PDF Version

April 27, 2015

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 4

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge):

Order, please!

Admit

strangers.

I would

like to welcome all members back to the House of Assembly.

I trust you had a great weekend.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we are going to hear

members' statements: the Member for the District of Conception Bay South, the

Member for the District of Bay Verte Springdale, the Member for the District

of The Straits White Bay North, the Member for the District of St. John's

North, the Member for the District of Mt. Pearl South, and the Member for the

District of Bonavista South.

Before I

recognize the Member for Conception Bay South, as Speaker I want to make what is

a solemn declaration. As you all

know, on Thursday evening, April 23, the Speaker of the Canadian Senate, the

hon. Pierre Claude Nolin passed away.

Speaker Nolin served in the Senate for approximately twenty-two years.

He was appointed Speaker back in November of 2014.

behalf of all of you, all Members in this hon. House of Assembly, I want to pass

condolences to Speaker Nolin's wife, Camille, to his family, and to all his

Senate colleagues.

Thank

you very much.

The hon.

the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. HILLIER:

Mr. Speaker, several weeks

ago, I recognized the students and teachers involved in the Duke of Edinburgh

Awards program at Queen Elizabeth High School.

Today I stand to recognize five current students and one recent graduate,

also of Queen Elizabeth Regional High School, who on March 13 accepted bronze

and silver Duke of Edinburgh Awards from the hon. Frank Fagan at a ceremony in

St. John's.

These

students are part of the COSTA, Challenge Our Students To Achieve, initiative

and support the participation of youth with cognitive and physical disabilities

in the award program. Queen

Elizabeth Regional High School has been offering this program since 1998 and has

seen many students achieve at the bronze, silver, and gold levels.

Receiving awards that day were Katie Brien, Brooke Pottle, Kristen Tibbo,

Emily Lomholt-Farrell, Zachary Dean, and Matthew McCarthy.

I would

also like to congratulate teacher Sandra Hemmings who, at the same ceremony, was

recognized for fifteen years of service to the COSTA program of the Duke of

Edinburgh Awards. These young

people, with the help of Ms Hemmings, have worked extremely hard in attaining

their awards and I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating

them on their achievements.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the

District of Baie Verte Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon House today to recognize the outstanding efforts of Baie Verte

Peninsula Used Clothing and Food Bank Inc.

Its

mission is to reduce hunger and assist families who are challenged with

day-to-day living. Its vision is to

bridge the gap between poverty and health status among residents of the

peninsula is certainly a noble vision.

To accomplish this, various partnerships with community groups,

businesses, organizations and individuals have been forged.

In addition, a committed group of community volunteers have come together

to make this a reality, for which the entire peninsula is very thankful.

Committee members include: Todd Parsons, Michelle Brown Burton, Jessica Cole,

Diane Davis, Marion Fitzgerald, Laura Bailey, Neil Kirby, Pastor Greg Patey,

Deanne Small, Brittany Sacrey Jenkins, and Danielle Seymour.

Please

join me in applauding the outstanding efforts of all those involved with the

Baie Verte Peninsula Used Clothing and Food Bank in addressing the needs of the

area residents.

Their

promotion of active living and overall good health and well-being is to be

applauded.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for The

Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

recognize twenty-five-year-old Anchor Point native Zachary King who sparked a

giant win at the Skills Canada provincial welding competition held at the

College of the North Atlantic Burin campus.

He took home the gold after the mastering four separate projects that

impressed the judges enough to earn him the top prize.

participate, Zach had to show impressive skill and technique by being top of his

class in first year welding, Corner Brook campus.

Zach always had an interest in working with his hands, exhibiting good

mechanical and welding skills, taking things apart, and dabbling with the trade.

As he grew older he felt it was time to perfect his skills and turn a

talent into a career. He has

enrolled in the College of the North Atlantic and has become a shining example

of youth pursuing a career at home in a field he is passionate.

I hope he inspires more youth to do the same.

As the

Newfoundland and Labrador welding champion, he continues on to Saskatoon,

Saskatchewan for the national championship.

I ask all hon. members to congratulate our champion where he will be

ready to take on the world.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's North.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to

congratulate Malcom and Monica Squires, long-time residents of the District of

St. Johns' North who celebrated their fiftieth wedding anniversary on January

Mr. and

Mrs. Squires have both lived in the City of St. John's all their lives and for

the past eighteen years at the same address.

Malcom formally worked as a TV repair technician while Monica was

previously employed for a number of years doing administrative work at the

taxation centre.

Mrs.

Squires told us that the day they were married at St. Teresa's Church in 1965,

it was a cold and windy day. Of

course that is not unusual for a January day in the City of St. John's.

Malcom

and Monica raised a family of three children.

They greatly enjoy spending their time with their five grandchildren

three of whom are living in British Columbia and two closer to home here in St.

John's.

These

days Mr. and Mrs. Squires enjoy their retirement time together, reading and

going for walks around their neighbourhood.

I ask

all hon. members to join me in wishing a very happy fiftieth wedding anniversary

to Malcom and Monica Squires.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount

Pearl South.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Recently, community leaders and volunteers gathered at the Reid Centre to select

Mount Pearl's Citizen of the Year.

As usual, this year's nominees were all tremendous community volunteers who all

share a love for Mount Pearl and an unwavering commitment to community service.

The judges had a very difficult task in making the selection, and, in the

end, they decided to choose two very deserving individuals to share this year's

honour.

Former

Frosty Festival Chair Jim Greenland was selected for his involvement with the

Kinsmen Club, the K40 Club, Shrine Club, Children's Wish Foundation, and can be

found throughout the year sharing his wonderful gift of song to the residents of

Mount Pearl.

Dan

Maher has made a tremendous contribution to the community through the Mount

Pearl Special Olympics and St. John Ambulance, as well as through many other

community activities. Dan is

probably most known for his role as the city's community photographer, and has

literally taken thousands of photos at community festivals, banquets, and events

throughout the year.

I ask

all members to join me in congratulating these two outstanding individuals on

receiving this honour and thank them for their commitment to their community.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Bonavista South.

MR. LITTLE:

Honourable colleagues, I

would like to congratulate the members of the Heritage Huskies boys' volleyball

team. They are students at Heritage

Collegiate High School, located in Lethbridge in the District of Bonavista

South.

The

Heritage Huskies hosted and captured the 3A Provincial Volleyball Championship

of Newfoundland and Labrador. They won

the semi-final match against Roncalli Central High School with a score of 25-10,

and 25-20. The championship game was

played against Jens Haven Memorial School from Nain.

Jens Haven won the first set, 26-24, and the Heritage Huskies won the

second set, 25-18, and continued on to win the third and final set with a score

of 15-11. This is the first time a

boys' volleyball team has won the provincials for Heritage Collegiate.

Team

members of the Heritage Collegiate High School Huskies are as follows: Matthew

Holloway, AJ Russell, Ryan Oldford, Ryan Penney, Jordan Skiffington, Jonah

Clouter, Jeremy Blundon, Marcus Ralph, Kent Keats, Brandon Bladen; Coaches Carol

Blundon and Terry Maloney; and Assistant Coaches Brittany Keough and Eugene

Holloway.

Mr.

Speaker, hon. colleagues, please join me in congratulating the Heritage Huskies

on their victory in winning the 3A Provincial Volleyball Championship.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise

in this hon. House today to highlight an inspiring mental health awareness event

that took place this past Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

On Friday evening in St. John's, the Premier and I joined the students

and staff at Holy Heart High School, as well as a host of local and national

advocacy groups for Mental Health Matters.

Young people from across the Province attended this conference.

The

conference brought people with diverse perspectives on mental health together to

discuss ways to raise awareness and reduce the stigma associated with mental

illnesses, particularly in young people.

This is one of the most effective ways we can ensure those with mental

health issues reach out for the support and guidance they need.

The event included participation from an array of mental health advocates

and organizations, students and staff.

There were presentations and workshops on topics ranging from relaxation

techniques like yoga and meditation to anxiety management.

It was fantastic to meet with students, staff, and interest groups who

had all come together with one goal in mind: mental health awareness in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, mental health and addictions remain a key priority for the provincial

government. About one in five of us

will live with a mental illness in any given year.

We are very aware of the challenges people are facing with these issues

and remain committed to ensuring that youth and adults have access to the

programs and services they need.

This past year, two new twelve-bed treatment centres opened in Grand

Falls-Windsor and Paradise for youth with additions and complex mental health

needs. Work is also progressing on a

new adult addictions centre in Harbour Grace, which is scheduled to be complete

later this year.

The

Mental Health Crisis Line offers 24/7 phone crisis intervention services to

provide guidance and support anytime, anywhere in the Province.

We had the opportunity to launch our latest awareness video for the

crisis line at the event on Friday night as well.

The video can be viewed on the provincial government's YouTube channel.

Mr.

Speaker, it was a privilege to join such a large gathering of people who share

the same commitment to addressing mental health concerns in our Province.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the event organizers,

including co-chair Patrick Hickey and the staff and students at Holy Heart High

School, for their tremendous efforts to increase awareness and education on

mental health for youth in our Province.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would

like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We, too, in the Official Opposition would like to congratulate the

organizers for this job well done and for this event that was certainly well

needed and well attended. We were

very glad to hear that it went off so well.

I was

certainly glad to hear that a constituent of mind, a young girl, Brittney

Coleman, was able to attend. It is

good to see youth from all across the Province are able to come here to be a

part of this, and to talk with other youth from across the Province to compare

their experiences and what they can do to better assist people in understanding

and breaking down the stigma of mental health issues.

I would

also like to recognize Mr. Patrick Hickey, one of the co-chairs of this event,

for the tremendous job he has done in this field.

He is a 2015 champion of mental health by the Canadian Alliance on Mental

Illness, a co-chair of the Metro Youth Mental Health Committee, and a member of

the Community Coalition. He is a

tremendous young man and we need young people like that to get involved, so I am

happy to see that.

closing, I would like to note the all-party committee meeting we had on Friday

with the minister, members of the Third Party, myself, and the Member for St.

John's North. It is this

co-operation between the parties that we need to do more of.

I look forward to having more meetings and getting across the Province to

discuss this.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS ROGERS:

I thank the minister for an

advance copy of his statement.

Huge

congratulations to Patrick Hickey and the Holy Heart team for Mental Health

Matters. From my town hall last June

to our Community Coalition for Mental Health, to our All-Party Committee on

Mental Health and Addictions, our Province is abuzz with citizens' advocacy,

hope and determination. Stigma is a

key issue, but raising dialogue is not enough.

Students tell us they need more counsellors in schools and mental health

must be incorporated into the curriculum.

Let's really hear what students are saying then roll up our sleeves and

get to work designing services that truly respond.

Bravo

Patrick and team! Lead on.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to

acknowledge Sport Newfoundland and Labrador's annual Stars and Legends Awards

Gala, which was held earlier this month.

During the event, eight provincial awards were presented to some of this

year's outstanding athletes, and six individuals were inducted into the Hall of

Fame.

It was

an exciting year for Newfoundland and Labrador athletes, Mr. Speaker, as many

achieved success on the local, national, and international stage.

There was an impressive group of nominees at this year's ceremony, with

the awards going to softball player Sean Cleary as Senior Male Athlete of the

Year; runner Jillian Forsey as Senior Female Athlete of the Year; hockey's Clark

Bishop as Junior Male Athlete of the Year; baseball's Heather Healey as Junior

Female Athlete of the Year; softball's John Hill as Coach of the Year; Memorial

University's Women's Soccer Team, the Sea Hawks, as Team of the Year; and

baseball's Mark Healey as both Executive of the Year and Volunteer of the Year.

Mr.

Speaker, I congratulate all the award winners for the hard work and dedication

which led them to be honoured.

Meanwhile, six inductees into the Newfoundland and Labrador Sports Hall of Fame

were honoured for a lifetime of commitment to sport.

Paul Barron, George Connors, Bill Davis, Carla Edwards, Deon Goulding,

and Trevor O'Brien have contributed as athletes, builders, or both, and are to

be commended for the contribution to sports in this Province.

Mr.

Speaker, the Department of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development is committed

to supporting sport, physical activity and recreation at all levels.

We continue to support our athletes through the Athletic Excellence Fund,

which includes the Premier's Athletic Awards Program and the Elite Athlete

Assistance Program; the National Travel Subsidy Initiative; and Canada Games

funding. We also provide support to

athletes and coaches through various provincial sport organizations.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to congratulate Sport Newfoundland and Labrador, and all

the provincial sport organizations, for their ongoing commitment to amateur

sport in this Province, and also thank our athletes, coaches, managers, parents,

and volunteers who support athletic excellence at every level.

I ask my

colleagues in this House to join me in congratulating this year's Sport

Newfoundland and Labrador provincial award recipients and Hall of Fame

inductees.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. HILLIER:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

minister for an advance copy of his statement.

The Official Opposition would like to congratulate the recipients of the

eight provincial awards and the six people inducted into the Newfoundland and

Labrador Sports Hall of Fame.

I had

the opportunity to attend the function and had the opportunity also to

congratulate these people personally.

Heather Healey is from the beautiful Town of Conception Bay South.

The

minister touted the different programs in the Department of Seniors, Wellness

and Social Development that promote sport.

Let's hope that government will see fit to continue the support in the

years ahead, including Budget 2015.

Mr.

Speaker, Canada Games are fast approaching.

We are due to host in 2021.

We have yet to see any commitment, either planning or financial, from

government. Planning should have

already started and organizers need to know what financial resources they have

to work with in hosting the games.

We know there are significant infrastructure needs and we urge government to

show leadership for this event.

We need

a commitment today. Facilities must

be ready by 2019 so our athletes can train and compete in them, and make them

their own in order to achieve that competitive edge and win medals at home.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

I, too,

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I am very pleased to join with him and the Official Opposition in

congratulating all the award winners at this year's awards gala for their

athletic achievements and their contribution to the Province.

I know it makes a difference to them to be acknowledged by their

colleagues.

The

annual awards and the Athletic Excellence Fund are crucial supports that are

helping our best athletes achieve success.

I remind the minister and this government that we need more support for

physical education and recreation in our schools and communities to improve our

overall health, and to build community support for the amateur athletes, both in

their communities and as they move on in the Province.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to remind all members of this hon. House that nominations

for the Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Awards are now being accepted

and the deadline of May 1 is fast approaching.

The annual awards program is an opportunity to recognize environmental

achievements in our Province and raise awareness of the individuals, groups,

schools, and businesses who take action to protect and sustain our environment.

Mr.

Speaker, the Department of Environment and Conservation partners annually with

the Multi-Material Stewardship Board and the Newfoundland and Labrador Women's

Institutes to recognize environmental achievement in the following categories:

Individual; Community Group or Organization; Youth, Youth Group or School;

Municipality or Regional Waste Management Committee; and Business or Industry

Leader.

Each

category winner will receive a $1,000 honorarium from the Multi-Material

Stewardship Board to be used to continue their environmental project or donated

in their name to an environmental organization or cause.

Award recipients will be announced during Environmental Week, which is

taking place June 1-6.

This

year's recipients will join an impressive group of more than 100 environmental

stewards who have received awards since the program began in 1990, including

last year's winners which were Jean Ann Lambert in the Individual category; Emma

Power as the Youth winner; the Petty Harbour Aquarium as the winner of the

Community Group or Organization award; Immaculate Heart of Mary School in Corner

Brook as the winner of the School category; the Town of Labrador as the

Municipality award recipient; and Suncor Energy as this year's Industry Leader.

Mr.

Speaker, a healthy and sustainable environment yields healthy people, a stronger

economy, more vibrant communities, and a legacy for which we can be proud.

Our commitment to our ecosystem will ensure we meet the social, physical,

cultural, and economic needs of present and future generations.

This

Province is filled with environmental leaders, Mr. Speaker, and these awards are

an excellent way of recognizing their achievements while raising awareness of

the importance of protecting our environment.

The deadline for nominations is May 1 and all the information, including

nomination applications and eligibility criteria, is available on the Department

of Environment and Conservation website.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for The

Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

minister for an advance copy of his statement.

The Official Opposition encourages individuals, groups, municipalities,

youth, and business to apply for these environmental awards.

We, too, would like to congratulate the past winners for their

contributions to foster and raise awareness of protecting and sustaining our

environment.

Newfoundland and Labrador has an incredible asset in terms of our natural

environment. It gives us an

opportunity to pursue sustainable fisheries, forestry, tourism and other

industries, as well as create new jobs in pursuit of the green economy.

This

government lacks vision as it passed regressive legislation that limits

innovation in alternative energies that would reduce greenhouse gases and help

local business or towns increase revenues or lower operating costs.

This Province is filled with environmental leaders, but they are not

getting their leadership from the current government when you see millions upon

millions of unnecessarily environmental liabilities accepted, cuts to ecological

reserves and protected areas, a weak stance on the

Manolis L , more than a decade with no

delivery of the natural areas systems plans, boil advisories in more than 150

communities, and the list goes on.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's East.

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank

the minister for the advance copy of his statement here today.

I can

think of a few groups myself who would qualify for such an award and I would

encourage others to nominate them for their ongoing work as well.

In my

district, for example, I can think of the Salmonid Association of Newfoundland

and Labrador, and the Quidi Vidi Rennies River Development Foundation.

Outside of the district, there are others doing fine work in the

Province: Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the Puffin Patrol in Witless

Bay, and the Fracking Awareness Group, just to name a few.

Some will not win an award, Mr. Speaker, but they deserve our thanks for

their tireless work nonetheless.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Justice said on Thursday that he was not aware of an official Memorandum of

Understanding between our police forces and the OPP, that he thought there was

but that he would check.

I ask

again: Is there an MOU between our RNC, RCMP, and the OPP, and will you table

it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

actually what I said was, I was not aware if it was re-signed or not.

I was certainly aware there had been an MOU, and, yes, there is currently

an MOU in place.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister: Will he table it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you.

clarify my previous remarks, I may have overlooked one part of your question.

The MOU is with the RNC, not RCMP.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask: Will he

table it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since

the MOU is not a government document, I will certainly seek out to see if I have

the authority to table that here.

The MOU is actually between the police force, but I have no issue tabling it if

there is no restriction around that.

I will check it out and get back to you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday the

Minister of Justice said to the media that he wanted to ensure people had

continued confidence that the results of the investigation reveals total

transparency about what transpired from the time the RNC officer went to visit

Mr. Dunphy until the investigation concludes.

I ask

the minister: Are you saying that the two days prior to the shooting are not a

part of the investigation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

The hon. member read what I

said, so clearly the second part of his question was not in the first part that

he quoted. No, I did not say that,

Mr. Speaker.

intention was that at the end of this investigation, we will want to determine

whether there is a full and clear understanding of all of the events that would

have led up and contributed to that fatal event.

If there is not, then we will contemplate calling an inquiry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, there was

certainly no confusion on our part.

We are referring directly to what the minister said to the media outside, at

which time he said from the time the officer went to the Dunphy house until the

investigation concludes.

So I

just want to confirm that two days prior from the time that the tweet was sent

to the Premier's Office, that time will be included in this investigation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I think I just

answered that question.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing

that the Minister of Justice can stand up here.

The people have deliberate, serious questions and he continues to stand

up and obfuscate the matter and try to contradict himself every time that he

speaks.

The

minister also said on Thursday in the House, both police forces are engaged

here in different pieces of an investigation Upon conclusion of those

investigations we will make a determination .

I ask

the minister: Can you please clarify this?

Are both forces involved in investigating?

If so, what different parts is each force investigating?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, what is terrible

here is the politics being played in this House of Assembly by the member

opposite. It is not the answers that

I am giving.

I can

quote from Hansard that and I would never say the member lied or deliberately

misled the House because that would be unparliamentary.

I can say to you that he is rather reckless with the truth, and I quote:

the Minister of Justice is abrogating his responsibilities.

Now it

is not about me personally, it is about the office of the Minister of Justice.

I pointed out very clearly to the media and I point out to the member

opposite, that the Minister of Justice does not have authority in ongoing police

investigations. That has been

clearly established by the Supreme Court of Canada, a fact that I would think he

would have known as a practicing lawyer prior to coming into this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, it is

unfortunate that the Minister of Justice continues to want to be a bystander in

this matter when he is supposed to lead justice.

Two things I would say. It

says right on his own website that the Minister of Justice administers police

protection. The second part and

again, if I had said something wrong he can stand up on a point of order and

contradict me. I certainly did not

ask for the minister to get directly involved in an investigation.

I ask

the minister: Will you please

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS:

I ask the minister again:

Will you please stand up and tell us, are both forces involved in this

investigation as you said here in this House on Thursday?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the

member opposite can clarify for the House exactly what it is he feels the role

for me ought to be. I remember

clearly last week the questioning was: Will you now step in and call in an

outside police force and remove the RCMP from this investigation?

Today he is presenting a different tone here.

So I ask

the member, be very clear on what you think the role of the Minister of Justice

is. Clearly, what I am seeing here

is that if the Liberals were in government, they would run policing services

from the minister's office and now allow the police to operate in Canada as they

ought to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Again, I say it is

unfortunate that the Minister of Justice does not actually want to be the

Minister of Justice. I asked a very

simple question last time. You said

here in this House Thursday that both forces were involved in this

investigation.

So I ask

you again, for the third time: Are they both involved; and, if so, what are they

doing?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, the

investigation into the tragic events of Mr. Dunphy and what transpired leading

up to that is being led by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

It is also being overseen by a parallel independent process with retired

Judge Riche who will follow the investigation.

He has every power that goes with that.

He can ask questions, he can observe, he can do whatever he wants, and he

is going to produce an independent report at the conclusion of this

investigation.

The

Royal Newfoundland Constabulary will be following their own policies and

procedures by completing an internal investigation around the protocols that

would have been followed by the officer in question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister: Will be table the engagement letter with Justice Riche in this House?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, the engagement

letter is not mine to table. He was

engaged by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, the minister has

spent a good deal of time here trying to explain why he has no authority and

should not be involved in the administration of justice.

The relationship between the minister and RCMP is outlined in the

policing agreement which is A(5) in the statutes.

There it says quite clearly that the relationship between the minister

and the head of the RCMP is the same as the relationship between the minister

and the head of the RNC.

Section

6(2) of the RNC Act, 1992 clearly states: The chief shall report to and shall

obey the minister's orders and directions.

That is a direct quote.

I ask

the minister: Given your authority, have you even talked to the head of the

RCMP?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, as I have said

repeatedly in this House, I am not interested in debating the Opposition's view

of what my role ought to be. I

understand my responsibilities when I swore an oath to the Crown.

I take them very seriously, and I will continue to do that.

What we

are dealing with here is a very significant event that has had tragic

consequences and is affecting many families not just the Dunphy family.

There are a lot of people affected by this.

My focus is on ensuring that, first of all, people understand I have full

confidence in the integrity of the independent judge that has been appointed,

and I have full confidence in the RCMP to conduct this investigation.

At the conclusion of that investigation I will endeavour to ensure that

the public interest is satisfied and, if not, then we will consider calling an

inquiry into the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask the same

question again, the RNC Act clearly lays out the role that the minister has and

the authority that he has.

So I ask

the question: Have you spoken to the head of the RCMP in this matter?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

I have had no discussions

with the RCMP on this matter, Mr. Speaker.

I am certain that my officials at the department would.

It is not unusual that the minister would not have regular discussions

with the RCMP, particularly about ongoing investigations.

This is

the third stint that I have been in the Department of Justice and Public Safety,

and I can tell you that I have never, never had a discussion with the RCMP or

the RNC to interfere into an operational issue, which I have clearly outlined

here as I see it, that there is no role for the minister.

The police have the authority to do their job.

It has been clearly established at the highest court in the land, the

Supreme Court of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I can get into

that case at some point, because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of

Canada when they made that decision was Judge Lamer, who also had a role here in

this Province with the Lamer Inquiry.

So we can talk about case law now shortly, but I want to come back to

something the minister just said.

There

are two acts in this Province that both say that the minister clearly has

authority to speak to both forces not about interfering with an investigation,

but to talk to the heads of those police forces.

So I say

to the minister: Why have you not used your authority as the Minister of Justice

and spoken to the head of the RCMP on this matter?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to

use authority to have a conversation with the police forces.

I do not know why the member would insert that kind of language.

I guess that is the way the Liberal Party would look at it use

authority to speak to people.

establish collaborative relationships.

I speak to members of various organizations that I am responsible for on

a regular basis. I have not had a

discussion about this particular issue.

I do not see where I need to have a discussion about this particular

issue. We have been very forthright

with the facts as we know them around what is transpiring and the process that

is transpiring. Likewise, the RCMP

has been public on at least one occasion.

I suspect you will hear from them again as part of their responsibility

to ensure that the public is aware of what it going on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, in 2000 the then

Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP in this Province, Larry Warren, called in the

OPP to investigate under the Reid shooting because he was so confident in his

force that he felt it could withstand outside scrutiny.

He invited it. This is

established in Luther. It is

established in Lamer. It is also

established in the Braidwood inquiry from British Columbia.

I ask

the minister, given that you have the authority, given that this has been done

before, given that Judge Lamer himself talked about tunnel vision when police

forces investigate their own, I say to you: Why have you, why has the Premier,

not spoken to the head of the police to talk about this very serious matter?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my

message on how I see this once again.

I will continue to repeat it if the member wants to keep asking

questions. I will stand all day and

repeat it.

I have

every confidence in the RCMP and the parallel process with the independent judge

following through on this particular investigation.

I have the utmost confidence in our police services.

If I did not, I would step aside as the Minister of Justice.

That is my responsibility and I take that very seriously.

At the

conclusion of this process we will assess, as the Premier has said here on any

number of occasions, we will assess the outcome, assess whether or not we feel

the public interest has been satisfied and that all the information that is

required to be made public has been made public.

If we still have concerns then we will contemplate calling an inquiry,

but I am not prepared to interfere in the meantime.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, inevitably there

will be an inquiry into the death of Mr. Dunphy.

The inquiry should be about the shooting and not about the investigation

into the shooting.

Therefore, I ask the minister, I ask the Premier: Why do you continue to resist

and refuse to do what is appropriate, what has been recognized in the past by

multiple judges in this country, and give this investigation independent,

outside oversight?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, it is

unfortunate that, first of all, the member's line of questioning for the past

three or four days is calling totally into question the integrity and the

honesty and the capability and professionalism of the RCMP police force here in

this Province. That is very

unfortunate. What is even more

unfortunate today

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KING:

is that he has now taken

that criticism and levelled it squarely on the shoulders of Judge David Riche

who is independent of the police force and following a parallel process to

ensure there is an independent oversight of the investigation.

I just

think, Mr. Speaker, that the line of questioning that is happening around this

incident is terrible for the House of Assembly to play politics with such a very

sensitive matter. I have been very

clear that we will see this process through to the end.

If it is in the public interest, we will call an inquiry, but we will

decide that at the conclusion of the process.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's North.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, our teachers and

our students took another hit last Friday

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KIRBY:

when this government

announced its latest round of teacher cuts.

This comes after last Tuesday's Throne Speech and the promise to review

K-12 education. So it is completely

backwards.

I ask

the Premier: Why are you cutting education before you review the system to see

what changes are actually needed?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Acting Minister

of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, I think

everybody in the Province is well aware of the fiscal situation of the Province

and the commitment that we would take a look at all things related to our Budget

position. With respect to education,

I am going to be clear for the people of the Province, our commitment, our value

for education, and our unprecedented investment in education has been a priority

for this government. I can tell you

it will not change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY:

What we have done as a result

of the exercise, Mr. Speaker, we have added one student to Grade 4-6, we have

added two students to Grade 7-9, and we have added three students to multigrade

classrooms trying to minimize the impact while we continue to make investments

in education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's North.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, prior to this

latest round of teacher cuts, parents and educators were already raising red

flags about educational outcomes in this Province in math and in other areas.

I ask

the minister responsible: Has your department assessed what the impact will be

on educational outcomes as a result of this latest round of teacher cuts?

If so, can you please table those assessments?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Acting Minister

of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge

when I did the announcement, and certainly from my twenty years in the education

system, I would content that any time we see reductions we obviously have to be

concerned about the impacts as well.

Mr.

Speaker, in our role in delivering the education system and how we pay for that

education system, there are multiple issues to consider.

Teacher allocations, special services, student assistants,

transportation, infrastructure, and curriculum review, all of those aspects make

up the entire education system.

The

decisions we made here to minimize that impact, recognizing as well there are

going to be approximately 200 teachers expected to retire this year, we think we

are on a good track to continue to make the right investments in the full

envelope of education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's North.

MR. KIRBY:

I will take from that, Mr.

Speaker, that the minister does not know what the impact will be.

Mr.

Speaker, just a few hours after government announced it was cutting teachers,

the President of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador made comments about

teachers that have been described as diminishing, disparaging, and belittling.

I ask

the Premier: Is that how you regard teachers in this Province?

Is the President of the PC Party representing your view when he takes

shots like that at hardworking teachers in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Acting Minister

of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, that is a cheap

political tactic. I can tell you

right now the value of teachers, and I can speak personally or I can speak on

behalf of our government, the investments we have made in teachers, in their

training, in their professional development and keeping units there, and a 28

per cent pay raise. The list goes on

as to the investments we have made in our teachers and the value of our teachers

to our education system.

I think

everybody in the education system understands there is a formula for allocation,

Mr. Speaker. The formula is applied,

and there are times when there are changes.

Last year we did not take units out.

This year there is a slight reduction, but we have announced full-day

Kindergarten and 142 units going back in the system next year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Virginia Waters.

MS C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have

been advised that Mr. Leo Bonnell has been hired to help collect the one million

dollars in pension overpayments that the minister announced a couple of weeks

ago. Mr. Bonnell is a former bank

manager for several of the pensioners and we understand he is asking people for

their bank records, retirement income, and other personal financial sources of

income.

I ask

the minister: Is this true, and on what authority does Mr. Bonnell have to ask

for all this confidential information?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

I am delighted the Member for

Virginia Waters has addressed the credentials of Mr. Bonnell because he has had

tremendous experience in working with people and their personal financial

circumstance.

As I

have said in this House and said outside, that the process we are going through

to meet with each of these individuals to talk about their individual

circumstance, because what we are talking about is a person's ability to repay

an amount that they were overpaid.

We need to understand their personal circumstance to determine what might be a

reasonable level of repayment and how we would work within their budget to set

up a repayment for the individual lives overpayments that they have.

In the absence of financial information, we are not able to personalize

their independent arrangements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Virginia Waters.

MS C. BENNETT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, what I am talking about is government's legal authority to collect.

I ask

the minister: Can he advise this House if there were any underpayments to

seniors identified as part of the audit that uncovered the overpayments he is

now collecting? Does he expect any

legal challenges as to the result of this audit?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I have no way of

knowing what individuals may choose to do with respect to a legal challenge.

Obviously, individual citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador have a right,

if they wish, to seek legal counsel on any relationship and any connection they

may have with government. They will

make their own decisions as to what they may do and the advice that they will

get.

In fact,

we have encouraged individuals, as they are talking through this issue, to have

maybe family members accompanying them if they want to seek out some advice.

We have had MHAs who have been in contact with the department on behalf

of pensioners. I suspect, Mr.

Speaker, that many of them will seek advice and guidance from a variety of

people who they trust and respect. I

would encourage them to continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Carbonear Harbour Grace.

MR. SLADE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, last week the plant workers at Fortune publicly stated the operator,

OCI, is not living up to its promise to provide 110 year-round jobs.

Are the

workers at Fortune right?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER:

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure

for me to stand in the House to address the question that is presented by the

hon. member. Throughout this entire

process from the people of the Fortune in actual fact, I met with the union

representatives last week here in my office in St. John's and listened to their

story and their plight. I also met

on a number of occasions with the company in the past little while.

We are trying to find a resolution, a solution, for the people of Fortune

and the people in that particular plant.

When we

are dealing with the fisheries and fisheries issues, Mr. Speaker, it is not

always easy solutions and easy answers.

I sat down with the union and union officials last week and we are

working through it.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Carbonear Harbour Grace.

MR. SLADE:

Mr. Speaker, the workers over

there were promised 110 full-time jobs.

The Province did give up minimum processing requirements on that

yellowtail that went out.

Mr.

Speaker, when questioned last month about the status of the Fortune plant, the

minister did not provide an answer.

I ask

the minister: What has changed since last month when the minister would not

provide an answer on this important issue?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. GRANTER:

Mr. Speaker, there are a

number of arrangements in place with OCI, the plant in Fortune, and the

government. Our department is

continuing to dialogue with the company.

As I just said, as I stood on my feet a few seconds ago, continue the

dialogue with the union, two-way communications between OCI, two-way

communications between my department and the people of Fortune, Mr. Speaker.

It is in the best interest of all of us to come to a resolution and to

make sure that the people of Fortune are back to work at the OCI plant, Mr.

Speaker.

The

agreements give hope to the people of Fortune, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to

hold OCI accountable to the promises that they made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

ferry design packages for Bell Island and Fogo, Change Islands ferries were

provided to all bidders to ensure that all yards would be bidding and delivering

on the same design. Technical scores

between the successful bidder, Damen, and the Chilean bidder were very close; in

fact, the Chilean company has extensive experience building vessels for our

Newfoundland and Labrador waters.

I ask

the minister: How can you say that paying $25.5 million more for these vessels

is getting the best value for the people of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I

can say is we did not go with the least expensive bid here; we did not go with

the most expensive. We went with the

one in the middle from a financial point of view.

Our financial assessment is 30 per cent of the overall matrix when we

determine what asset it is that we want to invest the people's money with; 70

per cent of it is built on the technical ability for this vessel to do what we

want it to do for the next twenty-five for the people of rural Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, Damen Shipyards were much further ahead than the second proponent when

it came to the technical advancements of this proposal.

As a result, we are getting the best return for the taxpayers of

Newfoundland and Labrador and being able to provide the best service for the

people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's South.

MR. OSBORNE:

Mr. Speaker, the former

Minister of Transportation, the Member for Labrador West, said the contract

amount of $51 million per vessel included the tariffs.

Last November in this House, the current minister said that the contract

amount is what we will pay Damen and it is what the people of the Province will

be on the hook for. You said the

federal government would waive the tariff.

I ask

the minister: Was the $25 million in tariffs accounted for in the federal Budget

this year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, unlike the

Opposition Party over there, we invest in rural Newfoundland and Labrador; we

invest in people who live on islands in these great communities of ours, in this

great Province.

What we

have done is put out a budget that we know is respective of the fact of the

investment we are going to make for those people, Mr. Speaker.

What I had mentioned in the House was I am optimistic that the federal

government would waive those tariffs.

We did a very diligent proposal to the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. BRAZIL:

As of tomorrow morning at

8:00 o'clock, I will be meeting with the senior executives of the Canadian Ferry

Operators Association, and one of the key discussions will be around tariff

reductions for ferry users and those who manufacture in this Province.

I will be making sure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador get

their due justice.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

The

Minister of Finance today announced a plan that will remove 1,420 positions from

the public service sector through attrition and will eviscerate the delivery of

services to people of the Province.

He is trying to solve a revenue problem through cutting the number of workers,

because that is what is happening no matter how he wants to put it.

I ask

the minister: Is this government looking at anything besides making decisions on

the backs of the workers of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

Mr. Speaker, this government

has a tremendous respect for the public servants who provide valuable services

to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We want to make sure that whatever we do in readjusting the size of the

workforce in Newfoundland and Labrador we do it in a way that ensures that we

have capable, competent people providing key public services to all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

As we

make change, we will make change in a way that makes sure that we always will

have an effective public service doing great work.

Attrition, over the next five years, we are able to make some change in

the size of our public service in a very planned way, in a way that exercises

some good judgement about how we deliver services and minimize the impact on

those people who are working in the public service today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

the minister: What is his long-term plan for dealing with a diminishing revenue

base in this Province besides diminishing the workforce?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of

this week, members of this House and the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador

will get a full understanding and a keen insight into our five-year plan.

They will understand clearly that we have a vision for the future, we

have an understanding of what circumstance Newfoundlanders and Labradorians find

themselves in today, and we have a clear plan for where we are going and doing

things in a planned fashion, very strategic, very instrumental in making sure

that we continue to have a vibrant economy and we continue to have a bright

future for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

People will see that on Thursday when the Budget is read in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the minister

presents attrition as if it a benign concept; losing 1,400 jobs by attrition

means losing 1,400 actual employment opportunities for young Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

How can

the minister reconcile today's announcement with a Province's youth retention

strategy?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

Just so we are clear, the

Leader of the Third Party talked about revenue, the Leader of the Third Party

talked about where we are going, and clearly, Mr. Speaker, we need to readjust

the course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN:

We need to readjust the

course. We need to understand that

the reality of today is not what it was five or ten years ago.

So, we are going to be readjusting the size of the public service, but we

want to do it in a way that does not create tremendous disruption.

If we were to make a massive change by laying off people, who goes

through the door? The most junior

people. The people who just started

within the last four or five years.

We do not want to disrupt the lives of these young Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians who have chosen a career in the public service because they think

it is a wonderful place to work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, has government

done an evaluation of the impact of the cuts from the last workforce adjustment

to the core public service in 2013, which is still being felt?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN:

Mr. Speaker, back in 2013,

when there was close to 400, or a little over 400 layoffs in the public service,

the same members opposite stood and criticized government of that day for laying

people off in a cruel fashion.

Here we

are today, Mr. Speaker, suggesting that we need to make a further adjustment in

the public service, but we are going to do it in a planned fashion over a

five-year period through attrition.

Now that is not favourable, I say, Mr. Speaker.

So I guess if you were to go about making an adjustment in your

workforce, you have two options. You

can lay people off, you can do it through attrition.

I do not know a third way, but if the member has a third option stand and

share it with us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order Please.

The time

for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling

of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

Pursuant to

section 8 and

section 10 of the Public Tender Act, I hereby table the Report of Public Tender

Act Exceptions for the month of December, 2014, as presented by the Chief

Operating Officer of the Government Purchasing Agency.

Further

tabling of documents?

Notices

of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Labrador West.

MR. MCGRATH:

I move, seconded by the

Member for Port au Port, for a private member's resolution:

WHEREAS

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve to be served by the most

progressive Legislature in the country; and

WHEREAS

greater effectiveness and efficiency can be achieved by the Legislature in its

service to the people of the Province; and

WHEREAS

modernizing procedures would allow for greater involvement of all MHAs in the

legislative process;

BE IT

RESOLVED that this hon. House supports the reforms of the House championed by

the Premier and outlined in the 2015 Speech from the Throne, which include

enhancing the roles of individual Members, reviewing the compensation of

Members who hold special positions in the legislature, reviewing MHA pensions,

reducing the number of seats and opening the legislation to greater scrutiny.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

private member's resolution just read in would be the one that we will debate

here this coming Wednesday, April 29.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further notices of motion?

Answers

to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St.

John's Centre.

MS ROGERS:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland

and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Family Violence Intervention Court provided a

comprehensive approach to domestic violence in a court setting that fully

understood and dealt with the complex issues of domestic violence; and

WHEREAS domestic violence continues to be one of the most

serious issues facing our Province today, and the cost of the impact of domestic

violence is great both economically and in human suffering; and

WHEREAS the Family Violence Intervention Court was welcomed

and endorsed by all aspects of the Justice system including the police, the

courts, prosecutors, defence counsel, Child, Youth and Family Services, as well

as victims, offenders, community agencies and women's groups; and

WHEREAS the recidivism rate for offenders going through the

court was 10 per cent compared to 40 per cent for those who did not; and

WHEREAS the budget for the court was only 0.2 per cent of

the entire budget of the Department of Justice;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray

and call upon the House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the Family

Violence Intervention Court.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure some people might be shaking their

head saying: why is she standing presenting this petition when the Speech from

the Throne actually mentioned that the Family Violence Intervention Court will

not only be reinstated but also that it will be expanded to other parts of the

Province? Because we know, Mr.

Speaker, how important it is for the voice of the people of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador to be heard.

We have heard them loudly. We

on this side of the House have certainly heard them loudly.

It has taken government a much longer time to hear them.

Mr.

Speaker, the reason I stand and speak to this petition today is because it is

important. It is important to

register what were the aspects and the key elements of the Family Violence

Intervention Court that made it so effective, that made it so important, and why

the recidivism rate dropped so drastically for those who went through the court.

It is because of all the supporting programs that were part of the Family

Violence Intervention Court.

Mr.

Speaker, I will continue to stand and present this petition on behalf of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador until we get a clear idea as to whether or

not the court that this government is now talking about reinstating and

expanding will not be just a shadow of what we knew of the Family Violence

Intervention Court, but that it will be a court again that has a full,

comprehensive court with wraparound services.

Those, in fact, were the reasons the court was successful and that the

recidivism rate had dropped.

Thank

you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

Route 510 from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay is in deplorable condition and

requires immediate upgrading; and

WHEREAS

the condition of the highway is causing undue damage to vehicles using the

highway and is a safety hazard for the travelling public; and

WHEREAS

both residential and commercial traffic has increased dramatically with the

opening of the Trans-Labrador Highway and increased development in Labrador; and

WHEREAS

cold patch is no longer adequate as a means of repair;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to immediately

allocate resources to Route 510 from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay that allows for

permanent resurfacing of the highway.

As in

duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, the signatures on my petition today are from Cartwright, which is the

most northern community in my district.

That is because even though the pavement that I am talking about extends

from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay, the people of Cartwright, just like the people

in Southeast, the people in Lab West, and the people in Lab Central all travel

on that

section of the highway to get to the ferry and in The Straits for

medical needs.

Mr.

Speaker, the petition says the highway is in a deplorable condition.

That is putting it extremely mildly.

The road is an absolute mess.

It is a huge safety issue. There are

large sections of the road that you cannot even see any pavement.

There is a

section of the highway that you cannot ride on anymore so the

school bus is pulling into private property.

Mr.

Speaker, make no mistake about it, it is just a matter of time and it is going

to be a serious accident. We have a

Budget that is coming out this week.

If there are funds being allocated according to need and there is a place in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that has a worse

section of road with

almost forty-year-old pavement, I would invite the minister to tell me where

that is.

As I

have said before, I invite him to come into the district and to drive this road.

It is absolutely atrocious, the whole road in the district.

The asphalt tender for Red Bay North have not yet been called.

We have trucks, big pickup trucks, that are actually striking their

bottom. I am surprised that the

entire thing have not been shut down.

I will

continue, Mr. Speaker, if the life of pavement is twenty years old and this is

an almost forty-year old road, it is time that we start getting serious about

the safety of the travelling public, and I will continue every opportunity I get

to present this petition on behalf of the people who drive the road.

Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Carbonear Harbour Grace.

MR. SLADE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the

hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the speed limit is 100 kilometres an hour on Veteran's Memorial Highway; and

WHEREAS

traffic entering and exiting Veteran's Memorial Highway is often heavy at

Jamie's Way intersection; and

WHEREAS

because of many heavy traffic turning left onto Jamie's Way having to cross

traffic that is travelling 100 kilometres an hour and higher, creating potential

for a serious accident;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to reduce the

speed limit on Veteran's Memorial Highway in the area of Jamie's Way to seventy

kilometres an hour.

As in

duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, there are people after signing this from Bay Roberts, Riverhead,

Harbour Grace South, as far as Corner Brook because they are after feeling the

sting of that

section of highway.

Going

down that road there now and when you go to the northeast, towards Carbonear,

the signs on one side of the highway says seventy kilometres an hour, and it is

from that right to the Columbus Drive intersection by Canadian Tire.

Mr. Speaker, there needs to be consistency there.

Of course when you are heading, we say, towards Harbour Grace and this

intersection is up above that and not only there, Mr. Speaker, like anywhere

on that highway where you have ramps coming off from towns and one thing and

another, it should be considered probably a mile back or whatever the case may

be to reduce it until they get to the other side of it and gets a little bit

further on.

certainly do not want to have any accidents or anything in that area which would

cost life or whatever

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. SLADE:

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, I

did speak to the minister coming in today and he assured me that it is being

looked at, so I thank the minister for that.

It is all about the safety of the people in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Thank

you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber East.

MR. FLYNN:

To the hon. House of Assembly

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the

petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS

the 2009 Throne Speech clearly states that government has provided free

textbooks to students; and

WHEREAS

this is an investment in education; and

WHEREAS

unfortunately students attending independently funded schools have been deprived

of equal access to this assistance; and

WHEREAS

the Department of Education is perceived to show discrimination towards parents

who exercise a choice of schooling for their child; and

WHEREAS

all schools operate under the guidelines of the Schools Act;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House

of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, beginning

immediately, to ask the Department of Education to provide free textbooks to all

students who attend any school that follows the requirements of the Schools Act,

1997 (amended)

Chapter S-12.2.

As in

duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Dated

February 20, 2015.

Mr.

Speaker, the four previous petitions that I have entered into this Assembly from

the District of Corner Brook, Humber East, have basically not been acted upon by

this government. Now that the

Minister of Education is not in the House today, maybe I can imply the

importance of the acting minister to act upon this petition that has been

presented.

Students

have really, in my view, been discriminated about in these private schools, and

I am asking that the government take a serious look at it for the investment

that we are talking about here. I am

asking the government to seriously look at the discrimination that they are

giving to children across this Province attending private schools.

addition, the government does pay for school books that people do at home

schooling, and I am asking the government to include at this point members who

decide to send their children to privately funded schools.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

Orders

of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And

Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act, Bill 2,

item 1 on our Order Paper. I so move

that the said bill be now read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

It is

moved and seconded that the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord

Implementation Newfoundland And Labrador Act, Bill 2, 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 2

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.'

Carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill,

An Act To Amend

The Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland

And Labrador Act, carried. (Bill 2)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Canada-Newfoundland And Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Newfoundland And

Labrador Act. (Bill 2)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time.

When

shall the bill be read a second time?

MR. KING:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 2 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I now

call from the Order Paper, Motion 3,

An Act To Amend The Work, Services And

Transportation Act, Bill 4. I move,

seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Works, that the said bill be now

read the first time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded that

the hon. minister shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend

The Work, Services and Transportation Act, Bill 4, and that Bill 4 be now read a

first time.

Is it

the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce Bill 4

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.'

Carried.

Motion,

the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works to introduce a bill,

An Act

To Amend The Work, Services And Transportation Act, carried.

(Bill 4)

CLERK:

A bill,

An Act To Amend The

Work, Services and Transportation Act.

(Bill 4)

MR. SPEAKER:

This bill has now been read a

first time. When shall the bill be

read a second time?

MR. KING:

Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

Tomorrow.

motion, Bill 4 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This

time I call from the Order Paper, Order 2, second reading of a bill,

An Act To

Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy, Bill 1.

MR. SPEAKER:

We shall resume debate on

Bill 1. I recognize the Member for

St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I am really happy to be able to have an opportunity to speak on

government's bill to repeal Bill 29,

An Act to Provide the Public with Access to

Information and Protection of Privacy.

Sometime back, I am not sure how many years ago, the Bank of Canada

stopped printing the $1 million bill.

Most people, because it has not been in circulation or because they do

not have the means

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KIRBY:

because most of us do not

have $1 million do not know what a $1 million bill looks like.

Mr.

Speaker, there it is there, the $1 million bill.

Well, it is actually $1.1 million because that is what it cost $1.1

million for this government to repeal its own legislation that they were told

time and again. For an entire week

with basically very little recess, we sat here in the House of Assembly of

Assembly and debated Bill 29. I am

going to get into some of the details, but we were told time and again this was

an improvement. It was going to

actually make more information available to people.

Then

when the former Premier, interim Premier, Mr. Marshall saw the error of their

ways, he had to go out and pay $1.1 million to get this bill to repeal Bill 29.

I just say from the beginning, while I think it is absolutely ludicrous

that they have to spend that kind of money to repeal your own legislation, I am

happy that government is finally repealing Bill 29 because that was the wrong

way to go.

I want

to talk a little bit about the debate.

I was reading this morning from the press release

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KIRBY:

that the minister

responsible for this sent out was it last week or the week before about this

bill to repeal Bill 29. I listened

intently to his opening remarks last week.

I could not believe I actually wrote down on my paper here.

I said it is hard to believe that the minister can stand there and make

those comments with a straight face.

It was hard to believe that he could, with a straight face, make those comments.

If you look back at what that minister said during the debate, it is like

you are in the twilight zone or something, it is bizarro world.

What he said back then about Bill 29 was completely contrary.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Tell us what he said.

MR. KIRBY:

I will tell you a few things

he said. On June 11, 2012, during

the filibuster he said, The primary goal and the primary focus of the Access to

Information and Protection of Privacy Act that is Bill 29 is openness,

transparency, and accountability.

Our government is committed to this, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I

know a lot of people in the public have busy lives.

They have jobs and mortgages and kids.

They are caring for their elderly family members and they are working.

They have all kinds of sorts of things to do and they probably did not

get to examine in detail the deliberations of the Bill 29 repeal committee that

government had basically review the legislation but they absolutely shredded

Bill 29, as government is doing this week in the House of Assembly.

They absolutely shredded it.

They said it was absolutely contradictory to the notion of openness,

transparency, and accountability.

Hansard,

the official record of the House of Assembly, is filled with statements like

that from the minister who entered this bill, who moved this legislation in the

House of Assembly. It is filled with

those sorts of comments from the government side that talked about their

commitment to openness and transparency, and how this Bill 29 was somehow

demonstrative of that. It was

proven. It was shown during the

debate by well, the media pointed this out.

Various experts in the area of access to information pointed this out.

The Opposition parties pointed this out.

Former politicians who sat in the House of Assembly pointed this out.

It was pointed out time and time again, during the filibuster and since.

actually requested that an Access to Information request be made around

correspondence that came into the Premier's Office when Premier Dunderdale was

sitting over there, correspondence that came into the Premier's Office about the

bill. That correspondence was

subsequently reported on and editorialized, and it was absolutely scathing.

People in the general public who generally are not tuned in most of the

time they admitted it themselves to this sort of thing were absolutely

outraged. They wrote to the Premier

saying: Don't do this, it is a bad idea.

Everything from that to: I will not support the PC Party in the next

election just based on this alone.

That Access to Information request is available on the government website and it

is very interesting.

If there

was one thing that happened out of this, because you always have to try to look

on the bright side, as hard as it is sometimes you have to try and find a kernel

of good in something that is so wrongheaded and bad.

The one thing that government did here was it awoke people.

It tuned people into the sort of shenanigans that has been going on

without people really being aware of it.

It tuned people into the fact that access to information is one of the

cornerstones of our democracy. Your

ability to know, to get information, and all sort of things; in terms of our

ability to advocate as citizens, not politicians, your ability to advocate on

behalf of your family members, yourself.

It is really important to be able to access information to be able to do

that.

This is

a really important piece of legislation that government is putting forward here

now repealing Bill 29, because after almost two years they finally saw the

light. It is unfortunate they had to

pay $1.1 million to engage people to do that, but it is important that this is

being done.

During

the filibuster and this was my first experience with this sort of legislative

process the Official Opposition put forward a total of seven amendments.

There were seven amendments put forward to the legislation.

People will remember there was one clause, clause 6, that we actually

spent more than a day here, consecutive hours, debating this clause, clause 6.

In total, the Official Opposition put forward seven amendments to the

legislation to try and persuade government not to go forward with the

legislation, to change it and to make improvements because this was going in

absolutely the opposite direction.

The

current Premier of the Province had a number of things to say about this, which

are very, very consistent with what the Deputy Premier said.

He said: I am going to tell you, this is not a bad piece of legislation.

It is tightening up some of the process that occurs.

Tightening up! You could not

tighten it up any more than the way Bill 29 tightened things up.

The

Centre for Law and Democracy, which was lampooned by the government members,

made fun of, denigrated, diminished.

They completely put down the organization.

They said at the time this would absolutely make us one of the worst

jurisdictions in the world not in Canada, not in North America, not in the

OECD or the G20, one of the worst jurisdictions in the world in terms of access

to information. We will carry that

for certain for some time, for about two years almost.

By the time this legislation is debated here in the House of Assembly, is

passed, gets third reading, receives Royal Assent, it will be almost two years

that we had some of the worst access to information legislation anywhere in the

world.

At the

time, government said well, no one really cares about this stuff anyways, which

really was proven to be wrong by the outcry.

I remember being here in the middle of the night and looking up at the

public gallery, which we had not seen anything like it since, I do not think

maybe occasionally on Budget day we have seen something similar so many people

coming into the House of Assembly to watch the proceedings, to try to

demonstrate themselves that this was an outrage, it was the wrong direction to

go, and that this legislation should not be put forward and rammed through the

House of Assembly. Of course that is

what was done.

received emails, telephone calls, and all sorts of contacts from the general

public like we never did before.

People who generally were not political at all, as I said, became tuned into the

political process.

The CBC

had a poll that said, The government plans to invoke closure on the access to

information debate. That was when

government was basically forcing an end to the debate over the wishes of the

public and the Opposition. Mr.

Speaker, 24 per cent of the people said, The government is unfairly stifling

debate. Another 57 per cent said

that the debate should continue and that the changes were unacceptable.

That is what the CBC poll turned up.

There

was another poll done by CBC that said, What do you make of the filibuster over

access to information law changes?

Mr. Speaker, 80 per cent of the people who responded to the poll said proper

thing, I am opposed to it.

The CBC

did an additional poll. It said

that, The Tories have proposed sweeping changes to provincial access to

information laws. Mr. Speaker, 69

per cent, almost 70 per cent, of the people said I do not agree with these

changes, access to information should not be restricted.

Another 15 per cent said, Predictable.

The longer a party is in power, the more likely access will be

restricted. That is what people

said.

The

local media was unanimous. I cannot

find and I cannot recall a single instance where the media or anybody who was an

opinion leader, or a municipal leader, or a political leader other than the

government, other than the members of the government, the MHAs who sit on that

side of the House there was not a single instance where anyone said that they

supported the changes at all. It was

overwhelmingly negative, whether that was CBC or VOCM a lot of people know

about the Question of the Day on VOCM's website the vast, vast, vast majority

of the people were completely and utterly opposed on Facebook and Twitter and

amazing amount of feedback to the government, to government members, the

ministers, members of the Cabinet, to the Premier of the day, an amazing number

of people, and public outcry that ensued.

The

government said oh well, it is basically trying to tighten things up because the

Opposition parties and the media are always putting these requests in for

information that are I am not sure what term they used

AN HON. MEMBER:

Fishing expeditions.

MR. KIRBY:

fishing expeditions and so

on. I cannot find it in my notes

here now, but basically when it was truly told, when it came out was that there

was actually very few Access to Information requests very few.

People were talking about there were hundreds and thousands of all these

requests that were clogging up the work of government.

That was not the case at all.

There

were very, very few Access to Information requests in the run of a week across I

believe what was at that time about fifteen departments of government.

Very few requests for information, yet government sought to portray the

public's interest in information, in gaining information, as somehow nefarious,

and there are all sorts of terms thrown around about how more or less people

were just doing this to be the term eludes me now, but more or less doing this

to waste people's time. It certainly

was not being done for that.

MR. MURPHY:

Frivolous and vexatious.

MR. KIRBY:

Yes, frivolous and vexatious.

There you go. Thank you to

the Member for St. John's East for reminding me.

Frivolous and vexatious I do not know how many times I heard those

terms said here in the House of Assembly.

It is a wonder we all do not have nightmares in the middle of the night

frivolous and vexatious because it was constant.

There was relatively little frivolous about these requests, and

relatively little that was shown to be vexatious that it was being done out of

spite somehow to waste government's time.

I will

never forget when we first all came into the House back in 2011, one of the

first things that government did, even before this legislation came into effect,

was to force members of the Opposition to contact their political assistants in

order to advocate on behalf of our constituents.

Not only did that process slow things down, sort of prevent us to

pursuing help for our constituents in the most expeditious way possible, it also

forced members of the Opposition to force our constituents to share their

personal information with the political assistants of ministers in order to get

them help with everything from Income Support to job information, to housing

information to the help for their loved ones who were in hospital.

You think that somebody is in the hospital or somebody is in a life or

death situation and you are forcing members of the Opposition to jump through

hoops in order to get help for them, I mean talk about frivolous and vexatious,

that is what is vexatious.

To put

people's health on the line, I mean it made absolutely no sense.

Then we would make requests for information and you get back these sheets

of all toner, absolutely and I could hold some of them up but I know I am not

allowed to use props so I will not, but sheets of toner.

The

Member for The Straits White Bay North talked the other day about how he was

in the elevator and there was six cases of toner going up to the fourth floor.

I mean, they would have to be bringing that in on a regular basis to get

the amount of toner. Then we started

giving this stuff over to the media so what did the minister do?

The minister changed the rules so that instead of giving you twenty pages

all blacked out with toner, they would say pages 23 to 43 are missing, or are

not to be disclosed.

So they

tried to hide the fact that they are blacking out all the information by just

giving you one sentence saying oh, twenty pages are not to be disclosed.

When this filibuster began and I have to admit, I was fairly naive as

to how this all was going to go.

When this began, the Government House Leader who is the Government House Leader

today said that the House would have all the time you wanted, if you want to

debate this until the cows come home; you would be here all summer somebody said

at one point. The Premier said you

have all the time you want to debate Bill 29.

If that is what the Opposition parties want to do, because they are only

wasting time, you can have all the summer to do this then that would happen.

Then, in

the middle of the debate, once the public started to tune in that this was going

to basically restrict access to information, do the exact opposite, it was like

something Orwellian it was absolutely a play out of Stephen Harper's playbook

where they more or less name a piece of legislation, the absolute opposite of

what it actually is going to accomplish.

In the

middle of all of that and like I said, we had the Centre for Law and Democracy

saying this and municipal leaders were starting to tune in to it and all sorts

of people from across the Province were starting to tune in to it.

Once all of that started to coalesce and the galleries were filling up

and there was outrage on Open Line and outrage on all the websites and the

Premier was getting all the emails and members of the Opposition were getting

all of these emails, then the government changed their mind.

They said oh, this has gone too far now.

They shut it down. They used

a very rarely used legislative process, a technique called invoking closure in

order to shut it down. They were

going to shut down the debate on Bill 29 because it was getting too far.

Everybody was starting to find out what was actually going on.

I think

it was, again, indicative of the overall process because we had a bill that was

intended to restrict public access to information, to hide government decisions,

the nature of the decisions, all the information that led up to it, briefing

books that were provided to Cabinet ministers, correspondence the government

had, legislation that was going to cloak all of that in secrecy.

I think the Member for St. Barbe called it the official secrets act.

Once all of that sort of started to become obvious, the government did

the most secretive thing they could have done, which was to shut down the

debate, shut down our democratic process, shut people up, and stop the debate

because people were finally finding out.

I could

go on, Mr. Speaker, but I am happy that government is finally repealing Bill 29.

We asked you to repeal Bill 29.

The Leader of the Opposition was the only Opposition leader to present to

the commission on this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KIRBY:

He said he would repeal it

and now you are repealing it.

Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon.

the Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give

notice, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not adjourn at 5:30

p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 2015.

Further,

I give notice, under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the House not adjourn

at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 28, 2015.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

notice is received.

The hon.

the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

delighted to rise in the House of Assembly to speak on Bill 1.

I would like to thank the Office of Public Engagement and the officials

who actually gave a briefing to members on all sides of the House of Assembly,

Mr. Speaker.

At this

time I would also like to say the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public

Engagement is certainly doing an outstanding, excellent job on behalf of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE:

Also, I would like to take

this opportunity to commend the work of the Committee, the three-member

Committee. There was an enormous

amount of expertise on that Committee, and it brought forward very important

information that is in Bill 1 the bill that I am about to speak on

An Act to

Provide the Public with Access to Information and Protection of Privacy.

listened to the previous speaker and I listened to speakers last week, and I

have heard some positive discussion around Bill 1 and I have heard some negative

discussion coming from the Opposition around Bill 1.

I would like to rebut some of the comments that the previous speaker made

on the opposite side. I listened to

the previous speaker very attentively, and the justification lies in the fact

that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians know they have a government that is

committed to openness and has the utmost respect for the protection of their

personal information.

Furthermore, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can take pride and comfort in the

fact that they can rely on an access to information and privacy protection

system that is second to none second to none, Mr. Speaker.

It is difficult to put a price tag and the previous member talked about

a price tag. When we are talking

about privacy protection and access to information, there should not be a price

tag on such an important item that is very important to all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians especially on that type of security and comfort.

We all know that we need protection and there should not be price tags

put on that type of bill that we are talking about here today, Mr. Speaker.

I say it

to the member opposite also, it was this government that created the Office of

Public Engagement with a specific mandate to increase access to government

information, and focus on engaging with the public and community stakeholders.

I have noticed the minister responsible for this particular department on

a number of occasions has definitely engaged with the public in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and he will continue to engage with the public in Newfoundland and

Labrador, people of all ages as a matter of fact.

This

approach led to the launch of our Open Government Initiative in 2014.

The initiative is much broader than just simply providing more

information to people. It also

focuses on making information and data more accessible, proactively releasing

information, engaging the public, and providing meaningful opportunity for

dialogue and collaboration between government and the public, Mr. Speaker.

That is what this government is all about.

addition, the member opposite quoted CBC and what went on in the media in

relation to a previous bill back in the past.

We are talking about Bill 1 here today in the House of Assembly.

New access to information changes makes Newfoundland and Labrador a world

leader. What a statement to be made

on CBC April 27.

A staff

member of the Centre for Law and Democracy is praising recommended changes to

Newfoundland and Labrador's access to information legislation.

A legal officer with the centre said the changes will make the province

a world leader when it comes to access to information.

These recommendations are a huge step forward, and a hugely progressive

move. He said that on a CBC

interview, Mr. Speaker.

This

would put Newfoundland and Labrador as certainly the best jurisdiction in

Canada, and I believe probably the best jurisdiction amongst established

democracies as well. So we are

moving forward. We are very

progressive with this particular bill, Bill 1 that is being discussed in the

House of Assembly today.

I am

very pleased to speak to this bill today, a bill which contains significant

improvements to the Access to Information process.

Through this bill we seek to increase transparency across government and

strengthen the democracy process in our Province.

We want to have world-class legislation on Access to Information that

includes a first-rate approach to customer service and a process that is fast,

fair, engaging, and low cost all at the same time.

This

bill contains substantial reductions in the cost of ATIPP requests to applicants

which are reflected in the new fee

schedule that government released earlier

this month. Where possible,

government has been implementing recommendations made by the committee prior to

the proclamation of this bill.

For

example, the new fee

schedule has removed the $5 application fee for an ATIPP

request. This allows anyone to make

a request regardless of their economic situation.

In addition, the number of free hours an applicant receives for

processing a request has increased substantially.

In the

2012 amendments to the fee schedule, government doubled the fee time that

applicants receive by providing them with four free hours rather than two free

hours they had previously had. Now

based on recommendations from the review committee we have expanded free time

that applicants receive from local government bodies, such as municipalities and

cities, to ten free hours. The free

time for other public bodies has also increased to fifteen free hours.

This

particular part of the legislation certainly will help out the different

municipalities all over Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

I actually served on a municipality in the Town of Bonavista for years

and years, fourteen years to be honest, and this piece of legislation includes

the needs of the municipalities and cities around Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is

a good step forward, a very progressive step forward, Mr. Speaker.

This government listened to the municipalities, MNL, and listened to the

different cities in Newfoundland and Labrador in relation to improvements on

this particular piece of legislation, Bill 1.

While

fee estimates under the old fee

schedule were limited, the new fee

schedule will

see an even further reduction in the number of requests where fees are required

to be paid. This will ensure that

the information is provided without cost in the majority of cases.

I am

extremely pleased to see that the committee took into account the limited

budgets that many municipalities in this Province have.

To improve the process of municipalities, the committee suggested

providing ten free hours for applicants who make a request to local government

bodies rather than fifteen free hours other public bodies are required to

provide. This balances the rights of the

applicant to receive information with limited fees while also ensuring that

municipalities are not unduly affected by the financial implications of

processing an ATIPP request.

Mr.

Speaker, this bill also seen a reduction in the type of cost that a public body

can charge an applicant.

Specifically, public bodies can only charge for the time it takes to locate

records rather than the time it takes to locate, review, and survey records.

Furthermore, this bill expands on the current regulation which allows applicants

to request a fee waiver where fees would cause unreasonable, financial hardship.

Applicants can also request a fee waiver for a request if it is in the

public interest to disclose the records.

While fee estimates were infrequent prior to the changes to the fee

schedule, this bill will ensure that applicants are charged for requests in even

fewer circumstances than before and ensure the costs are not a barrier to

information.

From all

aspects, this particular bill, Bill 1, will allow different bodies, different

organizations, and people in general, an opportunity to have access to

information, which is a very productive and progressive type of legislation; a

type of legislation that we will definitely be able to look at for years to come

and say we made the right decision in this House of Assembly as a government.

honestly believe the Opposition and the Third Party will support this

legislation. This is good

legislation, Mr. Speaker, legislation that is important to different bodies all

over Newfoundland and Labrador. When

I say bodies, I talk about municipalities, I talk about individuals, and I talk

about organizations and so forth.

With a very progressive piece of legislation like this, we can certainly be

honoured to be able to stand in the House and speak to this type of legislation.

addition to reducing costs of applicants, Mr. Speaker, this bill will provide

applicants with the opportunity to request in what format they would prefer to

access records. For example, if an

applicant wants records in an Excel spreadsheet versus a PDF document, it is

possible for the public body to do so.

They will be required to provide records in Excel format, or if the

applicant wants the records in electronic format rather than paper, the public

body must provide the electronic copy when possible.

While public bodies have provided applicants with records in the format

requested before, under this new bill it will be a requirement to do so whenever

feasible.

The bill

also puts increased emphasis on a public body's duty to assist the applicant to

ensure that the applicant is more involved in the process and kept informed

through every stage. In fact, this

bill will require public bodies to keep applicants informed of the status of

their request. This will be

accomplished through a required advisory response detailing the status of a

request and indicating any expected delays, possible fees, and any other

circumstances that may impact the request.

This advisory response must be provided to the applicant within ten

business days of the public body receiving the request.

We believe this increased communication and duty to assist will lead to

greater satisfaction by those who request information.

addition to the increased emphasis on the duty to assist applicants throughout

the ATIPP request process, Bill 1 will require the protection of the name of the

applicant and applicant type. While

it is already common practice for government departments to protect the name of

the applicant, the inclusion of this requirement in the legislation will ensure

the applicants are confident that their personal information is protected, Mr.

Speaker. That is very important,

protection of personal information.

Mr.

Speaker, this government has worked diligently to improve timelines for

responding to Access to Information requests.

Since August of 2013, government departments have responded to 97 per

cent of requests within the legislative time frame.

Currently, public bodies have thirty calendar days to respond to a

request, with the ability to extend the timeline for an additional thirty days

under limited circumstances. In

addition, they can request additional time from the Office of the Information

and Privacy Commissioner.

Once

this bill is passed, the time to respond to a request will be reduced.

Responses must be provided within twenty business days rather than thirty

calendar days, and public bodies will no longer be able to unilaterally extend a

request. They will now be required

to request an extension from the Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner.

Mr.

Speaker, government does not see these new time limits as an obstacle.

While getting used to the new timelines may take a bit of time,

government is committed to continue to meet legislative timelines and is

committed to working with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner

to ensure the process for requesting an extension is seamless.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that this new bill will also see

changes to the time frame in which reviews conducted by the Office of

Information and Privacy Commission must be completed.

They will now be required to complete any formal investigations within

sixty-five business days. The bill

also puts restrictions on how long informal reviews can take.

Government has always appreciated the efforts the Commissioner's office

puts into resolving matters between public bodies and applicants informally.

If a decision by government is under review with the Commissioner's

office, we will work with them to ensure that their timelines are met and that

matters can be resolved informally, where possible.

Mr.

Speaker, the bill contains changes that emphasize fairness and oversight of the

process. Under this bill, the name

of an applicant will only be known to the person who receives a request.

This ensures that requests will be treated the same regardless of who

submitted the request; and, finally, in situations where a public body has

reason to believe a request is frivolous, vexatious, or repetitive they will

need to apply to the Privacy Commissioner for approval to disregard the request.

These oversights strengthen the fairness

of the process, Mr. Speaker.

This

bill will contain significant improvements to ATIPP process and will improve

customer service by reducing timelines, reducing or eliminating costs, and

making the application process more convenient.

It will also strengthen and enshrine in the legislation requirements to

assist applications, keep them informed throughout the process, and safeguard

the fairness and impartiality of the process.

Mr.

Speaker, the information in this bill, this legislative framework, speaks for

itself. This is a very progressive

piece of legislation that certainly will help improve the customer service of

people of Newfoundland and Labrador in relation to access to information and, in

particular, privacy.

Thank

you very much for allowing me the time to speak on this very important piece of

legislation, Mr. Speaker.

Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Cross):

The hon. the Member for

St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think

it is safe to say that today we can get up and we can speak in a little bit

better mood about a piece of legislation, rather than the mood that everybody

was in just a short year-and-a-half, two years ago on this particular piece.

It is

nice to see government wake up and come back to reality.

It was nice to hear them listen to what people in the overall general

public were saying. It was nice of

the government to relent. It was

nice of government to take it on the chin that they were wrong in the first

place in bringing forward Bill 29.

People out there, various interest groups in the public let them know it.

The

groups like the Centre for Law and Democracy, Democracy Watch, and particularly

the media we cannot overlook the media's role in this all noticed.

They stood up and they shouted long and hard.

Unfortunately, we had to go through a filibuster before government had

the chance really to draw in its horns and even take the piece of legislation or

even let the piece of legislation die on the Order Paper.

Mr.

Speaker, before I go on, I think that first of all we have to thank Mr. Wells,

Mr. Letto, and Ms Stoddard for all their hard work, especially during the

hearing process, and for the report that they come out with.

We are quite thankful, especially in the fact that they came out with a

remodeled piece of legislation something that would be acceptable, I think, to

the people of the Province here. So

their work is very valued.

Unfortunately, as previous members have said, it cost this Province about $1.1

million in the process.

Hats

off, especially, to the House of Assembly staff, security, and the people in

Hansard and the Broadcast Centre, all during the time of the filibuster, Mr.

Speaker they were there like troopers, and they allowed democracy to prevail

at the same time. I would have been

remiss had I not remembered those people who also made a sacrifice in the name

of democracy at the same time.

Mr.

Speaker, on Thursday, about 3:00 in the afternoon it was I think it was about

3:00 the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement stood on his

feet and he said I might be off a little bit on the words here some members

did raise concerns about some of the terms of the previous bill, and this bill

answers those. Some members, some

voice they certainly heard it.

I hope

that in this piece of legislation government has certainly paid attention to

particularly the terms of the report not that they wanted to, Mr. Speaker,

because at the time we all know what happened.

It is not that they wanted to.

It is that the general public, themselves like I said, those people out

there in the public, they spoke loud, and they spoke long and hard on this

issue. We also spoke about it in the

House, of necessity.

It was a

sign, too, that there was something wrong.

People were losing their governance here; they were losing their rights.

They were losing their right to know, particularly.

It was almost like an abject paranoia of some kind had set in on

government. They became a little

myopic and shut in. The doors were

closed, and it was almost like you did not need to know what is happening here,

just know that we are doing it on your behalf.

So that was a little bit of a problem for a lot of people, I think.

That is one of the reasons why they spoke out on that long and hard.

I have

to come back, too, to the words of the previous Premier in his last sitting

before he left. He said this, when

he first became Premier: If justice is to be done, it has to be perceived to

have been done. I think those words

rang true with every single member in this House, or at least they should have,

because it is words that I think we all atone for, number one, but number two, I

never forgot them. I think he was an

example that everybody looked up to.

When we

saw Bill 29 come in front of us, we were all a little bit let down.

Let's be honest about it, when we saw this we were all a little bit let

down that this was actually coming forward.

When we discovered after the briefing that this was happening, this was

coming upon us, we had really come of age.

We had really come of age as a Province here in knowing that we were not

going to have closer access to stuff that we wanted to know, pretty important

information.

I will

get into a little bit of that when I get a little bit further into my talk here,

because of course it works with everyday issues too that we are dealing with

now, particularly when it comes to environment. I

want to touch on that in my address. This

was touted as a breakthrough in the twenty-nine debate.

Indeed, it was certainly a breakthrough of some kind for the government.

Still, I do not think it has stopped

falling as a result of that. They

are still experiencing the backlash from it.

Like I

said in answer to this, I think government heard it long and hard, and several

times, that people wanted their government back.

We have lost something in that, and it was a realization that all was not

right with our governance that was happening in this Province.

This

kind of atones for it. In some ways

on the part of the government, even though we still have not heard it, we still

have not heard government say, we are wrong on this.

We are sorry that we did this; please accept our apology if you will.

I do not know if we will ever hear it.

Anyway,

Mr. Speaker, in the implementation of this piece of legislation we are still

going to have cost concerns, if you will.

I should say concerns for the cost of training to municipalities, but it

is a necessity that has to be dealt with.

We know municipalities are going to have to put up with the cost of

training, albeit upfront. We know,

for example, there may be concerns for training for people within local service

districts. Already, Mr. Speaker, we

are dealing with some issues where they cannot pay the bills and they are

probably going to have some concerns raised around training and access to

officers for local service districts.

These

are small. I think government can

work through these and, particularly, I think local service districts.

It is not an insurmountable challenge here.

I do not think municipalities are looking at this as a bit of a downer

here. They are being given some time

to implement these particular regulations as they pertain to freedom of

information. I think government can

probably meet the needs of municipalities too, particularly when it comes to the

needs of training of officers and access to information there.

Mr.

Speaker, one of the things I wanted to get into, as I said earlier, was about

how this piece of legislation is going to work, particularly on the

environmental end of things. That is

where the big issue was for me when it came to this particular piece of

legislation, because one of the worries I had was a worry centered around, like

I said, the environment.

I went

through this new piece as it was proposed within the book and I wanted to find

out some things as regards to what was going to be happening, for example, when

it came to the fracking industry. If

fracking were to occur in this Province, if somebody were to ask the government,

for example, or ask a company through the access rules as we have them now, what

would happen? I wanted to follow

that bit of a trail. I wanted to

present this to government as regards to why this is a particular piece, but

government needs to do more too, to actually meet the Access to Information and

Protection of Privacy Act; the new rule, Bill 1, as we will call it.

Mr.

Speaker, I started off by asking myself that question, and of course asking some

people in my circle: What most concerned you about this?

The simple fact that came back was, Disclosure harmful to business

interests of a third party. It was

a concern, one of the concerns that I talked about in the whole debate.

If you

go to that particular piece; in

section 39 it says, The head of a public body

shall refuse to disclose to an applicant information (

a) that would reveal (

i) trade secrets of a third party, or (ii) commercial, financial, labour relations,

scientific or technical information of a third party.

thought about it right off the bat: What would you do when it comes to fracking?

Obviously, some of these companies out there are talking about fracking

chemicals, for example, as being a trade secret.

It was one of the things, for example, that we were not going to be able

to get without this piece of legislation.

The

importance here, Mr. Speaker, when you have

section 39 here in the act the big

connection I saw with this, I had to come back to

section 9 in the act, which

was the public safety override. The

public interest

section of the act, I should say.

I will

not go through the total act, but under

section 9(1) it says, Where the head of

a public body may refuse to disclose information to an applicant under a

provision listed in subsection (2), that discretionary exception shall not apply

where it is clearly demonstrated that the public interest in disclosure of the

information outweighs the reason for the exception.

If we go

to 39, now we come back to a reason why you would override that.

You would come over here to

section 9 under public interest.

Further down under

section 9(1), 9(2), several subsections, you come down

section 9(3). It says here, Whether

or not a request for access is made, the head of a public body shall, without

delay, disclose to the public, to an affected group of people or to an

applicant, information about a risk of significant harm to the environment or to

the health or safety of the public or a group of people, the disclosure of which

is clearly in the public interest.

Again, I will use the whole question of fracking chemicals around that.

Now we

have a case here, Mr. Speaker, where we have the public interest certainly is

a concern here when it comes to fracking.

Public health and safety is also a concern that I hope the panel is going

to be addressing with it. I hope

that the government is going to be able to avail of getting the information, and

that is the key to this.

Government cannot go ahead and give you the information if it does not have it

already. So the question here would

be if government is not the one to be able to get the information, government

has to be able to allow that information to occur, to happen to the public, and

be able to be accessed by the public.

What does it do, for example, to allow that to happen?

To be

side by side with this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that

government also would have, for example, to come out with a change to the

legislation that allows for the disclosure of chemicals.

In other words, if you guys want to drill on a particular piece of turf,

you are going to have to disclose under the conditions of the permit you guys

are going to have to give us 100 per cent disclosure of all the chemicals that

you are using. It is only then that

the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act would be able to be

shown its full workings.

Mr.

Speaker, there are still concerns here when it comes to the environment.

Even though the act is here to bring the information out, it still is

incumbent on government, I think, to make changes to various pieces of

legislation, so that the actual features of this act can be used to protect the

public health and to protect the public interest in various matters.

Mr.

Speaker, that is not the only thing I am thinking about here.

The other thing I am thinking about is fracking is not the only

environmental concern in this Province that people would be worried about, but

it is a valid concern that government needs to address.

Will government actually address that particular concern so that the act

itself can go ahead and take full effect on a particular measure like that?

That is where my questions are coming in when it comes to this particular

debate.

This is

what we wanted so that we would be able to do it.

We are halfway there when it comes to disclosure, but we are not there

yet. That is why we are still going

through things happening like a fracking review panel that we are asking that

addresses 100 per cent the overall public interest and the overall public

health. Hopefully government is

going to change its mind when it comes to that and they are going to be able to

reflect on that.

There

are indeed, Mr. Speaker, other things that have happened within this Province,

for example, that people have valid concerns about.

It could have been in the past when it comes to environmental reports