June

11, 2012 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 46

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we have member statements from the Member for the

District of St. Barbe; the Member for the District of Burgeo La Poile; the

Member for the District of Port au Port; the Member for the District of Terra

Nova; the Member for the District of Bonavista North; and the Member for the

District of Bellevue.

The hon. the Member for the District of St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate

Jakeman All Grade, a K-12 school in Trout River, on being awarded the Indigo

Love of Reading grant. The grant is for $30,000.

Mr. Speaker, in applying for the grant the school had to show both a high

need and a clearly mapped literacy mandate for the next three years. Included in

this mandate are plans to continue an early intervention program, and to improve

family and community relations by hosting literary nights where parents and

grandparents can support the literary growth of their children.

The school's literary committee, which includes students, plans to upgrade

the existing school library. This will include magazine subscriptions, a

computer system and e-readers for the library. Mr. Speaker, since the community

of Trout River does not have a public library this grant will have an enormous

impact on students and the community with long-term benefits to both.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending

congratulations to Jakeman All Grade School on receiving the Indigo Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Mr. Jim Hayward, of Port aux Basques, upon his

induction into the Newfoundland and Labrador Hockey Hall of Fame over the

weekend, in recognition of his long-time commitment to provincial hockey.

Jim was one of the fathers of hockey in Port aux Basques. He became involved

with the Minor Hockey Association in 1967 and over the years he served as

Director of the Atom, Peewee, Midget, and Juvenile divisions. He established

junior hockey in Port aux Basques and was active in both junior and senior

hockey in the 1980s and 1990s. He retired from hockey in 1998 but made a

successful return to the bench in 2008, when he coached an alumni team in the

Kraft Hockeyville alumni game at Port aux Basques.

Jim was a relentless fundraiser. He cajoled local businesses to donate

prizes, and sold tickets on the items. He established a radio bingo which raised

countless dollars. His wife, Lucy, was also heavily involved, cleaning and

sewing uniforms and preparing bingo cards. Jim and Lucy have three daughters,

three sons, and twelve grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in extending

congratulations to Jim Hayward upon his induction into the Newfoundland and

Labrador Hockey Hall of Fame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. S. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to recognize an inspirational student from my district, Asia

Holloway of Musgravetown. Asia, daughter of Candida and Eugene Holloway was

selected as the one successful candidate for our Province's nomination to

Pearson College.

Pearson College, UWC is a two-year, pre-university school, Grade 12 and Gap

Year, for up to 200 students from over 100 countries. There is only one way to

get in, Mr. Speaker, and that is by scholarship, worth over $80,000 over two

years. Asia attends school at Heritage Collegiate in Lethbridge as a Level II

student and maintains an above 90 per cent average.

Asia is an accomplished musician and voice student, winning numerous awards

since the age of four. She has performed with the New York Staff Band and has

recently led a school choir trip to New York where she was accompanied by her

group on piano and performed a solo selection.

Asia has a passion for children and has been a councillor in training with

the Salvation Army's summer camp program and has assisted with many local church

programs for the last several years. Asia will leave for Victoria, BC at the end

of August.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in recognizing

Asia Holloway.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CROSS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I get great satisfaction today to rise and compliment the volleyball teams at

Gill Memorial Academy in Musgrave Harbour.

Gill Memorial is a small, rural, K-12 school with a population of 125 pupils.

Although they may be small in numbers, they have a rich and successful history

on volleyball courts throughout the Province and in Eastern Canada. This year

presented a challenge to produce a full complement of players to fill the teams.

Gill Memorial Vikings compete in the A Division Volleyball regional and

provincial tournaments at School Sport Newfoundland and Labrador.

The girls' teams, coached by staff member Mr. John Abbott, travelled to

Rushoon. Player Hillary Hicks was presented with a sportsperson award and the

team triumphantly returned home carrying a provincial banner. The boys, under

the coaching of Mr. Blair Hann, competed at Conne River. Brandon Rae received a

sportsmanship award there and the boys matched the girls with a provincial

banner.

Principal Sheldon Gillam speaks very highly of the calibre of commitment that

his players show to this program and how his students proudly represent his

school.

I am sure all members will support my praise of these students and we all

give them our best congratulatory greetings.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bellevue.

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a newly developed walking trail

that had its grand opening in Arnold's Cove.

The trail is named the War Path-Otter Rub Walking Trail and has completed its

first stage. On Friday, May 18, 2012, at 1:00 p.m., with 170 persons in

attendance, I had the great pleasure of joining the oldest original resident of

Arnold's Cove, Ms Jessie Wareham, Mayor Tom Osborne, and MP Scott Andrews in the

cutting of the ribbon surrounded by many students from Tricentia Academy, their

teachers, and other volunteers. I would like to also recognize Ms Cindy Collins

for her dedication and hard work in making this day a success.

This trail development was sponsored by the Arnold's Cove Heritage Foundation

Inc. and is a redevelopment of a trail used by American solders of World War II.

This trail will enhance tourists to the area and provide and promote healthy and

active living for all the area, as well to all those who visit.

I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating the

Arnolds's Cove Heritage Foundation Inc. on the opening of the War Path-Otter Rub

Walking Trail.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I would like to congratulate paralympic swimmer Katarina Roxon on

making the team to represent Canada in swimming at the 2012 Summer Paralympic

Games in London this August. This will be Ms Roxon's second time participating

in the Paralympic Games.

Ms Roxon qualified to make the twenty-four-member Canadian team after she won

a gold medal in the 100-metre butterfly and a bronze in the 100-metre

breaststroke at the Canadian Olympic trials in Montreal earlier this year.

At the age of nineteen, Katarina has established herself as a tremendously

dedicated, determined, and award-winning athlete. A native of Kippens, Ms Roxon

has won numerous awards in provincial, national, and world swimming events. She

was first named to the Canadian Paralympic Team in 2008 and was the only

Newfoundlander and Labradorian represented at the 2008 Beijing Paralympic Games.

In 2010, she competed at the Commonwealth Games in Delhi, India. The

Commonwealth Games is the only international multi-sport event where athletes

with a disability are fully integrated into the competition program.

On behalf of our government and the people of the Province, I congratulate Ms

Roxon on her accomplishment. She is certainly an outstanding ambassador for

Newfoundland and Labrador. I wish her the best of luck as she prepares to

compete in the world's most prestigious athletic event.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement on Katarina. We

also on this side would like to congratulate Katarina on representing

Newfoundland and Labrador at the 2012 Paralympic Games in London, and on her

accomplishments all throughout the world on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There is one little statement there, as a person from the West Coast and I

know the Member for Stephenville East can also agree you are saying here that

at age nineteen she established herself. We have been watching her grow up ever

since she started athletics, since she was six years old. We knew the

accomplishments that she had many, many years ago and we knew that she was going

to represent our Province well.

On the West Coast she became a star at a very young age and proved her

dedication and hard work was going to make sure that she represented the

Province. She was Junior Female Athlete of the Year I think four years, back in

2005, 2006, 2007, and also in 2010. Her favourite quote, Mr. Speaker, is:

Winning is not coming first, but knowing you did your best.

On behalf of all of us, I think she is a winner. I also know that she is

doing her best for all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his

statement.

Congratulations to Katarina Roxon. How exciting it has been to watch Katarina

over the years as she continued to excel in her sport. Katarina's commitment,

dedication, and excellence have been an inspiration to all athletes in the

Province to be the best that they can be. How impressive that at the age of

nineteen she is about to attend her second Olympic Games.

We are proud of all our athletes who have achieved so much in recent years

and it is incumbent on us and on the government to provide the resources so

every young person can access recreation and sports programs, and that our

programs be inclusive so that everyone can excel to the best of their ability.

Bravo and cheerio, Katarina.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today in this hon. House to provide an update on an

important project to preserve historical documents within my department. The

digitalization of deeds project has been undertaken by the Commercial

Registration Division within Service NL. This process involves the scanning of

historical documents to preserve them in a digital format.

Mr. Speaker, digitalization will not only preserve these historical documents

of importance to the Province, but once integrated into our on-line Companies

and Deeds Online system will make them easily accessible to various

stakeholders. When complete, the entire deeds registry will be digitized and

available electronically to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our verification and digitalization team began work on the project in 2005,

and by May 2007 had completed the conversion of deeds documents from microfilm

to digital format for the periods of 1982 to June of 2004. This data represented

7.7 million pages and is now available on-line through our Companies and Deeds

Online system, also known as CADO.

Following the completion of phase one in 2007, the team is now working on the

verification of data and the digitalization of paper-based records for the

period of 1825 to 1982. In addition, we recently partnered with the Queen's

Printer to undertake a pilot project for the digitalization of bound paper

volumes. This work involves the physical scanning of paper records as well, Mr.

Speaker.

The preservation of data and vital events is an important aspect of our work

in Service NL. This information tells a story of the real property history in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are pleased to report that the

project is progressing smoothly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, the preservation of historical documents is very important in

our Province and it brings forward our Province's rich history. I would like to

congratulate the digitalization team for all their hard work. It is tedious work

and very time-consuming.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to understand our Aboriginal history. These are

the true pioneers of our Province. There are certainly a number of important

events that happened between 1825 and 1982 that are important. It is important

that we capture and preserve all of these events that have shaped our culture in

our Province. It is important that we relate the events that influenced the

North Coast of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, like the Moravian mission and their impact

on the evolution of Innu culture. Some of this work, Mr. Speaker, has already

been done.

As technology evolves there are more methods and more ways to preserve

important documents. The more sources for preservation the better it is for all

of us. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this new digitization allows easier access to

information by the people of our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I am in

favour of this government initiative as it makes information available to the

public. Access to information is very, very important. It is good to see this

documentation is using up-to-date technology, because that is going to make it

easier to store and most likely reduce cost, especially when we look at making

available information such as real estate and deeds.

This is a great first step, but I say, as we put it on-line: What about the

more than 200 communities that do not have access to high-speed Internet?

Government is still dragging its feet on that initiative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Based on the minister's comments today in the media, it appears that this

government is tightening its control on the release of information. No longer

will the media, the Opposition, or the public be allowed to see materials used

to brief ministers when they assume new portfolios or prepare for the House of

Assembly.

I ask the Premier: Why are you limiting access to information and making your

government more secretive?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the first review of the ATIPPA legislation

was completed last year. We commissioned Mr. John Cummings, QC to do that

report. The legislative amendments we are bringing forward in the House this

session are based on his recommendations and the consultations he got in from a

number of a different stakeholders and public bodies.

Mr. Speaker, we think we have a good, comprehensive piece of legislation here

that clarifies the act and at the same time brings it in line with all other

jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, I would add we have ample time this afternoon and

however long it goes to debate this issue in the House. I am sure the members

have lots of questions and we want to try to provide the answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we see is that access delayed is indeed access denied. Denying access to

briefing materials for five years means you will never know what information,

for instance, any of the current ministers would have. With the proposed

amendments this could be called, in our opinion, the official secrets act, Mr.

Speaker.

I ask the Premier: Why you are going well beyond the recommendations of the

Cummings report? Are you changing the legislation to merely protect current

ministers from embarrassment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the majority of Mr. Cummings'

recommendations have been accepted or modified. There have been some rejections

but most of them have been accepted. We are quite pleased with the piece of

legislation we put together. It took an awful lot of time and consideration and

input to get us where we are. We have a comprehensive piece of legislation that

will guide us for years to come. It is in line with other jurisdictions in the

Province. Mr. Speaker, it is an Access to Information Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to say that everybody has to have access to

information, and we have to give out as much information as we can, this act

gives that right; but also, Mr. Speaker, it strikes a balance in what is in the

interest of good stewardship and the interest of good government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So far what we have seen is about half of those recommendations have not been

accepted. Back in 2003, the Blue Book that the former Premier Williams stated

that an effective Freedom of Information Act is the best safeguard against the

tendency of governments to descend into secrecy and elitism. He promised that

Cabinet documents would be in the public domain with full and prompt disclosure

of information.

I ask the Premier: Why are you now abandoning this philosophy and instead

descending back into secrecy and elitism?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings made some strong

recommendations with respect to the secrecy of Cabinet documents. It is

absolutely essential to have certain information that you cannot disclose,

especially with regard to Cabinet documents. Mr. Speaker, this lays out a regime

for Cabinet disclosure. It is a good regime. It lays out what cannot be

disclosed and what can be disclosed. It is an Access to Information Act. It is

not a secrecy act, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So far what we have seen, it will add time and it will add cost to that

access to information. When in Opposition, former Premier Williams worried that

under ATIPPA Cabinet could hide information regarding, for instance, the

development of Voisey's Bay and the Lower Churchill. Now the current Premier is

limiting and restricting any access to this type of information.

I ask the Premier: Why are you limiting access to provide more secrecy around

such important decisions to be made like the sanctioning of Muskrat Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, anybody who is concerned about access to information and the

practice of this government only has to compare it to the kind of access to

information former Administrations had for the people of this Province. Mr.

Speaker, it was little or nothing. There is more information available to the

people of the Province now, Mr. Speaker, than ever before in our history.

As far as Muskrat Falls is concerned, Mr. Speaker, there is no project in the

history of this Province that has more information released on it or more public

discussion. A far cry from the two attempts by the former Liberal Administration

to develop the Lower Churchill, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: There is no question that information will be much harder to

get, especially when it comes to the Cabinet documents. Mr. Speaker, on Friday

the government quietly announced the appointments to the Board of Directors of

Nalcor. They appointed Mr. Terry Styles as Chair, even though he has no

experience in energy or large-scale projects.

I ask the Premier: At such an important time in our history of this Province

and with the sanctioning of Muskrat Falls looming, why did you make such an

inexperienced decision?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I find this line of questioning absolutely offensive. We have

stellar people throughout this Province who are prepared to lend their efforts

to the well-being of Newfoundland and Labrador, to good development in this

Province, to bring their gifts, talents and experience.

I am delighted to have Terry Styles as Chair of Nalcor, Mr. Speaker, an

experienced business person in this Province who has a vast experience, not only

in business but of education, and is credible, is principled. We all should be

grateful to have him, Mr. Speaker, not casting aspersions on him here in the

House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: This is not about the individual. There are few checks and

balances in place at Nalcor, and a strong board is required to hold the managers

accountable. These appointments actually weaken the accountability of Nalcor.

I ask the Premier: The minister stated that these new appointees reflect a

strong level of expertise at Nalcor, what experience is he talking about because

none of these new appointees have any experience at Nalcor's business lines?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Leader of the Opposition should explain why the

Liberals appointed Danny Dumaresque as Chair of Nalcor. Then we can see what

standards they held, Mr. Speaker, and then compare the people that we have

recommended to the board of Nalcor and see how they stand up.

I do not back away from any of the appointments we have made to the board,

Mr. Speaker. They bring vast knowledge, experience, and integrity to this

process, Mr. Speaker, and we are glad to have them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, government has amended the ATIPP Act on

client-solicitor privilege without the benefit of seeing the Supreme Court of

Newfoundland and Labrador decision released on October 26, 2011. This ruling

only came out after the report was written and accepted by government.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why is government seeking to overturn the

decision of the highest court in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. member

would repeat his question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question for the benefit of

the minister. Again, I have lots of time here today.

Government has amended the ATIPP Act on client-solicitor privilege without

the benefit of seeing the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador decision

released on October 26, 2011. This ruling only came out after the report was

written and accepted by government.

I would ask you, Mr. Minister: Why is government seeking to overturn the

decision of the highest court in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court made a decision on

solicitor-client privilege based on the vagueness of the information that was in

the act. It was the

interpretation of the Supreme Court that the language was

vague enough to allow the Commissioner to have access to that legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it was the recommendation of Mr. Cummings, even before the

Supreme decision came down, that solicitor-client privilege should be as

absolute as possible. That recommendation was made even before the court

decision.

Mr. Speaker, everybody would agree that solicitor-client privilege needs to

be as absolute as possible. It is a right, a privilege of the law, and we have

to stick with it, Mr. Speaker (inaudible)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, it is disconcerting to hear the minister

questioning the ability of the highest court in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, government is introducing a blanket exemption on the release of

any information touching upon solicitor-client privilege; any appeal must be

done through the Supreme Court rather than through the Privacy Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, why is government forcing people of this Province into expensive

and lengthy legal court action on matters which could easily be avoided by

referring to the Privacy Commissioner?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my previous answer.

Solicitor-client privilege must be as absolute as we can possibly make it. It is

exactly that, a client-solicitor privilege. That is what it is. It is respected

in all areas of law, all the legal fraternity; judges as well will respect and

want solicitor-client privilege. That decision was made based on the vagueness

of the language in the act and that is the only reason it was made. It was an

interpretation based on the vagueness of the language. The government has moved

to correct the language, so as to protect solicitor-client privilege.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Advanced Education and

Skills has indicated government will appeal the decisions to hold the college

liable for the end of service gratuity mandated by Qatar law. The Citizens'

Representative has indicated that government has already appealed decisions on

this matter and lost, including appeals to the Supreme Court in Qatar.

I ask the minister: This is Qatar law. There is no recourse beyond the Qatari

Supreme Court. To whom else does our government intend to appeal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the issue that was just brought forward by the

member opposite is ongoing in Qatar at this time through another level of court.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak, I suppose, of what is going to be the decision of

the court down in Qatar. If it was in Canada, we still cannot pre-judge what

that is going to be.

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that we need a ruling on. It is also related to

the fact that we do business through the College of the North Atlantic in Qatar,

and we need some clarity on issues as we move forward. Mr. Speaker, clarity is

obviously necessary, because there may be cost implications for this government.

We need to make sure that we protect the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, a legal consultant in Qatar has indicated

that because there are clear guidelines in Qatar labour law regarding one's

entitlement to an end of service gratuity, courts will award the benefit, and

any stipulation claiming otherwise will be void.

So I ask the minister: Do we not expect foreign companies in Canada to abide

by Canadian law?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, based on companies that are in other countries

doing work in Canada, I cannot give a blanket statement as to what the

expectations or what any decisions would be. What I can say, Mr. Speaker, is

this government is not prepared for any more giveaways. Any time we do business,

whether with another country, within this country, wherever we do business, Mr.

Speaker, we want to make sure that the rights and the interests of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador are first and foremost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, articles 12.4 and 12.5 of the comprehensive

agreement between Qatar and the college states that the contractor and its

employees shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations of the State of

Qatar, and that the agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance

with the laws of the State of Qatar.

So I ask the minister: You have gone to the courts in Qatar and lost, you

have appealed these decisions in the Supreme Court and lost, you mentioned

giveaways, when will you stop wasting taxpayers' money and pay the end of

service gratuity?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this government will do what we feel is most

appropriate under the circumstances in any contract that we enter into. What is

always most appropriate, Mr. Speaker, is that we protect the interests of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador and that we spend the taxpayers' money

wisely.

Any time we enter into a negotiation, whether it with another state for a

college or whether it is for the development of an oil field, Mr. Speaker, this

government acts in the best interests of the people of this Province, and we

will do nothing different in this ongoing negotiation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, when we asked last day and today about the

legal costs incurred in fighting college employees' entitlement to the gratuity

legislated by Qatar, the minister continues to say the government will represent

the best interests of the Province.

I ask the minister - illegally denying legislated benefits to employees is

not in the best interest of anyone. I would ask you to answer the question: What

legal costs have been incurred thus far fighting employees' entitlements to this

gratuity?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the people who are employed to work at the College

of the North Atlantic signed the contract with the College of the North

Atlantic. It is overseen in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. As I said,

we are presently negotiating a new contract. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that

is absolutely paramount is that we enter into a contract that not just supports

the people of Qatar for the college, but is also a benefit to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

As we enter this negotiation or any negotiation, we are not just going to

spend money unless we understand why we are spending it, where it is going, and

there is a return for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. If

there is no return for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, there is

absolutely no benefit or no need for us to be in any kind of contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the issue of seismic activity interfering with

our fishing grounds is once again in the news. Fishermen are alleging that a

prospecting company, MKI, has violated its approved plan on where and when it

can conduct seismic testing. As a result, shrimp catch rates have dropped off

considerably.

I ask the minister: Has this company been found in violation? If so, what

safeguards are in place to ensure prospecting companies in our waters are

properly monitored?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On June 8, the C-NLOPB issued a statement that it was aware of a report, Mr.

Speaker, and indicated that it would be meeting with stakeholders this week. To

make it clear, although Nalcor is an investor in the seismic surveys, they are

not involved in the operation of the survey. Even though they are not directly

involved, Mr. Speaker, they have been in contact with the company to ensure

safety and that the environment is being observed in the survey. The C-NLOPB is

looking into the issue, Mr. Speaker, and will report back directly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Province has informed the RED Boards that

they will provide funding to the boards only until July 16 of this year, but

there is no indication that provincial funding will be provided beyond that

date.

I ask the minister: Will the Province be providing their share of provincial

funding to RED Boards beyond July 16?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this issue came up, as we know, through the federal budget. The

federal government, through ACOA, decided not to continue to fund the REDBs at

75 per cent. We were in for 25 per cent. We said at that time that we cannot

backfill these programs for the federal government, but we will continue our

economic activity as we have done.

We mentioned in this House there is up to $200 million in core funding and

services and that we have built a capacity for economic development in

Newfoundland and Labrador. We are committed to that. Our Budget this year

reflected we are still committed to it. We will be committed to it for years to

come and continue the great work that is happening in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, since the federal government announced the end

of ACOA funding for RED Boards, staff have been leaving the boards and finding

employment elsewhere. The Province has not confirmed their support to the future

of the economic development board model.

I ask the minister: Is it the plan of this government to allow the economic

development board model to die, or will you now commit to the sustainability of

the board model for community economic development?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Business and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, along with the entrepreneurs and private

sector out there in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the small and medium

enterprises are driving economic development. Those people that get up every day

are driving small business; they are meeting payroll, they are investing, and

they are doing those types of things that make small and medium enterprises the

economic driver of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in response to those support services that are there, the

volunteer groups, capacity within our department, IBRD, we have twenty-two

regional offices and fifty-six economic development officers. We have capacity

on the ground. We have tremendous volunteers our there. We expect that together

we will continue to improve economic development. At this point in time, we have

tremendous capacity on the ground and we are going to continue to use it, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Today government is bringing into this House the most regressive and

repressive piece of legislation I have ever seen.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Who was consulted in the drafting of Bill 29?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner was given a mandate of things to review with

respect to this particular piece of legislation. He was also given a mandate to

have consultations across the Province. Eight consultations were held, two in

Labrador, two on the West Coast, one in Gander, two in St. John's; there were

eight hearings, Mr. Speaker, and ten people responded to the eight hearings.

Mr. Speaker, as well, the consultant made representations to the Leader of

the Opposition, to the Leader of the Third Party, and to a number of all

health care boards and all school boards, to get written submissions, Mr.

Speaker. The consultation was given all the way including the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I asked the question: who was consulted in the drafting of the bill, not in

the consultations that led up to the drafting, Mr. Speaker. There is a

difference.

I have read carefully the submission the Information and Privacy Commissioner

made to Commissioner Cummings, who conducted the legislative review of the

Access to Information and Access to Privacy Act. I cannot see a reflection of

the Information and Privacy Commissioner's recommendations in the new amendments

to the act.

I ask the minister: Was the Information and Privacy Commissioner consulted in

the drafting of Bill 29?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, in Mr. Cummings' report he made special

reference to the tremendous amount of co-operation that he received from the

commissioner's office and the commissioner's staff. It was very much a part of

the consultations, and made some valuable input into this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, a commissioner is not involved in the drafting of the report

obviously the drafting of the legislation, I am sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, he was not even consulted by the minister either from the sounds

of it. This government came to power, Mr. Speaker, in 2003 with a Blue Book

promising full and prompt disclosure of information including Cabinet documents

to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: What does she now have to say to the people

of the Province regarding their right to access to information?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with people having access to information. The

more information you can provide to people, Mr. Speaker, the better informed

they are, the better they understand your rationale for doing certain things.

Mr. Speaker, it also requires when you are in governance that in the best

interest of good governance and good stewardship that you moderate some types of

information as far as making them available to the public.

This government is more open, provides more information, Mr. Speaker, than

any government in the history of our Province. We are very proud of that, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Premier has ever looked at all the black marks on the pages

that we get back to our requests.

Mr. Speaker, the Information and Privacy Commissioner in his report to

Commissioner Cummings says we must maintain a fine balance between the right

people have to information and the obligation government has to protect privacy,

both of government and of public bodies. Both elements are necessary for a

healthy functioning democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why has the government through this bill

destroyed this essential fine balance?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the Leader of the Third Party's

preamble we found

what the real essence of the trouble is with this legislation. It means that

people on the opposite side are going to have to do their work instead of having

public officials do it for them, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, providing information to the people of

the Province is critical. Mr. Speaker, there is confidential information that is

made available to government

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: on a regular basis. To do business properly in this

Province, Mr. Speaker, there are covenants made to keep that information

private. We believe in this legislation, in the modifications to this

legislation, Mr. Speaker, the amendments, that we have found the balance between

the public's right to know and good stewardship.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 29 forces people to appeal decisions of the heads of public bodies and

executive council directly to the courts, no longer to the Commissioner. This

costly and time consuming procedure will be a barrier to many seeking

information.

I ask the Premier: How does this new direction fit with their long-standing

promise of full and prompt disclosure of information?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, somewhere in this process I will hopefully have the opportunity

to demonstrate to people where their requests for information come from, and

that is going to be very eye-opening to the people of the Province. Ordinary

citizens who look to access information from this government do so readily, Mr.

Speaker. They do it in record time, Mr. Speaker, at little or no cost. There are

lots of vexatious requests for information, lots of phishing expeditions, Mr.

Speaker, but they do not come from ordinary people here in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, in a scrum with the media, the Minister of Justice said that part of

the rationale behind not making briefing notes to ministers accessible is the

chill that such notes create for officials advising their ministers. Mr.

Cummings says in his report that it is not the purpose of the act to make things

easier for civil servants, and that providing information to the public is as

much a part of their responsibilities as everything else they do.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice: Will he please explain what he is

referring to when he talks about the chill that comes over the public service

sector?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, we are going to be debating this act for

some time in this House, and all these questions will be addressed, and the hon.

member will have lots of time to speak to it.

Mr. Speaker, it would be wonderful to release all the the Premier just

mentioned. It would be wonderful to release all the information to the public,

but, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of good stewardship and good governance that

is just not possible. Certain information has to be protected. Ministers need to

be briefed when they take over new portfolios; that stands to reason. On

previous occasions as you are well aware, there is lots of discussion in the

media about ministers being briefed.

Certain information will be protected, Mr. Speaker, for five years

briefings for ministers taking over new portfolios will be prevented from

disclosure for a period of five years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, motivated by government advertising, seniors in my district have

been applying for woodcutting permits, only to discover they are not eligible

for the 35 per cent discount, despite government releases including woodcutting.

When I looked into the matter, I found that government offices have not received

direction on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Service NL: Can he explain to this House

why the government is not honouring their own Budget commitment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a government that thinks very highly of the seniors in

this Province. That is why we recently went out and made a significant

investment in our seniors by reducing my colleague from Service NL reduced the

driver's licence, Mr. Speaker, which is a significant savings.

Mr. Speaker, from our perspective in Environment and Conservation, we reduced

our salmon licences, the stays in parks, which is an excellent savings,

especially on monthly sites and seasonal sites. To say that we do not do

anything for our seniors, Mr. Speaker, is certainly incorrect. I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that the hon. member take up and read our press releases and see just

what we do for seniors in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Speaker, a press release on June 1 included

woodcutting but did not include the fees. Many seniors in my district, Mr.

Speaker, are on fixed incomes and they watch every dollar, the reason government

used for creating those discounts and reduced government fees in the first

place. They are finding they still have to pay full price for their woodcutting

permits. I have constituents who have had to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Service NL: When can these people expect

to receive their refund and an apology from the government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We were quite pleased earlier this year and through the Budget process, and

back on June 1 when the Minister of Environment and Conservation and I were very

pleased to roll out the 35 per cent reduction in fees that affected seniors

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. We were quite pleased to announce some of

those significant savings for seniors in the registration of vehicles, in the

reduction of fees for their driver's licence, because we understand they have

made a lifelong commitment to this Province of ours, Mr. Speaker. They made a

lifelong commitment as residents of the Province. We understand there is a

regulatory burden that exists on all people, and we try to alleviate some of

that financial burden as well.

Now if the hon. member opposite, or seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador

would like to come to us and talk to us about other ways that we can work with

seniors, which we do, every member in this House does on this side of the House,

we would be more than pleased to engage them, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Mr. Speaker, we know this government's teacher allocation

formula is not providing adequate resources for special needs education for

senior high school classes, for French Immersion programs, just to name a few

problem areas. These problems are more and more apparent at this time of the

year when parents are seeing their children falling behind.

When will the Minister of Education step in and reform the current teacher

allocation process?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I encourage the member to take a look at a

report that came out of New Brunswick called Strengthening Inclusion,

Strengthening Schools. Let me make it clear, just listen to this number. In New

Brunswick, there is one special education teacher for every 217 students. In

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, there is one teacher for every

eighty-four students. Mr. Speaker, this report even points to the teacher

allocation model that we have in this Province as being the best in Atlantic

Provinces.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These concerns about the outdated and flawed teacher allocation model have

been repeatedly raised

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: by the NLTA and by the provincial school council's

federation.

I ask the minister: Is he aware of these concerns or is he simply choosing to

ignore them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, never will we ignore the people of the Province

and any other factor that impacts upon the students of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege this morning of sitting with about forty

students who did the rural education program at Memorial. I just wanted to sit

and listen to what they had to say. Mr. Speaker, their message is loud and

clear: This Province is a wonderful one to teach in. We have wonderful students.

We have the most qualified teachers in the country, Mr. Speaker. From there, Mr.

Speaker, the record speaks for itself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I give notice, under Standing Order 11, that I

shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12, 2012.

Further, I give notice, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 11, that I shall

move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12, 2012.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I call Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, I was just wondering,

this being Monday, I think the Member for St. John's Centre was about to file a

notice of motion for Private Members' Day on Wednesday.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, to introduce a notice of motion.

The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS the provincial government currently only has a strategy for social

housing that does not deal with the full crisis of affordable housing in the

Province; and

WHEREAS the home ownership assistance program promised by this government in

the provincial election has not come to fruition; and

WHEREAS shelter is a human right and all people in the Province have the

right to housing that meets the national occupancy standards; and

WHEREAS the House of Commons passed the motion on May 4 that the federal

government should: a, keep with Canada's obligation to respect, protect and

fulfill the right to housing under the UN International Covenant on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights; b, support efforts by Canadian municipalities to

combat homelessness; and c, adopt measures to expand the stock of affordable

rental housing with a view to providing economic benefits to local housing

construction businesses;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge government to commit

to a provincial housing and homelessness action plan; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge government to call

upon the federal government to renew the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, the

Affordable Housing initiative and the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance

Program when the programs are up for renewal in 2014; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urge government to create a

division of housing and homelessness that will be given the responsibility to

coordinate government-wide action, work with all levels of government and the

community on affordable housing, and be responsible for research and the

development of provincial housing policy issues.

Seconded by the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is to report that the

motion just read will be the motion debated in the House on Wednesday, June 13.

MR. SPEAKER: There is a motion on the floor for the Government House

Leader, moved and seconded by the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, that we now call Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that the Orders of the Day be

now called.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education and

Skills, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock on Monday, June 11, 2012.

I further move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education

and Skills, that this House not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock on Monday, June 11,

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House do not

adjourn on Monday, June 11, at 5:30 p.m. and it has been further moved that this

House do not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, June 11, 2012.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for leave to introduce

a bill,

An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act,

Bill 29, Mr. Speaker, and I further move that the said bill be now read the

first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. Minister of Justice

and Attorney General shall have leave to introduce a bill,

an act entitled, An

Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, Bill 29,

and that the said bill be now read a first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to

introduce Bill 29 and that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act",

carried. (Bill 29)

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Access To Information And Protection

Of Privacy Act. (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.

When shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KENNEDY: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, Bill 29 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently,

by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I call from the Order Paper, Order

1, second reading of Bill 29,

An Act To Amend The Access To Information And

Protection Of Privacy Act.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Access To Information

And Protection Of Privacy Act". (Bill 29)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Transportation and Works, that Bill

29 be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 29,

An Act To Amend The

Access To Information And Protection of Privacy Act, be now read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to speak to Bill 29, which will amend

the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act to implement many of the

legislative amendments and recommendations coming out of the review or report by

Mr. John Cummings, QC.

Mr. Speaker, the Access To Information and Protection of Privacy Act, also

known as ATIPPA, is a very important piece of legislation for this Province. It

applies to more than 460 public bodies from government departments and agencies,

to health care and educational bodies, as well as to municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, by way of history, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

was one of the first provinces in Canada to officially adopt legislation

establishing a statutory regime for citizens to access information in the

custody of public bodies. On June 16, 1981, the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador proclaimed the Freedom of Information Act, which granted citizens

increased opportunity for informed participation in the democratic process and

the assurance of greater government accountability.

Mr. Speaker, given the length of time that this legislation was in place, a

committee was established to review the Freedom of Information Act in December

2000; that committee was given a broad mandate to review and make

recommendations on all aspects of the Freedom of Information Act.

The committee, Mr. Speaker, recommended at that time that the Freedom of

Information Act be repealed and replaced with new legislation which would

provide specific rights of access to information; which would provide for

protection of personal privacy; which would ensure access to one's own personal

information; and to establish, Mr. Speaker, an independent process for reviewing

decisions made by departments and agencies.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant the committee's recommendations, the Access to

Information and Protection of Privacy Act received royal assent on March 14,

2002. Mr. Speaker, on January 17, 2005, ATIPPA came into force by this

government, with the exception of

Part IV, Protection of Privacy, and that was

proclaimed in January of 2008.

Mr. Speaker, after five years of coming into force by legislation, ATIPPA

required a comprehensive review, and it had to be done not more than five years

after its coming into force. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on March 17, 2010, as

Minister of Justice, I announced the appointment of John Cummings, QC, as

Commissioner to carry out the ATIPPA legislative review. We were pleased to have

Mr. Cummings carry out this review. He is eminently qualified, a former civil

servant, and has worked on many of the top issues facing this Province. He has

held executive positions, including Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy

Attorney General for the Province. He also served as Clerk of the Executive

Council, and Secretary to the Cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings was provided with a mandate which required him to

examine a number of things, including the following, but not limited to the

following: public experience in using the ATIPPA; and public-body experience in

using and administering ATIPPA. He was asked to review whether there were any

types of information that should be made more readily available, whether or not

there were any types of information that required greater protection. He was

also asked to review an examination of the complaints process through the Office

of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. There were other things in his

mandate, Mr. Speaker, like response times and fee structures, examination of the

mandatory and discretionary exemptions, but these were basically the core of his

mandate.

As I mentioned in Question Period, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings mandate also

required him to hold public hearings throughout the Province. These public

hearings took place in May and June of 2010. They took place in Happy

Valley-Goose Bay, Labrador City, Corner Brook, Stephenville, Gander, Grand

Falls-Windsor, Clarenville, and St. John's. Mr. Cummings, in his report, noted

that there was a lack of response through the public hearing sessions. In total,

he heard from approximately ten members of the general public. These hearings

were well advertised, Mr. Speaker, but in the eight hearings they received

responses and heard from ten members in the public sessions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings was also given a mandate, in addition, to conduct

consultations with key stakeholders and to receive written submissions from

public bodies. He solicited submissions from the Office of the Official

Opposition, the Leader of the Newfoundland and Labrador New Democratic Party,

all government departments, all schools boards, and all health care boards. He

also contacted some key government agencies, key government boards, commissions,

and municipalities.

Mr. Cummings also received, as I mentioned earlier, a great deal of

co-operation from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Ed Ring, as well

as Mr. Ed Ring's staff. Mr. Cummings noted that he received a very detailed

written submission from the Commissioner's office, which was valuable in

preparing his report. Mr. Speaker, the ATIPPA review resulted in thirty-three

recommendations in total, of which twenty-eight are legislative and the focus of

this bill. The others, Mr. Speaker, are mostly policy recommendations that are

under further review and need to be fleshed out. This bill deals only with the

legislative amendments.

I would like to take you, Mr. Speaker, now through some of the key

legislative amendments contained in Bill 29. They are extensive amendments, many

of which we model on similar legislation from other jurisdictions in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I should say that this statutory review, while necessary because

of its provision in the legislation itself, this is very sensitive legislation

and very comprehensive legislation. Even though there is little representation

in the consultations, there was a lot of public discussion in the media because

of this legislation, one of the most significant pieces of legislation in

government. It was a new piece of legislation. In the five years we spent going

through it, Mr. Speaker, we came up with procedural anomalies, matters that need

to be clarified, and matters that need to be amended. Subsequently, this was a

very important review.

We had to balance, it was mentioned earlier today, the need for people to

access information and have access to public records; we need to balance that

with, also, the best interests of the public. That is a delicate balance to

find, Mr. Speaker. We think we have found it in this piece of legislation and we

have tried to incorporate that balance in the amendments.

As I mentioned earlier, it is nice to be able to give public information and

it would probably be very politically advantageous to do that. Mr. Speaker, in

the interest of good stewardship and in the interest of good governance, that is

not always possible; some information has to be protected.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all refer to

section 18 of ATIPPA, which is

the Cabinet confidence section. As recommended by Mr. Cummings, for consistency,

the definition of Cabinet records will reflect the list found in the Province's

Management Of Information Act. These records include, Mr. Speaker: a memorandum,

the purpose of which is to inform or recommend policy to Cabinet; a discussion

paper or policy analysis, or proposal, or advice, or briefing material prepared

for Cabinet; a record that is used for or reflects communications or discussions

among ministers on matters relating to government decisions; a record created

for or by a minister for the purpose of briefing that minister on a matter for

the Cabinet; and a record created during the process of developing and preparing

a submission for Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, the matter of Cabinet confidences has now

been extended to include all the

definitions of Cabinet records as put forth by

the Management of Information Act.

Mr. Speaker, in this bill, the Cabinet records are classified in three ways:

there are official Cabinet records, there are discontinued Cabinet records, and

there are supporting Cabinet records. If I can elaborate somewhat, an official

Cabinet record, Mr. Speaker, is a record that is considered in a meeting of

Cabinet. It enters a Cabinet room and is discussed at a meeting of Cabinet. A

discontinued Cabinet record is a record that was originally intended to inform

the Cabinet process but eventually got withdrawn, taken back, or not included. A

supporting Cabinet record informs the Cabinet process, but it is not an official

Cabinet record; it does not get inside the Cabinet room.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things Bill 29 provides is that all Cabinet records

may be reviewed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner with the exception

of the official Cabinet records. Those are the ones that go inside the Cabinet

room. These official Cabinet records, Mr. Speaker, are only official Cabinet

records if they are certified by the Clerk. That certification process in and of

itself is conclusive that the record is an official Cabinet record.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to note, and indeed, Mr. Cummings took great pains to

explain that the need for Cabinet confidentiality is very important. Again, I

wish to emphasize that all Cabinet records may be reviewed by the Information

and Privacy Commissioner in the event of a dispute of whether or not a Cabinet

record should be disclosed; there is access to the Privacy Commissioner to

review those records, with the exception of official Cabinet records that have

been certified by the Clerk.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to Cabinet confidences have potential

consequences for the Auditor General; therefore Bill 29 also amends the Auditor

General Act to preserve the current practice of providing the Auditor General

with certain information to perform his necessary duties. This amendment, Mr.

Speaker, is consistent with provisions in the Child and Youth Advocate Act and

with the Citizens' Representative Act.

Mr. Speaker, I would like now to move to

section 27 with regard to business

information. As proposed by Mr. Cummings, Bill 29 provides greater protection

for business information. Currently under

section 27 of ATIPPA, the exception

requires satisfying all parts of a three-part test. If the information meets all

three parts of the test then that information is exempted. The three parts are:

if the information contains trade secrets, if it consists of commercial and

financial information that was supplied in confidence, or consists of commercial

and financial information that could result in significant financial loss or

gain if it was disclosed. These are the three parts of the test.

Mr. Speaker, the new

section 27 in Bill 29 is similar to that section;

however, only one of the three circumstances must be satisfied now to protect

business information. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, the bill is the similar to

other jurisdictions; Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Northwest

Territories, and Nunavut all have similar provisions allowing for the protection

of business information using a similar one-part test.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment also includes protection for royalty information,

except for aggregated royalty information. The aggregated royalty information

will be available, but not the individual royalty information.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings emphasized in his report that it is essential when

the Province is in negotiation on a transaction that its negotiation strategy

and tactics be confidential. Real harm may be done to the Province if this

information falls into the wrong hands. The amendment, Mr. Speaker, to this

business information provision will offer more flexible and comprehensive

protection to third party business information.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment does not provide that all business contacts

should be protected from disclosure. This is a democratic society, and any

business has to accept that there will be a certain level of disclosure when

dealing with government. As recommended by Mr. Cummings,

section 27 now gives us

more flexible and comprehensive protection to third party business information.

Also as recommended by Mr. Cummings, Bill 29 replaces

section 30 of ATIPPA

with a new provision to permit greater flexibility for the disclosure of

personal information. Mr. Speaker, the new

section 30 of ATIPPA will permit a

public body to disclose personal information if it is not an unreasonable

invasion of privacy. The current act, Mr. Speaker, is very restrictive in what

we can release in terms of personal information. The new act makes much more

personal information available. It will allow, for example, a school board to

disclose to an MHA a student's achievement so that it can be recognized by the

MHA at a public ceremony. This was not possible before under current

legislation.

Mr. Speaker,

section 30 will permit a public body to disclose personal

information if it is not an unreasonable invasion of privacy. Bill 29 provides

direction on what is an unreasonable invasion of privacy. For example,

disclosure of personal information is not an unreasonable invasion if the third

party to whom the information relates has already consented to or has in fact

even him or herself requested the disclosure. Neither is it an unreasonable

invasion if compelling circumstances exists affecting a person's health or

safety, or in fact,

an act or a regulation authorizes the disclosure. The

disclosure of personal information will be presumed to constitute an

unreasonable invasion of privacy if it relates to medical, psychiatric, or

psychological history. For example, if it consists of an individual's bank

account or credit card information, if it indicates racial or ethnic origins,

religious beliefs, political beliefs or associations.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings, in his consultations with the Information and

Privacy Commissioner's Office, with the Department of Justice, with Memorial

University and other public bodies, felt that a reasonable case had been made

for permitting increased disclosure of personal information when it is clear

that the release will not do any harm and may be desirable. That is an

improvement, Mr. Speaker, significantly, over the old act. It allows more

information to be made available and it is in line, Mr. Speaker, with other

jurisdictions, such as British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New

Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut. They

all have similar provisions in their legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as recommended by Mr. Cummings, this bill amends

section 60 of

ATIPPA concerning the review of solicitor-client privilege records. The bill

amends

section 60 to clarify that where there is a dispute relating to a claim

of solicitor-client privilege, the issue should be referred to the Supreme Court

Trial Division for resolution of the matter. Mr. Cummings felt that

solicitor-client privilege should be as near to absolute as possible, and the

only way to provide for this is to entrust its review to the courts. Now, Mr.

Speaker, this is an important issue and it agrees with Mr. Cummings'

recommendation.

New Brunswick legislation contains a provision that solicitor-client

privilege records cannot be reviewed by the Commissioner. Mr. Speaker, I think

most people in the legal fraternity would agree with this recommendation. Mr.

Speaker, I might just reiterate a question from Question Period that there is

some concern that we are overriding the opinion of the courts here. We are not

doing that at all, Mr. Speaker. The court, in reviewing this issue previously,

made a decision that the solicitor-client records under the act had to be made

available to the Privacy Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, they based that decision on the vagueness of the language in the

act, that the language was not strong enough in the act to keep that information

from the review of the Commissioner. Mr. Cummings, in his report, long before

this decision was made in the court, made this recommendation, that

solicitor-client privilege be as near to absolute as possible. Mr. Speaker, we

agree with that. All governments agree with that. All legal fraternity agree

with that. Nothing should be more privileged and more private than

solicitor-client privilege.

Mr. Speaker,

section 20 of ATIPPA currently provides that advice and

recommendations prepared for a minister or by a minister can be protected from

disclosure.

Section 21 of ATIPPA is being amended to include additional

categories of records, which would be protected under this section. Currently,

as we mentioned, it provides advice and recommendations for a minister to be

protected, but Bill 29 also adds protection for analysis, policy, policy

options, consultations or deliberations. Mr. Cummings felt that this will ensure

the proper functioning of government when addressing public policy issues.

Again, several jurisdictions, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, PEI, Northwest

Territories and Nunavut, all contain similar provisions for consultations and

deliberations.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 29 also contains protection for the contents of formal

research or an audit report that is incomplete. An audit report or a piece of

research that is in preliminary form, or in draft form or is under review in

other words, that is incomplete will be protected under this bill, as it is in

PEI and Alberta, for example, unless no progress has been made on that piece of

research or audit report for three years. If no progress has been made on the

research or audit report for three years, then the protection is off.

Bill 29 also amendments

section 7 to protect for five years a record created

for the purpose of briefing a minister assuming a new portfolio and a record

created for preparing a minister for sittings in the House of Assembly. Again,

this is modeled after Alberta's legislation. As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, and to

repeat, Mr. Cummings felt that had to be amended to ensure the proper

functioning of government when addressing public policy issues.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to note that during the review Mr. Cummings

recommended that ATIPPA be amended to provide protection for records in

workplace dispute resolution processes. As a result, ATIPPA is being amended,

similar to New Brunswick's legislation, to provide a public body with the

ability to refuse to disclose records relating to a workplace investigation. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to highlight, however, that the parties involved in that

investigation will be able to access their own records, as will witnesses to the

investigation will be able to access their own statements.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to draw your attention to the new

section 26.1

of ATIPPA, which will extend the protection afforded to labour relations records

under ATIPPA. In his review report Mr. Cummings recommended that government

consider whether additional protection was required for labour relations

records. Government considered this issue and as a result this bill extends the

protection afforded to third party labour relations records to public bodies as

an employer. Previously, only third party labour relations records were

protected under ATIPPA; now they are protected as they relate to public bodies

as employers. Mr. Speaker, Ontario and Nova Scotia both protect the labour

relations records of public bodies as an employer.

Mr. Speaker, I now come to a very significant piece of this legislation. Bill

29 amends ATIPPA to include a frivolous and vexatious provision which is not

currently included in the act. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings found, in his

consultations, a lot of presentation from different stakeholders of the immense

amount of time and resources that had to be employed to requests for information

that were not followed up on, that were not received, that after the work had

been done the people came back and said I really do not need it. A lot of time

was spent on frivolous and vexatious requests, so now, Mr. Speaker, we are

amending ATIPPA to include a provision which is not in the current act. The

provision, Mr. Speaker, is that ATIPPA will be amended to permit a public body

to disregard an access request if the request is frivolous or vexatious, if it

is made in bad faith, trivial, if it is repetitious or systematic, or amounts to

abuse of process.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of guiding a public body in determining what is

frivolous or vexatious there is an amount of information available that will

help advise and inform direction with respect to this. There are a lot of

Commissioner reports from other jurisdictions that we can draw on, there is case

law that we can draw on, and there are policy manuals provided which will

provide guidance on what constitutes a request that is frivolous or vexatious.

Mr. Speaker, over time as we build up our own collection of decisions and

material, that will help inform us as to refine this process even further.

Mr. Speaker, as a result, the public body will not need to obtain prior

approval from the Commissioner's office to make this decision, but an applicant,

if he feels aggrieved by that decision, has a right of appeal through the

Commissioner's office.

Mr. Speaker, language has also been added to provide a public body with the

ability to disregard a single request that is excessively broad; excessively

broad will recognize very broad concepts and will recognize that guidance will

be required on what is excessively broad. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, prior

approval will be required from the Commissioner's office before that request can

be disregarded.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 29 also amends the timelines for the Commissioner's office

to conduct informal and formal reviews. Mr. Cummings recommended the

Commissioner's office be given the discretion to determine the length of

informal review periods in all cases. There is now thirty days, Mr. Speaker, to

complete an informal review. Bill 29 amends ATIPPA to provide the Commissioner's

office with an additional thirty days in which to complete informal reviews

bringing the time limit to sixty days. This approach, Mr. Speaker, is consistent

with the Personal Health Information Act as well.

Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting here that in the National Freedom of

Information Audit released in May 2010, this jurisdiction of Newfoundland and

Labrador, the response time, we were second in the country. Only 7 per cent of

personal responses, Mr. Speaker, responses for personal information were outside

the statutory deadlines. We were already doing a good job in getting out

personal information.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings also recommended the Commissioner's

office be given more than ninety days to complete a formal review. Now he has

ninety days to complete a formal review. Most reviews, I should point out, are

done within the informal time period, but if a formal review is needed there are

up to ninety days now available. He recommended a 120-day time limit with the

possibility of an indefinite extension. Mr. Speaker, our recommendation, our

amendment to this bill provides the Commissioner's office with a 120-day time

limit; this approach is also consistent with the Personal Health Information

Act.

Mr. Speaker,

section 5 records are exempt from the act all together.

Section

5 exempts a whole list of documents from the act: judge's notes, decisions of

judges, records in a court file, personal records of an MHA, constituency

records of an MHA, and so on; there is a list of them there that are outside the

act altogether.

Section 5 now, Mr. Speaker, has been amended to also include, in addition to

these, two other pieces of information. An incomplete police investigation file

is now outside the act. A police investigation that is still ongoing and is not

complete is outside the act. Police informant information is also exempted from

the act. In the past, Mr. Speaker, we exempted ongoing prosecution records, but

we felt the same protection needed to be extended to incomplete police

investigations and police informant information.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to

section 5 records, two recent court decisions

have confirmed that the Commissioner does not have the ability to review any of

the categories or records excluded from ATIPPA under

section 5. Two items have

been added to that, as I mentioned: ongoing police investigations and police

informant information. These records, Mr. Speaker, are exempt completely outside

of the act and will not be available to the Commissioner for review. There is

still an oversight provision here, because the public continues to have the

right to have these records reviewed by a court. There is still an oversight

provision.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, as we embarked on the public consultation process,

this government was open to a comprehensive and critical review of the Access to

Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Mr. Speaker, the amendments in Bill

29 reflect input received during the public consultations and are the result of

extensive jurisdictional analysis.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 29 includes many positive changes to our Province's access

to information regime. As a result of these amendments, public bodies will have

the ability to disclose personal information in legitimate circumstances where

it could do no harm and where it could not do so before without compromising an

individual's expectation of privacy. Mr. Speaker, these amendments to ATIPPA

would also ensure more flexible and comprehensive protection of third-party

business information. Our Province will have the ability to negotiate with

businesses and provide assurance that negotiation strategies and tactics remain

confidential.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that Bill 29 will extend the time provided through

the Information and Privacy Commissioner's Office to conduct informal and formal

reviews. It is desirable for all parties involved in a complaint to provide the

Commissioner with additional time to resolve that complaint informally.

Additionally, Bill 29 codifies the Commissioner's authority to investigate a

complaint by an individual that their personal information has been handled

inappropriately by a public body. Mr. Speaker, these amendments are sound

changes to our Province's access to information regime.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, Bill 29 will correct the procedural and substantive

insufficiencies and inefficiencies that exist in the current legislation. It

will modernize the legislation, and, Mr. Speaker, it will make our legislation

consistent with national standards and jurisprudence. The process, Mr. Speaker,

has been an important exercise not only for the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, but also for the people of our Province. The amendments outlined above

reflect input submitted during the consultation. Mr. Speaker, our government is

committed to openness and transparency. The Access To Information And Protection

Of Privacy Act is a clear demonstration of this belief.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss Bill 29. I ask for

the support of all hon. members in passing this bill, and look forward to

participation from members on both sides of the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot say I am happy to stand here and debate this bill today. I will say

right at the beginning that I do not agree with the intent of the amendments to

this piece of legislation, and I think that is quite clear from the questions we

asked in Question Period today. I guess we may as well get that right out of the

way. I think I am going to take the course of this next hour to explain my

issues with this piece of legislation, discuss some of the amendments, and also

maybe to go back in history a little bit and talk about some of the things that

were said over the last ten or so years.

Again, I would start

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the Member for Burgeo La Poile. I ask all members

of the House if they would respect that acknowledgement and take their private

conversations outside.

Thank you.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I would begin by saying that there have been some comments made that

the purpose of this legislation has to do with good stewardship and good

governance, and I think that we can certainly remove that pretence and say it

has absolutely nothing to do with that in my opinion. That has nothing to do

with this. This is nothing but a very deliberate attempt to conceal more

information from being put out into the public domain. There is absolutely no

doubt about that.

I have some notes I will refer to. I listened to what the minister had to say

with great interest. It seems funny, Mr. Speaker, that something like

whistle-blower legislation which has been in the works for some six years now

my God, we cannot make any movement on that. Then we talk about this

legislation, to get it done so quickly, to get it out so fast. Especially after

this most recent Court of Appeal decision was put out to the public, I mean

major changes were done very quickly.

Just a few points here; the Premier suggested today in Question Period that

as an Opposition, now we are going to have to go out and do our homework and do

our work instead of having members of government and government staff do it.

What I say, that is going to be impossible, Mr. Speaker, because how are we

going to have access to that information when it is being locked away and never

see the light of day? Anything whatsoever that has to do with Cabinet is never

going to be put out into the public whatsoever. There is absolutely no way

around that. A lot of this is done based on the report, Mr. Speaker, of Mr.

Cummings, who came up with a number of recommendations after a review. A

mandatory review of legislation is necessary. We always need to make sure that

our legislation is reviewed, especially something as important as this piece of

legislation.

What I would say, one thing that struck me over the last number of days that

we have had to prepare for this and review the information, and prepare

ourselves for the debate is that these recommendations were passed in just over

twelve months ago, back in January, 2011, the most recent Court of Appeal case

where the Privacy Commissioner took the Department of Justice to court. It

actually was a matter that went to the Court of Appeal, the highest level of

court in this Province. That case was not heard until June, and the decision

came out in October. I think it was October 26, 2011. It was very clear in that

decision which was given, I guess it was a majority opinion, was that we talk

about something like solicitor-client privilege, and in that case what the court

clearly found is that the Privacy Commissioner did have access to this and

should have access to this. Some of this legislation seems to be a clear intent

or attempt to circumvent the rulings of our Court of Appeal.

I am going to take an opportunity to go through some of my notes here, Mr.

Speaker. I just want to go back a little ways in history. As we know, our first

piece of legislation was introduced back in the early 1980s. It was much needed,

came out and we had it, then it was some time around the turn of the century

that this became another issue. You had the passage of roughly twenty years.

Again, it was undertaken by the Liberal government at that time: We need to have

a committee; we need to make sure that we review this legislation.

I would note that at that time the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, made it very

clear, in no uncertain terms, their thoughts and positions on the topic of

access to information. They have done that, whether it be in press releases,

whether in Question Period, or whether in their policy books. The 1999 PC Blue

Book, I believe, actually said that the Transparency and Accountability Act

would greatly enhance openness and accountability in government, but a

comprehensive and effective Freedom of Information Act is the best safeguard

against the tendency of governments to descend into official secrecy and

elitism. Again, the Opposition Leader at that time, and later our Premier, made

very clear of the fact that there should be no secrecy; everything should be out

in the open. In fact, I believe that was one of the major components of that

campaign, is, look, we cannot have any secrecy here. The people of this Province

deserve all the information. How can we not have good democracy if we do not

allow that?

There are just a couple of parts to that, Mr. Speaker. We talked about every

government commissioned report would be put out in the public within thirty days

of receiving it. Again, there would be amendments clearly identifying what

should be in the public domain, including Cabinet documents which would require

full and prompt disclosure. There is more from the PC Blue Book back in 1999,

Mr. Speaker. Just some of the quotes that you pull out here again, I guess we

have turned a 180 on this: Government departments must be prepared to have their

activities openly scrutinized by the public. What I would say is that our new

definition of what constitutes a Cabinet document completely flies in the face

of that and what they ran on back in 1999.

At that time, one of the campaign promises, Mr. Speaker, was that a PC

government would establish a new Freedom of Information Act. Again, they

discussed that but we know that there was a review done and the new ATIPP

legislation was brought in back, I think, in 2001. Again, everybody knew that

there was work that needed to be done on this legislation. It was quite dated.

At that time, it was stated that a PC government would establish a new act to

reduce the cost of accessing information, to reduce the wait for information,

and to ensure ministers actually provide the information requested where that

information belongs in the public domain. What I would say is, again, with the

new definition of Cabinet documents it appears that there is nothing in Cabinet

that should be discussed out in the open, or out in public absolutely nothing.

Any scrap of paper used to inform the Cabinet secret, not allowed to see it,

not going to get it, and we have timelines put on it after.

I continue on actually and I believe that the former Premier who was then

Leader of the Opposition, when he took over, in his speech he took the time to

quote one of the finest American Presidents, that being Abraham Lincoln, "Let

the people know the truth, and the country is safe". "We will keep the people of

this province fully informed at all times. There will be no secret documents.

There will be no hidden agenda." These amendments are in direct contradiction of

those words direct contradiction. What we are asking is that all Cabinet

documents be kept secret, absolutely no discretion to be exercised by the

Privacy Commissioner, an independent Officer of this House who should have the

right to review this information. I am not even going to get started with him

yet because he has basically had the majority of his powers removed. He has had

it taken away from him. This is an independent Officer who is supposed to have

an opportunity to look at this information, we are not even going to let him

look at this now so he can at least make a decision on whether it should be

public or it should not be public.

In leading up to this, I took the time to go back through Hansard, I took the

time to go back through the archives, and I actually reviewed much of the debate

and much of the Question Period that happened ten years ago when we talked about

this legislation. Again, the Opposition at that time was very clear that this is

not good enough. We need to have information out there to the public. The public

deserves to know. How can we have good government? Again, it is funny how things

change when Oppositions become government and they turn around and in this case

now I guess that legislation was not put in force until 2005 with another

part

in 2008. How times have changed. Now we do not want anybody to see anything.

There was lots of opportunity here going through there were a lot of

questions that happened back in December of 2001, a lot questions by the

Opposition, the then Premier at that time. He talked about ATIPP legislation is

good, and I am not disputing that ATIPP legislation is good and has a purpose.

We all know that, but what I would say is that we are changing from what the

purpose of that legislation was. When ATIPP was introduced in 2001, when it was

brought in, in place of the former Freedom of Information Act, it had the intent

of ensuring that access to information would be treated as a matter of public

right as opposed to government discretion. Well, these amendments are changing

the ball game around here. Now it is a part of what does government want to let

go in their discretion, which is apparently nothing.

It is funny, I have heard some different names put out for this information.

Instead of the access to information, it is the denial of information, or I

like this one it is the official secrets act; in some ways, if you think about

it, we do not want Cabinet deliberations, or documents leading to Cabinet

deliberations, or documents leading to documents that led to Cabinet

deliberations. We do not want any of that to get out there; maybe we should call

it the act to ensure that Cabinet ministers are not embarrassed or have any

information disclosed in any way, shape, or form.

What we are trying to do is again, we talk about that balance; we talk

about that balance. We create the legislation that is balancing a citizen's

right of access against those reasonable exceptions to access. We all know that

there has to be a fine line there. Not everything should be out in the public

eye. We would not want people's personal information disclosed so in certain

ways it could be used against them. That is why we have it. We would not want

police investigations to be getting out into the public and, in a way,

compromising the investigation. We do not want that.

I do not think that these amendments and again, this is a pretty

substantial amendment here; we have twenty pages, number of sections, a lot of

information to go through. What I would say, Mr. Speaker, is that the purpose of

this act is very clear, very clear: let us make sure Cabinet does not have to

out anything on anything, only what they chose, and, while we are it, why do we

not eliminate the Privacy Commissioner; let us just let people go to court.

Now, when I talk about a lot of the questions that the former Premier,

Premier Williams, asked back in the day, one of those big concerns and it was

addressed by all three sides that discussed this bill was one of the aspects

is the cost to access. The cost to access, as it stands, is already prohibitive.

You have to pay a significant amount of money to get this done, because there is

a lot of work that goes into this. No doubt, there are a number of government

staff when a access report comes in, whether it be from the Official Opposition,

whether it be coming from a private organization or a private citizen, people

that we would probably want to have that right of access extended to.

What I would say is that when we put those requests in, people had to go and

get that information. That is fine and dandy. We know that is one of the costs

of doing business; that is one of the costs of being government. In this case,

you put that request in what we are allowing now is that there are already

times where the department or public body will come back and say: No, we are not

putting this information out there. This information is privileged and you are

not going to be allowed to have a look at it. Go to court. Go directly to court,

do not pass go, and do not get $200.

At least then you had the right, though, to go to that Privacy Commissioner.

The Privacy Commissioner could review the matter, review the information, and

make a decision. That is the whole point of putting that Ombudsman there: to

represent the rights of the people and balancing it with government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Verge): Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: Now, I will not get into right yet the fact that the

Commissioner could only make recommendations, which can be ignored by government

if they wish. Now we are eliminating that right of appeal and that layer of

oversight. That is being taken out in many cases. What we are saying is: No, go

to court.

We have a court system that, as many members know, is already overburdened,

stacked up, and delayed. Now we are saying: Let us put more matters into court.

Let us put more money into this. Let us let people go to court, fight this out,

have matters heard by the Supreme Court Trial Division or the Supreme Court,

Court of Appeal. That is just what we need to do. That is just what our private

citizens deserve, to have to go out and spend their money to find out what

information their government is holding from them. It is shameful, Mr. Speaker.

It is not right.

I referred earlier, Mr. Speaker, to a Supreme Court, Court of Appeal

decision. It was a case between the Information and Privacy Commissioner. This

was an appeal of a decision at the Trial Division level. It was between the

Privacy Commissioner and the Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador. In

this case, which is quite a substantial decision, an individual in the

Department of Justice requested their own file. What happened here is the

department said: No, you cannot see your own file. We are not letting you have

it. It is all privileged. This person had to go to court. It is funny when you

read some of the comments made by the judges in this case.

One of the things that struck me when I looked at it was some of this stuff

that makes up part of a person's record might be things like pay stubs and

employment information. Sure, it could even be a resume or the resume submitted

when they got the job. Who knows what is in the person's employment file? In

this case, instead of going through it and actually making it look like they

looked through the file and could pass back some stuff, what they did was a

blanket coverage of: you are not going to get it; you are not going to see this.

That was one of the concerns expressed in the decision. This was done with a

majority; you had the three Supreme Court judges agreeing on this. One of the

things they discussed, Mr. Speaker and this is what they call obiter. It is

just reasons that were brought up here. "The court is concerned by the

possibility of misuse of authority conferred by the legislation." That is what

we are doing now; we are getting around this court's decision. We are getting

around the concerns expressed by this court because we are going to change the

legislation. We are going to allow this blanket coverage. We are going to allow

government to wipe away people's rights to access the information.

Really, if you think about it, it is an iron curtain government that we are

moving into here. We are moving into a I have heard these terms out there,

repressive, secretive, draconian, regressive, these all apply. You can check off

all these boxes, Mr. Speaker, because they all apply in this case.

One of the forms of misuse would be for the Department of Justice to claim a

blanket privilege for files. That is one of the things and I know it is hard

work. I know it takes time to go through people's files to see what is

privileged and what is not privileged, I understand that. The fact is that not

everything is privileged, not everything. There are things in there that have

nothing to do with any form of privilege. In this case what we are getting at

was there is an attempt, Mr. Speaker, to cover everything, to just say no, we

are not going to do that. That is what you see as time goes on.

It is funny, because as the Official Opposition, one of your duties in

holding government accountable to ensure that government is best representing

the people in the best interests that is just how the nature of our system

works is that we have to make numerous access to information requests and

freedom of information requests. This is just an attempt to circumvent that. We

already had a suspicion or inkling, over time you would get something back and

certain things would be blacked out or redacted and certain things will be

disclosed. As time goes on, more and more things are redacted and fewer things

are disclosed. It is too much work letting the people know what the government

is discussing.

The good thing about this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that there will be a

savings to government in black markers. There will be a tremendous savings. We

are not going to have to spend all that money at Staples buying all the black

markers that were used to redact information because now we do not have to give

them the information in the first place. Lock and key, throw it away.

I will just refer, and this is coming from the highest court in this

Province, very well-renowned jurists. "Another form of misuse of authority would

arise if the information commissioner demanded to have documents produced that

he could reasonably conclude, without inspecting them, were covered by

solicitor-client privilege." How is he supposed to determine what

solicitor-client privilege applies to if he is not even given a chance to look

at them in the first place? Again, this is an independent officer of this House

and he is being cut out of the loop here because government does not want to let

anything go.

Just quickly, Mr. Speaker, and I do not mean quickly as in I am going to get

out, because I have plenty of time and I intend on using it all. I am just going

to segue way very quickly into solicitor-client privilege. I agree very much so

with the minister that solicitor-client privilege is vital and important. What I

would say is that solicitor-client privilege is vital and important. I think

what we are going to see is you will soon see a lawyer or a solicitor in every

single meeting that government has. What better way to get solicitor-client

privilege than to stick a lawyer in the corner: Oh, solicitor-client privilege,

we cannot disclose it.

I do not know, perhaps we are even going to have solicitor-client privilege

extended in here now. We will have lawyers sitting in to make sure that nothing

can get out. That is my concern, Mr. Speaker. That is why this Commissioner has

the right and has the duty and has the need to examine the information, which he

does privately, and he makes that reasoned decision on whether it is or is not

or should be allowed out. In this case, no, we are not going to do that. What

you are going to see, mark my words, is that you will have lawyers on every

single meeting held by government. Therefore, everything possibly could be

termed solicitor-client privilege documents.

Actually, it is funny how this is going to extend because this covers the

public bodies. I believe there were 460 or so. Now, we are already trying to

extend that number. There should be more sub-committees of committees, and

committees of that, and sub-committees of every other public body. They are all

covered by this as well. It will not be long before Eastern Health starts doing

their meetings with the lawyers in there. It will not be long before Western

Health, which is up for review, and Central or Nova and Labrador-Grenfell, we

are going to have lawyers in on all of this solicitor-client privilege

everything. That is what is going to happen. It is a very convenient way of

circumventing the system.

I would say that some of the words expressed by these judges in this

decision, Mr. Speaker, the key to all of this is good faith in the exercise of

authority. With that comes mutual trust by the Commissioner that justice

officials are being truthful, and by justice officials that the Commissioner

will not unreasonably call for the production of legal opinions and advice.

There is that relationship there. We have to have a balance between everybody

here, but that balance is no longer there. We have eliminated that altogether.

What better way to get around the court than to change the law. What better way

to win the game than to change the rules of the game that you are playing.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the decision speaks for itself. I do not know if I

know, actually, that Mr. Cummings did not review this decision when he presented

his recommendations, because the decision had not been made. Now, it would be

interesting to know if Mr. Cummings had an opportunity to review it after it

came out and maybe pass that information on to government. I do not know if that

is the case or not.

It is funny how history works, though. Again, we have the luxury of written

history. You look back now it is funny, I had some time and I was going

through old newspapers one day at The Gulf News office in Port aux

Basques. You look back and the news in the 1990s was the same as the news in the

1980s, which was, in some cases, the same as the news in the 1970s. It is the

same stories. Well, it applies here too: press release, April 5, 2000,

government subverting right of public access under Freedom Of Information Act.

Now, that was something that was touted by what is now our government. They put

it out: oh, my God, government is doing terrible things, a deliberate policy to

subvert the public's right of access. My God, that was some bad then. No, should

not be the case; government has done a terrible, terrible thing. Now the shoe is

on the other foot.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did that? (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: I believe that was the former critic, I believe he may

have been the Member for Lewisporte back in the day. I do not know whatever

happened to him. I think there was a little dispute of some sort.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: It is funny, you could read this today; this will

probably be the same press release we could put out today. We could probably

just change the names of the people around, change the date, and issue it,

because it is the same thing going on. We have come a long way, but we are going

a long way backwards, Mr. Speaker. This is regressive. This is intentional.

There is no doubt about it.

Now, just want to talk about I know that we are going to get plenty of

opportunity in Committee to stand and ask specific questions on the legislation;

it is quite substantial, and some of the pieces are less contentious than

others. Some of the pieces are grammatical in nature; some are just little

changes, housekeeping items.

I think it is important at this juncture, Mr. Speaker, that I note I have had

plenty of opportunity to stand and speak on a whole wide range of bills in this,

many of our first sittings as MHAs. All of the members in the House know that in

many cases I have agreed with what government has done. It is not a case of

criticizing for the sake of criticizing. I agree with legislation we debated

last week, whether it is the Personal Services legislation; I agreed

wholeheartedly and commended government for it. I agree with the government on

aquaculture. I agree with the government on a lot of other housekeeping or

substantial bills.

I need to put that out there. This is not a case of the Opposition

disagreeing just because we are the Opposition. The government knows full well I

will support them when they take the right steps. That is why I must say in

situations like this and with legislation like this that I cannot agree at all.

In good conscience I cannot allow the people of our Province to have their

rights trampled trampled when it comes to the right to information. That is

what is going on here.

What we are setting up here we are increasing barriers. It is funny how we

talk about, when you hear the ministerial statements come out, how we are

reducing barriers or removing roadblocks; we are making sure that people get

access to services, whether it be health services or justice services. In this

case, we are setting up those roadblocks and we are putting up those barriers to

make sure the people do not always know what the government is up to. I do not

know why government would want to be that way.

We all understand there is sensitive information. That is a part of

democracy. There is always that fine balance there. We understand that Cabinet

does not necessarily want all of its information put out there. Sometimes that

is necessary. That has always been the case. That is why we have this Privacy

Commissioner who can look into this and make sure that is the case.

No, what we are doing is avoiding the possibilities that ministers or senior

officials might say something that is not exactly popular. God forbid the

government do something that is not popular or might result in a poll coming out

that is not exactly beneficial. We would not want that. I do not know if that

has been happening lately or not.

It is funny. We talk about one of the big changes to this piece of

legislation. For the record, it is

section 18, Cabinet confidences; a Cabinet

record, Mr. Speaker, is: advice, recommendations or policy considerations

submitted or prepared for submission to the court; draft legislation or

regulations submitted or prepared for submission to the Cabinet; a memorandum,

the purpose of which is to present proposals or recommendations to the Cabinet;

discussion papers, policy analyses, proposal, advice or briefing materials,

including factual background material prepared for the Cabinet; an agenda,

minute or other record of Cabinet recording deliberations or decisions; a record

used for or which reflects communications or discussions among ministers on

matters relating to them making government decisions. Again, there are three

more sections there, Mr. Speaker: a record created for or by a minister for the

purpose of briefing that minister on a matter to Cabinet. I guess that is one of

the tools that we are no longer going to have access to, those briefing books

those briefing books which, again, we would submit.

I know there was a period of time where ministers were getting briefed

verbally there. You would sit down and you would learn all the workings of your

department all by mouth and sit there and take it all in. The retention level of

some of these ministers had to be amazing for them to take in I tell you, they

took it all in. God forbid we put it on paper. I see a few of those ministers

over there nodding their heads, yes. My God, a lot of sponges on the other side

there sponges for information. Again, we do not have to worry about that now

because we are going to put it all on paper because we do not have to give

anything to you nothing. It is funny how we have extended that now and you

have discontinued Cabinet record, or an official Cabinet record, or a supporting

Cabinet record. Now there is a difference

AN HON. MEMBER: How would you know?

MR. A. PARSONS: Because it is in the legislation I would say, Mr.

Speaker. I am reading the legislation that the minister tabled here today, so

that is how I know what is in there.

It says here that the head of a public body shall refuse to disclose a

Cabinet record, including official, discontinued, or supporting Cabinet records;

with an official record meaning a Cabinet record that is referred to, which was

prepared or considered in a meeting of Cabinet. Then we have the supporting

ones, meaning a Cabinet record referred to, which informs the process, but is

not an official Cabinet record. So we will just make sure we cover off that

possibility. Then we have a discontinued Cabinet record, which means a Cabinet

record referred to paragraph (

a) the original intent of which was to inform the

Cabinet, but which is neither a supporting Cabinet nor an official Cabinet

document.

Like I said, you are going to get all the information now, we are going to

put it all out there, we will figure out what we want to do, we will move on

with that direction, but we do not have to disclose any of that to the public.

Because, my God, why would the people of this Province be interested in what

government was actually considering doing. Now the good news is the legislation

and again, just for the record of Hansard in case somebody reads this ten

years from now: please insert sarcasm.

Section 4 where a question arises as to whether a Cabinet record is an

official Cabinet record so one that is excerpted so that we cannot see it

the certificate of the Clerk of Executive Council or his or her delegate stating

that the record is an official Cabinet record is conclusive of the question.

When we look at something we are going to say: Is that official? The Clerk or

his delegates are going to come over: Yes, official, sorry, you cannot see that.

I cannot imagine that for the rest of the time this legislation, if it is

passed, I cannot imagine there is ever going to be another unofficial Cabinet

record, everything will be official. We are going to spend that money we saved

in black markers now and we are going to put it on Cabinet seals; we are going

to make sure everything is sealed.

I look at the new paragraph 19(2)(

a) of the act and this is what I call the

oops rule, the oops section. This is one where we talk about that the draft of a

resolution, by-law or legal instrument, a private bill or the subject matter of

deliberations has been considered, other than incidentally, in a meeting open to

the public. That is the case where if you are talking about something and you

slip up and reveal something, do not worry, we have law to protect you, we have

law to make sure that was not actually said. We are covering off all of our

bases here to make sure that the people are not getting the information for

which they should be entitled to, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to move on to some other information here that I have. We have to

come back because sometimes maybe there is a forgetfulness of the reason we have

ATIPP legislation, Access to Information and Protection of Privacy. The

overarching purpose, Mr. Speaker, of this legislation is to facilitate democracy

facilitate or to help democracy. It does so in two ways, Mr. Speaker: the

first is to help ensure that citizens have the information required to

participate meaningfully in the democratic process; and, the second being that

politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizens.

Well, in one fell swoop we are going to eliminate that. It eliminates some of

that need to be accountable; there is no doubt about that. Certainly, it does

not ensure that citizens have all the information that they need to participate

meaningfully in this. Access laws are to make sure that the information is out

there and it is distributed as widely as possible so that all the people of a

Province have access to it, and so that they can think and have these meaningful

conversations and ask those question of their government. We are all elected

here by the people, so in this case the people need to have the information to

make sure that they are informed. We all know about the term informed decision.

Well, in this case we are taking out the informed.

I am going to go back for a second, Mr. Speaker. Like I said, I am going to

get plenty more opportunity to talk to this, specifically to the different

sections. We talk about the Cabinet records, which are all heretofore, will now

be signed by the Clerk saying they are official. The good news is if you want to

appeal that certification, you can do it. You can do it right to the court.

Right to the court, go out and get that money because we all have plenty of

money to spend on access to information, and we are going to take this right to

the court.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in doing this and I have come up with a number of notes

here, a number of notes. I have a ton of information here. I actually came up

with top-five problems or issues I have with this bill, in no particular order.

Number one, Mr. Speaker, obviously, as I referred to, the expansion of the

definition of Cabinet documents. I have already talked about that. The fact is

everything at all now is no longer accessible. We are going to have to figure a

new way to figure out what it is that our government does.

The second part, which the minister referred to, was we are extending the

timelines. I would state, Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that justice delayed is

justice denied. Well, as the hon. Member for Humber Valley said today, access

delayed is access denied. There is no doubt about that. The fact is that over

the course of time, as this legislation was introduced and it was used, we have

already known that if there is a deadline, whether it be thirty days or sixty

days, if you think you are going to get your information before then, well I

would say do not hold your breath. That is not going to happen. We have already

gotten to the point where information will be passed forward on the last

possible date and in some cases beyond that and you have to go and fight for it,

but the thing is now we are going to expand those deadlines, expand those

timelines.

I am pretty sure, Mr. Speaker, the Privacy Commissioner has done a pretty

good job of making sure that his information or decisions are put forward under

the timelines, but the problem he has is he has to rely on those public bodies

which he has to go after to make sure the information is there. That is the

issue. All we are doing is making it easier for those public bodies to drag this

out longer than it already has been.

When I say the access denied part, the fact is a lot of information is time

sensitive. We want that information now. We need that information now. It is no

good if we get it later on when the issue is not even relevant anymore, or if a

bad decision has been made. The fact is, this has happened before where we have

had access to information requests which it is funny how they showed up the

day after the House of Assembly closed. It was just a perfect timing of

coincidence that your report you get back comes the day after the House of

Assembly closed. We have seen that done. It is just funny how that worked. Tha