The Joyce Report
made under the

House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act

August 24, 2018
Bruce Chaulk
Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 14, 2018, Colin Holloway, (MHA, Terra Nova) (hereinafter referred to as MHA Holloway) wrote the Commissioner’s
Office requesting an investigation into the conduct of Edward Joyce, (MHA, Humber – Bay of Islands), (hereinafter referred
to as MHA Joyce) with respect to an alleged violation of the Member’s Code of Conduct. MHA Holloway alleged incidents
of harassment and intimidation by MHA Joyce directed at MHA Holloway and that these incidents were a violation of
sections 3, 4, 5 & 11 of the Members Code of Conduct. MHA Holloway also indicated that the culture of harassment and
intimidation was pervasive within the Liberal Party Caucus.
While acknowledging the seriousness of the issues raised by MHA Holloway, it must be stated that the statutory mandate
of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards is to provide an opinion with respect to the compliance of a member with
the provisions of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act S.N.L. 2007 c. H-10.1 (hereinafter
referred to as the HOAIA) and the Member’s Code of Conduct.
I have also considered specifically whether MHA Joyce engaged in behaviour that amounts to harassment. In doing so, I
have relied on a definition of harassment as objectionable or offensive behaviour that is known or ought reasonably to be
known to be unwelcome.
Regarding the comments of MHA Joyce, I note that his intent when making the comments is largely irrelevant in an analysis as to whether or not the comments amount to harassment. I find, on their face, that such comments could be seen
as objectionable and offensive comments to be made in any workplace, including the House of Assembly. That said, I also
find that the comments were made at the tail end of a positive and supportive working relationship between MHA Joyce
and MHA Holloway, and MHA Holloway did not deny that he too used similar language with MHA Joyce. As such I do not
believe that MHA Joyce knew, or ought to have known, that his comments were unwelcome by MHA Holloway. There is no
suggestion that the comments persisted after MHA Holloway first raised his complaint about MHA Joyce. As such, I do not
believe that MHA Joyce harassed MHA Holloway in making these comments.
I also do not believe that by calling MHA Holloway to discuss his vote for Speaker that MHA Joyce harassed him. I find that
such calls were part of the normal course leading up to the Speaker vote and I do not find that the calls were objectionable
or offensive. In fact, I believe that MHA Holloway engaged in similar behaviour in support of MHA Parsons.
In that regard, as a result of my review, I am of the opinion that MHA Joyce was not in violation of Principles 3, 4, 5 and 11
of the Member’s Code of Conduct.
Although there is no contravention of the Member’s Code of Conduct, MHA Joyce acknowledged that he would refrain
from using profanity towards MHA Holloway and I would recommend that all MHA’s not use profanity towards each other
in the future as such language is not an acceptable practice for our elected officials.

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 3

BACKGROUND
The HOAIA Act provides the authority of the Commissioner for Legislative Standards to examine and comment on the
actions of elected members of the House of Assembly.
Subsection 36(1) states as follows:
36(1) A member who has reasonable grounds to believe that another member is in contravention of the code of conduct
adopted under subsection 35 (1) may, by application in writing setting out the grounds for the belief and the nature of the
alleged contravention, request that the commissioner give an opinion respecting the compliance of the other member with
the provisions of the code of conduct.
Upon receipt of a request for an opinion under s.36(1) , it is incumbent on the Commissioner to conduct an initial review of
the matter to determine whether or not there is any substance to the allegations and whether or not it may be necessary
to engage in a formal inquiry of the matter. However, before the commissioner may start an inquiry, the commissioner is
required to give the member concerned reasonable notice in accordance with s.37(1).
Section 37(1)states as follows:
37(1) Upon receiving a request under subsection 36(1), (3) or (4), or where the commissioner decides to conduct an
inquiry under subsection 36(2), and on giving the member concerned reasonable notice, the commissioner may conduct
an inquiry.
As noted by s.37(1), providing notice to the member concerned is not indicative of the start of an inquiry. An inquiry is
started when the commissioner decides to conduct an inquiry and may start after the commissioner has received a
response from the member concerned.
When the commissioner decides to start an inquiry, then the results of an inquiry shall be reported no later than 90 days
after beginning the inquiry in accordance with s.38(4).
In civil matters such as this one, the burden of proof is on a balance of probabilities. According to the Supreme Court of
Canada in F.H. McDougall [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41 the only practical way in which to reach a factual conclusion in a civil case is
to decide whether or not it is more likely than not that the event occurred. In making such a determination the evidence
must always be sufficiently clear, convincing, and cogent to satisfy the balance of probabilities test. In reviewing this matter
it was necessary to keep the standard of proof in mind at all times.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
On May 14, 2018 a written complaint was received by the commissioner from MHA Holloway. In the complaint,
MHA Holloway requested that the commissioner conduct a formal investigation into MHA Joyce in accordance with
s.36(1) of the HOAIA for an alleged violation of the Member’s Code of Conduct.
On May 28, 2018 a letter was sent to counsel for MHA Joyce requesting a written response to the complaint.
On June 13, 2018 a written response was received from MHA Joyce.
On June 29, 2018, after an extensive review of proposals from professional services firms, with expertise in
conducting workplace investigations, Rubin Thomlinson LLP was retained by the commissioner to assist in

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 4

investigating the complaints.
On July 19 and 20, 2018, interviews were conducted by the Commissioner with the assistance of his investigator
with Member Holloway and potential witnesses.
On August 2, 2018, MHA Joyce’s response was provided to MHA Holloway.
On August 3, 2018, MHA Holloway responded in writing to MHA Joyce’s response.

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 5

THE INVESTIGATION
The complaint raised by the Member dealt with five specific issues. These are as follows:
 

1) MHA Pension Plan;

 

2) Inability to work on behalf of constituents;

 

3) Election of Speaker of the House of Assembly;

 

4) Isolation in role as Parliamentary Secretary; and 

 

5) Culture of Harassment and Intimidation

1) MHA Pension Plan
MHA Holloway’s submission:
Since being elected as the MHA for the District of Terra Nova on November 30, 2015, the atmosphere of
harassment and intimidation with the Liberal Party Caucus has continued to escalate. I recollect the first
intensive issue surrounded the proposal to redefine the MHA Pension Benefit Plan. Over a two week period,
MHAs were convened into meetings in hopes there could be a united front on a proposal to change the
Pension Plan to a Defined Benefit Plan. In that example, I was the only MHA who refused to agree and to
sign a Letter of Consensus which would then be sent to the Speaker of the House of Assembly. It was during
this period that I openly referred to the tactics being used by several members of Caucus as “bullying and
intimidation”. It was the first time that Mr. Eddie Joyce approached me to say that “as a leader around the
Caucus table, I could have taken a different approach to get my message across”. I now realized that my
advocacy would not always be well received by others.
During his interview, MHA Holloway said that there had been a commitment made by the Premier and Cabinet to review
the MHA pension plan. He said that a lot of work had been done by Member Bernie Davis, the Premier’s office, and
Finance to move from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan. He said that those options were being
presented around the Caucus table. MHA Holloway noted that when he agreed to run as MHA, there was portability
between his existing public service pension plan and the MHA plan. He said, “A year in, portability is going to be taken off
table.”
MHA Holloway said that there was a lot of pressure for people to sign on to a defined contribution plan. He said that he
did his own analysis and was sharing it with members of Caucus.
With respect to the pension plan issue, MHA Holloway said that he believed that all information should be on the table
for people to make informed decisions. He said that there was considerable opposition and that certain Cabinet Ministers
were being pushed to intimidate and harass those individuals who were starting to think that the proposal coming forward
was not the right one. He said that one Sunday night Caucus was called in for a meeting and were told that a letter was
going to drafted and sent to the speaker of House and it was going to state that there was unanimous consent for Member
Davis’s proposal. MHA Holloway said that he told Caucus that he would not sign the letter, and therefore they could not
say that it was unanimous. He said, “That did not go over well.” He said that MHA Joyce came to him about the fact that
he was not being supportive of the government and was going against the Premier. MHA Holloway said, “And it’s bullying

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 6

at its finest.”
I asked when MHA Joyce made the comment and MHA Holloway said that he came to him after a meeting and said that
the Member was seen as a leader around the table, but that there were better ways to do what he was doing. He said that
this was a private conversation.
MHA Holloway was asked, what made it bullying, and he said that they would not let it go and kept coming at him. MHA
Holloway was asked what distinguished the discussion from debate about the plan, and the Member said that it got
personal. For example, he said that he was told by another Member that he was not a team player, and that if he was not
on board then he should get out. The Member could not recall if the latter comment was made in this context because “it
was said so many times.”
MHA Joyce’s response to the allegation
In reply to this allegation, the background to this issue involves a February 2017 written request that the
House of Assembly Management Commission explore moving toward a defined contribution pension plan
for Members elected in 2015 forward which would reduce the Province’s aggregate liability by $5.2
million. The Complainant apparently opposed these changes in certain MHA meetings and in response
to a question by VOCM News he made it clear the alleged statement by the Member occurred during the
MHA meetings:
MICHAEL CONNORS: To what extent did you feel that was intimidation or bullying?
COLIN HOLLOWAY: Well, the number of meetings that happened time and time again is one aspect of it,
but I also had been approached by a couple of individuals -you know, that sat around the table and felt
that my approach was not well received and I could have taken a different approach.”
The Member states that he was not present for any MHA meetings attended by the Complainant
attempting to arrive at a common ground on revisions to the MHA Pension Benefit Plan because the
proposed revisions affected post 2015 newly elected MHAs, not previously elected MHAs like the Member,
and because the Member is not part of the Management Commission. Therefore, the Member was not
present for any pension discussions in February 2017 or thereafter and could not have made the alleged
statement to the Complainant at a meeting regarding the MHA Pension Benefit Plan issue.
In terms of the specific statement complained of by the Complainant, that certain members had ‘felt that
[his] approach was not well received and [he] could have taken a different approach”, even assuming for
the sake of argument that the Commissioner was satisfied that a member had made such a statement to
the Complainant it is difficult to understand how such a statement could ever be reasonably interpreted
as harassment or bullying. It is submitted that the tone and content of the statement complained of would
suggest to the reasonable bystander the provision of well-meaning advice by an experienced member of
caucus to a junior member of caucus rather than harassment or intimidation.
For the reasons set out, the specific allegation that the Member failed to comply with the Code of Conduct
by telling the Complainant he ‘felt that [his] approach was not well received and [he] could have taken a
different approach” should be dismissed as without foundation.

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 7

MHA Bernard Davis’s evidence:
MHA Davis said he did not see the report that MHA Holloway prepared about the pension plan that was leaked. He said
that MHA Joyce called him about the plan and said that MHA Holloway felt he was bullied about the plan. MHA Davis said
that he was one of the key players trying to change the plan and he guessed that MHA Joyce had been trying to give him
a “heads up.”
Factual Findings – MHA Pension Plan
In this report, I have made my findings on the balance of probabilities standard. Essentially, I have determined, based on
the available evidence, whether it is more likely than not that the incident occurred. The onus to establish that the
evidence supports a finding that an incident occurred rests with the complainant.
I do not find that MHA Joyce made the comments attributed to him during any of the meetings of MHA members to discuss
the pension plan. The media quote noted by MHA Holloway suggests that these comments were made by others around
the table, as did his written complaint, and I find MHA Joyce’s evidence that he did not attend these meetings to be
compelling. MHA Holloway did not dispute this in his reply. While it is possible that MHA Joyce suggested to MHA
Holloway that his approach could have been better at some point, any conclusion relating to such a comment would be
speculative based on the lack of clear context provided by MHA Holloway during his interview. Regardless, based on the
evidence provided by the parties, I do not find that such a comment was made in relation to the pension plan in the
manner suggested by MHA Holloway in his written complaint.
2) Inability to Work on Behalf of Constituents
MHA Holloway’s submission
As a newly elected MHA, I have found that Mr. Joyce initially took an active interest in the challenges I was
facing in this District, especially when these issues related to the behaviour of the former MHA, Mr. Sandy
Collins. In the 2015 provincial Election, I won by a close margin of 54 votes. Mr. Collins, who is a political
staff person within the Progressive Conservative Party office, has never accepted this outcome. He
continues to meddle into the affairs of the Constituents living in the terra Nova District, thus adding to the
undue stress I face each day as an MHA.
Similar to most MHAs, we encounter issues that require guidance and advice, especially from a seasoned
politician and Cabinet Minister like Mr. Joyce. However, for the past year, and certainly since I became
appointed as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment, the
level of support from Mr. Joyce has dramatically decreased. Over the past six months, whenever I brought
a District concern to Mr. Joyce, his consistent response has been “Here he goes again! Don’t have anything
else to talk about other than your District “. In a number of instances, Mr. Joyce would simply tell me to
“F@#$-off”.
Hearing such a response once or twice might be passed off as normal interaction between MHAs,
especially when it comes to conversations amongst men for it is often said that boys will be boys. However,
to consistently receive this response for many months left me with the feeling that I could not bring forward
issues of concern to Mr. Joyce, as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment.
During his interview, MHA Holloway said that after he was elected, in December 2015, he was appointed as Parliament

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 8

Secretary to the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, Minister Mitchelmore. He said that they “got
along pretty good” and worked together. He said that MHA Joyce would call him on a regular basis to ask about Minister
Mitchelmore.
MHA Holloway said that following the Cabinet shuffle in July 2017, he was moved to Municipal Affairs and Environment
(MAE). MHA Holloway said, “Up until that point, (MHA) Joyce and I seem to have a great relationship. But the moment I
came over, everything changed. While I had an active role in Department of Tourism, I had no role in MAE.”
MHA Holloway said, “In terms of representing him(the Minister) that’s normal behaviour for the Parliamentary Secretary
to go represent when a Minister is not available. Secretaries are really in training for cabinet. Those opportunities were
not happening. The only thing I could talk to (Minister) Joyce about were district issues, not department issues, because I
know nothing about it.” MHA Holloway acknowledged that he went to a federal meeting in November 2017 on behalf of
Newfoundland, but added that he had not “done one other thing.”
MHA Holloway said that he had issues about water and sewer projects, fire departments, and he would go to MHA Joyce
for assistance on how to solve the problem. He said that things started to turn and Minister Joyce no longer had time for
him. Subsequently, MHA Joyce said to him, “Why don’t you just fuck off?” MHA Holloway thought to himself, “Where do
I go with this?”
MHA Holloway said that he did not know if others would have heard these comments. He thought that other people would
have heard when walking as a group back to their offices in East Block, but said that he did not know if anyone would come
forward about what was said.1
MHA Joyce’s response to the allegation
This category concerns a general allegation of a dramatic decrease in “support” for the Complainant’s
District work, and specific allegations that over the past six months the Member “consistently” responded
to the Complainant’s District concerns inappropriately, and that the Member used profanity in addressing
the Complainant, allegedly leading to an inability on the part of the Complainant to work on behalf of his
constituents.
First, the Member confirms that he took a special interest in mentoring, encouraging and advising the
Complainant while he navigated his work as a new MHA, both inside and outside the House of Assembly.
That support was, to the Member’s knowledge, welcomed by the Complainant and his family, including his
wife who the Member understands often communicated her appreciation for the Member’s
mentorship and support of the Complainant. The Member regularly asked the Complainant to make
funding announcements in his District to raise the Complainant’s profile in the District, even though as
Minister he would usually make such announcements. Specifically, on September 5, 2017, during a joint
federal-provincial funding announcement, the Member chose to act as MC for the event thus allowing the
federal Minister Judy Foote and the Complainant to make a joint announcement on behalf of their
respective governments in the Complaint’s District.
The Member denies the overall allegation that the Complainant was “unable to work on behalf of [his]
constituents”. Objectively, the records of the Department of Municipal Affairs-Approved Projects records
clearly contradict this allegation because since his election the Complainant has secured $6,005,285.03 in
1 Given that Minister Joyce acknowledged making comments of the type alleged, in an effort to balance a thorough investigation
with confidentiality, I did not contact witnesses in a speculative manner to determine whether they had heard the comments. 

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 9

provincial funding under the following programs, projects and grants for initiatives in his District:
1. Infrastructure Programs between 2017-05-01 and 2018-04-25: $1,813,985.88;
2. Multi-Year Capital Works between 2017-05-29 and 2018-04-12: $3,788,995.54;
3. 18 Special Assistance Grants between 2017-2018: $31,736.95;
4. CEEP 2017-2018 approved funding: $120,393.99;
5. Fire and Emergency Services 2016/17 and 2017/18: $21,172.67; and
6. Random Island West firetruck 2017: $229,000.00.
In terms of personal recognition of the Complainant, the Member submits he frequently singled out the
Complainant for praise, especially on social media. Furthermore, the Member often invited the
Complainant to attend events including in the Minister’s District, the most recent of which he accepted
by email on April 13th, 2018, for a June 9th, 2018 fundraising dinner in Corner Brook recognizing the
Member’s 25 years of public service and for which the Complainant asked to stay at the Member’s house.
Having made his complaint on May 1, 2018 the Complainant chose not to attend. The Member has also
regularly invited the Complainant to attend meetings, including those with town councils, fire
departments and local service districts from 2015 to April 26th, 2018, inclusively. As recently as June 1st,
2018, the Member spoke with Ms. Gloria Moss, Mayor for Happy Adventure, in the Complainant’s district,
about a water and sewer funding issue.
The Member therefore denies that his support for the Complainant has “dramatically decreased” over the
past six months, the past year, or at any time such that the Complainant was “unable to work on behalf of
(his] constituents”. In fact, reference to the following Hansard excerpts demonstrate the mutual consistent
support that the Member and Complainant have shown each other on challenging issues, as well as the
Complainant’s ability to work both with the Member and on behalf of his constituents:
a. Hansard of Debates in the House of Assembly
i. March 6, 2017: Complainant’s speech in support of Bill 68, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act No. 5:
Mr. Holloway: “I want to say thank you to the Minister of Service NL for bringing forward the legislation,
but also to our colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment I know he and his staff did a
tremendous amount of work on this piece of legislation so they could bring it forward-(...)”.
ii. March 15th, 2017: Complainant’s response to the Member for Cape St. Francis that he was afraid to go
to their districts after a “hard budget”:
Mr. Holloway: Now, I can tell you, I am not afraid to go in my district. I have spent many, many hours-I’m
rarely at home actually, ...going throughout my district talking to people, talking about the issues,
understanding the impacts of the budget that came down last year. (...) I welcome every opportunity to go
out and talk to constituents of my district.”
ii.February 27, 2018: The Member defended the Complainant when Mr. Lester, MHA accused him of being

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 10

a “disengaged” parliamentary secretary:
Mr. Joyce: “He had the courage to go down and face it. He’s working for the people in Terra Nova which he
has always done, which he will always do. I have to applaud him for that, Mr. Speaker.”
iii. March 12th, 2018: Debate in the House regarding rezoning in Port Blanford to allow for clear cutting:
Mr. Joyce: “Just for the record, myself and the Member for Terra Nova had a press conference out in
Clarenville probably about eight, nine months ago where we announced some funding for capital works.
The mayor at the time from Port Blanford said it’s the first time they received funding in seven or eight
years and he said it’s the best relationship they ever had with government.
iv. April 25th, 2018: Complainant’s Speech referencing nine projects that he accomplished with the $10.9
Million in capital works funding and with the Minister’s help:
Mr. Holloway: “Myself and the Minister have been out and met with them as well to see the facility and to
understand their needs.”
In reply to the allegation that “whenever” the Complainant brought a district concern to the Member “his
consistent response has been ‘Here he goes again! Don’t have anything else to talk about other than your
District, the Member admits that both he and the Complainant were accustomed to using this phrase as
part of their normal interaction with humorous intent without either party ever taking offence or
complaining about the same, either formally or informally. In fact, the Complainant himself would often
proactively interrupt meetings already in progress on other agenda issues and make the selfdeprecating remark, ‘Here I go again. Another district issue.’ As such, the Member submits that he
believed that the Complainant accepted their reciprocal use of the phrases, ‘Here he goes again’ or ‘Here I
go again’. However, as the Complainant has newly signalled, through his letters to the Commissioner, that
he feels otherwise, the Member will henceforward respect his wishes to not use that phrase at any time
when addressing the Complainant.
The Member acknowledges having made this remark on one occasion, not in humour, when it was
warranted, during a meeting on a broader waste management file that had nothing to do specifically with
the District of Terra Nova. To fully appreciate why he made this statement, the Member submits it is
necessary to provide accurate context.
In a meeting with St. John’s Mayor Danny Breen, the Complainant and Jamie Chippett, the purpose of
which was to discuss the issue of waste management and garbage collection for cabin owners between
Clarenville and St. John’s, the Member, in his capacity as Minister of Municipal Affairs and the
Environment, was trying to keep the discussion on track when the Complainant interrupted the discussion
on a number of occasions to complain that a constituent had been back charged for garbage collection.
In so doing, the Member submits that the Complainant had lost sight of the larger issue affecting 240,000
provincial residents and the Member admits making this remark not in humour, once, which was justified
in the circumstances. Notwithstanding this sole exception, the Member states that there was never a time
when he refused to discuss issues that the Complainant brought forward for the Member’s consideration.
In reply to the allegation that the Member told the Complainant “in a number of instances” to “F@3$-off’,
the Member admits that both he and the Complainant were accustomed to using the “F@3$” word with
each other as part of their “normal interaction” without either party ever taking offence or complaining

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 11

about the same, either formally or informally. As such, the Member submits that he believed that the Complainant accepted their reciprocal use of the “F@3$” word. However, as the Complaint has newly signalled,
through his letters to the Commissioner, that he feels otherwise, the Member will henceforward respect his
wishes to not use this word at any time when addressing the Complainant.
For the reasons outlined above, the Member submits that the specific allegation that the Member failed to
comply with the Code of Conduct by “decreasing” his support of the Complainant such that he is unable to
work on behalf of his constituents and, inter alia, felt he could not bring forward issues of concern to Mr.
Joyce, as Minister of Municipal Affairs and Environment, should be dismissed as being without foundation.
The Member admits that he responded on one occasion to the Complainant’s complaints “here he goes
again! Don’t have anything else to talk about then your District” which did not constitute harassment,
intimidation or bullying in the circumstances. Finally, the Member will refrain from any profanity in the
presence of the Complainant, however he notes the Complainant used the same language without
complaint and admits it was their “normal interaction”.
MHA Holloway’s Reply
In response to Minister Joyce’s response, MHA Holloway wrote:
I have reviewed all 98 pages; much of which are attachments that include copies of departmental meeting
invitations and funding approvals for various communities within the Terra Nova District.
My first reaction is that just because a Minister of the Crown signs off on a community’s funding
application, this in no way confirms that the individual has not committed any harassment or intimidation
of another individual. It simply means that the application for funds was found to be within acceptable
criteria.
So, to assume that the provision of funding to a Member’s District is conditional on a positive working
relation is an abuse of the power and authority as a Minister.
In response to the copies of departmental meeting invitations sent to me between December, 2017 and
February, 2018 I would encourage you to seek additional confirmation for the time period of July, 2017
until June, 2018. I was appointed as Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Municipal Affairs and
Environment in July, 2017.
I assume that Mr. Joyce has provided these documents in hope that he can counter my comment about
being frozen out the Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment. I would counter argue that if I was
treated with fairness, there should be ample documentation to demonstration that I was being actively
engagement in departmental meetings and discussions from the time I was appointed Parliamentary
Secretary to this Department.
Furthermore, you should be able to acquire additional documentation to support my inclusion into
departmental meetings and discussions (in the role as PS and not in response to MHA Constituency issues)
from the time Mr. Joyce was removed from Cabinet until today, under the direction of Minister Andrew
Parsons.
During my recent interview at your office, I stated that I continue to be frozen out of this department even

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 12

by the new Minister. I am doubtful you will be able to obtain any correspondence that indicates I am being
actively engaged in my Parliamentary Secretary role.
These actions are in direct consequence of coming forward with the allegations of harassment and
intimidation by Mr. Joyce and Mr. Kirby.
I wish things were different and I wish I was able to do my job as the PS to the Department of Municipal
Affairs and Environment.
Factual findings - Inability to work on Behalf of Constituents
The parties agree that following the 2015 election, MHA Joyce provided support and mentorship to MHA Holloway as a
newly elected MHA.
MHA Joyce also provided ample evidence that funding has continued to go to MHA Holloway’s District and that MHA Joyce
had spoken positively of MHA Holloway in public. In his reply, MHA Holloway commented on, but did not dispute, this
evidence. That said, the fact of the existence of such funding and comments is not determinative of the larger question of
MHA Joyce’s behaviour.
The parties also agree that there were times when MHA Joyce made comments to MHA Holloway, when he tried to talk
about local issues, to the effect of , “Here he goes again, doesn’t have anything to talk about other than his District.” MHA
Joyce acknowledged as much but characterized all but one occasion as having “humourous intent.” He also acknowledged
using the word “fuck” with MHA Holloway and did not deny telling MHA Holloway to “fuck off”, although again he said that
he had humourous intent. In both instances, in reply to MHA Joyce’s account, MHA Holloway did not dispute the context
for the comments suggested by MHA Holloway. As such, I find that MHA Joyce made the alleged comments to MHA
Holloway and, on all but one occasion, did so in a joking manner.
3) Election of the Speaker of the House of Assembly
MHA Holloway’s submission
I recall shortly after being appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Environment in July, 2017, when the topic of who would be the next Speaker of the House of Assembly
began to percolate throughout Caucus. As you might appreciate, there were a number of names being
suggested, including MHA Pam Parsons.
In making her decision to put her name on the ballot, MHA Parsons called me and asked if I would
support her application to be the next Speaker. In reflecting on the process followed in 2015 when MHA
Tom Osbourne became Speaker for the 48th General Assembly, I agreed to give my support to MHA
Parsons. Being a newly elected MHA, in 2015, there is no doubt the learning curve was steep. While I was
trying to be open, honest and fair to my colleagues, I was surprised to learn that the Premier publicly
supported former Cabinet Minister Perry Trimper and his bid to become the next Speaker. I immediately
found myself in quite the quandary.
It was also my understanding that the election of the Speaker was a free vote and it was a secret ballot.
It is also not typical for a Premier to openly endorse one candidate over another. Having weighted out all
factors, I openly communicated to MHA Parsons that I would support her.

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 13

Once it was known publicly that I was supporting MHA Parsons, I began receiving telephone calls from
Mr. Joyce (a total of 11 between July 15 and July 31, 2017) aiming to discourage my support for her. Each
telephone call focused on discrediting Ms. Parsons in her ability to perform the role as Speaker should she
be successful in the election. Mr. Joyce often used phases such as “She (Pam) is not worthy of being the
Speaker” or “Pam’s success would be a vote against the Premier”. I found that there was a deliberate
attempt to cause a negative support for MHA Parsons by members of our Caucus.
While I continued to reiterate to Mr. Joyce that it was my understanding MHAs were free to vote as they
wish, the telephone calls kept coming.
The election of the new Speaker for the House of Assembly took place on August 8, 2017. On that day, @
12:48 p.m. (42 minutes before the House of Assembly would reconvene) I received a BBM message from
Mr. Dale Kirby stating:
“I hope you understand that should Pam succeed today (being Election Day for the Speaker) in
embarrassing Dwight by setting up this Confidence Vote in our government, we will likely be heading to the
polls in less than a year. Better dust off your election signs ‘
In my estimation, Mr. Kirby’s message was a direct threat aimed to deter any MHA from voting in support
of MHA Pam Parsons.
As you know, MHA Pam Parsons was not successful in her bid to become the Speaker of the House of
Assembly. As a consequence for her perceived defiance, and my support of her (another act of perceived
defiance), the seating chart in the House of Assembly was changed. Originally, following the 2015
Provincial Election, MHA Parsons was seated in the third row directly behind the Premier. I, like other
Parliamentary Secretaries, was seated in the last seat in the second row, directly behind MHA Steve Crocker.
However, following the election of the Speaker, when all MHAs returned to the House of Assembly for the
Fall 2017 Session, both MHA Parsons and I were moved to the last two seats in the third row; isolated from
the rest of Caucus. Personally, I felt this was a direct consequence for not following orders and further
solidifies my claim that harassment and intimidation continued to exist in the Liberal Party Caucus.
MHA Holloway said that after getting elected in November 2015, he received calls from two individuals who were both
looking to be elected Speaker. Member Holloway told one individual he would support him. He said that two years later, in
2017, he understood that the vote for Speaker “is private, no one should be influencing it.” He said that MHA Parsons called
him and told him that she was interested in being Speaker. He said that he told her that he would support her. He said
that the Premier then went public and said that he was supporting Perry Trimper. MHA Holloway said, “My understanding
is that’s unheard of. Immediately I started to hear that people should follow who the Premier is endorsing. For policy or
budget there’s a certain partisanship. Electing a speaker is a free vote, you should be able to do what you wish.”
MHA Holloway said that over a two-week period he received calls from MHA Joyce every couple of days in which he was
told that he was going against the Premier. He said that MHA Joyce also had the goal of discrediting MHA Parsons during
these calls.
MHA Holloway said that after the House of Assembly reconvened in November 2017, the seating had been changed and
he had been moved to the very last desk before the door. He said that he and MHA Parsons were isolated from everyone

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 14

else. MHA Holloway said that he commented to MHA Joyce that the move was a direct consequence of supporting MHA
Parsons, but MHA Joyce did not agree.
MHA Joyce’s response to the allegation
In response, the Member specifically denies calling the Complainant eleven times between July 15th, 2017
and 31st, 2017 to discuss support for a different candidate than the one supported by the Complainant for
the Speaker’s position. As a matter of public record, the vacancy for the Speaker’s position was created
because of a cabinet shuffle on July 31st, 2017 and the Member therefore could not possibly have called
the Complainant about the election for the Speaker’s position issue at any time between July 15th and 31st,
2017.
In fact, the Member’s phone records indicate that he called the Complainant six times in the overall time
frame, not eleven times, only three of which occurred between July 31st and August 8th, 2017 and could
have related to the election for Speaker of the House:
(1) July 20th-26th, 2017: The Member made three calls, all of which probably related to the best of his
recollection to asking the Complainant to announce funding for a Fire Hall in the Complainant’s district at
the Come Home Year festivities;
(ii) July 31st-August 8th, 2017: The Member made three calls to the Complainant and confirms that he
discussed the election of the Speaker of the House during those calls. In the first call, the Member recalls
asking the Complainant to support MHA Trimper and ending the call reminding the Complainant that it
was a free vote. During the second call, the Member recalls advising the Complainant that he was told
that MHA Parsons had been, inaccurately, representing to other members that the Member supported her
candidacy, and asking the Complainant to request MHA Parsons to stop using his name. During the third
call, the Member recalls making a final pitch in support of MHA Trimper and ending the call by advising
the Complainant that he was free to do as he wished but that, “When it’s over, let’s move on”, or words to
that effect.
The Member specifically denies referring to MHA Parsons “unworthy” or saying that “Pam’s success would
be a vote against the Premier”. He further denies that any of the three calls were made to criticize MHA
Parsons but rather to advocate on behalf of another member, MHA Perry Trimper. The Member submits
that it is common for Members to call a colleague requesting support for a Member in a contested vote,
and it is noteworthy that the Complainant made many calls himself to others in support of MHA Parsons.
It is clear and obvious from the phone records however that the Complainant’s allegation regarding the
number of calls he received in July 2017 is exaggerated, which begs the question of whether the
Complainant’s recollection of the calls themselves is equally exaggerated and unreliable.
Finally, in response to the allegation that the Complainant and MHA Parsons were moved for their
“perceived defiance” of the wishes of the Liberal caucus that MHA Trimper be elected Speaker, the Member
submits there is no allegation let alone evidence that the Member exercised control over the seating
arrangement in the House or was responsible for the decision to move the Complainant. Even if the
Complainant was moved because of his support of MHA Parsons, which amounts to supposition as it is not
supported by any evidence, the fact remains that your determination of the Member’s compliance with the
Code of Conduct must be judged based solely on the evidence in support of the allegations made against
the Member personally and not based on the Complainant’s allegations against other members or in

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 15

relation to the Liberal caucus generally.
For the reasons outlined above, the Member submits that the specific allegation that the Member failed to
comply with the Code of Conduct by calling the Complainant eleven times between July 15th, 2017 and July
31st , 2017 aiming to discourage his support of MHA Parsons is clearly exaggerated based on the Member’s
phone records and, therefore, his recollection of the calls is rendered equally unreliable and the allegation
must be dismissed. As to the allegation the Complainant was moved because of his support of MHA
Parsons, which amounts to supposition as it is not supported by any evidence, this is not an allegation made
against the Member personally and therefore cannot ground any determination by you that the Member
failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.
Factual Findings – Election of the Speaker of the House of Assembly
Given the nature of the vote, MHA Joyce’s relationship with the Premier, and his own admissions, I find that there were at
least three occasions when MHA Joyce contacted MHA Holloway by phone and sought his vote for Member Trimper for
Speaker. I believe that in doing so he noted that a vote for Member Parsons would be a vote against the Premier, as such
messaging would align with the messaging of Minister Kirby, who was working to a similar purpose. While he likely spoke
about Member Parson’s qualifications for the role, I decline to make findings as to the specific language used or whether
he specifically called her “unworthy.” I again note that when MHA Joyce denied such language, Member Holloway did not
address his denial in his written reply to my office.
It is worth noting that MHA Parsons, in running for Speaker, contacted MHA Holloway and sought to gain his vote. MHA
Holloway had no issue with such a call and acknowledged telling her that he would support her. Also, given that Minister
Kirby, who was in Florida, was aware that MHA Holloway was supporting MHA Parsons, I find it likely that MHA Holloway
was also speaking with other Members about supporting MHA Parsons for Speaker.
Regarding the relocation of MHA Holloway’s seat in the House of Assembly, I do not find that MHA Holloway provided any
credible evidence that such a move would be the result of a decision by MHA Joyce.
4) Isolated in Role as Parliamentary Secretary
MHA Holloway’s submission
In December, 2015 I was initially appointed as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Tourism, Culture,
Industry and Innovation. In that role, I was active in supporting Minister Mitchelmore in fulfilling his
Mandate. I would represent the Minister at formal events, meet with dignitaries, host departmental
meetings and participate fully in the decision-making process.
However, after July, 2017, when I was appointed as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Environment, my role and ability to contribute to the Department significantly changed.
Contrary to how I operated in the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, I did not have
an active role. I have not been invited to represent the Minister at formal events (with the exception of
attending an F/P/T Meeting in Vancouver, B.C.), I do not attend Departmental meetings and I am not part
of the decision-making process.
While my office is located directly outside the Ministerial Suite, and while I am free to come and go within
the area, I have not formal role.

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 16

To further add to the feelings of worthlessness, following the public release of my allegation of harassment
and intimidation, and the appointment of Minister Andrew Parsons to the Department of Municipal Affairs
and Environment, I have been completely frozen out of this Department.
For the past three weeks, I have witnessed Mr. Parsons attending Departmental meetings, but he has not
engaged me in any briefings or meetings. It appears the harassment and intimidation situation has only
been magnified by my efforts to come forward with these complaints.
As noted above, during his interview, MHA Holloway said that after he was elected, in December 2015, he was appointed
as Parliament Secretary to the Department of Tourism, Culture, Industry and Innovation, with Minister Mitchelmore. He
said that they “got along pretty good” and worked together. He said that MHA Joyce would call him on a regular basis to
ask about Minister Mitchelmore.
MHA Holloway said that following the Cabinet shuffle in July 2017, he was moved to Municipal Affairs and Environment
(MAE). Member Holloway said, “Up until that point, (Minister) Joyce and I seem to have a great relationship. But the
moment I came over, everything changed. While I had an active role in Department of Tourism, I had no role in MAE.”
MHA Holloway said, “In terms of representing him that’s normal behaviour for the Parliamentary Secretary to go represent
when a Minister is not available. Secretaries are really in training for cabinet. Those opportunities were not happening.
The only thing I could talk to (Minister) Joyce about were district issues, not department issues, because I know nothing
about it. MHA Holloway acknowledged that he went to a federal meeting in November 2017 on behalf of Newfoundland,
but added that he had not “done one other thing.”
MHA Holloway said that his sense was that on the “8th floor”, the Premier was sending the message that MHA Holloway
did not have his full support. He noted that MHA Joyce and the Premier were very tight, and “it was like I was almost
being frozen out.”
MHA Holloway said that after Minister Parsons took on the added portfolio of MAE, to this day he had not spoken to
Minister Parsons, nor had they engaged in meetings. He said, “In my view, that’s just a continuation of intimidation,
bullying and harassment that’s so pervasive. I’ve said publicly that it’s not only Liberal government, it’s across all parties. It
just happens that I made complaints against 2 cabinet ministers who’ve risen above other people in their tactics.”
MHA Joyce’s response to the allegation
In response, the Member denies the allegation that he “isolated” the Complainant after July 2017 and
submits that, up to an including April 26th, 2018, when the Member was removed from Cabinet and
stepped down from caucus, the Complainant was invited to every Departmental meeting and, as outlined
above, was regularly called upon, and regularly accepted, invitations to represent the Member at formal
events, including making funding announcements on the Member’s behalf in the Complainant’s district.
As to the Complainant’s allegation that, following the public release of his allegation and the appointment
of Minister Andrew Parsons, he has been “completely frozen out of this Department”, the Member submits
that he has since April 26th, 2018 been sitting as an Independent, removed from both caucus and cabinet,
and, therefore, has no knowledge of the same. The Member submits that a Parliamentary Assistant or
Secretary assists the Minister to whom he or she is assigned in the manner that the Minister directs and
that may be prescribed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. Given the flexible and fluid nature of the

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 17

Complainant’s position, the Member is not able to comment upon what assistance, if any, Minister Parsons
may have required of the Complainant since April 26th, 2018. Even if the Complainant was “frozen out of
the Department”, which amounts to supposition as it is not supported by any evidence, the fact remains
that your determination of the Member’s compliance with the Code of Conduct must be judged based
solely on the evidence in support of the allegations made against the Member personally and not based on
the Complainant’s allegations against other members or in relation to the Liberal caucus generally.
For the reasons outlined above, the Member submits that the specific allegation that the Member failed to
comply with the Code of Conduct by the Member “isolating” the Complainant in his role as Parliamentary
Secretary is completely without foundation and should be dismissed. As to the allegation the Complainant
was subsequently “frozen out of the Department”, which amounts to supposition as it is not supported by
any evidence, this is again not an allegation made against the Member personally and therefore cannot
ground any determination by you that the Member failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.
MHA Bernard Davis’s evidence:
MHA Davis said that he had not observed as many interactions between MHA Holloway and Joyce as one would think,
considering that MHA Holloway was the Parliamentary Secretary. He added, “But different relationships may interact differently.” He said that he had not seen any negative interactions between them in public or in private.
MHA Holloway’s Reply
As noted above, in response to Minister Joyce’s response, Member Holloway wrote:
I have reviewed all 98 pages; much of which are attachments that include copies of departmental meeting
invitations and funding approvals for various communities within the Terra Nova District.
My first reaction is that just because a Minister of the Crown signs off on a community’s funding
application, this in no way confirms that the individual has not committed any harassment or intimidation
of another individual. It simply means that the application for funds was found to be within acceptable
criteria.
So, to assume that the provision of funding to a Member’s District is conditional on a positive working
relation is an abuse of the power and authority as a Minister.
In response to the copies of departmental meeting invitations sent to me between December, 2017 and
February, 2018 I would encourage you to seek additional confirmation for the time period of July, 2017
until June, 2018. I was appointed as Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Municipal Affairs and
Environment in July, 2017.
I assume that Mr. Joyce has provided these documents in hope that he can counter my comment about
being frozen out the Department of Municipal Affairs and Environment. I would counter argue that if I was
treated with fairness, there should be ample documentation to demonstration that I was being actively
engagement in departmental meetings and discussions from the time I was appointed Parliamentary
Secretary to this Department.
Furthermore, you should be able to acquire additional documentation to support my inclusion into

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 18

departmental meetings and discussions (in the role as PS and not in response to MHA Constituency issues)
from the time Mr. Joyce was removed from Cabinet until today, under the direction of Minister Andrew
Parsons.
During my recent interview at your office, I stated that I continue to be frozen out of this department even
by the new Minister. I am doubtful you will be able to obtain any correspondence that indicates I am being
actively engaged in my Parliamentary Secretary role.
These actions are in direct consequence of coming forward with the allegations of harassment and
intimidation by Mr. Joyce and Mr. Kirby.
I wish things were different and I wish I was able to do my job as the PS to the Department of Municipal
Affairs and Environment.
Factual Findings – Isolated in Role of Parliamentary Secretary
MHA Holloway alleged that since July 2017, in his role as Parliamentary Secretary, he has not had an active role, had not
been invited to represent the Minister at formal events, and did not attend Departmental meetings or take part in the
decision-making process. While it is possible that he has had a less active role than he had previously in another Ministry,
the evidence provided by MHA Joyce indicates that he was regularly invited to Departmental meetings during the time
period in question. It is beyond the scope of this process to determine the degree to which MHA Holloway participated in
these meetings, but it is clear that he was invited to attend. As such, regarding the broader allegations, I do not find the
evidence sufficient to conclude that MHA Joyce isolated Member Holloway in his role as Parliamentary Secretary.
5) Culture of Harassment and Intimidation
MHA Holloway’s submission
The culture of harassment and intimidation is pervasive within the Liberal Party Caucus. In just over two
and half years, I have counted at least six instances when MHAs have been told that “if he/she does not
support the direction or decision, there is the door and you best get out”.
For the past six months, the culture of harassment and intimidation has continued with new comments for
Members to leave the Liberal Caucus should he or she not support the consensus of the group. I can
appreciate and encourage diversity in opinion. As leaders and advocates for our respective electoral
districts, MHAs are often tasked with finding the right balance between bringing forward issues of concern
on behalf of their Constituents and being part of a unified team which is trying to do what is best for the
Province. But, the level of verbal abuse, harassment and intimidation goes well beyond these interactions.
Recently, as part of the present investigation into harassment behaviour by Mr. Joyce and Mr. Kirby, I met
with Premier Ball and I expressed my concern over how negative comments such as the ones about
“getting out or there’s the door” are unwelcomed by many members in Caucus.
During his interview, MHA Holloway was asked for examples of comments or behaviour that he felt fell under the general
culture of harassment. He said that “for some others, sitting around caucus table, they think it’s ok to harass, bully people,
ok to have your thinking influence others at all costs.” He noted that after allegations of harassment were raised in the
House of Assembly by the opposition, an email was sent by Minister Kirby that said, “You better come forward.” He also

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 19

noted, “We go into a Caucus meeting the next day. They wanted to confiscate the phones. Graham Letto and Brian Warr
are saying cough up your phone. They want to know who’s talking to media. And I’m sitting there thinking that stuff in my
phone is between me and my constituents, go get a court order.” MHA Holloway said that he told Minister Kirby that he
could not believe that he sent the email the previous night “given the atmosphere right now, with people at table talking
about being harassed by another cabinet minister.”
MHA Holloway added, “Many days where I wished I didn’t even open my mouth, life would have been easier. I hope this is
a good investigation. I don’t wish anybody any ill will or harm. But I do expect people to be accountable for their actions.”
MHA Joyce’s response to the allegation
First, the Member denies the existence of a culture of harassment and intimidation within the Liberal Party
Caucus and he has not witnessed, experienced nor participated in any such conduct at any time, including
in the last 2’2 years or in the past six months. During caucus debates, he has observed that discussions can
be very animated and, sometimes, confrontational when MHAs advocate passionately, frankly and openly
on behalf of their constituents but, in the circumstances, this constitutes neither harassment nor
intimidation. Secondly, the Member has no knowledge of the “six incidents” to which the Complainant is
referring, nor of the persons involved and, therefore, is unable to comment upon the same, save and expect
to deny ever participating in such conduct. Thirdly, the Member has no knowledge of the alleged “recent”
meeting with the Premier to which the Complainant is referring and, therefore, is not able to comment
upon the same.
In terms of this category of allegations, even if a “culture of harassment and intimidation” existed, which
once again amounts to supposition as it is not supported by any evidence, the fact remains that as
Commissioner you have the statutory power to investigate and determine whether the Member failed to
comply with the Code of Conduct, and your determination of our client’s compliance or non¬compliance
with the Code of Conduct must be judged based solely on the evidence in support of the allegations made
against the Member personally and not based on the Complainant’s allegations against other named or
unnamed members relating to their conduct or in relation to the Liberal caucus generally.
For the reasons outlined above, the Member submits that Complainant’s allegation of a “culture of
harassment and intimidation” within the Liberal Caucus is not an allegation that the Member failed to
comply with the Code of Conduct, it is a general allegation of systematic issues which have no relevance to
the Member’s conduct. This general allegation, which once again amounts to supposition as it is not
supported by any evidence, is not an allegation made against the Member personally and therefore cannot
ground any determination by you that the Member failed to comply with the Code of Conduct.
Factual Findings- Culture of Harassment and Intimidation
In his written complaint, MHA Holloway did not identify under this heading any additional specific behaviours of MHA
Joyce that contributed to a culture of harassment or intimidation. When we met and I asked for examples, under this allegation MHA Holloway did not identify any specific actions of MHA Joyce and as such I make no findings relating to his
conduct.

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 20

Conclusions:
In summary, I have found MHA Joyce engaged in the following behaviour:
• Commented to MHA Holloway on several occasions with humourous intent, “Here he goes again, doesn’t
have anything to talk about other than his District,” when MHA Holloway tried to speak to him about local
issues.
• Used the word “fuck” with humourous intent when speaking to MHA Holloway, and on at least one occasion told him to “fuck off.”
• Called MHA Holloway on at least three occasions and sought his vote for MHA Trimper for Speaker.
The relevant sections of the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Assembly are as follows:
Code of Conduct
Commitments:
Members of this House of Assembly recognize that we are responsible to the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador and will responsibly execute our official duties in order to promote the human, environmental and
economic welfare of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Members of this House of Assembly respect the law and the institution of the Legislature and acknowledge
our need to maintain the public trust placed in us by performing our duties with accessibility, accountability,
courtesy, honesty and integrity.
Principles:
3) Members reject political corruption and refuse to participate in unethical political practices which tend
to undermine the democratic traditions of our province and its institutions.
4) Members will act lawfully and in a manner that will withstand the closest public scrutiny. Neither the
law nor this code is designed to be exhaustive and there will be occasions on which Members will find it
necessary to adopt more stringent norms of conduct in order to protect the public interest and to enhance
public confidence and trust.
5) Members will not engage in personal conduct that exploits for private reasons their positions or
authorities or that would tend to bring discredit to their offices.
11) Members should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
I have also considered specifically whether MHA Joyce engaged in behaviour that amounts to harassment. In doing so, I
have relied on a definition of harassment as objectionable or offensive behaviour that is known or ought reasonably to be
known to be unwelcome.
Regarding the comments of MHA Joyce, I note that his intent when making the comments is largely irrelevant in an analysis
as to whether or not the comments amount to harassment. I find, on their face, that such comments could be seen as

Commissioner for Legislative Standards

 21

objectionable and offensive comments to be made in a workplace, and in particular as a member of the House of
Assembly. That said, I also find that the comments were made at the tail end of a positive and supportive working
relationship between MHA Joyce and MHA Holloway, and MHA Holloway did not deny that he too used similar language
with MHA Joyce. As such I do not believe that MHA Joyce knew, or ought to have known, that his comments were
unwelcome by MHA Holloway. There is no suggestion that the comments persisted after MHA Holloway first raised his
complaint about MHA Joyce. As such, I do not believe that MHA Joyce harassed or bullied MHA Holloway in making these
comments.
I also do not believe that by calling MHA Holloway to discuss his vote for Speaker that MHA Joyce harassed him. I find that
such calls were part of the normal course leading up to the Speaker vote and I do not find that the calls were objectionable
or offensive. In fact, I believe that MHA Holloway engaged in similar behaviour in support of MHA Parsons.
Looking at the specific language of the Code of Conduct, all of the evidence presented, I do not find that the actions of
MHA Joyce towards MHA Holloway violate any of the excerpted sections above. Specifically, I do not believe that my
findings indicate unethical political practices or unlawful behavior by MHA Joyce that would undermine the public trust or
bring discredit to his office.
Accordingly, while I find that MHA Joyce engaged in some, but not all, of the behaviours alleged by MHA Holloway, I do not
conclude that his behaviour towards MHA Holloway, violated the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Assembly.

Commissioner for Legislative Standards