March 14, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 52

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the athletes from

Labrador who recently competed at the Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games in

Gander for being selected as the most spirited and dedicated team.

Mr. Speaker, while I congratulate the team from Labrador on their

achievement, I cannot help but feel a little boastful of the volleyball team

that came from the small community of Hopedale, in Northern Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, as the week worn on there was no question in

the minds of athletes, coaches and fans as to who the favorites were, as the

volleyball team from Hopedale soon became known as the Mighty Mites.

This team, Mr. Speaker, short in stature but strong in heart and emotion, won

the Bronze medal in their event.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Their hard work and effort in getting the Bronze medal

makes the Hopedale Mighty Mites volleyball team one of the unheralded success

stories at the Provincial Winter Games.

Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Torngat Mountains, it is an honour for me

today to congratulate the volleyball team from Hopedale. It goes to show that

some of the brightest and best of this Province come from rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. Mr. Speaker, there is no better example of that, than the volleyball

team from Hopedale, Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the provincial rock

group, Timber, which won the grand prize at the Ninth Annual National Song

Writing Competition held at Canada Music Week earlier this month in Toronto.

I am very familiar, of course, with this band. I know their talent. The

served as a backup for me when I did Mambo Number 5 two years ago at the Big

Brothers/Big Sisters concert.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I understand the importance of a good backup band. If they

can make me look good, then they have to be a good backup band.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can say that again.

MR. WILLIAMS: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy understands the

importance of a good backup band.

The name of the winning song was Parade , Mr. Speaker, written by Billy

Hickey, Greg Mercer, Chris Sooley and Rick Hollet. Local radio station K-Rock

chose Timber as Newfoundland and Labrador's regional representative. Timber

knocked off representatives from right across the country.

The competition, which was organized by the Songwriters Association of

Canada, in conjunction with the organizers of Canada Music Week, attracted over

5,000 entries from all across this country.

The grand prize included a cheque for $10,000, thirty hours of studio time at

the Metal Works Studio in Toronto with Gordie Johnson of Big Sugar fame, and a

trip to Nashville.

Just one more example, Mr. Speaker, of the world-class musical talent that we

have in our little Province of half a million people.

Hats off to Timber. Well done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Peninsula West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a local youth of

my district who was recognized by the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation for his volunteer efforts.

Jimmy Hollett of the Burin/Black Duck Cove Tenant Association was selected

the winner for the Burin Peninsula in the Tenant Association and Co-operative

Housing Youth Volunteer Award.

Mr. Speaker, this award is given to youth volunteers around the Province

living in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing neighbourhoods or co-operatives who

give their time and effort to their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Jimmy Hollett on this recognition, and I

congratulate all our volunteers for their work in enhancing our communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to two teams in my area, both teams from Roncalli

High School in Avondale, who just two weeks ago in the Newfoundland and Labrador

Winter Games won the gold medal in the boys basketball tournament and, as well,

won the gold medal in the female tournament.

Mr. Speaker, the girls team, of course, the championship game was held at

Gander Collegiate gym, and the Roncalli Cardinals went up against their

arch-rivals, St. Kevin's Mustangs, who represented St. John's North. It was

a very close game, being tied at one point at 39-39, but the Cardinals gained

momentum and, coupled with a tremendous team effort, went on to defeat the

Mustangs 55-51.

The boys championship, Mr. Speaker, was one of the closest tournaments. The

Roncalli Cardinals went up against G.C. Rowe, representing the western region of

the Province. The skills and talents of each team provided all spectators with

fair play and excellent sportsmanship. The Cardinals squeaked out G.C. Rowe

62-61, capturing the boys golden medal in basketball.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend all members of the boys and the girls

team, the team coaches and the staff, for an exciting competition and, of

course, capturing the gold medal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize a local company which has shown

great entrepreneurial spirit in our Province. Air Labrador, which is a member of

the Pike Group of Companies and is owned by a well-known Newfoundland and

Labrador businessman, Mr. Roger Pike, recently announced an expansion to serve

several areas in the Lower North Shore of Quebec, which includes services to the

Labrador Straits.

This area was previously served by Regionair of Quebec, which went out of

business last May. To accommodate this expansion Air Labrador has increased its

fleet and hired an additional twenty-seven employees, bringing the company total

to over 150 employees.

In this day and age of post-September 11, doubts and fears about the air

transportation industry, Air Labrador has brought a little good news to the

people of our Province and Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members of this House to join me in congratulating Air

Labrador on their recent expansion and wish them the best of luck in their

future projects to serve the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pleasure I rise today to offer congratulations to all

contestants who competed in the Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador Pageant, but

especially to sixteen-year-old Kristen Parsons of Wabush, who, on February 24,

was crowned Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador, marking the first time a

contestant from Labrador has received this prestigious award.

Mr. Speaker, forty contestants took

part in this pageant, with all

contestants having to go through a fitness test, an interview with judges, an

academic test, and a spontaneous interview and answer session.

When the pageant was narrowed down to ten contestants, they had to present a

speech. Kristen chose her topic: school bullying, and delivered a very emotional

and inspiring speech to her audience.

Kristen is excited and looking forward in fulfilling her duties as Miss Teen

Newfoundland and Labrador, and she has a busy

schedule of events planned for her

during the coming year.

Mr. Speaker, Kristen is a Grade XI student attending Menehik High in Labrador

West, and after graduating high school plans to pursue a career as a

pediatrician.

Kristens proud parents are Bill and Yvonne Parsons of Wabush.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this House to join me in wishing Kristen every success in

her future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the members of the House, I would

like to do a Member's Statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Alfred Saint of

Musgravetown, a gentleman who passed away on March 8 of this year at the age of

eighty-four.

Mr. Saint is well known for this hard work, dedication and commitment to

family and to his community and it is fitting that we pay tribute to his life

and accomplishments. His work history involved working in two of our major

resource industries and operating a business of his own. He worked in the

Labrador fishery and the forestry in Millertown. He also worked as a carpenter

in the Musgravetown area and here in St. John's. For twenty years he operated

the mill in Musgravetown for the Fishermens Union Trading Company and for seven

years he operated a service station on the Bonavista Highway.

Mr. Saint also leaves a record of community involvement and service. He

served as Secretary-Treasurer of the area school board for twenty years and he

was Chair of the school board for seven years. He was the first Mayor of

Musgravetown and served two terms as mayor.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we pay tribute to the people who have

helped build our Province. Alfred Saint is certainly one of those people.

I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in sending our

condolences to Mr. Saint's family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we continue with our routine proceedings, the Chair

would like to welcome to the gallery today thirty-two Level I, II and III

students from Botwood Collegiate and the Community Youth Network in the Botwood

area.

They are accompanied by their teachers from Botwood Collegiate: Mr. Darryl

Chippett and Ms Gloria Cooper, and two representatives from the Community Youth

Network: Mr. Darrell Rice and Ms Gloria Evans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well today, I would like to acknowledge the presence in

the Speaker's Gallery of a former Member of the House of Assembly from the

District of Port de Grave, Mr. John Efford.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the inquiries conducted into the wrongful

conviction of Thomas Sophonow and Guy Paul Morin, the commissioners have

identified a number of problems in the justice system, including: tunnel vision

by investigators; use of informants; poor use of discretion by prosecutors;

questionable evidence; and bad science. Mr. Speaker, all of these systemic

problems have played a key role in the wrongful convictions in this Province of

Gregory Parsons, Ronald Dalton, and Randy Druken.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. I ask the Premier: Does he not

think that we have a very, very serious problem with our justice system in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we did indeed await the decision of the

Sophonow inquiry in Manitoba which was conducted by Justice Corey of the Supreme

Court, retired from the Supreme Court.

Once the Sophonow decision came in, we had discussions with the Legal Counsel

involving Mr. Gregory Parsons. In fact, the firm of which the Leader of the

Opposition is a member. That matter, as the public is well aware, was settled

and resolved two weeks ago, approximately, using the principles of the Sophonow

case, I might add, in terms of determining what compensation should be paid to

someone in the event of the scenario where factual innocence is the criteria.

I do not agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we put all of the

matters that he referred to in the same category. I realize that they have been

sometimes put in the same category, but this Administration, or this department,

is not prepared at this time to place all of the matters that he referred to,

Mr. Dalton and Mr. Druken, into the same category as Mr. Parsons which falls

squarely within the case of factual innocence as defined by Justice Corey.

I am not prepared, I decline and will not comment any further to questioning

regarding the matter of Mr. Dalton, which is currently before the courts in a

civil matter, and I will certainly not comment with respect to the matter of Mr.

Druken, which is not Mr. Druken himself but the death of the female in that

particular case, who was murdered. That investigation is still continuing. It

would be totally inappropriate and improper for me to direct any comments

towards those two matters.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, and my next question will be for the Premier

as well. However, the hon. gentleman opposite, the Minister of Justice, who

answered that question on behalf of the Premier, was at the press conference

which I attended some weeks ago on the settlement of Gregory Parsons, and at

that point he stood up, quite bold-facedly, and said: The government admits no

wrong doing whatsoever, that mistakes are bound to happen and the system

eventually worked.

Well, you should ask Greg Parsons and his family, and you should ask the

Dalton family and you should ask the Druken family whether it, in fact, worked.

I can tell you, Minister, that certainly doesn't cut it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: The reputations of these men and their families have been

damaged irreparably.

Mr. Speaker, the question is for the Premier. Does the Premier feel that the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has done enough to allay the concerns of

the people of this Province about the erosion of the justice system in their

Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just make this comment: As Premier of the Province, I do have an

absolute deep and abiding respect for the justice system and understand one

thing about it, crystal clear in my mind; that it is too serious and too

important to play politics with, and I have no intention whatsoever -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: The Minister of Justice just gave an absolutely clear and

understandable answer as to the differences in the case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Parsons, represented by a group of lawyers, decided

on a settlement basis that obviously was recommended by his law firm and those

who represented him. That issue has been dealt with.

There is an indication that once the remaining parts of that case - because,

as the hon. Leader of the Opposition would know, being from a legal background,

there is an investigation continuing where the person who is charged with an

offence, that when that particular case is concluded, the Minister of Justice

has already indicated that we will have an inquiry of sorts into that case.

It cannot be inquired into yet, Mr. Speaker. I even understand that much

about it. It cannot be inquired into yet because it is still proceeding. He gave

a crystal clear answer as to the differences and the distinctions in the other

two cases. When they are all at a position, at a point in time in the justice

system, we have not hesitated - the record shows clearly, because it is ongoing

in the Province today - to have full public inquiries into issues in the justice

system when they are warranted and when the matters that are under investigation

have been concluded and a public judicial inquiry has been warranted. We will

certainly examine these issues when they are that point in their history and

development, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I also have respect for the justice system. I

also have the greatest respect for the rights and the reputation of those

wrongfully convicted, and the rights of the people of this Province.

There are others in this Province, besides the three gentleman that the

Minister of Justice has already mentioned, who have been wrongfully imprisoned.

Ten years ago, Lavinia Aggek was wrongfully imprisoned for a murder which she

did not commit. While she was in prison, the real killer, Lucas Oquakiak, killed

a second time and was subsequently convicted. Mr. Speaker, we have a very, very

serious problem with our justice system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member now is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is about time that government did something.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: One innocent man or woman going to jail wrongfully is one

too many.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier now stand before this hon. House, before the members of this

Legislature, and make a commitment to a full public inquiry into the justice

system in this Province, to be commissioned by an independent judge from outside

this Province, to find out what has gone wrong with the system and how we

prevent these problems in the future?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Leader of the

Opposition, he speaks as if he is the only person in this Province who has a

monopoly on respect for our system. I beg to differ.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: I indicated at the news conference two weeks ago, and I will

do the same today for the public of this Province, in case he did not hear it

when he was there on that particular date - and I do believe he heard me quite

clearly - it is improper and impossible at this particular time to inquiry into

matters that are still unresolved. Anyone who has been watching the news in this

Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Maybe the Member for Ferryland knows more about this than

anyone else in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, we respectfully listened to the question from

the Leader of the Opposition and I respectfully request that the Member for

Ferryland show me the respect to answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: The people of this Province deserve an answer.

I indicated at the news conference that once the matter was concluded

involving the person whose life was taken in the matter surrounding Gregory

Parsons, his mother, once that matter was concluded, which is currently before

the courts of this Province - as anyone in this Chamber knows, and you do not

have to be a lawyer to know, it is improper to be inquiring into anything when

the matter is before the courts. We do not want to jeopardize, and we could

possibly jeopardize, someone's rights by doing so. The whole tenor of this

question here is not to do anything to infringe upon anyone's rights. It is

totally inappropriate.

I indicated at that news conference, and I will indicate again, once the

matter is concluded involving the death of Gregory Parsons' mother, we will be

appointing someone to review and inquire into the investigation and prosecution

surrounding Gregory Parsons' mother's death. If that investigation, that

inquiry, raises questions about the system that justifies and requires that we

ought to have a full-scale inquiry into the system in this Province, we are

certainly commited to do that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. PARSONS: - but you cannot put the cart before the horse. This is a

very serious, sensitive matter which must be dealt with at the proper time, but

within the proper protocols of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to now conclude his answer quickly.

MR. PARSONS: We do not want to fool up the justice system in haste and do

it inappropriately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite, the Minister of

Justice, who rides on his high horse there today, waited four years after they

knew Gregory Parsons was innocent as a result of DNA evidence before they

compensated. You waited four years until someone was finally arrested. That man

was innocent four years ago!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is now on a supplementary.

MR. WILLIAMS: My question again, Mr. Speaker. The Premier does not answer

it; I will ask the minister again: What I want is a commitment for a full

judicial inquiry. I am not saying now, I am saying at the appropriate time on

Dalton, Druken, and Parsons. I want a full inquiry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: I want it on all issues and I want it done by an

independent judge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: (Inaudible). We do not want it white-washed. We want a full

inquiry, with full evidence heard before that inquiry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of parts to the question. Just to point out,

unlike most other days where it takes a day or so for the Leader of the

Opposition to change his position, he changed his position now in the length of

one question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, Hansard has a way, which is the written

record - for those who do not know - of this Legislature, of writing down the

words that were actually used because words are very important. The fact is

this: In the question to me previously, he asked if I would stand and give an

immediate commitment to investigate the justice system in Newfoundland and

Labrador. In this question, he jumps up and says: I didn't mean immediately, I

mean at the appropriate time. Which is exactly what the Minister of Justice

answered before that: at the appropriate time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is clear to point this out. With respect

to the issue of compensation for Mr. Parsons, I am not sure he wants and has

asked the Leader of the Opposition to be raising that issue in the Legislature

on his behalf today, but there is an important piece to it. It is this: the law

firm that the Leader of the Opposition is still a member of, Mr. Speaker, is the

law firm that advised their client to sue the government when there was a

settlement almost agreed to about three years ago. Their advice was: Don't

take the settlement. Sue the government and we might be able to get you some

more. It is because of actions taken by his lawyers that we are here several

years later with the settlement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: There was never, ever a settlement offered to Mr. Parsons.

They held him up to ransom. They starved him. They did not put a settlement on

the table until a couple of months ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Government, Services and Lands with regard

to his decision to implement a zero tolerance policy on the spillage of liquid

waste from fish trucks. Mr. Speaker, the trucking industry is almost as

important to the fishery of today as our boats and fish plants. Water drainage

from fish is a fact of life. As a matter of fact, in the trucking of live crab,

trucks are required to maintain a temperature that allows for ice melting to

keep crab from drying out.

My question is, Mr. Speaker: Once the trucks are modified and tanks are added

to contain the spillage, where does the minister propose that the truckers dump

the waste, since there are no facilities currently in place to handle it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the hon. member that the government's responsibility is to

ensure that we have proper road travel regulations, and to see that they are

enforced. That is what we are doing in this case. Private industry will provide

whatever services are required to enable truckers to operate properly in this

Province once they understand that our regulations are going to be enforced. We

want to make sure they understand that they are going to be enforced after April

1, and I am sure you will find that those problems will be dealt with by the

private industry. You are not suggesting that government get into that kind of

service industry at this time, are you?

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits &

White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I thought this government was committed to a

waste management plan, but apparently not. Mr. Speaker, it is becoming

increasingly clear that this zero tolerance policy is being brought in, in the

absence of adequate facilities and without much thought to the ability of the

industry to comply.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell us what discussions he had with the

Minister of Environment with regard to the establishment of dumping facilities?

And, would he tell me how a truck loaded with crab, melting ice, and with an

onboard temperature of between zero to three degrees, to ensure ice meltage, can

be made 100 per cent watertight. I do not know how it can be done, and if you

cannot tell us how it can be done, and tell the trucking industry how it can be

done, I can assure you there will not be any fish moving from boats to fish

plants this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I am sure this is not as great a problem as the

hon. member has suggested.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands

MR. NOEL: I guess the members opposite feel that we in this jurisdiction

are not able to deal with these problems as well as other jurisdictions. Other

jurisdictions have regulations to deal with the same kind of problem, and

truckers in this Province today - we have to keep in mind that the fish

companies are, I think, going to operate something like half the trucks involved

in fish transportation. Some truckers in the Province today have made the

modifications to their vehicles that are necessary to do this properly. There

are all kinds of ways that this can be done properly.

This is a safety issue in our Province, Mr. Speaker, it is a tourism issue,

it is an issue for our department. These trucks go in to weight scales across

the Province and leak their load sometimes and we have to close down the scales

for some periods. The government has been trying to deal with this issue for

some time. It seems interesting that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a

former Minister of Fisheries who, almost two years ago -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. NOEL: - told the industry that they had to rectify their ways in this

regard and that the government would be enforcing these regulations. We tried to

do it last year and we had meetings with the industry last year, and we have

advised them that we are going to enforce the regulations as of April 1 of this

year, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for The Straits

& White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, when the minister talks about other

jurisdictions being able to deal with this, is he talking about the fish

trucking in Saskatchewan?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I just have one final question. I have been

getting lots of calls on this, I can assure you of that. If the minister wants

to know how serious a problem this is in the trucking industry, then I would ask

him: Is he planning on attending the meeting in Clarenville tonight that is

being put off by the Truckers Association, because they are so concerned about

the affect this is going to have on their industry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I will be very happy to attend any meeting that the truckers want to invite

me to. I don't need the member opposite to invite me to a truckers' meeting.

They have not invited me to their meeting. I will be happy to meet -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: I guess we can't expect (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: It seems like you have to go to Saskatchewan to get

(inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Fish is transported all throughout the Atlantic Provinces and

down into the Northeastern American States. So that is where you can look for

your examples, look at what they do down there. People don't have to put up

with the safety problems and the tourism problems and the health problems and

the waste problems that we would have to put up with if we didn't enforce

this. We are very appreciative of the importance of the fishing industry to our

Province, but we are appreciative of the rights of other people as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to finish his answer.

MR. NOEL: This is a regulation that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: - fishermen themselves have told me should be enforced in the

Province, and they agree, some fishermen, not all, and some truckers, with our

efforts in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, we have no alternative. This is a policy which is appropriate to

the Province.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Minister of Industry, under a

section of Hansard

called Answers to Question for which Notice has been Given, responding to

questions I asked about a contract given to Bristol Communications, indicated

that there was no public tender because there was a standing offer with Bristol.

However, he said, the department went out for a request for proposals in an

effort to give other companies an opportunity to bid on the work.

Can he confirm that a committee of officials within his department was set up

to look at who they should give the contract to, and actually advised to give it

to another company, and that the advice of the officials was overridden? Can the

minister confirm that this was the case, that in essence what he said on

Tuesday, that an RFP was established to give other companies a chance to bid,

that that didn't happen, that the company that was actually promoted and said,

should get the contract, didn't, and Bristol Communications was given the

contract instead?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Gary Anstey is not involved with Bristol Communications,

is he?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Not to my understanding, but he could be.

Mr. Speaker, I must say to the hon. gentleman from Bonavista South that I do

not spend my mornings down in the Registry of Deeds to find out who is a

shareholder in what companies in the Province. If I did, I would probably find

some very interesting persons from the other side as well.

Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, Bristol got this contract in the proper fashion

and in the proper manner. If there is anything different than that, I would be

glad to inform the hon. gentleman.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is endeavouring, after

Question Period and before the next sitting day of the House, while he

endeavours, through his department, to find out what actually happened, my

sources in the department tell me that a committee was formed, that a

recommendation was made for another company besides Bristol to get the contract,

and that it did not happen.

I would like for him also, if he could, to answer this question, or find the

answer to the question: Can he also confirm that the amount of the contract was

not $105,000, as reported initially, but actually it was a contract for $50,000,

and, for whatever reason, $59,000 was added on? While he endeavours to find out

why one company that should have had the contract did not get it, why was the

contract almost a little more than doubled as a result of Bristol getting it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman, that is indeed

the fact. I think the original contract was for $55,000. Some extra work was

done by Bristol, for which they came back and asked the department - I believe

it was for some $300,000 - that they considered to be in overruns, and the

department settled for an extra $50,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. As

of March 20, the United States government placed up to 30 per cent tariff on

cheap steel products being dumped into their country to protect their steel

industry. As the minister is aware, as the steel industry goes, so goes the iron

ore industry. At the present time, cheap steel has been dumped into this country

from other countries. There is a strong lobby by the steel producers of Canada

and workers in the steel and iron ore industry, for the Canadian government to

take similar action to that of the U.S. This has been a topic that has generated

much media attention during the past couple of months.

I ask the minister if he could inform this House of what actions this

government has taken to lobby its federal counterparts to ensure the long-term

interests of workers in the iron ore industry in this Province are protected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman that I am aware of the fact

that there has been anti-dumping legislation passed by the U.S. I am also aware

of the concerns that have been expressed by the union in Labrador City and

Wabush about the effect that this could possibly have on production at their

facilities, and no later than, I think, the first part of this week, have

written the Minister of Industry and Trade for Canada to ask him to ensure that

whatever action is necessary to protect the steel industry in Canada - because I

think there are four producers in Canada; I believe that is the fact - there

have been a number of measures that have been taken previously on a number of

other occasions by the federal government that have been somewhat effective, and

I have asked them to ensure that the steel industry in this Province is given a

fair and competitive market in which to operate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister if he could provide for myself and the unions in Labrador

West, a copy of the letter that he sent to his federal counterpart, and if, in

future representations to his federal counterpart, whether or not he could

involve the workers of the Iron Ore industry into a lobby that, if required,

would involve them being a part of this government's initiative in order to

place tariffs of the anti-dumping of steel in this country.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is, yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Labour. Minister, I

want to ask you what you think about the snitch line that workers'

compensation has set up for anonymous complaints and unfounded accusations

against injured workers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad the member opposite asked that question, because it has been in the

news of late and I think it is important that you raise it here in this House

today.

The line you are referring to as the snitch line is a referral line and it

has an 800 number. I know you were in this House last spring when we passed

legislation on workers' compensation. Everyone here in this Province knows

that the Workplace Health Safety & Compensation Commission is funded totally

by employers.

It is important that we have a fund that we can have to look after injured

workers in the Province for years to come. We all know that particular fund is

in jeopardy. In fact, there is a $200 million deficit there. The fund itself is

only 65 per cent funded, so we have a concern that any amount of fraud is too

much fraud.

Although there was a focus on this being worker related, there are three

components to this line. Number one is, if employers themselves are

under-reporting assessments, if they are under-reporting payrolls, if they are

under-reporting claims to injured workers...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to quickly conclude her answer.

MS THISTLE: Anybody can call and report employers, if there is

double-billing by a pharmacist, by a physiotherapist and so on, and in fact if

there is fraud against injured workers. It works both ways.

What we have to look at is maintaining the fund and keeping it stable -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to finish her answer quickly.

MS THISTLE: - and using the most professional care in doing so.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice, on a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Justice and Attorney General

for this Province, I feel it is incumbent upon me at this time. I heard the

Leader of the Opposition, while the Premier was responding to one of his

questions, make a statement that three of the prosecutors involved in the

investigation and prosecution of the Gregory Parsons matter have since gone to

the Bench.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I also overheard the Leader of the Opposition

make a statement that it would not be of any benefit to have a current sitting

judge of our Supreme Court make an inquiry.

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who might place the integrity of our

judiciary into disrepute by those types of comments, and unlike the Leader of

the Opposition who tends to condemn the system before there is ever an inquiry,

I challenge him - if he is going to take the good reputations of these

individuals in question he should not do so under the cloak and protection of

the House of Assembly - to make those slanderous statements outside this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, once again, in order to have the facts fully

disclosed, I encourage the Minister of Justice to have a full and open inquiry.

My comment, with regard to a judge from outside the Province, is consistent with

the Hughes Inquiry, when Mr. Justice Hughes was brought in from outside the

Province to conduct the Hughes Inquiry; which the Leader of the NDP was involved

in. It is also consistent with the fact that Chief Justice Hickman went to Nova

Scotia to conduct the Marshall Inquiry. That is the right way to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the point raised by the hon. minister under advisory.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. BARRETT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Minister of Justice rose a few minutes ago and asked the Leader of

the Opposition to withdraw the comments that he made against the three

prosecutors, but he refused to do it. Distinctively, I heard the hon. member

make those comments and I would like for him to withdraw those comments right

now and respect the honour of this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Clearly, the record will show what the Leader of the

Opposition did or did not say. What really is at stake here, Mr. Speaker - there

is another question and I will pose it right now, and we will research it: How

was the Premier of the Province, how could he today, stand up and refer to cases

and matters that only the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of the

Province should have, and information that only the minister should have, but

should not share with anybody else.

There are two issues here: One issue is that he referred to the case; and the

second, larger issue is the concept and principle in law called, without

prejudice.

I want to point this out, the real issue here today is: How is the Premier of

the Province in possession of knowledge that the Minister of Justice or his

department should not have provided to him or any other member of his Cabinet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice, speaking to the point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the Opposition House

Leader, the only statements uttered in this House today by the Premier are the

same statements that have been uttered by me to the public media of this

Province for the last three years concerning these cases. Most of which were

said at the settlement press conference that was held here in Confederation

Building two weeks ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: He lied.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I distinctly heard what the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

has said and I ask him to withdraw it.

MR. BARRETT: I did utter the word lied, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize if I

offended anybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now if he will withdraw his statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask the hon. minister to withdraw his remarks.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw the comment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order raised by the hon. Minister of Justice, the Chair has

indicated that it will review Hansard, take the point raised under advisement

and report back to the House.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I am giving Notices of Motion of a motion that I

will introduce a little later in the day, but I want to talk to the hon. members

opposite. I talked yesterday but they have not seen the motion. I will just give

notice that I will be asking permission a little later in the day. It has to do

with Bills 44 and 45, that the Leader of the Opposition and I, and the Leader of

the NDP, have talked about. I will confer with these a little later in the day

and introduce the motion a little later.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the

Clarenville area. I will read the prayer, it says:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced in its

2001/2002 Budget there would be a long-term care facility constructed in

Clarenville and that the Department of Health and Community Services was given

$500,000 to commence the engineering and design work for the said facility; and

WHEREAS in August of 2001 the then Acting Minister of Health and Community

Services further confirmed, in a letter to the Town of Clarenville, that

government's commitment is to build a forty-four bed long-term care facility

and it was expected the design consultants would be appointed in September of

Mr. Speaker, that is the third petition this week that I presented from

residents of that area, including the districts of Bellevue, Terra Nova, Trinity

North and Bonavista South. I tell the Member for Bellevue district, obviously,

someone has to speak for them on behalf of this issue because clearly he is the

minister who needs to appoint the consultants, and it is not yet done.

I was extremely interested in knowing that a day after I presented the second

petition in this House, the Minister of Health and Community Services, in a

taped interview with CBC Radio in Gander, had indicated: Yes, government is

still committed to a long-term care facility in Clarenville. But, Mr. Speaker,

she indicated that government is rethinking the model. She said: we are looking

at what is happening in St. John's; we are looking at what is happening in

Alberta. What she has indicated is that the Department of Health is starting to

ask themselves how they should go about doing this. They need to start doing

more planning on the planning process, which is somewhat ironic because in late

January in an interview with the Packet the director of communications

clearly indicated that the only delay, and the only reason for a delay, was

because officials in her department were tied up with the Fogo Hospital project.

Once that was out of the way, they would be proceeding immediately with the

project in Clarenville.

Mr. Speaker, we seen the minister on CBC on Wednesday telling a reporter that

even though they are still committed to the project, they are not sure how they

are going to go about doing it. Clearly indicating that obviously government

does not see any real sense of urgency in this project. This is something that

has been ongoing since the late 1980s. In fact, I think it was in 1991, the then

Clarenville Area Hospital Board sat down with the department and the minister of

that day, to talk about the construction of that facility. Here we are ten years

later and the minister is saying that we are still looking at how we are going

to approach the planning. We now have to plan for the planning to do a project

that was committed in last year's Budget. With that kind of time line and with

that kind of commitment or that kind of comment, you really have to question how

serious the commitment to this project really is. I ask the minister if she can

now come out to the Clarenville area and tell the people of that area who had to

endure such hardships for such a long period of time -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: It is about time that we move forward and make the

commitment and honour that commitment, and appoint the consultants and do the

design work for the project, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of in excess of 500 people in

the Trepassey area and surrounding communities. They are, basically:

To the hon. House of Assembly, the petition of the undersigned residents of

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

They are asking the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer.

Basically, just to sum up, they are asking that they reverse the decision to

take a nurse out of Trepassey. Trepassey is an area, I am being told, is the

farthest distant to an acute care facility in this Province by road. They had

1.5 nursing units in that particular area and now they have moved a half one

out. There is only one nursing unit left in that particular area.

In Trepassey, not many seniors have left; no huge amount of seniors. There is

a need for continuing care there, for nurse visitations to carry on general

nursing duties, and that is compounded. The responsibility of nurses in

Trepassey is compounded by the fact that one of the busiest clinics in

Newfoundland and Labrador, Dr. McGarry's Clinic in Trepassey, has people

driving from St. Mary's Bay, they even come from Mt. Pearl, Witless Bay, the

whole region. Thousands and thousands of people come to Trepassey to avail of

the services there.

Many people are dropping in and using the nursing services while they are

there in the same Nurse Abernathy Clinic, while the stats that community health

uses in seeing the need of a nurse - they say that people from other areas are

going to get this nursing service in their own area, but you don't turn

somebody away from a nursing station when they are at a doctor's office and

they wish to drop in for a medical purpose at this nursing station.

The nurse out there has been very busy - the only one there - in a community

that is isolated, basically. If you had to leave there the next closest nurse

you could get is Ferryland, and that is a tremendous distance away. It is about

an hours drive away just to see a nurse, and a two hour drive to get to a

medical facility. I think that is improper. You will have to take into

consideration the geography of the area when we are putting nurses out there.

The area is decimated enough with young people gone but the least we can do is

have adequate nursing services available within that area. It is providing an

increasing burden.

The town is concerned. The citizens are concerned. I spoke with numerous

people in that particular area and they have taken the time and effort, and are

so concerned - over 500 people, representing a big percent of the population in

that area, are very concerned, Mr. Speaker, because of a cutback in their

nursing service. In other words, it has scaled back to two-thirds the service

that it had before this decision came in last fall.

I am asking that this House of Assembly, and we call upon the government and

the Minister of Health and Community Services -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, to finish, about a half a minute?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will keep it very brief, within a half minute actually.

We call upon the Minister of Health to look at this unique situation in an

area that is two hours from any medical facility. The only nurse in the whole

area now, the closest one between here and St. John's is in the Ferryland area

- to allow that half nursing unit to go back to an area that is in dire need of

having a reasonable level of nursing facilities and medical services available

to the people in that area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition, and the petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative

session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since

it was paved approximately twenty-five years ago; and

WHEREAS this

section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that

vehicles are being damaged, including the school buses serving schools in the

area, and school children are finding their daily trips over the road very

difficult;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

to upgrade and pave the approximately four kilometers of Route 235 from Birchy

Cove to Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, this is a

section of road that I have stood here, I say for the

last four years, putting forward pleas to this government, to the Liberal

government, to have this

section of road upgraded and paved. They have made some

feeble attempts. They have gone down there and, I think, up until now the only

change in the petition is that I am asking for four kilometers of road rather

than six. It is six kilometers of road from Birchy Cove to Bonavista. It is the

main highway that leads from all the communities of Bonavista South into

Bonavista. People use this road to go into Bonavista to access the hospital.

School children travel over this

section of road every day to get to the school,

and seniors travel over this

section of road in order to get to drug stores and

to access other services in Bonavista.

Back about three years ago, the parents and the school children became so

frustrated that there was no work being done on this

section of Route 235, that

they decided they would have a protest. They were responsible. They did not want

to go out and block off the road, and stop people from getting to work. They did

not want to stop people from accessing the hospital. What they decided they

would do was, they would go out and hold a protest by the side of the road where

they handed out pamphlets and asked people to support them in order to get this

section of road upgraded and paved. Up until now, Mr. Speaker, there has been

two kilometers over a four-year period, upgraded and paved from Bonavista to

Birchy Cove.

Mr. Speaker, those people are not being unreasonable. All they are asking for

is that the main highway that leads into the Town of Bonavista be put in a state

of repairs that would allow them to access the town with some degree of comfort,

and something that they should expect in the year 2002.

Mr. Speaker, those people pay the same price for insurance, they pay the same

price to licence their vehicle, and they pay the same price to go and register

their vehicle, as people in other parts of this Province. I do not think they

are asking too much, to ask to be considered to be provided with a mode of

transportation over the main highway to the largest community on the highway,

that they could drive over with some degree of comfort.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: So, I ask the minister and I ask the government if they

would include this four kilometers of roadway in their capital works budget that

is going to be brought forward to this House of Assembly in the coming days; in

fact, next Thursday.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: I think it is Motion 3, Mr. Speaker, Committee of the Whole on

Bill 49,

An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And Protection

Of Privacy.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

We are reconvening Committee of the Whole on Bill 49. We last dealt with

section 17.

A bill, "An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And

Protection Of Privacy." (Bill 49)

On motion, clause 18 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 19 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 19 deals with public advice and recommendation. "The head of a

public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal

(

a) advice or recommendations developed by or for a public body or a minister;

or (

b) draft legislation..." and then there are several exceptions

underneath in section (2), "The head of a public body shall not refuse to

disclose under..." certain conditions.

The amendment which has been proposed by the Opposition is in

section 2. We

are suggesting that an amendment be proposed, that "an economic

forecast" be actually included.

Can the hon. the Minister of Justice hear me? Mr. Chairman, I think there is

some problem with the microphone. Will I just take a moment?

Mr. Chairman, if we can resume.

section 19, the amendments that have been presented by the Opposition

include the inclusion of an economic forecast under subsection (d), subsection

(1), of

section 2. As well, we are asking for the addition, in subsection (f),

which I will read: A final report or final audit on the performance or

efficiency of a public body.

And, we are asking for the addition: and any of its programs or policies.

As well, we are asking that the time period be reduced from fifteen years to

ten years. Those are the amendments which have been suggested by the Opposition

and put forward for consideration by the Minister of Justice.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, government is not prepared to accept - I

should say, it is probably easier, we are prepared to accept the path of least

resistance.

With respect to

section 19(2)(f) "a final report or final audit on the

performance or efficiency of a public body." We have no objection to the

Opposition's amendment in regards to

section 19(2)(f).

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to

section 19(2)(

f) carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, if we could also have the Minister of Justice's

position - I thank the minister for that amendment - the minister's position

as well on the reduction of time periods because this is an ongoing issue which

we brought up in several sections in this particular act. The goal of the

Opposition in this legislation is to have information as open and accessible as

possible. That is tied up, of course, in reduction of time limits and time

frames and I intend to go through that at some point further on in our debate.

As well, our intention is to try and reduce time periods to a shortest time

as possible. We have indicated that we would like to have Cabinet information

reduced down to fifteen years and we are asking that this information be reduced

from fifteen years to ten years, because we feel that is a reasonable time frame

for this information to be presented. That is consistent, in my understanding,

with British Columbia and Nova Scotia who disclose these records after ten years

and five years. We feel that it is a reasonable request and a reasonable

amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition is quite correct,

B.C. does have ten years and Nova Scotia has five years. The information

regarding the other jurisdictions, Manitoba has thirty years, Ontario has twenty

years. We felt that, after canvassing the various jurisdictions across the

country, fifteen certainly is not unreasonable and we are not out of line with

what exists, and indeed, are far below what exists in some other jurisdictions.

It is a policy decision that we felt fifteen was the appropriate period of time.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to

section -

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Was the Chairman about to put an amendment?

CHAIR: The Chair was going to put the amendment, as proposed by the

Leader of the Opposition, to

section 19(3).

MR. RIDEOUT: Just before we get there, I have a matter I want to raise on

section 19(2). Is it okay?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the Minister of Justice, in responding to those

amendments in this

section proposed by us, has agreed to an amendment in

section

19(2)(

f) but is not prepared to accept the amendment on the release of economic

forecasts.

Now, I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to tell us why it is that

the government wouldn't be prepared to have matters, such as economic

forecasts, released? It is my understanding that the Freedom of Information

Committee, for example, in its July 2000 report, recommended the release of

statistics, public opinion polls, and environmental impact assessments. So, what

would be wrong with including economic forecasts? The economic forecast is

pretty general information that, I suppose, I cannot see that there would a lot

of secrecy about it. I cannot see that there would be a lot of concern about

economic forecasts. You know, large banks across the country publish economic

forecasts on the various provinces two and three times a year. So if there are

economic forecasts that the government or some government agency has prepared,

why would it not be appropriate that that information be made available to the

public?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, economic forecasts have been removed there.

Again, the concern is if the disclosure of any information, such as economic

forecasts, would harm the economic interests of the Province. I appreciate that

general, economic type forecasts may not, in any way, impact upon the economic

interests of the Province, but, I guess, it is a case of finding the balance

again. We thought it appropriate to leave out the economic forecasts because it

could impact upon the economic interests of the Province. The public interest in

having that protected is far greater than having that information disclosed.

CHAIR: Are we ready for the proposed amendment to

section 19(3)?

All those in favour of the amendment, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: In the Chair's opinion, the nays have it.

On motion, clause 19, as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 20 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 20, as presented in the bill, states, "The head of a public body

may refuse to disclose to an applicant information (

a) that is subject to

solicitor and client privilege; or (

b) that would disclose legal opinions

provided to a public body by a law officer of the Crown."

The amendment which is being presented by the Opposition says, "The head

of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information (

a) that is

subject to....privilege; or (

b) that would disclose legal opinions provided by

an officer of the Crown prior to" - and here is the addition - "(

i) a

final and binding legal decision where matters are being adjudged or

arbitrated...". So, once the matter is over, once it is final, once there

is a binding decision, that legal opinion would be presented; and, as well,

after the exhaustion of all legal rights of appeal.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this is consistent with the act in British

Columbia. Basically what it does, it allows the public access to legal opinions

after rights of appeal have been exhausted. I think it is a fair amendment. I

think the public should have a right to legal opinions. I think the public

should have the right to a lot of legal opinions that are presented to

government. For example, a good example of an important legal opinion was the

legal opinion on FPI which was presented, I guess, back last March or April,

which the Minister of Justice, I believe, on April 4, commented.

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't have access to it.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, we didn't have access to it. We finally did get

access to it, though. When we did get access to it, it was helpful when we

finally got it. The reason it was helpful was because the Minister of Justice

indicated at that time, last April, on FPI, that he had many, many options open

to him, which meant that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the

Minister of Fisheries had many options open to him.

As a result of us having access to that opinion, we had the benefit of

obtaining it, of looking at it and realizing that in that particular situation

it would have been in the interests of public policy if the legislation had been

changed, and what we did just two nights ago could have been done, basically,

about eight or nine months ago. Just one small example of how important it is

for the public and/or the Opposition and/or the media to have access to legal

opinions.

We feel this is useful information, it is very important information, and we

suggest that this amendment be passed.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, I would point out here that this is a

discretionary

section again - may - and, as properly referred to by the Leader

of the Opposition, we did indeed release legal opinions with regard to FPI, as

we did with respect to the matter of bulk water. There were several opinions

from various legal counsel that had been rendered during the bulk water matter

and those were released as well upon request.

I would point out that it is a discretionary thing and, albeit the Opposition

amendment is well intentioned - for example, once everything is final and

complete and adjudicated upon - I guess therein lies the difficulty of: we know

what the intention is by that addition, but there is some difficulty deciding if

it ever does come to an end, and what is to an end.

We felt that the protection is here in the sense of the discretionary piece

having may rather than shall not disclose. That discretion is still there,

depending upon the given circumstances, to disclose those legal opinions.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition

pass?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra-minded?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

On motion, amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 20 carried without amendment.

CHAIR: Shall clause 21 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment by the Opposition with regard to

section

21 is an amendment to subsection (4). Actually, in fact, it is an addition to

subsection (3) by the addition of subsection (4), and it states, "The head

of a public body must not refuse, after a police investigation is completed, to

disclose under this

section the reasons for a decision not to

prosecute...".

A public body must not refuse, after the investigation is completed, to

disclose certain information. The information which cannot be refused is the

reason for a decision not to prosecute. That information should be given,

"(

a) to a person who knew of and was significantly interested in the

investigation, including a victim or a relative or friend of a victim...".

For example, if somebody is killed, and if the Department of Justice decides

that it is not going to prosecute a certain individual, then at least the

relative of the person who is deceased will have the reasons why the Department

of Justice is not prepared to proceed.

The second situation where we feel that the information should be provided

is, "(

b) to a person wrongfully convicted...". We had a lengthy

discussion on that already this afternoon about people wrongfully convicted,

which will emphasize the importance of this

section to the people of this

Province. We have three wrongfully convicted people in this Province. We have

Gregory Parsons, who was wrongfully convicted for the death of his mother. We

have Ronald Dalton, who was wrongfully convicted for the death of his wife, and

we have Randy Druken, who was wrongfully convicted, I believe, for the death of

his girlfriend. Is that correct? Three, very, very unfortunate situations, very,

very close relationships.

I feel that it is very, very important to Gregory Parsons, to Ronald Dalton,

and to Randy Druken, that they be given the reasons, that they know why the

Department of Justice would decide not to prosecute a certain individual. If the

Department of Justice, for example, in the Parsons case, made an arrest, as they

have done, and then they subsequently decided not to charge that person and not

to prosecute, the position of the Opposition is, if anybody has a right to know

why they have refused prosecution, it would be Gregory Parsons; it would be

Ronald Dalton if somebody had been arrested; it would be Randy Druken. The

Ronald Dalton situation, actually, is different because the cause of death was

quite different, but the Randy Druken situation, for example, if a possible

perpetrator was arrested, then, in fact, that information should be known to

Randy Druken. These are people who have been seriously harmed by their wrongful

conviction. Their reputations have been hurt. Their families have been hurt and,

in fact, their lives have been destroyed. If anybody has a right to that

information, it is someone who has been wrongfully convicted by the justice

system in this Province.

The final situation, the third alternative, is, "(

c) to any other member

of the public, if the fact of the investigation was made public." If it is

a public investigation, we are saying, make the information available to

everybody.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the suggested addition of

subsection (4), we are not in favour of such an amendment. There are three

subsections to that suggested amendment, actually: (a), (

b) and (c). They talk

about victims here. The principle concern here is, the heading, suggested,

"The head of a public body must not refuse, after a police investigation is

completed...", and therein lies the problem again. It is very, very

difficult, in most circumstances, in a lot of circumstances, in fact, to

determine if your investigation is ever completed. In those cases where you may

have even made a decision that you have completed your investigation, vis--vis

a certain perspective of it, it does not mean that investigation, when new

evidence might come to light, might never be reopened.

This ties in, I would point out as well - we are dealing with

section 21

here, and its suggested subsection (4) - this ties in very closely with

section

21.(1)(g), and in that

section we talk about, "The head of a public body

may refuse to disclose information to an applicant where the disclosure could

reasonably be expected to....(

g) reveal information relating to or used in the

exercise of prosecutorial discretion...". That comes into play here quite

often, that, albeit we might think an investigation is completed, there are

many, many times when new evidence comes to light; and the prosecutor now, in

our system, has the discretion to decide whether they ought or ought not to

reveal certain information, because you may tell one person, for example, why

your are not prosecuting that person, but the revelation and disclosure of that

information may, in fact, compromise someone else or compromise another aspect

of the investigation. I would also point out that under the current system - and

we have had it for many years - a lot of times the information that you are

talking about here may reflect upon someone's credibility; so, again, the

prosecutor uses his discretion as to whether or not he thinks that ought to be

revealed.

British Columbia, as the Leader of the Opposition said, has a

section such as

has been suggested here,

whereas ours is patterned after the New Brunswick act.

Again, we do not want to compromise any future prosecutions by releasing any

information now, and that is the reason we cannot support the suggested

amendment.

I would also point out that most often victims are advised by the prosecution's

office and their staff as to why something does not proceed. Very rarely is

there a case where, if a matter does not proceed, that the prosecutor would not

inform particularly the victims why a case cannot proceed. It may be due to a

lack of evidence in a certain matter. In that case, the prosecutors do, as a

general rule, advise the victims of why the matter did not proceed.

With regards to the matter of the wrongful conviction inclusion here, I fully

appreciate this is a matter of great concern to the Leader of the Opposition,

having been involved in these cases. No other jurisdiction in the country has

this type of inclusion and, for the reasons I stated earlier in Question Period,

I do not intend to elaborate, at this point, while these matters are still

before the courts, in regard to this; but simply to say we are not prepared to

accept that subsection amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A couple of points in response to the comments of the Minister of Justice.

First of all, I will deal with his reason for not using the British Columbia

model. What he has outlined, I guess, by a reverse sort of logic, he has

indicated that the British Columbia model really is not up to scratch. It is not

sufficient. It does not work.

The other thing he outlined and said in his comment here - and he can correct

me if I am wrong, I do not believe I am - he said that he is not aware of any,

or in most cases, people who are in a position where they have been accused - if

I can put it that way. That the prosecution is going to move forward with the

case; that they are advised anyway. Would that be a correct

summary of what you

said? They are advised anyway of what the reasons would be. This is an important

point and I do not want to misquote you. I want to be sure of what you said.

Would you like to take a second just to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: First of all, I will deal with this point. In response to

the Leader of the Opposition's question regarding this provision about the

right to know in terms of shall as opposed to may, you said: In most cases,

people who have been accused, victims, they would be in possession of all the

knowledge anyway. That is what you have indicated. I just want to be sure. Would

that be a true reflection of what you said?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: What I am saying here is - subsection 4 suggested amendment

- subsection (

a) deals with, "to a person who knew of and was significantly

interested in the investigation, including a victim..." So that one deals

with victims, relatives, and friends of victims.

Under the second subsection, (b), it talks about wrongfully convicted. A

wrongfully convicted person, I believe, has the assumption that the person was

in fact charged at one point and ended up being wrongly convicted. That person

would have any information anyway, because under our system an accused person is

entitled to all the information once you are accused under another system of

laws we have called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So they do not need to

get any information. If a person is wrongfully convicted they would have had -

any information that was in an investigation must have been given to them.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the response the Minister of

Justice gave to our colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, in explaining why

government is refusing 4(a), this is a decision not to prosecute to a person who

knew of or was significantly interested in the investigation, including a

victim.

My understanding is that the minister justified that by suggesting that a

victim - in pretty well all the cases the Crown prosecutors would explain to a

victim or victims or to families and relatives, why a particular prosecution

cannot proceed. Perhaps it is the lack of evidence, perhaps it is some other

reason, but I think that is where the bit of confusion with my friend, the

Opposition House Leader, arises.

The minister explained that, no, he didn't feel it was necessary to do this

because victims, as a matter of course - particularly victims, and families and

relatives of victims. It would be explained to them by the Crown prosecutor the

reason why prosecution was not an option.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, that's a question maybe the minister will deal with.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The question then, is: If that, by a matter of course, is done anyway, then

what would be the hangup in enshrining this in a piece of legislation? If it is

a matter of course, based upon your commentary related to this section, then if

that happens anyway, what would be the aversion to enshrining what is a matter

of course into this legislation?

CHAIR: The Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: In response to the question, it is not a case of an aversion

to enshrining it in a right. What I am saying is, we already have, in

section

21.(1)(g), the reference to prosecutorial discretion. As a practice, the

prosecutor would indicate to someone why the matter did not proceed to charges.

The bottom line is we don't want, at any time ever in our system, to do

anything that might compromise a future investigation.

Your suggested amendment is premised on the understanding that the

investigation is complete, but as we well know, in the criminal justice system

it is very difficult to define if an investigation is ever complete. That is the

concern, that you may disclose something today when you think an investigation

is complete and inadvertently compromise the future of another investigation.

So, the interest of protecting society we feel outweighs in those particular

cases, and we trust upon our prosecutors to exercise that discretion.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So, in

section 21.(1)(g), you feel you have already covered it, and

section

21.(1)(

g) of the proposed legislation before us reads, "reveal information

relating to or used in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion". So, the

minister is saying - again, correct me if I am wrong - basically, that you feel

what we have asked for in the amendment to this particular

section is already

covered in

section 21.(1)(

g) based upon allowing this

section to give more

discretionary power to the prosecution to reveal whatever they may see fit to

reveal. At the same time, I guess in trying to achieve the balance that you have

talking about, and it is a balance, I suppose, what you are referring to,

between not compromising any future sort of investigation by revealing certain

aspects of information, that society generally, as a whole, would be much better

served in these instances if your amendment stood.

So, it is a balance, if I can take your point directly - in refuting or

refusing to accept our amendment you are saying that in certain situations the

individual right to know is negated to society's general right to any future

action that may or may not be taken on an investigation. Would that be a correct

summary of what you are putting across here this afternoon?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: First of all, if I could restate again,

section 21 deals

with the head of a public body. It says he, ".... may refuse to disclose

information ....", and he lists different groups of categories when he may

refuse to do that.

In addition to the head of a pubic body, of course,

section 21.(1)(

g) talks

about the prosecutorial discretion. We are not talking here about individuals

who have been charged with a crime, and those persons getting any information.

We are dealing here with persons other than the person charged with the crime.

Because the person charged with the crime automatically has his or her rights

protected by way of the Charter. There are also other avenues. For example, if

someone feels there has been a wrongful conviction, there are civil rules of

procedure. If anyone feels that they did not have all the information, even in

the course of their investigation, we have a civil system that is founded on

disclosure, whereby, irrespective of what might have happened in an

investigation in a criminal matter, you can use your rights of disclosure to

force any information that you want before the courts by way of a civil

proceeding. The intent here is: leave the discretion there in the department

head but, at the same time, let's not compromise the prosecutorial discretion,

let's not compromise what might be future investigations.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 21, as proposed by the Leader of the

Opposition, carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay

CHAIR: In my opinion, the nays have it.

On motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 21 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, (inaudible) with regard to

section 21.(1)(p).

The suggested amendments were circulated. Under 21.(1)(p), it say, "The

head of a public body may refuse to disclose information to an applicant where

the disclosure could reasonably be expected to....(

p) harm the conduct of

existing or anticipated legal proceedings."

The concern here is on the word anticipated. You could anticipate, I guess,

forever and a day, that there might be a proceeding. We thought we would give

more clarity to that by using the word imminent rather than anticipated, because

imminent gives it more of a guideline direction as to what we are talking about

here. We would propose that the word "anticipated" in 21.(1)(

p) be

deleted and the word "imminent" be inserted in its place.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That makes a lot of sense. We have no difficulty with that. This

"anticipated" word is a loophole big enough to drive a Mack truck

through. I am pleased, and my colleagues are pleased, that the minister would

move to close that loophole somewhat. The word "imminent" does that,

and we certainly support the amendment in that regard.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just like to say as well, that is a good improvement to the bill. I think

we have to really look everywhere we can in the bill and ensure that we are not

creating barriers where none need to exist. By using the word anticipated, as

the minister pointed out, somebody who wanted to hide something could anticipate

and speculate about what might happen down the road. That would leave open an

opportunity to deny access to information on all sorts of bases. Not that this

particular minister would ever contemplate doing such a thing, Mr. Chairman, or

this government or any other government, but you never know what might happen if

someone was of a mind to keep something secret from a member of the public. That

is certainly a positive amendment and we fully support it.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 21, as proposed by the Minister of

Justice, carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 21, as amended, carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 22 carry?

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, the Government House Leader is too anxious.

The Government House Leader is always going around with a pair of hobnailed

boots on his feet, trying to -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The Deputy Premier reminds me, there used to be a creature

in Newfoundland one time, a very useful creature, called the government ram. The

Deputy Premier, when he was Government House Leader, used to remind me of the

government bully. He was not a useful creature at all; he just wanted to bully

and keep the Opposition down or go over them with the hobnailed boots, and his

friend is now getting the same way. It is rubbing off on him, I say. Perhaps

whomever is in charge of seating over there might want to move the Minister of

Education up by the Government House Leader. I am sure there would be a little

bit more of a civil comradery, a civilizing influence, rather than this bullish,

ramish' influence of the Deputy Premier.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: No, not at all.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to word on the amendments that we proposed to

section

22. I say to the Government House Leader: Have no fear, we will not be eating

supper off the table here tonight. We are not going to go that far with it, but

we do have a few more points to make and we will make them. We are not going to

order bacon and eggs for breakfast, or anything of that nature.

On this particular clause, clause 22,

section 22 lists the circumstances

under which the head of a public body may refuse the disclosure of information

when that disclosure is deemed to be harmful to intergovernmental relations or

negotiations. Included in the list that we have here is the relationship - we

have no difficulty, of course, with the proposal as it relates to the Government

of Canada, government of a foreign state, an international organization, or

things of that nature; we are not objecting to that. Included in this

relationship, as defined in this section, is the relationship between the

provincial government and local government body. In our case, of course, it

would be cities, municipalities and other government bodies defined in the

regulations; local service districts and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ramish'.

MR. RIDEOUT: Ramish'. This is close to backupable', I would

say. It came from the same neck of the woods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: I will tell you something. (Inaudible) Lloyd Matthews.

MR. RIDEOUT: Is that right? I tell you, there are some old -

MR. HARRIS: They have the same lexicographer.

MR. RIDEOUT: The same lexi - how do you say that? That is a difficult

word to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lexicographer.

MR. RIDEOUT: Lexicographer.

I tell you, when I look at the Government House Leader grinning, some of the

old words - I just finished last night, I guess, reading Earl Pilgrim's, I

think it is his latest book -

AN HON. MEMBER: Reading your own memoirs.

MR. RIDEOUT: No, I haven't written them yet, I say to the minister, but

they will be worth reading. There will be secrets that haven't yet been told

in there, I say to the minister. You know what? One of them will have to do with

the minister. One of them will have to do with the minister who wanted to become

a Tory member of the Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: One of them will have to do with that minister, and at the

end of the day -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) card.

MR. RIDEOUT: Card? He had the bathroom walls papered with cards, I say to

the Deputy Premier. He had cards for every political party. Did he have a card

in your party? I think he had a card in every political party out there. He

would wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and say: Which one am I going

to support today?

AN HON. MEMBER: The hon. member chose wisely and he chose well.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, that he did, and caused a lot of us not to have as many

heartaches as we would have had, had he stayed, I say to the hon. minister.

Anyway, I finished reading Earl Pilgrim's latest book last night on The

Captain and the Girl , I believe it is called, and I hope a lot of it

continues to get written down, because in White Bay in particular there was this

large reservoir of sayings and isms and parts of the language that you do not

find anywhere else in Newfoundland and Labrador. You know, the purist in our

society will make fun and poke fund and go mad at a word like I just said to the

minister, or backupable', or something like that, but it was quite common

where I grew up and I make no apologies for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I made no apologies for it in 1989, and I am sure that the

hon. Clyde must have almost died when I uttered that phrase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Over in the studio, over on Logy Bay Road, the hon. Clyde

must have almost.... The only other time I saw his colour change so quickly, Mr.

Chairman, and I do not want to get into a large - but I have to tell the House

this. It was the time, in the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. RIDEOUT: No, I wasn't here then. It was a time in the House when I

referred to him, as Premier, as the master of deception. You should have seen

the bullets coming from his eyes to me across the floor. There was another

Supreme Court Judge who told me, he was driving in from out off the Avalon when

he heard that on CBC Radio, I believe, who were allowed to carry live feed from

the House then, and he told me he just about went into the ditch because he

could imagine the convulsions -

MR. TULK: That had to be Bill Marshall.

MR. RIDEOUT: As a matter of fact, it wasn't. Keep naming them and I

might have to tell you who it was. Anyway, I say to my friend, the Minister of

Mines, wait for the memoirs, they are coming.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: We believe that it would be useful to include in this

because the relationship between municipalities and councils and so on in this

Province is a statutory, intergovernmental relationship that was created by this

House. I think that that puts that corporate group of people in a different

category than with foreign governments or international agencies or things of

that nature. That is the purpose for the proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I

would commend the amendment to the Minister of Justice for further

consideration.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Again, Mr. Chairman, the tact taken here in this legislation

is to include local government bodies. Again, the year chosen was fifteen, which

is acceptable in Alberta, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia. We realize there

maybe differences in years from different jurisdictions but we feel that the

inclusion of local governments into this

section is the way to go here. Every

other jurisdiction in the country includes it in their section. With regard to

the time lines, we feel that it is very reasonable, fifteen years, as opposed to

ten suggested.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to clause 22, as proposed by the Opposition,

carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Contra minded?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: In my view, the nays have it.

On motion amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 22 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 23 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, clause 23, the disclosure of interests that are harmful to the

financial or economic interests of a public body.

Section "23.

(1) The head

of a public body may refuse to disclose to an applicant information the

disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to harm the financial or

economic interests of a public body..." and it goes on.

The amendment which is being proposed by the Opposition is intended to

prevent government from denying information under this

section about its

finances, about the management and administration of a public body, and about

negotiations by or for a public body.

In subparagraphs (c), and it is particularly in subparagraph (e). I will read

subparagraph (c), it talks about "plans that relate to the management of

personnel of or the administration of a public body..." and again, even

more importantly is subparagraph (

e) which talks about "information about

negotiations carried on by or for a public body or the government of the

province."

That particular exclusion is not in the old act and it has been inserted in

the new act. Of course, the concern here is the issue on Voisey's Bay or on

any other major negotiations that the Province is involved in. By virtue of this

section, the head of the public body would be permitted to exclude information

about negotiations carried on by or for a public body. This is of particular

interest, in these times, Mr. Chairman, because of the Voisey's Bay

negotiations which are going on. It has been a big issue for the Opposition,

that in fact, there should be more disclosure to the public.

On several occasions we raised questions in the House. We spoke about it in

debate. We feel that for an open, accessible, accountable and transparent

government, as espoused by the Premier, there should be, in fact, open

negotiations. By that, I do not mean that every single part of the negotiation

has to be disclosed, but the people of this Province have a right to know what

the parameters of the negotiations are. They have a right to know what the

government is seeking to accomplish. They have the right to know if the

government is going to allow ore to leave this Province. It is a very, very

important issue. They have the right to know that if, in fact, ore is going to

leave this Province, then the question on the minds and hearts of the people of

this Province is: Will it ever come back? I think we know that it probably will

not, and that is our concern. The reason it may not is that there may never be

any processing in this Province. Inco have already reneged on their promise to

build a smelter. So if there is no smelter in Argentia and Placentia, then there

is no processing. Inco's new position, which was stated in Question Period

yesterday by Mr. Jones, he came out and indicated that there is no proven

hydromet technology. So if there is no smelter, and there is no hydromet, then

there is no processing. All they are saying is that it has been proven in the

lab. They are saying more work has to be done. They have even gone a step

further and said we have to even consider what might happen in the event that it

does not work. So that is our concern.

Our legitimate concern is that if the ore leaves the Province and there is

nothing to bring it back to, then it will not come back. That is the fundamental

issue on Voisey's Bay. This clause hides negotiations. It was not in the old

Freedom of Information Act. We are trying to have a more open act, and now what

we have, is a more secretive act. That is what we have accomplished, which is

sad. The people have a right to know. They have a right to know what the

government is negotiating on their behalf.

If we allow this clause to go through as is, without the amendment that is

presented by the Opposition, then government can continue to have secret

negotiations. So if the Minister of Mines and Energy wants to have secret

negotiations about oil and gas, well, then he can do so. If he wants to have

secret negotiations or negotiations in private about the Lower Churchill, our

hydroelectric power, then he can do that as well. They can basically negotiate

all the resources of this Province away, have the deals done and the people will

never know what happened, what the reason were or why they did it. That is why

this amendment is so very, very important to this legislation.

This is a piece of legislation, the Freedom of Information. The government is

taking great pride in this legislation on the basis that information will be

more accessible to the people of this Province. That is not what I see in this

legislation. I see restrictions throughout this legislation. Time periods that

are exhausted, but I will go through those. Time periods of over a year before

you could possibly get information. Every step of the way that are hooks here to

make sure that if government does not want to give you the information, then

they do not have to. If the information is timely and is needed quickly, then

they could put it off for as long a time so that you will evidently go away. The

other way they can get you, they can charge you fees for that information. The

Opposition had an experience - and I was not here at the time - whereby in order

to get information on water samples, this government opposite was going to

charge $10,000 - is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, 10,000.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ten thousand dollars to get the information on water. Look

at what has happened with the water in this Province. There is contamination

throughout this Province. Look at the story yesterday on arsenic in our water

samples.

An elderly resident of this Province had ten times the arsenic levels; ten

times. A young child, I believe a nine-year-old child; four times. They do not

want to release that information or otherwise, if you want to go look for that

information you might have to pay $10,000.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

(Inaudible) to the general public, that every water test that is done in this

Province is for public consumption. There is no need to make a Freedom of

Information request to the Department of Environment. As soon as these tests are

done, as soon as the samples are put on the Web site - before that, the towns

are notified of what they are.

Mr. Chairman, for the hon. Leader of the Opposition to stand in his place

today and imply to the people of the Province that he has to make a request

under the Freedom of Information Act is absolutely wrong. He should be ashamed.

CHAIR: There is a point of information but no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The point I am making, Mr. Chairman, is that in the past this government had

attempted to charge people seeking information - whether it is the Opposition,

whether it is the media, or whether it is a private individual - as much as

$10,000 for that information.

MR. FITZGERALD: Shameful.

MR. WILLIAMS: These are the kind of things that we are trying to prevent

in this legislation. These are the kind of things we want to make sure does not

happen. If this is going to be open and accessible, as the government says it

is, then open it up. Make the information readily available. Shorten the time

frames. Let people get access to that information on a timely basis when they

need it.

To come back to my original point; this particular amendment, which we are

suggesting, would delete the

section which has been added by the government

which would allow continued, secret negotiations on Voisey's Bay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to politicize this issue, but

when I first saw this amendment from the Opposition I called it the Voisey's

Bay amendment for very obvious reasons. I think what is being missed here is the

intent of this act. What is in here is being missed when you cherry-pick certain

phrases, and I might say very small phrases, out of it.

Section 23, that we are talking about here, is a discretionary section. The

premise under which this act works is that there is a right of access in this

Province. There are certain prescribed exceptions where you shall not release

the information and then the rest are discretionary. In this case here again,

the Leader of the Opposition has omitted to say or he is not giving much credit

to the Ombudsman being able to do his job.

Section 23 is based on a

discretionary section. It uses the word, may. As I explained to this House on

Monday past, if the applicant is not satisfied with the information they get,

they can certainly ask the Ombudsman to intervene. There is a safeguard here.

I would also point out that, if you look at the context of

section 23,

reasonableness, I think most people in this Province understand what

reasonableness is. You talked about

section 23.(1)(

b) where is says may or may

not disclose, "financial, commercial, scientific or technical information

that belongs to a public body or to the government of the province and that has,

or" - and these are the operative words - "is likely to have, monetary

value."

There may be, for example, some tax changes that are being contemplated. It

may not be appropriate, it may not be in the best interests of the public body,

to have that information.

With regard to Voisey's Bay again, and the negotiations, as referred to by

the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier has been quite explicit with the

public as to the parameters of those negotiations. He said the public ought to

know the parameters of the Voisey's Bay negotiations. I would suggest that

anybody who has listened to the news in this Province, or read any kind of

newspaper, or saw any press release, or saw this Premier in this House of

Assembly enunciating on Voisey's Bay, he has always been very clear in setting

out the parameters.

With regard to the details, that is what the obligation and the

responsibility of the Administration is to do. Maybe the Leader of the

Opposition would like to have every nitty-gritty piece of detailed information

about Voisey's Bay, but unfortunately that is not his call to make. It is the

Administration's call to make, whether it is in the public interest, as a

matter of policy, whether you should have every itsy-bitsy detailed piece of

information in a negotiation out there. This Administration again, following the

recommendations of the committee, are trying to strike a balance: What is the

public's right to know versus what is in the public's interest by not

disclosing it at a particular time. That is what is being done here; balance is

being achieved.

We talk about cherry-picking. We did indeed cherry-pick. What we have done

here is, we have cherry-picked the other jurisdictions and we picked the best

from the rest, and that is what we have in this act.

We cannot support the amendment put forward by the Opposition.

CHAIR: Shall the amendment to

section 23, as proposed by the Opposition,

carry?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

On motion, amendment defeated.

On motion, clause 23 carried without amendment.

On motion, clauses 24 through 28 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 29 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Basically, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a discussion,

actually, with the hon. the Minister of Justice on this one. This is more a kind

of housecleaning type of thing.

Basically clause 29.(1) as it reads, says, "The head of a public body

shall refuse to disclose personal information to an applicant." That is

generally inconsistent with clause 38 which says, "A public body may

disclose personal information only..." in certain exceptions.

The only concern there was, as to whether there was some inconsistency,

whether in fact they should be read together or they should be combined. We are

certainly very flexible on it; we just want to make sure the legislation is

tight.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: The difference between

section 29, which falls in

Part III,

is, it talks about disclosure of the information to the applicant, the

individual involved. When we are talking about

section 38, it is within

Part IV,

which talks about how any information that is in the system is used or may or

may not be used by the public bodies, between one another;

whereas

section 29

deals with an applicant directly coming to a public body looking for information

about himself or herself.

Section 38 deals with: How do public bodies deal with

any information they have about individuals amongst their different agencies?

We, in fact, had proposed - there was some concern raised in second reading

by the Leader of the Opposition concerning that use within public bodies, and

what information could or could not be given out. We have, in fact, proposed an

amendment to

section 38 to give greater clarity to the

section 38 concerns that

were raised.

I do not know if you want to deal with the

section 38 amendment now, or deal

with it when we get to it, because it is different from 29. Twenty-nine deals

with an applicant getting information,

whereas 38 deals with how information

within public bodies is exchanged between public bodies.

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I accept your comments, Minister of Justice, and I understand that they are

from separate sections. My only concern was that there was an inconsistency in

the actual statements between 29 and 38. If the department is comfortable with

that, and the drafts people are comfortable with it, then we would certainly be

in favour of it.

On motion, clause 29 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 30 carry?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 30.(1), "Whether or not a request for access is made, the head of

a public body shall, without delay, disclose to the public, to an affected group

of people or to an applicant, information about a risk of significant harm to

the environment or to the health or safety of the public...".

The amendment which has been suggested by the Opposition is to delete the

word significant, and our concern it quite simple. Who decides what is

significant harm to the environment or public safety? The question is, in whose

discretion is it? Harm to the environment and harm to public safety is

significant anyway, in our opinion.

The amendment that we are suggesting to the Minister of Justice if quite

simple: Delete the word significant and just deal with harm to the environment

and harm to public safety.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, we cannot agree with the removal of the word

significant from that section. I would point out, first of all, that I do not

know of any other jurisdiction that has the positive onus that is placed upon

government here to release this information, mandatory, even above any

exemptions that are given to Cabinet or anyone else. This is a very proactive,

positive comment in itself by having this

section in here, because oftentimes

there were concerns raised in some jurisdictions about: What if government had

information and did not release it and it caused the public harm? This

section

now puts the onus on government, regardless if it is in Cabinet, regardless of

where it is. If it is a significant public harm, it must be released.

Now, I can appreciate the question raised as to who determines significance.

That is, in fact, a legitimate concern, but we think again here, we are talking

here, the onus is shall. So, there is no discretion here on a the public servant

not to release it. In fact, the clear indication is that they shall release it.

It is not a case of they get it and hold onto it to figure out: Well, we are not

going to bother with this until someone asks. By having the mandatory provision

on the public official that I shall release it, it forces the public official to

consider: What does that word significant mean? If you just take out the word

significant, we have no guidelines at all. Every piece of information shall

positively, absolutely, be released.

There may, for example, be some cases where you may have information that may

be of, I use the word, insignificant harm to a small group; yet, by releasing

that information, you may cause chaos in the public. Just to leave it open with

no parameters at all could have the adverse effect of what you are trying to

accomplish. Instead of doing something in the public interest, you could, in

fact, be doing the public a disservice by causing unnecessary concern.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to disagree with the minister, and I will put this in the context of

an actual event that occurred in this Legislature. We talk about significant

harm. Let me say first of all, throughout clauses within this particular bill

there are phrases like this that give government the broad discretion and allow

government to define, for example, what is significant or what is not.

For example, Members in this Legislature would remember the debate that

occurred with respect to THM levels in water. That whole debate did not result

or come about as a result of information released by the government. As a matter

of fact, information that government had, I guess, on the trouble with our

waters within the Province, within the public drinking systems, on THM levels,

government sat on the report for a significant period of time. The Opposition of

the day, through probing and questioning, forced the government to release the

information. It was some time after that it took that probing and questioning,

and public pressure, I might add, to get government to release the report on

THMs within the Province.

Now, if we wanted to apply the definition, as it is here - and I will pose

this to the Minister of Justice or to other ministers who may be involved. If we

wanted to apply that case to this particular clause in the legislation, then

guess what? The report on THMs would not have been considered significant harm

to the public, and that is the point we are making. That no matter if you had

significant harm or just harm, Minister, it still allows very open,

discretionary power for the government of the day - not just a public official,

by the way. This is not just about officials within the bureaucracy, but

political heads of departments. It allows that broad discretionary power to

exist in law for you to decide what is significant and what is not. That is the

point of the amendment that we are putting forward, in terms of opening up. If

something is harmful, generally speaking, to the public, then why shouldn't

the public have access to it, such as THMs in water levels in Newfoundland and

Labrador?

I recall at the time, for example, as that debate was raging, I sent a

Freedom of Information request to the Ministry of Environment. Within a day, I

received a letter from the ministry, and signed by the minister saying: Yes, Mr.

Byrne, you are allowed to have the information - I was Leader of the Opposition

at the time - but the department is going to charge you $10,000 to have that

information.

Now, just think about it, in the pursuit and exercise of our duty in the

House - we have a duty in this House as the Official Opposition, a parliamentary

role, a legitimate role - the Minister of Environment of the day did not see fit

to say that the report and the information concerning THMs in water in the

Province was of significant harm to the public, so they did not release it.

Public pressure and questioning from the Opposition accomplished that. Then when

we sought more information, the minister said: We are going to charge you

$10,000 to get that information because it would take us such a long time to

collate it and get it together for you.

What was interesting about the response is that the information we were

looking for was the very information that the minister should have had on his

desk at the time in order to make the decisions that he made at the time. So the

question it comes back to is discretionary power. Whether you call it

significant harm or harm, you are still going to have to provide a definition or

a judgement call. Our take and our view is: Eliminate the word significant. What

does that mean? Does it mean, for example, that the testing that is going on now

or testing that has gone on, on any variety of matters, say on teepee

incinerators out in Harbour Grace, for example, and the testing that may have

gone on or should be going on, is that of significant harm? Will that be

released? Does it mean, for example, information related to -

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the Minister of Environment.

MR. RALPH WISEMAN: I just want to point out for the Opposition House

Leader, he brought up a question about the Harbour Grace incinerator, which my

critic sent out a press release on yesterday, saying that I refused to do the

testing. That, Madam Chair, is absolutely false.

The testing on the water supply in the Harbour Grace area is done. I am

expecting the results in three or four days. When the town is notified what

these results are anybody in the public, who is interested, can have those

results.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Minister of Environment is an example of what a minister should be doing

then. If that is the case, then he is an example and I applaud him for it. What

the point is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, if. If that is what has happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: That is fair enough, but the point is this: in terms of

this section,

section 30, the minister has decided, if this were true today,

that if it is of significant harm, he will release it. What about another

minister or on another issue? Our view is that it provides too broad of a

discretionary power in this act, under Freedom of Information, for you, as

government. Not you individually, you people or members here, but for

government, whether it is today, next year, the year after, or five years from

now, that it provides too much discretionary power for government to define what

is significant and what is not significant. I think that is the point that we

are trying to make. In our view, this is what we would consider a friendly

amendment to this particular clause under Bill 49, the Freedom of Information

Act.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I realize the difficulty with the word significant here, but I assure the

hon. member opposite that this is a big step compared to where we were. We had

no requirements whatsoever before. There is no other jurisdiction in the country

that has a requirement in this regard. We have taken a step here, instead of

even letting it be discretionary in a department head, we are mandating that a

department head, who receives any information - we have to apply some

practically here. It is not the department head, for example, who is not

experienced in the scientific ways or what the medical means are, they are going

to make their advice based upon the recommendations of their officials as to

whether it is significant or not significant, but once those officials make

those recommendations, those findings are made that it is significant, there is

no discretion any further. The act requires that it shall be released. That is a

far cry from what we had before, which was nothing in this regard.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yes, while that may be true, in terms that it is a far cry from what we had,

we are debating now what we are going to have now and into the future. You

cannot say with all sincerity: Yes, as a political head of the department, or

any department, you take recommendations and advice from your officials. Yes,

the bureaucracy provides you, as the political head of your department, with

advice, information on a wide variety of topics. In all honesty, as a political

head and a minister of a department, surely it is up to you to either reject or

accept that advise. Isn't that right?

What the minister is saying now is that once the officials provide you with

the information or a recommendation that this is significant or not, then it is

done; you follow their advise automatically. Surely, we have enough examples by

this Administration where advise from a variety of departments has not been

followed, because ministers have exercised their parliamentary privilege, I

suppose, in making judgements and judgement calls on what has been significant,

whether it be dealt with a public tender, whether it deals with procurement,

whether it deals with hospital boards, whether it deals with consultants,

whether it deals with educational boards, whether it deals with the number of

doctors and rural physicians, whether it deals with the number of nurses and

nurse practitioners, or whether it deals with ferries and the use of the ferry

service in the Province. Surely, you cannot stand up and argue that, at the end

of a process if something is asked for under the Freedom of Information Act,

you, as a minister or any other ministers, under this

section will not have the

absolute right to define for yourselves what is significant or not. That is the

point.

This is not just about the bureaucracy providing ministers with information

and saying, this is the recommendation, and you automatically follow it. That is

not necessarily so. The point of the matter is that the definition, under clause

30, in terms of significant harm: What does it mean? It means that you, as the

Minister of the Department of Justice -

MR. RIDEOUT: The definition (inaudible) says the minister is the head.

MR. E. BYRNE: As my colleague from Lewisporte, who has a tremendous

amount of Cabinet experience, has correctly pointed out for me, it is right in

the act. I mean, the minister is the political head of the department.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Is the head of the department. No, is the head, period.

Exactly.

The problem is that under this section, as you go from department to

department, the definition of significant harm' can change from what you

believe it is, what the Minister of Government Services and Lands may believe it

could be, or what the Minister of Health may believe it to be. Not only that,

that could be driven by what the issue is. Is it in the public interest to have

this information out now or is it not? Is that somewhat intertwined with what

may be in the government's interest and what is not? So, it leaves that door

open f