presenting one, the Government of Ontario, but that was a
culmination of the efforts of all parties in their House, who came together to
develop one, to propose one. That was before their House but then the
inconvenient issue of the provincial election interrupted the process. So that
has not yet been debated before their House. That's put on hold until after
their election. It will be interesting to see, in fact, what they propose.
I'd just
like to point out some of the issues that Nova Scotia is looking at. Theirs came
into effect in 2016 and it's a House of Assembly Policy on the Prevention and
Resolution of Harassment in the Workplace. It applies to all offices, premises
and locations where House business is carried out, including travel and
work-related social settings.
That's
interesting, Mr. Speaker, because a lot of us sometimes are attending
conferences at the same time or we may be visiting in each other's districts. So
it's important to be able to take it outside of the jurisdiction of the House in
terms of physical plan of the House.
It
applies to MLAs, to staff employed by the House of Assembly including political
staff – here's another interesting thing – and to volunteers of MLAs. That's
something that we need to take a look at as well, that this also applies to
volunteers. We're looking at everyone that an MHA – well, theirs are Members of
their Legislative Assembly. They're looking at everyone that they have work to
do with whether it's paid work or whether it's volunteers.
They
clearly identify what harassment means and the policy, as I had mentioned,
doesn't apply to debate in proceedings in the House of Assembly or Committees.
Again, we rely on our Speaker to handle those issues and our Committee Chairs as
well to handle those issues, that's so we're free to do the work that we come
together to do on behalf of the people of the province.
The aims
and principles – this is Nova Scotia again – is asserting the right to be
treated with respect, encouraging early identification and reporting,
establishing a complainant-driven resolution process, ensuring confidentiality
and providing sanctions. There are sanctions associated with this as well.
There is
a detailed list of who each person should report to depending on who the
respondent is. If the respondent is a Member then they go to the Whip, or the
House Leader if the complaint is about the Whip. So there's someone to complain
to. For most other respondents, the complainant goes to the Clerk or to the
Speaker.
The
ideal situation is they like to see things resolved through an informal
resolution effort. If that doesn't work out, a formal complaint is made to the
Office of the Ombudsman who will do an investigation and make a report. If there
are grounds for a complaint against a Member, the person who originally received
it will recommend remedial, corrective or other measures, or refer it to the
Internal Affairs Committee.
Now, I
read this one from Saskatchewan and it just highlights how difficult, how
personally difficult, it is to make a complaint. It is so tough. It is
incredibly tough. The Assembly of Saskatchewan adopted their anti-harassment
policy in 2017 and the Board of Internal Economy later adopted a directive
specifying that the policy will apply to harassment between Members. So they're
looking specifically at between Members, and it does not apply to anything said
by a Member before the Legislative Assembly or any of its Committees. Again,
that's the purview of the Speaker and the Committee Chairs.
The
principle states that: Every Member shall commit to contributing to an
environment free of personal or sexual harassment, a Member shall not harass
another Member and an environment free of harassment allows all Members to excel
in their public duties.
That's
what we want. We want to be able to just be free to do the work that we have to
do.
I'm
running out of time here, Mr. Speaker. There's a whole list of who reports to
who and then the complainant's report against the Member, the complaint is given
to the Member and it's tough; it's really, really tough. I keep thinking: Gee,
I'm not so sure I'd want to go through this process. That's why it's so
important that we have very clear procedures on how to proceed with a complaint
so it's clear to the complainant, it's clear to the accused and they know
exactly what they can expect and they have a say in the resolution of this
conflict.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues who came forward this week in a
very, very difficult situation. I believe we are going to be able to resolve
this. I believe it's a challenge but it's not insurmountable. I look forward to
developing solutions to this challenge that's facing us.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
pleased to stand for the next 15 minutes and also put some of my views, I guess,
and experiences into the record of the House of Assembly on this really
important debate that we're having here this afternoon.
The
Member who just spoke before me said it's been a long week and people are tired.
I would have to agree with her. It has been a long week. Myself, and we don't
want to apply a gender thing always, but maybe as a female more so. I've had my
family reaching out that live across the country in different places: Are you
okay?
The
Premier was right when he spoke and said people are watching. It is one thing to
say we're going to do something but it is another thing for us to live by those
actions. We've all heard the saying many times that action speak louder than
words. It's not what we say. Sometimes, oftentimes, what we're doing is so loud
that people can't hear what we say. That's why it's important for us to lead by
example.
Just for
the purpose of those who might be watching, what we're debating here this
afternoon is a private Member's motion asking the House to support the
introduction of a Legislature-specific harassment policy. Mr. Speaker, I don't
think there's anyone on my side of the House or on the other side that wouldn't
support this, anything that makes a workplace a more respectful environment to
work in.
Mr.
Speaker, I was thinking as I was sitting here listening to the speakers, my mind
went back to a couple of falls ago, maybe, when the Premier was with me up in my
district for an event. It was a very snowy, late fall day. I think that
conversation was because of some things that were playing out in social media.
Nobody's talking about when you put your name forward in public life and the
beating you can often get in social media, because there are keyboard warriors
and they're not held accountable for the things they say.
Those
are very difficult things that impact lives as well. I remember that day, saying
to the Premier: Before I put my name forward into public life, I felt I was a
respected member of my community, a mother, a daughter and a wife. I remember
him – I don't know if he remembers, maybe, because he don't forget much –
tapping his hand on the steering wheel and saying: We have to be – some of my
colleagues will know, I've said this to them – able to live in a way that the
public can hold us to a higher standard. I remember the Premier saying that: We
have to live in a way that the public will hold us to a higher standard. It's a
very important discussion we're having here today, Mr. Speaker.
My time
is going to go so fast and I'm not going to get out everything I want to say
which is the same story, different time on my feet, but I'm going to talk for a
couple of minutes about the government that I'm a part of and some of the
initiatives that we have undertaken to date, striving to create a work
environment for all employees where they are safe and free from harassment, Mr.
Speaker.
All of
us, Mr. Speaker, I believe will stand up here and say harassment in the
workplace cannot and will not be tolerated.
Mr.
Speaker, my colleague, the minister for the Status of Women, made reference
several times to our parents and our grandparents and those who blazed the trail
and came before us, that we have a responsibility now to do right by them.
Mr.
Speaker, I think we all, most of us, are proud of where we come from. I'm
certainly proud that I come from – we joke and say: I come from good stock. We
want to make them proud. My grandmother used to say: Live a good life because
your name will go further than you ever would.
I think
it's all relevant here today, Mr. Speaker. Those little things we were taught by
our parents and grandparents, just because we're into the Legislature, we don't
become oblivious to those things. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have lively and spirited
debate in this House and that's important.
I want
to mention for a moment being in Cabinet, which I've experienced since July 31.
When you're in Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, that can be a difficult job. You have your
constituency to represent still as an MHA. You have your ministerial portfolio.
You have a tremendous responsibility at that table, Mr. Speaker, to make
decisions that will impact the entire province. Sometimes you might have a
little to and fro, but, Mr. Speaker, it always must be done in a respectful
manner. The same thing at the caucus table. I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, with
those tables that I've sat at and my experiences to date.
Mr.
Speaker, what are we doing? What are we doing today, as the sitting government,
to prevent and end harassment and violence against women? In February of this
year, our government announced a newly strengthened and modernized
Harassment-Free Workplace Policy for departmental government employees. Mr.
Speaker, that will come into effect, as my colleague mentioned, earlier on the
1st of July.
The
policy, Mr. Speaker, incorporates all 15 recommendations from a report done by
Rubin Thomlinson; all 15 recommendations. Key elements of the policy are “a
full-time Harassment-Free Workplace Manager solely dedicated to managing all
aspects of the policy and its procedures, including the coordination of
harassment investigations. This manager will receive all complaints and will
function as an independent facilitator of the resolution process; and the
manager will also act as a resource for individuals who have questions or
concerns.”
Mr.
Speaker, there will be an employee awareness program and mandatory training
focused on prevention for all employees under the policy, mandatory training.
Mr.
Speaker, my colleague, the Member for
Fogo Island - Cape Freels, shared some
information recently about a book. I'm going to go buy the book, the truth about
your canary or my canary, Trust your
Canary. He better write it down, I'll get the wrong book.
Mr. Speaker, that book talked about, as I understand
it, looking at yourself and then reflecting on how others might see you.
Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, how we see ourselves and how others might see us are not
always the same.
The Premier just talked about the discussion that we're
having in the House today causes us all to reflect because if there are people
in the workplace that do not feel comfortable, it is absolutely essential that
they feel comfortable in coming forward, that they know there's a process in
place and that they know it will be dealt with.
By the same token, Mr. Speaker, and this is my views
I'm speaking to now, I also don't think people should feel pressure to come
forward. That is an individual choice.
The Harassment-Free Workplace Policy, Mr. Speaker, I
have pages and pages of what is covered under that and I'm afraid I'm not going
to get to some of my other things, so I'm moving along from that. If anybody
wants more information, I'd be happy to have that discussion after.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd also like to highlight a few things my colleague, the Minister of
Justice, has brought forward that I consider to be very progressive.
Expanding the definition of family violence to include psychological and
emotional harm under the Family Violence
Protection Act; funding a new sexual assault response pilot program to
provide free, independent legal advice on criminal matters to help victims make
informed decisions about the court process; and, most recently, we'll all
remember, commitment to introducing new legislation to help battle against
what's being dubbed revenge porn in an effort to deter the non-consensual
sharing of or threat of sharing private images.
Mr.
Speaker, there are many positive things, I believe, to date. Can we do more? Can
we make improvement? Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have heard me say many times,
the biggest room in any house is the room for improvement. Absolutely, we can
make improvement.
We have
established a ministerial committee on violence against women and a Minister of
Justice committee with stakeholders on violence against women.
Mr.
Speaker, I was really pleased that budget '18 saw increased funding for eight
women centres through the province, a Multicultural Women's Organization of NL
and provided operational funding to the Safe Harbour Outreach project.
Mr.
Speaker, just last week, myself and the Premier announced multi-year funding for
phase one for 22 communities, and the eight women's centres were also on that
list. We just increased funding for the NL Sexual Assault Crisis and Prevention
Centre. All very important initiatives as we move forward.
I'm
pleased to be sitting with a team today, a Liberal government that brought in
the first violence prevention initiative that saw fit – those are the people I
sit with today. This is something that impacts all of us.
I
remember, and I only thought about this today, one of my other colleagues said
this debate is making us all recall different things. I remember when I came in
here as an MHA in Opposition back in 2013, there was a Member sitting in the
government who took to social media again and again and again and again. Really,
it was like a defamation of my character.
It was
one thing to have the debate in the House, but I remember my husband and my
daughter was in town at the time, I remember waking up on a Saturday morning in
a hotel and seeing all of this Twitter stuff from an MHA in government that now
works upstairs, but he did apologize. I'm going to get to that.
I
reached out to him. I said you're affecting me, you're affecting my husband,
your affecting my daughter. We did not sign up for this. I just want to
represent my district.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
He said, what do you want me
to do? Mr. Speaker, I have to give him credit. I don't think he knew how
damaging he was. I was feeling really, really down. It impacted – do I want to
be in this environment.
Nobody
wrote my notes for me today, Mr. Speaker. No one gave me a script. I'm just
telling it kind of as it's coming to me.
I said,
would you apologize publicly? He did it twice. I thank him for that. I haven't
had any trouble since with that individual, but it's an example of how we can
think it's all a part of the legislative debate. You go too far and you don't
know how much you're impacting someone's life. So it's important, Mr. Speaker,
for us to have a process, for us to be able to speak out, for us to know that we
are supported.
Mr.
Speaker, like many people, I've been following the media this week where I
could. The one thing that caught my attention last night in the media before I
came in here to Estimates was the reporting of how commonplace, sadly,
harassment is in the workplace, whether it's government, whether it's the
private sector. It's ubiquitous, Mr. Speaker. I reflected on that last night. We
see it in our schools, which is why we have a safe and caring schools act.
Most of
us, Mr. Speaker, spend a great deal of our lives in the workplace. Many of us
spend more time with our co-workers and our colleagues than we do our families.
It's the nature of the business. When you're being here in this Legislature it
takes a lot of time away from your family.
Mr.
Speaker, these are just some of the reasons why it is imperative that we create
an environment that encourages those experiencing harassment to come forward;
that has in place effective options for informal and formal resolution; a
process – and I cannot stress this enough – that respects the privacy of those
involved; that holds harassers accountable and empowers victims to come forward.
Harassment affects workplace productivity. It affects mental health. It
increases absenteeism. Mr. Speaker, we all know examples of – I'm very concerned
in this social media age of how people feel (inaudible), how it affects their
mental health.
I see my
time is winding down. There has been a lot of reference today to the Nova Scotia
policy, Mr. Speaker, a lot of beneficial things there, but I want to remind
Members in my final minute of something that's in the Nova Scotia policy. It
says: “All persons associated with a complaint including witnesses are
responsible for limiting discussion of the complaint and the disclosure of
related information to those people who need to know.” – responsible for
limiting that discussion.
Mr.
Speaker, the issue of workplace harassment is a very serious one and an
important discussion to have, but I, myself, question the approach of the
Opposition of making political hay this past week with an issue that is a very
serious one. I feel, to a large degree, we've had a case of re-victimization
happening right here on the floor of the House of Assembly.
There's
a reason why victims' names are protected in such proceedings. I just feel the
way this was approached, it was more about scoring political points than
advancing the conversation, which is a shame, but, Mr. Speaker, this is
something very serious, we take serious. We support this PMR today.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
It's
indeed an absolute privilege to stand here today and represent my district on
this very important topic that we're talking about here today. I agree with
everything the minister said until her last 30 seconds or so, because this is
not political. This is about people.
I
applaud the people who stood forward here this week and said there is a problem.
I applaud them for coming to the House of Assembly and saying there is a
problem.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I've been one of
the longest Members here. There are a lot Members here who have a few more years
than I do, and I've seen it. Is this the first time bullying was ever here in
the House of Assembly in my 10 years? No. It has happened years and years ago,
but do you know what? Society is changing. People are not tolerating what went
on. Is that the right thing to do? Yes, it is. Is it the right thing to bring it
here to the House of Assembly if it's makes a change? Yes, it is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I'll always
remember the first time I came to the House of Assembly and how intimidated I
was to get here to the House of Assembly.
For the
first couple of years, I had everything wrote down and practiced three times the
night before I came in and said my speech. Today, I wrote a few words down and
know what I'm going to do.
I can
remember my first speech when one Member walked by and unhooked my microphone
just before I was ready to get up. My two legs were shaking, the change in my
pocket was making noise and I was intimidated by the noise that was here. It was
scary, but do you know what? I always go back to why I came here. I came here to
represent the beautiful District of Cape St. Francis and the people in the
District of Cape St. Francis. I am sure every Member here does the same thing. I
hope we're all here for the right reasons.
I grew
up in a household, Mr. Speaker, and I'm so happy I did. I'm very fortunate. I am
so fortunate that I grew up with a mother and father. They earned their respect.
They didn't ask for respect but they earned respect in their community.
My
father was a mayor. The first mayor ever of the Town of Flatrock. My mother was
a public health nurse for 32 years, and to watch what she did, no matter if it
was a person at home who had a disease, such as cancer, I saw her leave at 12
o'clock at night to go and sit with that person. The respect – and that's what
this is all about. It's about the respect of individuals.
Harassment and bullying, whether it's – in so many different forms today. It's
about lack of respect for individuals. That's what this House of Assembly – I
come in here every day and I will argue with Members on the opposite side.
I will
go to the Minister of Transportation and Works and try to get my road paved down
in Torbay. We may argue back and forth and whatever happens at the end of the
day, but I hope he respects what I do because I'm representing the people in my
district. That's what we do here as legislators.
I saw a
lady get up here a little while ago and talk about an unfortunate incident that
happened to her son. My heart went out to her. For her to get up and do what she
did in this House of Assembly that day was absolutely amazing. I applaud her for
doing it because it was amazing what she did.
There's
no place in society anymore for what we call bullying or intimidation. It
doesn't happen. Did it happen before? Did it happen three years ago? Did it
happen when I first got elected here? Yes, it did. It definitely did. I'm not
saying it's this side or that side or whatever, but politics is a dirty game
sometimes. It's a very dirty game, but do you know what? It's going to change
because society is not going to allow it to continue to happen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
I applaud the people that got
up and spoke out. Maybe I should have spoken out 10 years ago, or seven or eight
years ago when I saw it. I should have spoken out because it's not right. No
matter if it was today, yesterday or 10 years ago, we should never have
tolerated it. We live in a society today where we hope everybody has learned a
whole lot more. We hope people are standing up.
I know
there are different movements we'll see all over the world, and it's not only
women. It's young people, young men. There are different genders. We all have to
stand up, but it's important that people stand up for individuals too.
I can
only imagine how hard the last couple of weeks have been on Members of this
House of Assembly because of the media and everybody else hounding them. The
pressure on those people is unbelievable; an unbelievable amount of pressure.
Will I do it? Will I not do it? Maybe it's time for me to stand up but if I do
stand up, I'll be standing up for everybody.
Again, I
thank you for doing what you did. Thank you very much for doing it. We all
should stand up and make sure – but at the end of the day, it's all about what
people in society see, especially outside.
There
was an interesting conversation last night. I went to a place and they said:
What's on the go in there? What's on the go in the House of Assembly? I tried to
explain it to them what was on the go in the House of Assembly and they didn't
take it. I tried to say: Do you know something? We have an obligation to people
in society, to lead by example. I think this is the place where examples should
be led.
They
said: Well, fellows roaring at each other. I said: No, that's not how it works.
I said: It's been a part of politics for years that people threaten, they tell
you you're not going to get something if you don't toe the line on this or you
don't do this, you don't do that. The person looked at me and said: In this day
and age? I said: Yes, in this day and age that happens, because that's what this
is all about. This is all about people who feel – it's about the victims.
I'm a
big guy, I'm a big man. I can handle a lot of stuff, but I'm a very soft fellow
too now when it comes to anything. I can cry with the best of them, but it's a
sad part of society when people pick on the weak and people they think they can
intimate. Because some people you can intimidate and some people you can't
intimidate. That's what this is about.
This is
about standing up for people. The mental anguish and the mental feelings people
get when they're – whether it's a project you're looking for and you're trying
to do the best for your district and you're trying to do the best for this, and
then there's this thing held over your head that if you don't go here or you
don't do this or you don't do that, you're not going to get it. That's wrong.
It's been wrong for a long, long while.
We're
here today to make up a right. We're here to change the policy and hopefully
we're going to change, not only what happens in this Legislature – I go back to
a commercial. I was coming in this morning, I'm sure you all heard the
commercial. This young lady, she said she was 40 years old and she ran into a
junior high, and he didn't realize he was her bully. She ran and gave him a hug
and realized that she was bullied. When she went to school he made that person's
life terrible, and 40 years later they come together and give each other a hug.
Do you
know what? That's what's wrong with society today. There are a lot of bullies
out there, a lot of people who intimidate people and they don't know that
they're doing it. They don't realize what affects they are having on
individuals, what affects they are having on people who have to go home, got to
do different things, the affect that has on people. We have to make people
aware. It's important that people become aware of what is happening.
I listen
to people talk about Twitter and Facebook and stuff like this. I go on Facebook,
I look and see whose birthday it is today and I wish them a happy birthday. I
don't put up anything political. I put up a few pictures of my two grandchildren
on Facebook. I don't do Twitter. I'm not into Twitter. I don't even know how to
get into Twitter. Guess what? I don't want to get into Twitter. I don't want to
be in that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
That's who I am.
So what
I'm saying is society has changed. There are ways now that people can – I heard
of something this morning, they were talking about some kind of Twitter account
that you don't know who is there, don't know anything about it, but they can say
whatever they want.
What an
awful way to intimidate people. What a way to put something out that other
people are reading about another person. It's gross. It drives me nuts. Guess
what? I'll never be on Twitter. I'm not going on Twitter. If that's the case,
stuff like that, social media, it should never be there.
We all
got to get together as individuals and understand that society is changing and
the time to speak up is now. That's why leaders should speak up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Everyone in this room should
be a leader. We're all leaders here so we should speak up.
The day
of harassment and bullying is wrong. It shouldn't happen. It shouldn't happen
anywhere. Can you imagine – I can remember going to school, I can remember in
our younger years and there'd be one or two kids in the classroom that would be
picked on. How wrong was it? I have two little grandchildren now, I don't want
them picked on.
We don't
tolerate it in here and we don't tolerate it in our offices and the in
corridors. The workplace for an MHA is not just the House of Assembly. A
workplace for an MHA – and I laugh because sometimes they'll say to me: Oh,
you're finally going to work when the House opens. I laugh at them and say: You
don't know what we do. My workplace consists of 24-7 because no matter if it's a
person that calls me at 11 o'clock in the night, I have to be respectful to that
person. Not roar them out and say: What are you doing calling me at 11 o'clock
in the night? I do get calls at 11 o'clock in the night because I think
everybody got my cellphone number.
Anyway,
I do get calls but I have to be respectful to the people that I represent and I
hope I am. I'll go to different functions in my district. I go to lots of
functions in my district. Will people accuse my party or something we stood up
for, or government in general, that I'm wrong? They'll argue with me and say: We
haven't seen you, you don't this and you don't do that. I always try to be
respectful of that person because they're entitled to their opinion. They are
all entitled to their opinion.
When I
come into this House of Assembly in the daytime, I look over across the hallway.
I look over at every Member over on the other side and I hope that I earn their
respect by being respectful to them, but in turn, I hope that they're respectful
to me.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
That's what a workplace is
all about.
Mr.
Speaker, I have so much stuff written down today that I haven't even gotten
through 1/10th of it.
I just
wanted to talk about changes and changes that we need to make. The changes we
need to make are we have to set an example to our children, to people in
society. When we see stuff – and like I said today, I applaud the people who
stood up. They stood up because they were being intimidated and they were being
bullied. This is not passing judgment on anyone. There'll be an investigation
and everything else, but I think whatever comes of this, the House of Assembly
will be a better place for everybody to work.
As we go
on, and I know I'm not going to be here forever or whatever, but I know that I
want to see this House have people here who have the same values that I do. In
order to have the same values, we have to have very respectful people here.
People are not going to want to run for office if they feel they're going to be
intimidated, harassed and everything else.
It's so
important. We play a major role, we play a big role in how people act and how
people live in our province. We are the legislators that make laws. We're the
people who will decide funding for a new school, a new road, a health care
facility. We're the people who make a lot of changes.
I'm very
proud of my 10 years, so far, as a Member of the House of Assembly, on both
sides of the aisle. I'm very proud of what I've done for my district, but we all
have to make sure that we do it for the right reasons and we all have to be
respectful.
That's
the biggest word I want to use today is to show respect for one another. I've
sat around a caucus table. I've never sat in Cabinet, but I've sat around the
caucus tables where caucus is not always in favour. Will we disagree? Yes, Sir,
we'll disagree because sometimes you will stand up for people and you'll have a
difference of opinion. If we all have the opinion, we're in the wrong place
because difference of opinion is what makes everything else go right.
Mr.
Speaker, there's no place anymore for bullying and intimidation. There's no
place anymore in the House of Assembly for it. There's no place in society for
it, whether it's on the playground at school – we have educators who are looking
at what's on the go here and maybe they're deciding to make changes at school
when they see stuff. Do you know what the biggest thing to happen here is? There
was intimidation here and people needed to stand up. It never happened until we
had the people that we should have stood up for, they had to stand up first.
That's
what the problem is today in society. We have to be more vigilant to make sure
that when we see things happening that we don't believe in and we don't think is
right, that we stand up for the weak – not the weak, that's not right, for
individuals, because you're not weak if you're getting intimidated. That's not
the right statement at all, but we need to stand up for people.
I'm
proud to be a Member of the House of Assembly. I always will be proud to be a
Member of the House of Assembly. I can tell you one thing right now, I'll
respect every person in this place but I hope everybody will return the same to
me because that's what we all deserve.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Out of
respect for the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune and her time, I'm only
going to take a couple of minutes, but I do thank everyone for leave just to say
a couple of words.
Mr.
Speaker, I will certainly be supporting this bill. I think it's a long time
coming; definitely needed. I could repeat pretty much verbatim what the Member
for Cape St. Francis seen. I've seen it all. I've been around, not as long as he
has been, but I've seen lots of activity over the years that ought not to have
happened. I'm glad to see it's going to be addressed and I encourage the
government to get on with doing just that.
I
challenge all Members, I challenge all parties, as we make a commitment as MHAs
to improve our behaviour, our decorum, how we treat each other, by extension I
think we all have a responsibility. I know we can't control other people, but we
do have influence over other people and we need to be talking to people around
us as well, whether it be our CAs, EAs, people in the offices, people in the
party, because some of these fake Twitter accounts and stuff like that that's
been going on over the years and the bullying and harassment on social media,
have emanated from those sources.
We have
a responsibility – it's no good to stand up in the House of Assembly and say
we're going to make these changes, we're committed and then through the back
door we're going to allow people associated to us, to our district associations,
to the party, to be doing the dirty work behind the scenes.
I
certainly encourage all parties and all Members that as we make this commitment,
that we make the commitment to deal with that. We all do have some control over
that as well.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune speaks now, she'll close the debate.
MS.
PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have to say thank you to each and every one of my
colleagues, as well as each of you who spoke here today. I think today can be a
historical day especially if, when we stand, we all vote unanimously in favour
of this motion. I'm very pleased to say, based on the commentary I've heard from
all speakers, that does seem to be the case. So I anxiously looking forward to
the vote. I'm very happy to hear there's going to be support from all sides.
I was scrummed earlier today, so my apologies, I was
absent from the room for a while, and I was asked if I still intend to file a
complaint if a better process is not followed. Mr. Speaker, I do want to
reiterate that the particular process as currently outlined leaves some
concerns. I stand in solidarity with the Member for Windsor Lake and believe
that we need a better process and, hence, this process that we're outlining
today I do believe is that process.
It may take more time but it's far more important that
we do this right than rush it. If we are able to go through the Management
Commission with the proper process, such as this one outlined, I certainly will
have a better comfort level with this whole process. I think everyone else would
as well because it's just removed from government and there's a level playing
field for all.
It's not only, they say, okay to be independent, you
have to be perceived to be independent, Mr. Speaker, and sometimes perception is
reality. It's just raising the bar. I think it would be a good process for all
of us. I certainly don't understand why there would be any opposition to it.
If we vote, Mr. Speaker, here in favour of this motion
today, we can get the process underway immediately and file our complaints
accordingly and have very strong confidence that the process we're following is
the proper process. That really is all we ask.
My colleague talked about the to and fro earlier in the
House of Assembly, and sometimes in here we can get all riled up, sometimes it's
good banter, but sometimes it gets too harsh, goes too far and I think if we
were all honest, we would say that it's shameful.
My first
time in the House of Assembly – I'm going to tell my own story now – I was
shocked, disgusted and terrified at the tone, even the tall tales sometimes.
Now, 10 years later, I can be just as bad or worse myself in the rhetoric of the
debate sometimes, Mr. Speaker. And if I were to be truly honest, when I got here
in 2007, I really did not like it here. I figured that I'd ruined my life. I had
quit a wonderful job working with some wonderful people to come into, what I
felt, was madness. It was nothing like I'd thought it would be and it worked
nothing like I thought it was supposed to.
In fact,
Mr. Speaker, one of the people I spoke to about it at time still sits in this
hon. House today. I recall the government offices were on the third floor then.
We were both walking up the stairway and he explained to me that what happens in
the House of Assembly is what the public wanted. A little bit of theatre to keep
it exciting because otherwise it would all be so dry and dull, that it was
merely a parliamentary tradition to keep it lively here.
That's
how it was. I accepted it for how it was, tried to learn the process and fit in
as best I could, but as the last two weeks have revealed I, myself, am one of
many in this hon. House who have had concerns about bullying and intimidation
tactics in politics. Not just alone in the last two years, although they've been
particularly challenging for me, personally, but it exists. It exists in
parliaments and it always has.
At the
time last fall, when I had a particularly unsettling incident, or a culmination,
I guess, of an unsettling incident, I got so concerned about it that I spent a
few days on the Internet trying to research – because, at that time, I seriously
contemplating lodging a complaint. I researched what was happening in other
legislatures. I couldn't find any precedence, Mr. Speaker.
On
Wikipedia, I was able to find a definition of bullying for many types of
workplaces, but there wasn't one there for parliaments so I wrote my own, Mr.
Speaker. I said to myself: I wonder what such a definition should be? How would
we, as parliamentarians, write them?
Mine
would include one: speaking to another Member in a tone intended to humiliate,
degrade or intimidate; two, exerting threats of repercussions by means of
reduced or no funding allocations, no opportunity for promotion or being
expelled from caucus. The latter would be especially problematic in instances of
large majority governments, because in majority governments that whole push and
pull of power is much stronger. In a minority government such mechanisms would
be harder; and, three, the ever looming risk of being thrown under the bus by
colleagues if you're unwilling to conform to viewpoints or disobey a whipped
vote.
That
would be the definition I would write. It's one of the things I put to paper in
my time of frustration last fall, Mr. Speaker.
I have
to say, personally – and I think many of my colleagues share this sentiment – I
feel very, very bad about what has been happening in our hon. House these past
two weeks. It has been a very hard time.
While I
had taken matters into my own hands regarding my own issues last fall and
achieved some resolution, it was my sense of duty to do the right thing when I
saw my colleagues in turmoil over the last few weeks. When asked for help, I
responded the only way I could. I have to do the right thing and I have to tell
the truth.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
But it hasn't been easy, Mr.
Speaker. I feel bad for everyone involved, on all sides of this.
I'm not
a vindictive person, which is probably why I struggle so much when I see it in
others. I have the capacity to forgive, and I believe forgiveness is the first
step in healing. Watching my colleagues tell their own stories brings a tear to
my eye, Mr. Speaker, because I feel their pain.
I have
no motivation in any of this, other than to make this a decent workplace for all
persons, regardless of gender. This is about leadership, our leadership as
parliamentarians. We need to move beyond this horrible time, put independent
mechanisms in place – and I truly believe the Nova Scotia model is a fabulous
way to start – and together we can all create a better day, not just for those
present here in the House of Assembly now, but for all future parliamentarians
to come, Mr. Speaker.
I truly
hope I can count on the support of all my colleagues to concur that we need such
a mechanism and that we move expeditiously to put such a mechanism in place to
deal with the crisis before our House of Assembly, and to ensure that we
actually do create a better day.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
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.'
This
motion is carried.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
It being Wednesday, and in
accordance with Standing Order 9, this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 2 o'clock.