October 24, 2018
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVIII No. 30
The
House met at 10 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER:
I will now rule on the matter
of privilege raised yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. I have reviewed
the circumstances and listened to Members speak on the issue. I will point out
that my role as Speaker in this matter is laid out in O'Brien and Bosc at page
145, “... the issue put before the Speaker is not a finding of fact, it is
simply whether on first impression the issue that is before the House warrants
priority consideration over all matters, all other orders of the day that are
before the House ….”
Speakers
Osborne and Wiseman, in their decisions of May 29, 2017 and June 19, 2012, both
indicated that “… it is for this House to decide what course of action will be
taken when that happens ….”
An
examination of a prima facie point of privilege in Maingot, page 227 quotes the
United Kingdom Select Committee on Parliamentary Privileges asking “…Does the
act complained of appear at first sight to be a breach of privilege… or to put
it shortly, has the member an arguable point?”
In this
matter, I do believe he does.
Parliamentary Privilege enables Members to fulfill the parliamentary functions
for which they were elected, and enables parliaments to function. Any conduct
which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of
any specific privilege may have been committed, may be a contempt of the House.
Privilege must be necessary to fulfill the functions of the House or the Member.
The “necessity” test has been described by the Supreme Court of Canada in the
Vaid case as follows: “In order to sustain a claim of parliamentary privilege,
the assembly or member seeking its immunity must show that the sphere of
activity for which privilege is claimed is so closely and directly connected
with a fulfillment by the assembly or its members of their functions as
legislative and deliberate body… that outside interference would undermine the
level of autonomy required to enable the assembly and its members to do their
work with dignity and efficiency.”
Some of
the rights and powers of this House, and of all parliaments in the Westminster
system of government are: 1. The exclusive right to regulate its own internal
affairs (debates, proceedings and facilities) 2. The power to discipline; to
punish persons guilty of breaches of privilege or contempt.
In
considering all of this, I find that there is a prima facie breach of privilege
by way of contempt. I will now ask the Leader of the Official Opposition to move
his motion.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
motion is:
WHEREAS
the Member for Mount Scio has admitted to releasing to the news media
investigative reports into that Member's conduct by the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards before those reports have been tabled in the House of
Assembly; and
WHEREAS
the release of such reports of an Officer of the House is an indignity to the
complainants that threatens to compromise the integrity of the investigative
process and the public perception that justice is being served and prejudices
the ability of the Members of this House to fulfill their responsibilities; and
WHEREAS
the Member's attempt to use these leaked reports to influence perceptions of the
report's conclusions before they have been presented to Members for debate,
affects not just the integrity of the process but our ability to fulfill our
adjudicated responsibilities.
BE IT
RESOLVED that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges
and Elections for an investigation and a recommendation of an appropriate action
to censure the Member for Mount Scio for what he has done.
MR. SPEAKER:
I require a mover and a
seconder.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Seconded.
MR. CROSBIE:
Seconded by the hon. House Leader for the Opposition.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Before
we proceed, I would like to instruct the Members that we will now be following
the regular rules of debate according to Standing Order 46(1) and (2). I do
remind all Members who which to speak to this matter before we vote, that they
are to be relevant – and I stress that – in their remarks.
The
question we are dealing with is whether this matter should now be referred to
the Privileges and Elections Committee, not whether the Member has committed a
breach. Okay.
And with
that, I would invite the Leader of the Official Opposition to commence with his
remarks.
MR. CROSBIE:
As you cogently put the matter in your reasons for proceeding just a few minutes
ago, privilege is what is necessary for the House, this hon. House, to fulfill
its mandate and the expectation of the people of the province that it can
conduct its business as both a legislative and a deliberative body with dignity
and efficiency. That is what is at stake in the matter now before us.
Dignity
and efficiency, and in our capacity as a deliberative body, those words coming
from the Supreme Court of Canada in the case you cited, Sir.
Dignity
and efficiency is all the more necessary when the House is acting in its
deliberative capacity because what we have before us, and the business of the
House that gave rise to the conduct now impugned in the resolution by the Member
for Mount Scio, involves the capacity of this House acting as an adjudicative
body as distinct from acting as a legislative body passing laws. There is an
inherent jurisdiction in this place to regulate the conduct of its own essential
internal processes and the conduct of its Members.
What we
are confronted with, Mr. Speaker, is an attempt, which may well have had effect,
by one of the Members, the Member whose conduct is impugned, to influence this
place in its deliberative functions; to influence this place in its role as an
adjudicative assembly, over the recommendations for sanction provided to this
House, presented to this House, in reports tabled yesterday, and to decide
whether we, as an adjudicative body, accept the recommendations, reject the
recommendations, or prefer other forms of sanction than those recommended.
An
attempt to influence us in the exercise of that essential function, and in our
independence in how we exercise that function, is a grave and serious matter
indeed.
Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great attention to comments publicly made last night by
the Member for Fortune - Cape La Hune, in which she explained that in her view
what was at issue is the ability of the political process in this democratic
polity, Newfoundland and Labrador –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I'm
going to remind the Member regarding my comments on relevance.
The
decision has to be in this debate whether or not to refer the decision to the
Privileges and Elections Committee, or do we address it here, or through some
other vehicle. So it's really on that very narrow decision, and it's going to be
a challenge for us to comment on that, I recognize that, but I would ask all
Members to stay focused on that very specific question.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you.
So I
interpret your instructions, Sir, to be that it's really a matter of procedure,
and whether referral to that body is the appropriate method of proceeding?
MR. SPEAKER:
That's right.
MR. CROSBIE:
Well, in that case, Sir, as I
outlined, it is a grave enough matter that it deserves the attention of the
Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for an investigation and a
recommendation of appropriate action, and I support the motion.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Do we have any other
speakers?
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
And I'm
glad to be able to stand and speak to this motion. I do support, and we do
support as the Third Party caucus, the resolution that's being put forward by
the Leader of the Official Opposition.
I think
the most important basis for agreeing that we do have to have this investigated
is the fact that we have a Code of Conduct and the Code of Conduct has high
demands of us as Members of this House of Assembly and representatives of the
people in this House of Assembly.
The Code
of Conduct talks about our rejecting participation in unethical political
practices which tend to undermine the democratic traditions of our province and
its institutions. It says that we will – we've all signed this. It says that:
Members will act lawfully and in a manner that will withstand the closest public
scrutiny. We are here to protect the public interest and to enhance public
confidence and trust. Members will base their conduct on a consideration of the
public interest. Members should promote and support these principles by
leadership and example. And the whole basis of our Code of Conduct is respect
for one another, respect for the public and respect for our democratic
institutions.
I
believe that the actions that are leading to this resolution really do put in
question what it means to live by this Code of Conduct, and I think it puts in
question what do we do when this kind of event happens that happened, with
regard to the reports being leaked by an individual Member before the House had
its chance to deal with the reports.
So in
light of our Code of Conduct, in light of our legislative standards, I think the
most appropriate place for this to be considered is with the Privileges and
Elections Committee. That's the role of the Privileges and Elections Committee.
It would have the opportunity to do the investigation that it needs and then
bring recommendations back to this House, though we don't know what those
recommendations could be. They could even mean some legislative changes.
I won't
anticipate what that investigation could be, but I think it is needed. If indeed
there is a loophole that says doing this kind of thing, there's nothing to say
that the kind of action that happened is something that shouldn't happen, then
we should make sure that loophole gets closed, if there's something like that
there. And that's the kind of thing that the Privileges and Elections Committee
would be able to look at and come back with carefully, reasoned recommendations
to the House of Assembly.
This is
not something that's partisan politically; this is something that we all would
agree on – something that we're all concerned about in this House, I know that.
And I think doing it through our committee that's set up in our Standing Orders
to deal with our legislative standards is the way to go.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Further
speakers to the debate?
The hon.
the Member for Mount Scio.
MR. KIRBY:
My Speaker, I don't have a
whole lot to add to what I said about this yesterday – I stood in response to
this. I will elaborate a little bit that in the discussion between my legal
counsel and legal counsel for the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, it was
agreed that I was not bound by confidentiality in the release of these reports.
Also when I stood yesterday –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I'm
sorry, but I must remind the Member I do believe you might have remised my
directions to the group to the House.
MR. KIRBY:
(Inaudible.)
MR. SPEAKER:
Fine. Well, then I would ask
you to stay relevant to the – the question before us and the debate before us
right now is whether or not to defer this resolution to the Privileges and
Elections Committee, or perhaps to handle it here or in some other vehicle. So
whether or not there's been a breach that is to be determined later.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Scio.
MR. KIRBY:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am
arguing that it should not be for that reason – that the lawyers representing me
and the Commissioner for Legislative Standards agreed that we were not bound by
confidentiality.
When I
stood yesterday as well – and I believe I'm entitled to make this point – I
pointed out that my actions were no different than the Member for Terra Nova who
released two reports, sometime between the 24th and the 28th of August. So why
would I be singled and the other Member not –?
MR. SPEAKER:
Again, Sir, I would correct
you. I would suggest that the debate is to be focused on whether or not to
determine if a breach has occurred by referring it to the Committee. Not whether
there's (inaudible) – your context, your justifications for the initiative. It
is whether or not – do we determine whether there's been a breach or not on this
floor, or at the Privileges and Election Committee? The resolution is put it to
the P and E.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Scio.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, so I'll stand on
a point of personal privilege then. Because my rights as a Member of this
Assembly are not any different than any of the other 39 Members of this
Assembly. I have a right to be treated fairly, the same as the other Members. So
I don't understand how it is there can be a motion or a ruling of any sort that
singles out my actions which were exactly the same as the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. SPEAKER:
Again, Sir, I would ask you
to recognize the fact that we are dealing with a priority issue. It's a point of
privilege raised yesterday by the Leader of the Official Opposition.
The
debate at this time is whether or not to defer this determination to the
Privileges and Elections Committee, not whether or not there's been a breach, or
anything else related to that. Does the determination go to the P and E
Committee or not? So I'd ask you to really focus your comments on that.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Scio.
MR. KIRBY:
So, Mr. Speaker, are you
ruling that I am not entitled to make a point of personal privilege on this
matter?
MR. SPEAKER:
What I'm ruling is that we
are, first of all, dealing with a priority issue that a point of privilege has
already been raised by the Leader of the Opposition. That is the priority. I'm
handling that one right now.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Scio.
MR. KIRBY:
So, Mr. Speaker, when will I
be able to raise my point of personal privilege then?
MR. SPEAKER:
It's typically at the
earliest opportunity. If I could just have a minute, I'll confer with my Clerk.
I'm
going to suggest that as it's a matter I've not encountered before, I'd like to
take a recess. So we'll call for a recess.
Thank
you.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I would
like to remind Members that the House is currently debating a matter of
privilege. This matter takes precedence over all other matters before this
House.
Regarding the point of personal privilege raised by the Member for Mount Scio,
and quoting from Bosc and Gagnon, Chapter 3, pages 161 to 162, Matters of
Personal Privilege.
“The
Chair may occasionally grant leave to a Member to explain a matter of personal
nature although there is no question before the House. This is commonly referred
to by Members as 'a point of personal privilege' and is an indulgence granted by
the Chair. There is no connection to a question of privilege and, as Speaker
Fraser who once noted, '[t]here is no legal authority, procedural or otherwise,
historic or precedential, that allows this. Before rising to speak in the House,
the Member must first give the Speaker written notice of the matter; oral notice
may also be given privately to the Speaker.
“Such
occasions are not meant to be used for general debate, and Members have been
cautioned to confine their remarks to the point they wish to make. The Speaker
has also stated that, as these are generally personal statements and not
questions of privilege, no other Members will be recognized to speak on the
matter. Members have used this procedure to make personal explanations, to
correct errors made in debate, to apologize to the House, to thank the House or
acknowledge something done for the Member by the House, to announce a change in
party affiliation, to announce a resignation or for some other reason.”
So I do
advise the Member that should he wish to raise a point of personal privilege he
should follow procedure, as I have outlined, and I will consider the matter.
However, I further note that in accordance with Bosc and Gagnon, at page 150,
and dealing with matters of privilege, “When the motion being considered touches
on the conduct of a Member, he or she may make a statement in explanation and
then should withdraw from the Chamber.”
Should
the Member wish to procedure in this matter, I will provide him more latitude.
You have
15 minutes, Sir, if you'd like to make a comment. And, as I said in my remarks,
I will provide more latitude.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Scio.
MR. KIRBY:
Before I begin, Mr. Speaker,
can you clarify your statement about withdrawing from the Chamber. I've not
heard that here in the last seven years that I've served.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
According to Bosc and Gagnon, at page 150, and as I alluded to in my preamble,
we are dealing with a point of privilege. That is the priority.
If a
Member wishes to make a point of personal privilege, there is a procedure that
you need to proceed. You can advise me personally, you can send something to me
in writing.
Given
that this point of privilege deals with a personal – it's personally connected
to yourself – there is an opportunity in the guidance that I have through Bosc
and Gagnon that the House will allow that Member to make a statement, there's 15
minutes can be granted, but following your statement and given that we've given
you that latitude, the direction of Bosc and Gagnon is that that Member should
withdraw from the Chamber for the conclusion of the debate.
The hon.
the Member for Mount Scio.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I'm still a bit
unclear but I guess you'll correct me if I go beyond whatever latitude it is
you're willing to grant.
As I
said earlier, when these matters came to my attention and I retained legal
counsel in May, there was a discussion between the legal counsel for myself and
for the Commissioner for Legislative Standards about confidentiality and there
was no agreement around confidentiality. I didn't enter into any agreement. I
didn't sign anything, and there was very little discussion to that effect.
Whether that's right or wrong, people can judge accordingly.
I don't
know why it is I was sort of stopped. I mean, obviously, it's your
responsibility to maintain decorum and order here in the House and I respect
your authority to do that, but I was trying to articulate the fact that my
actions were no different than another Member of the House of Assembly who, you
know, did practically the same thing as I did and I just think that we're all
equal here in our right to be treated with fairness and to be treated equally.
So I
don't know why you would refer a matter to the Privileges and Elections
Committee pertaining specifically to me, when my actions are no different is –
it's astounding to me, and I think it's really a violation of my rights as a
Member of this Chamber. Whatever you think of what it was that I did or
allegedly did, I think, and I think all Members should consider this, because it
could be you at some point.
I won't
belabour that because I did read that CBC story from the 28th of August into the
record yesterday and Members are aware of what I'm talking about.
Just a
couple of other things; the basis that the Leader of the Official Opposition
uses to make this allegation that somehow I violated confidentiality is based on
his reading or interpretation of a passage in O'Brien and Bosc, which basically
says if you're a member of a standing committee, you're bound by
confidentiality. If you're a member of a committee, you're bound by
confidentiality. I'm not a member of any committee of this Legislature. I'm not
a member of the Management Commission; I'm not a member of any committee here.
So I don't know how it is that that pertains to this situation.
There's
also a jurisdictional question here, and I think you want to go back and look at
previous rulings in this House. None of this happened within the confines of the
Chamber or the other areas of the House of Assembly. My office is in the West
Block, in fact, so I'm nowhere near here.
So I
didn't use the House of Assembly, and I didn't use the precinct of the House of
Assembly to release these reports, which the public were entitled to read, since
they paid something to the tune of a couple of hundred thousand dollars for
them. I thought the public had a right to read them, the same way as the Member
for Terra Nova felt when he released these reports in August of this year.
After
living with a cloud of suspicion for six months, I thought it was time to
release this – with the understanding that I was not bound by any
confidentiality, and I'm not sure that the Privileges and Elections Committee
can make up rules pertaining to this situation.
The law
is foundational. In addition to evidence – and I'm not a lawyer; the letters
after my name mean something else. But the law is foundational, and that is, in
addition to evidence, whether you agree with it or not when you're making
judgment, you also consider precedent in previous cases. The law isn't made up
as you go along.
So I
don't understand how it is the Privileges and Elections Committee is going to
sort of – or how the House of Assembly, by the way, is going to apply a
confidentiality requirement to me when there was none previously. That's not the
way rules are made. If the House of Assembly wants to make a rule, if the
Privileges and Elections Committee wants to make a rule that in these cases,
when there are investigations, all Members of the House of Assembly are bound by
confidentiality, I got no problem voting for that and agreeing to it. That's
completely fair. But you cannot retroactively apply a rule, and there is no such
rule as it stands.
I guess
the other point in all of this which has to be said – and we'll have a lot more
debate about this, I hope – is that on or about the 28th of April of this year,
my name was very publicly put out there in the media. There was about a two-week
period where I was attached to this. I was guaranteed no confidentiality. The
Commissioner had not even received a complaint, yet my name was out there being
dragged through this media circus, and I was removed from Cabinet. I removed
myself from the Liberal caucus. So I have rights as an individual too,
regardless of whether you believe what the Commissioner found, whether you
believe me or the complainants, I have rights too, my family has rights too, and
I have a right to be treated equal to every other Member of this House of
Assembly.
What
went on there was absolutely wrong; it would not happen in any other workplace.
If I worked – my home position at Memorial University of Newfoundland if someone
filed a grievance against me under the collective agreement for the Memorial
University of Newfoundland Faculty Association, all of that would be kept
private, and it would be a gross violation of the collective agreement if
somebody went outside that and named me unjustly for things that have not been
proven to be the case. But that did happen here.
So I was
tired of living under a cloud of suspicion, and I felt my family, my friends,
the people in this Legislature, the general public and, most importantly, my
constituents, had a right to know what went on here, because I was so publicly
identified unfairly last year.
I could
go on; I'll have a lot more to say about this in the debate. I thank you very
much for allowing me to state my peace and giving me some latitude to that. I
appreciate it.
MR. SPEAKER:
I thank the Member and I must
instruct that, consistent with my direction, I will have to ask you to withdraw
for the completion of this debate. I'm citing Bosc and Gagnon, page 150.
I thank
the Member.
Are
there further speakers to the debate?
Seeing
none, I might invite the mover of the resolution to see if he has any further
comments.
MR. CROSBIE:
I have no further comments,
Mr. Speaker.
Thank
you.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Is the
House ready for the question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Division, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
House
Leaders, please call in your Members.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
I'm just standing for the
vote.
MR. SPEAKER:
I seek some direction from
the Clerk.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All
those in favour, please rise.
CLERK (Barnes):
Mr. Ball, Mr. Andrew Parsons,
Ms. Coady, Mr. Haggie, Mr. Byrne, Ms. Dempster, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Crocker, Mr.
Osborne, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms. Gambin-Walsh, Mr. Warr, Mr. Bernard Davis, Mr.
Edmunds, Ms. Haley, Mr. Letto, Mr. Browne, Mr. Bragg, Mr. Derek Bennett, Mr.
Reid, Ms. Parsley, Mr. King, Mr. Dean, Ms. Pam Parsons, Mr. Holloway, Mr.
Crosbie, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Paul Davis, Mr. Brazil, Ms. Perry, Mr. Kevin
Parsons, Mr. Petten, Mr. Lester, Ms. Rogers, Ms. Michael.
MR. SPEAKER:
Those against the motion,
please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Joyce and Mr. Kirby.
Mr.
Speaker, the ayes 35 and the nays two.
MR. SPEAKER:
I declare the motion is
carried.
The hon.
the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Given the hour of the day, I
would move that we recess until 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER:
This House stands in recess
until 2 p.m., and I do remind all the Members of this House that there will be a
technical briefing that will commence here with the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards at 12:30.
Thank
you.
Recess
The
House resumed at 2 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Trimper):
Order, please!
Admit
strangers.
I would
like to recognize some visitors today that we have in the public gallery. I'd
like to welcome Ms. Diane Molloy. She's the Executive Director of Newfoundland
and Labrador Foster Families Association, and staff members Lori Petersen and
Amy Powell. They are joining us today for a Ministerial Statement.
Welcome
to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
Statements by
Members
MR. SPEAKER:
For Members' statements
today, we will hear from the Members for the Districts of Virginia Waters -
Pleasantville, Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, Exploits, Torngat Mountains and
Corner Brook.
The hon.
the Member for Virginia Waters - Pleasantville.
MR. B. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House to recognize and congratulate Aluel Acheiek and Caitlyn
Menchion of Virginia Park Community Centre on achieving their Silver Duke of
Edinburgh Award.
It is
important to remember that some of our most critical learning happens outside
the classroom and lessons they have learned on this journey will help shape
their future direction for the rest of their lives. The time and dedication it
takes to complete the silver level of this award is a sign of their passion and
commitment; something they should be very proud of.
Prince
Philip created the Duke of Edinburgh International Award in 1956 as a way to
give people, like these young women, a supportive and non-competitive
development platform. The Prince values activities that deepen self-awareness,
builds confidence and broadens skills to further their growth as active and
responsible citizens. I have had the pleasure of volunteering with youth my
entire adult life and have seen first-hand the benefit that this award program
has made in the lives of youth.
I hope
this award is the step in a long life of activity, volunteering and working
together to make our communities better.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to congratulate the 2922 Vimy Ridge Royal Canadian Army Cadet Corp of Bay
d'Espoir award recipients who were honoured at the 2018 Annual Ceremonial
Review. It is my great pleasure to pay them tribute.
Top
Green Star went to Corporal Sarah Brushett; Top Red Star, Master Corporal Aisha
George; Top Silver Star, Corporal Michael Willcott; Top Gold Star, Warrant
Officer Christian Snook; and Top Master Cadet to Master Warrant Officer Samuel
Davis.
The
Marksmanship Award went to Sgt. Michael Willcott; Top Fundraiser, Sgt. Samuel
Hussey; and CO's Choice Award to Sgt. Dante Felix.
Peer
Choice recipients were Master Warrant Officer Samuel Davis and Sgt. Michael
Willcott. Top Dress and Deportment went to Master Warrant Officer Samuel Davis.
I also
highly commend all of those who received awards for their outstanding and
excellent attendance. I would also like to pay tribute to the Legion of
Excellence recipient, Master Corporal Aisha George, who was honoured for
enhancing the cadet movement aims and objectives. A huge bouquet goes to Warrant
Officer Christian Snook for his receipt of the Lord Strathcona Medal, which is
the highest medal that be awarded to a cadet in recognition of their exemplary
performance in physical and military training. Congratulations, Christian, for
attaining this highest regard by peers and supervisors as exemplifying the model
cadet.
I ask
all Members to join me in thanking these outstanding fine young youth.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Exploits.
MR. DEAN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today in this hon. House to commend the Botwood Mural Arts Society on hosting a
most successful Global Mural Conference on September 12th to the 15th of this
year.
The
society has commissioned prominent mural artists to paint several eye-catching
additions to the town landscape, depicting our history, culture and way of life,
making Botwood the mural capital of Newfoundland and Labrador.
These
murals have enhanced the beauty of the town and boosted the extent of tourism in
the region. I would extend to all a warm invitation to visit and take a stroll
through our town to view these magnificent conceptions.
I ask
all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating the Botwood Mural Arts
Society on its diligence, effort and success in hosting this global event, and
the bringing of us to the world and the world to us.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Torngat Mountains.
MR. EDMUNDS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
in this hon. House today to recognize a truly beautiful volunteer effort by an
outstanding member of the community of Nain.
Mr.
Simon Kohlmeister worked as a conservation officer, and sometimes his job
involved visits to the local garbage disposal site to monitor wildlife. But he
also recognized that some waste at the dump could be used for a better purpose,
and it was to this end that Simon saw opportunity.
Simon
took the garbage and turned it into something more valuable. In this case, Mr.
Kohlmeister took broken bikes from the dump and began putting them back in
working order.
Over the
years, his efforts to fix broken bikes has proven successful. Now, other
families have begun taking their broken and unused bikes to Simon to be repaired
and give back to the kids of Nain. It is through his efforts that many young
people in Nain have a bike to call their own.
I had
the opportunity to speak with Simon last spring about his project, and while
he's enjoyed the media attention, he's just satisfied in knowing that there are
kids who are happy with a bike of their own.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating Mr. Simon
Kohlmeister of Nain for his outstanding community effort.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Corner Brook, who will ask for leave of the House before he speaks.
MR. BYRNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, it will be a very difficult day. It will be difficult to picture any
day in Corner Brook without Craig Kennedy in it.
Mr.
Speaker, Craig Kennedy was a friend of mine and a friend of many, and his
presence was not just felt in my own hometown of Corner Brook but, indeed,
across the continent.
Craig
was a professional civil works superintendent and was recognized at an
international level as a leader among leaders in his field. Craig Kennedy ran
the Public Works department of the City of Corner Brook like no other. He had a
style that made people want to work with him and to match him. But his most
visible place in the community was on the ice or behind the bench at the storied
Humber Gardens and the Corner Brook Civic Centre.
He led
his teammates to the coveted Allan Cup win in 1986 and showed those same
leadership skills years afterwards as a player, player-coach and coach for the
best team in the Newfoundland Senior Hockey League: the Corner Brook Royals. Ron
MacLean and Don Cherry – learning their friend, Craig Kennedy, had passed –
celebrated his life with the entire country this past Saturday night on
Coach's Corner.
Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of us all, I offer my sincere condolences to his wife
Christine, to his sons Colton and Jordan, to his mom Verna and to his entire
extended family. Craig has left us after 61 years. His legacy of giving, caring
and contributing, however, will last forever.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by
Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Minister of Justice and Public Safety and Attorney General.
MR.
A. PARSONS:
Mr.
Speaker, our government is making it easier for Indigenous students from this
province to have a career in law.
Through a new agreement with the University of
Saskatchewan, two seats will be reserved annually in its College of Law program
for Indigenous students from Newfoundland and Labrador. Upon graduation, the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will allocate and fund two articling
positions within the Department of Justice and Public Safety. Indigenous
governments and organizations will encourage students to apply to law school and
fund or identify funding for educational expenses.
Mr. Speaker, the trilateral partnership between this
government, the University of Saskatchewan and Indigenous governments and
organizations will improve access to legal education and create new employment
opportunities.
Our province is only the second jurisdiction in the
country to partner with the College of Law at the University of Saskatchewan,
and it is expected that the first two Indigenous students from Newfoundland and
Labrador will enter the program in the fall of 2019.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity today, to
encourage Indigenous students from this province to consider a career in law.
This is a profession where they are typically underrepresented. Individuals have
until February 1 to apply, and it is through this partnership that we all hope
to improve Indigenous representation in the legal system in Newfoundland and
Labrador and to ensure better access to justice for everyone.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I thank the minister for the
advance copy. And I join with the minister to encourage Indigenous students from
Newfoundland and Labrador to consider a career in law. As the great English
judge, Lord Denning, once said: the law must be certain, but it must never stand
still.
I
commend initiatives that allow for more Indigenous persons to receive training
and experience, practising and defending the rule of law and that integrate
Indigenous cultural experience into the great river of Canadian legal
development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And I
thank the minister. Creating opportunities for Indigenous students to pursue a
career in law will improve our justice system, especially for Indigenous peoples
who have been unrepresented in our legal system for far too long.
Reforms
to the criminal justice system are among the many calls to action of the Truth
and Reconciliation Commission, and these reserve seats are a step in the right
direction. In addition to this measure, I hope the minister will continue to
find further ways to better recognize and implement Indigenous representation
and practices within our justice system.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
today to pay tribute to a group of people who care deeply about the safety and
well-being of children and youth in our province.
Throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, approximately 560 foster families provide
safe, nurturing homes for children and youth.
Foster
Families Week, held annually during the third week of October, is a special
opportunity to express our heartfelt appreciation and respect for them.
These
families play an inspiring role in the lives of children. Every child and every
youth deserves to feel protected, safe and secure, and this is where our foster
families shine.
Author
and former professor Jess Lair said “Children are not things to be molded, but
are people to be unfolded.”
Foster
families open their hearts and homes to children and youth in need of comfort,
safety and security. In doing so, they create endless opportunities for them to
thrive and succeed.
The
Department of Children, Seniors and Social Development recognizes the vital role
foster parents play in our province and we work closely with the Newfoundland
and Labrador Foster Families Association to recruit and support foster parents.
I invite
my colleagues in this hon. House to join me in thanking our foster families for
their inspiring and extremely valuable contribution to the future of this
province, in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the
District of Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement. On behalf of the Official
Opposition, I join with the minister in extending a sincere appreciation and
words of encouragement to the foster families throughout this province.
Mr.
Speaker, these families provide comfort, motivation, protection and nurturing to
those often vulnerable children in their care. I also wish to thank the
Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association who work tirelessly to
support foster families and who recruit families to ensure placements are always
available in this province when needed.
To
families and persons who are interested in learning more, I encourage you all to
reach out to the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association for more
information and to consider becoming a foster parent.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St.
John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I, too,
thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. I'm happy to use this
opportunity to thank the Newfoundland and Labrador Foster Families Association
and congratulate them on their ongoing development as an organization. Each time
I interact with them I'm impressed by the work that the families themselves do
along with the organization.
I wish
them all the best this year as they implement their new strategic plan which
emphasizes education, capacity building and very important cultural awareness.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Further statements by
ministers?
The hon.
the Minister of Transportation and Works.
MR. CROCKER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to highlight the enhancements we've
made this season in the provincial highway transportation network.
Our work
to enhance our province's highways keeps people working in their communities,
facilitates increased tourism and trade, and ultimately fosters growth in our
local economies.
We
released our Five-Year Provincial Roads Plan in January 2017, and we knew that
issuing tenders earlier in the year would lead to a stronger and more productive
road construction season. The Heavy Civil Association of Newfoundland and
Labrador has applauded our plan for that reason.
This
year, we have paved 568 lane kilometres through the plan. Add an additional 244
lane kilometres of paving throughout this year on the Trans-Labrador Highway,
and that's over 800 lane kilometres that have been paved in Newfoundland and
Labrador by our contractors hired by our department this construction season.
Our work this year has resulted in significant
improvements to some of the higher-traffic routes, including the Outer Ring
Road, Pitts Memorial Drive, and Peacekeepers Way. Work completed on various
other sections of provincial highway includes mill and fill from Goobies to
Clarenville, rehabilitation of Elliston Road, and the completion of resurfacing
of Bald Mountain to North Branch.
We will also be opening the latest phase of the Team
Gushue Highway this fall, connecting Kenmount Road to Topsail Road, which will
relieve traffic flows in the metro region.
And work will soon begin to add climbing lanes to
sections of the Veterans Memorial Highway that will help increase safety by
creating opportunities for motorists to pass slow-moving vehicles.
Mr. Speaker, our five-year Roads Plan is working. Our
annual public consultation process is currently open until November 16, and we
encourage the public to let us know where they feel we should focus our efforts
in 2019.
We look forward to seeing continued success under our
five-year Roads Plan for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay South.
MR.
PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement. Mr. Speaker, the importance of the province's road network cannot be
overstated, and we welcome all initiatives that make improvements for our
motoring public.
I, too, encourage residents of the province to reach
out and tell the government which roads require work. I hope these additional
roadwork projects will get the attention they deserve. It would be nice if
residents could participate in the process with full knowledge of where the
particular roadwork complaints and requests stand in terms of priority with the
government.
I would like to, once again, take this opportunity to
call upon the minister to release the complete list of all ranked roadwork
requests, those selected for work and those that your government have rejected,
so that the people of province can see exactly where their roads rant under the
Liberal's Five-Year Roads program.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Member for the District of
St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his
statement. The minister notes work will begin soon on climbing lanes for the
Veterans Memorial Highway. I'm sure the minister is aware, and I know he is,
this work cannot begin soon enough. The safety and the very lives of those using
that highway everyday are at risk. It's not enough that we ensure roads are
built and paved, we have to be certain they're also designed to be safe.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
SPEAKER:
Further statements by minister?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR.
SPEAKER:
The
hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR.
CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.
In the spring of this year, the Premier stood in the
House and defended the process to use the Commissioner for Legislative Standards
to deal with complaints. However, yesterday the Premier said – and
I quote: “… the process has had many questions and, no doubt, has been flawed
….”
Let me
ask the Premier what specifically he feels is flawed about the process.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When we
first had to deal with these allegations and the allegations that were brought
forward in the spring of this year, based on the legislation and the act that we
had in place in this House of Assembly, done by Chief Justice Green, I would
say, at that point that was a process that was outlined, that allegations – and
I think that was clearly articulated to all Members of this House of Assembly
today. I think the Member understands that. But given the fact that we've been
through now what's been a lengthy process, reports have been tabled and the
feedback that we've been given by all those who have participated – they've
outlined a number of concerns about the process.
I will
say that I was not involved in this process at any point at all. I will say now
that given the fact, as we've been getting feedback, there are a number of areas
where we see flaws in this process. That's the reason why we need to make sure
that we take the appropriate amount of time to make sure that we can bring
improvements, Mr. Speaker, so that anyone else in the future that would have to
deal with this, we can get it right.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, in fairness, we
all acknowledge that – the Green report was focused on other issues, namely of a
financial nature; so, no doubt, improvement is needed.
Last
spring the Premier said: I just want to make sure that the comfort level of all
those that are involved, as they participate, that they're comfortable with the
process. Does he still stand by these words, given the dissatisfaction expressed
by at least two complainants, as well as those who were investigated; and what
action does the Premier intend to take to address their comfort level?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
One of the things, Mr.
Speaker, I think what we can do is take this from the floor of the House of
Assembly and put it into an arena where the people who have been through this
process will not continually be exposed to the discussion that we've been having
here.
Many
people in the past have talked about one of the problems that have existed, the
fact that they were not given the opportunity to actually have a private
conversation with someone to talk about a process. This was one of the problems
that was highlighted – everyone has been through this – is the fact that indeed
what happened, in a very specific nature, they were dealt with in the public
arena, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the Member opposite has heard those concerns as
well.
What
I've made a commitment to is zero tolerance and to make sure we take the
appropriate time to make sure we can do whatever we can to correct this process,
which as seen by everyone that's been involved in this, to have a number of
concerns and a number of flaws.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I thank the hon. the Premier
for those remarks.
I would
like to ask him whether he feels it is now appropriate to adopt one of the
recommendations in one of the reports, I believe it's a Kirby report, that the
House adopt the practice of instituting sensitivity training, specifically in
the legislative context for Members in their interactions between themselves and
with ministers, and whether that should be done in the immediate future?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
I'm
going to interrupt the Member on this point because the matter of an improved
process has been referred by unanimous decision of this House to the Privileges
and Elections Committee. So recommendations coming from the P and E Committee
would come to this floor, and then we would be debating it at that time.
So, I
just make that point. I'm not sure if the Premier wants to respond. I'm going to
go back to the Member, the Leader of the Official Opposition, please.
MR. CROSBIE:
Naturally, I take your guidance on that, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier may or may not wish to respond.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
Apologies for the confusion there.
PREMIER BALL:
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the role that you play. I think it was obviously a little bit out of
line to come to me, but I don't mind him asking the question. The Members of
this group have taken harassment training, Mr. Speaker. I said it quite clearly
in the spring that it should be mandatory, it would be mandatory, for all
Members of this House of Assembly to take harassment training. I said that
publicly; I stood here.
Mr.
Speaker, if all of us in this House of Assembly, if we haven't learned anything
from this exercise that we've been through, if there are no lessons that we've
learned already, that politicizing these events that we've had to deal with in
the last six months – this is an individual, and it's unfortunate that I have to
raise this, that said he should never waste a good crisis.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a crisis in people's lives here. We need to get this in the
right arena, get us to the point where we can have a debate that we can actually
restore this process to the benefit of all Members and the public of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Crises
are events that need to be learned from and adapted to, and improved on the
circumstances that gave rise to them, and I think we can all agree with that.
There
has been comment outside this House that this was not the best process to be
followed, and that people may not be coming forward with complaints due to what
they've witnessed, that in fact they may be deterred.
Is the
Premier concerned that this may be happening?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, am I concerned?
I think just yesterday if anyone in this province, especially the Leader of the
Opposition, was paying attention to what was said, I said I was concerned. I was
concerned that women in this province would not put themselves – they would not
come forward in leadership roles.
My
concerns have been expressed publicly many, many times. I took swift action in
the spring. It was taken to the appropriate measures, Mr. Speaker. The
independence – as we heard today by the Commissioner for Legislative Standards –
was there.
Mr.
Speaker, I am very concerned about where this is, but I want to let the Leader
of the Opposition know, and every Member of this Opposition know, it's the House
of Assembly, all Members here, that we collectively have the responsibility to
put in place better measures so people are not exposed to what they've been
exposed to, and that women in this province will feel comfortable in coming
forward to put their names on the ballots to sit in the very chairs that we sit
in today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, given the
acknowledged flaws in the process that we've been witness to and which lie
behind the reports tabled recently in the House, does the Premier believe it is
due process and fair to those against whom findings have been made to apply that
process to decide their fate, or should a new process be implemented?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, we've had
concerns. It is one of the reasons why – to the private Member's resolution here
some moths ago – that we've established, through the Privileges and Elections
Committee, to get examples and ideas; all Members that sit on that. The Leader
of the Opposition knows this. He's quite aware. He knows exactly the answer to
the question he just asked. That process is already ongoing.
Today,
even with the recommendations that have come forward, we already know there's
more that needs to be done. Chief Justice Green, when they put this in place
some-10, 11 years ago, Mr. Speaker, things have changed over that decade. We can
all learn lessons of what we've been through.
Mr.
Speaker, my tolerance level on this is zero. We will bring improvements, Mr.
Speaker, but it will take the collective group that we have in this House of
Assembly to work together, to make the difference that everyone in this House
deserves.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, the question went more to whether the process that's being
implemented is so flawed as to undermine the justice of the outcome; but, I'll
move on to the next question.
The
former finance minister said her departure was related to bullying and
intimidation within the Liberal caucus. Yesterday, reports detailed the poor
conduct of MHAs and ministers within the Premier's caucus, noting the culture of
harassment and intimidation was pervasive within the Liberal Party caucus.
What
does this say about the Premier's leadership that these issues have been ongoing
for three years?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, and I hear some
heckling from Members opposite, which surprises me a little bit given the
serious nature that we're discussing here today. It really surprises me.
Mr.
Speaker, what we've had here, and I would argue, and to the Leader of the
Opposition, that you look at political parties in all jurisdictions in this
province, federally, I would argue with any Member of this House of Assembly
that they cannot point to any jurisdiction where they have not had to deal with
things like we've been dealing with. The difference is I encourage people to
come forward. I encourage people to bring their allegations, to bring it
forward. That is the difference.
Mr.
Speaker, Opposition parties that I'm looking at today, the Official Opposition
and the Third Party, they've all had to deal with this. Let's not kid ourselves;
let's be very honest with ourselves. Everyone has had to deal with this. We are
not perfect. We have decided to deal with – it's not always easy to do. Families
are attached, women are attached, and all Members are impacted by this. I am
(inaudible).
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
I thank the Premier.
Mr.
Speaker, in The Joyce Report the
former minister of Finance stated that there was “fear among her colleagues of
speaking up but said that it was not the result of a single individual's action,
but rather was rooted in the culture ….”
I ask
the Premier: What did he do to change the culture in the last three years?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
what we've done is we've now taken these allegations that have come forward and
we put them in the forum that was available to us. We've brought in place new
harassment workplace measures, Mr. Speaker, for all of the public sector.
Mr.
Speaker, I've reached out to those that have been impacted and made sure that if
you needed to talk I was there to work with them through this process. The
Employee Assistance Program that we have was always made available to people.
There are a number of measures.
Mr.
Speaker, let's not forget, let's not forget the responsibility for this to bring
improvements is with every single Member of this House of Assembly, every single
Member of this House of Assembly. So if the Leader of the Opposition is saying
that this is only connected to this party over here, Mr. Speaker, I just need
him, I just you to look to your right, over your right shoulder (inaudible)
answer that question, that you are not aware of the concerns that (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
It's generally accepted, Mr.
Speaker, that top leadership sets the tone for an organization.
Looking
back on the events leading up to the tabling of these reports, does the Premier
believe if some or all of the complaints could have been avoided if the Premier
had made his zero tolerance policy known at an earlier stage?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I would think
that anyone that has been aware and has worked with me, they have always known
that I'm willing to talk to individuals if indeed there were concerns brought
forward. When concerns were brought forward back in the spring of this year, I
acted swiftly. We acted appropriately at the time, given what we had, the
options that we had available to us. The options through the House of Assembly
act, through the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards, that is the appropriate – that was the action that we
took.
Mr.
Speaker, anybody anywhere in this House, regardless of any political party, I am
more than willing to reach out. If they need to chat, if they need to talk, my
door is always open, Mr. Speaker. I am accessible, more than willing to help
whoever they are to work through sensitive issues that they have to deal with.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
MR. CROSBIE:
Mr. Speaker, does the Premier
think it's acceptable, as detailed in the reports that have been tabled, that a
Minister of the Crown tried to circumvent the proper procedures for hiring
within the public service and put pressure on colleagues to get his friends a
job?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
MR. OSBORNE:
I'd be careful with that.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, that has been
dealt with in the reports. Mr. Speaker, that has been dealt with in the reports,
and these reports will be debated and discussed on the floor of this House of
Assembly, and I'll leave it – as I said yesterday in my comments, I think this
is the appropriate place to deal with those reports; the issues that were raised
there, the recommendations that will come out of there, whatever the reprimands
will be, Mr. Speaker.
I will
say that right now there is a hiring process that's in place within the
government that has been there, we've been dealing with for a number of years,
and we expect people to work within the guidelines that we have in place, Mr.
Speaker, with this government and within this public service.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the
report, one of the complainants – in one of the reports, Mr. Speaker, one of the
complainants stated that the former minister of Education frequently made jokes
referencing the school that burned, referring to Bay d'Espoir Academy which had
burned tragically in January 2017 in a shocking act of arson. A former minister
admitted that he made such comments and defended himself by saying that they
were humorous in nature.
I ask
the Premier. Do you think such comments and behaviour is appropriate for anyone,
much less a minister of your Crown?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I will say that
I was not in the room when any of those comments were made. As a matter of fact,
it was the first time I saw them, when I saw them in the report, Mr. Speaker.
I'm not
aware of what context that would've been said, but anyone that would make
comments about replacing a school with a burnt school, I would never take that
as a serious option. It's not something that I'd be interested in discussing
with. The people in Coley's Point right now, I've visited there many times, and
we had the replacement of that school as part of our infrastructure program.
I think
the Member opposite is quite aware of our commitment that we have to the people
of Coley's Point for that school, so we will deliver to the people of Coley's
Point the school that they deserve.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
PREMIER BALL:
By the way, when people
opposite, when Members opposite had the option to deal with that, they refused
(inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
According to the report, the former minister of Education said that practically
every caucus Member was there when these jokes were being made about the Bay
d'Espoir school.
So if
the Premier, as he just said, wasn't there, perhaps the caucus Chair could
answer, given that anyone can answer questions, or someone who was there can get
up and answer: Is it accurate that almost every caucus Member was in attendance,
cracking jokes about the burnt school in Bay d'Espoir?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll
stand up in my role as Government House Leader, and I find it interesting today
that we're going to debate a private Member's resolution entered by the Member
for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, where she wants the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards to come into this House and to explain, to give a full understanding
of the process, and have any questions answered before they deal with the
reports' findings and recommendations, yet the same Member stands up in the
House and asks questions about these same findings and reports.
So I
find it difficult to think that we should not debate this in the House, yet she
thinks it's okay to stand up and ask questions for political gain.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
That's a shocking answer, Mr.
Speaker, because this issue is of great importance.
We have
children, parents and teachers struggling every day, and we are very far from
having a new school built, Mr. Speaker.
In his
report, the Commissioner noted that another Member of your caucus acknowledged a
culture of joking on the subject.
So I
ask: What type of ship are you leading over there when this is acceptable
behaviour in caucus – in your caucus?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again,
to reference one point made by the Member, she talked about a school. It's not
my understanding that there are any delays with moving that school forward.
Those children deserve a new school after that and certainly it's a commitment
by all Members to make that happen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. A. PARSONS:
But what I would ask the
Member about, because she talks about shocking behaviour, perhaps she'd like to
stand up and explain the comments she made to a member of my staff when she
called them and verbally abused them about not getting seat funding that she
wanted. Maybe she'd like to discuss that on the floor of the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Mr. Speaker, the public can
see for themselves the type of behaviour that's displayed in this House and
judge accordingly.
The
former minister, Education minister, and your caucus colleagues would have all
been aware that 250 students and staff have been displaced by that fire in
January 2017. And since that time, they have been attending a temporary school
that does not have a cafeteria, a science lab or even wheelchair accessible
bathrooms.
Can you
tell the people of the province what you and your caucus found so funny about
this situation, and can we have an update as to when we can expect to open the
doors of a new school?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think
that all Members of this House like to see when there are new schools built in
this province, no matter the district – this is in the best interest of the
children of this province. The second thing I would point out is that the Member
opposite actually voted against the budget that allowed for the funding to build
that school.
And the
last thing I would like to ask the Member opposite, if she would like to recall
the comments she made to my staff when she called about funding for seat
projects and said if she didn't get what she wanted, she was going to go to the
Premier's office. I'd like to know what those comments were.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly one of the positive outcomes of this process is that I will not be
intimidated in this House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
And I will speak up on behalf
of my constituents and all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr.
Speaker, the Commissioner stated that he felt that members of the public,
particularly those in the district in which the school fire occurred – but
elsewhere as well – would likely be upset to hear that the Member for Mount
Scio, who was minister of Education at the time, made jokes about the burnt
school. They'd certainly be very disappointed, and are disappointed, to know the
entire Liberal caucus made jokes about the burnt school.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
I agree wholeheartedly with his assessment; do you?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Government House
Leader.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I actually find
that the question asked by the Member was very offensive to many people of this
House and is actually not cast in any facts or findings that were made in those
reports.
The same
reports that she would prefer – and again, in a PMR that we not discuss until we
have an opportunity as Members to discuss this with the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards.
So, we
talk about a non-politicization; that's exactly what we're getting. But again,
I'm not putting my answers out for the purposes of intimidating anybody, but I
will tell you who was intimidated: a member of my staff who was called and
verbally abused when they didn't give the money that a Member on the opposite
side wanted.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Members opposite took their direction from the federal
government and finally gave the people of our province a peek at the new carbon
tax they are introducing here in January. We now know the so-called temporary
gas tax that the Liberals introduced has been morphed into the new carbon tax.
Why
weren't you open and transparent about this new tax all along?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
could refer back to a few months ago with some public comments that I would have
made about where the carbon pricing plan or the greenhouse gas emissions plan
was going.
Mr.
Speaker, the Member opposite, all you needed to do was look at the pan-Canadian
framework with the annex that was attached to that and you will see there was a
lot of flexibility in the negotiations that we had.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm very proud to say that when you look at what we've been able to
accomplish for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, for Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians, no increase in home heating fuel, communities that are
off-grid, aviation, municipalities. We've had our industry offshore, which is
important for us that we make sure that Newfoundland and Labrador is an
attractive place to invest. We've had greenhouse gas reduction targets.
This is
a good plan for Newfoundland and Labrador. The temporary gas tax will come off,
Mr. Speaker, and once again (inaudible) Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.
Before
you proceed, I do remind everyone, the temperature's going up a little bit. I
only want to hear from the person I have identified.
Please
proceed, Sir.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind
the Premier, that after this new carbon tax comes into effect it will cost you
more to drive your vehicle. More for gas, more for diesel. Not cheaper, Mr.
Speaker. With 300 new taxes and fees that's been there since 2016 and our
economy that's under pressure, this will not help our cause.
Despite
their reassurances, this new carbon tax will make things more expensive and do
nothing to help the environment. Can the minister tell us that his new tax will
reduce emissions?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud
to stand in my place today and let the Member opposite know – so what he's
saying to people in this province right now, the other option, which would have
been the federal backstop, which is happening right now in Ontario,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba and in New Brunswick, that was the other option. I could
assure the Member opposite, if he looked at the details of that that would have
had a larger impact on our province.
I want
to say this one more time, that when you look at the impact on taxation and
costs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians – and I just want to refer the Member
opposite to the Muskrat Falls Project, no bigger impact on Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, no bigger impact on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, doubling of
electricity rates (inaudible) –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
– Leader of the Opposition
support us (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South for a very quick question, please.
MR. PETTEN:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
I ask
the Premier. How much revenue do you expect to generate from this new tax?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier for a
short response, please.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Some of
it, I guess, will have to go to pay for Muskrat Falls, that's for sure. But, Mr.
Speaker, any revenue that's collected will be used at the discretion and go back
into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
I still
wait for the Leader of the Opposition to stand in his place, does he believe
that it was a mistake or not? He needs to clarify this. People of Newfoundland
and Labrador would like to know the answer to that question. Does the Leader of
the Opposition –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
PREMIER BALL:
– believe that it's a mistake
or not?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the
Premier said facts are important. I agree; yet, the Premier keeps trying to
confuse the facts. The fact is Canopy Growth, the largest cannabis producer in
the world, will get to keep up to $40 million in withheld remittances. That's
taxpayers' money that government won't have for schools, roads and health care.
I ask
the minister. What is his plan to concretely support our own local producers who
are trying to work really hard to establish similar businesses around the
province?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well,
what I said yesterday, and maybe just to put this in context. If there's $10
that will come in to the NLC, Mr. Speaker, for every $10 that would come in $3
would go to – for every $10 in a sale, 30 per cent of that would go to NLC,
which is $3. Of that $3, $1 would go to the producer, and that program exists
for anyone interested in producing cannabis within our province. That is then
used to support the industry as it evolves.
Mr.
Speaker, much of what in that production will then go for export or go for
medicinal use. The other option, maybe the Member opposite is okay with the
other option, which would be to import it from places like New Brunswick who –
the facts do matter. Yesterday she said no other province had done it
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the
Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Premier: Are giveaways to large corporations such as $40 million to Canopy
Growth, $45 million to Grieg Aquaculture and $1 million to S&P Data to create
low paying jobs, is that his idea of economic development?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yeah,
it's the idea of this government, Mr. Speaker. And I'd encourage you to reach
out to the people of the Burin Peninsula, reach out to the people, some of which
are in her own district, Mr. Speaker. Reach out to the oil and gas industry, Mr.
Speaker, and tell them – ask them just one question: Does the NDP, which she
leads, not support job creation in our province? Because I've heard a lot of
comment about this.
People
with an aquaculture, agriculture, the tech industry, thousands of jobs are being
created. Does she not support government partnering, working with industry to
create jobs, sustainable jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? By her
question, I take it the answer to that would be no for the Leader of the Third
Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon.
the Leader of the Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, government gave
a million-dollar contract to controversial international firm, McKinsey, to
attempt to do in three months what government has failed to do in three years:
advance the economic development of this province. As usual, government revealed
few details on the scope of the work that the company has been contracted to do.
So I ask
the Premier: Will he table the RFP for this work – if, in fact, there was one –
and the engagement letter with a detailed work plan with deliverables and time
frame, so that the people of the province have a clear idea what we are, in
fact, paying for?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
Mr. Speaker, I will say that
the McKinsey information was put out in the RFP. But I'll ask the Member
opposite – she seems to think that we haven't done anything.
Husky
Energy: 5,000 person-years of work; Equinor: 11,000 person-years of work; Vale
underground: 2,135 person-years of work; our infrastructure plan: 53,000
person-years of work; health care infrastructure: 46,000 person-years of work.
Aerospace: 150 new jobs; Canada Fluorspar: 3,000 person-years of work; Bluedrop:
50 new jobs; S&P Data: 500 new jobs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. OSBORNE:
Quorum: 24 new jobs; Grieg
aquaculture – which she did not support – 800 new jobs; Wabush: 1,800 new jobs.
Mr.
Speaker, is that what she doesn't support?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
Order,
please!
I ask
for order. I'm going to turn the dial down on the temperature.
The hon.
the Member for St. John's East - Quidi Vidi.
MS. MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Yesterday, government announced its carbon pricing approach. We all need to do
our part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but government has exempted
offshore oil exploration.
I ask
the Premier why we still need to subsidize multinational oil corporations – the
largest corporations in the world that have profited so much from our resources,
and plan to continue doing so into the future.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree
with the Member opposite that we all have to do our part, and we all have to
protect our environment and our planet for future generations.
Mr.
Speaker, we all know climate change is very real and upon us, and we have worked
very closely with industry. We want to ensure we have continuing growth and jobs
in our economy. We still want to protect the jobs that we do have.
I can
tell you that the offshore oil and gas industry will be paying their – they will
have an impact on the carbon future. Mr. Speaker, they will be have to keep
their emissions 6 per cent below their historical emissions. It'll go to 8 per
cent. It'll go to 10 per cent. It'll go to 12 per cent. The reason why
exploration is exempt, Mr. Speaker, is we want to develop our industry. This is
exploration opportunities so that we can get into production, where they will be
held accountable.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Oral Questions
has ended.
The hon.
the Opposition House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise
on a point of order, Standing Order 49. Today in Question Period, the hon. the
Premier referenced the Member from our caucus, Mount Pearl South, and he's done
this a number of times, in regard to an alleged incident that may have taken
place outside this Chamber. My understanding, in speaking to you, and hearing
from the Speaker's Office, that a determination was made that there was no
finding, but we still hear a reference by the Premier to that actual event.
I would
ask that that be settled here in the Chamber once and for all.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
I have ruled on this matter
in the past and I have clearly indicated that had there been a point of
privilege, that it should have brought forward immediately. I've asked that
direct reference to same not be raised here because you had that opportunity.
So, I
support the member's motion. I must say that I try to catch words and nuances
and so on in responses and in questions. I have not had a chance to review
Hansard from yesterday. We've been
preoccupied with other matters. I will undertake to do that and report back to
this House.
Thank
you.
The hon.
the Minister of Natural Resources first.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand
on a point of order, Standing Order 49. Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the
Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune in her question really cast aspersion on
mine and everybody else's character here in this room.
During
her question, she referenced a comment in the report that is yet to be debated
in this House, referencing that all of us were engaged in joking about a very
serious situation in her community.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask her to withdraw that comment. I ask her to withdraw that comment,
as it is simply not true.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Any further discussion on
this matter?
The hon.
the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, point of
privilege, section 49.
I also
took great exception to the Member for –
MR. SPEAKER:
I'm sorry, do you mean a
point of order or a point of privilege?
MS. DEMPSTER:
Point of order.
I took
great exception to the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune's comments and I
would ask her to withdraw. I have a history of fighting for schools and children
in this province. For somebody to stand and insinuate and state on the record
here that –
MR. HAWKINS:
In schools that we're
building.
MS. DEMPSTER:
– in schools that we're
building right now, Mr. Speaker, that the other crowd with $25 billion in oil
didn't see a priority, I said I take great exception. I ask her to withdraw the
comments, because they are 'infactual.'
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Bonavista.
MR. KING:
Point of order, Mr. Speaker,
section 49 again.
As chair
of government caucus, I've been chair for over a year and have chaired a number
of different meetings and I can state that that wasn't discussed in any of our
caucus meetings, and it wasn't heard.
MR. SPEAKER:
Do we have any further
comment?
The hon.
the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, during
Question Period if there are some comments that might have exposed or something
that was inappropriate, you need not waste your time in actually reviewing the
tape. If there's anything that I said that was inappropriate, I'd like to
withdraw that statement.
I will
say that there was no Member ever mentioned. All I said was look over your right
shoulder. I'll leave it there, but if that was inappropriate, I'll just withdraw
the statement.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you, very much.
Any
further comment on the earlier point of order towards the Member for Fortune Bay
- Cape La Hune?
The hon.
the Member for Harbour Grace - Port de Grave.
MS. P. PARSONS:
Mr. Speaker, I would also
like to speak on a point of order with regard to the school.
I am
certainly not included in making fun of anyone, any child needing a school or a
new education facility. Everybody in here knows a new education facility I've
been lobbying for consistently prior to my time here in this House of Assembly
has been of top priority. I want to state that for the record, Mr. Speaker, that
it's very important and I take that very serious as the Member for Harbour Grace
- Port de Grave with regard to Coley's Point Primary school and those students
in particular.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Given the heat of the Oral
Questions, I would prefer to review
Hansard and report back to this hon. House tomorrow. So I'll have two
undertakings for you tomorrow.
Thank
you.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling
of Documents.
Notices
of Motion.
Answers
to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
I do
have time for one petition, if there's a petition.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The
current 1.6-kilometre busing policy results in children walking to school in
areas with no sidewalks or traffic lights and through areas without crosswalks.
This puts the safety of these children at risk.
We, the
undersigned, call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador to ensure the safety of all children by removing the
restrictive 1.6 kilometre busing policy where safety is concerned.
Mr.
Speaker, we've had a multitude of discussions about this in the House of
Assembly and we realize, and I think we all agree, it's an outdated policy that
goes back decades, and we do look at the fact particularly in growth areas. Now
we realize all children should be able to travel to schools safely and we do
know there's an onus on parents and there's an onus on the general public and
the drivers and on those children travelling to find the safest route possible.
We have an ability to do that.
Our
busing system is very much equipped to ensure kids get to school in a safe
manner. What we don't have now is an understanding that in some growth areas,
particularly, or in areas where the schools have changed and the routes or the
access to it have dramatically been altered, that there are some challenges. We
have more cars on the road. We have people who are distracted for various
reasons. We have the walking public who are distracted, being those students,
but we have an ability to do this.
We know
there's a cost associated to everything, but as we look at the busing process –
and I've dug into this – we are, on a yearly basis, eliminating some of the
buses in some of our rural areas because the student population is decreasing.
It's a reality, but in other cases we have growth areas where we have a
multitude of challenges here, increased traffic flows.
We have
growth areas, particularly like in my district, in places like CBS, in the
Torbay area, in the Paradise area and a multitude of other areas, out in the
Goulds and those areas, and other places in Newfoundland and Labrador where
traffic has increased. Our road networks, unfortunately, are not conducive for
kids to be able to walk in a safe manner. So what we're asking the government is
take a serious look.
In some
cases, I look at my own district – and I know courtesy busing is a program that
was put in play a number of years ago and has been effective to address some of
the needs but it doesn't address all of the needs and becomes a confusing and
encompassing process for administrators, the school district and bus drivers
themselves; whereas for a small investment we could eliminate these issues,
increase our safety, take stressors off family members so that we would have a
proper system in play.
I'm
asking the minister, have a serious look at this. I'm even asking if he has the
time someday to come to my district, walk the route that some of these kids have
to walk in a growth area with thousands of cars on a daily basis travelling at
sometimes speeds that are not conducive to any way, shape or form being safety.
So I do
ask that we table this, and that if the minister was up to it, someday we'll
take a walk so he can get a better understanding of the situation we have here.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Thank you.
Orders of the Day
Private Members'
Day
MR. SPEAKER:
This being Wednesday, I now
call the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune to introduce the resolution
standing in her name.
Motion
1.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
certainly a great honour and a privilege for me to –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. PERRY:
– rise once again in this
House on behalf of the constituents in Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, and it's
great, Mr. Speaker, to be back in the House after spending the summer in our
districts.
I'm here
today moving a motion on a matter that I think is of historical significance for
parliamentarians. It's of huge importance to this hon. House here today, but I
think it also – this experience that we're going through will make an impact in
the work of future parliamentarians all across the British Commonwealth, I
certainly hope, Mr. Speaker.
I, the
Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune, seconded by the Member for Conception Bay
East - Bell Island, move that:
WHEREAS
some Members have concerns about the process that the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards had to follow in producing investigative reports of
harassment complaints against Members; and
WHEREAS
the Speaker has informed Members of the House of Assembly Management Commission
that the Commission does not have the authority to summon the Commissioner but
the House of Assembly does; and
WHEREAS
questions about the process must be dealt with before the House can properly
deal with the reports the process has produced; and
WHEREAS
ensuring the integrity of the process is paramount in assuring the public that
justice is done in matters of harassment;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House summon the Commissioner for Legislative
Standards prior to debate on any of the investigative reports in order to answer
questions and provide clarity on the process so Members can have a full
understanding of the process and have any questions answered before they deal
with the reports' findings and recommendations.
Mr.
Speaker, I certainly hope that when we stand and call the vote today that we
have unanimous support for this motion because I do believe that each and every
person here in this hon. House is genuinely concerned about the circumstances
that we find ourselves in.
I, for
one, for the record, would like to say that I think this process has been hard
on all of us, all of us MHAs, in particular the complainants and the
respondents; and the Commissioner as well, Mr. Speaker, certainly has been
placed in a difficult position in having to deal with this task. So it's of huge
importance that we get this right.
Mr.
Speaker, one of the things that's a bit upsetting to me about this whole process
is that the option did exist for government to take leadership on the issue, but
instead it had to follow this route of seeking an opinion of the Commissioner.
So I followed suite with that process. I questioned the process from day one. I
questioned it then, and I still question it to this day, because I really don't
think it's an adequate process for the situation we find ourselves in.
The
Green report did not properly, or did not address – not properly – did not
address, really, issues like bullying and harassment because they weren't as
prevalent at the time. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the issue of behaviour and
conduct of MHAs – the Code of Conduct itself is so vaguely worded that it's very
ambiguous and it can be open to interpretation in a lot of ways. So, in my
opinion, it needs to be much tighter and spelled out much stronger.
Mr.
Speaker, why this motion is important, I do believe here today, and why we do
need to have some more clarity surrounding the process that was followed is
because at least five Members have – or there are at least five reports of
allegations of harassment against Members in this House, and these Members have
entrusted their concerns to the process that currently exists under the
House of Assembly Accountability,
Integrity and Administration Act.
A new
Legislature-specific harassment policy is now being developed by our Standing
Committee on Privileges and Elections. In the interim, the House agreed to adopt
a modified version of the Executive Branch Harassment-Free Workplace Policy for
complaints when the respondent is a Member of the House of Assembly, but the
Code of Conduct investigative process defined in the legislation also remained
in place, and that's the process under which at least five complaints were
submitted.
On May
16 and May 30 of this year, the Commissioner for Legislative Standards appeared
before the Management Commission to assure Members that his office could handle
investigative reports of this nature and a proposed alternative was to have the
complaints dealt with by the Citizens' Representative, but we were assured that
this process would be okay and that the Commissioner's office had resources to
avail of outside support if required.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we proceeded with this process. Again, as we've heard over the course
of the last two days, it doesn't seem like there are too many people pleased
with how it went. Perhaps if we had a clearly spelled out outline of what would
be undertaken, what was expected of respondents and complainants throughout the
process, that would have even been helpful, and what each were not able to do
with respect to things like seeking witnesses and whatnot.
So there
was really a lack of clarity for all people involved. I certainly speak in
support of complainants, respondents, everyone who found that this process was
very challenging, Mr. Speaker, and certainly one that we think has room for
significant improvement. That improvement, I have no doubt, will be forthcoming
from the work that's underway.
Mr.
Speaker, the matter continues to be of public interest. Some of the issues with
the process, when we started it, there were more questions than answers. In
fairness to the Commissioner, we certainly appreciate that he wasn't able to
answer a lot of the questions on the process we were seeking because it was so
new. It was just the beginning.
The
scope was not determined. The demands were not determined. The support that
might be required was not determined. The timelines were not determined. Now
that the process, though, has led to the production of at least five reports,
the Commissioner will certainly have, I think, a lot more insight into how these
types of matters will be addressed in the future.
The
matter continues, Mr. Speaker, to be of public interest. It's been debated in
the Legislature for days on end, and I have no doubt we have many more days
left. In fact, it is the reason that we've been called back early.
The
problem is that concerns about the investigative process have been raised. One
of those concerns is that reports have been leaked prior to being tabled and
published. Other concerns have been raised about the identification of Members,
the inclusion of certain information and so forth. Questions have been raised
about how things were investigated and by whom. How thorough was the process?
Was every reasonable stone turned in the search for answers? How deep was the
dig?
Were
Members given the opportunity to refute allegations and counter allegations
prior to the submission of these reports? Was there or is there an avenue for
appeal? How were the dividing lines determined between behaviour that is and
behaviour that is not, within the scope of what is acceptable? How rigorous was
the balance of probabilities test that was used to resolve matters of dispute?
We have
a right, Mr. Speaker, to ask these questions and other questions about the
process before we debate the reports that the process has produced. If the
process was above reproach, reports are more likely to be accepted as fair and
just; but if the process was flawed, the reports and their conclusions may also
be flawed.
Mr.
Speaker, we've heard person after person after person rise in this House and
suggest there were flaws in the process. Just to go over an outline of how many
people have actually expressed dissatisfaction with this process, the Premier
himself said in his Ministerial Statement on October 23, “A better, more defined
process is required for the Members of the House of Assembly.”
The
Premier said this in answering questions on October 23, “In the Ministerial
Statement, that I've just mentioned already, we do have concerns, like everyone
else that's been through this process, Mr. Speaker, and we will be dealing with
that.”
The
Minister of Service NL, an organization that is qualified in investigating
conduct behaviour and behaviour as a whole, should have been the process that we
took. The Minister of Service NL was asked about the investigation itself and
she was asked if she was satisfied with the whole process, and she reported, no,
I am not. I, myself, as complainant, will say, no, I am not satisfied with the
process.
The
Member for Terra Nova said in August: I have great concerns with the process,
and one of the things I have said to the Commissioner when I did my interview
was that I was concerned about – I didn't think his office had the experience to
conduct an investigation into workplace harassment, bullying and intimidation.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm sure that we are all in agreement when we say this is no reflection
whatsoever on the Commissioner; it's a reflection on the fact that this is so
new and we have not experienced it. We certainly have not experienced having to
do an investigation into harassment and bullying in politics.
The
Member for Mount Scio said: I just think that the report is a part of the
violation of my personal privacy. The political science doctor Amanda Bittner
said: Are folks going to come forward now that you know it's just a joke, it's
no big deal? Why would you, right?
People
already don't come forward because we won't believe them, and to me I think
what's more interesting about these reports is not so much what they were found
guilty of, it's what they were found not guilty for having done. So what's the
threshold that makes these two particular incidents acceptable or unacceptable
and the rest of the stuff is no big deal.
So, Mr.
Speaker, there's a lot of uncertainty in what's happening with this process, for
all of us involved. And again, I will say it's regrettable that any of us had to
go through this. It really is. It's not fair to the complainants. It's not fair
to the respondents. It's not fair to the Commissioner. This should have been
dealt with by leadership.
As many
people have said, this has been going on all the time. It has never, ever
escalated to this point because in the past it was addressed. Either Members
left, were dismissed, were removed from Cabinet, or something. Some type of
leadership happened to address these types of situations in Parliaments over the
years, I'm sure. And in this situation we were referred to the Code of Conduct,
and this is the process we find ourselves in today.
It's an
unfortunate situation, Mr. Speaker, because at the end of the day, all anybody
wants is a better Newfoundland and Labrador. As workplace parliamentarians, and
as a complainant, I know all I want is a better workplace. I want to know that
the constituents of my district, regardless of the fact that they are in an
Opposition district versus a government district, will have fair and equal
opportunity to government funding and programs.
These
are the types of issues, Mr. Speaker, that the Code of Conduct speaks to. We
need to ensure that all Members of this hon. House are held accountable to the
highest standard of behaviour.
Does
anyone here really think that the types of behaviours that we have all witnessed
are acceptable in today's society? Do you really think that we can stand proud
in front of our children, our nieces, our nephews, our grandchildren about the
type of behaviour and tactics that are displayed in this House?
In my
opinion, Mr. Speaker, we all need to step back and say if we are going to raise
the bar, it starts with us. And yes, things have happened in Parliaments over
the past I would say, not just for the 20 years, 30 years, for the last 200
years. But if we going to make this a better place, it falls to us to take that
responsibility seriously, Mr. Speaker.
So back
to my resolution now in terms of the PMR to summons the Commissioner. I think,
certainly, by coming before the House of Assembly, it gives the opportunity for
all MHAs in this House to ask any questions and learn more about the process
itself, and as well for the public at large to see first-hand what has been
transpiring in this process.
We
certainly would all welcome, I would think, feedback from the public at large,
because we are here to decide how to regulate policies and how to allocate
taxpayers' dollars in the best interest of all of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
One of
the things, Mr. Speaker, the Green report was very clear on is that each and
every Member treat each other with respect. So it comes down to a question of
how we're going to define respect, perhaps. Because there seems to be different
understandings of respect based on the process that we've been through over the
course of this summer.
I've
shaken my head at a lot of things. So certainly, before I have a comfort level
in voting on some of the things that are in the reports, and whether or not
they're even true – because if some of the statements that are in there are not
true, and going back to Question Period today, we really need to take a whole
look, Mr. Speaker, at all of this and say: Is this the process that we should be
in? And certainly having the Commissioner before us will help give us all a
better understanding.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand
in my place today as a Member of the House of Assembly, and it is with regret
that I have to speak to this issue, Mr. Speaker, I say that.
It is a
difficult subject, and in particular I feel torn because I don't want to
re-victimize people. I don't want to bring their names forward. I don't want to
talk about what they've been through, and I won't, Mr. Speaker, and I won't when
the debate is on these reports itself, because I think that bullying and
harassment and intimidation is very, very difficult for people, and I think we,
as a Legislature, have to understand that.
We have
to understand the impacts are far beyond the politics; far beyond what's
happening in our community right now in the House of Assembly, but there are
others out there that are dealing with this every day. So I implore to my
colleagues in this House to be sensitive to each other, and to be sensitive to
those who are complainants in this instance and those who are respondents. There
have been times over this last six months when I don't think we all have been.
I can
tell you, as a person who has watched – I guess because we're all in this
Legislature we've been party to a lot of what's gone on. It is very, very
difficult on people. While over the next number of days and weeks we may have
the opportunity to stand here, Mr. Speaker, I am asking each of us to do so with
respect, for each of us to reflect on: There but for the grace of God go I; that
old adage that says tomorrow could've been something that we had either been
involved with or said or did, and to understand this is difficult. But as
difficult as it is, we also are in an opportunity to address societal change.
So I
hope over the – whatever period of time we take to find a better process, to
determine what the outcomes of this process that we've been in, I hope we all
reflect on this opportunity to rise and say that we have an opportunity to
affect and show leadership to our society.
It's
been about a year since the #MeToo movement started. Mr. Speaker, #MeToo started
and the Time's Up movement started because women finally stood up and said:
enough. And I don't think it's just women saying that. I think it's women and
men, and our societies, and our communities and our leaders, and all of us
taking that deep breath and saying: enough. We can all change.
Mr.
Speaker, I deal with a lot of violence-free community files, trying to effect
change in that. This is all part of that incremental or arising amount of saying
violence, harassment, all of those – what I'm going to call – negative societal
impacts that we're experiencing in our communities, it's time for us all to
stop. We all want a better world. There's not one of us, not one of us in this
House, not one person listening, there's not one person in this province that
does not want a better world. We can effect that change.
Mr.
Speaker, we are speaking to a resolution today to bring before the House, the
Commissioner for Legislative Standards, prior to debate of any of the
investigative reports in order to answer questions and provide clarity on the
process.
Mr.
Speaker, I think there's not one of us in here in this House today to say the
process was ideal. I can tell you within government – and there is a difference.
I say this for the people that may be listening, there is a difference between
government and the Legislature, in that government does effect policy it does
for its workers, it does in the people to whom work for government, and it has –
I mean government has put in an Harassment-Free Workplace Policy that is
probably leading the country. I would say that. It was written by Rubin
Thomlinson, who are experts in this field, and adopted and adapted for our use,
for our employees.
Mr.
Speaker, it's very, very important. It talks to – allow me to tell people, it
brings greater awareness of workplace harassment. It does a lot of training and
increases accountability for those in authority. It establishes timelines for
formal investigations and includes a comprehensive complaint resolution process.
Mr.
Speaker, when we all found ourselves in this situation – and if you read the
reports it does give a timeline accountability of this. This came to the floor
of the House of Assembly in Question Period. There probably would have been
different processes. There probably could have been different mechanisms to
utilize, but we found ourselves in the situation where it was brought to the
House of Assembly; therefore, unfolded a House of Assembly Question Period kind
of response.
Mr.
Speaker, I said at the very beginning, we have to be sensitive to the people
that are involved here. I'm going to say that while we don't have a perfect
process, and I don't think it was a perfect process because I would have liked
to have seen some type of restorative justice, some type of better
communication, some type of better processes, you know, different timelines, it
is the process that we have. There are ways under the act – there are different
sections under the act that – the House of Assembly accountability act, there's
36.1 where the Premier could bring forward privately to the Commissioner, the
Commissioner can start an investigation him or herself. You can also have the
complainant go to the Commissioner.
So there
are multitudes of ways it can be dealt with, including the House of Assembly
could bring an issue to the attention of the Commissioner. So there are ways and
means, but I'm going to say this: the process, while we may want to improve upon
that process and I think we absolutely do, that work is underway right now with
the Privileges Committee, and I thank them. I know they worked very hard during
the summer.
It is an
all-party committee, Mr. Speaker, just for those outside of the Legislature who
may not know that. Representatives from all parties sit on that legislative
committee, and it's very important. I think what you'll see coming out of that
will lead the country, because this is a topic that everybody in the country is
watching.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm also going to say that in understanding what our precinct was going
through, what our colleagues were going through, the Management Commission back
in – I think it was June, I believe, did put an interim process in place to say
we're going to follow the Harassment-Free Workplace Policy by government so that
there was an alternative mechanism. So there was an alternative mechanism.
So back
in June, the Management Commission said, okay, we know that the Privileges and
Elections Committee are reviewing all this work around harassment and process,
but we're going to put in this interim process, which I'm glad we have – I'm
glad we have. So if any of us are experiencing challenges in any way, shape or
form, we can follow that process. So there is an alternative. I am just making
sure that people understand that, Mr. Speaker.
So, here
we are today, and I understand that everyone here in this House of Assembly has
been briefed by the Commissioner as to what the process was, and what he did or
did not do in that process. And, Mr. Speaker, I understand that he brought in a
pretty reputable firm called Rubin Thomlinson. Rubin Thomlinson, by way of those
who may not know, is a national firm focused solely on workplace investigations
and training. The firm's experience in investigations, workplace harassment and
misconduct is expansive.
I've
already said that the former government, actually, engaged Rubin Thomlinson on a
matter. They also earlier engaged them on starting to develop some work around
workplace harassment, so they are known to this province and to our processes
within our government. They have experiences in investigations, like I said
workplace harassment, misconduct; their experience “is diverse and decades deep”
and that's from their website, giving Rubin Thomlinson “unique insight into
cases and their complexities.” And we know by our briefing by the Commissioner
that he engaged, as an independent investigator, Rubin Thomlinson.
As such,
Mr. Speaker, I think it would be important, I think it would be very important,
that we add – and this is a very friendly amendment – we add to the private
Member's resolution brought forward in earnest yesterday, and I support that
resolution; but I'd like to add to it by saying, and I guess I'm amending it,
and I'm asking my colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, to
second that motion.
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that
the private Member's resolution before this House be amended by adding
immediately after the words “Commissioner for Legislative Standards” the words
and commas “and Rubin Thomlinson, as investigators,”.
So
that's moved and seconded, Mr. Speaker – and the rationale here is that Rubin
Thomlinson were the investigators, and we would like to be able to ensure that
we understand their process as well as the Commissioner's.
MR. SPEAKER (Warr):
The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was
made aware of this by the hon. minister. Just so we're clear, it involves the
Commissioner as well as the investigators from the said – yes, okay.
Thank
you.
And
that's a friendly amendment that we certainly support.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The
House will recess so we can take a look at the amendment and report back.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Are the House Leaders ready?
Order,
please!
The
amendment to the motion is said to be in order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.
MS. COADY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do
want to thank my colleagues of the House. All colleagues in the House did
support this friendly amendment and I think in the spirit of trying to find the
best answers to the process and ensure that we have the information that we need
as we move forward.
Mr.
Speaker, allow me for a moment just to define a little bit what I understand
Rubin Thomlinson's role to be, and that was as an investigator, and using their
considerable expertise in harassment and workplace issues, they used theirs –
where the Commissioner really has the oversight – the colleague from Fortune Bay
- Cape La Hune actually said this: has really the expertise around the Code of
Conduct.
So allow
me to quote a couple of things from our Code of Conduct, because I think it's
important. Mr. Speaker, it says: we have to serve our “fellow citizens with
integrity in order to improve the economic and social conditions … of the
province.”
We have
to “reject political corruption and refuse to participate in unethical political
practices .…”
We have
to “act lawfully and in a manner that will withstand the closest public
scrutiny.”
Our
personal conduct, “Members will not engage in personal conduct that exploits for
private reasons their positions ….”
We'll
carry out our “official duties and arrange their private financial affairs in a
manner that protects the public interest ….”
And, Mr.
Speaker, probably as importantly, “Members should promote and support these
principles by leadership and example.”
Mr.
Speaker, I don't have much time left, but I will say this. I think it's very
important that we have an opportunity now to show that leadership; to show how
we can bring about some societal change. For all that has gone on in the last
six months, Mr. Speaker, I think it speaks to where we are going as a community,
as a province, as a society, as a country. That it is not to be tolerated:
harassment, abuse, intimidation. It is not acceptable.
As the
Premier says, zero tolerance. People are listening to what we're saying. People
are watching what we're saying. The country is watching what we're saying. I
think it's incumbent upon all of us to show that leadership right now. Let's
make this about betterment and improvement about societal change.
I
remember once reading a slogan that said: add women, change politics. In the
last 30 seconds I have, I will make this plea: to any female, any woman that is
listening today, to think about going into the political realm, because add
women, change politics. And just what I am saying today is let us all change
societal requirements around harassment and bullying. Let's be leaders, and I
implore upon that, and I thank you for supporting the amendment to the
resolution.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East - Bell Island.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. BRAZIL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's
indeed an honour to stand and talk to this private Member's resolution put
forward by my colleague, the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
Again,
talking to the amendment which we will, and I know personally I will be
supporting, because it adds another nuance to exactly the intent of this PMR,
which is to have an open, a very inclusive, a very structured and a very
beneficial process here of finding the proper information.
People
need to realize – and I think in this House we have. This is unchartered waters
that we've jumped into in this House of Assembly. It's unchartered because
society has changed dramatically, and rightfully so.
We found
ourselves in the midst of some serious situations here that we need to have a
mechanism, we need to have the support process, we need to have a fluent,
inclusive process that ensures everyone who's engaged and involved in this are
safe, they are comfortable with the process, and they know that everything
should be done in a manner that should be outlined, that's transparent,
accessible and publicly – to the point of view that the public would have
confidence in exactly what we're doing here.
The
process of bringing in the Commissioner is not new. It may be new to this
because, as I mentioned earlier, this is unchartered waters. We're looking at
something that's very serious and something that's very important that we get it
right. We got an opportunity here to do the right thing.
Over the
last number of months the process within government has been changing to ensure
that employees are protected and that if accusations are made, that they're
investigated in the proper manner and that people feel safe and confident that
that process is to be followed. It's no slight to the Commissioner. It's no
slight to Rubin Thomlinson, the company that were hired to do it.
What
this was about – and I think one of the things that may have been missed in part
of this discussion was because this was new, this was a new process, we wanted
to – and I say we, I know on this side and a number of other people, including
some of the people engaged in this process, the complainants and those who had
to defend what was being – the accusations being put forward on them, didn't
like the process because it wasn't all encompassing. Because there hadn't been a
structure in the past that people were confident that it could work – and I have
no qualms in explaining.
I was
under investigation by the Commissioner at one point. Again, it was new
unchartered waters a number of years ago. The Commissioner of the day had to go
to Ontario for advice to figure out how you deal with that and what are the
ramifications around the investigative process and the process around ensuring
that everybody is given an opportunity to be included in the process, all
evidence that's necessary should be shared with the Commissioner and discussed,
and that the proper process would be followed.
I give
full credence; at the time it was a fairly lengthy process, but it was done with
due diligence. It wasn't at the same level as this or in the same chartered
waters. It was very important and serious. Anything that talks about the
integrity of this House, talks about the responsibilities we have as elected
officials and talks about the Code of Conduct, are very important. There is no
slight of one over the other.
The
difference here was we had never been down this road. Prior to that, they had
never been down the road in a situation that I found myself in. So the
Commissioner, through due diligence, went out and looked at other jurisdictions,
looked at what would be the process and followed the process of the
investigative mechanisms that would be in the best interest of ensuring that due
diligence was done. At the end of the day, the report really reflected the
circumstances around that particular issue, and that's all we were asking in
this case.
We're
not dismissing or saying in any way, shape or form that the Commissioner and the
company hired didn't do that, but we do know at the beginning, because this was
so new, everybody had reservations. Because even the Commissioner, himself, had
acknowledged that he wasn't an expert. His office didn't have the resources to
be able to do this, and to be able to do it in the timely fashion that would be
necessary so that people's lives weren't held ransom for periods of time,
because that does have an impact on all involved. It has an impact in this
House, as we've seen with the issues that we're still facing today.
What it
talked about was the culture of ensuring we find the proper mechanisms. What was
suggested at the time is maybe we look at a new mechanism. Well, we didn't go
that way. Unfortunately, it was decided to go the route that we've gone, and
we're saying: okay, we're at that stage. We can't reverse that, but we need to
know exactly the whole process that was used.
Asking
the Commissioner to come in here – as we had a discussion earlier with the
Commissioner. You can see it's evident that there are a number of questions that
people have; their clarification they want. There is an explanation as to why
certain methods were used or why certain methods weren't used in the
investigative process, and what that meant to all involved and what should've
been shared with the complainants; what should've been shared with those who
have been accused of a wrongdoing. And what role did the other players have in
that, the House of Assembly? What role does the management committee have in the
reporting process? What is private and should be privileged? What is open that
the individuals can share with the general public?
So there
are number of nuances here that need to be discussed. What's being proposed here
I think is another example of openness, transparency and inclusion.
Collectively, we're all working together to find the best solution so that we
can address any issues in the future.
I think
the bigger picture here is about having the discussion around: how do we prevent
situations like this from occurring? The culture of a safe environment, a
culture that people can have discussions and it not get to a point where it's
harassing, or in any way, shape or form bullying. How people can feel safe about
what's happening; but, as part of that, have a process in play that ensures that
if the mechanism or whatever happens, if there is an accusation, the mechanism
is fluent and everybody would know how to move that forward.
So we're
not confident. I know we, on this side, are not confident. From what I heard
from the majority of those involved in this whole process, they're not confident
that this process was the best mode. So let's talk about what we did get from
it. Let's pick what did work. Let's look at if there were some flaws in the
process, and let's find ways to improve that.
We have
a committee within the confides of the House of Assembly who can come up with a
process, come up with a criteria that works to ensure what we ran into can be
addressed in a proper manner and would have enough flexibility – because
everything in life is a living entity. There are going to be other issues that
we haven't planned for, that we haven't seen, that society changes in its
different approach to it. So we need to be ready for those type of things.
Bringing
in the Commissioner, I think it's a very open, it's a very inclusive process.
Keeping in mind, the Commissioner himself had mentioned, he sees himself in the
same light as the Auditor General, as an Officer of this House. And I see and I
agree with him.
It's on
a constant basis we bring the Auditor General in when the Public Accounts
Committee has hearings to ask the AG's view on how they conducted a particular
audit or an investigation, what they found, what their views were on the
circumstances and the evidence that was presented; what they feel would be an
appropriate action to move forward, and for them to also back up and defend the
recommendations that they've made. That to me is logical. It's already in a
proven process here.
So it's
no slight to anybody. It's not dismissing somebody's role or responsibility or
their competency or the work they have done. What we're saying is, particularly
in this situation here, we have a very unique process, but we have a very keen
opportunity here to get it right; to get it right forever and a day. Maybe it
didn't work, maybe it was flawed, and there is no doubt there are concerns and
situations here. So let's make sure we move it forward and we find the best
approach possible.
Bringing
in the Commissioner here, to me is a great opportunity for us to address exactly
what policies we're going to put in play, what would work. What it does add to,
too, is, don't forget, we've come a long way in the last decade or so when it
comes to the operations of the House of Assembly from an integrity and an
openness and a responsibility as elected officials, and the understanding by the
general public of what it is, the privileges and the rights and the
responsibilities that we have in this House.
Former
Chief Justice Green put together a very inclusive, very in-depth outline of what
the conduct should be in the House of Assembly by Members, but also outside of
the House of Assembly by Members. Obviously, at the time, while he alluded to
things like this and gave some parameters, it wasn't spelled out exactly what we
would have to do, because it was a different time. There was a different issue
that he was dealing with at the time that was very important. So we've evolved
since that.
It's no
doubt that some of the things he had talked about are still relevant and are
directly important to what we do here in the House of Assembly. He spoke about
the kind of behaviour that MHAs are responsible for. He spoke about the culture.
He spoke about the professionalism that has to be part and parcel of it. So all
of these are things that are not new in our society and shouldn't be isolated to
just financial matters. They should be isolated, or they should also be part and
parcel of our thinking and our active processes in this House around everyday
events; how we deal with people, how we communicate, our dialogue with our
colleagues, our dialogue with bureaucrats, our dialogue with the general public.
It's no
doubt, we all get frustrated at times and there are certain things we do, but we
have a certain standard that we have to adhere to. He had noted at the time,
that not only are we responsible for setting the bar, sometimes we have to push
beyond the bar, because we're under scrutiny, but we're under scrutiny for a
reason. Because people expect us to be able to provide guidance, to set an
example. If we're going to, in the same light, decide on policies that have a
direct implementation to people and impact on their lives, we need to know that
we, in our environment, work as professionals and can collectively look at
solutions that are in the best interest.
We may
not always agree. This is not always about agreeing on what we do with each
other, but it's about respecting different views. It's respecting different
approaches. It's about being professional, and to do that we need to have
mechanisms that are open enough that we can have particular confidences that
whatever happens, whatever it may be, if it's something from the past, a past
type of an event, if it's something that we've never been engaged in before, if
there is a new piece of challenging issues that come to the House of Assembly,
that there is a process in play.
Again,
the Commissioner coming in here – as we saw this morning when we had some
dialogue with the Commissioner, or lunchtime. There are a number of questions
here about how we move this forward; but, particularly, before we get to that we
need to know how we got to this point, how we got to these reports; the content,
the structure of it, the components and the responsibilities.
The
better we understand that, outside of some of the other challenges that people
may have as part and parcel who are directly affected – we're all affected, but
people are more directly affected that has a play. We need to be able to frame
out what the future is going to look like and how we're going to make the
general public feel confident that no matter what happens down the road we have
an ability to do things.
Just as
important, we need to be able to put a framework in play that ensures that if
somebody wants to stand for the House of Assembly, stand for election here, that
they're comfortable, that they understand their roles, they understand their
privileges, but they understand their responsibilities; and, if something
happens, that they have a mechanism they can rely on to support whatever it is
the issue may be that needs to come to the forefront.
So our
discussion around here is particularly more relevant to us setting the bar. Are
we setting the bar high enough and with enough openness that it's a flexible,
floating bar, that we can move it up when we need to on new types of approaches,
or we can laterally move it down to the side because there's another type of
issue in society that affects us that we never thought of before that comes
forward.
The
Green report took a great leap forward, decades forward from where we were, but
it still was more oriented towards financial responsibilities. Now we have to
look at cultural responsibilities, behavioural responsibilities, how we interact
with people that we represent, how we interact with the staff that we work with,
how we interact with our colleagues. So it's a simple process here of asking
that we bring the Commissioner in.
Now, in
this case, the Minister of Natural Resources has made an amendment that we
support. We're also going to bring in the professional company that the
Commissioner had hired to outline exactly their process and what it was based
on. We know that they have an expertise in particular areas around what was
investigated on the complaints that were put forward; but I'd be curious, and I
know my colleagues would be curious, and I would think everybody would be,
including the general public, around what was that based on, what histories,
what are the trends when you do investigation, when you interview individuals,
to what context you're using the information, when are witnesses called, when
are they not, when is use of technology or information that's being sent through
electronic devices are relevant to what the discussion – are they taken out of
context sometimes versus an interview? When is there a dispute? If it's
he-said-she-said, vice versa, what is taken in the medium there to prove one way
or the other what is happening?
So, Mr.
Speaker, again, I'm glad to be able to be the seconder for this PMR today, and I
look forward to everybody supporting this, and getting down to business of
looking at how we improve what we do in the House of Assembly, and improving
everybody has a safe, harassment-free, bullying-free work environment.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Children, Seniors and Social Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm
happy to stand in my place today and speak for a few minutes to the PMR that's
on the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, we're discussing an important topic
today, a timely topic I believe, given the recent unfolding of some of the
events here in the Legislature. There has been a lot of discussion around the
process to date and whether that process was right or wrong, whether it unfolded
as it should, whether people were right and wrong in their opinions.
I think
the last few months have probably caused all of us to reflect, that have been
here in this House for some time – me, not so long, only 5½ years, but I look
around and I see lots of people that have been here less than me. We will all
agree, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to decorum in this House there's room for
improvement.
I have a
quote – I have many quotes, but one that I like in particular: I talk about the
biggest room in any house is the room for improvement. When I look back to when
I started in 2013, decorum in the House in particular, where we were then to
where we are now, as the previous speaker was alluding to, I believe there has
been tremendous progress that have been made.
We've
certainly moved the dial. When we formed government in the fall of '15 and I was
given the privilege to be Deputy Speaker, only the second female to be named
Deputy Speaker since 1949 and the longest-serving female Deputy Speaker, it was
a privilege for me to be mentored by Speaker Osborne who worked tirelessly to
raise the bar with decorum in this House, and certainly now we see people like
Speaker Trimper and yourself also, that's very, very important to you guys.
Mr.
Speaker, decorum can be improved but I have to say this over my 5½ years: When
it comes to politics, the very business, the very nature, you're going to have
spirited, lively debate – everyone, back and forth, and we've all been there and
sometimes we're in filibusters and we're sitting late at night and sometimes the
temperature goes up a little bit and there's spirited, lively debate. I guess
sometimes lines get crossed there as well, and that is an important part of this
conversation that we're having right now.
Everybody – I firmly believe that everybody, men and women, have the right to a
safe and respectable workplace. There should be zero tolerance, Mr. Speaker.
Everybody has the right.
Mr.
Speaker, after Question Period today, I have to say that if everybody is to look
inward, we've all been a little bit guilty maybe at times of going too far or
saying something that we should not have said. That does not change the fact
that this needs to be a very respectful workplace, but we can't get up on one
hand and say we want respect. To some degree, it has to be earned. So we have to
be very careful there.
I grew
up in a household where sometimes oh, he did this or she did that and you get
told: Now, now, look what happens when you point one finger; there are three
pointing back. So that's what I mean by this discussion that we're having here
is an opportunity for all of us, Mr. Speaker, to look inwardly – to look
inwardly to say: How can we improve ourselves?
It can
be a challenging time in public life right now. You know, it's a social-media
age. I think our colleagues in public life 10 years ago never dealt with some of
the things that those of us who put our name forward deal with, Mr. Speaker,
when you put your name on a ballot. And sometimes we get sucked down into the
negative things about being in public life, but having the opportunity to serve
a district, in my instance to serve at a Cabinet table, is a tremendous
privilege, Mr. Speaker – it is a tremendous privilege. And I believe we need to
talk about that in a positive light, despite some of the things we hear in
social media.
However,
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege, but it is also a tremendous responsibility. We
have a responsibility. Every one of the 40 Members in this House, it is
incumbent upon all of us to live in a way that we are able to be held to a
higher standard. The public that we work with and that we work for, they have to
be able to hold us to a higher standard.
I look
around the room, and many, like myself, you put your name on a ballot and up
until then you like to think that you are a respected wife, a respected mother,
a respected daughter, a respected member of your community. Then, all of a
sudden, you're a politician. You know, they talk about perception is many
people's truths, and sometimes then you're not held to that standard. But I
believe that we all have a role to play to work harder to ensuring that we are.
We are elected representatives of the people. We are trusted to be their voice.
The
conversation that we're having right now, Mr. Speaker, is an important one. It's
historic. The unfolding of this whole process, it is new for all of us. And I go
back to before the House closed in April or May, and personally I did not think
that politicizing these experiences was the right way to go. You had people that
came forward and made complaints to the Commissioner for Legislative Standards
and sometimes the very people that were saying this is wrong, this should not be
played out publicly, where's the confidentiality in this matter were the very
people saying tell us about this, tell us about that. So that's unfortunate, Mr.
Speaker, and I believe there are lessons to be learned there in all of that as
well.
Making
political hay out of what have been very distressing periods of time for several
Members, I don't think, Mr. Speaker, is what this Legislature is meant to be. I
have to put that out there on the record while I have a few minutes here because
what we're talking about is an extremely important topic. It is a serious topic,
Mr. Speaker. Everybody needs to be able to come into a workplace that is free,
where they don't feel intimidated, where they don't feel bullied, where they
feel respected in the workplace.
Today's
technical briefing with the Commissioner has been helpful in outlining the
process that has unfolded to date. A tremendous learning for me. If I was to be
asked, up until last night, what did I think of the process? I never saw
anything. I am just now coming into this process, just now reading reports, just
learning about what happened. The technical briefing at lunchtime – I learned a
lot about Rubin Thomlinson. Sometimes we joke, and I might say: my colleague, he
wrote the book on that. Well, literally, Rubin Thomlinson wrote the book on
workplace harassment, Mr. Speaker.
I heard
a Member earlier today get up, Mr. Speaker – the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape
La Hune – and really fired big shots at the leadership. This should have been
dealt with by the leadership. The leadership should have done this, they should
have done that. Well, do you know what, Mr. Speaker? I think if the leadership
had dealt with this, they would have said there's a conflict of interest right
there. So we took it outside.
The
Commissioner for Legislative Standards is an independent statute office of this
House. We took it outside, and he went further. He brought in resources that
were experts in this field. I believe he was right in the technical briefing
when he said, no matter what route they chose to go, there would have been
somebody that would have said it didn't go far enough. It wasn't good enough.
As a
number of speakers –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MS. DEMPSTER:
Mr. Speaker, I'm having
difficulty with the heckling from the other side while –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS. DEMPSTER:
– I'm talking about
harassment, Mr. Speaker, and looking for a more respectful environment here.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. K. PARSONS:
He was (inaudible) yesterday,
too.
MS. DEMPSTER:
If the Member for Cape St.
Francis wants to speak, I'm happy to sit down until he's spoken.
Mr.
Speaker, I wasn't finished. I'm being totally bullied here today, Mr. Speaker,
in the workplace. I can't have my time. It is not acceptable. Do not talk out of
both sides of your face. Are we here debating for a better, healthier workplace
or not? I'm given 15 minutes on the clock, and then I have these guys over
there, Mr. Speaker. It is very, very unfortunate. Very unfortunate. I will try
to carry on, Mr. Speaker.
Today's
technical briefing was very beneficial to me. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the
Member for Cape St. Francis was at the technical briefing or not, but I learned
a lot there. While the process may not have been perfect, as I said, this is
historic. I've been here five-and-a-half years, I haven't been a part of
anything quite like this before. So I believe that everyone is learning.
In
response to these harassment complaints, MHAs were required to participate in
harassment training, and it's a perfect example of where every one of us can
learn something new everyday, Mr. Speaker. When I did the harassment training, I
want to talk about for a minute something I learned. I don't know if you'd call
it a bit of an aha moment, it was the platinum rule.
I grew
up in a household where we often talked about the golden rule: Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you. But the platinum rule, I'd never heard of, I
must confess: Do unto others as they want to be treated. There's a difference in
that. How I want people to treat me may be differently than how my colleague,
the Member for Gander, wants to be treated.
So I
found the harassment training very beneficial. I don't know if every Member of
the House have done the training but I believe every Member here in this
government caucus have done the harassment training.
Empathy
is something that is often lacking, Mr. Speaker, in this Legislature, and if
you've been here a little while you'll see it. I think we've made progress. As I
alluded to earlier, the previous Speaker, Speaker Osborne that I worked closely
with, worked very hard to increase and bring a better level of decorum to the
House.
The
ability to appreciate where someone else is coming from and what might be going
on with them personally – there's a little quote out there, Mr. Speaker, that
says: Be kind to everyone you meet because everyone is fighting some kind of a
battle. We don't know everybody's stories.
We find
ourselves in this Legislature, in the people's House, we're into a – there's
always a bit of to and fro. As MHAs, we all lobby our colleagues and push. We
were hired by people in the various districts around the province to represent
them. So as a part of that, Mr. Speaker, I guess there's this – we're looking
for things for our district and we push and things like that. That comes with a
little bit of to and fro.
Evidence, governance, Mr. Speaker, have always been about the allocation of
scarce resources. I guess we could call that the first principle of economics.
So the type of work we do sometimes can be challenging as we are speaking and
making a case for various things in our area, Mr. Speaker. Just all a part of
the job as a Member. Serving as a Cabinet minister is an incredible privilege,
but can also be very challenging. But I think keeping at the forefront of our
minds that beyond party lines – beyond party lines – we are all working on
behalf of our constituents to address the issues that matter to them, from job
creation to clean drinking water.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to highlight, before I sit down, in my last minute, some of the
– and we're talking about harassment and bullying in the workplace, and we're
talking about we want a better Legislature. I am really proud to be a part of a
government that has made some significant historic actions, and I want to speak
about the past and current Liberal governments because they represent Liberal
values and because they impact populations that have been marginalized and are
for a multitude of reasons vulnerable to violence.
It was a
Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, that established the first violence-prevention
plan for this province. It was a Liberal government that established the first
Child and Youth Advocate, and I have learned over the last year just how
valuable that position is, and we always embrace her recommendations that come
forward to try and make life better for children and youth in this province.
Just recently, Mr. Speaker, it was this government that brought in the Seniors'
Advocate so that this large, growing, aging population in our province could
have an independent voice to bring their concerns forward.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we recognize that without concerted effort, change can happen slowly –
too slowly, maybe, arguably – but I believe we're moving in the right direction.
I'm pleased to support this private Member's motion, brought forward today with
the friendly amendment by my colleague, the Minister for Status of Women. And,
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to us getting back to working together to create a
more respectful workplace inside and outside this Legislature and to doing
whatever we can to encouraging more women to take their place in this
Legislature.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Reid):
The hon. the Leader of
the Third Party.
MS. ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
And I am
happy to take my place now to speak to both the private Member's resolution and
the amendment to the private Member's resolution.
It's
been a large two days, Mr. Speaker. They've been very intense. There's a lot
that has happened. There's been a lot of dissention, exploration, caution. And I
would like to thank all my colleagues here in the House for taking part in this
very important process, and also all the staff. The staff who have been part of
the Management Commission's deliberations on this topic. The staff who've been
part of the Privileges and Elections Committee. I would particularly like to
also thank my colleagues who have been on both the Management Commission and the
Privileges and Elections Committee, because they've been working really, really,
really hard on something that is so very difficult but working with a
commitment, with integrity.
Nobody
gets paid extra for doing this kind of work. The people who are doing this kind
of work are doing it because they know how important it is, and I want to make
sure that we acknowledge the important work that they are doing. I would
particularly like to thank the Commissioner for Legislative Standards and his
office. It's been really tough. This has been tough work.
Also,
there was by-election in the middle of all this. We know the workload that
happens with his office when there's a by-election, and we have another one
coming up – unless there's going to be an early general election, so we'll see.
We'll see what's going to happen there. That's in the hands of the Premier and
his caucus; who knows what will happen there.
But what
we do know is that by-election or election, there'll be one coming up and so
that office is stretched to the limit as well, and those from the Speaker's
office who've been involved in this whole issue. So, it's tough.
And then
for the complainants and the respondents and their families and their
constituents, and the media has played a role in keeping the people of the
province informed about what we're doing here, what we've been doing ever since
April I believe it is. I looked back at
Hansard at some of the work that we did in April when these issues arose.
I also
want to make a point to let's remember that we're not really talking – the
issues that we're addressing here today and the issues that we addressed
yesterday were not issues about decorum in the House. Those yet have to be
addressed, perhaps in another forum, in another way. But I'd also like to
congratulate the Minister of Finance during his tenure as Speaker of the House
and also our current Speaker for the work that they have done to elevate the
level of decorum here in the House.
I was
first elected in 2011 and I can tell you there were times when I sat down
because I could not hear myself because of the level of heckling. And it has
changed. At times today we saw how heated things got, but that's okay because
what we're talking about are such crucial issues, and they often are, the work
that we do here in the House.
But
because of what's at stake – there is so much at stake, Mr. Speaker. There is so
much at stake for many individuals in this House, for the work that we are doing
right now in this House. So because of that, we have to operate, we have to do
our work ever so carefully, with caution, with an impeccable sense of fairness
and justice that only comes if we have an impeccably fair and just process, and
there's been a lot of confusion about that.
Some of
the confusion has stemmed from a lack of information. Some of the confusion has
stemmed from the fact that the process perhaps is not ideal. I believe it's
probably not ideal. My concerns are the number of times that some of the
complainants have complained about the process, how complainants have held back
because of their concern for the process, how some of the respondents are now
talking about the process in and of itself.
Again,
because so much – so much – is at stake for those complainants and for the
respondents, we have to get this right. Again, that points to the work of the
Management Commission, the Speaker's office and the PEC, the Privileges and
Elections Committee, the MHAs, my colleagues, the staff who occupy seats in
those committees. Thank you for the incredible work that you are doing, and we
have still so much work ahead of us.
The
issue of confidentiality has always been a huge issue. How many complainants
really second-guessed whether it was safe for them to come forward? There's
still a lot of confusion and a lot of outstanding questions about the issues of
confidentiality. That issue really affects the sense of fairness and justice and
reflects on, again, the reliability of the process.
So, Mr.
Speaker, in the past few days – well, first of all, we had the debates in April,
then we had the investigations that have been ongoing for a number of months.
Yesterday we received five reports that we are going to have to debate. We also
received a point of privilege that we had to speak to. Then today, we had a
briefing here in the House, in an in camera session with the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards, and there were some very important questions that were
asked. Not everyone felt that the answers were satisfactory. Some of the answers
were. But certainly, there wasn't enough time to again answer all the
outstanding issues that many Members of this House have. So, I'm very happy that
the Commissioner for Legislative Standards has agreed to return to continue the
briefing.
And, in
light of that, I would like to say that I fully support the amendment to this
very important private Member's motion that was to us by the Member for Cape La
Hune.
So, our
caucus fully supports both the original private Member's motion and the friendly
amendment that asks that we have also at this House the inclusion of the firm
that was hired by the Commissioner for Legislative Standards, Rubin Thomlinson
and the investigators.
Although
it might be somewhat redundant, I would like to go on record saying that I think
it's absolutely crucial that we have the investigator who sat in and did the
investigations of all complainants, witnesses and respondents. I believe that is
Cory Boyd.
I would
like it on record, Mr. Speaker, that although it doesn't state this in the
amendment, I would like to hope that it is the actual investigator who will be
able to sit and be part of this briefing as well.
So,
there have been a number of issues that have been before this House that have
been in media, that have been out there on the public, pointing to a discomfort
and a lack of confidence in the process, but then, once again, others who have
felt a certain confidence in the process.
So, this
is our chance to get it right, Mr. Speaker. Because there is so much at stake
for so many who are involved, because of that, we have to be incredibly
cautious, careful, attentive and let's do this right.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I
appreciate this opportunity today to stand to this private Member's resolution
here. On issues around harassment in this House of Assembly, I think it's
worthwhile to take some time just to remind ourselves that we got to where we
are on April 24 of this year through some answers to some questions on the floor
of the House of Assembly that brought this issue to light.
I became
aware of this on the 25th of April, Mr. Speaker, and I think it's worthwhile to
state, just reminding everyone how we got to where we are, recognizing that
these can be very sensitive conversations. Within 24 hours, Mr. Speaker, at that
time speaking with those that were ready to file complaints, official formal
complaints, my suggestion then was to bring in an independent expert reviewer,
an investigator to look at and to review and investigate these issues.
At that
time, Mr. Speaker, one of the firms that we talked about was Rubin Thomlinson
because they had some experience within our province back in 2015 dealing with
the Valerie Penton issue within Service Newfoundland and Labrador – that was in
2015. So they had come; they were a little bit familiar with what was happening
within our province. They had done some work in other jurisdictions as well.
Mr.
Speaker, it was people in this province and MHAs in this Legislature, through
some brave actions, had brought these issues to light. Then it came down to the
question how we should deal with it. We dealt with it. We had a public release
and announcement that was made, but it was after that that the Commissioner for
Legislative Standards informed us then that it was in his jurisdiction, that he
could do this. There were a number of options, MHAs, Members of this
Legislature, could actually have those allegations and those complaints dealt
with.
There
were four options. One, the House of Assembly could do this. The Commissioner
himself could actually come, just listening to what was happening in the public
airwaves and so on, and he could make a decision at the time. The Commissioner
could make a decision, if he saw fit, to come in and do a review and investigate
what had happened. The MHA could actually – or any Member could actually go
through the Commissioner, or they could come to me and I could start the
complaint.
So, Mr.
Speaker, we know the process. We have a better understanding today of the
process. But what we didn't know at the time is, as this all unfolded, what it
would look like. We took immediate action. We dealt with it. As I said, the
independent, external firm was out first reaction – our first response. And it
was the Commissioner at the time who then said that it was in his jurisdiction,
back in April 25 or 26, to say that it was in his jurisdiction to actually deal
with it.
I'm
pleased today that there's been amendment to this resolution that has been put
forward by our Member from St. John's West. There seems to be that all Members
of this House will accept the amendment, not just to bring in the Commissioner
but also to bring in the investigators, in this particular instance, Rubin
Thomlinson, who were key parts and participants in all of this.
Mr.
Speaker, I think what we have to be mindful of, though, is that as we work our
way through this process, and before decisions are made, we must still allow –
as Members opposite have said – the appropriate time to have the proper debate,
so that we can listen to the concerns of those that were involved in the
process.
The
other thing I want to make mention is that ongoing and concurrent to everything
that's been happening over the recent months, we have initiated another review
through the Privileges and Elections Committee. They're doing some work because
they, too, recognize that through all of this – and that came from a similar
resolution right on the floor of the House of Assembly. So that work has already
begun. And they have made a commitment to come back and to deal with the issues
and even make more suggestions, and then we can further improve this process
that we've been currently undergoing.
I've
made a commitment to this province that there will be zero tolerance, and then
we'll improve this. A concern for me is how individuals that are looking at
what's unfolding, they're then publicly right now: Is this House of Assembly an
attractive place for anyone to want even to be part of? We want it to be
something that people would see as something that they want to do to represent
constituents and districts all across this province.
We want
to encourage people to be able to sit in the chairs. But, right now, Mr.
Speaker, a lot of people over this summer have told me that: I'm not so sure
that I would ever want to do that job. So the responsibility is on me as Premier
of this province, and all Members of this Legislative Assembly, to make sure we
bring the necessary improvements, so people are comfortable to put their names
on the ballots. In particular, women in Newfoundland and Labrador who want to
sit in the chairs that we sit in here today.
We have
the responsibility, once the issues are brought forward, to make sure that we
bring those necessary improvements. Zero tolerance means zero tolerance. So when
something is recognized and brought forward, well then, Mr. Speaker, we deal
with it. We have that responsibility.
But, Mr.
Speaker, the motivations must be sincere – the motivations must be sincere. This
is just not new; this has been around for decades. Let's not kid ourselves,
let's be very honest with ourselves, all political parties, not only in
Newfoundland and Labrador but in every single jurisdiction in this country, I
would say in this world, have had to deal with similar circumstances.
The
difference is right now we're dealing with it and, Mr. Speaker, I have made a
commitment to every single Member here and every single Newfoundlander and
Labradorian that we would bring the necessary improvements to make this a safe
place to work.
Mr.
Speaker, I also want to talk about, that as this process have unfolded in
public, as people are thirsting for access to information, we must also consider
and be aware, be acutely aware, that we have to be concerned about individuals'
privacy as well, because it's just not the individual. There are children
attached to this, there are parents attached to this, there are family, friends
that are watching this unfold.
So we
have to be careful that this doesn't become a bit of a political football. Let's
be mindful of that, and let's respect each other. Mr. Speaker, if we are
committed to improving this process, we will see through this; we will see that
this is really about bringing the necessary improvements, and not just scoring
what could be a political point. This has to be bigger than that.
This has
to be about the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. It has to be about future
MHAs that will sit in those chairs. When they make a commitment to the people in
this province that they want to represent their constituents, and they do it in
a very respectful way, that we must be able to treat each other with
professionalism and with respect in the decisions that we make as we interact
with each other, but also interact with our constituents.
Mr.
Speaker, that's the challenge that's been given to us. We need to make sure that
this place, that people come here, that we are held to a higher standard; that
people that sit in those chairs, we are held to a higher standard. People expect
more from us, and they should – they should – because we are responsible for
legislation that impact lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
So if we
cannot put in place proper legislation that impacts others, if we're going to do
that and make that commitment, we must respect each other. We must respect each
other because we have an impact, a very profound impact, I would say, Mr.
Speaker, on every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian. Legislation that we
bring forward in this House will have an impact on people that are not even
born.
So, Mr.
Speaker, the challenge is here. I'm committed to bringing the improvements that
we need. That is why I think it's important that we take the necessary time,
that when we bring the Commissioner in, to make sure that we understand the
details, we understand the process, we understand the thought process, we
understand why decisions were made and how the review was done.
It's
just not good enough to bring in the Commissioner because he happens to be the
person that held the pen to this process, but bring in those that participated,
people like Rubin Thomlinson who have been part of this. And we know the
experience that they have had, but we can always do better. Maybe we can help
make them – the questions that will come from the work that we will do on this
floor, maybe it will even make it better for them as they continue to
investigate and review jurisdictions in the future.
I had a
conversation last night with an individual from outside the province who called
and said, how are things going? We've been watching this unfold.
Mr.
Speaker, people will look, in the future, as to what's happening and occurring
in Newfoundland and Labrador. They will look back at decisions and processes
that we will put in place in this Legislature and it will help lead others in
the future. People from even outside of our province, to help and guide and lead
them through circumstances that will unfold in other provinces.
We all
know that harassment and bullying – we all know it has been hidden for decades.
Fortunately, there are certainly movements around the world that are shedding
light on those issues, and that's important. But, Mr. Speaker, I don't think any
of us should have any fear in dealing with the issues as they come forward, but
we must do it with respect. We must consider the privacy of the individuals that
undergo these processes, but also do it so that there's room for public debate
where people outside and watching us can have their say as well. Always be
mindful that there are other people that are attached to the decisions that we
make.
When
this information is shared and debated publicly, let's make sure we do it
professionally, we do it respecting each other, Mr. Speaker. I'm confident that
we can get there; I am very confident that we can there. We can improve on the
process. We have learned a lot in the last few months. People have said to me
already that they've learned a lot, and I agree.
We had
Members that would ask the question: If I had to do this all over again, would I
do it? Simply because of this process. The process should not discourage people
from coming forward. We need to put in place effective processes so that people
are comfortable in coming forward. That is exactly what we want.
We want
to make sure that young people in our province that are watching our Members of
this House of Assembly, they do so with respect and they say in the
future that is something that I would like to do. Mr. Speaker, right now people
are thinking otherwise. Women are thinking otherwise. There's a lot of people
that would like to look at this profession and say, I want to make a difference
in Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to be part of that Legislature. That is the
way, Mr. Speaker.
I remember growing up when an MHA or a Member of this
Legislature walked into the school or walked into a room, there was a lot of
respect that was given those people. They earned that respect, and we must make
sure that we do it again. That when people look at us – and so they should –
either through social media or through regular media outlets, or just by people
that are watching the webcasts, that are watching us, we need to make sure that
we do so, we act professionally, we act respectfully and that when we interact
there is zero tolerance.
Someone asked the other day what zero tolerance is. Well,
zero tolerance for me is when an allegation or an issue is brought forward, Mr.
Speaker, then we deal with it. We deal with it.
We're not perfect, Mr. Speaker, none of us. None of us are
perfect, but there's an acknowledgement that in times when if we are not
perfect, we must recognize those imperfections and make a commitment to do
better. And as Premier of this province, I have made that commitment. I'm asking
every single Member of this House of Assembly that as we go through this debate,
let's not forget that we have Members that are revisiting the last few months,
but we also have family members that are watching what's happening as well.
So, Mr. Speaker, as we bring in the Commissioner, as we
bring in Rubin Thomlinson in support of this motion that we have in front of us
today, I'm going to be very pleased, as our caucus, to support this; very
pleased to be able to say that we'll participate and be engaged, listening and
watching intently to what's happening as we make decisions. Decisions that we
make today will be not
just on current Members, but decisions that we make today will impact future
Members as well.
Mr.
Speaker, I'll finish my comments today by saying that I'm looking forward to
this debate, looking forward to doing so with a mindset of zero tolerance;
looking forward to bringing the necessary improvements so that when people look
at Members of this House of Assembly they do so with respect.
Mr.
Speaker, my time's up, but I appreciate this opportunity and I look forward to
the ongoing debate that will occur on this very floor over the next few days.
Thank
you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
If the Member for Fortune Bay
- Cape La Hune speaks now, she'll close the debate.
The hon.
the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape La Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS. PERRY:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It
certainly has been a fabulous afternoon here in the House, Mr. Speaker, to
listen to the views of Members on this issue that is affecting all of us. I'd
certainly like to thank the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, MHA
for Conception Bay East - Bell Island, the Minister of Children, Seniors and
Social Development, the Member for St. John's Centre and the Premier for their
words and participation in this debate here this afternoon.
Mr.
Speaker, I was actually pleased to see the amendment brought forward today was a
friendly amendment and one that we can support because both Rubin Thomlinson and
the Commissioner were involved, and certainly it would be great to have them
both here.
I think
we probably all agree that more is required than an in camera hearing. We really
need to have a session whereby we, as MHAs, and the public as a whole can glean
a better understanding of this process. As was mentioned by many of my
colleagues here, moving forward these types of situations can be perhaps
addressed in a way that is less harmful, I guess, on all the parties involved
and less stressful, certainly.
In
camera processes are necessary at times to protect privacy and shield the
vulnerable, but in matters of process that require public scrutiny on the public
record, we also need a public hearing. I think as a result of this process that
we will now undertake with this meeting with the Commissioner and Rubin
Thomlinson, we can give people more confidence in the process. Mr. Speaker,
certainly we're all anxious to resolve this issue.
I came
into the House of Assembly myself back in 2007. My first time sitting here was
in 2008, but I was elected in October of 2007. I think I may have discussed this
previously in this hon. House, that when I came into politics the Green report
was new. The financial scandal had just been finished, and that was the era in
which I entered politics. So I felt like I entered politics at a time when the
bar for standards was raised.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we've come a long, long, long ways in terms of
addressing some of the issues that our parliament was facing, but we still have
– very much so – a long, long, long way to go. I certainly hope to partake in
voting on improved legislation as we go forward to address some of these issues,
Mr. Speaker, and make the process better for everyone involved and to give
confidence to those out there who may be considering the profession of
parliamentarian.
What's
very, very, very important, Mr. Speaker – and I know sometimes a lot of people
get cynical with politics. They see this type of thing which is happening here
in our hon. House and they say I'm not even going to bother to vote. And that,
Mr. Speaker, is very, very worrisome because the government of day and the
Members of the House of Assembly have a huge responsibility – as 40 people for
500,000 people all across this province – making decisions on rules and
regulations that affect our daily lives, making decisions on taxation that
affect our income and our ability to feed our families, making decisions on
infrastructure, Mr. Speaker.
So it is
crucial that we bring and attract to this hon. House people of honour, integrity
and intellect to ensure that the best possible decisions are made in the best
possible interest of all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not whether if
they're Liberals or NDP or Tories, but because they are people and citizens of
Newfoundland and Labrador, all equally deserving of a fair government. And that
type of fair government will be delivered through strong, competent, ethical,
dedicated intelligent people, and these are the kinds of people we need to
attract. These are the kinds of people, Mr. Speaker, who are looking at us
probably and saying: Why would I leave my current career and go into that type
of profession.
We've
lost many, many, many good people, Mr. Speaker. Just a few months we lost one of
our brightest. It's very unfortunate that that happened because of the
environment and culture of politics, Mr. Speaker. We need to change that. We
have a duty to change that. We have an obligation to change that, and that's
what this process is all about.
I'm sure
that all of us, on all sides of House, are deeply concerned about harassment and
the kind of behaviour that we tolerate here. Because that's what happens: We
tolerate it. I think if we're honest, each and every one of us, would say we
tolerate it – we ourselves have tolerated behaviour that we would not tolerate
in our own home or in our previous workplaces. And it's not right. It really
isn't.
We're
going to raise the bar. It has to be much more than words. We have to
demonstrate by our actions that we really are improving the behaviours in this
House and that there really is zero tolerance for any type of disrespectful
behaviour, bullying or abuse of power, Mr. Speaker. We want to create a space
where women and men are welcome to come and serve.
This is
our moment, as parliamentarians in the Newfoundland and Labrador Legislature.
Our moment to break ranks with the past, with the old ways of doing things, and
to stand with courage in defence of what is right. We have an obligation to each
and every Newfoundlander, to our children, to our grandchildren. Would you want
your child to go apply for a job after spending $50,000 on their university
education and telling them it's all about hard work; the harder you work, the
better the job you'll get, only for your child not to be able to get that job
because someone had a contact that you didn't?
These
types of things can't happen in politics. That's what all the laws are about,
Mr. Speaker, to prevent that type of thing. We, as parliamentarians, have that
responsibility to ensure that this is what happens.
So, we
are determined that we will not regress back to the old ways. The old rules and
the term that I'm sure everyone has heard – I know all women have – the old
Boys' Club, can't win unless we allow ourselves to be bowled over. The time for
being intimidated and accepting this type of behaviour, that day is gone.
The
House has lost Members, as I just said, who were fed up. But, Mr. Speaker, we
have to continue the fight to make sure that all Parliaments improve. We're
leading the way here in Newfoundland and Labrador and I trust that if we are
able to resolve this issue and find the right policies and legislation, we will
make a difference that will extend beyond Newfoundland and Labrador.
It
continues here today – we've had a struggle for months. It continues here today
with this resolution and we are not going to sweep this matter under the rug. We
are going to ask the tough questions, even if that means things aren't resolved
quite immediately and it's going to take a little bit longer. Because it's far
better, Mr. Speaker, to do it right than to just rush through it.
Let's
not be afraid to audit the process, test its findings and if things don't
measure up, if we have to send them back, that's all discussions we need to have
and decisions we need to make. This is our moment to raise the bar and this is
how we do it. And it's our right to measure the bar. It's our obligation.
So, Mr.
Speaker, I'm very pleased that it looks like there will be full support to bring
in the Commissioner. I would like to say, I guess, in closing to all of my
Members, I know how politics works. I've lived here for 11 years. I'm going to
write a book one of these days on the written rules and the unwritten rules.
But, in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we all have a responsibility here, and I
implore each and every Member to use your own ethics, to use your own guidance,
and let's not be afraid to do the right thing as we move forward in abolishing
and eradicating disrespectful behaviour, bullying and harassment from politics
in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank
you so much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Is the House ready for the
question?
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
The
motion is carried regarding the amendment.
Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the amended motion?
All
those in favour, 'aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against, 'nay.'
This
amended motion is carried.
This
being Wednesday and, in accordance with Standing Order 9, this House does now
stand adjourned until 1:30 o'clock tomorrow.
Thank you.