PDF Version

April 23, 2015

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 3

The

House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

I am

pleased to welcome today to the Speaker's gallery Dr. Atul Gurtu, an Adjunct

Professor of Physics in Delhi University in India.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I am also pleased to

welcome to the public gallery today Her Worship Wanita Stone, the Mayor of

Red Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will hear

members' statements from the Member of the District of Mount Pearl South,

the District of Kilbride, the District of Torngat Mountains, the District of

Humber East, the District of Exploits, and the District of Baie Verte

Springdale.

The

hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, it is my

privilege to rise in this hon. House to offer congratulations to a group of

individuals who have made a significant contribution to sport in my

community.

Once

again, this year's Mount Pearl Athletic Awards was a tremendous success,

which highlighted the achievements and emphasized the important role that

sport has played and continues to play in the development of youth and

adults alike within our great city.

There were a number of worthy nominees again this year nominated in five

categories. Congratulations to

this year's winners: Peter Halliday Executive of the Year Award winner, Ms

Melanie Hallett of Campia Gymnastics; Coach of the Year, Mr. Travis Maher of

the Mount Pearl Special Olympics; Female Athlete of the Year, Hannah

Noseworthy for her accomplishments in the sport of soccer; Male Athlete of

the Year and track and field sensation, Daniel Kelloway; and Team of the

Year, the Mount Pearl Special Olympics Canadian Silver Medal Soccer Team.

Mr.

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

congratulating these individuals on this significant accomplishment and wish

them all the very best in their future sporting endeavours.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

the District of Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DINN:

Mr. Speaker, on March 7,

the Harness Horse Owners Association held its Dinner, Dance, and Awards

Presentation at St. John's Racing and Entertainment Centre with

approximately 100 people attending.

After a fine meal, a total of twenty-three awards were presented.

The top award winner was Danny Williams not the ex-Premier with

four awards. Brad Forward walked

away with three awards. Danny

was the top trainer with a .460UDR rating.

He was also recognized as the Standardbred Canada Owner of the year,

rookie driver of the year, and the Top Driver in the 20-39 starts category.

Brad Forward was the Driver of the Year, the Driver with the Most

Money earned, and the Top Driver in the 40-plus starts category.

The

Most Gentlemanly Driver was awarded to Bill Taylor.

Colin Sheppard had the most wins in the 10-19 starts category and

received an award for the Most Improved Driver.

Scott Forward was the trainer with the most wins.

Nine

awards were presented for the horses.

The Horse of the Year award went to Inspired Art, and the horse with

the fastest time of two minutes and two seconds was Dusty Lane Wild Bill.

ask all hon. members to join me and my colleague, the Member for Ferryland

District, in congratulating all the award winners.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

the District of Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in

this hon. House today to congratulate Catharyn Andersen of Makkovik, who was

recently appointed special advisor on Aboriginal Affairs to the President of

Memorial University. In her new

role, Catharyn will be responsible for the management of the university's

Aboriginal office, and helping with the recruitment of Aboriginal students.

Catharyn is a former director and Inuktitut language program coordinator

with the Torngasok Cultural Centre in Nunatsiavut where she helped develop

and deliver various language, cultural, and heritage initiatives.

She is very passionate about her history and culture, and dedicated

to the preservation of the Inuktitut language.

Catharyn brings to her new role a strong educational background, having

earned a Masters of Arts in Linguistics and Business Administration from

Memorial University. Her past

work experience with Nunatsiavut will also enhance her efforts with

Aboriginal affairs at the university.

Catharyn will be a tremendous asset to Memorial University in building

stronger relations with the Aboriginal community throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Catharyn on her

new appointment and wish her success in her new role at Memorial University.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber East.

MR. FLYNN:

Mr. Speaker, after nearly

six years of planning, the Rotary Arts Centre in Corner Brook is set to

officially open on May 9, 2015.

This beautiful facility, which includes a ninety-three seat theatre, the

Tina Dolter Art Gallery and six studios designed to house emerging artists,

will become a focal gathering place for the arts in Corner Brook and

surrounding area.

While the objectives of the Rotary Arts Centre are varied, the primary focus

is to present a venue for the work of artists in the community, and also

provide the opportunity for emerging artists to hone their skills and

develop their talents. The

centre is governed by a volunteer board of directors, a volunteer staff who

manage the facility on a day-to-day basis.

The board has worked hard to establish a community partnership in the

fulfillment of this dream including the Rotary Club of Corner Brook, the

City of Corner Brook, Anthony Insurance, Grenfell College, and several local

business partners.

Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of all of the residents in Corner Brook and surrounding

area, I ask members of the House to join with me to offer congratulations to

Chair, Mr. David Smallwood, the Board of Directors, and all other volunteers

and thank them for bringing this wonderful dream to a reality.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY:

Mr. Speaker, on March 9,

the Peter's River Raid Adventure Race was held at the Shanawdithit

Campground on the Botwood Highway.

The

race was organized for students between Grades 5 and 9, and competed in a

three kilometre snowshoe race, a fire building station, and finished with a

three kilometre cross country skiing, each team consisting of five students

and an adult.

Four

schools competed in the competition: Cottrell's Cove Academy, Holy Cross

School from Eastport, Exploits Valley Intermediate, and Millcrest Academy

from Grand-Falls-Windsor.

One

of the organizers, Corey Samson, said the race is a challenge that the

students welcome and is certainly a different form of physical activity.

Mr.

Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating

Nicholas Carroll, Grade 6; Carla Clarke, Grade 6; Timothy Hemeon, Grade 7;

Kaitlyn Butler, Grade 8; Patrick Carroll, Grade 8, and teacher sponsor/racer

Ms Karyn Rowsell of Cottrell's Cove Academy for winning the race for the

second time in a row.

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.

had a lot of respect for this man and his wealth of knowledge, wisdom, and

passion for rural Newfoundland.

Born in Cape Freels, Bonavista Bay in 1926, Carl Wright moved to Nipper's

Harbour, White Bay. He married

Mildred Noble and together they raised three sons, Eddie, Brian, and Boyd.

man of many talents, Carl was a school teacher, United Church minister, a

boat builder, store owner, and politician.

Occasionally, I visited his home to extract stories and information

about life in the past. I

marvelled at his sharp memory and depth of knowledge as he so passionately

talked about the fishery, forestry, and mining.

Actually, he could talk about any topic.

For

the past thirty-six years, Carl and Mildred resided in the beautiful town of

King's Point where he was held in high esteem.

With

the passing of Carl Wright at the age of eighty-eight, not only did we lose

a dad, a father, a husband, a grandfather, and friend, but also a tremendous

amount of wisdom, knowledge, and history.

ask all members in this hon. House to join me, along with the entire

community of King's Point to offer condolences to the family and pay tribute

to a person who made a huge impact.

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 am

pleased to rise in this hon. House today to recognize that the annual report

conducted by the Canadian Institute for Health Information has revealed that

our Province has achieved some of the shortest wait times for priority

medical procedures in Canada.

This report spans the five-year period from 2010 to 2014 and

cross-jurisdictional benchmark results for various procedures including

radiation treatment, cataract procedures, hip fracture repair, and hip and

knee replacement.

The

institute's report ranks Newfoundland and Labrador as the best in Canada for

cataract surgery, hip replacement, and knee replacement.

As well, we are one of the top three performers in the country for

radiation therapy wait times. In

fact, we are the only Province to achieve the nine out of ten benchmark

result in all priority areas, with the exception of hip fracture repair.

This can be attributed to a more precise method for measuring wait

times for that specific procedure in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.

Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has invested more than

$160 million to specifically address wait times over the last eight years,

and it is clear that our approach is paying off.

2012, we released two five-year strategies aimed at reducing wait times for

hip and knee joint replacement surgeries and emergency department wait

times. We are now the national

leader with the shortest wait times in the country for hip and knee

replacement surgery. In

addition, Budget 2014 allocated $1.8 million to continue implementation of

the Provincial Wait Times Strategy for

Hip and Knee Joint Replacement .

This not only provided permanent funding for the orthopedic and

rheumatology central intake clinics at Eastern Health, but also allowed for

the creation of eight permanent positions.

Mr.

Speaker, while we are proud of our efforts being acknowledged, we recognize

there is still significant work to be done to reduce wait times in other

areas and we remain committed to finding solutions.

For example, while our wait times for rheumatology have improved we

have yet to reach our target in that area.

We also continue to seek ways to provide more timely service in such

areas as neurology, heart valve replacement surgery, and mental health

services as well.

are always proud to have our accomplishments highlighted on a national

level, and we will continue to work to reduce wait times across all areas of

our health care system. We are

committed to providing timely access to quality care for everyone in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

The

federal government signed a ten-year deal with the provinces to help reduce

wait times in areas such as cancer, heart, diagnostic imaging, joint

replacements, and sight restoration, and we have seen some improvements as a

result of it, but the problem has not gone away.

The

first thing is that wait times are only measured after you are on the list

to get a surgery, after you have seen the specialist.

There are people on a waitlist to see a specialist to get a

replacement, and this is not captured in overall wait time data.

The

Wait Times Alliance of Canada said that high numbers of patients waiting for

alternate levels of care, such as rehab or long-term care is likely the

single, biggest cause of wait times.

This government spent about 36 per cent of its budget last year on

health care. We have the highest

rates of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and chronic diseases.

Sadly, we are spending the highest funding per capita, but getting

the lowest outcomes compared to the rest of Canada.

So,

unfortunately, when it comes to health care we are the worst, last, and

lowest, and that is certainly nothing to brag about, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Yes,

the Canadian Institute for Health Information has some good news, but they

deal only with the five priority areas that were set by the First Ministers

in 2004. It is a good thing that

in those areas the Province has gotten nine out of ten, I will agree, but we

have an aging population and we need to look at what is going to happen with

regard to joint replacement procedures as our population ages, and which is

happening very, very quickly.

That is one of the areas we are not good in.

Radiation therapy procedures are going to continue to rise in the future as

well. I am not surprised the

minister did not mention ER and the wait times for ER, where we are probably

one of the worst in the country.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Advanced Education and Skills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today

to inform residents and businesses throughout Newfoundland and Labrador

about the release of the Job Vacancy Report.

This

report is a comprehensive information resource that can be used by

employers, education and training institutions, students, and job seekers to

help clearly identify job opportunity trends in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The

Job Vacancy Report was compiled by my department's labour market information

team. It is now available on the

provincial government website, and I encourage everyone to visit the site to

view this report.

With

a detailed analysis of more than 38,000 job advertisements recorded during

the last calendar year, highlights of the report include job vacancy

locations, post-secondary training requirements, key industries, and

in-demand occupations.

Mr.

Speaker, our Province has at its fingertips a homegrown, highly-skilled

workforce and accomplished graduates ready to participate in and contribute

to their communities and our economy.

Current up-to-date information on labour market trends, the kind of

information available in the Job Vacancy Report, informs the work of my

department on employment supports and services available to the people of

the Province and post-secondary programming.

Skilled workers and graduates can use this information to help make

informed long-term career and education-related decisions.

Employers and businesses can also use the information in the report

to assist with human resources and succession planning.

Mr.

Speaker, opportunities are available in our Province's many industries, from

services to resources. By

matching people to jobs and employers to people, we will encourage

individuals to study, work, and raise their families in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

Government has been operating for two full years without current

labour market information. In

those two years, Mr. Speaker, we have seen 10,000 jobs disappear.

Government's follow-up attempt to Labour Market Outlook 2020 is to look to

the past. What benefit will a

job opening last year have on the tens of thousands unemployed today?

What benefit will last year's job openings have on the hundreds in

Lab West whose lives have been turned upside down with the massive layoffs

occurring?

Government's approach to workforce development is passive and reactive.

They act as bystanders observing trends rather than trying to chart a

course and create the conditions for job creation.

Mr. Speaker, when we have the highest unemployment rate among

provinces, these job openings will tell you that this government has failed

miserably in preparing our workforce for the work that is out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

It is great to have the report online, but I point out to the

minister the Department of Advanced Education and Skills was created over

four years ago and mandated to help people find jobs, plan their careers,

and as it says, to ensure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can take full

advantage and benefit from the tremendous opportunities ahead.

Yet our unemployment rate in this Province right now is 13.3 per

cent, the highest in the country.

ask the minister why, after four years, are we still plagued with such a

high unemployment rate despite what they envisioned as opportunities

(inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House to inform the public that bike helmets

are now mandatory on all public roadways in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This amendment to the Highway Traffic Act became effective on April 1.

properly fitted bicycle helmet can decrease the risk of serious head injury

by as much as 85 per cent.

Working together with safety advocates and law enforcement, we have achieved

a new safety standard that will help protect children and families in all

communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Safety advocacy groups that worked with us on this initiative

included the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, the Association

of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland and

Labrador Public Health Association, Safety Services Newfoundland and

Labrador, the Newfoundland and Labrador Injury Prevention Coalition, the

Newfoundland and Labrador Brain Injury Association, and the Department of

Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

Mr.

Speaker, I recently had the pleasure of joining safety advocates, police,

and youth at Boys and Girls Clubs of St. John's to talk about the new

legislation, and demonstrate the proper way to choose a helmet, which

involves using the 2V1 approach.

The helmet should cover the top of the forehead and rest approximately two

fingers width above the eyebrows.

The side straps should fit snugly around the ears in a V shape, and

the chin strap should be buckled and then tightened until one finger can fit

between the strap and chin.

Anyone seeking additional information about the 2V1approach to fitting a

helmet, or other information about the new bicycle helmet law can visit

www.gov.nl.ca/BikeHelmet . This webpage also provides

information on how individuals can seek assistance with purchasing a helmet.

Those needing assistance with obtaining a bicycle helmet can contact

Canadian Tire Jumpstart if the helmet is for a youth under eighteen, or

Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador if the helmet is for someone older than

eighteen.

Mr.

Speaker, this amendment to the Highway

Traffic Act continues the provincial government's commitment to promote

healthier and safer communities.

I encourage everyone to learn more about the important new requirements,

which our government has put in place to protect children and families

throughout the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we are very supportive of this legislation.

I want to also thank all of the various stakeholders who had input

and continue to advocate. I want

to point out Canadian Tire and Recreation Newfoundland and Labrador for

supplying helmets. It is

important that everybody has access to these helmets.

Mr.

Speaker, it is very interesting that in November 2013, it was this very

minister who, on two separate occasions, was asked questions by the Official

Opposition around having bicycle helmets.

One response was: There is no plan to move forward on that.

The other response was: At this point

in time, we are not looking at implementing it.

Now,

Mr. Speaker, thankfully the Official Opposition did not take no for an

answer. We continued to

advocate. We continued to raise

this issue. We continued to

raise this in Question Period.

As a result, we have this legislation here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Yes, it is a good piece of legislation, but there is always room for

improvement. I have to note in

debate last year, and I will bring up the fact again to the minister that we

also need something that is going to end up covering things such as

rollerblades and scooters. We

still only have a 90 per cent compliance rate of usage of kids out there and

such who are using helmets.

have a report from the CBC that quotes a very interesting statistic that I

will make the minister aware of.

Between 1990 and 2011, nineteen per 100,000; it went up to twenty-six people

per 100,000 as regards to accidents in these particular areas of scooters

and rollerblades and stuff.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

remind the member his time for speaking has expired.

Further statements by ministers?

Oral

Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Premier said that he asked the RCMP to do an investigation on

the shooting death of Donald Dunphy.

ask the Premier: Why did you personally get involved in this investigation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

those were the words I used yesterday, I certainly did not intend to mislead

the House. I certainly never

gave any direction to the RCMP to conduct an investigation into the death of

Mr. Dunphy, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the words of the Premier were very clear.

It said that I asked them to do a full and fair and frank

investigation. The Premier has

had lots of time to withdraw those remarks.

I understand sometimes in this House we can get a certain stat wrong

or a certain name wrong, but remarks like this are very clear.

all know this started about a Tweet to the Premier's office.

It is a very serious and important issue.

Someone from the Premier's office called the police.

The Premier even, on the day, called and personally supported the

young RNC officer. We know that

the Premier's office is directly involved in this.

ask the Premier: Are you or your office currently under investigation on

this matter?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Just

to clarify on the member's first question once again, I have not looked at

Hansard to see exactly what my words were and I already said to the member

before his last question that if I misspoke or if my words were misconstrued

or misunderstood, I fully apologize to the House and I want to correct it

that in no way have I directed the RCMP or the RNC or any police service to

do an investigation.

Mr.

Speaker, it is not my place to do that.

I have never done that. I

will not do that as Premier.

That is completely within the boundaries of the police services to decide

what they want to do there.

for the matters at hand and details of the circumstances that have taken

place and I will be clear what I expect from the police is that they

carry out a full, comprehensive investigation on the matter.

We look forward to seeing the results of that, as well the oversight

by the retired justice who is involved with this as well.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, given the tragic events on Easter Sunday, I think the question that I

asked on the second question I appreciate the fact that the Premier

explained the position and the remarks about yesterday, but the second

question was about the Premier's office.

Is the Premier's office a part of the current investigation being

carried out by the RCMP?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, if his

question is are we playing a role in the investigation, clearly we are not.

We have no involvement with the investigation.

It is entirely up to the police to carry out that investigation.

It is up to them how they direct and how they investigate.

In no way, do I or my office have any involvement in any decisions on

the progress of that investigation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

question is not about the involvement and who called for the investigation;

the question is about the ongoing investigation.

question to the Premier about his office: Is your office currently under

investigation on this matter by the RCMP?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

I have no knowledge

of it, Mr. Speaker. I cannot

provide him with an answer. I do

not know if my office is under investigation.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of

the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

Premier also said yesterday that the RCMP has a number of options available

to them, one of which was the appointment, as the Premier previously

mentioned, of Judge Riche.

ask the Premier: What other options are you referring to?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, the other

option that would be available as we have seen exercised in the past from

time to time, whether it is the RNC or RCMP, they have an option of calling

in another police force from outside the Province or within the Province,

depending on the nature of the investigation.

That would be totally at the discretion of the police force.

the Minister of Justice in particular with responsibilities for this, I have

no authority in operational matters.

There is nowhere in legislation that gives me the right to impose my

view on the RCMP. It is an

operational decision that they make as to whether they do what they have

done or choose another course of action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I just

listened to the answer from the Minister of Justice and I refer to page 48

of the Luther inquiry where it talks about the unprecedented step where the

RCMP called in the OPP for an investigation.

It also says, they were not ordered or forced by the Minister of

Justice who had the authority to do so; rather this was at the invitation of

the R.C.M.P.

ask the Minister of Justice: Are you sure you do not have the authority to

intervene here?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

can only say to the member opposite, I cannot speak to the circumstance you

just quoted. Since you seem sure

I do have the authority, I would say to the House that I will go back and

double check. I am advised by

those who write the legislation that the Minister of Justice does not have

the authority to intervene in direct police forces, but I will certainly go

back and double check that before I give a concrete answer to this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, given

that we had Judge Luther, the former chief of the Provincial Court say that

the minister does have the authority, I look forward to the answer on Monday

in this House.

Recommendation 26 of the Luther inquiry calls for an outside police force to

be used in the event of a police shooting in this Province.

The family of Mr. Dunphy is also calling for an outside police force

to complete this investigation.

ask the Premier: Will you now support this call?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Back

to the previous question, irrespective of what the member is quoting, I can

say to you very categorically that I am certainly not looking for that

authority as the Minister of Justice.

That is why we have police forces.

They are trained professionals who make decisions on this.

It should not be in the hands of a politician to decide who

investigates what files and when.

With

respect to the ongoing investigation, we have been very clear, Mr. Speaker,

that both police forces are engaged here in different pieces of an

investigation. We will see that

through. Upon conclusion of

those investigations we will make a determination whether further actions

are required.

As I

have said many times before, if an inquiry is required either through the

fatalities act that I am responsible for or through Cabinet, the Lieutenant

Governor in Council will make that determination.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I am

shocked to hear in this House today that the Minister of Justice is

abrogating his duty to the people of this Province as the administrator of

the Department of Justice.

Perhaps the Attorney General would like to say.

Again, I ask, you have the authority.

The Luther inquiry says to do it.

Why will you not call in an outside police force, as you have the

authority and the power to do so?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

appreciate the eagerness of the member, but I will say to the House, I do

not take my direction from my critic across the way.

I will read the legislation and see what direction I have.

will say very categorically, that whether I have the authority or not, I

certainly do not intend to intervene and call in another police force.

I intend to let the investigation that is underway proceed.

I have confidence in the RCMP to carry out the particular piece of

investigation they are doing. As

I said a few moments ago, at the conclusion of that we will make a

determination as to whether an inquiry is required.

the end of the process, all the members on this side of the House want what

the public want, which is the truth and the facts of what happened.

We will go to whatever lengths it takes as a government to make sure

that we and the public are made aware of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, it is

obvious that the Department of Justice is not following the recommendations

in the Luther inquiry.

The

Lamer inquiry discussed the tunnel vision that can occur when police forces

investigate their own. There is

also the negative public perception that may arise when this occurs.

ask the Premier: Given the conclusions of the Luther inquiry and the Lamer

inquiry, why are you not supporting the call for an outside police force to

conduct this investigation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Again, Mr. Speaker, let

me be very clear. What we are

supportive of here is making sure that all information that the public needs

to know becomes public. We will

do whatever it takes to support and facilitate that process.

are currently involved in a situation that is very tragic for a number of

people and a number of families.

We need to find out what happened.

We need to let the investigation take its course.

As I

said a few moments ago, at the conclusion of that, through the facilities

act I will look at the medical examiner's recommendations.

Cabinet obviously will give every consideration to the interests of

the public. If the public is

satisfied and we are satisfied, it will be case closed.

If the public is not satisfied and we believe there is a need for

further investigation, then we will consider calling an inquiry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, on page

146 of the Luther inquiry, Judge Luther says in reference to bringing in an

outside police force such as the OPP, and I quote, The wisdom of already

having in place the established protocol with the O.P.P. for such major

incidents was borne out in an abundantly clear fashion in this

investigation. This Memorandum

of Understanding or something similar should continue to be renewed.

It serves our people well.

ask the Minister of Justice: Does this Memorandum of Understanding with the

OPP still exist?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I am aware

that our two police forces, both the RNC and the RCMP, do engage the OPP.

I cannot speak to the specifics as to whether there is an official

Memorandum of Understanding but I will certainly endeavour to check and get

back to the House. I think there

is but I am not definite, so I will check.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I ask the Premier:

Given that your Chief of Staff was the former Chief of the RNC, are you or

are you not aware that this MOU does or does not exist?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I think the

question has already been answered.

I stood on my feet thirty seconds ago and said I believe it exists

but I am not definitive. I want

to check it out with the proper authorities and I will report back to the

House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr. Speaker, I ask

for the last time: Why do we need to relive what we have already been

through? We have had the Luther

inquiry; we have had the Lamer inquiry.

ask the Premier: Why do you still resist having an outside police force

conduct this investigation? Why

are you resisting this?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

member opposite indicated this is the last time he will ask the question, so

hopefully it is the last time I will have to answer it and be very crystal

clear as to where government and where I stand on this.

There are currently investigations ongoing before a very serious

incident that has happened in this Province, very tragic, and our hearts go

out to everyone involved in that and I am sure the members opposite share in

that respective comment.

will let the investigation unfold.

We are committed to see that through.

We are confident that the RCMP will do their due diligence.

Upon the conclusion of that, I will review the medical examiner's

report and recommendations.

Cabinet will also give consideration to what is in the public interest, and

if there is not full disclosure and there are still some issues with

confidence in the public then we will consider calling an inquiry, but we

will do so upon the termination and completion of the investigation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber East.

MR. FLYNN:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister

of Environment and Conservation said yesterday: I was in business for

twenty-five years. Mr. Speaker,

there is a big difference between signing the front of a business cheque and

the back of a paycheque. He

lacks business experience. He

suggested that business owners should always look two or three years out.

That is exactly how outfitters do it.

That is why they sell their hunting packages in advance.

ask the minister: Why did you not follow your own advice and consult with

outfitters before hitting them in the pocketbook?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Mr. Speaker, first of

all, I would like to say to the member opposite I was in business for

twenty-five years. The last ten

years in business, I was regional manager for a major company with over $160

million worth of sales a year.

That is $1.6 billion in ten years of sales.

was in charge of profit. I was

in charge of loss. I was in

charge of distribution. I was in

charge of marketing, Mr. Speaker.

So challenging me and my business experience, I take offence to that.

I will just put that out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Mr. Speaker, when you are

in business, you need to think about the future, always.

You need to make adjustments when costs go up.

So your labour costs go up, your costs go up for insurance, your

costs

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

remind the minister his time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Humber East.

MR. FLYNN:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday

the minister of tourism did not respond when I asked him about this loss of

income to small business owners in our tourism trade.

Would he answer my question today?

Given that your government made these increases retroactively, I ask the

minister: Will you commit to working with your uninformed colleague in

Environment and drop this increase for one year as requested by the

outfitters?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Again, Mr. Speaker, when

you look at the big game resource and what we have here in this Province, it

is second to none in the world.

As a matter of fact, we have the only caribou population that is hunted in

North America or pretty much anywhere in the world.

have helped protect that herd.

Mr. Speaker, 40 per cent of the licences for that herd is reserved for

non-residents which go to outfitters.

They charge up to $10,000 for a hunt for these woodland caribou,

massive antlers on them. That is

why hunters want to come here and hunt.

Mr.

Speaker, we have been working with the industry.

We will continue to work with the industry.

We understand that this is a challenge going forward for some of

these outfitters, but they have the ability to pass those costs on.

They have the ability to raise their rates next year and recuperate

any costs that they incurred this year and going forward into the future.

The ability is there for them to do that.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am

glad the minister mentioned caribou.

Mr. Speaker, all the caribou herds in Labrador are classified as

threatened to some degree. Three

years ago government implemented a five-year ban on harvesting the George

River caribou herd, the last herd to be protected.

Confirmed reports of illegal hunting of the protected Mealy Mountain

caribou herd is cause for concern.

ask the minister: How has this herd been impacted by illegal harvesting?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Mr. Speaker, caribou is a

valuable resource in Labrador, and we understand the attachment to the

Aboriginal community and to other residents of Labrador an important

resource, important food source.

We want to see these herds come back.

We think that is possible.

The research that we are doing right now is showing that some of

these herds are starting to flatten their decline.

So our research is showing that there are some positives there.

Mr.

Speaker, in terms of illegal hunting, you are exactly right; it is something

that is not acceptable. Every

single animal that is out there now is important to the replenishment of

that herd and the resurgence of those herds.

have some information about certain hunts that have occurred in the last

number of months. We have

investigations ongoing. We have

evidence that we have collected, and we will continue to do the work of

enforcement.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Mr. Speaker, I am glad

you mentioned evidence, because there are several cases of illegal caribou

harvesting in Labrador that remain on the docket some for as long as three

years waiting to be processed.

Individuals from Quebec have already and are once again planning to return

to harvest more caribou from Labrador.

So I

ask the minister: What enforcement measures will you put in place to protect

the caribou herds in Labrador from illegal harvesting?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Mr. Speaker, we have

investigated two illegal hunts in the last couple of months.

We have gathered evidence of both those hunts.

Some of that evidence includes actual carcasses.

Justice officials have interviewed hunters from the area.

So we have gathered evidence.

Sometimes it is very difficult to bring this in front of the courts, but we

do have a plan. We know that

there is a threat to go and harvest animals again.

We have an action plan in place.

In the next few days we are going to see what the Innu from Quebec

are going to do, but we have a plan in place, and we will take action

immediately if we see any illegal hunts that are happening in the near

future. So we are on top that,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, the

Minister of Environment stated in the House of Assembly yesterday, No, we

did not talk directly about fee increases .

The outfitting association confirmed they were not consulted on these

staggering retroactive fee hikes.

So I

ask the minister: Since you also hold the portfolio of Service Newfoundland

and Labrador, responsible for red tape reduction, will you reverse your

irresponsible retroactive decision that adversely impacts business and their

ability to plan?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Mr. Speaker, there was no

retroactive decision made here.

Actually, when we look at allocating licences for the outfitters, we have a

two year plan. We allocate them

every two years. We let them

know two years in advance how many licences they have.

We do not tell them what the fees are going to be.

We reserve that right as a government as things change.

also reserve the right, if there is a crash in a herd, to take the licences

back. We did that a number of

years back with the caribou, Mr. Speaker, to try to protect that herd.

Mr.

Speaker, there is no retroactive happenings going on here.

So I do not know where his information is coming from.

terms of the fee increases; again, Mr. Speaker, the outfitters in moving

forward can charge more money.

They can rejuvenate that revenue going forward and charge more for these

fees.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, having a

right to do that does not mean the government does not have a right to

consult.

The

outfitting industry creates local jobs, brings millions of dollars, new

dollars into the Province's economy.

Increasing fees is a deterrent and contradictory to your government's

red tape reduction initiative.

The last report on red tape said this government is losing ground.

ask the Minister of Business, who was not consulted on these retroactive fee

increases, what he plans to do to ensure the Environment, Service

Newfoundland and Labrador Minister reduces red tape versus increase it?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Again, Mr. Speaker, the

outfitting industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, we think it is a very

robust industry. We spend

millions of dollars researching and making sure of the sustainability of all

the big game animals that are out there.

terms of the fees; the fees are necessary, Mr. Speaker.

We have some of the lowest fees in Canada when it came to

non-residents. There are

provinces in Canada that do not allow non-residents to hunt their big game.

We allow them to come here.

Mr.

Speaker, $167 extra for a moose hunt is not unreasonable.

We understand the business models that the outfitters are following.

Mr. Speaker, again I reiterate, they can find ways to get that back.

They can find ways to charge that and pass it along to the

non-residents who are coming here hunting our herds that we spend millions

of dollars a year to manage and sustain for the people of the Province and

also for (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last

night we held a housing forum in St. John's and some of the stories from

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing tenants were nothing short of alarming and

heartbreaking. Parents told us

of children's bedroom windows that cannot open an obvious safety concern;

children being placed on puffers and steroids to cope with leaks and mouldy

carpets, and no units being furnished with fire extinguishers.

ask the Minister Responsible for Housing: What sort of example are you

setting as the Province's largest landlord?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I guess you

can always cite individual cases, but let me point out a number to the hon.

member. Since 2009, this

government has tripled the spending that has gone into modernization and

upgrading of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

For some twenty years,

there was $4 million put in annually.

This government increased that since 2009, up to $12 million.

Mr. Speaker, 77 per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units

have been modernized and upgraded.

That speaks to our record.

We will continue that work and the work of Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They

should put a few more dollars in the Budget so they can buy fire

extinguishers.

Mr.

Speaker, a senior with health complications was offered a housing unit with

no parking. She needs her car

for multiple medical appointments and to maintain her independence, given

that she has mobility issues.

Housing cancelled her application for twelve months because she did not

accept the unit without parking.

Why

can't your policies treat vulnerable people with dignity instead of forcing

them to choose between a house or a car?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister

Responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, his question

almost paints the picture of an individual from Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing who appears not to want to do the right thing for an individual.

That is the impression he has left with me.

In all of my dealings with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing, they want to find a solution for individuals.

have had members who have raised particular issues on this floor from this

side and from the members opposite that we have taken back to officials to

review. In all of my dealings

with the officials at Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, I find they always

want to do the right thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Yesterday in Question Period the Premier avoided giving a direct answer to a

question I raised, so I am going to try again today.

ask the Premier: Is the protective services unit a

section of government or

of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, the

protective services unit operates through the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary. They have various

duties that the Premier has spoken on, on several occasions.

One of which includes providing some protective and investigative

services to public figures, not only the Premier's Office.

They are engaged any time other politicians of other counties, for

example, or other parts of the Province visit, if there is some particular

threat.

They

clearly do not operate as an arm of the Premier's Office.

They operate as an arm of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

Well, it is very difficult to find anything on anybody's website with regard

to the protective services unit.

So I

ask the Premier: Can he give us more details about the terms of reference of

the unit as it relates to his office?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Justice and Public Safety.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let

me clarify my previous answer.

The RCMP is also a part of the protective services unit.

To be clear, it is not just the RNC.

I will certainly endeavour to seek out a list of the responsibilities

of this unit.

As I

said before, to be very clear, this is not a unit that is assigned to the

Premier's Office. This is a unit

that has specific responsibilities around public figures.

It may not be government.

It could be Opposition members, depending on what they are engaged in.

It could be a Lieutenant Governor's house.

It could be visiting politicians.

will certainly talk to the RNC and RCMP and ask to get a list of the

responsibilities of that unit. I

will be more than happy to share it here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

have learned today that the family of Donald Dunphy, supported by their

lawyer, have expressed a loss of confidence in the investigation being

carried out by the RCMP on his death and are asking for an outside police

force to be brought in, as well as for an inquiry to be put in place once

the investigation is finished.

ask the Premier: Based on the red flag that is being raised, will he

reconsider his position into an inquiry, into all the circumstances

surrounding the death of Donald Dunphy?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Again, it is a very serious matter.

We want to know exactly what took place as well.

We share that concern with members opposite, and also members of the

general public. We want to know

what took place.

Mr.

Speaker, as the member opposite just alluded to; we have to wait for the

police to finish their investigation.

We have to wait for the RCMP to finish their investigation.

We look forward to receiving their report and also the report of the

former justice who has unfettered access to the investigators and the

investigation. He has an

oversight role. We also look

forward to receiving a report from him as well on the outcome of their

findings in the investigation.

Once

we have that, Mr. Speaker, then we will consider next steps.

Just to be clear, at no time did we ever say or are we saying that we

are opposed to a public inquiry.

What we are saying is let's get the information first then we will make our

decision before we can move forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

minister is on record as saying that he does not see the need to add extra

ambulances to the fleet to address the red alert situation on the Northeast

Avalon.

With

the larger population, Mr. Speaker, on the Northeast Avalon, what evidence

does the minister or this government have to arrive at that conclusion that

we do not need more ambulances out there?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the

member for raising a very important issue.

It has been in a number of media reports this week.

want to tell hon. members of this House that since 2006, Eastern Health has

actually increased ambulance capacity in this region quite a bit.

They have more than doubled response capabilities, more than doubling

the number of ambulances and paramedics.

So there are sufficient resources to meet our needs in this region.

monitor red alerts very closely.

Some red alerts are Level I which means there is no ambulance on standby

when the call comes in. Some are

Level II. It needs to be put

into context. It is an issue

that we are examining closely and we will continue to work with Eastern

Health on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

St. John's East has time for a very quick question.

MR. MURPHY:

Mr. Speaker, falling back

on the St. John's Regional Fire Department is not the answer.

ask the minister: Is the answer to call another ambulance when St. John's

Regional is tied up?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services, for a quick reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, the member

is creating a perception that emergency calls are not being responded to

when a red alert arises. That is

simply not the case.

All

ambulances are actively responding to transports on a priority basis.

There are protocols in place.

Last weekend protocols were followed, and I am confident that Eastern

Health is managing this matter quite well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 a 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 patching 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.

in duty bound, you petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I have been on my feet a number of times petitioning for

resurfacing of Route 510 from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay.

The road is in an absolute deplorable condition.

Yesterday, the minister stood and he gave a statement and he talked

about road safety. He talked

about it being a priority with this government.

Well, Mr. Speaker, last week I was working from my Forteau office for a

number of days, somebody did tell me that forty new bags of cold patch have

gone into the area, but there comes a certain point in time when you move

beyond the Dalmatian highway which I talked about last year where there

was more cold patch than there was pavement that it becomes unfixable.

There are sections there that the school bus travels over one particular

spot in Forteau, you cannot tell what is road any more.

People are swerving in around and they are going onto the grounds of

a private business, Mr. Speaker.

Asphalt is needed, it is desperately needed, we are going to have the Budget

come down next, and I certainly hope because what I am talking about does

not fall under discretionary spending.

we cannot do better than what we have there now, tear up what we have and

put some gravel back down, or else we have to shut down the road.

I invite the minister to come up with me.

I know that he has received pictures from a number of mayors in the

area that are very, very concerned.

Now we have heavy, heavy traffic on an already extremely dilapidated

road going back and forth to Muskrat Falls, which has made a bad situation

almost extremely impossible.

hear in this House lots of times talk about the billion-dollar tourism

industry. Mr. Speaker, our

businesses do not have a chance.

Who is going to come? Who is

going to come in a motor home?

We have the Mayor for Red Bay sitting in the gallery today; they got the

designation last year, UNESCO status, World Heritage Site.

Their community is depending on tourism, but who is going to drive

over an atrocious road like that?

So,

I will continue to be on my feet and to be advocating.

I know there is a batch plant that is being set up this year for

asphalt north of Red Bay. What a

great opportunity to save some money and to resurface some of Route 510.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The

hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. HILLIER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

petition 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 Town of Conception Bay South is the second largest municipality

in the Province with a population of approximately 26,000 people; and

WHEREAS recent dangerous incidents on community streets have highlighted

concerns of high speed and inadequate traffic control in Conception Bay

South; and

WHEREAS residents, organized groups, and the town continue to raise

awareness about pedestrian safety along main streets and the lack of police

presence in Conception Bay South; and

WHEREAS residents are increasingly concerned about safety in their community

and are feeling insecure on their streets and in their homes;

We,

the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to urge government to review

the level of policing in Conception Bay South with an objective of

increasing policing services and improving public safety for residents.

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like first to point out that I am in no way criticizing, in

any way, the work of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officers in

Conception Bay South. They

continue to present themselves in a most professional manner as they go

about their daily work in making Conception Bay South a safer place to live.

speaking with residents, I feel the issue here is tied more to the degree of

policing, perception of residents, and visibility of police in the

community. Mr. Speaker, the

Premier is fully aware of these issues.

He is a former member of the RNC.

He was a ward councillor in the Town of Conception Bay South.

Also as the MHA for Topsail, he has been kept in the loop regarding

councils concerns re: policing in the town.

Mr.

Speaker, this petition came about with two points of focus.

First of all, there is a major concern in the district of speeding

and dangerous driving. Route 60

and the Foxtrap Access Road are provincial highways through the town.

There are eight schools on or immediately off these highways where

safety needs to be a priority.

Recently, we have heard the mayor's concerns regarding the Conception Bay

South Bypass Road.

This

is not only a concern on the main street, but as well on side streets.

The deputy mayor recently said speeding and dangerous driving are

currently the biggest issues we have to deal with in our town.

Recently a local Facebook group, CBS traffic safety group, has been

created to draw attention to the issue.

I know the Justice Minister is aware of the issue, as residents of

his street have been very vocal about speeding in his neighborhood.

I spent significant time with a parent group from his street when I

was his councillor.

Mr.

Speaker, the second concern in the District of Conception Bay South is a

sense of insecurity among residents.

This seems to be particularly true among seniors.

I picked up on this in two ways as I have knocked on doors throughout

the town. In some cases,

residents were very forthcoming in pointing out

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HILLIER:

these feeling that they

rarely see an RNC vehicle in their neighbourhood.

This

may well be the case but residents are clearly concerned that they do not

see regular police presence

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

remind the member that his speaking time has expired.

The

hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

the hon. House of Assembly in Parliament assembled, the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS we, the residents of the Port au Port Peninsula, do not want

hydraulic fracturing to be used in oil exploration in our area as it will

contaminate our air, water, and soil; and

WHEREAS fracking will destroy tourism and rural diversification forever; and

WHEREAS we are not willing to leave the toxic footprint of fracking for

future generations;

We,

the people who will be most affected, call upon the House of Assembly to

urge government to include a representative from our area on their fracking

review panel for which consultations will be held in our area.

in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.

Speaker, I got this petition in.

This was (inaudible) by a very interested person over on the West Coast who

took it upon herself to get out there her and some of her friends and

get names, signatures for this petition.

It was a very good effort brought forth by these people who are

asking government a very simple question about the fracking panel and

wanting to have representation on the same panel for obvious reasons.

can quote one interesting news story this morning, Mr. Speaker, that comes

out of Saskatchewan talking about some wells that were tested that were

leaking hydrogen sulfide gases and actually killed some animals in the area

where the wells had occurred.

This is an area of this province where there is a danger particularly to

part of our agriculture industry, in this case to farming and the sheep

industry for example. When they

tested the wells, Mr. Speaker, they found twenty-one out of twenty-two of

these wells were leaking and caused damage to some farming areas in

Saskatchewan.

These people have a direct concern.

They have a direct concern not only for the people's health and for

the security of the water, but for their industries as well.

So we would certainly hope, and we have asked this as a party on this

side of the House, that the government would reconsider while it still has

time, that this government would consider the fact of putting West Coast

representation on this panel.

Why? Because the people of the

West Coast are to be the most affected by this.

I am going to ask government again to consider while there is still

time for government to consider having a member, a person from the West

Coast, sit on the fracking panel to represent the interests of the people on

the West Coast.

Mr.

Speaker, I am quite pleased to table this petition on their behalf today.

Hopefully government will pay attention to this petition.

They can see that it is coming from various places like Mainland,

Lourdes, from Stephenville itself, Winterhouse, Lourdes again, Black Duck

Brook, Mr. Speaker, communities from all over the Port au Port Peninsula

that are directly concerned with this issue.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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 government has the responsibility to ensure that Internet access is

broadly available so people have a right to be able to access the Internet

in order to exercise and enjoy their rights to freedom of expression and

opinion and other fundamental human rights; and

WHEREAS Bide Arm was by-passed under the Broadband for

Rural and Northern Development initiative, which saw high-speed Internet

added to thirty-six communities on the Great Northern Peninsula in 2004; and

WHEREAS nearly a decade later Bide Arm still remains

without broadband services despite being on amalgamated town with

Roddickton; and

WHEREAS residents rely on Internet services for

education, business, communication, and social activity; and

WHEREAS wireless and wired technologies exist to

provide broadband service to rural communities to replace slower dial-up

services;

We the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to

urge the government to assist providers to ensure that Bide Arm is in

receipt of broadband Internet services in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by residents of

Roddickton, Griquet, Ship Cove, and Bide Arm which are all in my

constituency.

SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

The Town of Bide Arm amalgamated.

It is part of a municipality of Roddickton, Bide Arm.

It is the largest town now on the Northern Peninsula east.

It is a major service area.

The children and people who are living in Bide Arm are certainly

hindered in terms of their education, in terms of the equal opportunities

they have and all other residents.

So with the federal government having $305 million

under the federal program for expanding broadband Internet, I would hope

that the current government would be pursuing opportunities, working with

providers, as I have been doing, to see that broadband comes to Bide Arm

because they missed the boat a few years ago when there was $225 million

there.

I put forward this petition and hope that we can get

some movement for the people in that community.

It is well-deserving. I

know we have a member on the other side who is from Bide Arm, the Member for

Baie Verte Springdale. Let's

make sure we get the broadband Internet there in Bide Arm.

It is a great town.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition 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 hundreds of residents of the Southwest Coast of

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, including residents of the

communities of Margaree, Fox Roost, Isle aux Morts, Burnt Islands, Rose

Blanche-Harbour Le Cou, Diamond Cove, and La Poile, use Route 470 on a

regular basis for work, medical, educational and social reasons; and

WHEREAS there is no cellphone coverage on Route 470;

and

WHEREAS cellphone service is an essential safety and

communication tool for visitors and residents; and

WHEREAS the residents and users of Route 470 feel that

the provincial government should invest in cellphone coverage for rural

Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to partner

with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage along Route 470.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have entered this petition on a number

of occasions. I am going to

continue to do so until we

get something done. Now,

thankfully we are starting again, I do not want to speak too soon, but we

are starting to move past the winter season where we saw people stranded for

hours and hours on barren roads, desolate roads in a snowstorm with no

supplies, and we do not have an ability to call people on a cellphone.

Now

the good news is that with the advent of technology we can alleviate this

problem with a minimal investment.

We are not talking huge dollars.

I would like to think that it is an investment, because the fact is

the returns you are going to get will outweigh what the actual investment

is, I can guarantee you that.

The

fact is right now we have people coming over here, we have tourists who are

coming over here and one of the things they see when they get off the ferry

is: Oh, we have no cellphone coverage in a lot of the places that we would

like to go visit. Well, maybe we

will not go down there.

The

second

part is we have people who are not getting calls for work because God

forbid if they step outside their house, they cannot get a call on the

cellphone that they pay for. I

pay for my cellphone but I do not have to worry about that in most of the

places I am in, but they do not get that.

Again, it is something that affects the majority of us in this House of

Assembly in many places. I also

have Route 480. I am looking

forward to the minister working with me on this issue to ensure there is

cellphone coverage in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is time to make it happen, and his department can make that

happen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs,

that Bill 1,

An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And

Protection Of Privacy, be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is moved and seconded

that Bill 1,

An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And

Protection Of Privacy, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill,

An Act To Provide The Public With Access

To Information And Protection Of Privacy.

(Bill 1)

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of

Health and Community Services.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

is my pleasure to rise in this House today to start the debate on the Access

to Information and Protection of Privacy Act bill.

I suspect there will be considerable debate on a piece of legislation

that is important to those of us in this House and important to people

throughout the Province.

The

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, also known as ATIPPA,

is an important piece of legislation.

It is legislation that provides people with the right to access

information and ensures the protection of personal privacy.

It applies to more than 400 public bodies, from government

departments and agencies, to health care and educational bodies, as well as

municipalities.

you are aware, in March 2014, former Premier Marshall announced the

appointment of the ATIPPA Review Committee which was mandated to conduct a

comprehensive review of the legislation, including the amendments that we

made in 2012. The ATIPPA Review

Committee consisted of individuals with expertise in law, expertise in

privacy legislation, and expertise in journalism.

The

committee was comprised of Clyde Wells as Chair, Jennifer Stoddart, and Doug

Letto. Mr. Wells, as members of

the House know, is a lawyer, a former chief justice, and former Premier of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Ms

Stoddart is the former Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

Mr. Letto is a journalist with over thirty years of experience.

When

drafting the terms of reference for the ATIPPA review earlier this year, the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador made an unqualified statement that

the committee's work would be transparent, comprehensive, and independent of

government. We remain strongly

committed to these principles and we were very fortunate that such

highly-qualified and respected individuals in their chosen professions

agreed to undertake this important review.

The

committee was given a mandate to conduct a comprehensive review of the

provisions and operations of the act which included: identifying ways to

make the act more user friendly so that it is easily understood by those who

use it and can be interpreted and applied consistently; assessing the Right

of Access (Part II) and Exceptions to Access provisions (Part III) to

determine whether these provisions support the purpose and intent of the

legislation or whether changes to these provisions should be considered;

examining the provisions regarding Reviews and Complaints (Part

V) including

the powers and duties of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, to assess

whether adequate measures exist for review of decisions and complaints

independent of heads of public bodies; reviewing time limits for responses

to access to information requests and whether current requirements are

appropriate; reviewing whether there are any additional uses or disclosures

of personal information that should be permitted under the act or issues

related to the protection of privacy (Part IV); and reviewing whether the

current ATIPPA Fee

Schedule is appropriate.

March 2 of this year, the committee presented government with its two-volume

report on the independent statutory review.

The report contains a total of ninety recommendations including draft

legislation and policy and procedural changes designed to be user friendly,

and to provide legislation that when compared with international standards

will rank among the best in the world.

Since reviewing the committee's report, government has moved forward with

implementing a number of recommendations to provide more efficient and

effective services before introducing this bill in the House of Assembly.

Let me summarize for you some of those changes.

First of all, eliminating the $5 application fee for filing ATIPP requests,

as well as amending the fee schedule; removing the practice by some

departments of having MHAs and political staff having to go through

executive assistants on constituency matters, such that MHAs can now go

directly to departmental staff who are able to respond to these matters;

requiring departments to report all privacy breaches to the Office of the

Information and Privacy Commissioner, as well as the Office of Public

Engagement; providing a toll-free help desk for municipal ATIPP

co-ordinators seeking advice and guidance on access and privacy matters;

and, directing ATIPP co-ordinators in departments to anonymize the identify

of ATIPP applicants during ATIPP requests, thus ensuring the protection of

their privacy throughout the request process.

Mr.

Speaker, the decision to accept all recommendations in the report and to

move quickly on bringing this legislation forward is more evidence of this

government's commitment to increasing transparency and accountability.

It is also consistent with government's broader commitment to open

government. The act is not

intended to simply address amendments that we made in 2012; rather, it is a

new approach to access to information and protection of privacy not only in

Canada, but internationally.

The

key to success starts with building a strong foundation.

This bill recognizes that the right to access information is vital to

democracy, and recasts the purpose of this act to specifically acknowledge

this. It also ensures the

privacy of individuals is protected to prevent the unauthorized collection,

use, or disclosure of personal information.

This newly identified purpose sets the foundation for a strong piece

of legislation that promotes the basic and fundamental democratic rights of

accessing information and protecting privacy.

Mr.

Speaker, we are putting forward a bill that will replace the existing Access

to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and will change how the act is

administered by changing the role of the ATIPP co-ordinator, increase the

protection of personal information, promote transparency and accountability

in municipalities, and significantly change the role of the Information and

Privacy Commissioner.

Now,

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on the administration of the act.

A number of the amendments to the legislation will make the current

processes more user-friendly and efficient.

First, the act will give delegated authority for handling a request

solely to the ATIPP co-ordinator.

It will also anonymize the identity and type of applicant, which will

protect their privacy throughout the request process.

The

act will also legislate what fees can be charged for responding to ATIPP

requests. Specifically, no fee

can be charged for requests for personal information, no application fee can

be charged for general requests, and the free time spent in locating records

in response to a request increases from four free hours to fifteen free

hours for public bodies, ten free hours for local government bodies such as

cities and towns.

As I

previously stated, government moved forward with implementing this

recommendation as an early action in advance of introducing this bill.

On March 9, government announced that it had eliminated the

application fee and amended the fee

schedule to reflect the language in this

draft bill, what was the draft bill.

Now,

Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on a critical component of the bill: the

access to information provisions.

While the act provides for the right to access information held by

public bodies, this right has some specific and limited exceptions.

Most exceptions to disclosure are discretionary, meaning the head of

a public body can chose whether to release information.

Whereas other exceptions are mandatory, meaning the head of the

public body has no discretion to release information but is instead required

to withhold information.

One

of the most notable elements of this bill is the expansion of the public

interest override. Currently,

information is required to be disclosed when there is a risk of significant

harm to the environment or to the health or safety of the public, and

disclosure is clearly in the public interest.

This bill has broadened this override, which applies to most

discretionary exceptions. This

would require officials to balance the potential for harm associated with

releasing information in an ATIPP request against fundamental democratic and

political values.

provides that where a public body can refuse to disclose information under

specific exceptions, those exceptions would not apply where it is clearly

demonstrated that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the reason for

the exception. This is a

significant change from the current legislation and the Information and

Privacy Commissioner has been tasked with developing the test for the public

interest override in providing training and guidance on its application.

Mr.

Speaker, one of the most prevalent comments we have heard in response to the

ATIPP review report and the recommendations of the Committee is that this is

pure and complete reversal of the amendments made in 2012 through Bill 29.

I believe some members of the House have heard of that bill and would

remember it.

think the narrow characterization of this new modern and leading piece of

legislation is a disservice to the work undertaken by the Committee and by

government to bring forward today what I believe to be an incredible piece

of legislation.

During the review, Mr. Wells commented on a number of occasions that the

amendments made in 2012 were both good and bad and that the review was about

far more than those amendments.

It was a full and comprehensive review of an entire act, not just amendments

that were made in 2012 but an entire act and how it operates.

What

this bill represents is a new approach to access to information and

protection of privacy legislation, not only in this Province but also in the

country and internationally as well.

With

respect to the major criticisms of the 2012 amendments, only three of these

provisions have reverted. The

protection of briefing books, the Commissioner's ability to review

solicitor-client privilege records, and the three-part test for third-party

business information.

Other sections that received a lot of attention because of the 2012

amendments have been modernized and changed, thus they are creating

provisions that are new and improved.

Very different from what we have ever had.

Now,

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch on the role of the Office of the

Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The Commissioner plays a fundamental role in the administration of

the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

This bill strengthens the role of the Office of the Information and

Privacy Commissioner as an advocate for access to information and protection

of personal information.

Specifically, the bill increases the powers of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner to include responsibility for approving extensions of time for

ATIPP requests and the power to review various types of records including

Cabinet records, solicitor-client privilege records, and other records in

the custody or under the control of the public body.

addition, the bill with give the Commissioner the power to monitor and audit

the practices and procedures employed by public bodies in carrying out their

responsibilities and duties under the act and make special reports to the

House of Assembly containing the Commissioner's findings and, where

appropriate, his recommendations and the reasons for those recommendations.

Mr.

Speaker, this bill also provides an appointment process, term, and salary

that support the independence of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Another provision I would like to highlight deals with the complaint and

investigation process to be undertaken by the Commissioner.

Given the enhanced role of the Commissioner, whereby he can promote

and facilitate efficient and timely access to requested information, the

bill requires a more expeditious complaint and investigation process, which

includes adopting practices and procedures to respond quickly to complaints

and to avoid excessive delays in resolving complaints.

Mr.

Speaker, governments function best when they are open to the people they

serve. Our government has always

strived to be open to meet the expectations of the people of the Province.

Disclosing information should be the default.

Withholding information should be the exception.

have highlighted the key aspects of this new legislation.

I would also like to point out that the Office of Public Engagement,

for which I am responsible, will continue to hold administrative

responsibility for this act and the regulations that come under it.

will work closely with the Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner to ensure training and awareness sessions, and associated

materials are developed and made available to ATIPP co-ordinators within the

public bodies that are covered by the act.

As I

mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, government has been working on early

implementation on a number of the review committee's recommendations.

These actions are improvements to government policies around access

to information and protection of privacy that municipalities, applicants,

and others are using right now and will lead to more efficient and more

effective services.

Mr.

Speaker, the Committee provided government with the strongest possible

framework for access to information and protection of privacy, and

government wants the public to benefit from these recommendations as soon as

possible. To make this happen,

we have established an interdepartmental transition team to roll out these

recommendations and prepare for the implementation of these recommendations.

The

transition team is working with the Office of Public Engagement to prepare

for the necessary steps that must be taken to bring the act into effect.

The team comprises of members from a range of departments including

Cabinet Secretariat, the Department of Justice and Public Safety, the Human

Resource Secretariat, and the Office of Public Engagement, and reports to

the Clerk of the Executive Council as well as to the Deputy Minister of the

Office of Public Engagement. Of

course I am receiving regular updates from the team as well.

I approved the terms of reference for the team.

They are published on the Office of Public Engagement's website.

Mr.

Speaker, the transition team's work is focused on four main components.

These components include a training plan and related materials,

policy manual revisions, an organizational review for ATIPP co-ordinators,

and a series of tasks relating to municipalities.

The

various groups of people within government such as deputy ministers,

assistant deputy ministers, and ATIPP co-ordinators, as well as other public

bodies have been identified as key stakeholders requiring training related

to the changes resulting from the ATIPP review report, including the

legislative changes in Bill 1.

That training is already underway.

Government has already held a number of preliminary training sessions

throughout the Province. For

example, today in Labrador West one of these training sessions is taking

place.

Mr.

Speaker, government has also additional training planned for ATIPP

co-ordinators. That will take

place next month. We have also

identified additional training that is needed for the municipal sector that

will take place during the summer.

Also, the review committee recommended that ATIPP co-ordinators be

trained in service delivery excellence.

That specific training is also scheduled for our government ATIPP

co-ordinators. It will take

place early next month in May.

The

implementation team has identified that the ATIPP policy manuals need to be

thoroughly revised to reflect the changes resulting from the ATIPP review

report. These revisions are

already well underway and government is consulting with the Information and

Privacy Commissioner on this work.

Additionally, government is reviewing how the ATIPP function is

staffed within the provincial government.

The

Committee made a series of recommendations related to municipalities.

That was actually a clear focus of the report.

To advance work on these recommendations, government has formed a

municipal working group, and it includes provincial government officials,

the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and representatives

from Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador, and municipalities

themselves. This group has been

charged with working on a range of recommendations contained in the review

report that pertains specifically to municipalities.

The transition team will also be bringing forward a change management

plan on how to effect a cultural change within the provincial government.

Mr.

Speaker, as the transition team works through the required steps to be ready

for proclamation of the bill, a couple of items came forward that actually

required clarification from the review committee.

When Mr. Wells met with me to present the report, he made the offer

that we could call upon him any time and call on the other members of the

Committee, should we require clarification on anything that is contained

within the report.

So,

our implementation team, our transition team, including the Information and

Privacy Commissioner, had a discussion with Mr. Wells with respect to a

couple of things: with respect to the definition of data set; and, the

expanded definition of public body as it relates to local government bodies

contained in the draft legislation presented by the Committee in its report.

The outcome of that discussion resulted in Mr. Wells writing a letter

to my deputy minister in the Office of Public Engagement clarifying the

intent of the Committee with respect to these provisions in question and

suggesting rather minor language changes to these

definitions rather

minor, but yet important and significant.

government has committed to accepting the recommendations of the Committee,

those changes discussed in Mr. Wells' letter have been reflected in the

bill. We are considering his

letter to be an addendum of sorts, and we have reflected those recommended

changes from Mr. Wells and the Committee in Bill 1, which is now before you

in the House.

The

first change relates to a minor drafting error in the definition of data set

contained in the bill. In this

provision, the word adopted should have been the word adapted.

That change has been made to Bill 1, the bill that is now being

presented in the House. Some may

say well, that is not significant, but when you talk to lawyers they will

definitely tell you that such wording can be very significant.

Government and the Information and Privacy Commissioner also sought

clarification on the expanded definition of public body.

The review committee provided guidance on this point in the form of a

slightly revised definition that they felt better expressed the Committee's

intention regarding entities created by local public bodies to carry out

public policy objectives and provide public services on behalf of local

government. Mr. Speaker, the

revised language in this definition has also been reflected in the bill we

have before us today.

the suggestion of the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner,

government has delayed the coming into force of this

section of the act only

this

section related to the new definition to August 1.

The reason for that is to provide time to work with municipalities

and talk to municipalities about all of the entities which manage their

assets and discharge their responsibilities.

With

the introduction of this bill, there is an historical opportunity to create

a made in Newfoundland and Labrador plan for access to information.

One that, when compared with international standards, will be user

friendly and will rank among the best in the world.

So, Mr. Speaker, I view this new legislation as a win for the

Province, a win for all of us.

the head of the Centre of Law and Democracy told VOCM on Monday, it is great

to see that the Bill 29 debate led to a very important conversation on

avenues forward which has ultimately led to reforms that are going to make

the law the strongest in Canada and a much better system than it was in the

pre-Bill 29 days. Mr. Speaker,

frankly, I could not agree more.

Government is looking forward to supporting the implementation of this

legislation. This bill

illustrates the significant changes that are being made right here in

Newfoundland and Labrador and will serve as a model for other jurisdictions

across Canada to follow. So we

have certainly learned a lot.

expect there will be support in this House for the bill, given that many

hon. members have been advocating for increased access to information and

stronger protection of privacy for some time.

Also, I will acknowledge there are members opposite who expressed

concerns about the changes that we made in 2012.

This new piece of legislation certainly addresses those concerns.

Mr.

Speaker, I will conclude my remarks at this time in the debate.

I look forward to closing second reading in debate at the appropriate

time. I look forward to working

with all members of the House as we work through the Committee stage of the

bill process as well. This is a

significant piece of legislation.

I am

proud be tabling this piece of legislation in the Legislature today.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the debate.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

is a great opportunity to speak to Bill 1,

An Act to Provide the Public with

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Bill

1, as the Minister of the Office of Public Engagement made very clear, is a

result basically of PC secrecy, a government that is not open, accountable

or transparent with the result of what was implemented in Bill 29.

We all lived through that, many members here in the House that were

here in 2012 in June. The public

basically of Newfoundland and Labrador has suffered under this government's

regressive approach to sharing information.

really welcome Bill 1 and the amendments that have been put forward.

There have been a number of clauses and changes that were proposed

through the independent review panel by Commissioner Wells, Commissioner

Stoddart, and Commissioner Letto, who were a part of this committee that

went out and looked and did the jurisdictional scans, but also did the

review and did consultation and looked at bringing forward the piece of

legislation that we have here today.

Mr.

Speaker, when you look at what the public expects from a government, they

expect a level of openness and accountability to ensure that the public

trust has been able to establish a system of transparency, public

participation and collaboration.

It was very clear, if we go back to 2012 and the months and years that

followed, because we are three years later now, that this is a government

that clearly did not listen, was not being transparent, failed to engage in

public participation and the collaboration that was needed that resulted in

a Bill 29 which was a very regressive piece of legislation.

fact, the minister just talked about how with this current bill that is

being proposed, this made in Newfoundland and Labrador plan, we would be the

best in the country. Now I

believe that was said in the debate in 2012 as well.

Instantly when Bill 29 was implemented, we went from being one of the

highest ranked with our previous access to information law, the ATIPPA law

that we had, we dropped instantly, and the Centre for Law and Democracy,

Democracy Watch, people spoke out.

They compared this regressive legislation to a number of countries

that are not that open or transparent and have a high level of corruption

and things like that. So it was

really taking a step back by what happened at that time.

Government should be transparent because that really promotes

accountability. It provides

information to citizens and what their government is really doing.

This is why the Leader of the Official Opposition in 2012,

immediately after the debate, after this government invoked closure, shut

down debate, shut down public dialogue and stunted any ability for the

consultation, said that Bill 29 does not work.

Bill 29 is wrong, and the Official Opposition would repeal Bill 29.

He immediately said that and continued moving forward.

When

we look at access to information and privacy protection, we have to really

go back and look at how we got to where we are today and how we arrived at

Bill 1, as the Minister of the Office of Public Engagement talked about.

He talked about the past and going back and how we got to Bill 1,

where we are today.

we go back to June 16, 1981, this is when Newfoundland and Labrador's first

Freedom of Information Act became law.

Both the government and the Opposition members of the House noted at

that time that the legislation was creating an important right to the people

of the Province because here as legislators in this House we produce laws

and we have to act in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

was established, a statutory regime, so that citizens could access

information and records of government, and government departments and

agencies subject to limited exceptions.

This was the first opportunity for informed participation in what we

would call the democratic process and assurance of greater accountability.

This

act stayed intact for nearly two decades.

This is why the Newfoundland and Labrador Freedom of Information Act

until 2000 were looked at creating change.

We have to look at the evolution of time.

In 2000, we basically entered what was a real information age with

technology and how society acted and interacted with the introduction of the

Internet, and how information exponentially gets shared and deciphered in

society. This is why it is very

important to look at not just freedom of information but also look at

privacy protection.

response to that this is where a more in-depth review a freedom of

information review committee gave a broad review and put forward proposed

changes. It was actually in

December of 2000 when the Justice Minister at the time, Kelvin Parsons, who

was the minister and the Member for Burgeo La Poile announced that

government would undertake a comprehensive review of the Province's freedom

to information.

Freedom of Information Act Review Committee looked at all of the literature,

examined information, and looked at other jurisdictions.

After

that time, after a number of months, seven months of

doing some consultation and review, former Premier Roger Grimes and Justice

Minister Kelvin Parsons held a news conference to release the Committee's

report on the Freedom of Information Act review.

The result of this Committee's recommendation which was

done within the Department of Justice created a completely new bill.

It was the access to information bill.

It was drafted. Just like

we have here today; we have Bill 1, which is basically a completely new

bill. So I would be under the

assumption that the former Bill 29 will be repealed as was called for by the

Leader of the Official Opposition after the debate of Bill 29 back in 2012.

This piece of legislation, how we got our past ATIPP

legislation, it was debated in the House in the fall 2001 and actually

referred to the Social Services Committee for examination.

Now, I take everybody back to that time because I was

here debating Bill 29 in 2012 and one of the first amendments that was put

forward by the Official Opposition was to say look, we need to put forward

an amendment that defers this bill, takes it out of the House right now, and

defers it to the Social Services Committee for examination so that it can

have a proper review, so you can bring in the witnesses that you need to.

Talk to the people that you need to talk to, as basically would

happen if the proper process and channels were taking place.

If this government at the time listened to the Official

Opposition that was doing its role, holding government accountable because

it was listening to the people of the Province that is something this

government was not doing. It was

not listening. Actually, the

former Premier, Premier Tom Marshall, said that; we were not listening.

We are going to listen to the people of the Province now after we

have talked to our supporters and talked to people, they are saying Bill 29

was a bad move.

The process that was followed under the past

Administration to improve the access to information legislation actually

followed a very fair process.

Government reviewed the recommendations.

A new act was introduced to the House of Assembly, Bill 49, which was

to provide the public with access to information and privacy protection.

At the time, the Official Opposition proposed

thirty-five amendments and thirteen of those thirty-five amendments were

accepted, with modification. At

that time, this was an opportunity where there the Official Opposition saw

improvements or saw areas where there could be change, where you could have

improved legislation.

If we go back and look at the debate in 2012, when

meaningful amendments, meaningful dialogue, and consultation were being

suggested by the Official Opposition, what happened?

The government members on that side and maybe some of them will

speak to it when they get up and talk to new Bill 1 and know that no

amendment was accepted by the Official Opposition, that was put forward in

this House to improve access to information at that time to this regressive

and draconian Bill 29 that resulted in, I cannot tell you how much amount of

toner. The toner budget must

have went through the roof in Newfoundland and Labrador since Bill 29.

I receive documents, pages and pages that have been blacked out.

I was in the elevator just yesterday and there were

twelve boxes of toner going to the fourth floor which is the Premier's

office, so I think it is trying to black out all the information they can

while this bill is not actually passed in the House of Assembly.

This is a government that says they are changing, but I

am holding government to accountability in this and their process.

When it comes to what they say they are going to do and what they

actually do it is two totally different things, Mr. Speaker.

This is why I am taking the time to look at the historical

significance

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn):

Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

and then also go through Bill 1 and I will have every opportunity in

Committee if I do not get to finish everything that I want to say today on a

clause-by-clause basis to Bill 1, and there are 130-something clauses I do

believe in this particular bill.

It is important that we have thorough debate in the House of Assembly and

that government does not invoke closure as they have in the past.

We have seen a very regressive government here where

they do not want to listen to the ideas of the Official Opposition in many

cases but when they do listen, they get good legislation like the bicycle

helmet legislation that came forward that was asked for by the Official

Opposition.

Going back to the bill, when it was brought back into

the House at the Committee stage it was assented in March 2002, so we look

at the transition of time that took place.

It certainly was not rushed.

It was a bill that was passed in the House of Assembly and you cannot

proclaim a bill or a

section of a bill until all aspects are made

operational, until that functional change is made.

This was very monumental because if we look up to that stage as of

1990, the old bill was nine stages, had sixteen sections that was much more

limited.

Bill 49 in 2002, after the first major overhaul that

was done since 1981, which was done by a Liberal government, had had

thirty-two pages, it had seventy-seven sections, and it really focused on

the right to access, the public disclosure.

It was very detailed what could be disclosure or harmful in certain

situations, the disclosure of personal information, the protection of

privacy, how personal information should be collected, how the accuracy

needed to be maintained, and the protection of personal information.

This is all very important because, as a government,

government collects a significant amount of information on people when

everybody fills out forms, when they file for different reports.

We have seen, just recently, in many cases where there have been

privacy breaches, where lots of information has gotten into the wrong hands,

because the right protocols and measures and steps were not thoroughly

enforced.

So, we need to see situations where we look at

protecting privacy. I was very happy

to see the minister talk about privacy protection, because that is important

too, finding that particular balance.

Government collects all this information, and all this information

that is personal in nature is looked at as a provincial asset.

It is information that gets put forward and certain aspects of

information that government collects can be very useful.

Very useful in policy decisions, very useful in finding and

collecting stats, and putting out in an open way, in terms of open, usable

data sets.

One of the sections of Bill 1 talks about open data and

data sets. We have not seen

where

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

information that has been put forward that government would have we have

not seen that visionary approach yet, Mr. Speaker.

We have not seen it.

Because government talks the talk, but it does not walk the walk.

A year ago they said they were doing this Open Government Initiative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I understand members have various conversations, but if

members would take those conversations to other corners it is difficult to

hear the speaker. So I ask

members' co-operation.

The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would expect that members opposite would be very

interested in Bill 1 and enhancing and protecting personal information,

privacy, and access to information.

If the government is really open, accountable, transparent to the

people, that this should be the most important topic of discussion in the

House of Assembly, and all members should be very attentive to debate in

this particular House at this time.

will go back talking about this piece of legislation and how we got to this

particular time. That was the

access to information legislation that we had.

This

government, even in its Throne Speech just this week, one of the first

pieces of information talks about openness and accountability.

During this session members passed forty-one pieces of legislation.

A prominent theme, our government's legislative agenda was openness

and accountability.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province have heard all this before.

In 1999 the Blue Books states, A PC Government will establish a new

Freedom of Information Act to

reduce the wait for information, and to ensure Ministers actually provide

the information requested where that information belongs in the public

domain. This was back in 1999.

I do

not have to take people too far.

I do not even have to go back and talk about Bill 29.

I can talk about just an access to information request that has been

made through our office for public library board minutes.

Public library board minutes through the Newfoundland and Labrador

public libraries board, library association, whenever you look at agencies

and minutes that are being held by public bodies they should be made

publicly available, especially things like the agenda of a particular

meeting. If there needs to be a

closed camera meeting to discuss a particular matter, well that can be

something very different. The

policies and protocols in place, when you are talking about minutes of a

particular meeting and how they go about doing their business, something

like that could be in the public domain.

Knowing who is on a particular board should be in the public domain.

When we asked about the Marble Mountain Development Corporation in

the Public Accounts Committee there were lots of vacancies on particular

boards, this information was not made available.

When I actually asked the public libraries board for this information

they said no, we are not going to give it to you.

You should file an access to information request.

When things should be made available to the public, it should not be

something that is delayed or it should not take a significant amount of

time, but this matter was.

remember asking a municipality for public minutes of their meetings.

Any individual of a town has the right to go into a municipality and

ask for the minutes, to see those minutes.

My office, when I asked for town minutes, I was charged a twenty-five

cent fee for every single page and delayed and had to push and talk to the

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to get information,

simple information.

we really do need to see under the legislation that when we talk about what

should be made readily available, one important component and one thing the

minister talked about was the training that is happening.

Making sure the ATIPP coordinators and municipalities have adequate

training so that information that really belongs in the public realm gets

there, and information that could be sensitive or needs to be held back

because of a

section of a particular act, then that needs to happen as well.

Back

in 2001, when we talk about the ATIPP legislation that we had, former

Premier Williams said the party who rejects it can completely ignore the

recommendations of the Citizens' Representative, and that is significant.

He also stated that in the absence of the public, which meant in

secret, code of silence. So

there needs to be a commitment to accountability, responsibility, and

earning the public trust.

are moving from 1999 when there was a promise made.

In 2003, the Blue Book stated, A Progressive Conservative government

will: Proclaim new Freedom of Information legislation which will include

amendments that will clearly identify information that should be in the

public domain, now everyone will find this very interesting including

cabinet documents, and will require full and prompt disclosure of the

information

Back

in 2003, it was promised that Cabinet documents will be something that would

be available to the public. Did

this ever transpire under this government?

When we look at what was available prior to 2012, prior to Bill 29,

things like briefing books and other notes, whether it would be in

Estimates, these types of information was available through access to

information, but Bill 29 made sure that information would not be available.

It actually extended

section 18, I believe it was.

may have to refer back to Bill 29, but I think that extended Cabinet

confidence and what could be looked as a Cabinet record.

Anything, basically, could be stamped by the Executive Council Clerk

to be determined a Cabinet document.

This is something that in 2003 we are now twelve years later was

to be included in a Cabinet document, and that information was pulled back.

remember sitting in multiple Estimates as the Vice-Chair of the Resource

Committee, and as a critic of a number of portfolios over the years that I

have been here, over the last four years, and asking questions, asking for

bits of information, having to do significant follow up to get pieces of

information. Some things were

never forwarded. Asking for the

notebooks and notes that the ministers were being provided and not getting

that information. Going through

to having to file a particular access to information and then having that

delayed, so information that is delayed and access to information that

people should have the right to access.

have seen it in the House of Assembly many, many times where ministers have

read particular notes and documents and not tabled them in the House of

Assembly or made them readily available.

We have seen times where government has missed their own dates for

making reports, whether it be draft reports

MR. KING:

A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER:

A point of order, the

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The

member opposite is suggesting that ministers here have stood and

deliberately not followed the code of conduct for the House which requires

that when they read from documents they table it.

I would ask him to retract that statement.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for

The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Mr. Speaker, speaking

to the point of order, I would state that my comments were not of that.

I said there are particular times in which a Speaker has made a

previous ruling in this House of Assembly that stated that if they do not

see the minister, it is up to the discretion of the minister to table the

information in the House of Assembly.

I have seen in the House of Assembly where there are situations where

information has not been tabled in the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER:

There is no point of

order.

The

hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North may continue.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Going back to the Blue Book of 2003, it states, to release to the public

every government-commissioned report within 30 days of receiving it.

It will take the report's recommendation within sixty days.

How many times have we seen reports that we have requested, that have

been in draft form or have been complete, that were not being made

available? They said they will

not put forward that information and make it available on the Internet.

There has been many times when information should be posted online, whether

they are annual general reports, whether they are other documentation.

That is not getting done in a timely manner.

This is something that we have seen.

A staggering history where government has really said they are going

to look at the documents that are under Cabinet secrecy, under that, but

they have really pulled back on that information.

Bill 29 was a prime example.

look at in 2008, Wangersky who is the editor, I believe, of

The Telegram said that, Transparency and accountability are like an

exercise program: practice it conscientiously, or it'll end up doing you no

good at all. If you do not

practice it all the time, it will do you no good at all.

So,

this is a government that said that it was going to make all these changes

and then it implemented Bill 29 and said we are not going to release this

information. We are not going to

provide this to the public.

People spoke on this quite significantly the Centre for Law and Democracy,

Democracy Watch. We have seen

where this government has really lost its way, and lost a lot of momentum in

creating opportunities, because information is an asset, and how it gets

shared, and how those data sets get shared in making good business

decisions, making good policy decisions, and informing the public so that

they can capitalize on the opportunities that Newfoundland and Labrador

would have.

Under this government there has been a tremendous amount of wealth that has

come to the Province, but they have showed that this government is just

unable to manage the resources of the Province, make good decisions for

people and the policy decisions that have come forward have resulted in

misspending and deficit budgets and borrowing.

All of these things come back and result to how you do business, and

how you earn the public trust and how you have accountability.

was the past Premier in 2011, Premier Dunderdale, saying that well, four

years is not enough time. This

is a government that has been talking about it since 1999 in one of their

books, been in government since 2003, and then in 2011 said well, you really

need a second term to consolidate, to entrench your systematic change and

boy, in 2012, did they entrench their systematic change.

Yet, Premier Dunderdale said it takes that second term to do

something around transparency, accountability, and principles like resource

development for putting people first.

You really need a longer period of time.

it is very rich of the minister to get up previously and talk about how you

would need that second term, when what they are doing is they are pulling

back on Bill 29, on all this regression, years later now, and this is not

about being accountable. For

that period of time there was a real loss of accountability, and that is

something that we are going to continue to press as the Official Opposition

to ensure.

give you an example of the Auditor General.

The former Auditor General Wayne Loveys, when he requested and sought

information on government's infrastructure build program they talked about

this $5 billion plan they wanted to do.

The Auditor General does these performance audits to make sure that

we are getting best value for public dollars.

When he went seeking that information about an infrastructure build

program and what the plan and the strategy was, he was denied access.

He was denied access to information.

The Auditor General was denied access to information under this

government.

The

past Premier said government has nothing to hide, and said that the Auditor

General had alternative ways of getting the same information.

Although, the former Premier could not suggest any ways to the

reporters as to how the Auditor General could get that information.

This is a real serious problem when we look at the past of this

government and their legacy, when we look at what they have done to withhold

information. It is very

dangerous to the people of the Province.

It impacts public trust.

Everyone should care about access to information and privacy protection.

Secrecy is a recipe for corruption, waste, and public abuse.

Boy, have we seen that under this current government.

Do I only have to bring up Humber Valley Paving where $19 million in

bonds, where small business operators in this Province are not going to get

paid because government gave back $19 million in bonds without having any

information, any documentation?

When

we look at the review that the Auditor General conducted and said that he

was not satisfied with all the information that was provi