Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 7 April 2008 (46th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLVI No. 6)
2008-04-07
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
April 7, 2008
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVI No. 6
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: Today, the Chair would welcome members' statements from:
the hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North; the hon. the Member for
the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the
District of Exploits; the hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo &
LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland; and, the hon. the
Member for the District of Port de Grave.
The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to acknowledge the athletic achievements of the Senior Boys
Basketball Team from Lester Pearson Memorial High. The Astros, hailing from the
New-Wes-Valley area, recently captured the 3A regional title by defeating a very
capable team from Twillingate in the final game of the tournament.
The Astros are developing an impressive and certainly well deserved
reputation as being one of the finest basketball squads in the Province. This
year the team, coached by Mr. Bryan Green and Mr. Mike Tiller, has medaled on
six different occasions. This impressive run has seen the boys add three Gold
and three Silver medals to the school's impressive collection of sports
awards.
Basketball is a relatively new sport in the area, and the Astros' rapidly
developing program provides a clear indication of the true depth and breadth of
talent that exists in rural regions of our Province.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in
congratulating the Lester Pearson Astros on their tremendous achievements and
wishing them continued success in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse
au Clair.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in the House today to recognize two remarkable young men from the
District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. Michael Belben of L'Anse au Loup and
Mark Freake of Charlottetown were part of a group of twenty-seven students from
across Canada participating in a program called Global Vision Junior Team. This
group travelled on an economic trade mission promoting Canadian business
interests in Southeast Asia and visited the countries of Singapore, Malaysia and
Vietnam over a period of two weeks.
Mr. Speaker, these young people were looking to promote Canadian business
interests in Southeast Asia and seek out opportunities for Canadian investment
and do market analysis. During their time in Asia, they met with various
business leaders including the CEOs of Nortel Asia, Talisman Vietnam and
Manulife Asia, as well as government officials like the Canadian Ambassador to
Vietnam and the Canadian High Commissioner in Singapore and Malaysia. They also
took time out from their meetings to visit an Oxfam site near Hanoi, Vietnam, to
help the children.
These two young men come from communities in Labrador with populations of
less than 500 people, and yet ended up in some of the most diverse cultures in
the world promoting our country through presentations and networking. Mr.
Speaker, as their MHA, I am certainly impressed with their tremendous
accomplishments and I would like to commend both Michael and Mark for the great
representation they made on behalf of our Province and Canada while
participating in the Global Vision Junior Team Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to stand in
this House to congratulate the Flying Boat Festival International on receiving
the Ambassador of the Year Award for 2007 sponsored by the Exploits Valley
Economic Development Corporation.
This award is presented to a business or organization that has contributed
significantly to increasing the profile of the region throughout the Province or
Country.
The festival is a joint venture by the Towns of Botwood and Norris Arm, and
the 2007 celebrations marked the seventieth anniversary of the first successful
experimental Trans-Atlantic Commercial Flight between Botwood and Foynes,
Ireland.
Mr. Speaker, in 2007 visitors from all over the world visited the area and
the economic benefits to the entire region were very positive. Furthermore, the
American Bus Association also designated the festival as one of the association's
Top 100 events in North America for this year in 2008.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all member to join me in congratulating the Flying Boat
Festival Committee on their accomplishments.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo &
LaPoile.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize and congratulate Captain Leslie Cutler of Ramea on
his retirement from the Marine Transportation Services division of the
Department of Transportation and Works.
Captain Cutler has worked for over twenty-five years with the provincial
ferry service and he will be sorely missed. He has been very well respected by
his peers, his colleagues, and the travelling public.
In addition to his duties as Captain - most notably of the Gallipoli ,
which operates between Burgeo, Ramea and Grey River - Mr. Cutler has been
heavily involved in volunteer activities in his home community of Ramea.
He is currently a lay reader with the church, a volunteer fireman, a member
of the Ramea Community Co-op, a member of the Health Services Committee and head
of the Orangeman's Lodge in Ramea. He is married to the former Millie Pink and
they have two sons and one daughter.
There will be a retirement dinner for Captain Cutler at the Four Winds in
Ramea this evening where he will be honoured by his colleagues from the
Department of Transportation and Works, family and friends.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending
congratulations to Captain Leslie Cutler on his retirement. All the best to
Captain Cutler and his family, and I wish you many years of a healthy and happy
retirement.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize an individual from
my district who was chosen as one of Canada's Outstanding Principals for 2008,
and is only one of thirty-three from across Canada to receive this prestigious
honour. The awards are the initiative of the Learning Partnership, a national
non-profit organization dedicated to championing a strong public education
system in Canada. Canada's Outstanding Principals Program honours the
extraordinary contributions of the dynamic educational leaders in publicly
funded schools.
Mr. Jim Lynch is the Principal of Mobile Central High on the Southern Shore
and as well a former teacher of mine. I have experienced first hand his
dedication to his duties as a teacher and the mentoring role he plays for the
students of the past, and today.
The criteria for the selection of this award covered a wide spectrum of
personal characteristics which highlight the professionalism of this individual
and his commitment to the students, the school, and the contribution to the
region as a whole.
This award highlights individuals who are champions of a strong public
education system in Canada and honours the extraordinary contributions of
dynamic leaders.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege for me to congratulate Mr. Lynch for
the outstanding contribution he has made, and is making to the students, staff,
and the communities being served by Mobile Central High.
I ask all members to join with me in congratulating Mr. Lynch on his award
and wish him continued success at Mobile Central High.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On March 11, 2008, I paid tribute to Robert Slaney of Upper Island Cove, a
member of the Cape Breton Screaming Eagles Hockey Team, for being selected as
one of five finalists for the Marcel Robert Trophy Award.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce that Robert was the winner of the
coveted Award for Scholastic Player of the Year in the Quebec Major Junior
Hockey League. As winner, Robert received a grant of $500 and the Guy Lafleur
Student-Athlete Bursary of the Year for $6,000.
The next stage is set, Robert will compete against the winner of the Ontario
Hockey League and the Western Hockey League for the C.H.L. Scholastic Player of
the Year Award.
Mr. Speaker, with fifty-five points in sixty-four games, and excellent
classroom statistics, Robert Slaney is a force to be reckoned with on and off
the ice.
I ask all members to join me, along with Robert's parents and family, in
wishing him every success as he competes for the title of Canadian Hockey League
Scholastic Player of the Year.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in the hon. House today to inform my colleagues and the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador of the results of a recent Chilean aquaculture mission
that I participated in along with senior officials in my department.
The mission also included ministers and officials from the Governments of
Canada, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and British Columbia.
While in Chile, I had the opportunity to visit Aqua Sur, the largest
aquaculture trade show in the Southern Hemisphere and to attend a roundtable
with officials from the Government of Chile, where I was able to promote to the
Chileans the tremendous growth of our industry as well as its future potential.
The visit also included a tour of a number of farming sites and processing
facilities.
Mr. Speaker, Chile is the second largest producer and exporter of aquaculture
products in the world. At the present time, it is producing approximately 80,000
metric tons of mussels and well over 350,000 metric tons of salmon annually. The
Chilean industry employs approximately 45,000 people.
Given the size of the Chilean aquaculture sector, this mission provided a
tremendous opportunity to explore the challenges that are associated with the
rapid development of a successful and sustainable aquaculture industry, as well
as the solutions to such challenges.
This is very timely for Newfoundland and Labrador as we are currently
experiencing a very rapid expansion of our own aquaculture sector. In five short
years, the production and value of our industry has more than doubled.
A key objective during the visit was to explore best practices as it relates
to fish health, an area where Chile has experienced some challenges. However, it
became clear during the mission that the Chilean industry is certainly learning
to overcome those challenges.
Mr. Speaker, our deliberations in Chile confirmed that our own fish health
initiatives, including a $4.3 million Aquatic Veterinary Diagnostic Facility,
are very strategic at this point in our development and that, in terms of fish
health and environmental sustainability, we are keeping pace with our own
expansion.
The mission also highlighted a key advantage of our Province in terms of
market access. While Chile enjoys a very large scale production, its
geographical location makes it very difficult for that country to export fresh
product into key markets such as Europe and the North Eastern United States.
Given our proximity to both, it is increasingly clear that the export of
fresh seafood into these markets provides Newfoundland and Labrador with a
significant competitive edge.
Mr. Speaker, the mission to Chile was a very successful one. My department
has approached the provincial industry representatives who travelled to Chile
regarding a follow-up meeting to discuss how we can take the lessons of our
visit and apply them directly to our continued strategic development in
aquaculture.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement
today.
Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the minister and his officials had a
successful mission to Chile to look at the aquaculture industry. We certainly
realize and understand that aquaculture is a very important entity of the
fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think last year it had an
export value of about $40 million and it is contributing to employment in rural
communities throughout this Province and contributing to new opportunities in
the fishing industry. We want to see it successful and we want to see it grow.
Mr. Speaker, an integral part of that is ensuring that is has a strong
marketing division and being able to sell our product and export our product
anywhere in the world. I guess I want to ask the minister: Has there been any
progress made in establishing a new marketing arm for the fishing industry in
this Province? As you know, with the dismantling of Fishery Products
International, we saw one of the best marketing arms that we had in this
Province practically disappear. That needs to be replaced. We need a
strengthening division there, and hopefully, government is making some progress
on that end.
The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is we support the fact of having a good top
value product, ensuring that our products are one of the best that we put in the
marketplace. We understand that a lot is happening in the sealing industry today
and the depreciation of some of the seal pelts is due to the fact that we have
not had the best possible quality that we could have been producing in
Newfoundland and Labrador. We are going to move to correct that this year in
that industry and I think that needs to be the norm throughout all industries,
whether it is aquaculture or whether it is some other aspect of the fishing
industry such as the sealing industry.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister
for the advance copy of his statement.
I, too, am encouraged by the minister and members of his department going as
far afield as Chile to see what is happening in that country when it relates to
aquaculture. The more that we can learn about aquaculture, the better.
We do know that in some parts of Canada there have been some adverse events
with regard to aquaculture, so I encourage the minister and I am sure he is
to be in touch with those events as well, and circumstances where
aquaculture has run into problems.
I notice in the report that was released in February by the Minister of
Environment, and I think jointly with the Minister of Fisheries, the report
issue scans of selective coastal and ocean areas of Newfoundland and Labrador,
there is concern raised, especially in the Coast of Bays area, with regard to
aquaculture, and concern especially with regard to the ability of road
infrastructure, waste management infrastructure, and existing support industries
to support their growing aquaculture industry. So, I do encourage the minister
to look to the reality of what is happening in our Province, too, and make sure
that we have adequate assessments done, especially environmental assessments,
with regard to the aquaculture industry, but I do support what you are doing.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.
The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to acknowledge
the valuable role that the Community Youth Network, or CYN, plays in helping
youth succeed in our Province. Our government is firmly committed to expanding
services for young people and to building capacity at the community level in
support of our provincial Poverty Reduction Strategy.
In keeping with the goals of the strategy, the CYN helps address the need to
decrease barriers to education and employment, and improve the quality of life
for our young people. The organization continues to grow. Today, the CYN
provides a positive and nurturing experience for over 14,000 young people in
this Province, and now serves forty-eight communities directly while providing
outreach to youth living in another forty-five communities across the Province.
Last year, government provided an additional $650,000 to expand the CYN to
young people in the communities and areas of Cape Broyle, Bonavista, St.
Lawrence, Grand Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook and St. Anthony.
Mr. Speaker, the CYN approach is built on partnership. There are over 200
working partnerships with community-based organizations throughout the Province.
They assist each local CYN in the development and delivery of meaningful
programs and services for youth.
The Youth at Promise Challenge Program is a successful example of a CYN
partnership with Choices for Youth and several other agencies. This nationally
and internationally recognized program re-engages youth who have not completed
high school. It offers an innovative group teaching approach to meet the
academic needs of participants while addressing the personal and social
challenges they face outside the classroom.
The work of the CYN is important as it provides local access to learning,
career and employment services, leadership, and community capacity building
opportunities. As well, it offers an important social and recreational outlet
for young people. It is a youth-centered approach. This means that young people
are strongly encouraged to contribute their time, their insight and their energy
to ensure that the programs they receive remain relevant in meeting their
specific needs.
Going forward, this government will continue to work hard to ensure that
young people are given every opportunity to succeed, to feel valued, and to have
realistic choices regarding their future. The CYN is an excellent avenue to
foster and encourage youth engagement within our communities, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and to say
that the Opposition, I can assure you, want to acknowledge as well the wonderful
work done by the Community Youth Network to see that barriers that some of our
young people do encounter here in the Province are lessened for them.
We also want to say congratulations to the government, I guess, on extending
additional funding so that other communities -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BUTLER: There is nothing like a standing ovation, Mr. Speaker.
I want to congratulate government once again - seeing I heard it that way -
on the expansion of this wonderful project to other communities throughout our
Province, and to say that we would be remiss if we did not recognize the
wonderful volunteers. We can have the organization, we can have the government
funding, but we need the volunteers out there to help us make many projects -
not only this one, Mr. Speaker - successful throughout our Province.
Having said that, I agree with the minister in his final statement where he
says that the opportunity is there for success for them, and hope that better
choices can be made for the future. I guess our only hope and prayer is that
their choices will be made, and they will be able to obtain them right here in
our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister for his advanced copy and congratulate him on the
work that his department is doing with the Community Youth Network and the
organizations that are part of that network. The minister and I both know that a
major issue, especially here in St. John's, when not only is the issue of
housing for the youth - while these programs that are outlined here are
excellent, we also have to worry about the basic needs.
I encourage the minister to continue working with groups like Choices for
Youth in looking at solutions so that young people have permanent places to put
their heads down at night so then they can take advantage of these kinds of
academic programs and programs that further their education that the minister is
supporting.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?
Oral Questions.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today my questions are all related to the faulty ER/PR testing and the
details that are unfolding around the Cameron Inquiry.
My first question, Mr. Speaker, the Province has been riveted by the
testimony and other news coming out of the Cameron Inquiry, and I am sure the
Premier has been kept up to speed on all of the details in his absence in the
last week. So, Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Premier.
Have you, Premier, received a subpoena compelling your testimony at the
inquiry at this stage?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, if I might ask yourself, and
Opposition, if there are going to be several questions here, if we can have some
extended time for answers and extended time for questions, if necessary, because
of the importance of this matter, I would ask if that is okay?
The other thing is my preference would be, quite frankly, not to discuss this
matter at all because it is before the inquiry, but because of the importance to
the patients, their families, and the issues, then I am certainly quite prepared
to discuss them, as far as I can go.
In answer to your question, I do not think I have formally received a
subpoena but I have certainly been asked to testify and have actually, in fact,
appeared before commission council three months ago and gave them my full
testimony at the time.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Before I recognize the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier has
asked for extra time to answer questions, and I guess the same can be said for
asking the questions. The Speaker, as a servant of the House, will take guidance
from the House. If that is agreeable to all members present, then we can allow
for the questions to be asked and ample time given without trying to stay within
the forty-five second time limit. I seek guidance.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we certainly have no question with anyone
on the other side taking an extended period to give an answer. In view of such
importance, as well, we have extensive questions. So maybe the government would
consider extending Question Period if we need to ask our questions.
It is one thing to ask the question, an answer might take ten minutes, and we
do not want to circumvent Question Period either. So in the interest of fairness
to all hands, maybe we could agree that if it takes longer than the usual thirty
minutes, we would certainly go along with that, by all means. That is not to say
it is contingent upon extending Question Period. We just ask for the same
courtesy.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, in terms of an extension to Question Period,
that is another issue which we can deal with at the appropriate time. For now, I
think there is an understanding that if questions are a bit longer than normal
and if answers are a bit longer than normal, then there is an agreement that
Your Honour will take under advisement, I guess, the fact that both sides of the
House have concurred in that happening.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My next question to the Premier: Was your office advised in July 2005, as
your former Minister of Health and Community Services has indicated, and if so,
were you also advised as the head of the government?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: In July of 2005 - the nineteenth or twentieth of July,
2005 - the date of the e-mails, my office, the Premier's office, was advised
and some of my staff were actually advised of the issue. I personally was not
advised at that time.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume then, from previous questions in
the House of Assembly, that the Premier was first advised in October of 2005.
Mr. Speaker, that was eighteen months before any documents were filed in the
courts regarding the matter.
So my question to the Premier is: Why did you or your government not take the
lead and bring information forward to the public during that eighteen-month
period?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, for the record - I just want
to make sure I am very clear. When I am saying I was not advised, I am saying I
was not advised by the Department of Health or any officials in the Department
of Health. My office was advised, and officials in my office were advised.
I cannot remember, I have no recollection whatsoever of any conversation
between myself and any of my senior officials, whether my director of
communications, my chief of staff, with regard to that matter at that time.
Having said that, as Premier of the Province, and as head of that office and
as head of government, I take full responsibility for any messages or
communications that come to that office or to any of my staff. Now, the fact
that I cannot remember it does not mean it did not happen. What I am saying,
from my knowledge, absolutely, honestly, sincerely, I have no recollection and
cannot remember any conversation on that particular matter.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I guess for me, this is the same competent staff I
think that the Premier talked about giving raises to just a year ago. Now we are
learning they did not pass this information along, to his recollection.
Just to ask the question again. If you did find out in October of that year,
2005, that was eighteen months before this issue broke open in a major way in
the public, again, I ask: Why did government not take a lead and bring the
information forward to the public?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out - and I am sure it is
not lost on the hon. members opposite - is that this is about the patients, the
victims, their families, their care, their past care, present care and future
care.
When we called the inquiry we wanted to make sure that questions were
answered, that they got basically to the bottom of it, that everything that was
available was disclosed to the inquiry so that the commission could make
findings, to make sure that these troubled victims had answers for what went
wrong, those certainly who were impacted in any way whatsoever, and also to give
the public an assurance that on a go-forward basis we were going to have the
best system that was possible, that we certainly could afford to the best of our
ability. That is why the inquiry was called.
What is happening - and that inquiry should be allowed to take its course. It
should be allowed to go the process so that instead of plucking out one-tenth or
one-fifth of the evidence and trying to sort of draw conclusions on that and lay
blame - which the Opposition is starting to engage in. It is unfortunate. I have
great respect for the hon. members opposite but the media are also playing a
game. Last week, CBC, for example, basically had a question as: What do the
public think, and who is to blame for this problem? Now, what kind of
irresponsible reporting is that, at 20 per cent through an inquiry to talk about
who is to blame at this stage of the game? They asked if politicians were to
blame or physicians were to blame. A ridiculous question!
Then, building on the eighteen-month issue, my office was notified in July.
In October there was something on the CBC Web site, I think there was a story on
NTV, and there was a story in The Independent , it kind of laid this out
and made it a public issue. Shortly after that there were ads taken out, I think
in local newspapers or publications whereby this was very, very much a public
issue. The hon. member now is trying to imply that myself, or the minister, or
my government sat on information for eighteen months that would affect the
health of people in this Province. Well, I can tell you quite sincerely, I can
tell the hon. member opposite, and I can tell the people in this Province, that
I, or nobody in my government, under any circumstances, would attempt to conceal
or prevent the disclosure of information that would affect the health of people
in this Province. I mean that sincerely.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Now, to take that a step further, Mr. Speaker, the
national news last week - and I received a call on this - the national news,
last week, Peter Mansbridge, in his opening story, talked about - and I have the
quote here somewhere. The National - I am just going to read you this paragraph,
and I shake when I speak about this because it annoys me so much, and we have
asked the CBC for a retraction of this: It is an astonishing admission from
someone once in charge of the public's health. John Ottenheimer was the Health
Minister in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2005. Today he told a judicial inquiry
that he knew there were serious issues with breast cancer testing years before
the public did; yet, he remained silent. What's more, the Premier's office
knew it too.
So, the rest of this country thinks that John Ottenheimer, the Premier's
office and this government, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, sat on
vital information and hid information from people for two years when, in fact,
the time limit that is even in question here is less than three months.
The Leader of the Opposition herself is talking in terms of eighteen months.
Nothing is further from the truth, and I think that does a great disservice to
the people who have been affected by this wrongful testing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I think first of all it is important for me to
point out that this inquiry was not a revelation of the government but rather,
Mr. Speaker, we pushed for this in the House of Assembly. We asked questions on
several different dates, in this House. We had a private member's motion here
forcing the government's hand to go out and support and launch a public
inquiry. So, first of all, I want to clarify that for the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, irregardless of the fact that Eastern Health may have taken out
an ad in the paper, irregardless of the fact that there might have been an
article in a newspaper - and let me just say the articles that were there,
government did not respond to those articles; it was articles responded to by
officials at Eastern Health saying the situation was under control -
notwithstanding that, the fact remains that government did have access to
information for a period of eighteen months and had an obligation, in my
opinion, to make that information known to the public.
Again, I ask the question: Why did this government not do so?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: There are issues here of patients' stress, patients'
health, patient confidentiality, and government and health care department and
health care officials have to be very, very careful to make sure that they do
not violate those personal privileges and go out talking about diseases or
problems or illnesses that people have. Government has to be very, very careful
how it handles the information.
You need to look at the context back. The e-mail that was disclosed last week
indicates that when the Department of Health actually notified the Premier's
office, within hours in the same day, it came back with an e-mail that said, no
action required, that the publication of this will be actually minimal or
minimized.
So, in fact, there was a stand-down order, a stand-down statement, that came
from the Department of Health that this issue was being dealt with internally.
Now, from another perspective, as you go to October, the assurance that was
given to government by Eastern Health through the minister and the minister
at the time would have to speak to this was that testing had stopped; that,
in fact, retesting had been done, it was started back in May, or the May-June
period; that, in fact, testing locally had stopped; that any new testing was
going to be done at Mount Sinai, which we consider to be one of the best
institutions in the country, to perform that; that present testing was going to
be done there, future testing in the short term would be done there, and past
tests would be re-tested at Mount Sinai.
So, government and government officials of the Department of Health, through
Eastern Health, had the assurance that this matter was being taken care of, and
at the same time were receiving advice from doctors who were treating these
victims not to put them under any duress or put them under any strain.
In addition, we have not chosen, and will not do so and are not doing so,
attempting to place any blame on other governments. As Premier of this Province,
if this government has done anything wrong, or any of my ministers have done
anything wrong, providing it is not criminal, then I will stand up, as head of
this Province, and accept full responsibility on their behalf, on behalf of my
government, for their actions or actions of officials or actions of people down
the line, and will also be prepared to stand up on behalf of former premiers,
Premier Grimes, Premier Tobin or Premier Tulk, and their governments, for any
actions that happened on their watch if, in fact, government is wrong; because
these patients and these victims have a right to know that someone is accepting
responsibility, at the end of the day, for what has happened to them. They need
to have that assurance. They need to know that.
The hon. member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, knows that in 2003 a
letter which I presented to this House, within hours of actually receiving it,
disclosed to this House a letter from Dr. Ejeckam, who is a doctor in the lab
over there, who basically gave a letter to Eastern Health that said,
"Diagnosis based on inappropriate immunostain will surely jeopardize
patient care" now, this is in 2003; this was before this government
came into power "and may even expose (HealthCare Corp. of St. John'
s) to litigation. Therefore, it will be ill advised to operate an unreliable and
erratic immunohistochemical procedure in our laboratory."
A clear warning to that government - not to that government, necessarily -
that there was a problem there. At the same time that doctor closed that lab for
five weeks, approximately five weeks, so that laboratory was actually closed
down and he put on the record his concerns.
You were in Cabinet at that time. I do not blame you for not knowing that,
under any circumstances, and if that was not conveyed to you or to your
government - and you were the Minister of Fisheries at the time - but if that
was not conveyed to your government, or to your Cabinet, or to your Premier,
then he or any of the members in there are not responsible because they simply
did not know.
These problems were happening then. These problems go all the way back to
1997, when the Tobin government was in. This is a communal problem that we are
trying to deal with, but it is not appropriate to turn around - like CBC are
trying to do - and say who is to blame a few weeks into an inquiry. Let's go
through this process. Let's get to the bottom of it. Let's find out what it
is.
The people who were there along the way are dealing with it and trying to
handle a problem that they did not cause, that they did not want to happen. I
can certainly give you my assurance, on behalf of this government, that nobody
is covering up information, under any circumstance, particularly that would
affect the health of these patients.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I do want to respond to the point that the Premier
has made with regard to the letter from the laboratory to Eastern Health. It is
important to point out that correspondence, to my knowledge, was never forwarded
to the government at the time, in 2003, and not to the Ministry of Health and
therefore not to the Cabinet, and there was absolutely no way that we could have
been aware of an internal memo that circulated between the laboratory and the
officials at Eastern Health.
Mr. Speaker, getting back to my questions, the Premier has said that they
have taken the advice of professionals in making their decision in terms of what
they would reveal to the public. I guess we also know that the Premier is on
record as saying that any time the boards in this Province make decisions that
do not sit in the best interest of the public then they are prepared to overrule
it.
I guess, Mr. Speaker, my question is: What makes this case any different in
terms of overruling the decisions and the advice of Eastern Health than it does
with any other board?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: First of all, Mr. Speaker, you cannot compare the
closing of a school and relate it to busing issues as being comparable to
life-and-death issues for people with cancer.
Having said that, in this particular issue, it is my understanding of the
legality of this, and I think it has been changed according to recent
legislation, that government did not have a clear legal authority to overrule or
tell boards what to do. Having said that, you and I know - and I was speaking to
the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite - that if government disagrees
with a position that a board is taking, it, even if it does not have a legal
authority to do so, can express its displeasure about that situation or suggest
that another alternative should be done. Boards will often follow that
direction, but in this particular it is my understanding that there was no
legal authority, at that time, to tell the health board what to do.
Notwithstanding that, though, if, in fact, we felt that something was
seriously wrong and we had all of the information, it would not be unusual for
us to say to that board: Look, I think there might be an issue here; there might
be something wrong. But, it goes back to what you said: What did we know? What
were we told? What were we being told? What information was being provided to us
by Eastern Health?
You are saying that your government did not have notice of the Ejeckam letter
that went to Eastern Health Board. I believe you, I believe you clearly on that,
but a laboratory was closed down over in that hospital for five weeks on the
basis that a doctor in charge of that laboratory had serious concerns about
patient care and safety. So, again, we have to look at what information was
being provided to the Premier's office, to the Minister of Health, to the
Deputy Minister of Health and to health officials by the Eastern Health Board.
These are the kind of things that that inquiry and Madam Justice Cameron is
going to get to the bottom of and is going to find out and find out where the
communication broke down; where, in fact, information was filtered, or where, in
fact, incomplete information was not provided. We can only make decisions and
draw conclusions on the basis of the information that is provided to us, and we
all do that to the best of our ability.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, the difference here is that
your former Minister of Health and Community Services, John Ottenheimer, has
stated on the witness stand that he had the information, wanted it to be public
and was prepared to release the information each day, but no one asked him. That
is the difference, I say to you, Premier.
So this, do not ask, do not tell: Is this a policy of your government, or was
this just a case where a minister did not know his legal responsibilities as a
Cabinet minister and answer to the public in that way?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I cannot speak for Mr. Ottenheimer, but Mr. Ottenheimer
is a lawyer and Mr. Ottenheimer knows the parameters of his responsibilities.
Mr. Ottenheimer - according to what I have been told, I did not hear it directly
because I was not here to hear the testimony - has indicated that his preference
was to go public. This matter was not discussed with me so I cannot discuss any
conversation or communication that I had with John Ottenheimer on this because
we simply did not have one.
Having said that, he says, though, he also relied on the greater evidence
from the medical profession and from the doctors and from his health care
officials that said we should not go public with this now because it will either
cause - I do not know his exact words - duress, or hardship, or stress, or
anxiety on the patients.
If, in fact, a treating doctor said to me that you will affect the health of
my client if you disclose to the public tomorrow that this is a big issue and he
or she will have serious adverse health effects because of that, I would have to
very, very seriously consider whether I would go public under those
circumstances. As I understand it, that is the decision that John Ottenhemier
had to make.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand that there may have been
concern about fear and stress and anxiety in patients, but I also remember very
clearly the statements of your current Minister of Health in terms of what the
legal obligations or legal fall-out of this information could be for government,
as well, in his comments that he stated in the House of Assembly on May 16,
Mr. Speaker, we know already that under the lead of Minister Ottenheimer, the
Department of Health did inform officials in the Premier's office of the
issue. On March 15, 2006, Tom Osborne took over the portfolio as Minister of
Health and Community Services. Did he, as the minister, bring this issue to your
attention, or to the officials in your office?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: That is a question - he certainly did not in March or
around that time. That is a question I would have to check and have to get an
answer for you, as to whether he did communicate that to officials in my office.
That is something I have not actually looked at under any circumstances.
MS JONES: (Inaudible).
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Oh, to me, personally? In what time frame?
MS JONES: After he became minister in March of 2006.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: I would say at some time after he became minister in
March, he talked to me about this. I cannot tell you an exact time. I would have
to go back and see if I can retrace the records.
One thing I do want to mention, as well, with regard to the legal action, you
have indicated Mr. Wiseman has indicated this is more of a legal issue. I do not
want the public to think that there was suppression of information here because
the lawyers had told us to do so.
Let me tell you something, I can speak, certainly on my own behalf and
members of Cabinet, of specific experience. Minister Kennedy there, and myself,
have acted for the wrongfully convicted, of victims, oppressed people who have
claims against hospitals, insurance companies, whatever reason that they have
been wronged, people who have had something negligent done to them, and we act
on their behalf. Part of, I guess, a frustration through the years would be
getting to the bottom of things and trying to find out information.
We, and this government, and myself, would be the last ones in the world who
would try and suppress key evidence to help out an insurance company. I can tell
you that straight from the heart. In fact, that is a big reason as well, why
this Ejeckam letter was put out there. So that Mr. Crosbie and these victims
would know that this letter existed and that they would have that to rely on,
that the people in the system knew there was something wrong and they did not
correct it quick enough.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier, when you are able
to, provide the dates that you would have been briefed on this by Minister
Osborne at the time, or your officials.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely.
Mr. Speaker, there either was a briefing note provided to me in August of
2006, which came from the Department of Health.
The other thing I need to put in context for hon. members opposite and the
public: I have asked our office to see if they could determine the number of
transactions, communications, interviews, briefings and contacts that get made
with our office in the run of a year. Over 125,000 e-mails, phone calls,
communications, briefing notes, meetings and interviews happen every year on the
8th Floor. Now, that needs to be put in perspective so people can get some
understanding of the volume of communications that actually happen.
This doesn't count phone calls that are not recorded. I don't mean
recorded in the sense of tape recorded, I mean written down and saying, Mary
Smith called, you call her back; and any other conversations that happen with
anybody in the office that are simply not recorded, are not written down. That
is the magnitude of the number of transactions that take place in the office and
I think people need to be able to put that into perspective, when somebody is
trying to recall what happened on July 19, 2005 in that atmosphere.
I happened to find out today, or it might have been yesterday, that on that
particular morning, for example, I was at Clayton Forsey's swearing in at
Government House. Now, if you had to ask me what date Clayton Forsey was sworn
in, with all due respect to the Member for Exploits I wouldn't have been able
to remember that date. I would not have been able to say it was on that Tuesday
morning.
We have to be fair here and things have to be put in perspective when people
are trying to recollect and recall specific instances and specific discussions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly appreciate where the Premier is coming from. There are many dates
that I don't remember specifically as well, but I guess my question is, during
the period of time that individuals held offices as Cabinet ministers in your
government. That is what I am looking for.
On January 19, 2007, Ross Wiseman was appointed as the Minister of Health and
Community Services. Did he, as a minister, during that period of time following
his appointment, bring this issue to your attention, or did it not become a
major part of discussion between you and his department until the spring of
2007?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: My best recollection of that would be that it did not
become an issue between myself and Mr. Wiseman until the spring of 2007, and the
same with Minister Osborne for that matter.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, would like to address a couple of questions to the Premier.
Premier, your former Minister of Health, John Ottenheimer, I think has been
very forthright in letting the Commission know, and the people of the Province
know, that he really did want disclosure. He wanted disclosure both in a public
way and also to the patients, and he has spoken very strongly about his concern
about the patients. We have also heard during the short time that the Commission
has been sitting, that there were patients who had great difficulty in getting
their results, and some who never did get directly informed by Eastern Health
about the change in their breast cancer results.
I am wondering, once you did learn about this - which you have told the House
was in October of that year, 2005 - did you and Mr. Ottenheimer ever discuss
together his major concern, and how his department was monitoring that
information getting out to patients? because, obviously, it did not get out
adequately.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: If I can put that in context, the last information
which my office had received was the briefing note which indicated that no
action was required. That comes up on a lot of briefing notes, and quite often
there are matters that come up at our office that appear to be a firestorm in a
very short period of time and then just die out and within an hour, within the
end of the day, more information is gleaned and the issues do not come back any
more.
On this particular issue there was no action required and there was a clear
indication that it was probably going to be minimal, anyway, at the end of the
day. From that time on there were no discussions, and there were not any
discussions between myself and John Ottenheimer on this matter.
With regard - and only Minister Ottenheimer can speak to this, but - with
regard to his decision not to go public, it is my understanding - and you have
heard his evidence and I have not, or I assume you have - that he basically said
it was his preference to go public but he decided not to. He never came to me
and said: Premier, do you think I should go public on this? Do you think it
would be wise to go public? I have serious concerns it should go public.
I think that Minister Ottenheimer made a conscious decision based on the fact
that he had medical advice which was coming to him, and advice from his
officials that was saying we should not do this because this could affect people's
health.
Now, that is a judgement call that Minister Ottenheimer made. If that was the
right thing to do or the wrong thing to do, someone will decide that. At the end
of the day, as a government, if Minister Ottenheimer made an error in judgement,
we will take responsibility for that - I will take responsibility for that - but
it was a weighted decision, a weighed decision, a decision, I think, that he
considered and he decided, on balance, that he would not do that. As a matter of
fact, like I said, he didn't come to me on it, either, to discuss it, so.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Just for clarification, Premier, are you saying that even
once you learned about this in October, 2005, that you and the minister never,
ever, discussed it together either?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: No, there was no discussion.
The main issue was the article, of course, that appeared in the Independent,
and at that particular point in time we received - I think it was the day after,
I received, or a couple of days after, I received - a briefing note, on October
5, and that briefing note basically indicated that tests had been done; there
was some improper testing but things were being retested; that this was
basically in good hands, in the good hands of Eastern Health and the medical
profession; that, in fact, people were being tested now safely; that testing had
been terminated on a temporary basis at the Health Sciences; that retesting was
being done; that people were being notified. This was really about the patient
care, then.
Our focus was on making sure that the patients were being taken care of, that
they were getting the proper results; because, in fact, when this first broke we
did not know even at that stage whether, in fact, the tests were right or wrong,
so they had to be actually retested to verify whether what was being discovered
at the Health Sciences was accurate or not.
Then they had to be retested, Mount Sinai had to come back with accurate
results, and that had to be conveyed to the patients. Otherwise, you could go to
a patient and say, we think your test might be wrong when, in fact, with some of
them, they were not wrong. Therefore, you are creating alarm and creating
concern.
The clear impression that was being given through the
article and through the
briefing note was that this matter was certainly under control and was being
handled, and certainly no action was required from us.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: I just really want to be clear, Premier, and if this is not a
normal thing then I would like to have you speak to it.
Are you telling us, then, that this did not even come to the Cabinet table,
that something of this magnitude did not get discussed at the Cabinet table
even? Is so, is that a usual thing? I have never been at a Cabinet table.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER WILLIAMS: No, this did not come to the Cabinet table at that
particular point. (Inaudible) to the Cabinet table until, in fact, it arose in
the spring of 2007, so it had not come to my attention as Premier. The matter
was under control within a department.
There are thousands of matters that get handled by each department over the
course of a month, or over the course of a year, by ministers. They are the
managers and they handle those departments themselves. Despite the opinion by
some people that this might be a one-man show - which has been termed - in fact,
these ministers are managers of their department and they are delegated with the
authority to run their own departments. They, in fact, did this, and we were
assured that things were being done right.
Now, even recently, over the course since this broke in May of 2007, numbers
kept changing so Eastern Health were providing new information. Then, when it
became a public issue, alarm set in by everybody because, in fact, we were
realizing that these numbers continue to change and they are not the exact
numbers that were given to us in the first place.
I have to rely on the information that is given to me by the experts. I am
not an engineer; I am a lawyer. I have some sense, possibly, of what the legal
issues are. I certainly do not know all of them, and do not profess to be an
expert on all of them, but particularly with medical issues and health care
issues, I mean, there is terminology in some of the briefing notes and some of
the reports that I do not even understand. I can put them in context, of course,
and obviously get an appreciation for them, but with health care issues,
specialized areas, we have to rely on the advice that is being given to us by a
group of doctors.
As well, there is another issue here: a peer review had been done. On that
briefing note it indicated that a peer review, in fact, had been done and the
results were going to be provided at some point in time.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a question again for the Premier.
Robert Thompson, who is a senior civil servant, was Clerk of the Executive
Council in 2005. He managed government's messages on the ER-PR issue as the
Deputy Minister of the Department of Health and Community Services after John
Abbott was fired from that position. Now he is in charge of government's
interest in the inquiry. He is the top guy, determining what e-mails and what
information is to be submitted, and has been also subpoenaed to testify at the
Cameron inquiry.
I ask the Premier: Is his appointment affecting the confidence that people
have in an open process when you have an individual like this, in my opinion,
who is in a conflict of interest and yet he is managing the information going
forward by government?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER WILLIAMS: The hon. Leader of the Opposition knows Mr. Thompson.
Members of the Opposition - some members of the Opposition - have worked with
Mr. Thompson. He was a senior public servant, a Clerk for Cabinet, again the
highest public servant. He is a very ethical person. He has, in my opinion, an
impeccable reputation. I spoke to that in this House when he was appointed. He
is, in my opinion, singularly the very best person that we could possibly put in
this position in order to assemble information, to put the information together,
to provide it for the Commission.
I hope - and I am not implying this - I hope the member is not insinuating
under any circumstances that he would be withholding any information or not
providing any information because he is in conflict and he may be trying to do
it in the best interest of this government; because, I can assure you, to the
best of my knowledge and based upon my appreciation and understanding and my
personal value of this individual, he is doing a tremendous service to the
people of this Province by having him there. He has had all the experience; he
is a former Deputy Minister of Health. He knows how government works. He is
probably the single best person right now in the Province who has a complete
grasp of all of those issues and can figure out on a go-forward basis how we can
make sure that this does not happen again.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
The time allotted for question and answers has expired.
Before the Chair calls Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees,
the Chair would like to ask members for their co-operation.
Realizing that this has been a little bit of a different Question Period and
that we have allowed members unprogrammed time to ask and answer questions, I
would like to remind members that it is unparliamentary to read from newspaper
ads, to read from letters, while asking or answering questions.
I would also like to ask members for their co-operation in referring to their
colleagues in the House. This has been happening ever since the Forty-Sixth
General Assembly has sat, and while we have not brought anybody's attention to
it with maiden speeches by members - but I ask members for their co-operation.
When they refer to sitting members of the House, refer to either the executive
position where they sit or by the district that they represent. It is certainly
unparliamentarily, not only in this Legislature but in all Parliaments of Canada
and in the United Kingdom, to refer to members by their maiden name. I say to
members, when it happens in the future the Chair will rise and ask members for
their co-operation.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: A point of order, I guess - not technically a point of order
but certainly a comment in that regard, Mr. Speaker.
I take it you are referencing the Leader of the Opposition used the name Ross
Wiseman. If that is indeed the name you are referring to, the only reason it is
mentioned - not to show any disrespect for the rules of this House, nor to Mr.
Wiseman. The reason it is mentioned is because in this particular issue we are
discussing here we have had, I believe, three different Ministers of Health and
Community Services, and to make sure the public are aware of whom exactly the
questions are referencing, and the person answering the question can respond
appropriately. That is the only reason we are mentioning the persons name. Other
than that - again, it is a name. It is never referring to it in any disrespect
to the House.
MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for his contribution, but the
minister he referred to can be referred to as the present Minister of Health and
Community Services. There is no reason whatsoever to refer to any sitting member
here by their Christian names. I ask members for their co-operation.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. WISEMAN: Last time we sat, Mr. Speaker, there was a question in the
House from the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, with respect to voluntary
agreements from Child, Youth and Family Services. I said I would gather the
information and table it in the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN: Am I on the wrong call?
MR. SPEAKER: I have not called that particular heading yet, I say to the
hon. Minister of Health and Community Services.
The headings that have been called is Presenting Reports by Standing and
Select Committees, and the Tabling of Documents.
Tabling of Documents
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to stand and, according to subsection
52 of the House of Assembly Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act,
table the members' handbooks and the rules manual as all members have received
in the past. This manual is now tabled within the House of Assembly. I ask the
Pages to put the manual on the Clerk's desk, please, for observation.
The Speaker would also like to table a list of reports and documents deemed
tabled when the House is not in session. Those particular documents number
approximately 100, and it is for the time period of March 24, 2008 to April 4,
2008. I ask the Page if he would make this available as well, please.
Further tabling of documents?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I finally got the right spot.
As I was saying earlier, Mr. Speaker -
MR. RIDEOUT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, if my colleague is hoping to get in the spot
which has to deal with answers to questions for which notice has been given, my
understanding is before that Your Honour has to call Notices of Motion, and
Notices of Motion has not yet been called. I would think that my colleague will
have to continue to warm his seat for another minute or two.
MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring
Allowances Act. (Bill 8)
Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that I will move that the House resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to Consider a Resolution Relating
to the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty. (Bill 13)
Mr. Speaker, I further give notice that will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act Respecting A Licensee Levy.
(Bill 18)
And further, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will move that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider A Resolution Relating
To Advancing Or Guaranteeing Of Certain Loans Made Under The Loan And Guarantee
Act, 1957. (Bill 19)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006. (Bill 9)
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Lobbyists Registration Act. (Bill 14)
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act. (Bill 17)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to
introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Repeal The Bulk Sales Act. (Bill 10)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a
bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act. (Bill 12)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce
a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St.
John's Act And The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 15)
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, I give notice
that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend
The Forestry Act. (Bill 16)
Mr. Speaker, I also give notice that I will ask leave to introduce the
following resolution: A resolution respecting the appointment of an Information
and Privacy Commissioner.
Be It Resolved by the House of Assembly as follows:
Whereas
section 42(1) of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy
Act provides that the Information and Privacy Commissioner is to be appointed by
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on resolution of the House of Assembly;
Therefore
Be It Resolved that Mr. Ed Ring be appointed as the Information and
Privacy Commissioner.
I think that is the extent of the notices, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice pursuant to Standing Order 63(3) of our Private Member's
Motion of the Opposition to be dealt with this coming Wednesday. I would read it
is moved by the current Member of the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair,
seconded by the current Member for the District of Burgeo & Lapoile. It
reads as follows:
Whereas nurses are currently in negotiations with the provincial government
on a new contract; and
Whereas nurses in this Province are the lowest paid in the entire country;
and
Whereas there is a nursing shortage in our Province and little success has
been achieved to address recruitment and retention issues; and
Whereas previous nursing shortages were cyclical, the current shortage is
structural in nature characterized by such things as an aging nursing workforce
and fierce market competition; and
Whereas job stress and dissatisfaction are driving nurses to leave the
profession in record numbers;
Therefore
Be It Resolved that this House of Assembly calls on the provincial
government to end the practice of pattern bargaining when dealing with
specialized professions such as nursing that are faced with critical recruitment
and retention issues.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: After three attempts, I will probably get this out now.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, when we sat the last time, the Leader of the
Opposition asked a question about voluntary agreements for children in care, and
I said I would undertake to present that information to her. I have that for
tabling here today, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I want to present another petition which has been already read in the House
and is the same prayer of the petition with regard to doctor shortages.
I know we are getting close to Budget time, so I will try to get my last
couple of petitions in and hopefully the Minister of Health and I am sure we
are going to hear good news when the Budget comes down about the retention of
doctors throughout this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, today I speak with reference to the situation that we find
ourselves in, in the Conception Bay North area - and I am sure the same can be
said throughout this Province - where there is a shortage of general
practitioners. I know, in our area there is quite a shortage. A lot of people
had to travel to St. John's when their own general practitioners moved to this
area for various reasons, and they find themselves now in a difficult position
where they don't have a general practitioner, where the reports and tests that
they have done, either at St. Clare's or the Health Sciences, can be sent to.
It is very disturbing to them.
Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but when there is a shortage of doctors or
someone doesn't have a doctor at all, all too often the workload on the
general practitioners that we do have in our areas is tremendous, and the people
automatically then go to the emergency units at our hospitals. The same can be
said at the Carbonear General Hospital, and we have also heard it referenced on
the open line shows and in the media, that the same thing is happening here in
the city. That is understandable. When people have a problem, regardless of how
minor it is, if they can't reach their general practitioner or if they don't
have one, they go to the hospital and try to be dealt with in the emergency
unit.
Mr. Speaker, hopefully we will see something come down in this Budget that
will help us to get new doctors and to retain the ones that we have. We heard it
in the media recently, about the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association,
the concerns being expressed by the doctors. We brought up a situation here to
the hon. House with regard to audiologists. We know there are audiologists at
the Janeway Hospital, but I know there are three vacancies there, and hopefully
this year they will be taken care of and then the testing has to be done for
some of our young people who are finding it difficult in the schools, so they
can be assessed and taken care of.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of those who signed the petition, I ask that
government try and come up with a plan where we can attract more doctors to our
Province and also retain the positions that we have filled at the present time.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. WISEMAN: I stand on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MR. WISEMAN: I did not interrupt earlier today in Question Period, but
when the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, stood in her place today
and was asking a question, she made a reference to comments I made in Hansard on
May 16. Her reference was in the context of government having done something, or
not done something, because of some legal consideration. She framed that in her
question here today.
I have heard her make a similar comment in the public domain in recent weeks,
on several occasions, and I say, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member opposite to
either do one of two things: that she either point out in Hansard where I, in
fact, said that, or she withdraw her comment both from this House today and what
she has said in the public domain in recent weeks.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is certainly no point of order that the Chair can rule on. I leave it
to the hon. member herself, if she has made those comments, to do the honourable
thing and withdraw them if they are inaccurate.
It is certainly a point of clarification that is brought forward by the
Minister of Health and Community Services. The Speaker has no way of knowing -
the comments that were made - if they were accurate or inaccurate, but if they
were inaccurate I call on the member for clarification.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do have copies of Hansard here, I say to the minister. I will check for the
exact wording, if he wants it read into the record again in the House of
Assembly, and I will also check to ensure that the date was actually May 16. If
not, it was May 17. I do have it here in my notes. I just need a minute to find
it.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the indulgence of my
colleagues to revert to Tabling of Documents?
The Minister of Finance, I think, received some documents regarding loan
guarantees after we had passed that point on the Order Paper. I know we could do
it tomorrow, but I believe there is some statutory requirement that it be done
today.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave, for the House to move back to Tabling of
Documents?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank my colleagues opposite for allowing us to revert to Tabling of
Documents. I received these documents subsequent to that item being on the Order
Paper.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
section 5 of the Local Authority Guarantee Act, I
wish to table the attached list of loan guarantees provided to local governments
to enable them to arrange interim financing for capital projects. The total of
these guarantees is $36.5 million. The projects finance include water and sewer
of $23.9 million; recreation facilities of $6.1 million; street paving of $2.9
million; and municipal buildings of $2.6 million.
Mr. Speaker, the last report under this legislation was tabled on November
23, 2006, and included guarantees issued up to and including 17 November 2006.
The current listing covers the period from November 18, 2006 to March 7, 2008.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Order 6, second reading of a bill,
An Act To
Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act. (Bill 6)
MR. SPEAKER: Order please!
The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this hon. House to introduce Bill
6,
An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection of Privacy Act. The
bill amends
section 23 of the act which creates a discretionary exemption from
disclosure for any information that might harm the conduct of intergovernmental
relations, or reveal information received in confidence from other levels of
government.
Information of a sensitive nature is frequently made available by one
government to another during the course of implementing interjurisdictional
agreements or in the general spirit of co-operation. Access to Information
legislation in all Canadian jurisdictions contains some form of exemption
protecting this type of information, sensitive information, where
intergovernmental relations may be harmed.
Section 23 currently addresses intergovernmental relations with, and
information received from, the federal government, other provincial governments,
councils of local government bodies, governments of foreign states, and
international organizations of states.
On December 1, 2005, Mr. Speaker, the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement
came into effect. This agreement set out a new regime for land ownership,
resource sharing and self-government. With the agreement came the creation of
the Nunatsiavut Government, signalling the beginning of a new government
structure for the Labrador Inuit and for Labrador Inuit lands.
The Nunatsiavut Government has many of the responsibilities and rights of
other governments in Canada, with jurisdiction over Inuit and Inuit lands, and
in the Inuit communities, including the areas of health, education, child and
family services, adoptions, and many other areas that have an impact on the
health and well-being of the Inuit.
The exercise of these jurisdictions, and the eventual transfer of
responsibility of provincial programs and services to the Nunatsiavut
Government, will involve the exchange of confidential information between our
two governments.
On October 4, 2006, Mr. Speaker, the Nunatsiavut Government held its first
general election for Nunatsiavut assembly members. Since that time, Inuit
community governments have replaced municipal governments in Nain, Hopedale,
Makkovik, Rigolet and Postville. The original draft of
Section 23 of the Access
To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, which received Royal Assent on
March 14, 2002, does not recognize the Nunatsiavut Government. In this new era
of independence for the Labrador Inuit, it is essential that
Section 23
recognize the importance of intergovernmental relations between the Government
of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Nunatsiavut Government, and protect the
free flow of confidential information between these two jurisdictions.
At the current time, Mr. Speaker, the Nunatsiavut Government is the only
self-governing Aboriginal body in Newfoundland and Labrador. Should other
Aboriginal groups become self-governing in the future, further amendments to the
act may become necessary.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I ask
for support of all hon. members in passing this legislation.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 6,
An Act To Amend The
Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, is now being read a second
time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Access To
Information And Protection Of Privacy Act." (Bill 6)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take an opportunity, if I might, to respond to the minister's
comments that he made in second reading. I understand I have an hour to respond,
if need be. I am not sure I will need all of that time.
This is second reading, and I usually preface my remarks by saying to the
general public - because a lot of people watch this on TV and they wonder, what
is this all about? They see a little notice on the bottom of their screen,
second reading, and they get a title of a bill: Access to Information. What is
second reading versus third reading, versus committee?
To the general public, and certainly to my good friend, Mr. Jack Simms in
Burgeo again, who listens to this channel faithfully, this is second reading and
the minister has just put forward his comments on Bill 6 and saying what the
purpose of this amendment is. Of course, the Opposition now get an opportunity
to respond, saying whether we agree or disagree.
We are not supposed to, I understand, under the parliamentary rules, go all
over the map. It is supposed to be more specific than if we were talking about a
money bill, which gives you pretty broad leeway to say whatever you like, but in
second reading there is, again, usually some leeway, provided you are at least
on the topic that the bill concerns. In this case, we are talking about the
freedom of information or the access to information act and the specific piece
of it is, as the minister indicated, to change the act as it currently reads so
that certain confidential information that might transpire between governments,
particularly the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Nunatsiavut
government, might under certain circumstances not be disclosed.
I would say, first of all, I guess, that we will be supportive of this
particular bill. There is no question about that. Now, we do have some concerns,
Access to Information Act. I believe I was actually the Minister of Justice when
we brought in the new act that we currently are working under, back in 2002. It
was the first time the bill had been overhauled in ten years. There were a lot
of changes needed and upgrades to reflect the new openness and transparency that
is supposed to be evident in government institutions today. So, the former
Administration brought in the ATTIP, commonly referred to, Access to Information
and Privacy Act. It was not all proclaimed at the one time because the privacy
piece could not be proclaimed, there had to be a lot of protocols and
educational pieces put in place in our institutions and municipal affairs and so
on and school boards in order to make that piece useable. That was just
proclaimed, I understand, recently, or within the last number of months,
probably last fall.
On the issue of openness and accountable, of course, people heard a lot about
that. I noticed the words the minister used here, it is discretionary whether
this is disclosed or not, and that is what causes the general public today a lot
of concerns. This government has been preaching since 2003 that they are open,
transparent and accountable. I just wonder, in the context of this bill, what
that really means for this government? A lot of people out there raised the
question: Are they serious, or is this just a phrase they utter that sounds
good, this motherhood, we are open, we are accountable and we are transparent?
Well, of course, whether someone means what they say is judged by their actions.
There are serious concerns by the Opposition.
I see the media now are raising these serious concerns, and the public are
certainly starting to ask questions about just where this government stands on
the issue of openness, transparency and accountability. Does it mean we have the
policy there but we paid lip service to it and we will respond when we feel like
it? Does it mean they can stonewall whenever they feel like it? We answer if we
are asked but other than that we do not have to say anything. We have had an
experience with that in the last few days. I was not asked so I did not talk.
That is a good one. I guess in some cases you are supposed to be mind readers.
Some ministerial responsibilities certainly went out the windows in some cases.
Access to Information is all about managing the message. There is one thing
of being open and being accountable but wrapped up in that is how you manage the
information. How do you exercise that discretion about what does or does not go
out? That is the true test of whether you are open and accountable. I will give
you some examples of where I question, I seriously question whether this
government is open and accountable. I will go on record as saying, based on
these examples they are not; not at all.
There has been some talk on a federal level that Prime Minister Harper is a
control freak when it comes to information and what goes out. Well, I have some
examples of where this government is not much different. For example, there is a
Workers' Compensation report that was done months and months and months ago.
This government is on record in their 2003 Blue Book, and again in 2007, saying
any report that comes in we will put it out there in thirty days. That is on
record. The Premier is on record in the media in the last few weeks saying he
stands by that. He scoured the cupboards to see what was up there that was not
out there that ought to be.
What happened to the Workers' Comp report? We have asked in this House in
Question Period where it is. The government again, it is in their actions that
tell you what they are all about. We are open, we are accountable and we are
transparent. Yet, if you ask a question in Question Period, or the media asks
the question: How come we can't have it? The government says: Well, we did not
commission that one ourselves. That was done by a board, so it is not our
responsibility. Our commitment does not really apply then in thirty days or
whatever because that is a board that did that, not us; for example, in the
health care reports that were recently in the media, as to why they were not
out.
We have issues, we are on record. I am the Critic for the Department of
Justice, I had a staffer go to the Department of Justice and ask: What are the
protocols that are used regarding this privacy piece? We have had several
potential breaches of privacy and we have asked: Can you give us some
information on this, just so that we are educated enough to be able to ask the
question, if it warrants a question? Sometimes if you are given the information
you don't need to ask because you have been informed. If I ask somebody a
question and you give me the information and it is answered, I don't need to
ask it, unless of course it is a public concern that should be raised. Well,
that is a different issue. Then you have an obligation to do that.
We haven't heard back, and I hope this is not a case again of, well, you
never wrote or you never put it in writing so therefore we didn't have to tell
you, because that doesn't show the openness again. There is an implication,
when you say that, that it is freely given, voluntarily given, that we don't
put any roadblocks up in front of you. At least, if there is a reason you can't
give it to someone, you would say, this is the reason why. If there is some
reason, for example, that the Minister of Justice cannot reveal what the
protocols are because it might, in itself, cause some security issues, say that.
When you are not given any answer, the perception is that: We don't want to
give it to you. That is what is in the public domain there now, the perception
that - why don't you want to give it to us? If there is a reason, say it.
Maybe that is a very legitimate reason and we can accept that.
For example, under the Freedom of Information, some things I believe you
ought to be able to ask for and if it is common courtesy stuff, sure, the
government says, here look, it is informative, take it, way to go; but, no, not
this government. We have to go through the Freedom of Information, the access to
information, file the official application, just to get some basic information.
They have it in the departments, they can easily give it to you, it is not
subject to discretionary things, I would think, non-disclosure. If they were
truly open and accountable, they would give it.
We have two appeals now. The Official Opposition has two appeals through the
ATIPP commissioner because this government has refused to reveal the
information, refused to give it. Now, one of them, I wouldn't think is a
overwhelming burden to give it. I will say what it is. We made a request for the
information pertaining to the Dr. FitzGerald who is the Premier's emissary in
Ottawa.
That was the request, pretty straightforward: Can you tell us what it cost to
have him? Can you tell us what his expenses were, and so on, and what he spent
to be there?
We know, or the public has its own view as to, what he has produced. That is
a different story. I will not even go there. My issue was, we wanted, as an
Opposition, to find out, how much does it cost to have him there? That is a
legitimate question. It is taxpayers' money. We were told, no, you cannot have
it.
Now, you will recall that there were lots of questions in this House. I
believe last spring we asked the then Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the
Member for St. John's East at the time, not in government now - we call him
Dr. Feelgood because we said he had a limousine service, Dr. Feelgood's
Limousine Service - but that information is being denied the Opposition; don't
have it. So, I hope the discretion that has been exercised in those cases is not
like the discretion we are going to see in the case of this amendment that is
being called for here.
I understand and am fully supportive of what this amendment is supposed to
do. We just hope government does not put the same cloak, shall we say, or the
same impediments, and exercise its discretion in the same manner that they are
doing in a lot of cases that, quite frankly, I believe, would cause a lot less
trouble for everyone if the information were freely given. Because when someone
puts a roadblock up in front of someone then you suspect, well, there is a
reason they do not want us to have it. They do not want us to have it. Then you
question: Well, why don't you want us to have it?
So, a lot of times, maybe it is unnecessary concern or suggestion that there
is something being hidden. Maybe there is nothing being hidden, but the intent
of the act, as I understood it from day one, was not for government to decide
what they should or should not hide or give you. You give out the information.
If it is out there, let anyone do their assessment on it.
We have had issues here in this House. I asked the Minister of Innovation and
Trade, three weeks ago, repeatedly: Minister, can you tell me the names of the
three companies reference in the Auditor General's report as A, B, C? No, he
said, I cannot tell you.
I said: Minister, the Comptroller General has also named a bunch of companies
in
Schedule B. Would those three names be in that schedule? Can't tell you.
That is what his answers were, when I asked here, simple questions. Who are
the companies that received over a million dollars of government funding, that
went down the tubes? The money went down the tubes. Can you tell us where the
million dollars went?
The Minister of Innovation and Trade said in this House: No, I am not going
to tell you. Then he said: Come up behind the Chair where the Speaker is and I
will tell you.
Now, I do not know what kind of game that is, and I do not know where that
section fits under the Freedom of Information Act: I won't tell you, but come
up behind the Speaker's Chair and I will tell you. I missed something in the
translation here, as to what the intent of the act was.
I said to the minister: I am not prepared to accept that condition. I do not
want to know the information so that I have it in my head and I cannot reveal it
or discuss it or do anything with it. Why don't you just tell us? We can go
through the Freedom of Information. Are you going to deny us again there?
Anybody with common sense could look at the AG's report, compare it to the
schedule from the Comptroller's report and pick it out. I just wanted him to
say it. Even there, when it was so obvious, this minister's view was: We are
not telling you at any cost. Why? The bottom line is, a million dollars is gone.
That is why the people have a right to know.
Just to finish that story, three days after I started my questioning on it -
the simple question of who were the three companies - the Minister of Innovation
and Trade sent a note across the House one day, on the third day, fourth day,
before Question Period had started I guess he knew I was going to ask him
again came back to me in a little note and he had the names of the three
companies written on the note. I knew what he was talking about because I had
picked the companies already out of
Schedule B.
So, I wrote him back a note and I said: Why are you giving me this
information? Am I allowed to disclose this? He wrote me back again and he said:
No, I gave it to you in confidence. So I went back to him and I said: You never
said you gave it to me in confidence. You wrote three names down on a piece of
paper and passed it over to me. What is the game you are playing? What is the
game? You are either open or you are not.
To this day, this minister has not stood in this House and answered that
question. Yet, he has put the names on paper for me and passed it over to me,
playing these cat-and-mouse games. Well, the people do not like cat-and-mouse
games any more than I do. It was a sincere, legitimate question; it deserved a
sincere answer, and certainly an answer one way or the other: either you are
getting it or you are not getting it. Don't say you are not getting it and
then turn around and be slipping notes across, or inviting the member to go up
behind the Chair. That is totally unacceptable and inappropriate, and that leads
to the question again of the openness.
I guess it comes down to the individual, who is the minister, or what
department, at what given time, under the act, that is being requested - what
information does it or doesn't it go out?
I have given examples here where we asked Justice for protocols and never got
them. We asked ITRD for company names; we never got them. We have asked for
workers' compensation stuff which, I do believe, comes under Human Resources.
I was a bit lost there because I asked a question of the Minister of Human
Resources the last day the House was open before Easter and the Minister of
Government Services responded. I don't know if he misunderstood the question
or what, but I didn't know workers' compensation was under the Minister of
Government Services. I thought it was under the Minister of Human Resources.
Anyway, I guess the Minister of Government Services wasn't too busy so he
figured he would answer it anyway, whether he had it or not.
In any case it just shows, across the broad parameters of government,
different departments. I have mentioned Justice, I have mentioned Human
Resources, I have mentioned Intergovernmental Affairs when it comes to Dr.
Fitzgerald's information, and health care.
The Department of Education, when you talk about openness and accountability
again - and I am not saying it is only this Administration - sometimes
governments go too far in what you do. I am going to give an example, now. There
are a lot of members in this House, for example, who were former teachers or
principals and so on. You talk about the privacy piece of this act. I had an
occasion - I have been going to graduations in my district every single year. I
cannot get them all in. Sometimes they all have them on the same night. I went
to Burgeo for a high school graduation in 2007. I sat on the stage, took
part in
their dinner, church service, knew most of the kids who were there, certainly
know all of their parents who were there, know all of the teachers, have been
doing it since 1999. The individual teacher sat next to me, who was the co-ordinator
for the evening - this was at their awards night, rather, not their graduation -
read out the names of all the children and the students as they received their
awards, what their name was, what grade they were in, what their mark was, and
so on. I got up and presented the certificates to every one of them - or
congratulations to every one of them - gave out medals and trophies. It took us
about three hours to do it.
When I left, I said to the teacher in question: By the way, would you mind
giving me a copy of the list you have there, because I usually send out a little
congratulatory certificate to the student as well, as MHA, saying,
congratulations upon winning the highest marks in science or the highest marks
in mathematics. I have been doing it for nine years. The teacher said: I cannot
give you that, Mr. Parsons. I said: Excuse me? I am sitting in the auditorium
next to you reading it, shaking hands with every single person you gave it to, I
know every one of their parents, and I am telling you the reason that I want it,
i.e. to do up a certificate for them - and by the way, I did not want their
phone numbers, I did not want their post office boxes, I did not ask for any of
that. I asked for their name and the award they won, and you cannot get it.
I wrote to the Minister of Education - talk about openness again! - and the
Minister of Education passed it on to the Minister of Justice who wrote me back.
Do you know that an MHA today - if you want to do that - unless you write down,
yourself, the name of every child and the award because you are personally there
or have someone do it for you, you cannot get that information from a principal.
By the way, besides not wanting any personal information on them other than
their name and what award they won, I do all of the certificates and take them
all back, seventy or eighty of them, take them back to the principal. I do not
even communicate with the child directly except for that night that I am there.
The teachers distribute them to the children. You cannot do that now.
I do not know where it is going to go. I suggested to the Minister of
Education and to the Minister of Justice who got that correspondence that there
needs to be something done here. There are some things you go too far with. When
an MHA cannot recognize a child who gets an award in a high school because the
teacher is not allowed to give you the actual name and the name of the award so
that you can do up a certificate, we have gone too far somewhere.
I fully agreement with this amendment we have here to the act, but something
needs to be done on that issue as well. It has just gone too far. I do not know
if it is going to come or not. I think it is common sense. I did not get a
response back saying, yes, that makes sense, I appreciate where you are coming
from. There has to be a way to get around that. We will amend it to allow that.
I never got that back. I got back, we cannot do it. We will look it up, think
about it. How much time do you need to think about something as straightforward
and common sense as that?
That is another example of sometimes we do not go far enough and disclose
what we ought to and other times we go too far to the other extreme. Again, I
guess, a little telltale - and the media has gotten on to this lately, the media
is on to this now in the last two or three weeks - this member has been asking
this government for quite a number of years now about openness issues and
accountability. My first opportunity after the new election I asked the Minister
of ITRD those questions about companies, and it is continuing. Now the media are
in the fray and the media want to know about the openness and accountability. I
am not even going to raise the issue of the health care inquiry because that is
a very sensitive. Justice Cameron has a job to do and the whole issue of
openness and accountability is going to get thoroughly questioned and analyzed
and investigated in that regard. That is another issue that the public are
watching now to see what exactly is openness and accountability.
It does not take much. We have raised questions in here, I have personally
asked a dozen questions about the openness and accountability of this government
- not telling you, will not give it to you, you cannot have it, appeal it under
the ATTIP Act, and yet we are open and accountable. As I say, the people are
finally starting to judge that issue of openness and accountability. There is
only so often that you can get up on the other side of this House and say, we
are open and accountable and preach your Blue Book commitments. When enough
examples are brought to light where you are not that, that is when people
question it.
One little example - and by the way, I am not a big believer or accepter of
everything that comes out of The Telegram , like some people - but The
Telegram had a poll on Saturday. Now there has been all kinds of talk in the
past of course about these Telegram polls and whether the government, in
fact, managed the polls by having people specifically instructed to call in and
give a certain answer. We have seen that too in the past, where that has been
the suggestion. Anyway, the poll on Saturday was very telling. The question was:
Do you think this government is open and accountable? Eighty-five percent of the
respondents said, no, this government is not open and accountable; 85 per cent.
Now I thought that was pretty telling, because it is either one way or the
other. If government was in to the management of that Telegram poll, they
did not do a very good job because they still lost at 85 to 15, or as I more
accurately suspect, everybody was on Easter holidays and the government did not
have anything to do with it and therefore the truth came out. The truth is that
85 per cent of the people polled as of last Saturday's Telegram said,
this government is not open and accountable.
It is very pleasing to see that after a while, as many times as we ask
questions in this House - it might not get any traction the first time you ask,
it might not get any traction the second time, but if you ask the questions
often enough, of enough departments, of enough ministers, it becomes a pattern.
Sometimes, then, when something happens, it goes over the edge, people come to a
conclusion on their own.
That is what the HR inquiry has done, I would suggest. Even though it is only
20 per cent done, as the Premier says, already the people who are asked that
question have come to their conclusion; probably unfairly. They have come to a
conclusion only having heard 20 per cent. That is how the public reacts. A lot
of times the public do not need all the information to come to a conclusion.
Yes, we would definitely be supportive of this amendment here, under the
ATIPP Act. What we are saying is that Government should be as quick to respond
to other changes in the act, such as the privacy piece, about whether you can
acknowledge a child in school and get the information so as to provide them with
a certificate. There has got to be some way of doing that, even if the
information is provided on a confidential basis to the members. I am sure there
is nobody here who wants to do that, wants the name of the child. It is not
earth shattering stuff to be able to do that.
I just hope the Government is as quick to bring forward another amendment in
that regard. I just hope that we do not have to have a bunch of questions
anymore of ministers in the House. If we ask a question, if it is fair ball, the
information should be voluntarily turned over. Sometimes, in fairness to
ministers, I do not believe it is always a case of, we want to cover up. I do
not think that is always the case. I think it is a case sometimes where it is an
attitude that becomes prevalent. The automatic instinct is to say: What do they
want that for? Sometimes it is automatic, shut it down, don't give the
information. Maybe it is just an attitudinal thing, maybe it is not coming on
the express orders of the ministers. In the case of the Minister of Industry and
Trade, now it was very directly on the minister. He was asked here and said no.
Maybe it is a case where the staff just feels that is the name of the game, say
no.
We will be supportive of this. I am not sure if - the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi Vidi I understood did intend to have a few words to the legislation.
I noticed she left the Chamber briefly. I can certainly keep talking if need be
until she returns. I do understand she did wish to respond in second reading to
this particular bill.
In any case -
MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).
MR. PARSONS: I say to the Government House Leader, the Member for Port de
Grave did not intend to speak. If you wish, I can just sit down and reserve her
right. I just did not want her to be left without an opportunity to comment.
MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).
MR. PARSONS: That is fine. She can finish her comments. That is fine.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER (Collins): The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to move Order 3, second reading of a bill,
An Act
Respecting The Cost Of Consumer Credit Disclosure. (Bill 4)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today and
speak to
An Act Respecting The Cost Of Consumer Credit Disclosure. It is a new
act which will be replacing the Consumer Protection Act that is currently in my
department.
The Cost of Disclosure act will require lenders to provide a clear statement
to borrowers as to the cost of borrowing. I think this act is an absolutely
fabulous act in regards to - all of us in this House, and people across the
Province, often borrow money. When they go in, sit down and sign off on the
final documents et cetera, when they walk out yes, they know what their interest
rate is and that kind of stuff but they actually do not know in essence what the
total cost would be to that borrowing if they went to term. This act certainly
gives them a clearer statement in regards to that. It will define the interest
rate. It will define the different costs of borrowing. It also will reference
the total cost to the borrower if they went to term, in writing. I think it is
very important that they have that on file in regards to their homes and places
of business, et cetera. Then everybody is absolutely clear in regards to the
amount, the principle, and the amount that they have borrowed to the amount that
they are actually going to pay back to the borrower.
Again, this replaces
an act which is called the Consumer Protection Act. I
also want to say that the values and most of the items that were currently in
that act will also be included in this act and reflected into it. This act was
also developed over a number of years by the consumer measures committee, which
consists of representatives of the consumer affairs departments of all provinces
and also the federal government. So this act also is a piece of harmonization
where people who move and do business in other regions and other jurisdictions
across provinces will all be dealing really on the same field and on the same
level. They will be harmonized across the provinces where the same principles
and same regulations will be used with regards to disclosure of any borrowing
costs that might be entailed in regards to what they have asked for.
There were extensive consultations on a national basis with the financial
services industry and the consumer groups during the development of this piece
of harmonization and this piece of legislation. This was done a number of years
ago and the actual act has taken a number of years to bring forward, but
certainly the consultations were done. They were supported by the various
industries and the consumer groups because they could actually see the value
into it. As a matter of fact, in times of business and times in regard to my own
personal affairs, I would have loved to have had this type of act and this kind
of regulation in place where at any given time, two years, one year, eighteen
months down the road, that I could look back and make sure exactly what I was
paying for and what I was paying on in regards to what I had borrowed.
The provisions of the act are also similar to the federal bank act. So our
local lenders, such as credit unions, will be on a level playing field with
other banks. This is a very good thing as we move forward and grow our economy.
As I said before, the other safeguards to protect consumers that existed in
the Consumer Protection Act are also included in the Cost of Credit Disclosure
act as well. So, we did not just replace or develop a new act, we actually
governed the principles of that act as well. That act will be repealed in
regards to when we finish the legislative process and the Cost of Credit
Disclosure act.
There are also additional provisions under this act, such as charges or
penalties being prepaid on a loan for prepaying a loan. I remember back a number
of years ago I paid a loan out before the actual due date and then I was subject
to certain charges, et cetera, that I was not aware of at the time. It certainly
pissed me off when I had to pay them, but now these will not be there as well.
They will be covered off. Anyway, the consultations did take
part in the late
1990s and certainly they were covered off by all the interest groups, et cetera,
across all jurisdictions.
It is a pleasure to get up and introduce this act. Certainly, I am open to
and interested in what the Opposition may have to say in regards to this act
because I see it as a very good act in regards to the protection of consumers,
et cetera.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 4,
An Act Respecting the
Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure, be now read a second time.
The hon. the Member for Port de Grave, speaking to Bill 4.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure to be able to stand and make a few comments with regard to
an act respecting the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure. I have to agree with
the minister, but I will try to change the terminology. I think the comments
that he made - yes, I would say there are a lot of people in the Province who
gets ticked off from time to time.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that from what I have seen so far and
maybe as we go along in the other readings there might be some other questions,
but we think this is a good piece of legislation. We know that this was started
back some time ago. I think it was back in 1996 when the various provinces and
territories came together with this piece of legislation and it is good for the
consumer, there is no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker. The other thing I noticed
with interest, it is also intended - that it is good for the business community
as well.
I just want to touch on a few issues with regard to what is in this
legislation. One of them is under item 4(1) which is the delivery of the
disclosure statement. All too often we hear from constituents, and I am sure
each and every member in this House feels the same way and have heard the same
stories, about how people sign up for various agreements and they do not get the
information accurate and on time and they find themselves in a very difficult
position as the term of the loan should go on.
Another key component - and maybe at the end of the day the minister can
explain it, but from what I understand - is with regards to the credit
guarantor. A lot of them go and get their own insurance. The guarantors
sometimes want to outline who they want to insure them with but I think this
piece of legislation states now it is up to the borrower, that he can go and be
covered off on whatever insurance company that he would wish to deal with rather
than being told by the guarantor who he has to go with. So, that is a good item
as well in this piece of legislation.
The other one is with regards to the borrower being entitled to repay the
full outstanding balance. I think the minister outlined it very well himself,
that people, sometimes when they pay off their loans in full are tapped with
another penalty for paying it off and they are not aware of this when they take
out the loans. So, disclosure in the beginning I think is very important when it
comes to this piece of legislation.
The other one, Mr. Speaker, is advertising interest free periods. We see this
all too often in our local papers from various companies, that you can borrow
for a certain period of time, maybe you can wait twelve, sixteen or eighteen
months and you do not have to pay the interest. A lot of people do not pay
attention to it when they are doing it and at the end of the day, probably when
they start making their payments, the interest is a lot higher or it is under a
different scenario than what they thought it was in the beginning. From time to
time that is a difficult situation that people find themselves in, but with this
piece of legislation now it has to be disclosed right from the very beginning.
The other one, it also mentions here about application for credit cards. I
have had constituents call from time to time who say: I received a credit card
in the mail. There is a line of credit, maybe for $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000 and
those people just take the credit cards and use them. Then all of a sudden they
realize the interest rate on that is probably 28 per cent or 30 per cent. They
were not told that. They just received a credit card. This piece of legislation,
thank goodness, is outlining to those people that you cannot get a credit card
unless you make application. I think that is a good piece of information that is
in this piece of legislation.
There are a couple of questions, I guess, I would like to note to the
minister with regards to - the Explanatory Note at the beginning of the bill was
very vague. There was very little information there. I think it was in
Saskatchewan, when they put this similar bill - and maybe ours are just little
changes because it is a national bill. They put out a 180-page document
explaining everything in it. It is a very compact and difficult thing to explain
and understand for a lot of people.
I was just wondering why we didn't receive that. I called the minister's
office and the very next day one of his officials called back. I went over and
had a meeting with him and I must say it was a very cordial meeting. I received
a lot of information and understood things that I didn't understand before I
went over there. I think that is what it is all about, when we come up with the
legislation.
The only thing I want to say to the minister and I know he said they
consulted with various groups and organizations. I was wondering if there was
any public input into it or if there was any negative feedback in any way.
Personally, I don't see anything there, but maybe some of those groups did.
Where other jurisdictions, over the past year, a year and a half or two
years, have brought in this legislation, I was wondering if there were any
amendments put forward from the general pattern that was put forth, I guess, by
each jurisdiction. Have those amendments been changed or implemented in the
legislation that we have before us today?
Apart from that, Mr. Chair, the only other thing, I suppose, you could ask
is: Does it go far enough? I know some jurisdictions with regard to what we call
the payday lenders I know our legislation doesn't cover them as long as
they are complying and reporting what they have, but some jurisdictions have
gone beyond and outlawed them. I am not saying that, but maybe there should be
something in this bill to make sure that the rates and the fees and the
interests are, I guess, at a level where people understand what they are
getting, and probably not as large fees are being charged.
Having said that, the only other comment, Mr. Chair, is, hopefully when this
bill is implemented there will be an education program, whether it be brochures
or literature, going out to the general public explaining it to them and what
they should look out for when they apply for credit, so that they can go through
the means whereby they can get the best deal for themselves, because that is
what it is all about.
I have to say, Minister, we on this side will be supporting this piece of
legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Just a quick comment: I was very delighted, actually, to see this piece of
legislation come to the Table. We have a lot of examples in our society where
the average consumer does suffer because of lack of legislation in some of the
areas that are outlined here. I am just going to take a quick moment to say I do
support the legislation and will be voting for it, and thank the minister for
bringing it to us.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Minister speaks now, he will close the debate.
The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
MR. O'BRIEN: I would just like to close debate and try to answer some of
the questions that my hon. colleague in the Opposition raised.
I think one of them was on the consultation process. It is my understanding
the consultation process was extensive, was held nationally and included both
industry people and consumers alike. Most people had an opportunity to partake
in that consultation process and I think mostly everything was covered off
during that process and resulted in this legislation today.
As to any changes, I think over the years, if you logically looked at it -
this piece of legislation transpired over a number of years. It has taken a
number of years to be tabled in this House and other Houses in other provinces
across the country. I would think that, as we went forward, any necessary
changes were looked at and also taken care of in that process and during that
time. Certainly we are always open to changes in legislation and amendments in
the legislation.
The other suggestion and question was in regard to any communications to the
general public that we partake in, in Government Services. Yes, we will. In the
department we have plans to develop a very plain language brochure so consumers
can understand the Cost Of Credit Disclosure Act and what it will mean to them,
and know their rights under the act in regards to borrowing money. This act will
also apply to all lenders, including payday loan companies, but we have no plans
to implement specific payday loan regulations at this time. There is a
consultation process and a process happening under other provinces and other
jurisdictions, so we are following that very closely. Certainly we will be open
to bringing in such legislation if we deem that it is necessary to the public at
some future date.
Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say. I think it is. I thank my hon.
colleagues for their comments, and certainly I appreciate their comments and
their support in regard to this act. I, too, think this act is very important to
the public of the Province and also the consumers, and even the industry for
that manner.
At this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now
read a second time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
DEPUTY CLERK: A bill,
An Act Respecting The Cost Of Consumer Credit
Disclosure. (Bill 4)
MR. SPEAKER: The bill has now been read a second time.
When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?
MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, by leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted to forward this bill?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Granted.
On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Cost Of Consumer Credit
Disclosure," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the
Whole House, by leave. (Bill 4)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we will now revert to second reading debate on
Bill 6. I believe the Opposition House Leader had concluded his remarks and it
would be the turn of the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to speak to the
bill if she so wished.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the flexibility that the House Leader had in breaking the
discussion on this bill so that I could get the time to speak. I was called
outside of the House and had to take care of business outside