December 5, 2019
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIX No. 26
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
Are the Government House
Leaders ready?
Order,
please!
Admit
strangers.
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we will hear Members'
statements from the hon. Members for the Districts of Ferryland, Humber - Bay of
Islands, Mount Pearl - Southlands, Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans and Fortune Bay
- Cape La Hune.
The hon.
the Member for Ferryland.
MR. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize and congratulate the organizers of the 10th annual Calvert
Masters Golf Tournament. The event was held August 22 and was organized by
volunteers from the community of Calvert.
It is an
event where current and past residents and friends of the community are invited
to play in support of a charity. The first five years the charity of choice was
the Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Care Foundation, and the past five years were the
Janeway Children's Hospital Foundation.
The 2019
event raised $53,500 for the Janeway. All net proceeds will assist the Janeway
Foundation to acquire the newest pediatric medical equipment, continued
education, life-saving research and vital programming for pediatric care.
The last
10 years have been a great success. Organizers have raised over $565,000. Thank
you to the community of Calvert for choosing to support children's health care
and cancer care charities in the province. The committee is confident the event
will continue for years to come as golfers compete for the coveted green jacket.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members in this House to join me in congratulating the
organizers of the Calvert Masters Golf Tournament on another successful
tournament.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have
the honour today to rise in this hon. House to recognize a lady who promised she
would do a jig for me on her birthday. So I'm looking forward to tomorrow, as
Mrs. Lillian Mae Wells of Cox's Cove will celebrate her 107th birthday.
Born in
Gillams, Bay of Islands, on December 6, 1912, Mrs. Wells was the oldest of five
children born to Edmund and Margaret Blanchard. In her younger years, she worked
in the woods with her father cutting wood and helped out with whatever needed to
be done. She worked in the herring store, operated her own convenience store and
took in boarders every winter.
In 1949,
as a young widow, she moved to Cox's Cove with her five daughters to work as a
housekeeper for Benjamin Wells, a widower with four children. In 1953, they
married and had two more children. She now has 23 grandchildren, 33
great-grandchildren, 20 great-great-grandchildren and two
great-great-great-grandchildren.
With the
help of family and home care workers, Mrs. Wells still resides in her home and
she enjoys company dropping by for a chat. I recently visited her and she was
very witty and she even got her little jab in about me.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in wishing Mrs. Lillian Wells on a very
happy 107th birthday. Thank you, Mrs. Wells.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives
me great pleasure to rise in this hon. House to recognize the accomplishments of
two individuals who have given their time and talents to the sport of soccer in
the City of Mount Pearl and have recently seen their achievements recognized by
being inducted into the Mount Pearl Soccer Hall of Fame.
Dave
Bailey's playing career epitomizes the consistent, competitive qualities
necessary to achieve a high standard of success in sport, which can be attested
to by his teammates in both minor and masters soccer over a 36-year span. During
that time, he has demonstrated tremendous skill and has won numerous team and
individual awards.
Jon
Kelly represented the Mount Pearl Soccer Association as a player for 24 years
starting in the Under 8 division and continuing through to the men's Challenge
Cup team. Like Dave, Jon, too, received numerous team and individual accolades
over the years and was a coach's dream taking on every role assigned with
passion, competitiveness and heart. Jon's playing career was cut short due to an
injury, but he continued to give back as a coach from 2005 to 2016.
I ask
all Members of this hon. House to join me on congratulating these two quality
individuals on a tremendous soccer career and on being inducted into the Mount
Pearl Soccer Hall of Fame.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to recognize Mr. Bruce Moores of Grand Falls-Windsor for his extensive
life as a volunteer. Mr. Moores has devoted 42 years of service to the Grand
Falls-Windsor Fire Department as a captain. He has spent many mornings over the
years feeding children in the breakfast programs up to three days a week.
Mr.
Moores has spent time as a councillor for Grand Falls-Windsor and as a scout
leader in Botwood in his earlier days. In the past, he has received Citizen of
the Year for Grand Falls-Windsor, as the list of volunteer work goes on and on.
Turning
77 on December 25 of this year, his birthdate is fitting as he has dawned the
red suit and white beard on many occasions, bringing smiles to children's faces
in the Santa Claus parade.
On
November 14, Bruce Moores was inducted into the Newfoundland and Labrador
Volunteer Hall of Fame.
I ask
Members to join me as we honour one of our longest serving and dedicated
volunteers, Mr. Bruce Moores.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MR. LOVELESS:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
recognize a noted citizen of Bay d'Espoir who was recently featured in an
episode of CBC's Land & Sea.
Mr.
Ralph Coombs is a long-time lumberjack of this community who resided there all
of his life. He and his wife Beatrice raised six children who have all made
their own impacts in life, but no bigger impact than what the life of their
father has taught them. To sum up the children's words: Dad is amazing.
Mr.
Coombs is a great example of how to live your life on the simplest of terms.
Having worked in the construction industry until he retired at 65, he then went
to work in the woods. Not one for sitting down, with a passion, he made the
forests of the area his personal workspace, harvesting wood by the chord, making
memories with his children up at the cabin and helping his neighbours.
At 89
years old, he treasures his time working with his chainsaw, just as he treasures
time with family. A positive outlook on life keeps him going and his life's
lesson is one for all of us.
Ralph,
keep that chainsaw going.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
rise in this hon. House today to invite the public to join us this evening for
the 33rd annual Christmas Lights Across Canada ceremony here at Confederation
Building.
Every
year, capital cities across Canada participate in this event by simultaneously
lighting beautiful displays of Christmas lights to kick off the holiday season.
Our
event begins at 6 p.m. in the main lobby of the East Block here at Confederation
Building. The Royal Newfoundland Regiment Band and the Holy Trinity Elementary
Choir will provide entertainment and we will have hot chocolate, cookies and
other refreshments.
A
seasonal blessing will also be delivered by Captain Jeff Payne.
Six-year-old Emma Clarke from Victoria is our special guest of honour this year.
She will have the privilege of lighting the 60,000 lights here on Confederation
Building and along Prince Philip Drive.
Mr.
Speaker, you may have seen Emma recently in the news story regarding a unicorn.
Family friends made her dream come true just last weekend. Emma is a bright and
brave young lady, Mr. Speaker.
We are
thrilled to have Emma, her big brother Ryan, and her mom and dad Courtney and
Glen joining us this evening.
Mr.
Speaker, I encourage everybody to join us this evening as our Christmas Lights
Across Canada ceremony kicks off the season right here in St. John's.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would
to thank the hon. minister for an advance copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, I
know all Members on this side of the House join me in marking Christmas Lights
Across Canada. Having participated in this ceremony myself a number of times
over the years, I know first-hand what a wonderful event it is.
Mr.
Speaker, it's great to see Emma Clarke of Victoria and her family – older
brother Ryan, and parents Courtney and Glen – will be joining the minister later
on this evening. Emma's inspirational story of courage has touched the hearts of
everyone throughout the province. Let her story remind us of the true meaning
and spirit of the Christmas season.
In
closing, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all hon. Members to attend this evening and
watch Emma welcome the holiday season.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.
MR. BROWN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of his statement. As a father of two girls, I
can also appreciate Emma's love of unicorns. I'm very happy Emma got to meet a
real live unicorn last weekend.
I join
all hon. Members in wishing Emma, her family and everyone in this province, a
Merry Christmas and happy holidays. We hope, Mr. Speaker, that the rest of the
province gets to enjoy a white Christmas like back home in Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Protecting our offshore environment and the safety of our offshore workers are
fundamental principles. That is why I recently hosted a meeting with
representatives from the Natural Resources Department, the C-NLOPB and Natural
Resources Canada to discuss further opportunities to strengthen the protection
of our offshore environment.
During
our meeting, we discussed compliance and enforcement, looking at global best
practice and penalties and order-making powers. I also held a separate meeting
with operators that focused on improving safety performance and environmental
protection of the province's offshore. We discussed things such as enabling
proactive measures when modernizing our regulatory framework, and improving the
collaboration and communication in our offshore.
As a
result of these meetings, just this week the C-NLOPB hosted their first annual
Spill Prevention and Response Forum here in St. John's. The forum featured over
100 participants from regulatory agencies, government departments, oil and gas
industry companies, along with fishing industry representatives. The forum was
an opportunity for participants to take a collective review of the lessons
learned from the spills that have occurred in our offshore and take the
necessary measures for prevention. I understand it was very productive, Mr.
Speaker, and a valuable session.
As we
move forward, we will continue this vital dialogue and collaborative approach to
improve, strengthen and support offshore regulation and ensure the protection of
our offshore environment and the safety of our offshore workers.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement.
I know I
speak for all Members of the Official Opposition when I say that we are in
favour of natural resource development, but only when it is done in a safe,
sustainable and environmentally responsible manner.
Mr.
Speaker, one issue in our offshore is one too many, and any amount of oil spills
is unacceptable. That is why I'm pleased to hear about the recent forum. I
encourage the minister, the C-NLOPB and our offshore operators to continue to
come together and discuss how the entire industry can become incident free.
Our
environment, and more importantly, our workers are too important to be put at
risk.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.
It is
nice to see the minister taking a collaborative approach on this issue. This is
a welcome first move in better protecting our offshore environment and offshore
workers. I look forward to seeing tangible action in this area, including the
creation of an independent offshore safety and environmental authority, which
our party has been calling for since 2009.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
Oral
Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Health is a highly educated surgeon who knows the need for governance by
professional ethics, yet yesterday I listened to him defend the indefensible by
blaming a minister's breach of ethics on the rules around lateral transfers.
How does
the minister square a high set of standards in his professional life with a
lower set of standards for ministers and the public service?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Unfortunately, the Member opposite has misread my comments in
Hansard. I'd be happy to arrange for a supply of those. He's taken
them out of context.
What I
was talking about was the importance of the transfer of experience and knowledge
between health care front-line workers and between the department and the
Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information.
I am
being misquoted, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, let me help the
minister come to grips with the issue.
They say
you are defined by the people you spend your time with.
Is the
Minister of Health content to be defined by a government which has abandoned the
principle of ministerial responsibility?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Mr. Speaker, I think 45
seconds would be way too short to delve into that particular arena, at all.
What I
can say quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, is my comments yesterday were phrased in the
context of health care and the value that we have derived as a department from
bringing in clinicians with considerable experience to share that with us, and
for people with government experience to share that governance experience with
front-line health care providers. As a result of which, the people of this
province benefit considerably. They are the winners – as they were
characterizing yesterday about winners and losers. They are the beneficiaries of
that knowledge and experience transfer.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
All of which is beside the
point, Mr. Speaker, of how he can coexist in a Cabinet with ministers who have
committed gross mismanagement.
The
Minister of Justice and Public Safety is himself a highly educated lawyer who
governs himself by a professional code of conduct.
How does
the minister square this with serving in a Cabinet with a minister who has
committed gross mismanagement of public funds in violation of the Members' Code
of Conduct?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I was
waiting for the Leader of the Official Opposition to have a crack at me.
One
thing I will say is I will certainly not take any lectures on ethics from the
Member opposite. That's the first thing I'm going to say to this House here.
All I
can say is that I'm very happy to serve as the Minister of Justice and Public
Safety. I have taken an oath to this government and I have taken an oath to the
people of this province. I'll continue to do so and serve at the discretion of
the Premier.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, the Premier is
the only witness saying he did not give the order to hire Carla Foote.
Would
the Premier clear the air by requesting that the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards give an opinion on the matter?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier did not direct me in this matter.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There's
documented wrongdoing of a minister in the Premier's Cabinet; yet, he fails to
do the right thing and remove this minister from his Cabinet.
I ask
the Premier: Is this the kind of legacy that he wants for his Cabinet?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I've answered
quite a few questions on this over the last few days. We have completed a
review. I also said in my remarks a few nights ago when I was speaking to this,
that you could actually take the name of this minister, that this review and
this report is about, and if you go back in history, you could put many names of
many ministers, Mr. Speaker.
This was
about a process that we're talking about. We've identified some areas where we
have concerns. The minister has seen the review. He has offered an apology, as
the Commissioner has said as part of the penalty would be a reprimand and human
resource review if we see fit.
Mr.
Speaker, right now this is about a process that's been long-standing, and what
we want to do is make sure we do a review to put a better process in place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Torngat Mountains.
MS. EVANS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
actions of this minister is a blatant abuse of power; yet, he remains in
Cabinet. People in Newfoundland and Labrador have been contacting me with
questions that I can't answer.
I'll ask
the Premier: Is the Premier keeping this minister in his Cabinet because the
minister was simply following the Premier's orders?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
No, that is not the case, Mr.
Speaker, and I've mentioned this quite a few times.
What
we're talking about here is a process, as I just mentioned, that's been around a
long time. I would challenge people, and people that would have been in a
situation to have signed RSAs and complete RSA forms in their political life.
There are quite a few people, I would say, because there are literally thousands
that would have been done by previous ministers and previous premiers, and
ministers that are currently sitting in our own Cabinet.
What's
at question here is this process about incomplete RSAs, Mr. Speaker. I think we
must keep focus on what this review is all about here, and actually how we move
people amongst agencies and around government and why it's necessary that we do
that; about professional development, making sure that people get the skill sets
that are multi-skilled that can be better employees.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. TIBBS:
Mr. Speaker, here is a
question from many people across the province here.
There
have been three ministers removed from this Premier's Cabinet over the past few
years. The most recent in September. We have two reports by Officers of this
House concluding gross mismanagement by another minister.
I ask
the Premier: When is he going to get control over his Cabinet and give the
governance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador like he promised?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, we have done a
tremendous amount of work, when you look back over the last four years of
governance, since you brought it up, about putting things and controlling the
affairs of this government. That is what this question was all about.
Number
one, I could speak to things like Muskrat Falls; I could speak to things like
the financial structure. This is what we've been doing over the first mandate.
As a
matter of fact, we went to the people of the province and sought a second
mandate, Mr. Speaker. We are in a minority government situation here, trying to
work with every single Member of this government in co-operation for the benefit
of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Mr.
Speaker, we have done a lot of work. One of the priorities we're focusing on
right now is rate mitigation as an example. When you talk about getting control
of the affairs of this province, rate mitigation remains the number one priority
for this government and should be for all Members of this House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. TIBBS:
I disagree. I think what
we've been doing so far has been using the House's time to apologize and
sidestep.
The
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment served as a town clerk and manager
for a municipality of our province. Many municipalities in our province have
codes of conduct and ethics for both councillors and staff.
How does
this good minister square a commitment to ethics in his previous role and
serving in a Cabinet with a minister who has committed a gross mismanagement of
public funds in violation of the Members' Code of Conduct?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I can't let the
preamble go here. When I mentioned that the number one priority on
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would be rate mitigation as a result of the
Muskrat Falls Project, the Member stands up and says he disagrees with that
being the number one priority.
Well,
people that are talking to me, I can assure you – that the rate mitigation in
our province right now, the 13 pieces of legislation that's been already gone
through this fall session of the House of Assembly making our school zones,
construction zones safer; Clare's Law as an example. I will tell you, there's
been a lot of work that's been done. Yes, we're in a situation that we're
debating this resolution that's currently on the Table and we'll be reviewing
that as we go.
Mr.
Speaker, I say to the Member opposite: The number one priority that I'm hearing
from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is electricity rates as a result of
Muskrat Falls.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. TIBBS:
One last question to the
Premier, Mr. Speaker: When are we going to start using the time of this House
for those priorities and not his Cabinet?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, there are 40
Members in this House of Assembly, and as we speak to resolutions like this,
every single person has a role to play in what we actually debate in the House
of Assembly. Already, we've had 13 pieces of legislation that we've been able to
get through with the co-operation of Members opposite. I think for those 13
pieces of legislation, this has been a pretty good fall session. We want to see
more of that.
I can
assure you, I am willing to work and change legislation, put good legislation in
place to benefit all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but it takes all 40
Members of this House of Assembly to be able to do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development is a former officer with the Royal
Newfoundland Constabulary, which adheres to a code of ethics, as does the
profession of teaching. The RNC recruits new officers, it asks that applicants
be of high moral and ethical character and be capable of projecting a positive
police role model to the community – one in which I'm sure this minister has
done a good job in doing.
How does
the minister square his commitment to public service as a police officer and
serving in a Cabinet with a minister who has committed gross mismanagement of
public funds in violation of the Members' Code of Conduct?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
thank the hon. Member for the question.
Yes, Mr.
Speaker, I've had the opportunity to share some time with the RNC in my career.
I took great pride and great honour in representing a time-honoured police force
in this province, as I've enjoyed my time here within this government and within
this House of Assembly. We will continue to do the good work of the people of
this province.
As we
move forward, I certainly wish the members of the Royal Newfoundland
Constabulary all the best and ensure that they are providing excellent police
services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. PARDY:
Mr. Speaker, I value the
comment by the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development. I would
have liked for him to have answered the question as to the current
Mitchelmore Report that we're currently doing.
The
Minister of Service NL graduated as a nurse, a discipline that has a rigorous
code of ethics and holds a certificate in leadership from Memorial University.
How does
the minister square her commitment, ethics and leadership while serving in a
Cabinet with a minister who has committed gross mismanagement of public funds in
violation of the Members' Code of Conduct?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, I
am a very proud Member of this Cabinet, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
This is my second post since
2015. I, too, took a Code and I'm very proud to be a Cabinet minister.
Mr.
Speaker, I must say, nursing was a wonderful career, there's no doubt. This is
my third career. I take the ethics and the values that I learned in nursing and
I bring them into governance, and it's working quite well. I'm proud to be here,
Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
In his
report, the Citizens' Representative stated on page 30: “Specifically, we find
that Minister Mitchelmore fundamentally mismanaged his obligations pursuant” to
Code of Conduct provision 10, which requires “That his relationship with
government employees should be professional and based upon mutual respect and
should have regard to the duty of those employees to remain politically
impartial when carrying out their duties.”
How can
the Premier keep in his Cabinet a minister who fundamentally mismanaged his
obligations and thereby violated professional ethics under this Code of Conduct?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, there's been a
review – and the Member opposite just spoke to one of the sections, I think it
was page 30 she said. There was a significant amount of material within this
review that has been put forward to the House of Assembly. There's been actually
two reviews and then over to the Commissioner to actually try and articulate,
identify and suggest what appropriate measures should be taken.
Mr.
Speaker, the Commissioner himself, during the review of the findings and the
evidence that was presented, actually had four options, which he at the time
said a reprimand would've been the appropriate action. We've been through this
process, as well as many other ministers that have sat in Cabinets of all
administrations for a number of years. We've seen ministers – and I can assure
you, there's been a lot of them – that have been able to, in this very similar
situation, remain Cabinet ministers.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development has served on the Memorial
University faculty of medicine admissions board which evaluates those wishing to
become physicians that will be held to some of the highest ethical standards.
How does
the minister reconcile her commitment to ethics, while at the same time serving
in a Cabinet with a minister who has committed gross mismanagement of public
funds in violation of the Members' professional Code of Conduct?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I've
been serving in this House, thanks to the wonderful District of Cartwright -
L'Anse au Clair. I've been through a by-election, a hotly contested nomination
and two general elections. It's very humbling, Mr. Speaker.
I remind
myself every single day what a tremendous privilege it is to serve. I remind
myself of the values that my grandparents that raised me instilled in me, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
One of my mottos in life is
that little poem, “The Man in the Glass.
“When
you get what you want in your struggle for” life “and the world makes you king
for a day.” It's about going back to “The Man in the Glass,” Mr. Speaker.
What
we're talking about here today is an independent review. There are
recommendations on the floor. We're going to vote, Mr. Speaker, later on those
recommendations.
My first
day in this House of Assembly in 2013, a current sitting Member was standing up
apologizing. We need to be careful, Mr. Speaker. I've seen lots of changes here.
None of us are blameless; we do the best we can.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, in his report of
June 11, 2019, the Citizens' Representative stated again on pages 31 and 32:
“The net effect is that The Rooms are overcompensating for the position of
Executive Director of Marketing and Development in the range of $30-$40,000 per
year.” Reasonable people would expect a Minister of the Crown to exact strict
scrutiny to a request for additional salary expenditures.
I ask
the Minister of Finance, who has been working to reduce expenditures: How can he
accept the gross mismanagement of public funds by his Cabinet colleague?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I take the role of Finance Minister very seriously. We are looking at
finding efficiencies in government.
I've
heard Member after Member after Member today ask how we can sit in a caucus with
somebody who has grossly mismanaged funds. I'd ask Members on the other side how
they can, because the funds of this province were grossly mismanaged, Mr.
Speaker, under the previous administration when you look at things like Muskrat
Falls, when you look at a deficit of $1 billion in
Budget 2015 that actually ballooned to more than double that. So I'd
ask the same question.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Mr. Speaker, I don't know
when a defence of an action became something along the lines that because they
did it, we can do it too. I'm not sure that's sound defence. I agree the Finance
Minister is working hard at his job.
Mr.
Speaker, the Finance Minister has directed all ABCs, which would include The
Rooms, to manage their budgets and reduce spending. The Rooms went over budget
by $1.5 million in 2018-2019.
I ask
the Minister of Finance: How is this justified?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation.
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As like
many boards, agencies and commissions, they're given an allotment based on the
funds available to the province. That's the same case with The Rooms
Corporation, slightly over $6 million. They have to fund the operations within
that budget.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Topsail - Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the
report of June 2019, the Citizens' Representative stated: “… Minister
Mitchelmore either directly authorized the salary level for Ms. Foote through
his signature on the Request for Staffing Action Form, and/or he acquiesced in
her receiving that level of pay. Having done so, we find that Minister
Mitchelmore grossly violated his obligations as contained in section 8 of the
Code of Conduct.”
I
understand that only the Premier has the authority to remove a minister from
their portfolio, so I ask: How can the minister keep his Cabinet minister who
grossly violated his obligations?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
You're correct, Mr. Speaker,
I say to the Member opposite. Yes, Cabinet Members serve at the prerogative of
the Premier. That's been the way it's been in Parliaments, in Legislatures for
quite some time.
What I
will say, though, is that when people actually move around government, it's
typical, and what we've seen historically, if you look and do a review of where
people would've been with transfers of people around various agencies and within
departments within government, we will see that when they transfer from one
department to another, one agency from government and so on, they typically
transfer with the salary and with the benefits that are associated with the
current position. That's been the way it's been for a number of years and there
are lots and lots of examples that would have been out there that allows that to
happen.
Mr.
Speaker, we are acutely aware of the finances of this province. The Finance
Minister here has done a remarkable job in making sure we get the fiscal impact
on this province. We always endeavour to do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Topsail -
Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
appreciate the Premier saying how acutely aware he is of our finances.
In his
report, the Citizens' Rep stated: “We conclude that Minister Mitchelmore grossly
mismanaged his obligations with respect to the Code of Conduct given his
involvement in the appointment of Ms. Foote to The Rooms and the setting, or
permitting to be set, her salary at $132,000.” Acutely aware of our finances.
Good
leadership characteristics: honesty, accountability, integrity and the ability
to do the right thing. In this instance – this instance – how can the Premier
keep in his Cabinet a minister who grossly mismanaged his obligations?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I'll answer the
question simply by saying, one of the things about being acutely aware and being
accountable and responsible for the affairs of this province, we do take this
very seriously and spend a lot of time doing so. It's one of the reasons why,
last week, I spent a considerable amount of time working with other provinces
and working with the Prime Minister to actually get this province back in a
better fiscal situation.
One of
the things about that, Mr. Speaker, I certainly was not shy in calling an
inquiry into Muskrat Falls for the same reasons. So when you look at
transparency and accountability, Mr. Speaker, that Muskrat Falls inquiry, which
came from decisions that would have been made by prior administrations, we
accept the responsibility that we have taken on in trying to manage that project
as well.
There
are two administrations in place here, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to advocate
for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to make sure that we put this province on a
good path for the future.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, would the
minister, subject of the Mitchelmore
Report, clarify his answer earlier. Did the Premier's chief of staff or
other officials speaking or purporting to speak with the authority of the
Premier, give him direction on the hiring?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Education, Skills and Labour.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
said previously in the House of Assembly, the Premier did not direct me in this
matter. I signed the request for staffing action and my testimony is in the
report that is put before the House of Assembly, and the recommendation is a
reprimand by the Commissioner for Legislative Standards who is a statutory
officer of the House of Assembly.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
With due respect, the
minister did not answer the question. Did someone speaking for the Premier or
purporting to speak for the Premier give him that direction?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Advanced Educations, Skills and Labour.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I
encourage the Member to read the report that is put before the House here today.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A woman
is going blind because the government won't cover the eye injection she needs to
keep her vision. She needs the shot every two weeks, $1,800 a shot, about
$47,000 a year, which, coincidently, is the difference between Carla Foote's
salary and the salary that The Rooms approved.
When
will the Premier stop defending the waste of public money that could be saving a
woman's eyesight?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I have
met with various representatives from the Canadian National Institute for the
Blind, as well as officials with the Pharmaceutical Services Division in my
department and we are working on a proposal with the help of the ophthalmologist
in this province. We would expect something to come from this process
imminently, Mr. Speaker. As soon as I get something, I will be happy to inform
the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader, for a quick question.
MR. BRAZIL:
Minister, insulin pumps – out
of $50,000 coverage is not being covered. That's $50,000 that is being given to
Carla Foote.
When
will the Premier stand up and put the money into health programs for people
instead of political patronage?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
insulin pump program is one of the leading programs in the country in actual
fact. I was speaking with my colleague in Nova Scotia; they still have an age
cap. We had representations from diabetes advocates and in the light of that we
have lifted that, Mr. Speaker. People will now no longer age out of the program.
We have
revamped the administration behind that program. With the use of centralized
purchasing we hope to be able to expand that program further over coming months
as the financial situation allows, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier has accepted the Commissioner's findings in the
Mitchelmore Report. He has also signaled that an apology may be
insufficient. The Premier has the power to solve this problem right now by
imposing more appropriate punishment, as has been proposed by Opposition
Members.
I ask
the Premier: Will he finally show some leadership, end this farce and resolve
this matter now?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, what I said to
the media yesterday was that we're in a debate here in the House of Assembly.
What I said it would be premature for me to make any suggestion of where this
would be, based on the debate that would occur on the floor of the House of
Assembly.
As this
debate continues and we get into the final decision-making, we'll see, Mr.
Speaker. But it's very clear in the report that the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards has recommended a reprimand in this particular case. So what is
required here is to actually define what that reprimand would be.
Yes,
I've accepted the report, the concurrence of the report. We've accepted that
with the recommendation that a reprimand would be something that would be in
place. Also, to the point where there would be a review of the HR and moving of
officials around government within our province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On page
10 of the Citizens' Representative report, the deputy minister of Tourism,
Culture, Industry and Innovation at the time notes that he was asked by the
Cabinet Secretariat to notify people who needed to be notified of Ms. Foote's
hiring. As I understand it, the clerk of the Executive Council coordinates
operations of the Cabinet Secretariat.
I ask
the Premier: Since he has consistently denied any role in his hiring, is he now
saying that it was the clerk who made this decision on her own?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. Just
like I said, there was no involvement in this and there was no direction. The
clerk is always involved when you look at situations like this. As a matter of
fact, some of these are – and this has been explained in the briefing that was
given there.
Mr.
Speaker, that's the process that's been around for decades, and I'm sure people
opposite would've been part of this, would understand that. It's not unusual in
situations like that for the clerk to be participating in the HR changes that
would occur.
Mr.
Speaker, that's what's happened. This is a process that's been around for many,
many decades. I would encourage people to actually get an understanding – part
of that is in the report – of how this process works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Now for
the $8-billion question, Mr. Speaker. The
Transparency and Accountability Act requires semi-annual reporting on the
economic and fiscal position of the province. This means the fall fiscal update
is now two months late. The Auditor General is waiting on his report and his
fellow MHAs are waiting on his report.
I ask
the Minister of Finance: Will we see the fall fiscal update in this sitting of
the House?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Considering the budget was late this year, Mr. Speaker, we are roughly within
the six months. I was absolutely hoping to be able to deliver the fall fiscal
update today. I checked with my officials in the department. They tell me they
are still working on it. I'm just as disappointed as the Member opposite, as I
was hoping to do it today.
Mr.
Speaker, as soon as it is ready and the officials have the work complete, we
will have the fall fiscal update put before the people of the province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development has suggested she sees herself as the
self-appointed government co-chair of a body similar to the community-government
task force on emergency shelters proposed by the Third Party.
I ask
the minister: When can we expect the community co-chair to be appointed, and
what is the timeline for this undertaking?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, I believe what
the hon. Member is referring to is we've been doing some work with our community
groups, our non-profits around our shelters and the direction that we're moving
in. I'm happy to report to this House that on the 22nd of November I invited all
of our partners. We had 100 per cent participation show up and we had good
conversation. At that table it was recognized we needed to bring in some other
relevant departments like AESL, like Health, Mr. Speaker. It's very complex; it
doesn't just rest in one department.
I was
happy to sit down this week with two Members from the NDP. I've told them I'm
not opposed to having them be a part of this going forward, and we're actively
moving on this. The City of St. John's is interested in playing a role. The
chair of the Canadian Mental Health Association has reached out. I told him I
welcome him at the table as we work together to find solutions to what is a
complex issue, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period
has expired.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Tabling of
Documents
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Leader of the Third
Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like
to ask leave to table a series of emails I have received concerning the
Mitchelmore Report. I think these are
worthy of documenting and making part of the public record. I would like to ask
leave to be able to table these.
MR. SPEAKER:
Does the Member have leave to
present these documents?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Seeing no objections, I ask
the –
MS. COFFIN:
May I speak to these, Sir?
MR. SPEAKER:
No, it's just tabling of the
documents.
MS. COFFIN:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further tabling of documents?
Notices
of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Minister of Health
and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
to give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To
Amend The Medical Care And Hospital Insurance Act, Bill 20.
I
further give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act
To Amend Various Acts Of The Province Respecting The Publication Of A Summary Of
A Decision Or Order Of An Adjudication Tribunal, Bill 22.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
The hon.
the Minister of Service NL.
MS. GAMBIN-WALSH:
Mr. Speaker, I give notice
that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act Respecting The
Protection Of The Health Of Persons Exposed To Radiation And Respecting The
Safety Of Persons In Connection With The Operation And Use Of The Electrical And
Mechanical Components Of Radiation Producing Equipment And Associated Apparatus,
Bill 23.
Mr.
Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act, Bill 21.
MR. SPEAKER:
Further notices of motion?
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member for Topsail -
Paradise.
MR. P. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
petition has been presented a number of times:
WHEREAS
many students within our province depend on school busing for transportation to
and from school each day; and
WHEREAS
there are many parents of school-aged children throughout our province who live
inside the eastern school district's 1.6-kilometre zone, therefore do not
qualify for busing; and
WHEREAS
policy cannot override the safety of our children;
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to eliminate the 1.6-kilometre policy for all
elementary schools in the province and in junior and senior high schools where
safety is a primary concern.
Mr.
Speaker, this has been an ongoing issues, especially up in the Topsail -
Paradise District, Conception Bay South, Harbour Main and, of course, in other
areas throughout the province where the shoulders of the road are probably the
best place for kids to walk to and from school. Not all areas have sidewalks.
Not all areas have appropriate snow clearing.
We are
now approaching the winter season, or approaching Christmas, kids will be
getting out for a break and then going back. The roadways, the walkways will be
less than what they are now. Children, in some instances, will be climbing over
banks of snow to get to the bus; those who walk to school, who can't get the
bus. So it becomes an increasingly unsafe condition for children to and from
school.
On
behalf of the individuals who have signed this petition, I ask that government
look at this policy again, look at the issue around safety to ensure that when
the conditions are bad that there are safe ways to get back and forth to school
and look at addressing the courtesy busing and the courtesy stops because they
are certainly not dealing with the issue.
This
issue needs to have a permanent solution where kids and children can get to
school safely who are within that 1.6-kilometre zone.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Education and Early Childhood Development with a response.
MR. WARR:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
appreciate and thank the hon. Member for his petition.
Mr.
Speaker, as I've said many times in the House, this province has one of the best
busing policies in the country. Over the past several years, every bus run –
1,100 bus routes within this province have been reviewed and we've added an
additional 706 courtesy stops on the 1.6-kilometre zone. The current policy is
working.
Again,
as I mentioned earlier before, I've had the opportunity to speak with both the
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment and the Minister of Transportation
and Works on some additional initiatives around student safety, and we will
continue.
I will
say, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our government, student safety is paramount, and
I appreciate the hon. Member in bringing his petition forward.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
WHEREAS
the District of Harbour Main includes the Conception Bay Highway, Route 60,
specifically Conception Harbour; Roaches Line, Route 70; and Hodgewater Line,
Route 71. These roads are high-volume roads with significant moose sightings.
Travellers require maximum sightlines to limit moose accidents on these
important roadways. Immediate and ongoing brush cutting maintenance is required
for the safety of the people that use them on a daily basis.
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the
undersigned, urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately
take the necessary steps of brush cutting on the Conception Bay Highway,
specifically Conception Harbour, Roaches Line and Hodgewater Line, to ensure
driver safety and improve sightlines for the driving public that these
high-volume roadways each day.
Mr.
Speaker, I bring this petition on behalf of many concerned citizens and members
of the local service districts in these areas, specifically, the Town of
Conception Harbour and the local service district of Roaches Line. Since my
election some six months ago, I've heard from many people – specifically in
Conception Harbour, for example – who have stopped at my constituency office in
Holyrood and talked about the serious concerns they have, as well as members of
the local service district in Roaches Line.
As a
result of these concerns, I've personally contacted the Transportation and Works
depot that is responsible for the area identifying the issue with the brush
cutting. I was advised that with respect to this they have limited equipment and
that this job of brush clearing was beyond what the depot was capable of doing.
They only have a small brush cutter and thus have to contract the work out.
These are serious issues here with respect to safety and we ask that this be
given appropriate attention before there's a tragedy.
Also,
Mr. Speaker, members of our community in Roaches Line and community members and
leaders in the local service district have said that the last time the brush was
cut in Roaches Line was in the late '80s. This was about 30 years ago. We are
long overdue for having this work done.
Their
main concern, Mr. Speaker, is that there are so many moose sightings in this
area and by having the brush cut back, citizens, they say, as well as those who
travel through the community, would have a better chance of being able to avoid
a collision. There are many areas throughout the community where the brush is so
close to the road that you have to ease your way out in the middle of the
intersection before you can even see oncoming traffic. As well, we did have a
collision in the Conception Harbour area. We attribute that, or there's strong
belief, that was caused because of the inability to have appropriate sightlines
by the vehicles.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed immediately. I have
many people who have signed the petition and we ask that the necessary steps of
brush cutting take place.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I'm
going to actually please the Member opposite. That work actually has been added.
I can share with you –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROCKER:
Mr. Speaker, as a department,
we do about $2 million a year of brush cutting. She is correct; most of the time
our depots don't actually have the capacity to do heavy brush cutting, and it is
something that we contract. But I can certainly share with her the areas that
have been added to an existing tender, and if there are other areas of concern
we can certainly look at those as well.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
following petition concerns the Ragged Beach moratorium on development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. J. DINN:
The reasons for this
petition:
Ragged
Beach is an uninhabited, dark coast which is important to the sustainability of
the Witless Bay Ecological Reserve as it protect fledgling birds from the
effects of light pollution.
Ragged
Beach is an international tourism destination, a key attraction on the East
Coast Trail and brings spinoffs to the Southern Shore.
Current
and future development could negatively impact the bird sanctuary, the East
Coast Trail and the beach itself.
In 2014,
a commissioner recommended that 99 hectares of Crown land along the Ragged Beach
be set aside as a Crown reserve, but this has not been done.
The
provincial government has a responsibility to protect Ragged Beach as an area of
provincial interest.
Therefore, we, the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to implement an immediate one-year
moratorium on development in the Ragged Beach-Mullowney's Lane area of Witless
Bay to assess the significance of this area and develop a plan to protect the
dark beach.
The
request is reasonable. As early as this morning, the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Environment was sent an email by representatives of those interested
in preserving Ragged Beach to request on-site investigation of damage by
excavator to public Crown lands in the Ragged Beach area. They have requested
that the staff, including environmental assessment and protection division
staff, do conduct an immediate on-site visit to determine how the damage can be
best remediated, determine whether an offence has been committed and determine
what remedies and penalties should be levied for the offence.
So what
they're asking for in this petition is something that would render these
complaints and emails unnecessary. To take a pause, to look at what needs to be
done to protect this area. As we well know, there are a dedicated group of
volunteers who yearly – the puffin patrol – ensure that the species is
protected. When they come ashore on the roads of Witless Bay where there's an
excessive amount of light, they're confused. At least you have a dark beach
there, Mr. Speaker, where they're not going to encounter that problem, but if we
expand the development it's just going to exacerbate the problem.
What
they're asking for is not to stop, but let's pause and take a good look at it. A
pretty reasonable request of government.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
With a response, the hon.
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
MR. BRAGG:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker, and I thank the Member opposite for the petition. It's a great petition
indeed.
The Town
of Witless Bay has a town plan in which they have to adhere to. Any time they
are going to change their town plan there are always public consultations for
that and approval from the minister's office. Any permits required outside of
that, especially water resources, would come to our office and we would approve
as such.
There
was some work that was done out there a couple of weekends ago. We had staff on
site; we made sure everything was done within the parameters of that permit.
We'll deal with things on a case-by-case basis as they come forward to us.
Mr.
Speaker, I can't stress this enough: The town has a town plan. I would encourage
everyone to review the town plan and discuss it with the town council.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Opposition House
Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
These
are the reasons for this petition: Every day emergency medical professionals,
emergency medical responders, primary care paramedics and emergency medical
dispatchers provide vital medical emergency and transition services to the
residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. Their duties are essential for delivery
of medical service in all regions of our province, especially at times of
serious health crisis when residents needs access to immediate medical attention
and/or transport to acute care facilities for, often, life-saving medical
treatments.
While
the importance of these medical professionals cannot be understated, currently
in our province they are not automatically deemed as essential services, meaning
no provision exists for a continuation of their services if an employee or an
employer service disruption occurs. In other Canadian jurisdictions, these same
medical professionals are deemed as essential services in labour relations
legislation, ensuring service is never interrupted and residents always have
access to emergency road ambulance. In Newfoundland and Labrador this protection
does not exist.
Therefore we, the petitioners, petition the House of Assembly as follows: We,
the undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately start the process for road ambulance
health care professionals to be deemed as essential services under labour
relations legislation, ensuring no interruption in emergency medical services
across our province under any circumstances and that an appropriate arbitration
process be introduced that ensures a resolution mechanism formally exists and
any interruption in this vital service is avoided.
Mr.
Speaker, this is about ensuring that we have available health service,
particularly when it's at the emergency level. Nothing more than our first
responders, particularly when we're looking at the ambulance services that have
to be providing the service for those individuals.
We all
know the valued service that firefighters do on a professional level and a paid
level, but we also realize the valued service, the immediate impact service that
ambulance drivers have and what they do then to ensure the stability of the
injured individual. They're stabilizing until they get to one of our primary
care facilities for health interventions.
Mr.
Speaker, we want to ensure, because it is a labour market – so we have employers
that may have issues around funding and services with their employees. We have
employees that may have issues around the services, the provided wages and other
issues that they may have with their employer. Both have the ability and have a
right – under our labour laws they have a right, as it stands right now, to
either lock out their employees or a union has a right and the employees have a
right to either work-to-rule or go on strike.
As we
know, a number of our paramedics and our emergency response professionals are
part of a particular union in Newfoundland and Labrador, so they have collective
agreements. If they feel that collective agreement is being violated, they have
a right to exercise their rights and privileges. If the employer has that issue
with their employees they have a right to stop it.
We ask,
Mr. Speaker, that this be taken seriously and that essential services be brought
forward for debate in this House.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Member opposite brings up a very important point. Our paramedics in this
province do perform incredibly valued work and valuable work. They actually fall
into three broad groups, one of whom are effectively public sector employees
within a collective arrangement. My recollection is that there is an essential
workers' agreement with that group.
The
other two – one is volunteer and they are community groups. The others are
employees of private companies, some of which are unionized and some of which
are not. Certainly, from my point of view, in our discussions with ambulance
operators on a go-forward basis, this is something we would be very concerned
about factoring in. I welcome the petition from the Member opposite.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Placentia West - Bellevue.
MR. DWYER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This
petition is presented on behalf of the residents of the Town of Swift Current,
Black River.
Highway
210 is the main road going through the community of Swift Current. In the town
it's known as Seaview Drive. It's a part of their community.
The
Department of Transportation and Works currently are working on a two-year
highway project on highway 210 from Garden Cove towards Pipers Hole, which looks
like it might be concluded this year.
The
current tender for the highway work includes highway 210 only. The side roads of
Swift Current are not included.
The side
roads in Swift Current are in deplorable condition. The side roads have not been
repaved since the initial paving in the early 1970s. The side roads, which were
used to divert traffic during the current tender construction contract, are in
worse shape now due to the extensive traffic it endured.
THEREFORE we petition the hon. House of Assembly as follows: We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to consider paving/upgrading of the side roads
including Darby's Cove, Sharpe's Lane, Maple Crescent, Old Church Road, Academy
Hill, Hollett's Point and Shoal Cove Heights in Swift Current to the current
existing road upgrade project as an add-on.
I do
notice there that on this particular petition, there is somebody that has signed
it with the last name Crocker. I wouldn't want anybody to miss out on any
invitations for Christmas dinner or anything.
MS. DEMPSTER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. DWYER:
Thank you, Minister Dempster.
It's
incumbent on us to understand that when we have these towns in our districts
that the highway does go through, we have to realize that these are people that
are living in a town no different than we live in our own smaller towns. They
deserve that respect. To divert traffic onto a side road and then have that
become more deplorable and not do anything about it is, kind of – I guess it's
incumbent on us to make sure that we're not putting them in a worse situation
than what they started with.
Like I
said, on the side of the contractor, it's been very professional work. The one
thing that I would ask the minister is that we have a look at the grade and
class of stone that was put on the actual sidewalk piece of the road as opposed
to the side roads themselves, and to make sure that the right grade of ditching
is there. We want to make sure that the water runs off correctly, as opposed to
building in certain areas of the runoff.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I call
from the Order Paper, Order 3, third reading of An Act To Amend The Enforcement
Of Canadian Judgments Act, Bill 12.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
I move, seconded by the
Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, that An Act To Amend The
Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments Act, Bill 12, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the bill now be read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK (Barnes):
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments Act. (Bill 12)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as on
the Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Enforcement Of Canadian Judgments Act,”
read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill
12)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Order 2,
third reading of An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009, Bill 11.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, that An Act To
Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009, Bill 11, be now read a third time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the said bill be now read a third time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Public Trustee Act, 2009. (Bill 11)
MR. SPEAKER:
This bill has now been read a
third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and that its title be as it
appears on the Order Paper.
On
motion, a bill, “An Act To Amend The Public Trustee Act, 2009,” read a third
time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 11)
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
From the
Order Paper, Motion 2.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board, that a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Cannabis Control Act, Bill 19,
be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER:
It is moved and seconded that
the hon. the minister shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To
Amend The Cannabis Control Act, Bill 19, and that this bill be now read a first
time.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
Carried.
Motion,
the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board to introduce a
bill, “An Act To Amend The Cannabis Control Act,” carried. (Bill 19)
CLERK:
A bill, An Act To Amend The
Cannabis Control Act. (Bill 19)
MR. SPEAKER:
The bill has now been read a first time.
When
shall the said bill be read a second time?
MS. COADY:
Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
Tomorrow.
On
motion, Bill 19 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
From the
Order Paper, Motion 3.
MR. SPEAKER:
Motion 3.
The hon.
the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. K. PARSONS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
As most
of the people in this House of Assembly know, I usually get up and say what a
privilege it is to be here and to represent the people of Cape St. Francis.
Today I really don't feel that way because I don't believe that I should be
here. I don't feel that we should be debating what this motion is about.
I think
we have more important business in the province. I believe that we should be
debating what the people in the gallery came here today to listen to about their
concerns and about concerns of the residents right across this province. It's
very unfortunate that we're here doing it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
But it has to be done.
Interesting, in my caucus – which we have a fantastic caucus. I told Members of
caucus I've been here I think this is the 24th session now for me sitting in and
listening, whether it's the spring or the fall session. Out of all of them I've
never experienced anything like I have experienced in this session.
I take
great pride in doing my job as an MHA as do nearly every Member in this House of
Assembly in representing the constituents that elected me. I don't believe that
the constituents of Cape St. Francis want me in the House of Assembly debating
the conduct of Members, they want me to be debating things that are important to
them and unfortunately we're here.
I know
the newer Members of this House of Assembly – this is not the norm. This is
definitely not the norm. This whole sitting has been unbelievable. It's been
hard on Members and it's been hard on families, too, because you talk about
people's personal lives.
I
listened to Paddy Daly coming in one morning and he talked about the craziness
of the House of Assembly. He gave names, he said the Dinn-Byrne thing, the
Lester-Byrne thing, he said the Parsons-Osborne thing and he put my name to it.
I said that's unfair because I had nothing to do with it and I said things were
handled differently.
I have
to stand up in this House of Assembly today and recognize the Minister of
Finance. He had the decency to apologize.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, not only did he
apologize, I was driving home and I received a phone call. The question he asked
me, he said: Are we still friends? I can assure the Minister of Finance we are
still friends.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
We're here now all this week
debating the conduct of a minister. We spent two days debating the conduct of
another minister. I don't know if that minister called the two people that he
was involved with and apologized or wondered what it was, but it's time for us
to stand up and make sure we realize what we're doing here.
We're
here to represent our people. We're here to make sure that the lives of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians gets better. That's the reason we come to the
House of Assembly. That's the reason we knock on doors. That's the reason we go
around and tell people: I'm there to listen to your concerns.
I'm
after having four elections and it's a great feeling when you knock on a door
and someone says: b'y, thank you for what you did for aunt so-and-so, or that
was good that you did this for that person. That's what we're here for. There
are going to be roads built, there are going to be hospitals built, but the
individuals that we can help is what we should be here for – the little things.
I always say the little things to some people, to us, are huge for other people.
I
watched the Minister of Health here answer questions. We asked him about
cataracts and surgery and stuff like that. He made an announcement last week
about we're soon going to get it and we're going to be able to do it in private
clinics. I have an elderly gentleman in my district who can't drive anymore
because he needs cataract surgery. His wife is in a home. He feels very
uncomfortable asking every day for someone to drive him back and forth. He says
I have to wait two years for this surgery.
We need
to be here discussing that in the House of Assembly to make sure that we can get
more surgeries for people like that man. That's what we should be here for. Now,
unfortunately, we're here for what we are and that's what I need to talk about
today.
I'm not
a social media person but I do look at comments, especially when you're in times
like this. When I hear comments of a gong show and what those politicians are
like, I'm tared with that brush. Do you know what? I can assure you that
everyone who put their names – especially the new people, we're tared with that
brush, but that's not who we are.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
That's not just on this side
of the House, that's on that side of the House, too. There are good people over
on that side of the House and good ministers and I have no problem. Really, I
try to gain respect from everybody in this House because I want the same respect
back that I give to you; I think you're going to give it back to me. That's what
we're here for.
This is
an unfortunate – not unfortunate, it's something that shouldn't happen. I'm not
going to get right into what everybody else had to say here, but I'm not going
to get into the right thing and the wrong thing. The Minister of Finance did the
right thing. He apologized; he called me, got it over with. And, listen, you
know what? It was a slip of the tongue. It wasn't the point that I was
(inaudible), but it was the point that it was personal. That's all it was. I
assure you, that minister never meant one thing with it. But that's an apology.
What's after happening in this situation, I think more than an apology is
required.
There
were two investigations done. It was done, and Officers of the House concluded
that this was gross mismanagement. Now, whether a slip of the tongue or gross
mismanagement, I think they're two different things. I really believe it.
The
minister in question, I can say, and the Premier – I listened to the Premier's
speech, and he said about what a good minister he is and how good he is with his
constituency. I don't doubt that. I don't doubt that one bit at all. He got
re-elected; obviously, the constituents in his area thought he was doing a good
job so they re-elected him. No problem at all.
I'll
always go back to my – the wisest man I ever met in my life was my father. He
used to say to me all the time, he'd say: Tell the truth. Always tell the truth.
You'll never go wrong by telling the truth. That's part of what this is all
about, what we're looking for here. We're looking for the truth. We stood for
four days now and asked questions, without any answers.
The same
questions that were asked on Monday were asked again today. People of the
province want answers. Listen, I don't want to see the hon. minister – I'm not
out to get his jugular; I'm not out to get him or anything like that. I'm just
out to say, listen, sometimes we make mistakes, but we have to own up to those
mistakes. That's what this is about.
Listen,
that minister came down in my district. A good minister. We had an issue in
Bauline with cellular service, and the minister came down. I had the Town of
Bauline come in and meet with him. Then, within a couple of weeks, he said: I
have a way to get that done. He came down and we met with the Town of Bauline
and, in a couple of months, had an announcement in the Town of Bauline: they're
getting cellular service. I'm not questioning whether he's a good minister.
The
Premier got up the other night – I wasn't here but I listened to it afterwards –
and talked about what a good minister he was and we can't do that to a good
minister. I can assure you there are a lot of good ministers. There are three
good ministers that are not in Cabinet anymore. They were good ministers.
I had
the former minister of Education – when we built a new school down in Torbay, I
had a lot of questions. He called me up and said if you have a lot of questions,
I'm coming down to have a look at the school, why don't you come with me. I went
down with him and he was a good minister. That's it. We'd never have a water
system in the Town of Pouch Cove if it wasn't for the former minister of
Municipal Affairs because he found a way to do it – a good minister.
The
Member for Lake Melville – I'll always remember it. I remember the night the
breaking news came on about what he had done. It was wrong. I remember looking
at him on CBC. Before the interview they showed a clip and he was sat in the
chair all by himself. Do you know what? I felt so bad for that minister then. I
said I wouldn't want to be going through that. He made a mistake and he owned up
to his mistake. Good for him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. K. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, we'll all make
mistakes in life. There's nobody in here that's perfect, but sometimes you make
a mistake and you have to pay the price. I'm not in here today to attack
anybody. I respect everybody on the other side. I respect everybody that puts
their name on a ballot, because I'm telling you right now – someone says to me
all the time, how do you do it? How do you be a politician? How do you do that?
They don't understand that there are times you can do little tiny things that
can make a difference in people's lives. I don't know about the rest of you, but
when it does happen, I feel really good. It's satisfaction.
Sometimes we'll look at Muskrat Falls – I was here when Muskrat Falls was
debated. So was the Minister of Finance, so was the Member for Mount Pearl -
Southlands and so were a couple of my colleagues. I'm not saying anything; I
voted for Muskrat Falls on the information I was given. I honestly can tell the
people of the province and tell the people of this House, I didn't vote for it
because I said, no, let's do Muskrat Falls, I don't care about anything else. I
did it because I thought it was the right thing to do.
If any
vote comes to this House again and I believe it's the right thing to do, I will
do it again, but I can only do it based on the information people give me. I'm
not an engineer, but I have to be able to stand up in this House of Assembly and
represent my people, and that's what I'm doing.
Mr.
Speaker, we're here today and we're discussing this. I look at many different
things in what we should be discussing.
I
listened to the Member for Torngat Mountains yesterday. She talked about a CBC
report – and I watched the same report – where an elderly lady talked about her
friend over in the Health Sciences on a gurney for two days. What's more
important? Is it more important that we discuss what we're discussing here
today, or is it more important that we make sure that that lady gets proper
health care?
I think
it's more important we address the needs of the people of the province, but we
have to do this. I don't think we should be four days at it. I think the
minister or the Premier of this province should have had this ironed out long
before now.
I look
at people in the gallery here today, they're not here to listen to this. They're
here because they have a cause and we should be talking about their cause.
If you
talk to people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and not only people
on fixed incomes or not only seniors, everybody is concerned about electrical
rates. I'd like to be here discussing what we're going to do about the
electrical rates. I don't want to see rates double. I'd rather be discussing
that today and finding out a solution that we can all come together and say:
listen, we got a solution found, let's do it.
If it's
getting money out of the federal government and the Premier and Cabinet
ministers have to go to the federal government and get a deal, I hope you get a
deal. I hope for the people of the province electrical rates don't go up. If you
get a deal, God love you, great. Because that's what the people of the province
want to see from their elected officials.
Our
financial situation – again, Mr. Speaker, we are here and sometimes we throw it
back and forth, it's their fault; no, it's your fault; it's their fault. I don't
care whose fault it is. We have a problem in this province when we have people
who don't have proper housing, people don't have proper care, whether it's
dental care, whether it's eye care or whatever it is. Those are the things we
should be discussing here across the floor. Those are the things we should be
working on.
Again, I
go back to the point that this could have been done a lot quicker than it was
done. This could have been finalized if people had to stand up and say: listen,
I did wrong, and what I did wrong I know that I have to do what I got to do. I
honestly believe when something comes out as blatant as this and when you get
Officers of this House say, completely mismanagement, an apology is not good
enough.
I'm not
a social media person. I follow Facebook a little bit. I look at pictures of
this one, pictures of that one. I like someone when it's their birthday or
whatever it is, but you'll never see me on it very much because I just do that.
That's who I am, but I'm watching social media these days. I was up in my office
today and I looked at some of the comments. The people of the province, that's
what they want us to do.
Again,
we've spent two days here with a minister and he withdrew statements. That's all
he did, after two days in this House of Assembly. Then, the next argument was:
it's their fault; it's our fault; it's their fault.
When a
person calls another person a criminal, another person a racist, is that what we
want to hear in the House of Assembly? No. Is that what the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador want to see us in debating? No.
I just
think there comes a time when people have to stand up and say, listen, a mistake
was made on this. This is something that should never happen and let's make sure
that it doesn't happen again, and do the right thing – do the right thing.
That's all.
When
people make a mistake and it's a slip of the tongue, no problem at all. An
apology is good enough. I have no problem with an apology. Again, we've seen in
this sitting of the House of Assembly – it's really hard to justify to the
public what we're doing. I don't want to be tarred with the brush that we're in
here arguing over this stuff all the time. I do not want that. I want to be
showing that I'm in here representing the people that elected me.
I was
down to St. Clare's yesterday and I was sitting down having a plate of fries –
shouldn't have a plate of fries mind you, but I was having a plate of fries –
and this lady came over and she said to me: That's shocking what's happening in
the House of Assembly. That's shocking what that minister said to you. I just
looked at her and I said: Yes, but that was only a slip of the tongue. I said:
I'll tell you something now, that minister apologized. He called me afterwards
and wanted to know if we're good friends. I said: I'll tell you what, we're
still good friends.
But the
general public doesn't see that. They don't see it. They don't realize – I hope
people are listening to this today – that everyone over on that other side I can
call friends. I can call colleagues. I hope I can go to them. I've gone to other
ministers. I've gone to the Minister of Health several times and every time I've
gone to him he's accommodated me and said: Kevin, let me see if I can do what
(inaudible).
I had
the Minister of Education come down to my district – busing issue – and met with
parents down on the road 8 o'clock in the morning.
People
out there have to see this. This is not what the House of Assembly is about,
what we're doing here. For the new Members, this is not what it's all about. I
feel bad for you because this is really your first full sitting in the House of
Assembly, and to see what's after happening in this sitting, it's unbelievable.
It's – I
hate to say the word – embarrassing, but it is. It is, that we're here – and
like I said, Paddy Daly on Open Line
one morning said how crazy we were as Members. That's not what I want to hear.
That's not what I want to hear the constituents in Cape St. Francis hear about
Kevin Parsons. I want the people in Cape St. Francis to say that Kevin Parsons
worked hard, he did his job in the House of Assembly and when we need him, he's
there for us. That's what every Member in this House of Assembly wants. We want
to represent our constituents.
So all
I'm calling on today, and all I want to see here today – we'll probably finish
this debate today or Monday. I don't care, whenever. I'll stay here until
Christmas Eve; it doesn't make any difference. We'll finish this debate, and the
debate should be about what happened.
There
was a job that 77 people applied for. It was cut down to three people. One
person was given the job for two days. Then all of a sudden, that job was taken
away from that person, was taken away and – whoever gave the direction – was
given to – and let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker, I do not know Carla
Foote. I feel bad for that lady, because I'm not sure if she has children or if
she has loved ones, friends and stuff like that, but her name, her picture is
all over the news, everywhere else.
I don't
know that lady. I don't want to be here discussing what happened with her. I
don't know her. I'm not a person that wants to get into anyone's personal lives.
She has children. I have children. We all have family. We don't want to hear
that. I don't want to see that. I don't know what the lady is thinking about
what's on the go here in the House of Assembly, but that's not what this is
about; it's about doing things and making sure in the future that we do the
proper thing. That we, as elected officials, understand that the public is not
going to put up with what happened in the past. What happened in the past,
happened in the past; this is the future.
Just
look at what's happening in society today when we talk about hockey coaches. I
played 18 years of senior hockey and I wasn't a very nice guy. I was rough and
tumble, but do you know what? I left it all on the ice. But I had coaches that
were true gentlemen. I never had the opportunity to play with any coach that
wasn't a good guy. I hear what's happening to young Druken, and stuff like this.
Society has changed.
People
want everybody in society to do the right thing. I want this House of Assembly
to do the right thing. If the Premier is not going to take him out of Cabinet,
then the minister should resign. That's what I want and that's what the people
of the province want.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Before I recognize the
Minister of Finance, I just want to remind Members that we – I noticed some
Members are wearing buttons today that promote a cause. I just want to remind
Members that on June 14, 2012, we had a ruling that buttons promoting a cause or
conveying a message were not in order. I just want to make Members aware of
that.
I should
have made you aware of it earlier. I saw some people wearing things, but I
wasn't sure what the message was on it. My eyesight is not what it used to be. I
couldn't see what it was.
I just
wanted to make Members aware of that ruling so we can all abide. Sometimes we
wear ribbons or pins that don't convey a message, but support a cause. That is
permitted in the House, but when you have a button that promotes a cause and has
a message written on it, that's the ruling that we have against that. I just
wanted to make Members aware of that.
The
Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Like the
Member who spoke just before me, this is not an easy topic to talk about in this
Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I'll speak briefly about the incident that happened
between he and I last week.
Anybody
in this Legislature or anybody in the province who knows me knows that I'm not
mean spirited. It was a slip of the tongue and I was mortified. Not because of
the criticism, Mr. Speaker, because when you say something wrong you deserve to
be criticized, but because we've served in this Legislature, on the same side at
one point, and (a) I felt I offended a friend, which I didn't intend to do; and
(b) I was mortified because those words rolled off my lips. I've long advocated
in this Legislature for respect and civility and that's part of the reputation
that I have out in the general public.
I have
children. I want them to be able to go to school and feel that their dad is
respected. I've always carried myself in this Legislature – don't often get
heckled, I believe, because I'm not mean spirited; you make your point, you
don't always agree, but still to this day, Mr. Speaker, those words I spoke, I'm
mortified by because I just didn't feel right as they came out. I apologized.
The Member said that I did call him on his way home from work, because, first
and foremost, we are friends, so I had to make sure that I called him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, in talking about
being mortified, one of the worst feelings for somebody who has enough
self-respect in the Legislature and values that respect in the general public,
is to be called by the Speaker or to be called by another Member for doing
something wrong.
I'm
going to get into the issue at hand, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to talk about
the past a little bit. It's not to identify anybody, or to name anybody, or to
say that what happened in this particular case should be forgiven because it was
done in the past, but we have to learn from the past in order to correct the
future in part.
This
minister under question in the Legislature today has been called by the House.
I'm not saying that the embarrassment that that individual is facing, not only
in this Legislature, but in the province and in the media is enough, we have to
change the process. I think everybody recognizes that. We have to change how
this is done.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to go, probably, in two or three directions on the statements
that I'm going to make today. One is that fact that he's faced a considerable
amount of embarrassment. Other Members across this House has said, yes, he is a
good minister, that's got nothing to do with it. He has to be punished.
Mr.
Speaker, (a) I think he's been shamed, and I think that's important to
recognize; (b) because this Legislature is going through a transformation, we
have the Independent Appointments Commission and the Public Service Commission,
where, in the past four years, we've had over 600 merit-based appointments. Not
chosen by the politicians, but the recommendations that were made by the IAC are
based on merit. In the previous four years to us forming government, those
appointments would have been politically motivated. I know of one department,
literally, the day before the writ was dropped in 2015, one minister in one
department signed off on 44 appointments.
Now,
that doesn't make this right and I'm not making that argument. That had to
change, and that has changed with the new merit-based process that is in place
today. Unfortunately, the general public don't realize that there are over 600
appointments that have been made through the merit-based process because we're
caught up in talking about a political appointment or a political decision. Our
agencies, boards and commissions, there has been over 600.
This
particular position was a position that wasn't included in the IAC or Public
Service Commission process, nor was it supposed to. That's why I say maybe that
has to change and we have to look at how these positions are chosen, so that we
can clean it up as we did with the IAC process and the Public Service Commission
process.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm in this Legislature now going on 24 years. In two or three months,
I'll be celebrating my 24th anniversary in this Legislature. I have seen many,
many, many appointments that were politically motivated not so long ago. In
fact, at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing an individual who was there was
brought back to run a political campaign and then appointed again and then
brought back to run a political campaign and appointed again. That was accepted
at the time because whether it was right or wrong, it was expected. It was part
of the process; it was part of the way things were done. That's the only example
I'm going to point out because this is not about identifying anybody who was
appointed or identifying anybody who's made the appointment, it's just to
clearly identify the fact that these appointments were made.
Now that
we're going through a transition and the general public expect more, expect
better of how these appointments are made, the spotlight has been put on one
individual. The spotlight has been put on that individual, Mr. Speaker, because
that individual made an appointment that became very political – or very public
I should say – and in part maybe because the individual had a political
connection. The reason I reference the Housing example is because that had a
political connection as well.
I agree
we need to make things better. The Premier has announced the process and that
shouldn't be criticized. I know it was criticized on the Legislature floor here,
but it's identified that there needs to be a new process in this report, Mr.
Speaker. That's the reason. It wasn't to throw people off what was happening. It
was because it was identified in the report. The Premier acted swiftly in
following what was identified in the report to create a different process.
I think
we're happy to do that, just as we did with the IAC process and what we did with
the Public Service Commission in ensuring that these are merit-based
appointments. That's what the general public wants. They want a cleaner process.
One of
the reasons I mentioned earlier that I was mortified, Mr. Speaker, is because I
have, for many years, called for greater respect and great civility in this
Legislature. I've been one of the champions of that. If we are going to demand
the respect of the general public, we have to deserve the respect of the general
public, which is why that process has to change as well. So we are going to
change it.
When I
sat in the Speaker's chair and we made a decision on a ruling in the
Legislature, sometimes we all know in the Legislature when the Speaker and the
Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chair of Committees go out to look at what the
decision is going to be made, we look at precedent that has been set in other
jurisdictions and, oftentimes, other jurisdictions are called to find out what
the precedent is. Because when you make a decision from the Chair of this
Legislature, it is precedent-setting. Anywhere in the British Commonwealth under
the Commonwealth legislatures, the British parliamentary system, any decision
that's made from the Chair sets a precedent.
I think
what we're doing here today sets a precedent, because never before in the
British parliamentary system has a Member been made to pay financially, Mr.
Speaker. Members have been asked to apologize. Again, I point out that the
Member has been called before the public of the province, called before the
media, has been criticized and, obviously, feels that; but we have to make a
decision here, knowing that this has a domino effect. That a decision we make on
a point of privilege or on something that comes from the Commissioner of
Members' interests – now, that's not to say we need to do something because we
do, but I think we need to think very carefully about what it is we do, Mr.
Speaker, on this decision.
I want
to talk about that for a moment because, in this, the Commissioner of Members'
interests identifies that further scrutiny and review from his office is to
undertake what is appropriate, corrective action and what is necessary. He goes
on to say that: “The Citizens' Representative had the statutory jurisdiction
under Part VI of the Act to make the above noted findings and conclusions.” It
is not his role to revisit those findings “but rather to determine what
appropriate corrective action should be recommended in the circumstances.”
So it's
important because this report, Mr. Speaker, has been quoted and pieces pulled
out of it. So I think it's important to really consider what we're doing here
today.
The
report goes on to say: “It is noteworthy that the Speaker of the House of
Assembly also forwarded the Citizens' Representative report to the Clerk of the
Executive Council. If changes or clarifications to human resource policies are
required as a result of this matter, the task of recommending that corrective
action is best completed by the Clerk of the Executive Council who can work with
appropriate government departments.”
I know
the Premier consulted with the clerk in looking to do a review of how these
appointments are made. So, in part, that is corrective action and we will get a
cleaner process similar to the Public Service Commission, similar to the
Independent Appointments Commission.
Now, how
do we deal with the individual? Mr. Speaker: “In providing the Citizens'
Representative reports to” the Commissioner for Members' interests, he
identifies that his “duty is to decide what … corrective action is necessary
given the findings of the Citizens' Representative with respect to Code of
Conduct violations.”
With
respect to the Code of Conduct violations, there are four very distinct actions
that can be taken. I'm going to read those out for the purpose of people that
are in the gallery, for the purpose of anybody who may be watching this. Because
all Members of the Legislature know what those four actions are.
It's
under section 39 of the act, and it reads: “Where the commissioner determines
that a member has failed to fulfill an obligation under the code of conduct, he
or she may recommend in the report under section 38 (a) that the member be
reprimanded; (b) that the member make restitution or pay compensation; (c) that
the member be suspended from the House of Assembly, with or without pay, for a
period specified in the report; or (d) that the member's seat be declared
vacant.”
The
Commissioner for Members' interests has these four items and will make a
recommendation to the House of Assembly and to Members of the House of Assembly
to carry out one of these or multiple of these items identified.
So, Mr.
Speaker, if we are going to follow what the Commissioner for Members' interests
has identified, one of these four items – he goes on to say that: “There have
been differing opinions from the Clerk of the Executive Council, the Citizens
Representative and legal counsel for” the minister involved as to the nature of
the appointment of the individual involved – and I'm not going to say her name
because her name has been bandied around here and this, obviously, has to be
very stressful for her and her family as well.
“Accordingly, the mitigating factor in determining the appropriate penalty is
that there are a number of differing opinions as to what was the proper
procedure.” It goes further, Mr. Speaker, to say: “Therefore, it is my opinion”
– the opinion of the Commissioner for Members' interests – that the minister
involved “should be reprimanded in accordance with s.39(a) of the Act.”
That's
why I say, Mr. Speaker, that what we do here is precedent setting. He's made a
recommendation. The recommendation was section 39(a), that the Member be
reprimanded. The recommendation wasn't that the Member pay restitution or
compensation, it wasn't that he be suspended from the House with or without pay
and it wasn't that his seat be vacated, it was that he be reprimanded. If we are
to go further than that, what we've been instructed to do and as Members of the
Legislature, it is our duty to reprimand the Member involved.
He is a
colleague. I will say he is a good minister. Members on the other side have
identified that. Members on this side have identified that. He has followed the
same procedure that was followed for years in making appointments by ministers.
Not to
say that it's right, not to justify it, but that procedure needs to change and
the Member needs to be reprimanded. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Mr.
Speaker, (a) the Member has obviously been shamed, his named has bandied around
for days in the general public; and (b) the procedure that has been followed for
years in making these appointments is going to change. We are fixing the
problem.
There
are Members in this Legislature on both sides, that have made similar
appointments – current sitting Members. We need to change the process,
absolutely. We need to reprimand the individual, absolutely, but I would ask all
Members of this Legislature to exercise caution in what that is. It is very
unfortunate that Member had the spotlight put on him for a practice that was
accepted politically in this Legislature, accepted within the public service and
accepted publicly for decades. No longer acceptable, I agree. It needs to
change, but that individual had the spotlight put on him, Mr. Speaker. Let's be
very careful in how we resolve the issue.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Lane):
The Speaker recognizes
the Member for Stephenville - Port au Port.
MR. WAKEHAM:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There
are many of us who are, as you have alluded to earlier, new Members in the House
of Assembly. We were elected to represent the interests of the people in our
districts and the people of the province.
I have
always said what's good for the people of the District of Stephenville - Port au
Port is good for the province and what's good for the province is good for the
District of Stephenville - Port au Port. The past few weeks we have found
ourselves spending more time dealing with behavioural issues instead of district
and provincials issues. We have seen the resignation of one minister, the
apologies of two others and now a minister who has been found of not only
breaching his Code of Conduct, but grossly mismanaging his obligations under
that Code.
At the
same time as I'm standing here today debating this motion, there are people in
our province who are wondering where their next meal will come from. There are
people in our province making the decision of whether or not they can afford to
continue to live in this province and there are people in neighbourhoods
wondering if their schools are about to close. The Premier could have dealt with
this report and ended this by accepting the minister's resignation, as the
people of this province are demanding. Or if the minister has not offered his
resignation, then he should have asked for it.
Mr.
Speaker, this government came to power on the promise of removing patronage out
of appointments. Let me read you some quotes. These are from the Premier's own
words: “This is why we made the commitment and our government will change what
has become a very tired practice of placing politics before qualifications. In
the past, what we've had is a process that allowed for entitlements. It allowed
for people to actually do favours for their friends, do favours, in some cases,
for their family members.”
Another
quote: The objective here is to help us so that we can put the best people in
place, “so Cabinet Members, like we've seen in the past, cannot go out and tap
on the shoulders of their fiends, call up their buddies, call up their family
members, in some cases, and say, come on, I've got a little job here, you're
entitled to it because you helped on my campaign, or you've done this here, or
you've done something for us so it's now my time to give back to you. This
selection process here takes all of that out of the way.”
Another
quote: “We have now taken steps to take the politics out of political
appointments. It is fair. It is a measured process, one that will provide this.
It will provide greater consistency, greater transparency, improve
organizational performance. You will have better people who are more
experienced, merit based and the technical expertise to make the decisions that
are so important to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.”
Mr.
Speaker, those are the words of the Premier. The people of the province expected
the same thing to happen. I was surprised and disappointed yesterday when the
minister or the Premier was asked a question by my colleague in relation to this
same speech and his answer to the question was this – in
Hansard he simply said: “Mr. Speaker,
once again we're getting politics mixed up with some of the decisions that are
being” made. “What the Member is referring to there is IAC, the Independent
Appointments Commission, and these are about Tier 1 and Tier 2 appointments.”
Mr.
Speaker, I can only take from that, that in fact there is a two-tiered system
that the Premier has and that the people who work in the public service of this
province do not get the same treatment and the same respect. As a matter of
fact, the legacy they have given the public service has been the complete
opposite. Under the leadership of this Premier and his government, we have seen
more patronage appointments of prominent Liberals into jobs whether they have
the qualifications or not. What seems to matter is their connection to the
Liberal Party.
The
appointment of Ms. Foote, also an individual with strong ties to the Liberal
Party; the one example where an independent body completed a review of a
patronage appointment and concluded gross mismanagement and interference by this
minister. Basically, they got caught and now the Premier refuses to take action
to ensure the integrity of his Cabinet and fire this minister from his Cabinet.
Others have been removed for less.
If two
independent Officers of the House were not enough to conclude that the minister
abused his position, the Premier now thinks it is necessary to spend more
taxpayer money to do further review. The Citizens' Representative knows what
happened here. We all know what happened here. The minister blatantly abused his
powers and forced The Rooms to hire Ms. Foote.
We're
here in this House debating not what the minister did but what corrective
actions need to be taken. Why do we need another review? If he did nothing
wrong, we would not be here. He failed as a minister. He failed to uphold the
core values of the public service and that is what I am here to talk about, the
public service of this province. Values that every day the hard-working public
service strive to uphold, but clearly this minister and this government chose to
ignore in the interest of ensuring their friends get the jobs.
The core
values of fairness where all employees conduct their work objectively and free
from influence and bias and are supportive of the diversity of our clients.
Respect; where all employees treat clients in a just manner and accept
responsibility for their work obligations and contributions. Professionalism;
where all employees strive towards service excellence and continuing
professional development, utilizing their unique competencies to advance the
vision of the organization.
This
report confirms that we all know has been going on in the public service since
this government came to power. There has been a revolving door of highly
competent professional public servants being pushed out. As a matter of fact,
there were 15 assistant deputy ministers who were given their notice on the one
day alone. These actions have cost the taxpayers of this province hundreds of
thousands of dollars, if not millions.
These
people were not let go because they were incompetent. They were not let go
because they weren't doing a good job. These were career public servants who had
worked for Liberal governments in the past, who had worked for PC governments in
the past, but were simply let go because this government wanted to hire someone
else. This is exactly what happened at The Rooms. The Citizens' Representative
found this to be the case, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards agreed,
yet the Premier fails to take action.
Mr.
Speaker, we just saw it at The Rooms, but there have been other cases. For
example, the former vice-president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal
Party and co-chair of the party's successful 2015 election campaign has landed a
senior position with the Department of Health and Community Services in May of
2017. This individual was appointed as the director of Pharmaceutical Services,
a position that comes with an annual salary of about $90,000 and was appointed
to the post without any competition and after they fired, without cause, the
former director of Pharmaceutical Services. How is that even possible in a
public service?
There is
a long list, Mr. Speaker, not enough time to go through them all here. The
biggest failure of this government and this Premier is what he has done to erode
the professionalism and the independence of the public service.
The
clerk of the Executive Council is this province's top public servant, which is
supposed to be a non-partisan position with significant responsibility to uphold
the integrity of the public service. The clerk's submission to the Citizens'
Representative defends the gross mismanagement of the minister. The Citizens'
Representative disagreed with the clerk and, in commenting, even said he was
perplexed. Obviously, the clerk of the Executive Council's ability to be
non-partisan has been compromised. What a message to send to the hard-working
public service.
To be
clear, we are not dismissing the role of the clerk of the Executive Council. We
are questioning her role in this review and the fact that the Citizens'
Representative considered her submission but did not change his conclusion of
the minister's gross mismanagement.
The
Citizens' Representative concluded that the employment of Carla Foote at The
Rooms did not comply with the Public
Service Commission Act. The legislation charges the commission with
responsibility to protect the merit principle. Its main purpose is to ensure
fairness in the hiring process. The minister grossly violated the principles of
hiring within the public service.
Fairness
means decisions are made objectively, free from bias, patronage or nepotism. How
could this province's public service have confidence that the hiring process
will be conducted free from political interference? This is what I feel is the
biggest failure here, the failure of this government to promise one thing and
deliver a completely different outcome. This, in fact, is the definition of a
hypocrite – preaches one thing and does another. The public service is not
better off because of this government's actions to remove patronage. The public
service is not better off because of the actions of this minister. He failed the
public servants at The Rooms and this government failed all public servants
across the province. The minister did wrong, but I believe it is the Premier
that should be apologizing for his lack of leadership in dealing with this gross
mismanagement that has undermined the entire public service.
Mr.
Speaker, I say to the Premier: You can end this now. Do the honourable thing and
accept the resignation of your minister, and if he has not offered it, ask for
it.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. the Member for Harbour Main.
MS. CONWAY OTTENHEIMER:
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I cannot acknowledge and accept what the Minister of Health and
Community Services said in this hon. House of Assembly yesterday. I have
reviewed Hansard very carefully to
ensure my accurate reporting of his words and to ensure that it is not taken out
of context.
He
claims today that his words were phrased in the context of health care. However,
Mr. Speaker, I would argue that it is clear and evident in his comments and
unequivocal they are in their intent. Please allow me to repeat them.
There
are words spoken by the Minister of Health and Community Services: “There was a
reference to mistakes being made. What I would argue, however, is there may be
some errors of process but what if the actual mistake we're really referencing
is a systematic, long-standing, cross-party government practice that we have now
been forced to recognize was never designed as a system. This system is not
unique to this government, it is not unique to this department. It has existed
for decades.
“I can
go back to my own department ….” He then talks about lateral transfers, and what
is very key here, Mr. Speaker, are the concluding words of the Minister of
Health and Community Services are the following: I “support the contention that
it is unreasonable to unduly victimize one individual for a mistake that is
embedded in the system.”
Let me
repeat it: I “support the contention that it is unreasonable to unduly victimize
one individual for a mistake that is embedded in the system.” Those are the
words of the Minister of Health and Community Services.
Mr.
Speaker, those are the facts. That is the evidence. I ask the people of the
province to evaluate for yourself these statements made by a senior minister of
this government. Ask some of these questions: Do you believe this is what is the
central issue here? Does this have an air of reality, based on what you've heard
and what you've seen over the last few days? Do you believe that Minister
Mitchelmore is being unduly victimized by a mistake that's embedded in the
system? Do you believe that this is about a mistake that is embedded in the
system, that it's a flaw in the system, rather than a misuse of public power, an
abuse of authority?
Mr.
Speaker, I look at this and I review this, I think very, very hard about this
and it is very troubling. The minister is not acknowledging the contents of this
independent report. I would argue this is clearly a flat-out denial of
responsibility by a senior minister in the Cabinet of this government. Sadly, it
appears that he is keeping in line and following the Premier's lead, which is
comprised of denial of responsibility.
Mr.
Speaker, the leader, the Premier, who throughout these past few days, in his
messaging to all of us in the hon. House of Assembly and to the people of this
province, consists of deflecting responsibility, ignoring the facts, turning a
blind eye to the wrongdoing that is clear and based on uncontradicted evidence
as we've seen by the report – a blind eye to the inherent breach and violation
of ethics by Minister Mitchelmore.
Mr.
Speaker, the facts are in the report. We only have to read this report. The
facts here are black and white. I'll refer to just a few of those facts, and we
will let the people decide.
In the
report, the Citizens' Representative stated, on pages 29 and 30: “We conclude
that Minister Mitchelmore's actions in intervening to facilitate the hire of Ms.
Foote at The Rooms not only breached his Code of Conduct, but grossly mismanaged
his obligations under that Code.” And this is a Code of Conduct. We all have to
adhere to it. It's about professional ethics. It's about ethics within the House
of Assembly.
We also
see in the report, on page 30: “The fundamental objective of his holding …
office is to serve his fellow citizens with integrity in order to improve the
economic and social conditions of the people of the Province.” We've heard from
others about this – my colleagues. What about that job? What about that job of
improving the economic and social conditions of the people of the province? We
have not been able to give proper attention to this because of this scandal
that's occurred.
When we
look at this, Mr. Speaker, we have had no choice but to discuss this and debate
this, and why is that? Because when we're talking about misuse of public power
by elected officials who are put in here by their constituents, by the people,
this threatens so many things, Mr. Speaker, in our society, what we see here. It
threatens ethical values. It threatens justice. It, in fact, destabilizes our
society and it endangers the rule of law. Hence, it is important that we give
this its due recognition in terms of addressing it.
Mr.
Speaker, I would argue this is not about what we would have senior ministers
say, that it's an error of process. That's not what we're talking about. This is
about a breach of ethics. It's about misuse of power and authority, perhaps even
akin to corruption. When we look at what corruption is, in essence, that's a
misuse of public power by elected politicians that are elected to represent us.
Mr.
Speaker, it is of grave concern to myself and many of us, especially the newly
elected Members in the House of Assembly. We cannot believe what we're hearing
and what we have seen in this session and especially with respect to what has
occurred in terms of the hiring of a person.
Again, I
look at the individual, how the individual who had that job was personally
impacted. How can that be justified? How can you put an individual, someone in a
job for two days and later give it to somebody else and say, no? What do you
say? What do you say to that person? How do you honestly justify that action?
Sorry, we made a mistake, we have someone else.
Mr.
Speaker, as my colleague from Torngat Mountains said yesterday, we, especially
the newly elected Members of the House of Assembly, won't be a part of this. We
cannot condone this. We have to stress that things have to be changed. We have
to have a different culture here.
When we
look at this policy we just passed last week with respect to the harassment
policy, well harassment within the definition, the first thing that's stated in
that definition, it includes abuse of authority, and here we are.
Mr.
Speaker, these are not happy times. These are sad times. These are sad times for
all of us and mostly for the people of the province who need to have elected
representatives who are working on their behalf, but are doing the work
ethically.
We know
that according to the Citizens' Rep, Minister Mitchelmore grossly mismanaged his
obligations with respect to the Code of Conduct, with respect to his
professional ethics given his involvement in the appointment of Ms. Foote to The
Rooms, and I might add, the setting, or permitting to be set, her salary almost
$50,000 above what it originally was.
We
cannot stand for this kind of conduct. We have to take a stand. Mr. Speaker,
that stand will not be addressed by a reprimand of an apology. It is incumbent
upon either the minister to do the right thing and step aside for the good of
the province, for the good of the party, for the good of the government. If he's
not able to do that, then the leader, the captain of the ship, has to do the
right thing and that means remove him from Cabinet.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor - Buchans.
MR. TIBBS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker, and don't leave out the Buchans, for God's sake – because I learned it
the hard way – and Windsor.
I'm
speaking here on behalf of new MHAs. We have some on this side of the House and,
of course, we have some on that side of the House. We're all new to this and
we're trying to figure our way through.
I'm
going to be the last guy to stand here on my high horse and demolish a man or
woman here for a mistake that they made in the past, but it's hard to watch.
It's hard to watch the debate back and forth, sort of thing, about a mistake
that a person has made, because we all make mistakes. Everybody here, there's
not a person here who has not made a mistake.
Having
that said, we're all supposed to be on the same team. It's a common goal, Mr.
Speaker. We're all here for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and we want
the best for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I've
worked with lots of these ministers yesterday, the day before, the past two
months, the past six months and there are some good people in this House of
Assembly that want the same thing. That's not in question here. Not once has the
question been asked is the minister in question not up to his task with his
constituents or whatnot. That's what has to be looked at. We're all here for the
same reason, but what we have to look at is accountability.
Since
four days – it's been four days since Monday, besides today, sorry – we have not
watched that minister get up and do anything. He hasn't gotten up and said
anything. The questions have been asked and people want the answers.
I can't
help but think how different this narrative would have gone if on Monday at 2
o'clock or Tuesday, the first question had been asked and this minister had to
have gotten on his feet and said: I fooled up. I made a bad decision. I was
given some bad advice and I unequivocally apologize. The narrative for this week
probably would have gone in a total different direction.
I can't
help but think if that had happened how much time, money and resources would
have been saved in those couple of days. It boggles my mind. I don't even
understand the motion that's put forward. Why is there a motion put forward?
Again, I'm a new MHA but it boggles my mind that there has to be a motion put
forward to apologize for this. That should have been a given, should it not?
We've
seen apologies across –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. TIBBS:
We've seen apologies across
the way all week here. Lord knows, the Member for Terra Nova apologies on a
daily basis now.
It's as
simple as that. I don't understand why there's a motion to apologize for
something that you've done wrong.
I might
be a new MHA, but I'm as old school as you get. I grew up on oil rigs. That's
what I've done my whole life and, trust me, I've made my fair share of mistakes,
million dollar mistakes at that when it came to big oil, but I owned up to it. I
always owned up to it.
I'll go
one step further, when I had a roughneck down the line that made a mistake, I
took it on my shoulders. I always have because I was the leader, and I just
don't understand what's happening now.
As a new
MHA, again, it just boggles my mind that this drawn-out process over – yes, a
delicate issue, but it definitely could have been handled a different way right
off the hop and it would have changed the narrative for this week I think.
As for
this independent review, I'll save you $100,000. It was wrong, don't do it. For
a year now, the public have been screaming about this. This is a mistake.
There's no way this can be true. It's a code of conduct.
For a
year the public have been screaming about this. There's no way that a full
province sees something wrong with this and the government doesn't. I've seen
something wrong with it, and everybody has. We govern the province but we have
bodies that govern us, too. We have two bodies that say this was wrong.
Again, I
don't know where the motion is coming from where we're debating for four days
about an apology. Where I come from, if you do something wrong you apologize,
then you take it from there. Then we can talk about what happens from there sort
of thing.
Mr.
Speaker, I think a lot of people are asking the Premier and asking the minister
if he's going to step aside from his Cabinet position, or if the Premier is
going to remove him from his Cabinet position. There's a reason for that. If we
have a minister in a position like that, highest of powers in this province, and
he makes an obscure decision like he has, well that relates back to his power of
authority.
We're
not saying take him out of Cabinet because he's not a good person, because he's
incompetent with his constituents. Nobody is saying that, but if you're going to
abuse a power like that, you're going to make those kinds of decisions, then
where you stand in the hierarchy, that has to be questioned, and I think that's
exactly what we're doing here today.
When
we're talking about an apology; again, I don't know why a motion is put through
for an apology. It should have been done long ago. Let's apologize to the 77
people that took the time out of their day, took the money, the hopes and dreams
of possibly getting a job with The Rooms, one of Newfoundland and Labrador's
greatest places. I've been there, I love it, but these people thought they had a
chance at a job and they applied. Let's apologize to them. That got short listed
to three people who were like – go home to your family and it's like: I got a
good, possible position at The Rooms here and I'm really looking forward to it.
When I
was going through the campaign, I loved it. I thought to myself, I got a good
chance of getting a seat in one of the greatest places in Newfoundland and
Labrador, and I got it. Can you imagine what these three people went through
thinking they were going to get it, when they never had a chance in the first
place? That's sickening; that's disgusting to me.
Then the
person that was hired on for two days, did that person quit a job to go to that
one? I'd be pretty angry, I can tell you that right now. So if you don't see the
wrongness in what was done here, then we've got a bigger problem, I can
guarantee you that.
We can
apologize to the people who don't have insulin pump. We can apologize to the
seniors who don't have dental care; $40,000, that's a lot of money. Over how
many years from now? That's a lot of money.
The
Minister of Finance said many times, we come in here for asks. Whether it be
1.6-kilometre busing or whatnot, we come in here for many asks. He says his door
is open. Well, is his door open today? Because I have about $40,000 there that
we could free up. So that's just a question.
Apologize to Ms. Foote. The Premier has often said, I can't believe you guys are
putting her in this situation. We didn't put her in this situation to have all
the media attention and stuff like that. None of us hired her. No doubt, I'm
sure she's a great lady and it's no knock on her, but it should have been done
in the right way and it wasn't. Now she's faced with this situation. She is, and
it's horrible.
Like I
say, Mr. Speaker, when you do something wrong you have to own up to it; you have
to own it. That's something that should have been done here a long time ago.
The
ministers across the way, absolutely, a lot of them are so fantastic. The
ministers that have been kicked out of Cabinet, they've done great jobs, too.
Nobody is saying that this minister and his career would have been over tomorrow
and done. We're saying that right now he doesn't deserve to be in Cabinet, and I
don't think he does either.
So, Mr.
Speaker, that's something we have to look at. I would never want a man to lose
his job, and that's just my own personal opinion. I would not want a man to lose
his job along the way, but accountability is in the highest regard when it comes
to integrity, and there's no place that should have more integrity on this
Island, or in the Big Land, sorry, Newfoundland and Labrador – don't want to get
in trouble with Lela. There is no place with a higher integrity than where we
stand here today.
I'm not
trying to preach, because I'm going to make my mistakes, too. I guarantee you
I'm going to make my mistakes along the way, but I will own up to them. That's
the most devastating part, as a newly sitting MHA here today, to have to watch
this for four day. The same thing with the minister across the way, when it took
two days a couple weeks ago to take back his comment and apologize. I just don't
understand what's happening here.
I'm a
blue-collar worker; that's the way I've always been. There are a lot of
blue-collar workers here that feel the exact same way, and on the other side.
That's just the way I feel, and I don't understand why the apology wasn't given
a long time ago.
Mr.
Speaker, I can't help but to think there have been mistakes made in the past;
we've talked about that. If we do make these mistakes – there are certain
mistakes that have different gravity; we know that. Certain mistakes have a
higher end of power and then certain mistakes have a lower end of power, and
we've seen that with apologies across the way and whatnot.
If I'm
going to continue to be proud of what I do here, I don't think that we can
afford to waste the time that we're wasting here. As a new MHA, we get into our
roles and we're just trying to see how things go, sort of thing, back and forth,
whatever, and I've watched people on this side and the other side for years and
have gained so much respect for them. I just can't understand how you can
justify what's happened – how you can justify it.
I'm not
saying that anybody on the other side has said, hey, there's nothing done wrong
here. They realize that, but over the last couple of days, so many of them have
stood on their feet – and I have to tell you, the amount of respect I have for a
lot of these people is fantastic – and they've come up with different ways of
lateral movement and movement inside. It's just absolutely sickening for me to
hear, personally. Once again, I'm not trying to be on a high horse because it
could be me tomorrow, but I guarantee you that I will apologize when the time
comes that it is me. I don't mind that.
Mr.
Speaker, we've been talking the past couple days – we have our little meetings
around the room sort of thing and whatnot and talking to the Minister of
Transportation and the Minister of TCII. When we have these little meetings, we
talk about what's going on in our districts and trying to get the best for our
constituents and our districts and whatnot. I can't help but think, these are
the people that are in government right now that have to help the rest of the
province. That's great. But your integrity will be called into question once you
make the decisions like the decisions that were made. You can't help that.
This
isn't our constituents. Go outside and listen to them. They did the
questionnaire on VOCM – 86 per cent of people – my constituents, your
constituents – want that minister removed from his seat. They do. They want the
minister removed.
So if we
ask the Premier to remove him from Cabinet, for all the right reasons – and I'm
not saying that you're removed from Cabinet and your career is over. A year down
the road that minister might work up again and get some credibility and be back
in the Cabinet, who knows. But for him not to do the honourable thing and step
aside, because I think the question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition
today: Who directed you? Did the Premier direct you? No. Who directed you? The
feeling we're getting is that nobody directed him. That tells me that take it on
your shoulders yourself.
Because
I tell you what, when I make my mistakes – and it's no disrespect to our Leader
or our House Leader – I'm not going to sit here, I will not sit here, I'll stand
on my own two feet, like I'm hoping a lot of other people would, I'll fall on
the grenade, I'll jump on it. If it's on me, it's on me. I will take the
responsibility for that, just like I think most people here would.
The
Member for Lake Melville made a mistake. He's a great guy, he is. The Member for
Lake Melville, I've had lots of interactions with him. He made a mistake. A
grave mistake in the public eye? Absolutely. Took himself from Cabinet. Like my
colleague said, it's hard to watch, it is difficult to watch another man or
woman have to take that kind of heat, because, contrary to popular belief, yes,
we do this, but it's 40 Members representing Newfoundland and Labrador, it is.
I have a
big heart sometimes, and it's very hard for me to watch, it's extremely hard,
but what's harder to watch is nobody taking accountability. That is so difficult
to watch. I'm sitting here and I am absolutely bewildered by it and I don't
understand.
So from
what I know, we're going to vote on this. I just want to say this, there are a
lot of good Members here. When I went door to door for my campaign a lot of the
things I was asked was: Tibbs, are you going to toe the party line or are you
going to be there for your constituents? Because everybody hears about toeing
the party line and doing what's best for the party, and they want to know which
one am I going to do. I think I came up with the right answer.
That
same question is going to be asked of every Member here today. Are you going to
toe your party line and think that a simple apology after four days of debate is
suffice enough to just wipe out what happened and we move on with the day?
My
constituents, and the 86 per cent of the constituents out there, including your
constituents, say, no, that's not enough. When I vote today, I'm going to vote
with them. I'm going to vote representing them. Not because I'm going along with
the crowd, nothing like that, it has nothing to do with it, that's what my
constituents want and that's what my heart tells me, too.
I want
to make sure that the recommendation of an apology – that's great, that's a
recommendation. They keep talking about the recommendation. The Premier keeps
talking about the recommendation of the apology. It's just a recommendation,
guys. We can do better than that. We have to hold ourselves to a standard that's
above anybody else in the province.
Again, I
hate to stand here and preach this because I know that we've all made mistakes,
but now we have to vote. I, just like everybody else here, have to go back and
face our constituents. You're going to get the question at the end of the day:
Do you think that the mismanagement is worthy of an apology, something so grave
as to that?
The fact
that it's been done before – new MHAs over there, we're looking to change stuff
like that. When I came in to this House of Assembly I'm looking to change stuff
like that, I am. I know that the newer MHAs – and the older ones too, of course,
yes, I know – we're all looking to change that. We have wide eyes and bright
minds and we're just thinking to ourselves, what can we do that's different?
I know
my constituents gave me a mandate. They said: Tibbs, when you get in there don't
play the political game. I don't want to, I really don't want to, but we have to
face our constituents at the end of the day. I just want to make sure that all
40 Members in this House are prepared to face their constituents with that
question. Did you vote with your party today or did you vote with the 86 per
cent of the people in the Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I would
ask the Members over in the corner to please take your conversation outside.
MR. TIBBS:
Are you going to vote with
your party or are you going to vote with the constituents that put you in this
seat today? That's what I want to know, but, again, you have to face them at the
end of the day, so I want to make sure that everybody makes the right decision
here because you're going to have questions and, by God, we better we have
answers for those questions.
I'm sure
I'll make my mistakes along the way too, but now is not the time to debate an
apology. The apology should have never ever been debated. That should have been
done all week sort of thing.
My time
is coming up and I'll take my seat, but I just wanted to get up and have my say
from where I stand. Again, we'll all make our mistakes, guys, but a mistake
that's this grave, that's this heavy cannot go under the rug with an apology,
I'm sorry and that's it. It has to be a higher standard, and that's all I'm
telling you guys here today. Because you have to face your constituents at the
end of the day.
At the
end of this day, I know I can face mine. You have to ask the question: Can you
face yours, with the upcoming vote? Because if it's just an apology, you pretty
much condone – condone – the fact that it's a simple mistake, slight of hand,
slight of mouth. It's not – it's not. It was planned, premediated to get
somebody that they wanted in that position. That's wrong.
When the
positions come up and I want to hire on somebody and I'm in the position again
someday, like I was on the rig, you better have your résumé in order. I don't
care if you're my mother, my sister, my best friend because it's just not right.
I
encourage everybody today to make that right decision, because it's coming and
it's something that you have to live with for the next three years or four
years, or eight years or however long we're here. I encourage everybody, when
the vote comes, make the right decision because the 86 per cent out there,
they're going to know about it, I guarantee you.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just
want to let everybody know, the people around the province, there's no joy in
standing here today to speak on this issue – absolutely none.
There
are a few things I just want to clarify. I heard the Member for Grand
Falls-Windsor - Buchans speaking about crossing party lines. I'm going back
eight, 10 years ago when a certain Member of your caucus had an issue and
everybody was saying he should do this, should do that. I was the one who
stepped out and said no, we're all going to suffer. Families are suffering. I
walked over to the Member and I said stand up and apologize, nothing else. He
shook my hand and he stood in this Legislature and he said, look, that's the way
we should do it here. I have no problem crossing party lines whatsoever when I
think something is right or wrong, absolutely.
Another
thing I find, I don't know if it's sad, but I know that there are people's
mothers being brought into this. It's sad. This person that you're talking
about, this person wasn't the mother. This person – you're talking about the
mother?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. JOYCE:
How many years? I sat with
her for many years, I think eight or 10 years. One year she had cancer and she
stayed in to vote and here we are trying to vilify her for some reason. This
lady did more service for this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador than any of
us are going to do and we're bringing her name into this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE:
Blessed Lord, keep her out of
it – just keep her out of it. She did more service; she did more work when she
was in Ottawa. She did more work when I sat next to her, so let's keep the
debate to what it is. The person that's involved with it, down where she's at
now, I know when I worked with her she was excellent to work with. Let's not
think that she's somebody who someone just picked off the street.
The
position itself, that's not what I'm discussing, but my dealings with that
person were always professional. They were always great. A great person, great
personality; she had the credentials. When I was dealing with her, she was
excellent. I just have to put that out there and what happened after, I don't
know. Those two people, if this person ever got where she was at – she got on
her own because I was involved with her coming in to our office in the
Opposition. This stuff about she has this because of so-and-so, this person
stood on her own feet and the person that we talked about, her mother, did more
for the province than any of us are ever going to do.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm going to stand here today and just speak about this because I've
been through it. I've been through this and I know what the Member is going
through. I've been through a lot of this. A lot of the allegations that were
made were false, absolutely false, and there's going to be more coming on a lot
of that. Again, I hate to stand here and say it but my name is in this report as
one of the reasons why we should do this to the minister. I did something – Code
of Conduct.
I know
I'm not going to present anything in the House about the reason because I
influenced the job. I have to speak on it because I'm in the report. I don't
mean to be bringing me into this, but I'm in this – because of what happened to
me, this minister should get the same thing. I just want to read this and this
will all come out by the way.
I just
want to let the people of the province know – and I'll explain why – all this
stuff that I introduced, the two things I'm going to read here now, I never had
the opportunity to even see or even present to. When I saw this, it was when it
was tabled in the House of Assembly. That's when I saw it.
I just
want to read it and I'm going to relate it back to the situation going on now
with the minister. I'm going to read it because I'm the template, apparently,
for what happened.
Here's
what the deputy minister of Service NL, Sean Dutton, said in his report: When
did the conversation take place? September, early October, for four to five
weeks. I was nagging a certain person four to five weeks. Late September, early
October, so let's say the beginning of October up to the first week of November,
I was nagging about this job.
Here's
another letter – so I have to question all the evidence put in – and I never had
a chance to refute any of this because it was so easy. Here's another letter.
November 17, 2017, the vacancy was readvertised on the government website as a
public opportunity. That's when that job was open. You know who this letter is
from? Sean Dutton.
While
I'm being vilified, Sean Dutton himself is contradicting his own – the deputy
minister contradicting himself. I never had a chance to refute it, yet when you
come in the House of Assembly, all the big hoopla, you're crucified, you're
vilified before they even get all the information out. I know what the minister
is going through, some of the stuff that happened, but I'm sure there's stuff in
that report – I'm confident there's stuff in that report – that's not accurate.
I'm confident. There are a few others things I'm going to speak about, too.
Then,
when you go outside this House, you go outside in the media and I go back to
Humber - Bay of Islands and I was fortunate to get elected, almost 70 per cent
as an independent. I just want to thank the people that know me and thank them
for sticking with me on it.
The
other part, for myself and Dale Kirby, is that when the allegation was made –
and I'm not here picking on anybody; I'm only just stating the facts.
Allegations were made October 25. They were brought up in the House of Assembly
October 25. That afternoon, I was asked to leave the Cabinet; I wouldn't leave.
Next morning, the Premier removed him from Cabinet. Never an allegation made,
just a verbal allegation. Gone. Boom. The whole hoopla around here. And then
Dale Kirby, the same thing.
Yet, we
see the Premier now, rightly or wrongly, that's up to the Premier; it's his
decision, rightly or wrongly. Everybody's gone; the minister is still there.
Right or wrong, that's not my decision; it's the Premier's decision, but you can
see the difference in how the Premier is treating things, the inconsistency of
the whole point.
Then
when it hit the media, rocked by scandal. The whole House of Assembly is rocked
by scandal, the big scandal going on, what was it, over a 13-week job and Dale
Kirby told someone he loved them. It's pretty sad, but this is what brings the
culture here today; this is what brings the culture here today. So this is
nothing new. This is what brings it here today.
Years
ago, we'd sit down and we'd handle all this stuff. Now, it's almost like
everything is being weaponized through different agencies of government.
Then,
the other sad part about me – and this is why I have a problem. I say to the
minister involved here, I'll say – and I know a bit more – this is why I say,
when the allegations were made against myself, they were made to the Premier of
the province. When I went into his office, he told me what the allegations were.
He
looked at me and said: Ed, they're all BS. They're BS – exact words. He said,
why don't you go down and do some – bring up some mediation. I said, mediate
what? That's how the conversation went. But do you know the sad part about all
that? The person I asked to go as a witness to show that they changed was the
Premier of the province. He was never called as a witness, or wouldn't go as a
witness.
The
person who could have cleared all this up from day one was the Premier of the
province, and he was never called or he wouldn't go. If he was a man, like I
thought he was, he would've stepped in and said no, no, no. Because there was a
staff member with him who took all the notes and when they went in to the
Commissioner, this other person said: no, no, I don't think that's right – took
notes, not right. The only other person was the Premier, and he never had the
courage.
So I
know what you're going through with the Premier of the province. This is why I
don't believe a lot of things I hear today about the Premier. Then, of course,
the allegations change. We have to look at the person that came in.
I can
tell people right now, back last September, I spoke to the Premier and Greg
Mercer about this. I knew this person was coming in, and I'll tell you why. They
called me. Do you know what they wanted to know? Because this guy worked in the
government before when I was in government. That's what happened.
Now,
what happened, what the process was, I don't know. How the process worked, I
don't know. I honestly don't know, but I can tell you that I spoke to the
Premier and the chief of staff, Greg Mercer, last September about this person
coming in; make no bones about it.
So I say
to the minister, if you're going to die on the sword, that's up to you. If it's
true or not, I don't know. Only you know that, but I can tell you, the
information that I know is this person was coming into that position. Now, how
the other things unfolded, I have no idea.
I can
tell you one thing right here, right now, with my dealings with the Premier of
the province, I know the information he put out in the public domain about me, I
know the information he said to other people, that he stood in this House and
denied, I have a hard time believing anything he says about what happened with
this. I'm sorry, but I do. Because my experience with Dwight Ball is that a lot
of the things he might say in here and what he's telling other people –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I remind
the Member, you can't use a Member's name.
MR. JOYCE:
Yes. I'm sorry about that.
I'm just
saying it because he was such a good friend. When I hear stuff he says here, I
have to take it into question because I know what was said about me and I know
what he told my family. I know what he said in the House and I have evidence to
prove what he was saying.
So this
is why I have evidence, because I know personally this person was slated to come
in; and how they're going to do it, I don't know.
I've
been in government a long while; there's no executive position going to be taken
out of government unless the Premier sanctions it. Now, if he could sanction it,
that's up to him. If he don't sanction it, that's again – but I can tell you,
there's no executive position. Now, he might direct someone underneath him, Greg
Mercer – which he usually does – to go do it. That's fine, but the Premier of
the province to stand here and say: I never spoke to this person. Premier, there
are a lot of ADMs and DMs that were removed or transferred, you never spoke but
you gave the direction and the Clerk of the House took care of what your
direction was.
So this
idea, I never spoke to this person – do you know the sad part about it? This
person who went down there, she went through it all. She went through it all.
There should have been an OC cut and delivered. That's what should have happened
there, simple. OC, executive position, order-in-council, transfer her over. That
should have been done and we wouldn't be here today. We would not be here today.
Why it wasn't done, I don't know.
When you
look at the report itself – and I go back to it, Mr. Speaker. I go back to it
and I look at the report. I guess going through it and you analyze it, and I
look at – do you know who wasn't interviewed in this report? The Premier of the
province. The Premier of the province was never interviewed. Greg Mercer was
never interviewed. Was the person coming in to get the job, were they ever
interviewed? Was the person who was going in the other position, were they
interviewed and said, who offered you the position?
These
are the questions that I have to ask. How can you sit down and say this report
is complete when there are major players in it? I revert to myself, Mr. Speaker,
where I was a major player –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. JOYCE:
Yes, I know, Mr. Speaker.
When I was a major player – and I never got interviewed. How can you give a
report that's complete without interviewing the Premier of the province, the
chief of staff, the person – ask when the person that came in to the other
positions in communications when were you offered a job, who offered you the job
and the person that left. Who spoke to you?
How can
you look at this, take this for face value and let a minister go through all
this without this being in the report. It's pretty hard. I went through it, I
say to the minister. It's pretty hard when the major players aren't even
interviewed to give their side of the story about what happened.
Why
wasn't there an OC cut? This minister doesn't cut OCs. He doesn't do that. Why
wasn't that done? So, here we are, the big hysteria about this big job – no
doubt, there's public outcry. There's public outcry out there, absolutely, no
doubt, but I can tell you one thing, the people in the Humber - Bay of Islands
elected me to do the right thing, not the popular thing.
I need
to stand up here and talk about all these issues, the issues that I have with
this report, because I've been through it. I know the minister has been
crucified over this, I know his family has been involved and I know your mother
is all upset. Listen, that's family. They didn't run for this.
I heard
the Premier of the province stand the other night and say the report is flawed.
Here's the Premier. If you think this report is flawed, why don't you, Premier,
take this report now, send it to someone outside and do a proper investigation
where everybody is interviewed who was involved with the process, and present it
back to the House of Assembly so we have the full picture. If you think that's
flawed, here's your opportunity.
You
can't stand there and say the report is flawed, you not being interviewed, the
chief of staff and two other people not being interviewed and say we have to
accept this. I've been through it, and I'll tell you when you get the facts out,
it's a different story than the hysteria that's being created around this House.
Minister, I see what you're going through, but I can tell you when you get this
report and the major key players aren't in there that could have clarified this
– why wasn't there an OC cut? That's the big thing. Why didn't the clerk of the
Executive Council cut an OC? That was never answered in this report.
We're
going to debate, we're going to vote on this report now with the Premier of the
province saying there are flaws in it, just like he said to me there are flaws
in the report, but we have to crucify somebody. He's doing the same thing to
that minister. Premier, I have to say it's shameful; it's actually shameful to
take this and wash your hands clear of it, walk out and say, I had nothing to do
with it.
I ask
anybody who's been in this House and Legislature as long as I have, name me an
executive position that was ever transferred or put in that the Premier didn't
okay it. It just doesn't happen in government.
Minister, you're falling on the sword. I don't know what happened; I wasn't in
the room. I can tell you one thing, before I'm going to throw you on the sword,
I'm going to try to get to the details of who else was involved with this, why
it wasn't done through the proper channels and who never stood up and spoke and
said here's what we should do and follow the proper channels. I can tell you,
the person that we're talking about here is a good person. I know her, a very
good person. For a position down there, that's something that the minister is
saying but I can tell you, all my dealings, a good person.
I'm not
disputing any of that but I'm disputing the same thing, Mr. Speaker – myself and
Dale Kirby. You have to dispute the process. Once the process is flawed, the end
result is going to be flawed. I don't mean to say this in any devious, bad way
whatsoever, but when all this happened with myself and Dale Kirby in this House
of Assembly, the PC Opposition – I know a lot of the new Members weren't here –
recommended we get suspended for 30 days. The Leader of the Opposition saw me
out in the elevator and apologized. Didn't know the report, didn't see all the
details of it until we started flushing them out. It's still not out there yet.
This is
the part. I think – my personal opinion – what I'd like to see is this House of
Assembly unanimously stand up and say let's get an independent investigator to
come in. Let's get all the people involved in this that were involved with this,
not just that one minister who I – and myself and Dale Kirby felt the wrath of
that, felt the wrath of being cut loose. Report back to the House of Assembly so
we can make an informed decision. If we were a proper Legislature – and I look
back at anything else that we ever do. Do we always want the facts before we
make a final decision? The answer is always yes. Minister, I know what you're
going through.
There's
another thing that I have to bring up here very quick. If you notice in this
report, the Citizens' Rep did the report. He can't assign Code of Conduct
violations. He gave it to the Commissioner for Legislative Standards who never
sat in on any interviews, never asked for any additional information; he just
signed off and said, yes, here's the breach of the Code. I'm not saying he did a
bad job, the Citizens' Rep, I'm not saying it, but here's the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards taking the report from the Citizens' Rep, not being
involved with any interviews – took it and said, boom, yes, okay, signing off on
it.
I know a
person in a gas station who signed off – one of the people working with him
signed off on a car doing an inspection. The car was in an accident and they
came back and said, did you see it? No, he did it; I signed off. No, no, no, you
have to look at it; you have to be here yourself. It's a very small point, but
look at when the Commissioner for Legislative Standards signs off on this.
I'll
tell you why that's important. When myself and Dale Kirby went through this
whole gamut here in this House, he hired Rubin Thomlinson. Rubin Thomlinson came
in, did the report and said there's nothing wrong whatsoever. He added a few
sentences. He took this report without doing any evaluation, without calling one
witness, without calling any significant witness and signed off on it and said
you're guilty. What a double standard.
I can
tell the people here, I'm not here to defend the minister; I'm just talking
about the process here. We have the Commissioner for Legislative Standards
signing off on something without even doing any investigation. I can say one
thing I'll say to the minister, the Premier: There's a lot more to it because a
lot of stuff he said about me is factually incorrect. I'd like to know and hear
from the Premier on this under oath before I make any decision.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. Member's time has
expired.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. the Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that the debate
adjourn for a moment.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I move
from the Order Paper, Order 5.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development, pursuant
to Standing Order 11(1) that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday,
December 5, 2019.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
Against?
Carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I now
call from the Order Paper, Motion 3.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Speaker recognizes the
hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I said
it one time before here, sometimes it's an honour to stand and speak in this
House and sometimes it's a struggle to do it with the circumstances.
Unfortunately, this is one of those circumstances that affects everybody.
It's
having an impact on the Members in this House, a particular Member more than
other Members. It's having an impact on people who are affected outside. It's
having an impact on the general public. As you can see through social media, as
you can see if you go out to an event, what people are bringing are up, it's
taking away from the integrity, the process and the importance of what we do in
the House in Assembly.
With
that being said, Mr. Speaker, it's a serious issue that we're having to have
this debate about. We've heard a number of speakers speak to this issue. It's
related to a report about improper procedures that was done by a senior Member
of the House of Assembly and a senior Member in Cabinet. Obviously, we're all
accountable for our actions. We're all responsible for our actions. We all must
own up to and take responsibility for the repercussions. That's just a reality
that we face.
We've
had a lot of debate and we've had a lot of discussion around what would be the
proper reprimand in this position. The reports that have been outlined by two
legislative Members of this House, the Citizens' Representative and the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards, have noted that there was wrongdoing
here, that there was a violation of a number of issues and that there has to be
a reprimand, Mr. Speaker.
We have
to make the reprimand fit the reality of where we are. I know people will think
certain things are too lenient and we're not sending the right message to some
things. People will think things are too stringent or too harsh in what we're
doing, but we have a responsibility in this House. We have a responsibility to
do the right thing for people. We have the responsibility to set the bar.
I talked
about the harassment bar being set and the integrity of the House. Well, again,
I talk about the responsibility for the decisions we make. We have to live by
those. Mr. Speaker, we've heard a multitude of people talk about what it means
from their district point of view and their own integrity, and what it means for
the general public to have faith in what we do in the House of Assembly. What it
means for not being in a position now to be debating legislative policy that
would improve people's lives because we're distracted by things that have
happened.
Things
happen. We realize that. I doubt if people deliberately set out to do certain
things that have a detrimental effect on people's lives, but it does happen.
When you do that you're responsible, particularly, if you knew or should have
known a process that should have been better than that.
Mr.
Speaker, I can't speak holier than thou because I was somebody who violated – an
infraction in the House of Assembly and I live by that. I understand my
wrongdoings and I apologized to my colleagues in the House of Assembly for what
had happened at the time. You learn from it. I would hope my situation taught
other Members about the disclosures and what they need to have in their
disclosure statement.
At the
time, Mr. Speaker, that was seen as a major infraction because I think it was
the first one that was ever seen. In hindsight, in looking on what's gone on
since then and looking at what's in this report – that paled in comparison.
That's no defence for what I had done. I owned up to it, took responsibility for
it and have rectified the situation since then. I hope that part of what we did
had an impact on other people in the House in what that was relevant to.
We have
now to be responsible for the next level of the integrity of this House and that
means setting the bar again. Unfortunately, there has been an infraction. I
prefer we never get up and have to chastise or criticize or even question the
integrity of anybody in this House, or the work that they had done or the
decisions they made, but unfortunately, we're doing this now after outside
entities who are legislative Members of this House as the Citizens' Rep is and
as the Commissioner is.
We have
a responsibility to deal with this to set the tone for ensuring that we learn
from what's in this report and that we prevent people from doing it again.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, to do that, we have to send the proper message to
everybody, not only our Members here in the Legislature, but to the general
public, that we hold ourselves at a higher standard.
Mr.
Speaker, while we're debating this motion, I'm now going to stand and make an
amendment to the motion that's been put forward.
I move,
seconded by the Member for Conception Bay South, that the resolution respecting
the Member for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows be amended as follows:
(1) By
adding immediately after the word “Assembly” in the second clause a comma and
the following: however, the unprecedented findings by the Citizens'
Representative that the Member grossly mismanaged his obligations by violating
five principles of the Code of Conduct warrants a severe reprimand that is
higher on the scale of punishment than a typical reprimand; and
WHEREAS
the practices and precedents in the hon. House in dealing with motions regarding
reports and recommendations of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards
regarding Code of Conduct contraventions provide that the House may amend the
motion to intensify penalties under section 39 of the act as it did repeatedly
on November 6, 2018; and
(2) In
the last clause, by deleting the word “recommendations” and substituting the
word “report,” and by adding immediately after the word “Assembly” the second
time it appears the following: unequivocally, and orders and further that the
Member: (a) submit an unequivocal apology to the House in writing; (b) submit an
unequivocal apology to the former and present board members of The Rooms
Corporation in writing; (c) meet with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards
to review the Code of Conduct of Members of the House of Assembly; (d) be
suspended from the House of Assembly without pay for a period of two consecutive
weeks when the House is next in session; and (e) make restitution to Her Majesty
in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador an amount equivalent to one year's salary
of a Minister of the Crown in this province.
Mr.
Speaker, we put this forward as an amendment to the standing motion.
MR. SPEAKER:
The House will recess for a
period to review this amendment. We'll report back to the House shortly.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Are the House Leaders ready?
The
Opposition House Leader is ready? Yes. The House Leader for the Third Party
ready? Yes.
I've had
some time to examine the amendment. The amendment is in proper form and within
the scope of the original motion. I find the amendment in order.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
I'll start the way I started before, nobody cherishes this debate we're having
right now in this House of Assembly. This is not about an attack on anything
other than ensuring the integrity of this House. It is front and centre for
ourselves in this Chamber, but for the people that we represent.
Mr.
Speaker, we've had a lot of dialogue, we've had a lot of discussion around where
we go with ensuring that people have trust in what we do. We've spent the last
18 or 20 months talking about how we win back the respect of the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador, about our decorum in the House of Assembly, what the
position of an elected official is, what an MHA stands for and what it should
stand for, but, particularly, what it stands for in this House of Assembly.
It
should stand for and it always did stand for, and I would hope that it would
continue to stand for, the integrity of debating legislation that improves the
lives of people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That it stands for good dialogue,
good debate but good decision-making, at the end of the day. It should also
stand for representing the wants, the needs and the voice of the people.
What we
had presented here earlier was what we were hearing from the people. It's what
we felt needed to be said in the House of Assembly. It's what we all felt,
particularly on the Opposition side, needed to be set when it comes to a
standard of acceptability on our behaviours in the House of Assembly and the
decisions we make.
Again,
as I said earlier, there's no intention for anybody to do any malice against
anybody here, to take away anything that wouldn't be justifiable, Mr. Speaker.
We
presented an amendment based on a report by two credible officers with integrity
that we all must adhere to and live to the standards that they set here when it
comes to the Citizens' Representative that not only talks about our conduct, but
the Citizens' Representative also looks globally in Newfoundland and Labrador in
representing the needs of individuals.
Keep in
mind the allegation or the initial starting of this report didn't come from
somebody in the House of Assembly. It came from somebody outside. It came from a
citizen who felt there was an injustice, that there was a wrongdoing. That there
was enough evidence to do a full investigation to determine if somebody had
overstepped their bounds, if something inappropriate had been done and if there
should have been a different protocol put in play to make sure that everything
was equal and even across the board.
Because
it is what it is, it's unfortunate that the findings dictated that somebody had
overstepped their bounds; a gross misuse of authority – those are the findings.
They're not me saying that. It's not my interpretation; it's what's written in
this report, Mr. Speaker. I prefer it wasn't there. I'd prefer this report
didn't exist. I'd prefer it didn't have to exist but it did. A citizen exercised
their rights; a citizen exercised the protections they have in our society.
There
are a couple of things I take from this. I take from the fact that we do have a
process that does protect our citizens; it does protect the integrity of what we
stand for. It does ensure that those elected officials, like all of us in this
House, must adhere to a set of rules and regulations and a Code of Conduct. From
that, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, himself then, has taken it,
has looked at it and has said we need to do better. We need to ensure that
there's confidence by the general population about how we conduct ourselves in
the House of Assembly and that there needs to be a reprimand, that we're all
accountable for our actions.
As I've
heard from my colleagues on this side, particularly, about the impact it's
having – and we're only talking the last three, four days we've been having this
debate – on their citizens. Their own people phoning in, sending emails, being
upset, questioning things and equating what we've done here to other issues
within government and all this. Whether or not they're directly connected or not
is immaterial, it's the perception that is out there right now.
It's
unfortunate because we want people to have hope in this province. We want people
to feel the decisions we make here will improve their lives. We want people to
say, at the end of the day, when I mark an X, I mark it for integrity, I mark it
for openness and transparency, but I mark it for somebody who's going to, at the
end of the day, do the right things. Do we all make mistakes? Of course we do.
Do we all have to own up for them? Of course we do. We have that responsibility.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm not going to prolong this because, at the end of the day, we put
forward something that, after discussion and after listening to the general
public and after weighing previous decisions, we felt would be an appropriate
restitution for the severity of what's in this report.
We'll
have an opportunity to have more debate and dialogue, Mr. Speaker, and then as
this House is a democratic Chamber, we'll get to vote on the outcome of that
motion.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.
MR. LESTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, like
many of our colleagues, stand with a heavy heart and head today. The issue we
face before us is not about individuals, it's about a process that occurred,
that was revealed to – for the want of a better word – it was – I know we have
terms within the report, but when we look it this is more than just about the
people here in this House. This is more than about the individuals who were
directly involved. This is about our whole province, the future of our province.
This is a process that we had hoped was dying in the days of old politics. We
can't continue to substantiate the sins of today by sins of the past. We have to
do better. People of our province expect us to do better.
We've
heard MHAs from all sides, we've heard the Premier, we've heard people arguing
to substantiate the action, saying it's a normal procedure. We've heard people
saying that, no, it's not. To the best of my knowledge and my research, it was
not a normal procedure. There was a legitimate way to place that individual in
that position, and that was ignored. So while many people in this House have
said it was a mistake, this was not a mistake, Mr. Speaker, this was a
deliberate action by the minister. For that, it's inexcusable. For that, someone
has to pay the cost.
Right
now, Mr. Speaker, do you know who's going to pay that cost? Right now, we have
an individual who had the job – well, who was awarded the contract. That
individual has rights. Those rights were violated. That individual now,
allegedly, has a case against our own provincial government for the damages that
they incurred, the loss of revenue, the loss of employment, the loss of,
technically, their credibility.
We also have a commitment to the individual that is now in
place. A commitment that is, as we've all said, up to $50,000 more in an annual
salary. But do you know what? An annual salary, on the basis that maybe that
individual may have another 20 years of employment, possibly, in that very same
position, that could be up to another $1 million – $1 million just on the face
value of that $50,000 per year. Plus we have the liability, plus we have
the additional salary costs that are associational with that.
Now, who
pays for that? This decision was outside protocol. This decision was beyond the
scope of the minister's authority. That's why, in this report, it was identified
as gross negligence, gross mismanagement of the minister in question. While I
personally have no issue with the minister, I have a responsibility, just as all
of us do. All of us have a responsibility to the ones who hired us, our
constituents.
Mr.
Speaker, when we look at $50,000, this is not our money. If we could say this
was our money, Mr. Roarke would be sitting here in the Premier's chair. Can
anybody remember Mr. Roarke? He was the owner of
Fantasy Island. Basically, what has happened is money has been used
as if it was a fantasy. Money has been given out on the basis that nobody is
going to have to pay it back.
I can't
even say it's today's people who are in existence today, it's not their money.
Do you know why? Because the last time I checked, we were running a huge
deficit. We've run deficits for years, to the tune of us having to pay almost $1
billion a year in interest.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I ask: Who's going to pay that? Is there any plan to pay that this
year? No. We don't have the financial ability to pay that. So when we look down
the road, by condoning what's happened – and there's no retribution for this –
we're adding another $1 million of unfunded liability to our grandchildren, our
great-grandchildren; generations down the road. They are going to be encumbered
by a decision to increase the province's payroll.
Mr.
Speaker, as a business owner, if one of my managers went and made a decision
that was going to increase the liability without increasing the net worth of the
province, I can tell you one thing, that manager wouldn't see tomorrow morning,
not on my farm, and that's a problem.
This
province, for so long, has been run as a political theatre. It needs to be
changed into a business. Managers, being ministers, the ones who oversee
different aspects of the enterprise, they are responsible to the CEO, being the
Premier; but not only that, the Premier is responsible to the shareholders.
Who do
you think the shareholders are in this province, Sir? Who do you think, Mr.
Speaker? They're the men and women of today, the children of today and the
children who will become men and women of the future.
Why is
it that we can sit here today, we've listened to people say, yeah, sorry is good
enough. Do you know what? A sorry is not good enough. A sorry is far from good
enough because there's a real cost to this decision, a real cost that someone
else is going to have to pay.
Through
our amendment that is now on the floor, that represents a very small portion of
what this decision, and by all reports through the
Mitchelmore Report, was an
inappropriate action and an abuse of public trust. That's what this comes down
to. This is an abuse of public trust.
We've
sat here now for two days and spoke of this, while people outside those doors
are losing their homes. People outside those doors can't afford the medication
they need to keep themselves healthy or to mitigate an issue that they have.
People outside those doors – and while we don't want to think about that much,
people outside those doors are hungry, they're cold. Why? Because they do not
have the money. Why? Because the cost of living exceeds the amount of money they
generate. Why is that?
I'm
pretty sure everybody can say we're in a tight spot. While everybody said blame
here, blame there, the reality is there are people suffering and actions such as
this are only complicating that. Actions such as this are discouraging
investment in our province. Actions such as this are only fuelling the fire of
nepotism.
Through
a recent report that was commissioned by this administration, that was one of
the key things that was preventing people from coming back and considering a
career in this province. One of the key things was they felt they would never be
judged on their merit. They felt that in order to get a position within
government or wherever it may be, or one of the boards or agencies, you had to
be in the know. You had to be part of that.
While I
commend the work of the Independent Appointments Commission, there are obviously
gaps, voids and facilities that still exist that allow government to bypass the
Independent Appointments Commission, and that's a problem. That's a big problem
because without faith in the virtuous venue of being examined on your merits and
getting rewarded for said merits, where is the future?
Mr.
Speaker, as a business owner – and there are many people within this House that
have businesses or been involved in businesses – there's huge value in an
interview process; there's huge value in a competitive application process.
While we've heard the Premier and several Members say that the individual is the
best person for the job – and maybe that person is – but we will never know if
that individual is the best person for the job.
We,
through the minister's actions, have done a disfavour not only to the whole
general populace; we've also done a disfavour to that individual who was placed
in that position at The Rooms. That individual's credibility will be forever
questioned. Why? Because the proper procedure was not followed.
There
have to be consequences for actions. There have to be substantial consequences
for actions. While my constituents and people of this province have expressed
their frustration, I don't know if we have the power to exact equivalent damage
that we've done to our province's credibility; the individual's credibility, who
was involved in this human resource issue; or the actual physical, material cost
of this affair.
The
Premier stood saying we have to do a jurisdictional scan. There's no need for a
jurisdictional scan, Mr. Speaker. Walk down the street. Every week I run into
literally thousands of people. Sometimes I'm dressed up in a suit; other times
I'm in coveralls. Over the past week and a half, they've come up to me and
they've expressed their opinion; they've given me their own scan of the
situation. In those thousands of people that I speak to each week, not one of
them was okay with this.
We all
walked into this Legislature – or put ourselves for public office. We put
ourselves up for interview; we put ourselves up for a competitive application.
Let's look at democracy. We were chosen by people based on who we are, what we
could offer and how we could better people's futures. That's how an application
process is done, through examination of our merits, through examination of our
qualities. That's how we ensure that we get the best individual for the job.
Without
said interview, without said process, we don't know. It is our duty to the
people of this province, again, to the present and the future, to make sure that
we fulfil that duty in the most honourable way possible and ensure that we are
doing the best job for them and for the future of the province.
Mr.
Speaker, every one of us put ourselves up for office not on the basis that we
were going to continue the same; we put ourselves up for office on the thoughts,
on the belief in ourselves that we could do better. Everybody could see that our
province needed a change. Everybody could see that we need to change how our
province is run, how our province moves into the future and how our province
uses our resources and how it spends its money. We all said we could do better.
Evidence in this report proves otherwise. It is definitely a reflection on all
of us. The longer we sit here and stand in our places, trying to legitimize or
trying to counteract, we all become sullied with the actions condemned in this
report.
Mr.
Speaker, when you look at $50,000 a year – not just $50,000 one-time, $50,000 a
year – that could provide insulin pumps for about 500 people and supplies for
their insulin pumps for a full year. You can buy 1,000 months of bus passes. It
can cover 25 people's worth of eye injections for a year. It can provide a
dental visit for 250 people a year. It can provide eyeglasses for 300. It can
provide 96 months of rental subsidy for those who are right now living in
emergency shelters.
It can
provide 13,733 hot breakfasts for our children going to school. It can provide
10,000 hours of wage subsidy at $5 an hour that would enable our employers, who
are driving this economy, to hire more people who are in desperate need of jobs.
Mr.
Speaker, we all picked up the paper yesterday; I guess most of us did. We saw
the headlines on the front page. There were two headlines on that front page,
Mr. Speaker. Does anybody know what the second headline on the front page was?
Probably not, and shamefully so if they don't.
The
second headline on the front page was food banks usage up another 6 per cent
this quarter. Climate change is predicted to drive the price of food up to the
average family in Canada by $500 per family. Given our geographic isolation and
the cost of food here, you're looking at about $730, $740. Mr. Speaker, that per
cent of food bank usage is only going to rise. Our people are going to be
hungrier; our people are going to be colder. That $50,000 that we have allocated
for this extension of this position could be used in much better ways.
Mr.
Speaker, as we all consider the upcoming vote, I would ask all Members within
this House to think of what their constituents would say, if you dismissed what
your constituents would say. Before we all vote, let's go out and have look in
the mirror. Look yourselves in the eyes and say am I content with letting the
people of the province bear the cost of this malice. Am I content with the next
time a constituent calls looking for $150 for a basic need, to say, no, we do
not have the money for you?
That's
what's on my mind. It's not about the minister. It's not about the individual
that was placed in the position. It's not about the individual that didn't get
the job. It's not about 70-odd qualified individuals who applied for the job,
it's about that constituent who is going to be short $100 dollars on their rent
or $100 on their mortgage and lose their home. That's why it does not sit with
me, nor my constituents, nor the people of this province.
Mr.
Speaker, if we can legitimize the actions of this minister and dismiss the
recommendations of this report, I will be walking out those doors with my head
hung in shame.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
The
debate now has turned into a very important direction. There is absolutely no
question that this House does indeed have the power to regulate its own internal
affairs. Part of this debate today is about the notion of sanction and
reconciliation for events that have occurred that would not meet the
parliamentary standard; the Westministerian standard that has been established
since generations ago.
This is
a hallowed hall. This is a very, very important place that comes and bears with
traditions, and sometimes tradition is not always adopted as a modern
prescription for a 21st-century legislature.
It is
worth noting that progress has been made. While we often lament and draw concern
to the perception of the Legislature and the function of the Legislature and the
performance of our democracy, it is worthy of us saying that we have been
successful, in my opinion and I believe other Members' opinions, and in the
public's opinion, that we have been successful in many measures in making
progress in certain key areas of a 21st-century Parliament.
That
includes such things as enacting the – we've advanced new territory in the 21st
century from our workplace harassment delegations. We have really, really drawn
distinction to ourselves in such matters as our renewed mandate towards
democratic reforms. We've had a proposal, currently, or at least being discussed
in the periphery but still front and centre amongst us all, in our thoughts and
minds, for consideration about Indigenous inclusion and engagement within our
Legislature. So with that, we should resolve that progress has been made.
Today,
it is evident that a turning point has been reached where we will take that even
further; we'll take that further afield and arguably break some of those
Westministerian protocols that have been entrenched in how Parliaments behave
and what are the norms of Parliament; the norms and protocols of dealing with
issues such as the honour among Members.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, you would be well aware, and any student of Westministerian traditions,
would be well aware that often restitution is done through a calling of the
Member; restitution through the issue of apology. It is not a light punishment
in any parliamentary system to be called, to be called out, to apologize and to
issue an apology. It has happened in the past and, undoubtedly, will happen
again, regrettably as that may be, but we are all human, we do make mistakes.
But in
this particular case, an amendment is being put before the House to impose a
particular financial penalty directed at a Member of the House in performing of
a ministerial duty. Undoubtedly, this is not a point of argument, this would be
a point of fact. This is a true break from Westministerian precedence.
Some may
suggest this is a valid, modern prescription for a modern-day legislature, and
there would be ears to that argument. But given the fact that the elements of
the restitution, which are currently before the House, were arguably – arguably
– somewhat – somewhat – arbitrary, given that it was done without precedent or
without pre-consideration, the way that this debate has increased, I think we
have to very clear-minded amongst ourselves that the weight of this debate has
now significantly increased.
So this
amendment becomes more weighty, which some may call fair and necessary as part
of a 21st-century Parliament. I would suggest a measure such as this deserves
sober thought before the arbitrary is to be adopted as permanent, because once
we establish this as the prescription, let's be very clear with each other, this
is the permanent model. This will be the permanent model for consideration for
this Legislature.
A wise
person, a wise man once said to me, change is definitely necessary and change
can be very good, but to be sure-footed where the change will take you, you must
examine it first. He said that in this regard – with his tongue in his cheek
somewhat, but true to word – conventional wisdom, the bane of progress, can
often be considered to be borne of either convention or of wisdom. That is what
Westminster and Westminster-style democracies does provide us. It is a
historical account of an examined approach to how Parliaments should function
and function over the long term. But with that said, change is always good.
But if
we are to look at treading on new ground to make the Legislature and our
practices, our codes and our conducts relevant to a 21st-century Parliament,
then of course perhaps, really, the prescription is to delete privilege in its
totality. Privilege is an ancient, but a very relevant one in the 21st century.
Every Member of this House has privileges; a connotation in an outside world and
an outside voice is bred with contempt. We 40 Members have privilege. Well,
those privileges include protection from civil actions while conducting our
business as parliamentarians, protection from the civil action of slander. We
have protections from being able to be called for jury duty, which every other
citizen must be called to. We have privilege.
In a
21st-century context, look from the outside looking in, why would we continue
with these ancient traditions? Why would we stand when the Speaker stands? Why
would we hold to attention? The various things that are born in historical
context, I would argue they're done for good reason. They're part of a
convention that allows for that discipline, that decorum and that respect.
One of
the greatest elements of our Westminster tradition is an expectation and an
understanding of the honour of Members. It would be contrary to say that a
Member is dishonourable; it would be the default to say that they have honour.
By taking the oath, they have honour. I think that maybe put in a context that
maybe we're moving away from that historical tradition, that the assumption is –
and it may be a cynical one – there is not an applied honour, it has to be
proven first instead. That's a 21st-century look at how we behave.
If we're
to do this, let's look more closely at the issue at hand, and that is the offset
of a financial penalty against a Member and, arguably, a tough one. I will not
be one to say that is not a fair consideration, given the fact that there has to
be an incentive to better behaviours. Let's be clear about this with each other:
This will now be the new norm. We will be setting a precedent and a capacity
that will forever guide this Legislature for all future events.
I
listened very closely to the Member for Mount Pearl North talking about if you
were to take this within a business context, that the penalty must meet some
sort of – there has to be a direct correlation or a reasonable correlation that
because we spent time in the House, because we argued this within the House,
which is a cost measure, then there has to be a financial measure in reply for
restitution. I have heard those words and I recognized them for what they were.
I think it's something that's worth exploring, but in the next several hours we
are going to make a decision. This will become the permanent format of our
Westminster and it will be different then all other Westminster parliamentary
democracies that I know of. With that said, change is good. Change should always
be contemplated.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, let's contemplate what may be the potential in the
future. The Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands may want to know this, because
normally what would happen is that the majority would be put in check. The
majority in a majority government would be put in check against imposing its
will against the minority, the Opposition.
If we
consider this to be the new norm, then a future majority government could very
readily say, in response to an action or a debate on conduct of a Member of the
Opposition, a future majority government could say this side of the House has
determined that your behaviour is egregious and now I will impose – or this side
of the House, whoever that may be – the penalty and we will be the judge, jury
and prosecutor all at the same time. The penalty that we will impose may be
quite dramatic. The restitution in a majority government, the opportunity to be
able to impose a similar or reflective restitution, will not be held with the
Opposition as holding of the minority of seats. So be careful would be my
thoughts I'd say.
As a
person who sat in Parliaments as a legislator for close to 24 years, one of the
things that I've always understood is that the will of the majority should not
be to the tyranny of the minority. What is established here today could be very
precedent setting. I'm not saying it's the wrong thing, I just want a reflective
debate on what it is we're about to do. If there were to come a time when a
future majority government that's feeling very empowered, feeling very powerful,
feeling very popular and an issue were to come forward, that maybe the Member
for – an independent Member or a Member of a smaller party were to find
themselves in a position where a disciplinary action would be taken, we now have
basically no format, no procedure, no basis to be able to establish what that
penalty may be.
So be
careful. The tone and tenor of this decision here tonight may reflect other
things. I could hypothetically argue, for example, that maybe down the road we
will face situations in this Legislative Session which will be contentious.
I could
imagine when the LeBlanc inquiry is rolled out there may be findings of fact
that may not necessarily be complementary to the good standing and popular sort
of standing of political parties or individuals within legislatures. Of course,
then we have a situation where we have to decide as to whether or not
disciplinary action will be taken there.
Could a
Parliament then turn around and say, maybe what the prescription is, is to
simply say that while Members of that particular decision taken so long ago,
maybe the Members weren't there – I just raise this as an example. Maybe there
might be a resolution on the floor of the Assembly that says maybe what should
happen in restitution is the party that took the decision so many years ago
should have all of their research and caucus capabilities stripped from them as
a punishment for that egregious behaviour.
These
are the things we have to be very, very reflective of. Is that the kind of
Legislature we want to have, where the will of the majority or the popular
consensus – because if we talk about, as the Member for Mount Pearl North said,
there has to be a financial reality that's put into check here and a check in
the balance – but I can't think of a more egregious thing.
I'm
arguing, I'm debating now – and people will want to challenge the debate. Yes,
there were costs associated with some of this in terms of legislative sitting
time, but I can't think of a higher cost than the $12 billion that may come from
a particular decision to which a Supreme Court justice is about to, in due time,
at some point in time, is going to unveil a report on the findings of his
inquiry, and it may not be very necessarily flattering. It may be very
unflattering, which may then cause a situation where there may be a resolution
on the floor.
So, with
that said, I will be concluding up soon. I do want to say within that vein, that
Members be reflective of the fact that what is a shield today may be a sword
tomorrow. We have an honour among Members.
I would
ask consideration, Mr. Speaker, of the following sub-amendment to the amendment
to the resolution respecting the report of the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards respecting the Member for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that
the amendment to the resolution respecting the Member for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux
Meadows be amended by deleting paragraph 2(e).
Mr.
Speaker, seeing the time on the clock, I would love to espouse more on this
because there is an important, important discussion to be had on this, but,
unfortunately, it will not be able to be held within the context of this.
Be
mindful Members; all be mindful, that which we do tonight or at some point in
the future will be a shield or a sword that will be precedent setting for years
to come, for Legislative Sessions to come, and if there is a situation where now
today in a minority Parliament, bear in mind that in a future majority, where
the rights and privileges of the minority are not necessarily as guaranteed,
where the rights and privileges of the Opposition are not necessarily
guaranteed, then we may find ourselves in a situation where this is –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. BYRNE:
I'm sorry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you.
The
Speaker will guide me.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member has moved his
amendment, so we're going to take some time to rule on this amendment.
I'm
going to suggest to the House as well, that we might want to schedule a supper
break now for half an hour so that we can enjoy the music of the Royal
Newfoundland Regiment Band and the Holy Trinity Elementary class and watch Emma
Clarke of Victoria light the lights outside.
So is
that amenable to the House that we'll break until 6:30? We'll be back here at
6:30, by then I will rule on the sub-amendment moved by the Member.
December
5, 2019
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIX No. 26A
The
House resumed at 6:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER
(Reid): Admit strangers.
Are the
House Leaders ready? Is the Government House Leader ready?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Some people are coming? Okay.
Is the
Opposition House Leader ready?
MR. BRAZIL:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House Leader for the
Third Party ready?
MR. J. DINN:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Government House Leaders
ready?
MS. COADY:
Yes, thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The sub-amendment is in the
proper form and it's within the scope of the original amendment, so I find the
sub-amendment in order.
The hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BRAZIL:
Point of order.
MR. SPEAKER:
Point of order, the
Opposition House Leader.
MR. BRAZIL:
The minister didn't adjourn
debate, so as parliamentary process he's not entitled to speak again on the
motion that he made.
MR. SPEAKER:
My understanding is that the
Member is speaking to the sub-amendment that he made.
The hon.
the Minister of Fisheries and Land Resources.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Again,
that's a very good segue into an example of some of the rules and the procedures
that we follow in this House to ensure that there is decorum, that there is a
tempered flow of debate. These are some of the rules that have been established
since very ancient times.
I think
that's one of the reasons – I'll use that as a simple segue into the discussion
that we now engage in which is a conversation amongst Members about the
consequences of our decisions and precedents that we set. I think it is fair, it
is arguable, it is worthy of debate and debate means that my point of view does
not necessarily hold the test and probes of counter debate or challenge, but I
would like to ensure that the House has an informed opinion about where it is
that we now take this road.
Lovely
to hear the Christmas music, Mr. Speaker, bellowing us to happier and thoughtful
times, but now in the floor of the House at this hour of the night, we reflect
on the fact that we have to take something very serious. That goes even beyond
the scope of the immediate of this situation.
As I
explained earlier, or as I debated earlier or argued earlier, we have an evolved
set of Westminsterian-style rules and procedures that were conventions that
arguably are conventional wisdoms. They were borne over a course of time,
reflecting on past practices, past experiences of Westminsterian Parliaments,
not to inhibit debate, not to limit debate, not to limit the freedom of Members,
but to enhance the freedom of Members and the honour of the House.
The
penalty and restitution required resulting from a finding of either a breach of
privilege or contempt has always been – the most serious punishment has been
that the Member be named and called. The element of being named and called is a
serious one, and I could say even, for the Leader of the Official Opposition,
his chief of staff – I've known his chief of staff for many, many years and have
a great working relationship with him, I believe. I remember that the hon. Bill
Matthews did say something which was unparliamentary and was determined by the
Speaker that it was unparliamentary.
For the
last 18 months of their political career, on the floor of the House of Commons,
were unable to say a word. They were allowed to vote, but Mr. Matthews was
unable to speak. He participated in no debates. He participated in nothing
related to the activities of the House itself. He was allowed to participate in
committees. That in itself, Mr. Speaker, is a very, very serious penalty.
For a
parliamentarian not to be able to speak is a serious penalty. For a
parliamentarian to be withdrawn from the House for any period of time,
reflecting on the fact that it does pose a clear reprimand for the Member, but
the flip side of it: It also means that their constituents will not have a voice
for a period of time, and that's the balance that we face.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, our Westminsterian-style democracy, our
Westminsterian-style Chamber and the rules that we have developed, while
ancient, do have certain legitimacies. Can they change? Absolutely, and as I
spoke on the original amendment, it is clear that change is good, change is what
refreshes and makes the Chamber relevant. One of the many things we have done,
in terms of our workplace harassment protocols, is our movement toward greater
recognition of democratic reform and the renewal of our democratic reform
Committees and initiatives, as well as, as I said earlier, engagement of
Indigenous. While still just a seed of an idea, it's an important one that seems
to be flourishing amongst both sides of the House. These are types of reforms
that we can contemplate as being progressive and good, but with that said, let's
reflect on the fact about what Westminster-style democracies do.
The
freedom of speech of hon. Members is the most important privilege that we hold.
That privilege is enhanced by other privileges such as freedom from civil tort
while performing duties or serving of civil papers in tort while serving in the
parliamentary precinct and freedom of civil action against slander. We can say
things to each other here in this Chamber that we would never ever be able to
say outside of that door right there, that bar. Why? Because the freedom of
Members to speak in an unfettered way in debate is something which is absolutely
sacrosanct in a Westminster Parliament, even though it is contrary to the norms
of what we have all around us.
With
that said, should we investigate? Should we consider removing those privileges
as something that is archaic and not in keeping with the 21st century? That is a
valid point. It is worthy of consideration by our democratic reform Committees.
I would argue that these conventions are born in wisdom and they should be
upheld or at least, strong, strong, strong consideration given before they are
arbitrarily amended. They are born out of necessity and value.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, one of the most important considerations that we have
before us is a reflection of the rights of all Members. In keeping with the
reflection of rights of all Members, the will of the majority cannot be imposed
arbitrarily and without thought, without an element of fairness on the minority.
Speaking in terms of this Chamber, a majority government cannot impose a certain
penalty or a decision against the Opposition that would be in contrary to a fair
outcome, because that can happen.
We are
debating this in the overall balance of a minority right now – and that's fair –
where arguably both sides are of equal power and balance. We think about this as
being a norm or a constant, that this is a good procedure because that balance
will always be in place. Mr. Speaker, it will not. The likelihood of a majority
government of some variety in the future is pretty high. In our Standing Orders,
in terms of the ability of governments to amend motions or private Members'
motions, the ability of governments to interact with the process and procedures
available to the Opposition, there are very, very strict codes to limit how the
government can impose – the majority can impose its will on the minority.
Mr.
Speaker, what we have here is a situation where a very serious, a significant –
I don't think anyone can argue that. There is a significant personal penalty
being expected or extracted against a private Member, a Minister of the Crown
that would arguably be arbitrary simply in that it does not come from a process,
it was not thought through from a code or a reasoned consideration of what the
standard of this House might be. It was born out of we have a situation before
us tonight, so let's do this.
Mr.
Speaker, the consequence of that can be very, very serious. Whenever decisions
are taken which are quick – for example, the expropriation of the Abitibi
properties. When we move quickly on an action there can be the law of unintended
consequences that flow that may not have been foreseen. It's why things have to
be put in place to consider these in advance.
I, for
one, would not want the situation where if I were sitting in Opposition, that
the will of the majority could be imposed upon me. I would argue against it. I
would suggest to you that we have lost sight of what it is that our Legislature
is supposed to be about. I would not want in the context of this particular
situation that we have decided that this is the way it will be. Bear in mind,
Mr. Speaker – and I said this earlier, let's be clear minded with each other.
This is not a ruling of the day. This is not a determination of this particular
incident. This is the establishment of a new code, of a precedential code, that
will be here for many, many, many Legislatures to come.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, I think to raise this in a context of even in this
current legislative session, there might be a time that comes where an
individual Member, whether it be on the government or in the Opposition, may
have taken the decision – the use of a government program, anything at all –
where there was a flaw or a fault, and then suddenly that becomes relevant to
the floor of the House and there could be restitutions that are paid. There
could be a situation with the LeBlanc report, for example, which we know is
coming. It could be very easily argued that there were not a significant number
of Members that were a part of the government of the day, that key decisions
related to the Muskrat Falls deal were made, therefore, there is no consequence,
there is no penalty. There's an absolution of responsibility here because the
Members opposite were not part of that particular process.
With the
freshness of the LeBlanc report – and, hypothetically, I'm just thinking out
loud in a sense that it probably will not necessarily be all that flattering.
It's a possibility. I have no idea of what the content of the report will be,
but there's a possibility it may not be all that flattering. Should the House
then decide that because this is egregious, this is a $12-billion problem that
the taxpayers now have and somebody must pay and the administration that did
this must pay. There was a problem that needed a resolution, so at that point in
time there's a motion on the floor of the House of Assembly that says that maybe
what the answer is, is that if there are individuals that don't receive this
sort of restitution or punishment, maybe it should be imposed upon the party.
I'm not
comfortable with this, but if we follow the tone and the tenure of what's
happening on the floor here today, that would be very legitimate. That would be
a natural flow of the debate and the process, the new procedures of our new
Parliament where resources could be suspended, or something could happen that
would cause a penalty to be imposed because there's a deserving of a penalty.
That,
Mr. Speaker, is something we should be very, very cautious of, but tonight we're
going to pronounce – or sometime in the future, I think – on this. Is it fair?
Notwithstanding the fact that no Westminster Parliament that I'm aware of has
done what has been suggested here in the sub-amendment by imposing a personal
penalty, a financial penalty on a Member. That is the will of the House that
will decide this.
So
please, without exception, don't suggest this is something that I am contrarian
to. This will be decided by the will of the House. My purpose and point here
tonight is simply to argue that as we do tonight, we do for the future. It will
be a standard that will be imposed on all Members, and it could very well result
in the case of the will of the majority being imposed upon the minority.
Mr.
Speaker, while there may be some criticism of that, there may be some debate of
that – whether or not that's legitimate, whether it's an overstatement, whether
it's an overreach – I would suggest, maybe, it might be valuable to get
thoughtful minds to engage in this discussion with us, because there are 500
years of historical reference in this regard and while we have created this
situation here before us right now, there is always a reason.
Conventional wisdom is often borne of convention and/or wisdom. That's the key
concept that I would just simply hold with you. It's why this sub-amendment, the
amendment to the amendment is, I believe, worthwhile because there could be a
situation –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. BYRNE:
Mr. Speaker, I would argue
that – I appreciate the fact that as we hear Christmas music in the background,
there's some levity from the other side. But, always, one of the key aspects of
this institution is that we hear each other out. I would ask hon. Members
opposite to allow me to be heard out. If they don't wish to hear what I have to
say, then at least let others hear what I have to say by being fair-minded in
their comments and the noise level amongst others.
With
that said, Mr. Speaker, I'll keep going with courage.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member has a right to be heard in the House.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When we
think this through, this is a debate about decorum, and we can reach high
platitudes; we can reach high standards. We started this debate with one of the
most egregious affronts to our House, which is the contempt of presenting a
document, a privileged document, to select Members outside of this House before
other Members can receive it.
I would
concur, Mr. Speaker, your ruling on the same, that there was a prima facie case
of one of the breaches of the standards of the House was warranted and should be
investigated. I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Then, following that, we also had
a point of order where there was a Member who placed an affront to the integrity
of another Member, and you also had to rule on that and then rule in the
affirmative that there was a breach.
So while
we argue very strenuously that this House must maintain its decorum and its
dignity, and the only way we can do that is through very, very strict rules and
procedures that go outside of the norm, that take it into a 21st century
context, I just simply say: don't stop change because it's change. Think through
change so that you know that the result, the place where you end up, is where
you wanted to go.
That is
the most important message that I offer, is that I would never want to see,
based on December 5, 2019, that an ill-thought-through decision was taken which
results in a future majority government or any government, or any Parliament,
any legislature, doing something, having power to do something and having
unfettered power – unfettered power – to impose their will on the minority or on
an individual independent Member or on a party without standing, or a party that
basically is trying to participate but now finds itself in a situation where
they are totally subject to the will of the majority. That is not a good place
to be.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I'll conclude with those thoughts. I don't think I can reinforce that
any longer or with any greater value. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, with some
23-odd years of parliamentary experience, for better or for worse, my experience
has taught me that I have seen actions taken against individual Members and
against groups of Members by majorities that I would never, ever, ever, ever
want to see again. That's one of the reasons why, Mr. Speaker, I have moved my
sub-amendment to the sub-amendment.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.
MR. J. DINN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I
start this, I recall the speech the Member for Torngat Mountains gave yesterday,
and I'm thinking of the word shame, because there are days – and I've said it to
my leader – when I've turned to her and said: What have I gotten myself into?
Because I came in to this House with the best of intentions.
I've
been asking myself – as this debate takes place, because this is basically the
second time we've been debating an issue of conduct in this House – of how did
we get here. In some ways, I guess, we're having this extensive debate because
we're in a minority government and we're having a government that hasn't yet
adjusted to the fact that it's in a minority government and hasn't yet learned
the whole notion of what collaboration and co-operation truly means.
If I'm
reading this report – and I'm going to come back to this – correctly, it started
with a hiring in 2018. There was a complaint made; there was an investigation
launched by the Citizens' Representative. There was a report, which was then
viewed by the Commissioner for Legislative Standards. There were findings made –
and I think more than once it was about gross mismanagement – a penalty
suggested, and it lands here in this House for us to decide the proper course of
action.
I do
believe it's safe to say it was an ill-thought-through decision that got us to
this point, but it occurred in 2018. I look at the real-world penalties for such
behaviour versus the House of Assembly penalties for such behaviour, and they
bear no resemblance to each other. I can tell you whatever penalty we assign
here tonight – next week, whenever – will not come close to what would happen to
an individual if they were found guilty of such a complaint.
It came
to the House of Assembly. There was an opportunity from the get-go of coming up
with a reasonable, measured approach. It wasn't, so here we are in the amendment
stage. We're not looking for a pound of flesh here; we're looking for something
that metes out the appropriate punishment for the deed.
The fact
is from the beginning, I would say the vast majority of people in the province,
and certainly on the Opposition here and probably within the caucus, have
trouble accepting and believing the narrative that has been put forward about
the events surrounding the hiring.
I'll
start with a question, Mr. Speaker, that I asked this morning about whether it
was the clerk of the Executive Council that made the decision, and that was very
clear. Yes, that's what's been said. It was the clerk of the Executive Council.
Now, the
only structure I can think of that would be close, this person would be the top
civil servant in the province. When I look at the NLTA's structure, I had an
executive director. They were in charge of the administrative side. I was in
charge of governance. But I can tell you this: Never did my executive director
act without having a conversation with me or without bringing me in the loop.
And if it didn't happen, I was ultimately going to be responsible for it. I was
going to wear it anyway. I always said I would never throw staff under the bus.
I would answer for it in public, but that was the top job I was being paid for.
So I
have a hard time accepting the fact that the clerk of the Executive Council
acted – woke up one morning, we must do this – and moved on. I have an issue
with that. It defies credibility for me. I'm having trouble with it; I struggle
with it.
The
hiring a year ago, this whole debate, has basically undermined confidence in the
process, and I'm talking about the hiring process. I'm talking about even here
in this House of Assembly. I can understand why the Member for Torngat brings up
the word shame. I refuse to be shamed as well, yet here we are, talking about
this.
Much has
been said about precedent, about Westminster parliament, about this could be a
sword or a shield, be careful where we're going in the decision we make. I used
to get this thrown at us all the time in my previous life. It was usually said
like this: Be careful what you wish for. I will tell you this: That's
decision-making based on fear. I said yesterday, if anything else, as
politicians, we should be servants of the frontier.
We look
at it; we don't know what the future will hold, but I would like to think that
if we set this and we establish a precedent – because in the end let's go back
to this. This is not about – and I'm going to come back to this point here – but
this is not about anyone getting up and automatically assigning a penalty,
because remember, this went through a process. This took over a year. This took
an investigation. This took a report. I do not believe this sets the precedent
that anyone on a whim can decide, any Member of this House will be able to, as a
result of our decision here tonight, Mr. Speaker, that somehow the floodgates of
punitive and petty politics will enter into it.
People
were outraged by the action at the beginning. People were outraged by what was
in the report. People were outraged by the fact that the government came back
and set the bar so low as to require a penalty, oblivious to the fact that this
is so out of touch with the real world. I would like to believe that if we set a
precedent here, we're going to set a precedent that, in future, we're going to
be on our best behaviour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. J. DINN:
That when we make decisions,
we make the best ones; that we're going to be as transparent as we possibly can;
and that we're going, above all, to make sure that we earn and keep the public
trust, period. So I'm not worried about and I'm not going to be shamed into that
what we're putting forward here today is somehow going to bring down the whole
parliamentary system. If anything, I think it's going to make it better. We're
all fallible, but I can tell you that if, in the end, I make a mistake, it won't
be because I deliberately set out to do it.
There
was a cost, and here's the thing: we're making this decision. This House of
Assembly is the one that will debate this. We're still in control of this
process. We'll decide. Whatever the precedent was, there's a – and here's the
thing. The fear is that we're going to set a precedent which is somehow going to
create irreparable damage and create unbearable consequences down the road.
Well, I would assume that whatever House of Assembly exists at that time,
they'll make their decisions, they'll take everything into account and they'll
decide if they want to follow tradition or strike out again into some new
direction.
But
there was a cost to this. There's a cost to this House. There's a cost to a lot
of us personally as to what this means, to why we got into this, to the people
who voted for us, to the people who are probably facing their power being cut
off, to people who are wondering if they're going to be able to afford their
next Lucentis injections, all this. But there's also a cost to all the people
who applied and participated in the hiring process in good faith.
To me,
that's what's important, that they entered in to that process and applied for in
good faith. It's also a cost to the person who was awarded this contract and
accepted it in good faith. The board of directors of The Rooms acted in good
faith. What was clear from this report is that certain individuals did not act
in good faith.
Now,
I'll tell you this: If government had come, had presented on the first day of
this debate with something other than the apology, which is in keeping with the
traditions, I think we would have found this side of the House much more
amenable to a discussion. If they had come forward with a consequence that,
again, was commensurate with the finding of gross mismanagement at the
beginning, it could have been resolved several days ago, but it took this. Why
now?
I think,
in many ways, what we have to make sure is that we're sending a clear message to
the people who elected us, to the citizens of this province, to the people, who
through their own taxes – whether they're paying income tax or they're buying a
product or anything else, sales tax – that they are getting the best value for
their money, that they are getting the best representation, the representation
that they deserve.
I think,
right now, we cannot accept a simple slap on the wrist. If this sends a clear
message to future generations of Members of the House of Assembly or to future
ministers, and future ministers and future Members are a little bit more
circumspect – that they will think twice about what they're doing, that they
will act in the best interest of the people, that they will be transparent, that
they will be on their best behaviour – if that's the precedent, then let's bring
it on. I'm all for it.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Ferryland.
MR. O'DRISCOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this House today to speak on this motion. While I'm pleased to have the
opportunity to do it, it doesn't bring me any pleasure to do it, I guarantee you
that. That's not what we're elected here to do. It's disappointing more than
anything.
I agree
with my fellow Member for Torngat Mountains and her opinion on it. We should be
ashamed, to come down here and put everybody in this position to have to make
this ultimate decision for somebody that couldn't make the decision on the other
side and make it happen. Anyway, we didn't do that.
As you
all know, all of us were elected on May 7 – in May, I should say, seven months
ago. People put you here. We seem to forget when we're in here that the people
put us here. How we don't understand that is beyond me. How we just don't
understand how the people put us in here – and you go look at a website or go
look at a VOCM Question of the Day and 86 per cent are telling somebody what
they should do. I guess we don't listen to 86 per cent. I wish I had to win by
86 per cent. There wouldn't be a lot of worry.
It's a
big concern that if 86 per cent of the people are telling you, then maybe we
should be listening. We're over here and we're trying to rationalize. I'm
sitting here, our side is saying this, and oh yeah, I agree with that. Then the
other side starts to speak and I say, yeah, they have a good point over there as
well. I'm listening to all the points.
What you
really have to sit back and listen to are the people that put you here. There's
a reason they put you here. It's to represent your district and to represent
your people and you have to keep that in mind. That's where we're lacking in
here. We start bantering, we start talking.
We're
here to do a job for the people and everybody has said it. I could sit here and
I can quote the book. People have a different perspective over here; he came at
it from a different angle over here. I don't think there are any angles left for
me to come at. It's about perception and perception. If you did it right, it
will be right.
I had an
opportunity I'm going to say 20 years ago, that I coached a hockey team. I knew
when the end of the year was coming I had 19 kids and I had to leave two home.
That's not something I wanted to do. We wrote to – I'm going to say it's that
along ago it was probably NAHA, it's HNL now – HNL and we wanted to take those
extra two players. I didn't want to leave anybody home, so this happened and we
got permission to do it.
When you
go to a tournament in hockey there are six teams. You play each team once. Two
teams make the playoffs. It doesn't come down to four – two teams make the
playoffs. I knew in January if we were good enough and we made the championship
game, there are two kids have to sit out. If I'm going to sit out two kids, now
that's on me.
Before
all that happened I said I'm going to get right to this. I called a meeting with
the parents. I knew there were 12 kids going to sit out in six games, so I had
them paired in groups that, for me – and it's about perception and this is where
I'm going with it. I had two kids; I knew that if we made it to the championship
game they weren't going to play. I knew if I'm coaching and my daughter is on
the team, if I sit her out the first game and we make it, well, guess what, she
is going to play in the championship game.
There's
perception and before I did it I put six names, six pieces of paper in my
pocket, two names on each one and drew out the name. When I drew out the names,
luckily my daughter wasn't one of them and we did make the championship game. We
get to the championship game and I'm sitting here and one of the parents came
that wasn't at the meeting so, again, it's not getting all the information. He
never knew we did this. He came and he said: I thought we always played our best
players when we got to the championship game? I said: yes, you're right, we
always do and everybody does. When they get down to the last of it, when you get
to the championship game, to a point the last five or 10 minutes you'll do it.
We got
to that point and he said to me: We'll play our best players? I said: Yeah,
you're right, we do and this kid – it was his kid – was after improving enough
from January to March that they should have been in the lineup, but I had made
my decision then and I said, okay. I went back in the room, kids were getting
ready to play and I said to the coaches I'm going to sit my daughter out now
again.
I went
back out of the room, came back in and spoke to the kids. Three coaches said no,
Sir, you are not doing that. You made this decision in January and you're going
to stick by it and that's what we did. It was all about perception. It's the
same example here; it's perception on how it looks in the public and how it was
done. It is not about the person. It's about how it was done. That's what we're
trying to get at.
Everybody has used every example in the world. It's what we're trying to get at
and it's the perception that's out there and we need it to go away. I'm
considered a politician now. I am a person. I don't want to be a politician if
it's going to be like this. I have to be truthful.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. O'DRISCOLL:
I knew when I got here there
was a lot to learn and it surprised me how much there is to learn. I respect a
lot of people on the other side. I made 14 new friends over here, plus the
people who are helping me – well, maybe 13. He already had a bang at me about 20
years ago, so we'll get past that.
I have a
lot of respect for the people over there. To watch people sit over there and
look over here attentively and pay attention to what we're saying, I would think
– the other guys and some people who are here a long while, I could see it
getting boring for you. The seven new people over here and the new people over
there, they're paying attention because they want to learn and they want to
learn how to do it right.
We are
missing that at times. We're not missing it because we're trying to learn what's
right and what's wrong, but sometimes when we're listening to this stuff, it's
wrong in our sense of the word as new people and it's very hard to watch. We're
very non-productive, and it's embarrassing. It is totally embarrassing and it
just goes beyond belief that we will go that way.
Listen,
we're going to have a debate. I'll go over and ask – I haven't asked it yet but
at some point I will – the minister for some help or some funding. If he's going
to say no, then I have to deal with that. That's fine. That's the way it works.
There's not always going to be a yes answer. We have to go back to our
constituents, and sometimes we have a good story and that's because of you guys
on that side. It might be because of us the next time, who knows, but it's what
we do and it's how you should be behaving.
The
reality of this is we find ourselves here dealing with this the last few days,
and it went on two weeks ago. We keep going back and apologies, say you're
sorry. We have some Members here who have to jump up a few times and say you're
sorry. Again, I applaud the Finance Minister, because this gentleman told me
over here, from Cape St. Francis, I thought that was so respectful. It was
perfect. That's the way it happens in life. We have to get back to life and what
we're doing here in this House. This is how it should work.
I could
sit here and cut up the minister over there. The gentleman here from Exploits
yesterday made a petition, he gave his petition, and we had a minister on the
other side – and I sort of pity the minister on the other side. I have to be
truthful. I wouldn't want to go through this. Sometimes I say, do you know what?
I'm not going to put myself through it anymore. I wouldn't put myself through
it, because I felt bad for him, but he has to accept what's happened, in my
mind, and move on.
This
gentleman here put out a petition yesterday. After asking 40 questions, he never
once got up, and when he jumped up, he jumped all over him. To me, another
minister was supposed to answer, and he jumped up at that time. Why didn't he
jump up when he was asked before? That's what we're asking. We're not asking
anything else.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. O'DRISCOLL:
I can see why he jumped up.
I'd be frustrated if I was over there. Absolutely be frustrated. I would be
embarrassed and frustrated and I would have answered along the way, way before
that, but that didn't happen. Then I got my back up. I'm glad it was yesterday
because now I'm cooled down a bit about it, because I just thought it was proper
for him to ask that and the minister answer, but, no, that didn't happen. So
we're going down that road again. You don't have to just throw stuff at people.
It's just not the way it works. It's real life.
We need
to be able to focus and stick on the topics that we're debating, and sometimes
we have done a good job. To come in, for new people here, I'm sitting over here
and say first reading, second reading, never been through it before, so it's a
bit intimidating. Again, we're learning, and after we have gone through it a
couple of times – and Minister of Service NL has said, well, you better get used
to it because we're going to have more next session. Oh God, we're going to go
through that again. She pointed at me again, which is still going to happen.
I was
taught by my parents that you have to be respectful and there's a consequence to
pay when you didn't. So you bring that here and that's the way it is. That's the
way it should be. No more to it than that and that's the way I'm brought up. I
know a lot of fellows here, all these guys are probably saying I'll never be
respectful for all the comments I make at them, but you're going to be
respectful. That's the way it is.
I expect
that if somebody did something wrong, that you would apologize, and we know what
the consequence is. It's not nice what it is, but it is what it is. It should be
handled and I think the Premier should have jumped in and done – there are a
couple of other ministers that have done some stuff that – one backed out on his
own, which he thought was improper. I congratulate him for it. I thought it was
the right move at the time. There was no other way and he did it before anyone
asked. I think this is the way this should have been done, but now we're in
here, we're here on a Thursday night until 7:30, probably later, who knows. It's
7:30 now so it's going to be later than that, but just to answer and answer
properly, that's all we ask.
We sit
here and we talk, we quote this here: gross mismanagement. We don't need to go
through it anymore. I don't need to repeat it anymore, that's been said here.
There's not a sentence in there that hasn't been used and there are not numbers
that haven't been used by the Member for Mount Pearl North. He's talking
numbers. Everybody has their own perspective on it, but it just comes down to
being able to do what's right and do what's proper.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
going to stand and speak, just for a few minutes, on this. As I said earlier,
Mr. Speaker, the thing with me, a lot of this is the process. I read the report
and I made a few notes about it earlier again. You notice that even the clerk of
the council was never ever interviewed. She was given a written submission.
Now,
from my understanding, I haven't read the media reports, the Premier did say now
he knows about it. If I'm wrong on that I ask for someone to stand and correct
me on that, that he said he knew about it.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we heard for three or four days about the Premier of the province, and
I'm assuming, I was told, that the Premier did say to the media that now he knew
about it. I was just told that by several people, so if I'm wrong I just ask for
someone – but I know he knew about it because I spoke to him last September
about it, in September 2018 and I spoke to the chief of staff about it.
The
chief of staff called me because the person that was going in the position
wanted to know what I thought because they worked when I was back with the
Liberal government. I'm not saying what they did was right or wrong, I'm not
defending any of this, but you don't take a person from a ministerial level and
take someone in an executive position and just move them without people knowing
it. It just doesn't happen, it just doesn't happen.
Mr.
Speaker, I was reading through some of the reports in here. “The Supplementary
Report did not change the recommendations and findings of June 11, 2019 and
reiterated a call for review by the Commissioner for Legislative Standards.”
Now,
with the review from the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, he didn't do
any of the interviews, from my understanding. He didn't do any of the
interviews. So when you do a review from Legislative Standards you just walk in
and you – what's in front of you.
So, once
again, I go on the process of it all. I understand what the minister is going
through, and I understand what a lot of people here are – on one side there are
people that are saying: here's what should happen on the other side. Mr.
Speaker, I just want to put this on the record. What myself and Dale Kirby went
through, and for me, personally, and I'll speak for myself, but I know I'm
speaking for Dale also, what we went through for such foolishness is
unbelievable.
The
easiest thing for me to do here today is stand up here and support the motion to
take away a year's salary. That's the easiest thing for me to do. I'd be a hero.
But it's not the right thing to do. It's not. It's hard for me, as a person who
always stood on morals, to say that I'm going to support something just to get
someone back and stick them in the eye. I can't do it. I personally can't do it,
because the minute I do that, every other time that I speak it's just for
political reasons. That's the reason why I can't support it, I have to be
honest.
Some
people out in public may say: B'y, you should do this, you should do that. I
will support the sub-amendment, but on principle, because I've been in this
Legislature many, many years, I've yet to see that extreme measure ever taken. I
personally feel that if we're going to start stretching that bounds now, if
we're going to stretch the bounds now, because, oh, it's going to look nice and
we heard some people saying: well, that's what our constituents want, but our
constituents want us to be fair to people in the province.
I can
assure the people in the province that if we're in this House today and if we
make this ruling here now, what's stopping from going further the next time? On
morals and principle, I can't do it. I personally can't do it. What I went
through, would I like to do it? Yes, I would love to get up and say this is what
happened here. Let's give it to them all. But you can't do it. It's not right.
It's just not right.
With the
sub-amendment, with the eight days, I think it is, or two weeks, I mean, that is
punishment enough also. The other reason I have to say: The minute we take away
– and I'm not saying this should happen or not; I say to the minister this is
nothing personal – that year and say, okay, a year's salary, take it away, we're
taking away the responsibility of the Premier of the province for saying you
should go or not go. That's what we're doing in this House.
We're
taking away that responsibility of that man in that seat right there, because if
he felt myself and Dale Kirby did something so strange that before there was
ever an allegation made, we're out of Cabinet, but if he accepts this report –
if the Premier of the province accepts this report – he has the obligation to do
what he did to other ministers. Let's see.
Besides
I wouldn't be able to do it on principle, but if that was done in this House,
the Premier is going to say, oh well, look what they did. When the Premier of
the province wants to stand up and say he's treating everybody the same, it's
not true. Factually incorrect what he's doing. Premier is going to say, well, I
can't – he stood up and apologized and (inaudible) – I'm not asking for the
minister to be relieved of his duties. I'm definitely not doing that. I'm just
showing the contrast of what happened last April and what's going on today. If
we say take his salary away, the Premier will say: Oh, you did it; I didn't have
to make a decision on it. That's exactly what's going to happen. I know the man.
I'm
still shocked, Mr. Speaker, that when I go through this report, the Premier of
the province was never interviewed. The chief of staff was never interviewed.
The clerk was never under an oath when they put in the submission, from my
understanding, and I just read the report. The person who was moved in the
position was never interviewed to say, when were you contacted? How long did you
have to put in your notice to where you were? Never in this report. Never in it.
Anybody
who has been around government – and I know most people have and there are a few
people here have been around – you do not take an executive position, at a
ministerial level, and say: Oh, I want to put you in a position now. I'm going
to take you and do that. It just doesn't happen. We all know it just doesn't
happen, but what's happening again? The same thing that I'm just going –
history. That's how the Premier washes his hands clear of everything. Gets the
nice oil on, everything is free away from me; nice, little slippery oil on his
hands; not me, it's definitely not me; move on, everybody. I've been through it
with the man. This is what's happening here tonight.
I'm not
saying that what happened was right. I'm not saying what happened was wrong. I'm
not saying that but if you follow the report, it is, if you follow the report.
But again, my thing on this report is that to find out the true facts of it, you
have to go and dig in to the people who were involved. We're going to accept the
report. The minute the Premier accepts this report is the minute he admits,
okay, there was wrongdoings.
I gave
him an option today – and I'll tell public right now, I'll support an option.
The Premier of the province stood here on the first night and he said the
process is flawed; I agree. When you don't interview two or three key people in
this here, the process is flawed.
If the
Premier of the province wants to get down to the truth of this here, get someone
over there to pass a motion in this House tonight not to accept this, send it
out to someone and do an investigation to get to the true facts of it, exactly
what happened, I'll be first one to stand and support it. Let's see how much
courage he has. Let's see how much courage. If he says this is flawed – because
he stood in the same House with myself and Dale Kirby and said the process is
flawed, he voted anyway.
There's
something else I have to tell the Members opposite; I'm not going to name
anyone. They were talking about a standard practice that whatever the
Commissioner recommends is what we usually go with. Just not true – not true.
How many people remember when we were here in November? NDP made a motion: the
sensitivity training. Guess who walked out of that caucus told everybody that we
have to support him because it would look bad on me? The Premier of the
province. The same person who stood here the other night and said we usually
accept the recommendation because he's the expert. Premier, you didn't do that
when you had the opportunity.
Once
again, this is the kind of statements that the Premier makes that looks good in
the public, oh, we have to accept this here; but if is it any reflection on the
Premier of the province, oh no, we have to do the sensitivity training. Can't
look bad on me. First time he accepted an NDP motion that I have been around,
because no reflection on him.
So, Mr.
Speaker, when we go through this here and we look at the amendments and the
sub-amendments, I'm not saying that everybody in this House don't believe what
they're doing is right. Everybody has their own beliefs and have their own
values on this House. There are a lot of times that we may look at each other,
we may say, I don't agree with you. We should do this; we have to send a strong
message. I always believed that the best message to send is to the people of the
province at election time.
If the
people in the province feel that we're doing something wrong as legislators–
whoever – good, bad or indifferent, they'll take care of it at election time.
But we have to stay in the realm of what we feel is right. In this whole process
– and I can read it right on through, some of the highlights that I made in
here. If we go on through, the process wasn't followed properly, because I
really, truly, honestly feel after my conversations last September that this
here – and I know for a fact that this here was started, right or wrong, to have
someone in that position. That position, then, once they were going to fill that
in that position, there was someone who had to move on and they had to find
somewhere for someone to move on. I'm convinced.
We'll
never know that. We'll never know that until the Premier of this province stands
up. I'm going to see how much courage he has tonight, now, and see who would
support it and say, let's go out and get an independent review, I want to be
interviewed, because I want to tell my story. But standing up here a few days
for two or three days in a row saying, oh well, this is the way the process
works, then finally – from my understanding now, and I haven't seen the media
report that he admits he knew about it. I know he knew about it.
To the
minister, I give you courage for sitting down and not standing up and saying,
yes. You might not have been directed to do it, but I'm sure that there was a
will there to ask you to do it. I don't think you were directed. And when you
say you haven't been directed, I agree with you. I'm not questioning you one
bit, but I know how the process works. I've been there.
I tell
you why, Mr. Speaker, and of course people start bringing up, well, it's all
about you again. Yes, it is. I'm in this report again. I'm up as the person,
here's why we're doing this to this guy, because of this here. Oh, is that right
now? A 13-week position – I just know a couple of EAs for former Members here.
One minister got 13 requisitions, but I'm not allowed to give a résumé.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Two.
MR. JOYCE:
Two. Yet I'm being held up as
the poster boy for stuff you're not allowed to do, for bullying and harassment.
Never got an interview. Premier would never go as a witness and was never asked
and should've stood up.
The only
person here who stood up was the Minister of Justice in the Management
Commission. Stood up and said the Commissioner for Legislative Standards came in
and they said one person refused to participate. Someone asked: Who was it? They
said: Eddie Joyce. So he wouldn't? No, he wouldn't participate. Now we know
that's false.
Guess
what? That was on October 24, I'm still trying to get the Management Commission
to write a letter to the House and say we have proof that what he told us is
false. Can't get it. That's over a year now. So what's going to happen is end up
in court.
Can you
imagine? Can you imagine an Officer of this House – and I'll say to the
minister, I'm using this because this is how we have to get all the facts. How
this started last September, or whenever it was – I don't know if it was in
August or September – how it happened; how the appointment was made. The Premier
put out a press release, I think October 2 or 3, that this new person was
joining. He didn't join that day.
This is
my issue with it. I'm going to the Management Commission, and I can't even get
the Management Commission who knows – and the Minister of Justice, I have to
give him credit, walked outside of this House of Assembly and said: What the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards said, we now know is not true. That was
last year.
I still
cannot get the Management Commission to get some investigator to go out and say
statements were made – here's the statements that were made in the Management
Commission, can't do it. Then you wonder why I look at the minister and say:
Listen, I understand what you're going through because until all the facts come
out, then it may be good or bad, because I've been through this. I've been
through the mentality: okay, b'ys, let's tar and feather him.
Listen,
you can make your own decision of what happened, I say to the minister, but I
can tell you I'm pretty confident there are facts that happened before this that
is going to show, but the minister (inaudible) just pluck this out of the air,
we're going to take this one up. We're going to bring in someone else who is
working somewhere else, take him, we're going to put him up in that position.
We're going to take this person – I know that didn't happen. It just didn't
happen.
When I
look at the Premier and I hear the stuff that he stands up and says, I have to
question it, I really do. Because if you were with me speaking to the Premier
from April up until November, if you knew the statements he made to me, he made
to others about stuff, like text messages someone released, and I can tell you
he has the text messages. There are two people he tried to show the text
messages to, already signed statements on them. So I can tell you that right
now. I'll say here, there are other things that I know the Premier said and did
that were false. I can tell you that right now.
That's
why I have to question the Premier when I hear statements that he makes in the
House. Because I can tell you personally, that when it fits his nature, when it
fits his persona to wipe his hands and put oil on his hands, that nothing is
going to stick to him; I know, I've been through it with him.
I can
tell you, what that man was saying to me on the phone on many occasions, from
April up to November, I will say to the minister, trust me on this, there is a
lot more to it. You know it; I know it. God bless you for saying that you gave
direction. I'm not saying you didn't give direction, but I can assure you there
were people called: We might have a position open. Do you want to come up? Now,
trust me on that. I'm pretty confident because they called me on it, because I
worked with the guy before. I know all about it.
Mr.
Speaker, that's what I have to say here tonight about that. I can go through the
report and see some of the report that I can see why the minister – and I'm sure
the minister can speak to why some of the issues in the report are flawed in the
beginning of it. For me, personally, morally, and the way I am, because I always
want to be consistent in the House.
I know
back years ago when there was a Member – who's in the Legislature now – was in
to the issue, I was the one who settled it. I was the one. The reason why I did
is because he said, we can't go treating people like that. We can't do it. This
is just too foolish to even talk about, at the time.
I can
remember walking over, shaking his hand and saying, here's what we're going to
do. He shook my hand and he said – and I remember getting a bit of flak for that
from some of our own crew. Getting some flak, but it was the right thing to do.
When I
look at the minister here tonight, and I know what he's been going through – God
bless you, and say hi to your mother for me. I know what they're going through,
the family and all that, I can tell you.
After
you take away all the peels of the onion, after everybody goes out in the media
and just takes it and sees one part thrown out, but we haven't got the full
story. Once you get the full story of this here, I can assure you, that minister
– I'm not condoning or condemning it because it's in the report. If we accept
this report, we are accepting a wrong-doing. Once we accept a wrong-doing, then
we have to follow up with whatever of the House. But I personally cannot stand
up on principle and try to make a martyr – or not a martyr – out of myself
because I'm going to stand up and do all this here.
I can
tell you, the people that elected me, on many occasions I stood up for tough
issues. This is another one right here. The issue I have to take right here is
on principle. Is that if I vote to take away a year's salary from that minister,
we're just doing this out of vindictiveness and meanness. We're not trying to
say, okay, or just enough to make sure this doesn't happen. Let's put it in play
so it doesn't happen.
I cannot
support the amendment. I will be supporting the sub-amendment. Not that I don't
have a reason to do it, not that I don't have a reason to say, yeah, I want to
get back at the Premier, I want to get back at the minister – because the
minister did vote against me. He did vote for that, too, the amendment that was
made, he did.
Mr.
Speaker, I have 46 seconds here; I wouldn't be able to tell you how many people
across after texting me or sending me notes saying, b'y, we didn't know all that
about you. That's what I'm saying. How many people are after texting me and
saying: We didn't know that about the report. We just took it as gospel, went
off and did it and didn't even realize it. That's why we have to get to the
bottom of this here before we make such rash decisions.
I'll say
to the Premier in my last 20 seconds, if you feel that this is a flawed report,
stand up tonight and say, I'm going to go out and seek someone independent to
come in, do a complete review which means that he will be interviewed, Greg
Mercer will be interviewed and the other two people involved will be
interviewed, and I will support it here tonight.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Justice and Public Safety.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I feel
it's appropriate perhaps to stand up and speak. I'll be honest, for perhaps the
first time in my career in here I was of two minds about speaking because
there's a part of me that just wants to not say anything and let this thing end
so we can get home, because that's what's on my mind.
Then I
thought about it and said I'm not going to let anybody else of any party, of any
side dictate what my position is, my opinion is and how I feel about this.
That's why I'm standing up, because I wanted to put it out there because
sometimes – and everybody knows this as politicians you're tarred with that
brush. This is how your party feels; that's how you feel. We all get that, but I
wanted to talk.
Two
things I will say are that a lot of what I am going to say I actually thought
about and had in my mind even before my colleague put the sub-amendment forward.
In fact, it was done before my colleagues across the way put forward their
motion.
I can
also say that I've spoken to the minister about my feelings, about my opinion
because I would rather be straight up. It's like the Member before me just said
– and I think actually the Member for Ferryland made some mention to this too –
about the popular move and the right move. Sometimes it's tough, but you know
what? Sometimes it's better to hit it straight on. So I've had this
conversation. I haven't had it with anybody else.
It's
easy in this House and in this climate and in this environment, in this world we
live in now – and increasingly so – to do what you think is the popular move
because you're going to take less grief. Well, I can't say any better than the
Member said it: Just because it's popular doesn't always mean it's the right
move.
I can
say as someone who sat here through a budget a few years ago that was uniformly
regarded by everybody in this province as horrible, and it wasn't fun. I tell
all my colleagues on the other side, some who have been in government, some who
haven't – everybody wants to, that's how it goes – but I'll say, when you're
governing and in a decision-making capacity, a lot of what you do is not fun, is
not popular. The Members in the Opposition, they gave it to us, and that's the
job. I did the same thing. But you know what? You do it because you think it's
right. That's why.
I'm sure
people make decisions because they know it's not right, but they think it's
popular and it's going to avoid trouble and make them not face the rough
comments you get at the grocery store, on Twitter or on
Open Line. But sometimes it's better to sleep at night knowing that
you've done what you think is right.
The fact
is there are times when we've all, every one of us in this House, done what we
think is right, to learn in retrospect and in hindsight that it was wrong. I
look at my colleagues across the way. We constantly remind them about Muskrat
Falls, and you know what? There's what you say in public and there's what you
say there. The same thing with our budget. I don't mind saying there's a lot of
stuff I wish we could've done different if you'd thought about it, but there it
is. We're not perfect. We're surely not perfect.
The
other thing I will say is I'm going to apologize, because like many of your
speeches, the speech you have in your mind before you do it is so well thought
out and laid out and perfect, and then there's the speech that you give that is
jumbled and nothing like that. There have been so many thoughts going through my
head. Some of them are angry thoughts. It's hard, sometimes, to sit here and
listen to this stuff and not get mad and think you're going to speak because
you're angered by it. There are times I'm speaking and I was thinking in
resignation of I can't believe we're doing this.
One
thing that's frustrated me – and again, I will say I'm supporting the
sub-amendment. I'm supporting the sub-amendment and I bet you there are
colleagues on the other side who, if I saw them out in the hallway, I told them
my position before I even discussed it with my caucus, because that's how
I felt. That might not be popular with my colleague, who – when we had the
original motion, it was an apology.
We had that conversation, and I said I think that the
apology – which, again, is something that's universally been done. I look at my
friend across the way, the Member for Conception Bay East - Bell Island, who –
again, we've been at this a long time. This is a gentleman who – you talk about
they had to make an apology; then literally walked outside and said, I didn't do
anything wrong; and then had to walk in and say, yes, I'm sorry. So sometimes
when I see that and then I see where we've come from then. I'm not questioning
that. That's just where we are now.
The training, the apologies, the suspension, I can support
every bit of that, but I don't support the fine or the loss of – I don't support
that. Now, I can tell you, I'll probably get some calls;
I'll probably get some emails. They're going to say, can't believe – the fact
is, the reality, we talk about what's popular. I bet you if you did a poll with
every one of our constituents tonight, they all think we get paid too much, all
of them do, but just because they think that doesn't mean it's right.
That's
why I say to my colleague, I get the fact that you're getting angry calls,
you're getting angry emails. Everybody gets that. We cannot give in to that
thought no matter how easy or popular – maybe you truly feel that way. In my
case, I truly do not feel that the motion put forward, the last section, I can't
agree with that. I'm not saying that because we've done something in the past
that we can continue to do the same thing.
I've
heard Members talk about – so one of the things that did frustrate me, if
there's one thing, I fully am aware of my faults, my deficiencies and the fact
that there but for the grace of God. Sometimes in this House in the heat of
debate, we see people chastising and condemning when the reality is that they
have families or loved ones who have done the exact same thing. That irritates
me. I don't agree with that.
If
anything, I'll tell you, I'm speaking here tonight. I haven't said anything all
week. I've answered the one question from the Leader of the Opposition. I
haven't spoken to this because I'm sitting here taking it all in. That's why I
wanted to get up because I don't want anybody, when this is all said and done,
criticizing me saying, you toed the government line or you did this or you did
that. I tell you what, I'm doing what I think is right because at the end of the
day, when we're all out of this, you have a record and you have a legacy and we
all live with the one that we created for ourselves.
That's
why I'm saying my position on this, the position I communicated to my colleague
was that I don't think an apology is going to work here. I'm not going to get in
to the whole situation; I certainly am not going to be bringing up the names
because I tell you what, it is tough. It is tough being the other individuals
involved in this.
I know
my colleague is going through a tough time, I know that colleague has gone
through a tough time and I know that colleague went through a tough time. I'm
looking at the people outside of this House that are involved in this and I tell
you, it's hard. Anybody here who's been in public life or had some association
with public life before they got here realizes that this stuff wears on you. I
feel bad for these people.
Again,
this is where my thoughts are getting a bit jumbled, but I guess sometimes you
get a bit of perspective. I've been lucky enough, perhaps, in some ways. I
haven't been here for a few weeks; I haven't been through all the debates.
Everybody has sat here. This has been a bit of a tumultuous time in this House.
You sit back and it's amazing when you're not in this bubble. When you're
outside of this bubble watching it you get a different perspective and a
different take on it.
I tell
you the hardest thing you can do as a Member is watch Question Period and not be
here. The hardest thing you can do because you want to be there, you want to
contribute but, at the same time, sometimes you realize you're able to take that
step back. You're able to take that step back and look at it and consider
everything.
That's
why I'm saying I don't have any legal precedents or the process or anything
else, I'm just talking about what I feel is right. This is what I think is
right. I may have colleagues on the other side who may agree with me. I don't
know if they can do something. I may have colleagues here, I don't know. I'm
just saying what I think is right.
To echo
the Member who spoke before me, to echo my colleague who put the amendment in,
the fact is that we have a report, we have an admission and there is a penalty
that has to come out of this. There's absolutely no doubt because we need to do
that. I do think the public demands that. This is not about giving in to public
demand; this is about doing what you think is right based on all the factors
that we have and where we find ourselves.
I would
say to my colleagues on the other side, I get why you're doing what you're
doing. I get it and I know that what I'm saying now is not going to change your
mind. I'm not trying to change your mind. Everybody here is going to make up
their own mind. What I'm saying is that I'm providing my explanation as someone
– we all come here and we have a sense of integrity. If anything, there's one
thing that perhaps bothers us all when somebody questions your integrity. I
certainly don't take well to it. I've dealt with a lot of that recently. I don't
appreciate it. Nobody here does.
What
I'll say is that my words will speak for themselves tonight. I'm putting it out
there. People can agree, disagree. I don't care. I'm just giving my perspective
on what I think needs to be done. I will say that I'm going to be quiet. Now, I
could go on for another 10 minutes but the fact is, the reality is, that it's a
bigger world than this. I have family here. We talk about family-friendly
sometimes and it's hit us.
I will
say this: When we talk about democratic reform – I put this in as an aside, but
relevant to this debate tonight. I've been here for eight years and I've heard
when we were on that side, when we're on this side, when everybody is here
talking about democratic reform, family-friendly Legislatures and making the
House a better working spot, perhaps the biggest thing that I'm disappointed in
– again, it's different when you're in here and your family is not here, they're
away. When your family is actually in the vicinity – and I know Members on the
other side get this, too.
We've
actually had a Member of our caucus who has gone through a tragedy in the last
24 hours. He's coming back here tonight to vote because we can't find it amongst
ourselves to do the right thing. I'm just saying.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. A. PARSONS:
No, no. Listen, the other
thing is not being House Leader I'm not part of any discussions. I'm just
saying, every one of us – I have a colleague that's going to come back here
tonight and vote so I'm hoping, as we move forward with democratic reform and
moving forward in the first minority situation we've ever had, that we can find
a way that we're going to come in and do our jobs as Opposition and as
government, but we all keep in mind that when we leave here, we're all family
people.
On that
note, the purpose of my speech tonight was not to get political, not to take
shots. I'm like everybody else; I'm pretty frustrated with the whole situation.
It's pretty frustrating because we're all here dealing with this and it reflects
on us. Never let it be said that you don't take the opportunity to speak from
your heart, put it on the record and judge you from the words.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Exploits.
MR. FORSEY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's no
joy for me to be up here tonight either. I've listened to all my colleagues all
through the day. I've sat here from 1 o'clock today right until now; I've sat
here all week listening to the same things being rehashed and we all feel the
same way.
We
didn't have to get to this point. I truly believe that we didn't have to get to
this point. Being a new Member, I saw apologies for lesser things; I've seen
other actions being taken for lesser things. To this one, the thing here is
gross mismanagement. It's something the Premier should've dealt with even before
it got to this stage. Even as a new Member I can see that, Mr. Speaker, and I
certainly don't want to be here discussing this.
The
issue, again, is people are out there looking at us now as new Members coming
in: B'ys, you're just as bad as the other crowd that is in there. There's
nothing happening, no changes. You're doing the same thing. You're wasting time;
you're not getting things done.
There
are lots of things out in my district that need to be done, Mr. Speaker. There's
tons of it. I'm not in here dealing with it. I've asked questions; I've put up
petitions. We've done some things but I know other Members have the same issues.
It's just not being done. So here we are discussing this, and unfortunately we
had to get to this point.
But, Mr.
Speaker, in gross mismanagement there was a position filled, $50,000 extra,
basically, that it took to fill that position. I'd love to give that to a
constituent of mine out in my area to put some employment out there. Or to buy
some things that they actually need like some hospital things, some medical
care, some other things that they need. I'm sure they could use the money.
Mr.
Speaker, the embarrassment that it's caused to the Members involved, the
minister, the people involved, the employees involved, it's a disgrace to be
standing up here and talking about it. And the stigma that it's placing on all
government officials, we shouldn't have to do this. It should've been, people
want better governance, and better governance comes from your leaders. The
leader right now is not stepping up and doing what he should've done in the
first place. This is why he's left us to make this decision.
So
anyway, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to beat this to death all night, because
we've been doing it all day, but in gross mismanagement I'll just use the
minister's own words when I stood on a petition here yesterday. I'm grateful for
the Member for Ferryland – he's a great fellow to have on your team, by the way.
Anyway,
on that petition, I spoke on the petition of the Northern Peninsula and the
minister jumped to his feet after 40 questions. Probably more questions than
that. The minister jumped to his feet. In that petition he used the words –
because I looked at it all day, and these are the words that I picked out of it,
because I said: What did I do to make him get up? When he got up, he said: You
need to make sure you do your due diligence in getting things right.
Now
that's the minister's words yesterday: due diligence of getting things right.
And in the report: “Dean Brinton and the Executive Committee of the Board
perceived Minister Mitchelmore's direction to hire Ms. Foote as a direct order.
Dean Brinton signed Ms. Foote's contract and both he and the Minister had signed
a Request for Staffing Action Form. That Form was not in compliance with
explicit Human Resource Secretariat instructions ….”
It goes on then: “Was Ms. Foote the best qualified person
for the position? During his interview, Minister Mitchelmore did not provide
detailed evidence as to how the decision to place Ms. Foote in the Executive
Director position was made. No one has provided us with a job
description for the Executive Director position or a resume of Ms. Foote's
qualifications. We have not been presented with any evidence that other
candidates were considered.” Yet, when you're doing this, you need to make sure
you do your due diligence in getting things right. I don't think that was due
diligence.
For
that, Mr. Speaker, that's all I want to say. I think an apology just don't cut
it, I really don't. The amendment we put forth is a good amendment. The people
of the province wants to see better justice done, better governance done and we
just can't sit here, stand here, and say an apology is good enough.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, and I'll take my seat on that note.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl - Southlands.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I won't
say it's a pleasure, but I am going to make a few comments on the matter we're
dealing with here this evening. As I said when I spoke to the main motion on
Tuesday, I believe it was, I take no pleasure in this. I know that nobody here
takes any pleasure in this – at least I would hope not. I would hope that nobody
takes any pleasure in this.
I have
to be honest, I'm conflicted. I am conflicted. A big part of me feels badly
about the amendment. I think it's more of a personal thing about how much
punishment is too much. But it's not about me. That's the thing we have to
remember as well. It's not about me, it's about the people I represent. That's
part of it as well.
We don't
come in here to make personal decisions. We come in here to be the voice of
15,000 or so people. Not our own opinion, it's what you feel are the wishes of
the people you represent. I can tell you that I'm not going to pretend now that
I have thousands of calls and thousands of emails, because I haven't, nobody
has. That would be a total exaggeration. But I have gotten a number of them.
Unless there's a couple up on my computer that I haven't had a chance to look at
yet, I did not find one person who certainly felt that an apology was suffice.
To be
honest with you, every message I received was around the fact that the minister
should resign and some strong language that, as my Member, as someone who I
elected and supported, I expect you to do whatever you can to see that that
happens.
That is
obviously a very important factor. I can understand why people feel that way
because for far too long we've seen situations – and I'm not going to go
reliving history, but it is true that for administration after administration
after administration if you go through, you will see similar things that have
happened. Never came to light. It was never like a report done by the Citizens'
Representative and the Commissioner for Legislative Standards perhaps that
actually pinpointed I've done interviews; I have evidence; here it is in black
and white.
What
this report did is that it confirmed what everybody already knew, or what they
thought they knew. They were right, and we all know they were right. Now, does
that mean it should continue? Absolutely not. People are not satisfied to see
that continue. People are no longer satisfied with the slap on the wrist and an
apology; they're really not.
I know
the people that I represent, or at least the ones who have contacted me, are
absolutely not satisfied to let this go. They believe, at least those who
contacted me, that either, (a), the minister should resign or, (b), the Premier
should remove the minister. That's what I've heard. I can only say what I have
heard from people who I represent.
I do
feel badly about it, though, and it comes back to why I'm somewhat conflicted. I
feel badly about it, not just because the minister is a colleague, and I have no
personal axe to grind with the minister whatsoever, but I feel badly because I
don't believe the minister should be the target of this, not the sole target. I
really wish the minister – it would go a long way for me if the minister would
stand up and let the House know the truth. Let the House know what actually went
down. What the Member here for Bay of Islands has alluded to and what we already
know. We all know what went on here.
This
wasn't the minister's doing. He carried out the order or the task or the
suggestion. He wasn't ordered or directed, he was suggested to do it, right?
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. That looks like a great spot there to put – I won't
name the individual – perfect fit. That would be great if we could do that,
minister, right?
That's
not directing, necessarily. It's just pushing you in that direction. Maybe it
wasn't the Premier himself, maybe it was his chief of staff or one of his other
staff members who did it, so that way the Premier can say, well, I didn't direct
him to do it and the minister can say, the Premier never directed me to do it.
No, my chief of staff or some other member of my staff suggested that I do it.
That's
the games we're playing. We see it all the time when you see interviews and
stuff. I always watch for the wording, because I've been around now. We all
have, or a lot of us have, and I pick up on the wording that's used all the
time. When you pick up on that wording you can tell, you can find – I like to
call them weasel words. That's what I like to call them. They're weasel words,
right, and you see it. Something that you can throw in there so it gives the
illusion of one thing, but really it's something else, but it's giving the
illusion. And you can always go back and say, I didn't say that, I didn't say
that, because the word I used didn't explicitly say I meant that. That's what we
see all the time, and that's what's happened here.
The
problem I have, and I guess where I differ with my colleague from Bay of Islands
on it, in all due respect, is that my colleague, basically, is saying: I know
what went on, I know it wasn't you. I know the direction came from above and you
only did what you were expected to do and you're taking it for the team and so
on. So, therefore, because he knows that and he believes he's not truly the
guilty one, so to speak, he's an accomplice, but he's not truly the guilty one,
then he believes there should be some leniency because he understands, because
he knows what was done to him, in his view of what happened to him.
The
difference, of course, how I see it is that if that is the truth – and I believe
it is the truth – then why does the minister continue to fall on the sword?
That's the part I don't get. If the minister wants to clear his name in all
this, yeah, he might've still done it, obviously – well, he did do it. The
investigation says he did do it, but if he truly wanted to clear his name in all
of this, to a great degree, he should stand before the House and tell us what
actually happened, tell us who suggested that he do what he did. As the Member
said, let's get to the truth of the matter. That's why I am somewhat conflicted.
In the
end, the difference is that my colleague here is willing to say: I know you
didn't do it, so I can't give you all this punishment because it wasn't just
you. I'm looking at it and I'm saying: I agree with that, but it's your decision
to fall on the sword, not mine. You are the person who is making the decision to
say: I am going to fall on the sword, I am willing to do it.
Now,
whether it be out of loyalty to the Premier, whether it be because he doesn't
want to give up the minister's salary or fear of getting kicked out of the
Cabinet or kicked out of caucus the way I was just kicked to the curb like a bag
of garbage. Maybe he doesn't want that to happen to him. Perhaps that's what it
is. I don't know. If he wants to make it right, he should stand and tell us
exactly what happened and who was involved.
As much
as I have to hold him to account for his actions, I absolutely agree with what's
been said by some other Members: He was not acting alone. The ultimate
responsibility should lie in the individual who is seated on the eighth floor.
That's where the ultimate responsibility should lie, on the eighth floor. He
should do the right thing and he should be accountable and perhaps he should
resign.
I have
to tell you, if I was a Member over there now, who's sitting there and
pretending – or certainly up until this point, at least now we're getting to a
point that, with your amendment, you're acknowledging that something more than
an apology should happen. Members over there, you know what happened was wrong.
Everybody in this House of Assembly knows what happened was wrong. The public
knows what happened was wrong. Everybody knows. You guys know and you're all
going to take the bullet. The minister is going to take the biggest bullet, but
there's going to be other shrapnel going around and you're in that zone. You're
in that zone and you're all going to take it to some degree and for what?
I say
particularly to the newer Members, I'm not going to signal anybody out, but I'm
going to say particularly to the newer Members, one Member in particular, I felt
so bad the day before yesterday. I felt so bad because I said: Oh my goodness, I
can't believe that this Member is standing up here, a new Member, clean slate
and is going to stand here and try to defend the indefensible. That's how I
felt. I wasn't alone. That's how I felt.
I do
understand it, though, because when I was a new Member I did the very same
thing. I did the very same thing and all it got me was a tarnished reputation,
which I've had to work for a long time to try to rebuild, but that's all it got
me; trying to defend the indefensible.
I say to
all Members over there, for goodness sake, don't stand up any more and try to
defend it – don't.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LANE:
I mean that sincerely, I
really do. I really do because all you're doing is you're digging another hole
for yourself.
I don't
know if you realize the public is not happy with this, right? I hope everyone
realizes how angry the general public are about this. They are absolutely
furious. Anyone who stands up and supports this, they're not going to be happy.
Now,
it's up to yourself, if you want to say: I'm going to stand with the Premier,
I'm going to stand with the minister. That's your choice. But I'm going to say
this to you: Do you think when push comes to shove he's going to stand with you?
Ask the
Member for Bay of Islands: When push comes to shove is he going to stand with
you?
MR. JOYCE:
He never even sat with me.
MR. LANE:
Never even sat with him, he
said.
So you
have to bear that in mind. You might think everything is wonderful and get the
pat on the back, great job, whatever, but I can assure you that the people who
really matter – I've often said there's not one person in this House of Assembly
who can vote for me, not me, except for the Speaker. He lives in my district and
I know he voted for me. He even gave up his own vote to vote for me. He had my
sign on his lawn and everything. It was wonderful.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Oh, oh!
MR. LANE:
But, no, in seriousness, it's
reflecting negatively on everybody in this House. It's reflecting probably more
negatively on Members on that side of the House, and it shouldn't. We still have
time tonight, before we get to a vote or whatever, an opportunity for your
colleague, the minister, to stand up and tell us what happened. Put it out
there, tell us what happened; or even more so, for the Premier to stand up and
tell us what really happened. Own up to it. That's what needs to happen, and
then let the chips fall where they may.
I really
don't think either of those things are going to happen, and it's very
unfortunate that it's not going to happen. Unfortunately, because it's not going
to happen, in keeping with what I believe to be the wishes of my constituents,
as difficult as it is for me on a personal level – because, again, I have
no axe to grind with the minister. None. I served with him now for – he got
elected the same time I did. I have no issue with him. We've always gotten along
fine.
Unfortunately, for him I suppose – somewhat unfortunately
for me as well because I'm not going to feel great about it, but I'm going to
have to do what I believe my constituents want me to do, and that is to not
support this sub-amendment, and hope that we can get back to the amendment which
recognizes the fact that this was such an egregious act.
We cannot compare it to somebody in the heat of a debate
saying something untoward out of frustration and so on. You cannot compare it.
Some people called it a mistake; it wasn't a mistake. It was a deliberate act.
That's what it was.
Again, I really believe that deliberate act did not
originate from TCII. That deliberate act originated from the eighth floor of the
Confederation Building. That's where it happened. That's where it started. That
was the genesis of all this.
Yes, it's fine to say if the individual in question, if she
didn't have that surname that everybody
would be familiar with, it might've happened, gone unnoticed. That's
quite possible. That's quite possible, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.
If it
was a different name but someone in a similar circumstance who was a political
person, who had been heavily involved with a political party, worked on
campaigns in the Official Opposition office and the Premier's office, regardless
of the last name – if the name was Lane, it wouldn't make a difference – it's
still wrong. There's no way of justifying it, Mr. Speaker. There is no way. We
can twist it all we want, call it a lateral transfer or you can call it what you
like, but the evidence is quite clear. The evidence is quite clear.
We took
somebody out of a position, and now, even though we couldn't get an answer to
the question in Question Period, I'm pretty confident there's a lawsuit on the
go. I'm pretty confident. What's that going to cost? Not to mention the
additional $40,000 to $50,000 that got tacked on to the salary of that position
that got created. It was wrong, it stinks. Everybody knows it. Just because it
happened in the past doesn't make it right.
When we
talk about precedents, as I said on Tuesday, we talk about precedents. We need
to create new precedents, because the problem we have – and I would say the
problem the Commissioner for Legislative Standards had in doling out the
appropriate punishment, if you will, is when you look at precedent, our
precedent is to do nothing.
If your
precedent is to do nothing, that means, okay, we're going to do nothing. The
next time we'll say, what was the precedent the last time? Well, we did nothing
because we did nothing because we did nothing. So we're going to do nothing
again. I mean, that's the reality.
At some
point in time a new precedent has to be set that is commensurate with what
happened. I think what happened goes way beyond what is acceptable and a strong
message has to be sent. Ultimately, we work for the people. The people I have
spoken to, as I said – and I'll finish as I started. The people I have spoken to
have been quite clear to what they've told me. They've been quite clear.
So I'm
going to have to do what I feel is right, just like the other Members are going
to do what they feel is right. It's not politics for me; I'm not part of any
party. So it's not about knocking down the Liberals because I want to be the
premier next or I want to be the Cabinet minister next, nothing in it for me,
not a thing. I'm just doing what I think is right.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.
MR. HAGGIE:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
A bit
like my colleague from Justice and Public Safety, I have written extensive notes
here but as you get up and you kind of start thinking and reflecting on some of
the comments that have been made over the last little while, I had a very
focused set of notes here around the specifics of the sub-amendment.
One of
the things that struck me when my colleague got up and spoke, as it were, of his
feelings and from the heart, was some of the ways the discussion has gone over
the last couple of days. It struck me particularly again today after Question
Period, where ironically we had proposed concurrence from the government side
with the original motion on the findings of the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards and on the recommendations in the report; yet, somehow, because we
then went on to explain – and in my case, my remarks originally to the original
motion were around the benefits of lateral transfers and the fact that we had
significant benefit from that in my own department.
I had
seen it from the RHA perspective as well when we've had that; yet, today,
somehow because we had done that and defended the work of the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards in its entirety, somehow the integrity of the individuals
who espoused that was somehow being questioned.
There
were a series of questions in Question Period from various Members of the
Opposition aimed at specific ministers suggesting that somehow because we agreed
with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, we were thereby lacking in
integrity by association.
I think
it's a little bit of a stretch, quite frankly, and I wanted to put that on
record because we've all come from different spheres. We've all had professional
associations with individuals whom we may not have liked. We may have actually
actively disliked. We may not have respected their points of view. We may not
have respected their moral stance but because of the professions we espouse, be
it advocate or physician or nurse, we dealt with that and we moved on and
provided the service that we need to.
We are
here to debate; we legislate. That's what we do that nobody else can do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I'm
having trouble hearing the minister.
MR. HAGGIE:
From the point of view of
that, I'm going to now flip back and talk about some of the original things I
had intended to talk about. I am very new to the House of Assembly Management
Commission. Because of that, I did a little bit of homework to try and prepare
myself because that's the way I'm wired.
I
actually went back and looked at the work of Justice Green. In questions that I
posed to members of the Table staff who do have the expertise, essentially, the
process that has been described and set out by Justice Green – and as a judge,
procedural fairness was the cornerstone of his day-to-day activities, from what
I understand of the judicial system from the outside. He wrote a very detailed
set of recommendations and wrapped them up in a draft act which, as I understand
from history, was essentially taken to the floor of the House, voted on and
passed.
What he
did was basically he described a process which was totally depoliticized, right
up to the point where he, as a justice, lost control of it. That is based in the
concept of Westminster democracies' parliamentary privilege. There is no body or
authority in the land that can control itself the way the House of Assembly can.
He knew that when he wrote that, so what he did was he gave to the Commissioner
for Legislative Standards the ability to make recommendations. They could only
be recommendations because Justice Green knew better than anyone that no one
could tell the House of Assembly how to govern itself or what to do. That is the
point at which he lost control over it.
The
challenge now comes, as my colleague here has alluded to, around the issue of
what happens when the government, in actual fact, is in a minority, because then
what happens is the will of the majority can actually politicize an activity, a
process, that was never designed to be politicized. Green lost control of it
when it comes to the House and he knew that. His intent was that the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards, I'm sure, would have been both the
finder of fact and the judge, bringing his own project, his own work life to
bear on that and that the House would either concur or not.
He also
knew that the inherent weakness in that was that the House could then tinker to
its heart's content. The examples that I've seen brought to the House thus far
the tinkering has been based in the concept – as my colleague from Justice and
Public Safety has called on before, which we have espoused in legislation in
other directions, which is one – of restorative justice. We focus on adding
things but the things that have been added have been educational. They have
been, okay, there was a problem. The punishment here is being named in the House
or leaving the House for a few days or whatever it is, but how do we stop it
happening again? We educate you.
All of
us here – and I'm assuming that the Members opposite will have already – went
through a four-day session, training scheme organized through the Speaker's
office and the House of Assembly at the Gardiner Centre. I have to say, contrary
to some of my colleagues who were there, both sides of the House, I actually
enjoyed being back in the classroom. It was an area that I actually enjoyed as a
student. I actually enjoyed the process.
I think
it was helped by the fact we had an excellent guide facilitator in Dr. Ford. I
give her credit for what must have been quite a trying job from time to time,
judging from the attitude, I think, of some of my colleagues. I'm not telling
tales out of school, or even in school, because I think there were people there
who were less accustomed to the classroom and less interested in being educated.
To return to the theme of the discussion around the
sub-amendment, what has happened here is the amendment to the government motion
– which is to concur with the report, the findings and the recommendations, as I
think Justice Green had intended would happen. Though that amendment was
modifying it considerably, it fed off the 140 – or is it now 280 – characters of
Twitter.
There have been, I'm sure, a significant groundswell of
opinion that feels that a simple apology is not enough and I can understand
that. The question then is at what point does the politics truly shine through?
I think when you read down through the hierarchy of recommendations in the
amendment, for me, it is that
last paragraph. It is a step too far. It is the politicization again of what
Justice Green, I believe, sought in his best endeavours. He was a skillful
crafter of legislation but he had a limit, and he reached it when got to the
doors of this House.
It is my
contention, as my colleagues over there have spoken about, that essentially to
impose financial restitution – which was envisaged and was actually itemized in
the processes available to the Commissioner for Legislative Standards – in this
case is a step too far. The Commissioner himself had a choice of a suite of
recommendations to make and they have a hierarchy. The first was a reprimand, an
apology to the House. Then, there was a suspension from the House. Then there
was the issue of a financial penalty and then after that was the issue of
vacation of seat.
The
Commissioner for Legislative Standards, Mr. Speaker, drew the line when he made
these recommendations. We have seen fit to cross that line and I think that
itself is a precedent. I don't think anyone would argue with education across
any of the Westminster Parliaments, but once we've passed that line, it is the
reasonable-person test. It is the test of equity and fairness. Justice is blind
but justice has scales. It is balanced. It is not vindictive. It recognizes now,
in the current era, the concept of restorative justice.
The idea
of sitting down with the Commissioner for Legislative Standards I think is an
excellent one. You can argue about the process and I think to be perfectly
honest, this House should revisit this piece of legislation, but that's not a
decision for today, that's something for the future. Mr. Speaker, I feel
extremely strongly that we should not go anywhere near restitution or financial
issues like that. I would urge the Members of this House to support the
sub-amendment.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my seat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Mr. Speaker, the frustration
in the room is palpable. We are in a place where we want some justice, we want
action on this and we're frustrated. We seem to be caught in a swirl where we
can't break out of it.
I
understand some of the resistance to retribution. I understand the severity of a
crime where there has been, say, fraud or there has been gross negligence, or if
there has been perhaps a stealing from the public trust. We are not there, but I
think when we look at the amendment (e), what we are seeing is another attempt
at encouraging the Premier to do the right thing and remove the minister from
Cabinet. We've certainly seen many, many other incidents of Members who have
been removed from Cabinet and removed from caucus for what we, I think,
universally deem as lesser infractions.
So I
think what we're seeing here is an attempt to capture what we're hearing from
the public, what we've seen in past actions and we see in repeated instances
that the Premier makes reference to past bad actions, sometimes as a
justification for current bad actions. Certainly we saw that in the Minister of
Fisheries and Land Resources, and we all know that is utterly inappropriate.
Previous bad actions do not justify future bad actions.
I think
what we are trying to do is capture what was previously proposed in one of our
earlier amendments where we suggested that the minister be removed from Cabinet
and try and reflect the will of the people that we represent, as well as all of
the people sitting here in the room. I think that's what we're trying to capture
when we've proposed subsection (8) of the amendment.
I can
appreciate some of the arguments that have been proposed here, but I think that
what needs to happen is some definitive action, likely on the part of the
Premier, about how we will continue forward in managing the public trust. We
need to make sure that we do mete out the proper punishment for this.
Personally, I will echo the sentiments of my colleagues. I am not afraid of
harsh punishment. In fact, I think, if harsh punishment – one should not be
afraid of harsh punishment if we are well behaved. If we have any intent of
misbehaviour then yes, we should be very afraid of harsh punishment. But if
there was no intent or there's no indication, then harsh punishment should not
be a concern.
I've
certainly not seen anyone been imposed financial penalties for slight misdeeds
or minor infractions. Sometimes, of course, yes, we may make a mistake; we may
have to apologize; we have to move; we might have to take a demotion, but for
minor misdeeds – and most of us, maybe, we will have brushes with those
throughout our lives – I don't think that harsh punishment be concerning for
well-behaved, well-intentioned people. Harsh punishment is there for people who
deliberately misbehave and break the rules. Certainly, I'm not afraid of
incarceration if I don't do anything deserving of incarceration.
I think
that's perhaps where our heads are as we debate this sub-amendment to the
amendment to the original motion, so as we go through this next phase of our
debate, I think that frustration needs to be captured. I do think that we need
to moderate what we are expecting of the minister in this perspective.
I would
like to take a brief moment, though, to touch on something that I heard from the
Member for Humber - Bay of Islands. He certainly mentioned that perhaps there's
more going on here and maybe the Commissioner for Legislative Standards and the
Citizens' Rep perhaps did not go far enough in their reports. That prompted me
to re-read the allegations once again, and in re-reading the allegations, I
think that both commissioners did the appropriate thing, because those
allegations were very, very specific.
I think
if the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands would like a further investigation –
if he would like to see something like that happen, I think he needs to clearly
delineate what those allegations are and submit them to the appropriate
authority, which I do believe is the Office of the Citizens' Rep. So if he
thinks that more is going on here than we already have discovered, then that
might be the reasonable next step.
At this
point, I think we are very clear on what is contained in the report, the
findings of the report. The Premier himself has agreed with the findings of it.
Right now we just need to find out how we are going to resolve this issue
because this has been debated long and hard enough. I think we have represented
our views reasonably and accurately and I think, at this point, we are well
passed the time to end this.
Certainly, as we break for Christmas, maybe the Premier will reconsider his
Cabinet composition; maybe he will reconsider his caucus composition. I think he
has heard loud and clear how Members here in the House of Assembly, as well as
the people of the province, feel he should proceed in that manner.
That is
all I have to say about that right now, Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Seeing no further speakers, I
ask is the House ready for the question.
We're
going to ring the bells to get them –
Okay, I
believe Members are here.
The main
motion is on the Order Paper. The amendment has been tabled and available to
Members. The sub-amendment is: I move, seconded by – that the amendment to the
resolution respecting the Member for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows be amended
by deleting paragraph 2(e), so that's the motion that we're voting on.
I'm
going to do a voice vote first.
All
those in favour of the motion, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
The ayes have it.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Yeah, three Members.
Division
has been called.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Are the Whips ready?
Government Whip ready?
Third
Party ready and the two independents ready.
All
those in favour, please rise.
MS. COADY:
Of the sub-amendment?
MR. SPEAKER:
Of the sub-amendment, yes.
CLERK (Barnes):
Mr. Ball, Ms. Coady, Mr.
Crocker, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Osborne, Ms. Dempster,
Mr. Bennett, Mr. Davis, Ms. Haley, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Mitchelmore, Mr. Warr,
Mr. Bragg, Ms. Pam Parsons, Ms. Stoodley, Mr. Loveless, Mr. Trimper, Mr. Joyce.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, please
rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Crosbie, Mr. Brazil, Mr.
Petten, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Wakeham, Mr. Lester, Mr. Dwyer, Ms. Evans, Ms.
Conway Ottenheimer, Mr. Paul Dinn, Mr. Pardy, Mr. Parrott, Mr. O'Driscoll, Mr.
Tibbs, Mr. Forsey, Ms. Coffin, Mr. James Dinn, Mr. Brown, Mr. Lane.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes, 20; the nays, 19.
MR. SPEAKER:
The ayes have it.
The
sub-amendment has passed.
On
motion, sub-amendment carried.
MR. SPEAKER:
So we go back to the debate
on the amendment now.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
We go
back now to the debate on the amended amendment.
So the
person is the hon. the Member for Humber - Bay of Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
I'm going to stand and just
speak for two minutes. I'm not even going to speak about the issue.
These
are the times that when you're in this House and you think about the trying
times that we all go through making a decision. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker –
and I just want to say to the people of Humber - Bay of Islands – there's no
better feeling than representing people.
I hear
the questions today about different ministers – I'm not saying it's right or
wrong, but it's just my feeling – about their ethics when they were in their
former professions. It's just striking to me. I know the Minister of Health –
and I can't get into details – but I know what he did three weeks ago. What he
did, no one here would question his ethics.
This is
where sometimes we have to rise above it. Sure, we're going to have a banter and
I have my own personal feelings and all that, but when you question the ethics
of – I know the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay, his ethics as a RNC officer
should never be questioned because I know his reputation in the RNC.
What we
have to do sometimes is when we have issues and we want to start asking about
people's own ethics in their own field, put yourself in my shoes where like what
he did, the Minister of Health, you never question it.
So I
have to stand and just speak about that, and I know the people in Humber - Bay
of Islands and some of the issues that we dealt with that were helped.
I'm just
going to close, Mr. Speaker, we always have trying times in this House of
Assembly, we always do, but I can tell you when I go back to Humber - Bay of
Islands, when you work for the people in the area and you work for people in the
district, that's the main thing. This here, we'll handle this here. We'll always
find ways to improve. We'll always find ways, and now with the measures that are
put in place for the minister, because once accepting this report, then he does
admit, there were some discrepancies there and we'll take care of that.
But we
have to remember that when we leave here, we have to go out and represent the
people and, again, we should all try to work together once this is done. This is
like sometimes in a family, sometimes we have disagreements, but when there's an
issue against each other then we have to step in and help each other out. So we
all have to work together when all this is done.
I said
words here this week, I mean them, but I tell you, when we're outside here today
with some of the government Members and other issues, we all have to work
together because, remember, we are here for the people. We debated this here for
the last two or three days, but I can tell you there are a few people here that
were questioned today on their ethics and I had to just get up and say –
AN HON. MEMBER:
It wasn't a question.
MR. JOYCE:
I don't know if it was a
question. To me it was.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Well, you have to listen.
MR. JOYCE:
I'm being criticized again
for the way I feel, I'm sorry. I'm sorry if I'm being criticized for the way I
feel, but let me tell you something, I've been in this Legislature for
20-something years. I'm going to speak the way I feel, like it or lump it. The
only way –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. JOYCE:
Pardon me?
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. JOYCE:
Now, I'm going to be told to
sit down and let them go home. Okay.
B'ys,
holy touchy, touchy.
Mr.
Speaker, this is all I have to say, if people want to tell me that I can't stand
and speak, the only ones that are going to tell me that are the people from the
Humber - Bay of Islands. Until they tell me that, I'm going to speak my mind in
this Legislature.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Seeing no further speakers to
the amended –
MS. COADY:
(Inaudible) ring the bell.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, we'll call the vote and
I'll ring the bells to call in Members.
The
Whips are ready?
I think
all Members are present so I think we can do the voice vote.
We're
voting on the amended amendment now. The Members have had an opportunity to look
at the amendment and they've had an opportunity to look at the amendment to the
amendment, the sub-amendment, so we're going to vote on that now.
Sorry,
Members aren't clear?
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For an
abundance of clarity, could we make sure that Members understand what they're
voting on? It is the amended motion without (e), correct?
MR. SPEAKER:
Yes.
We have
the main motion, which was the original motion moved by the Government House
Leader. Then we had an amendment moved by the Opposition House Leader, I think,
an amendment, but then we had a sub-amendment to the amendment made by the
Member for Corner Brook.
The
sub-amendment has passed, which amended the amendment that was moved by the
Government House Leader, and now we're in the process, we're going to vote on
the amended amendment. Okay?
So we're
clear what we're voting on?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
How Members vote on it is up
to them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
What we will do is we'll take
a brief recess. When we come back, we will read the motion as amended and then
we will go.
Okay,
we'll just take a few minutes to get that.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, I believe all Members
are back.
It's my
understanding that the amended amendment has been circulated to Members in a
written form. So Members have a copy for clarity in terms of what you're voting
on. Members have the amended amendment, so we will proceed with a voice vote on
this.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, we're ready.
All
those in favour, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Ball, Ms. Coady, Mr.
Crocker, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Osborne, Ms. Dempster,
Mr. Bennett, Mr. Davis, Ms. Haley, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Mitchelmore, Mr. Warr,
Mr. Bragg, Ms. Pam Parsons, Ms. Stoodley, Mr. Loveless, Mr. Trimper, Mr. Joyce.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion,
please stand.
CLERK:
Mr. Crosbie, Mr. Brazil, Mr.
Petten, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Wakeham, Mr. Lester, Mr. Dwyer, Ms. Evans, Ms.
Conway Ottenheimer, Mr. Paul Dinn, Mr. Pardy, Mr. Parrott, Mr. O'Driscoll, Mr.
Tibbs, Mr. Forsey, Ms. Coffin, Mr. James Dinn, Mr. Brown and Mr. Lane.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes 20, the nays 19.
MR. SPEAKER:
The ayes have it.
The
amendment is carried.
On
motion, amendment carried.
MR. SPEAKER:
We're back to the main
motion, as amended.
Seeing
no speakers rise, are the –
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
We're back to the main motion
now, as amended.
We're
going to vote now on the main motion, as amended.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
All those in favour, please
rise.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
CLERK:
Mr. Ball, Ms. Coady, Mr.
Crocker, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Osborne, Ms. Dempster,
Mr. Bennett, Mr. Davis, Ms. Haley, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Warr, Mr. Bragg, Ms.
Pam Parsons, Ms. Stoodley, Mr. Loveless, Mr. Trimper, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Forsey, Mr.
Brown.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay.
All
those against, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Crosbie, Mr. Brazil, Mr.
Petten, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Wakeham, Mr. Lester, Mr. Dwyer, Ms. Evans, Ms.
Conway Ottenheimer, Mr. Paul Dinn, Mr. Pardy, Mr. Parrott, Mr. O'Driscoll, Mr.
Tibbs, Ms. Coffin, Mr. James Dinn, Mr. Lane, Mr. Mitchelmore.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
CLERK:
Mr. Speaker, the ayes 21 and
the nays 18.
MR. SPEAKER:
The ayes have it.
The
motion, as amended, carried.
I'm
asking the Member – part of the motion was that the Member apologize to the
House.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As the
Member for St. Barbe - L'Anse aux Meadows, I unequivocally apologize to the
House of Assembly and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
It's traditional that we have
a few comments. I'm assuming that we're going to adjourn tonight for Christmas,
so I'm going to allow the opportunity for Members to make some seasonal
comments.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I would thank the Speaker and
the Government House Leader for giving us the opportunity to have a few remarks
before we close the House for Christmas break.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd like to wish all Members of the House a wonderful Christmas. As we
return to our districts with schedules full of Christmas parades and functions,
I wish everyone a safe and enjoyable Christmas.
I'd also
like to thank the Clerk and the Table Officers who guide us through our
proceedings. They know the rules of the House better than any of us. We all
benefit from their wisdom, so thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSBIE:
To the Sergeant-at-Arms and
Pages I'd like to extend my appreciation. They are often here before us and
leave after us. They take care to make sure everything runs smoothly.
Mr.
Speaker, I'd also like to thank those individuals we may not see everyday, the
folks who work behind the scenes and make sure that our deliberations are open
to the public. To the folks in Broadcast and Hansard, thank you. I know it's
often hard to keep up with who is speaking or what we are saying, so thank you.
Upstairs
and outside this Chamber are the Commissionaires. They do a great job of
ensuring that when members of the public come and take in our deliberations that
they are directed in a professional way through the processes and procedures
here. I extend my appreciation to them. I've done my best to give them my
estimate of when we'd rise through the evening, but sometimes I've been more
accurate than other times.
I'd also
like to recognize the staff of the Legislative Library, Corporate and Members'
Services, Speaker's office and Clerk's office. Mr. Speaker, to all those who
helped this House of Assembly run smoothly and function, I'd like to extend my
appreciation and wish them a very Merry Christmas and a Happy Holiday season.
I
recognize as well all the public service workers in the province. I know that
some of our public service workers have incredibly challenging files. I thank
them for their dedication and perseverance and I wish them a Merry Christmas.
I'd be
remiss if I didn't take a moment to thank those who work in our office, our own
staff in the Official Opposition office. Our staff come to work every day and
often work late into the night to help us prepare for the House. I thank our
staff for their guidance, knowledge and efforts.
Mr.
Speaker, our caucus isn't the only one with political staff. All of us in the
House have a complement of staff who we rely on each and every day. To all
political staff, I wish you a safe holiday season. Hopefully everyone gets an
opportunity to take a well-deserved break and spend time with family and
friends.
To my
colleagues, my fellow MHAs, I extend my best wishes to you as well. I wish you
and your families the very best for the holidays. I know that politics often
takes a toll on families. I know that MHAs sacrifice being at the dinner table
to attend events and may miss birthdays, anniversaries or other family functions
to be here in St. John's and pizza is no substitute. I hope that during this
Christmas season we can all spend some quality time making memories with our
families.
Mr.
Speaker, to conclude, I thank everyone for their hard work over the past year. I
know we do not always agree on the issues at hand, but it is my Christmas wish
that everyone have a pleasant and happy holiday season and that when we return
in 2020, we can work together and make positive change for the people of the
province.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. COFFIN:
Mr. Speaker, this is one of
the times that I do not have a prepared speech, but the hon. Member who spoke
before me does. So forgive this, and that leads me to where I'd like to start
with my remarks.
At the
beginning of this year, which seems like a lifetime and a half ago now, I had
the very good fortune to have a conversation with someone. I didn't had a New
Year's resolution at that time, but something had happened and the individual
said, can you forgive me for that? She said, maybe that will be your New Year's
resolution and I said, that's a nice idea.
As the
year has progressed, I have found myself needing forgiveness; I have found
myself giving forgiveness. After all that has unfolded in this past year, I
think we can all perhaps resonate with this same sentiment. That was a bit of a
foretelling and a bit of an oracle. I knew when she mentioned it that it had a
special meaning, so it's very nice to be able to relate that story and share the
importance of that.
I'd like
all Members, as we break for Christmas, to maybe take that sentiment and
contemplate it. You don't have to embrace it, but perhaps remember it when you
find yourselves in a situation where you need to give or take forgiveness and
see how you feel. Certainly, this is a resolution that I will bring with me, not
only for this year or for the remainder of this year, but perhaps for the rest
of my life, because it is a very good way to behave.
Upon
reflection of this past year I want to say thank you. Thank you to everyone who
has made my transition into this life easier; all the guidance that I've gotten
from my colleagues here in the House of Assembly, all the help that we've gotten
from the remarkable legislative staff, from everyone that has supported us
throughout the year. Certainly, all the other MHAs, thank you very much just for
being yourselves and doing a wonderful job in the House.
Thank
you to my caucus and my party. Thank you very much to all of our supporters. I
want to say Merry Christmas, happy holidays and thank you so much to the people
of St. John's East - Quidi Vidi for allowing me this tremendous honour and
responsibility. I hope that I have done them well. I hope I've done my
colleagues well in representing myself and them as I stand.
To
conclude, I think as we leave for these holiday seasons, take the time,
everyone, to hug the people who love you and support you. They play such an
important role in helping us do our jobs to make government work for everybody
here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to also suggest to take some time to
think about what your resolution is for when you come back into the New Year.
I am
contemplating mine already and I would like to make a commitment to myself and
to everyone else that I am dedicated to improving our governance here in
Newfoundland and Labrador. I resolve to myself and everyone else that I will do
that with mutual respect, with good behaviour and an admiration and
understanding of everyone's circumstances and their place, their feelings, their
intelligence and their perspective. I wish everyone a warm, happy, joyous
holiday. Go be with the people you love and enjoy themselves.
Thank
you very much for this wonderful opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
I'll take a few minutes. First, I want to recognize and acknowledge the
Christmas greetings that have been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition
and the Leader of the Third Party.
It's
been a busy session, as we know, 13 pieces of legislation that has been far
reaching and impactful on people in our province. There's no question, as we sat
through the last few days, there have been frustrations and that goes sometimes
with adaptation and change that we see as we transition into this new way of
governance.
Mr.
Speaker, I will say, again, that all of us, I think, share the view that we work
here and provide a service to the people of our province. We continue to work in
collaboration, hoping to make change and make it even better for our province.
We do
know that as you make decisions as government, they're not always easy. I've
seen in the past, the last, nearly, four years, that we've seen that
decision-making is very different than sitting in Opposition and so on.
Mr.
Speaker, I think we all represent the people that elect us with the spirit that
we see at Christmas time, but yet throughout the year we want to do the best
that we can.
Like
others, I, too, want to thank the staff of the House of Assembly for the great
work that they do, keeping this place and keeping us in our seats and keeping us
doing the things that we do. You help make this House run pretty smoothly.
I think
of the people in Hansard. We rely on
this quite a bit, especially as we start preparing ourselves and we listen and
we read and we reflect on some of the discussions that have happened in this
debate. I keep reminding people, the things that you say are recorded and
they're recorded for the history and for future people to look at and actually
reflect on things that would have been said. So we really thank Hansard
for the work that they do, as well as the Broadcast team for that work.
I
understand now that even at a regular time we would probably be broadcasting
live right now, but from what they tell me we've been bumped by bingo. So, Mr.
Speaker, we realize where the priorities are on many evenings like this.
I also
want to thank our Pages. We see some familiar faces back and they just sit there
and patiently watch and listen to us as Legislators in this Legislature. Some of
them are familiar faces, some have taken a little rest and been away a bit and
come back, but I know in the eight or nine years now that I've been doing this,
we've seen quite a few Pages that have come and gone and sit in those chairs.
I always
admire the work and the patience, sometimes the tolerance that you have there
with those smiles as you step in front of us and drop off messages and so on,
that it helps us through our day. So I really want to say thank you and wish you
a Merry Christmas.
Often
you are referred to as the future leaders of our province, because you have an
interest in politics or you wouldn't really be doing this. I really consider you
to be leaders of today and the influencers of decisions that we make.
To the
security, and I'm one of those people, as many people would know, that spend a
few hours in this building. The security is always there, got a nice smile and
they greet us in the mornings when we come in, but sometimes after we go home
from a long day, making sure that we get to our vehicles safely and that we're
there and kept safe while we're inside here. I really want to thank them and all
those other members of our staff here, the Sergeant-at-Arms who sits there and
watches a lot of this happen, too.
Mr.
Speaker, I really do want to say, too, that around our province, when we get
outside of where we are today in this environment, there are people out there, I
really want to thank our RNC, our RCMP, the people in our communities that keep
our residents safe.
I also
want to speak to the public sector workers. As we go home and enjoy Christmas
and do the traditions. I know in my life, it really starts on the 23rd of
December; the tradition really goes right through to the 2nd of January, but for
our public sector workers, while we take advantage of the holiday season,
whatever the traditions that we have and we hold dear, we have public sector
workers either in health care, law enforcement, people that are plowing the
roads from Transportation and on and on it goes. This is what they do, and they
do it day in; they do it day out. On Christmas Day, it's not unusual to see a
snowplow operator or an ambulance driver or somebody that's working while we get
the opportunity to spend some time with our families.
I also
think about many of us have friends and families that are in the military and
the Armed Forces, that they're not home for Christmas. We get a chance to either
FaceTime or share messages, but there are many of us that are impacting lives of
others in other countries that are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a lot of people in our province that you would like to thank
and remember, but just on a little aside, a little pleasant thing that I know
that's been happening up in our office in the last few days. There are cookies
and there are treats and there are little things that are dropped off and little
notes that come in from time to time.
For me,
I really enjoy getting those little things that get dropped off because it
really means that people are paying attention, that they really care about what
we're doing in here. I want to share that message from me to you, as all of us
that are in here, to say thank you from all of us to the people that actually do
these little things, that sometimes may not seem a lot, but I know, for me, they
certainly mean an awful lot.
To all
of my colleagues that sit in this House, I want to say thank you. I want to wish
you a very Merry Christmas and a happy new year.
As our
caucus, I have to say that there's no question, I've got a strong, incredible
group of people here that I get an opportunity to work with. Our staff, all of
us, we're here to make this province a better place to live and to raise our
families.
To you,
Mr. Speaker, you've taken on a new role and you had the support of the House,
giving you the opportunity to sit in the House, in what is a very important job
that you do and get the assistance from your deputy here and certainly your
Chair of Committees. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the work that you've
done and sitting there with that smile on your face sometimes.
I'm
going to conclude my remarks by saying that, hopefully, tomorrow I'm going to
get home. I started a project about three weeks ago to put up Christmas lights
and I know I haven't got it finished yet, but I made a commitment to the people
that live on the same street that I do, that I will not be the last one to get
those lights up this year. So they're going to be finished, hopefully, by
Saturday evening.
Mr.
Speaker, while we're putting up our lights, what it does, it gives us chance to
reflect on Christmas past, but gives us an opportunity to prepare for our
future. I'm really looking forward to coming back after the new year, after
spending a bit of quiet time over Christmas. I'm looking forward to working with
every single Member of this House in collaboration, making this province a great
place to live.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Christmas is a very special
time of year and I want to do a few greetings as well before we conclude, a
brief greeting.
I want
to wish the people, all Members, a Merry Christmas. The people who work with the
House, a Merry Christmas as well. I want to wish the Pages well on their exams,
I know some of them still have exams to do. I want to wish you good luck with
those exams and best wishes for Christmas.
Christmas is a special time of year and I want to encourage you all to take some
time to relax, spend time with family and friends and to reflect on the year
past and to plan for the year forward.
Think
about people who are in need or in distress in their lives and how we can help
them.
I just
want to wish you all a Merry Christmas and a happy new year, as we go forward.
Thank
you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible.)
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
I think we need a motion to
leave.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that we now adjourn.
MR. SPEAKER:
Do we need to vote on that?
AN HON. MEMBER:
Yes.
MR. SPEAKER:
Okay, we need to vote on the
motion to adjourn before we go.
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
I think
it's carried unanimously.
The
House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, March 2, 2020.
On
motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, March 2, 2020.