June 12, 2012

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLVII No. 47

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

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

the District of St. John's West; the Member for the District of Kilbride; the

Member for the District of Torngat Mountains; the Member for the District of

Conception Bay East Bell Island; and the Member for the District of Mount

Pearl North.

The Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the St. John's

Regional Fire Department on the positive review it recently received from the

Fire Underwriters Survey, making it one of the best fire departments in the

country.

The St. John's Regional Fire Department serves the Cities of St. John's and

Mount Pearl and provides emergency services to the surrounding municipalities.

As a result of this review, the department received new insurance grades of

Class 1 for both residential and commercial properties. Mr. Speaker, with this

reclassification, St. John's has become only the third city in the country to

receive this top grade.

The insurance grades are based 30 per cent on how well the municipality

provides water to the department and 70 per cent on various fire department

related factors such as administration, communications, fire safety, inspection,

training, vehicle maintenance, and specialty response. Mr. Speaker, this

reclassification is a result of many improvements and much hard work over the

past ten to twelve years in these areas.

I commend the St. John's Regional Fire Department on this achievement and ask

all hon. members to join me in wishing them the very best in their service

delivery to our region.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for the District of Kilbride.

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to recognize the

efforts of St. Kevin's High School, Goulds for its attempts to link the study

body with the seniors the community. For the past fourteen years, St. Kevin's

has held a Seniors' Day at the school.

Seniors, usually the grandparents and/or other relatives of a particular

class, are invited to St. Kevin's for a full day of entertainment, food, and

tours. The interaction that occurs during the events of the day allows the

students to have a greater appreciation of the seniors. It also affords the

seniors an opportunity to recognize the value of young people.

This year, Seniors' Day at St. Kevin's was held on May 23 and was sponsored

by Mr. Halliday's Canadian history class. This class did all the planning and

organization for the day's events, which started at 9:30 a.m. with an assembly

and then a tour of the school followed. After a hot lunch, students provided

entertainment for the seniors.

I ask all hon. members to join me in commending St. Kevin's High School, Mr.

Halliday and his Canadian history class, for such a great day. Keep up the good

work, St. Kevin's!

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Ms Sarah Leo on being elected

as the President of Nunatsiavut Nunatsiavut's first female president.

Sarah Leo, a former Angajukkak, or Mayor, of Nain, defeated Mr. Johannes

Lampe by just thirty-six votes in Monday's election. This happened after the

original election involving three candidates did not result in either candidate

receiving a majority and a runoff election ensued between Ms Leo and Mr. Lampe.

Mr. Speaker, Sarah has gathered a tremendous amount of political knowledge

through her tenure as Angajukkak of Nain and her term of office as Northern

Vice-President of the Combined Councils of Labrador. Sarah is well aware of the

challenges facing Nunatsiavut. She will be a wonderful ambassador for the people

she has been elected to represent.

Mr. Speaker, the role of President of Nunatsiavut carries with it a high

degree of responsibility, and I am confident Sarah has the confidence and

support to fulfill this role with dignity and respect.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to join me in congratulating Ms Leo on her

election. I ask that all members of this House give her your full co-operation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an outstanding

businessman from my district who will turn 100 on June 29. Mr. Jim Yick,

originally from the Canton province of China, emigrated to this Province eighty

years ago to find a better quality of life.

He had to pay a head tax of $300, a substantial amount at the time.

He travelled from St. John's to Stephenville, working for as little as fifty

cents a week so he could sponsor his family into Canada.

He settled on Bell Island in the early 1940s, and became a successful

businessman on Bell Island and in Ontario in the areas of retail and real

estate. When Newfoundland joined Confederation, he successfully sponsored his

wife into Canada.

When the mines closed in 1966, he would not abandon his adopted home. He

continued to invest in the community and worked in his retail business until

In 2006, Mr. Jim Yick received an apology and compensation for the head tax

he paid to enter Canada. He held no ill feeling, as he was grateful for the

opportunity to call Newfoundland and Labrador home.

He lives with his family in my district as a proud Newfoundlander and

Labradorian. I ask all members to join me in wishing Mr. Jim Yick a Happy 100 th

Birthday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize and congratulate the Parish of

the Ascension for its outreach and support of the Primate's World Relief and

Development Fund.

Mr. Simon Chambers, Communications Coordinator for PWRDF, recently visited

the church in Mount Pearl and its congregation to share stories, information,

and challenges that will help the church identify their contribution to PWRDF

and how it makes a difference to others in the world.

Over the past year, the Parish of the Ascension in Mount Pearl contributed

over $13,000 to the work of the Primate's World Relief and Development Fund. In

particular, they held a fundraiser at Christmas which raised $1,300 for aid

efforts in Haiti and over $1,300 for aid efforts in South Africa.

The Parish of the Ascension is a testament to the generosity and selflessness

that exists in our community. I am impressed with the work that they do in our

community and beyond. Reverend David Burrows and his team are doing great

things.

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

Parish of the Ascension on their efforts to date with the Primate's World Relief

and Development Fund, and wish them all the best as they continue helping others

through their outreach programs.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in this House today to recognize Public Service Week in

Newfoundland and Labrador, which runs from June 10 to June 16. This year's

theme, Mr. Speaker, is Celebrating Our Commitment to Public Service. That speaks

to the pride and the dedication with which our valued public service employees

serve the people and the families of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Each and every day, our employees develop policy and they deliver programs

and services. These programs, services, and policies positively impact families,

individuals, and businesses throughout the entire Province. Through their

skills, their leadership, their professionalism, and their quality of work, they

are helping to move our Province forward and to make it a better place in which

to live and work.

They share a passionate and unwavering commitment to serving the citizens of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and it certainly shows in all they do.

While we benefit from and appreciate their efforts throughout the year,

Public Service Week provides a special opportunity for all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians to recognize the many accomplishments and contributions of public

service professionals. It is also a time for those professionals to reflect and

to acknowledge their own great work.

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of participating in the Public Service Award

of Excellence ceremony yesterday afternoon. I congratulated the one team and the

six individuals who received awards. I also wish to congratulate all those who

were nominated.

Mr. Speaker, the quality and the diversity and the value of the work of our

employees is truly outstanding. To be recognized and nominated for this award by

fellow employees is a great accomplishment in itself and they should all be very

proud.

As part of Public Service Week, a number of departmental and government-wide

events will be taking place in locations all around the Province. I encourage

all public service employees to take

part in these events and to reflect on the

fact that their work truly makes a difference.

I know I speak for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when I say thank you

to our employees for their efforts throughout the year. I will ask all members

here today to join me in recognizing Public Service Week and the many valuable

contributions of provincial government employees.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

I, too, want to congratulate the one team and six individuals who received

the awards of excellence for their outstanding commitment to public service.

This also gives me the opportunity to recognize the thousands of men and

women who make such a valuable contribution to our Province. They demonstrate

their excellence each and every day through dedication, their professionalism,

and their team work. We want to thank them for the role they play in serving the

people of our Province and recognizing them for the very important role in

making the major contribution to our Province and making it such a wonderful

place to live.

This year's theme, Celebrating our Commitment to Public Service, is a perfect

opportunity to thank our current employees and to extend our gratitude for the

thousands of men and women who are now retired and for the years of service to

our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

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

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

I am very pleased to join with him, and with the Leader of the Official

Opposition, in commending the hard work and commitment of public service

employees across the Province. The high standards and training required in

today's public sector workplace have resulted in the professional dedicated

workforce that we are proud of. I am impressed by the level of support for

training for public employees, not just for professional development and skills

training but also in areas such as gender awareness, antiviolence and inclusion.

This latter kind of training helps our workers and our communities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal

Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. McGRATH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Happy Valley-Goose Bay will host the 2012 Expo Labrador Resource

Conference and Trade Exhibition from June 24 to June 27, and all indications are

it will be the largest and most successful year to date for the annual

conference.

Labrador is referred to as the Big Land and with the current boom we are

seeing in the energy and resource sectors, the economic opportunities are even

bigger. Stakeholders have the opportunity to realize significant benefits from

this conference as they forge relationships and explore business deals. The

theme, Prepare-Partner-Prosper, is particularly fitting for this year's event.

Mr. Speaker, Labrador is poised for massive economic growth and expanding

infrastructure with an explosive mining sector and the forthcoming development

of the Lower Churchill, beginning with Muskrat Falls. Resource industry

stakeholders from across the country will meet to share their plans for major

project developments, and local businesses and organizations will be eager to

find out what the mining and energy corporations require in the way of

on-the-ground support.

The economic future for Labrador is bright, and the provincial government

understands the important role that Labrador plays in the overall success of our

Province. I am proud to be part of a government that ensures our natural

resources are developed for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to prosper

today and into the future.

Mr. Speaker, we are proud to be a bronze sponsor at Expo 2012 through our

Labrador Affairs Office, and I look forward to participating in the full

conference agenda. I ask everyone in this hon. House to join me in

congratulating the Labrador North Chamber of Commerce and all of the volunteer

organizers of Expo Labrador 2012, as they prepare to host their biggest

conference to date.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, congratulate the Labrador North Chamber of Commerce for

organizing the conference. This conference began in the 1990s as the Voisey's

Bay and Beyond Conference, with all the euphoria of the discovery of nickel in

Voisey's Bay in Northern Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the development potential was great then in Labrador, and it is

even greater today. Labrador is a resource warehouse for the Province, with all

the mining and energy potential that exists in the Big Land. All regions of

Labrador are substantial economic contributors to the provincial coffers. This

conference is an opportunity to celebrate our successes, and an opportunity to

plan for the great potential that still lies ahead.

This conference has generated many successful Aboriginal business

partnerships over the years through its networking environment. The combination

of business and social events has provided great venues for partnerships to

develop. The theme of this conference, Prepare-Partner-Prosper, is still very

fitting as we continue to tap the valuable resources of the Big Land.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am delighted to congratulate the volunteer organizers of Expo Labrador for

their hard work and dedication, which has made the expo a great place to

exchange ideas and share information. I hope this year I may make it; I have not

been there in a couple of years.

I would also like to extend my congratulations to the Labrador North Chamber

of Commerce, whose members will be celebrating fifty years. Labrador is poised

for a boom, but government must ensure that the boom does not come at the

expense of the people themselves of Labrador.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the government introduced amendments to the Access To Information

And Protection Of Privacy Act, or what is known as the official secrets act.

These sweeping amendments, Mr. Speaker, will make it more difficult for everyone

in the Province to get information from government.

I ask the Premier: How do these amendments give this act any more teeth, as

the former Premier would say?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

During the debate over the last twenty-odd hours, it is interesting and

amusing to see the spin that the Opposition parties put on this piece of

legislation in order to gain political brownie points.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is a very significant piece of legislation. Based

on the statutory review that we had to do, we have to review this act because we

are bound by statute to do it. We will have to do it again, Mr. Speaker, in five

years' time. With the explosion in information and the way technology has

developed, the review will be imminent again in another five years.

Mr. Speaker, this bill contains many positive changes. It clarifies the

legislation. It clarifies some procedural loopholes. It brings it in line with

other jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, it has a lot of positive aspects to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the changes in technology are more about distribution than really as

to access. If you really do not have access, you really cannot do the

distribution piece.

Under the government's amendments, ministers will now decide if a request is

considered frivolous. This has been taken away from the responsibilities of the

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

I ask the minister: How do these amendments strengthen the role of the

Information Commissioner in any way?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, nothing was taken away from the role of the

Privacy Commissioner. There was no reference in the act this provision was not

in the act before with regard to frivolous information. Mr. Cummings was aware

of the fact during his consultations, and it was brought home very clearly that

there was a need to deal with frivolous and abusive process type of complaints.

He realized that a lot of public bodies were getting these complaints and

something had to be done, Mr. Speaker, to accommodate them.

Mr. Speaker, we have placed provision in now for heads of public bodies to

declare requests for information to be frivolous or vexatious. That will be

determined by criteria that will be established based on case law, on

commissioners' reports, on policy statements, and policy manuals. Criteria will

be developed, and developed over time, to make sure this is a good, informed

decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From our

interpretation of the amendment, what we are seeing here is there is

quite a bit taken away from the Privacy Commissioner. Mr. Speaker, the Premier

is removing the cold eyes of the Information Commissioner and putting

responsibility squarely in the lap of government ministers.

I ask the minister: Why do politicians get to decide if a request is indeed

frivolous?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, when a public body receives a request that

is abusive, that is a repeated request for information that the body has already

given out, when it is a request for information the body does not have and has

already informed the individual that they do not have it, or has already been

disclosed, Mr. Speaker, then the body has the right then to make a decision on

that kind of a request.

Mr. Speaker, the body also has to let the person know why the decision is a

frivolous request and also has to advise that person that they have a right to

appeal to the Commissioner. Mr. Speaker, the Commissioner himself has the right

to refuse requests based on frivolous and vexatious requests, and also has the

same responsibility to advise the individual why their request is frivolous and

where his appeal lies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all know that is a new responsibility of the minister. Mr. Speaker,

nowhere in the Cummings Report does it recommend the removal of the substantive

test for determining Cabinet confidences. Yet, government's amendment strikes

the whole

section and imposes a new definition for Cabinet records. The

substantive test has been removed.

I ask the minister: Why did you go much further than Cummings suggested and

remove the substantive test for Cabinet confidences?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings recommended that we extend the

list of Cabinet documents that is covered by ATIPPA. He wanted the list to be

taken from the Management Information Act.

All the lists of Cabinet documents in the Management Information Act are now

considered Cabinet documents. Mr. Speaker, they are classified. There are

official Cabinet documents, there are supporting Cabinet documents, and there

are withdrawn Cabinet documents. Only documents that are certified by the Clerk

that are being considered within the Cabinet Chamber are not subject to

disclosure. The Commissioner, Mr. Speaker, has access to review all the other

Cabinet documents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Premier stated there are a lot of vexatious requests for

information and attributed those coming from the Opposition parties. Of the 175

requests for review from the Information Commissioner, 90 per cent were

initiated by individuals and only 2 per cent from political parties.

I ask the minister: Why are you making it harder for individuals in our

Province to access information?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the national audit on access to information

policies across the country in 2010 classified this Province as second in all

the jurisdictions in the country in releasing personal information within the

statutory guidelines.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to receiving that report next

year and seeing what the report card says.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's government has committed to make all information

available so there will be an informed debate on Muskrat Falls. We already know

Nalcor is exempt from providing any information and now the new

definitions of

Cabinet records will prevent the release of anything Cabinet does in relation to

Muskrat Falls.

I would ask the Premier: How can the people of this Province expect a

complete and informed debate on Muskrat Falls once these new amendments become

law?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, as a government, recognize the significance of the Muskrat Falls decision

to our future and we have made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that all the information

in our possession will be put before this House. We have indicated the Decision

Gate 3 numbers will be made public. We have indicated that reports will be

provided on natural gas, both in terms of the importation of natural gas, or the

LNG option, and the building of a pipeline from the Grand Banks. We have

indicated, Mr. Speaker, that this House will have the information required.

Manitoba Hydro International will review Decision Gate 3 numbers; there is

nothing in this act that will affect in any way the amount of information that

we will put before this House to allow for a full and informed debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am going to go right to the question and

skip the

preamble.

I would ask the Premier: Isn't it now correct that your government will

control what information is available and provided to debate Muskrat Falls, and

even the commissioner is being excluded as a fair arbitrator to decide what

should be provided?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps again we should look at the Cabinet process. What happens, Mr.

Speaker, is a briefing note is prepared. The briefing note can then end up in

the form of a Cabinet paper, which goes before Social Policy, Economic Policy,

or Treasury Board, and it works its way to Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, there is

nothing secret about what is being done; it is the deliberations that we are

looking at.

In terms of Muskrat Falls, all we are saying here is that all the information

will be provided and that we have committed to a full, open, and transparent

debate. I can assure the member opposite that we will provide the information.

In fact, I have even looked, Mr. Speaker, at providing information that we do

not have to provide as a result of certain well-known privileges and law.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, it is coincidental that as we debate the

ATIPPA here in the House, the appointment term for Mr. Ring, the current

Commissioner, is up on June 24 of this year, two weeks away.

I would ask: Do we intend to reappoint Mr. Ring to a further term or replace

him with a blatantly political appointment like we did with the Chairman of

Nalcor?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the second part of that question does not

deserve an answer. With respect to the appointment of the Commissioner, the

Commissioner now has a two-year appointment. It has been working very well. We

have renewed his position every time; he has done a great job. We have a great

relationship with Mr. Ring. His office and his staff are well sourced and well

funded. Mr. Speaker, we have absolutely no problem with Mr. Ring's job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, while we have the Minister of Justice

answering questions, I would ask: Why did your government not accept the

recommendation of Mr. Cummings, which said the term of appointment for the

Commissioner should be five years, rather than the current two-year term?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, if it is not broke, do not fix it; we have

had a good relation with Mr. Ring on two-year appointments, and Mr. Speaker, we

will continue to do that. It is working well for us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about removing the

three-part test currently in

section 27 and replacing it with a one-part test

adopted from Manitoba.

Minister, why does your government now want to use a less democratic one-part

test, while six other jurisdictions use a more democratic three-part test?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, several jurisdictions across the country use

a one-part test. In negotiating with our business partners, and in negotiating

business deals and programs to affect and improve the business and economy of

this Province, Mr. Speaker, we have to have a certain degree of confidence in

the businesses to display their information, their business plans, their

financial assets, and whatnot. We have to afford the protection, Mr. Speaker, so

that we can grow this economy and grow our businesses. Mr. Speaker, it is in the

interest of the economy and the interest of good business to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker,

section 20(1)(

a) outlined reasonable

circumstances under which a minister could refuse to provide information, yet

you are now amending it to be so broad that virtually any information can be

refused by the minister.

How is accountability improved, pursuant to access laws, by giving the

minister unfettered discretion to trample people's rights to information?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in debate during the last

twenty-four hours the spin that the members put on this legislation, and the

creative ways they used that do that. Some member suggested that you were

closing all the doors and windows; the hon. member now says we are trampling the

rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, the right to information is an important one, one that we have

to protect and guard, no doubt about that, but it is not absolute it is not

absolute. We have to find a balance in terms of giving people access to

information, but also being good stewards of the country's assets and the

country's information and records. There has to be a balance, and we think this

act has found that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, after being refused the documents outlining the

Province's fictional infrastructure strategy, the Auditor General in his report

noted that, "I am entitled to unrestricted access to the information" "to

conduct my work." However, Bill 29 deliberately entrenches permanent barriers to

the information required to allow the Auditor General to properly audit the

public records of this Province.

Minister: Why are you restricting the role of the Auditor General in this

Province? What are you trying to hide?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: What are we trying to hide, Mr. Speaker? We brought him

in here in the first place, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General never had access to

Cabinet records, but Cabinet always provided the Auditor General with the

information he needed to do his work. Mr. Speaker, we are doing a consequential

amendment to the Auditor General Act to make sure that he does not lose any

powers and keeps the capacity he currently has.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, you may have brought the Auditor General out but

I guarantee you, you are barring him out right now I guarantee you that.

Premier, your government suggests that there is no increase for anybody using

ATIPPA other than bringing the fees in line with other jurisdictions; yet, you

will now charge not only for the time it takes to sever information but also the

time it takes to contemplate what you sever.

I ask the Premier: How can you suggest this is not a prohibitive increase and

will deny persons from access to information?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to this House and

to the hon. member opposite that we still have one of the best fee structures in

the country. Mr. Speaker, we retained our $5 application fee. Mr. Speaker, we

will give them the first four hours free of charge in investigating ATIPPA

requests free of charge for the first four hours. Then we charge $25 an hour

while the rest of the jurisdictions mostly charge $30 an hour. Mr. Speaker, we

also have provisions that if there is evidence of hardship in paying for a

request, then we can make arrangements with the person to deal with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, one change in the new contemplated fee

schedule

is a provision for contemplation time. This is supposed to cover the time when

civil servants will sit around and think about how much information they better

hold back from the applicant and what will be redacted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: To the Premier, I ask: How government plans to regulate this

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: contemplation time, and how do they plan to ensure that

contemplation time is different from regular work time?

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

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic and sad really, the

reflection that the hon. member casts on our civil servants during this Public

Service Week, when the Minister of Finance just stood on his feet a few moments

ago and received complete accolades in this House in praise of our public

servants.

Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of hours, literally, go into some of those

requests hundreds, Mr. Speaker. We have put in a fair fee scheme in order to

properly accommodate our financial costs. We do not use it to recover costs. The

fees are not used to recover costs. It is a fee schedule, Mr. Speaker, that is

fair. It is embedded in a lot of other jurisdictions in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: You should go down and tell the 550 people of Eastern Health

how much you are concerned about them, Mr. Speaker.

Your government is contemplating increases in a whole range of ATIPPA fees.

Can the Premier advise how much government charged last year in ATIPPA fees and

also provide income projections for how much government anticipates to bring in,

in ATIPPA fees under this new regime?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I do not think my colleague, the hon. the

Minister of Finance, is depending on ATIPPA fees to balance the budget next year

or anything like that.

Mr. Speaker, ATIPPA fees are not used to recover costs of these things. They

are nominal fees, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned, right now the first four hours

are free. If the cost goes over $50, then we have to do an estimate, Mr.

Speaker, and the cost will be $25 an hour. A good rate compared to the rest of

the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains, for a very quick

question, I say to the member.

MR. EDMUNDS: Mr. Speaker, under the new ATIPPA amendments applicants will

now be required to use the resources to go to court rather than have a

commissioner review, and if necessary have the matter adjudicated by the courts.

How is this not a step backwards in allowing persons access to information?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, all during the debate last night and today,

members keep referring to the fact that people cannot get access to information

anymore. It is no good looking to government for information, you are not going

to get. You will have to go to court. If anybody comes to me now, said one

speaker last night, for information: I will tell them go to court, get a lawyer;

don't go to government, you are not going to get anything. Ludicrous, Mr.

Speaker, lubricious.

The only situation where the only appeal is to the court is to information on

solicitor-client privilege and

section 18, Mr. Speaker, of Cabinet records.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Section 70 of the Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act

stipulates the minister must report to the House through the Speaker's office,

the number of requests for access and whether they were granted or denied. The

specific provisions of this act used to refuse access the number of applications

to correct personal information and the fees charged for access to records.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice: When did he last submit a report?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice does not submit a

report on the Privacy Commissioner. He is an officer of the House and reports

directly to the House, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker,

section 69 of the Access To Information And

Protection Of Privacy Act stipulates the Minister of Justice is responsible for

publishing a directory of information so people can easily find information

government collects. Mr. Speaker, the act has been in force for almost a decade.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Can he give the House an estimate of how many

government departments have developed and posted directories of information?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I cannot provide that

information off the top of my head. I can say that Mr. Cummings made four policy

recommendations that deal with all departments in organizing and formulating

their policies with regard to release of information. Mr. Speaker, all

departments are working on that. It is a part of the four recommendations;

although some members think it should be in legislation, these are policy

directives that we are working on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 29 removes from the Information and Privacy Commissioner

his right to review documents government says are protected by solicitor-client

privilege.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice: How many solicitor-client claims

have there been since he has been minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, no principle or what is the word I am

looking for? Nothing is more sacred to the legal system, Mr. Speaker, than

solicitor-client privilege.

The Supreme Court has said that solicitor-client privilege should be as

absolute as possible. Mr. Cummings recognized that in his research, and he made

that recommendation in his report long before the Supreme Court ever decided on

the solicitor-client issue. Mr. Speaker, we are in line with every legal there

is not a legal jurisdiction in the country who will take issue with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, well, I would say that the Court of Appeals

would take exception to it.

Mr. Speaker, and so it begins; a media story today says a report from the

Department of Municipal Affairs is classified as secret policy advice even

though large parts of the document are already public. Government will not say

why the report is deemed secret even though a judge has ruled government to give

reasons why this is so.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs: will he explain to this

House why he will not release this report?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member, as I

indicated to the media source that printed the story in today's paper, that

report is a draft report and only a draft report at this stage. I have no

intentions of ever releasing a draft report. As soon as that report is in full

form, I will be glad to share it with anybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, then, I will ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Is he stalling

until the new amendments to the Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy

Act are passed and keep it as a report that is unfinished?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember at which time I was on my

feet in the House of Assembly last night. One of the words that I used many,

many times in regard to the speech that I gave was the word sinister, and

leaving a notion in the people's minds, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

that there are sinister ways of this government.

We have no intentions of ever keeping reports for not being tabled in this

House. I just mentioned in my answer to your last question that once that report

is finished, I will have every intention and I will provide you a copy of that

report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Sunday evening, the Liberal MP for Humber St. Barbe Baie Verte

revealed to the people of Corner Brook information from an independent study he

commissioned from industry experts that indicates the Corner Brook Pulp and

Paper mill is in better financial shape than the Premier and Minister of Natural

Resources have indicated. Mr. Byrne's information was released

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: for people to see. Government, on the other hand, has shown

little evidence for their pronouncement.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker: Will he fully disclose

to the public information they have regarding Kruger's position and the mill in

Corner Brook?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As I have said on many occasions, this is a very sensitive issue right now,

Mr. Speaker. As I understand, the unions and the company were at the bargaining

table all weekend; they are still at the bargaining table, Mr. Speaker. I am not

getting into any of this.

I have colleagues here and there are colleagues across the way whose families

and friends, and in fact the whole community, are affected by this decision, Mr.

Speaker. What I want and what we want as a government is for them to reach a

deal on a long-term sustainability plan, Mr. Speaker. That is what we are

interested in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Virtual Teacher Centre has been providing Province-wide, on-line,

professional development opportunities for primary, elementary, and secondary

educators for over a decade now. The centre is now faced with imminent closure

due to recent provincial Budget funding cuts.

I ask the Minister of Education: Did he try to prevent the closure of this

important resource for teachers?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, someone mentioned to me yesterday the hon.

member's question I should have asked him: Is he smarter than a fifth grader?

I am starting to wonder, Mr. Speaker. I have to start to wonder, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: The centre that he is talking about just for another

little piece of education for him we, in the education system, call it CDLI.

It provides distance education, has provided distance education for many years

to many rural parts of the Province, enhancing its service over and over. Mr.

Speaker, the service is getting better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KIRBY: I encourage the minister to follow up on that information,

because that is not the case, Mr. Speaker. With the growth of on-line course

delivery through the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation which is a

different thing

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: on-line, e-learning professional development for educators

is now more essential than ever.

Will the minister act now and commit the necessary funding to maintain this

important educational program and service provided by the Virtual Teacher

Centre?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the member should take a little lesson in some

of the things being offered through this program. In many of the rural parts of

our Province right now, students who are doing these courses have access to

programs like music, so that we can have a music instructor here in St. John's,

or Corner Brook, or Marystown, or Grand Falls somewhere, providing music to the

remotest of students across the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the system of CDLI, as I have said to the hon. member, is

improving and it is getting better and better all the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, during Estimates, the government liked to talk about their plan

for roadwork in the Province.

When will the government release details of their strategic plan for road

construction in the Province for this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we go through a budget process leading into

this fiscal year.

This year, with roadwork, we are up to almost a quarter of a billion dollars,

that includes the Trans-Labrador Highway, that includes rutting out on the West

Coast, that includes some of our local roads, and that is mapped out according

to our fiscal situation, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is road construction season, I think it is pretty obvious, and in some

years there is major work that needs to be done. Route 360 is just one good

example of this some areas of the Bonavista Peninsula, as well.

What is government's plan for roadwork in these areas?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, we look at priorities throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador, and in looking at priorities throughout Newfoundland,

we go from the most travelled roads and work our way down.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, at this point in time, after six years, I think we

are after putting in $173 million into the Trans-Canada. When we look at the

Northern Peninsula, $30 million has gone into upgrading that road. I can go on

and on, Mr. Speaker, get up to the billions of dollars that we spend every year

to make sure that the travelling public have a safe road on which to travel on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Province of Nova Scotia has a road construction program that is available

to all taxpayers. They display a scheduled work program via the government Web

site. Taxpayers there know when their roadwork is going to be performed.

What is government doing to allow taxpayers in this Province

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: know of when roadwork is to be carried out in their

respective districts?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for Nova Scotia, but I can

speak for Newfoundland and Labrador. I will match up the roadwork in this

Province with Nova Scotia or any other province in this country of Canada.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Third Party, for a quick

question.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A NAFTA ruling in favour of Exxon has placed government in an interesting

position. They now have money that they can play with, with the federal

government, $50 million if they can hold back, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Given the treatment this Province is

receiving at the hands of the Harper government, will you use this ruling as a

bargaining chip in your fight with the Harper government on EI reform, office

closings, and layoff?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I indicated the other day, the federal government are currently

determining how they are going to proceed with this decision, Mr. Speaker. We

are certainly committed to research and development on our coast.

I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, when we negotiate benefits agreements

we will do exactly as we did in the Hebron benefits agreement. We will ensure

that the people of our Province, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, are

the prime beneficiaries of our natural resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader has called for Orders

of the Day.

All those in favour of the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion?

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, pursuant to Standing

Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. today, Mr. Speaker, Tuesday,

June 12, 2012.

Further, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 10:00

p.m. today, Tuesday, June 12, 2012.

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

at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12, and it has been further moved that this House

not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12, 2012.

All those in favour of the motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call from the Order Paper, Order 3, Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker, on

the Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair

for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the

bill.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Verge): Order, please!

We are resuming Committee of the Whole on Bill 29. When the Committee rose

last time, we were debating Clause 3. We will continue debate on Clause 3.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, Clause 3 in the Access To Information And

Protection Of Privacy Act deals with

section 7 of the Act, and it adds an

interesting clause.

Considering this is supposed to be the access to information, this amendment

starts out by saying, "The right of access does not extend (

a) to a record

created solely for the purpose of briefing a member of the Executive Council

with respect to assuming responsibility for a department, secretariat or agency;

or (

b) to a record created solely for the purpose of briefing a member of the

Executive Council in preparation for a sitting of the House of Assembly."

It goes on to say, "Paragraph (4)(a)does not apply to a record described in

that paragraph if 5 years or more have elapsed since the member of the Executive

Council was appointed as the minister responsible for the department,

secretariat or agency."

It further goes on to say, "Paragraph (4)(

b) does not apply to a record

described in that paragraph if 5 years or more have elapsed since the beginning

of the sitting with respect to which the record was prepared."

Mr. Chair, really this is the five-year blackout clause in the Access To

Information And Protection Of Privacy Act. Mr. Chair, that brings us around to

an interesting perspective. How do we get to a position whereby a government

that

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: - campaigned on an accountable government, and open and

transparent government would be bringing amendments that would curtail,

restrict, and limit the access to information on a bill that was actually passed

by a prior Liberal Administration.

Mr. Chair, for some insight I am drawn to the 2003 Blue Book. The 2003 Blue

Book refers to freedom of information. It says what was then going to be

introduced as "The Transparency And Accountability Act will greatly enhance

openness and accountability in government, but a comprehensive and effective

Freedom Of Information Act is the best safeguard against the tendency of

governments to descend into official secrecy and elitism."

The 2003 Blue Book goes on to also say, a Progressive Conservative government

will and I assume that we purportedly have a Progressive Conservative

government "Proclaim new Freedom of Information legislation which will include

amendments that clearly identify information that should be in the public

domain, including Cabinet documents, and will require full and prompt disclosure

of the information to the public." It also goes on to say, "Release to the

public every government-commissioned report within 30 days of receiving it,

indicate the action government will take on a report's recommendations within 60

days, and ensure prompt access to all government" records in hard copy and on

the Internet.

Mr. Chair, the bill that we are debating, the amendments to it were actually

enacted in 2002. These are the pages from the 2003 Blue Book. Clearly the people

who made the commitments in the 2003 Blue Book were well aware of the

legislation that had been enacted but not yet proclaimed; then promises were

made that a Progressive Conservative government would clearly identify

information that should be in the public domain, including Cabinet documents,

and require full and prompt disclosure of the information to the public.

Mr. Chair, the only conclusion can be that this government actually has had a

change of heart; it has gone back on a campaign promise. This is a campaign

promise on a piece of legislation that this government sought or promised to

improve. In fact, not only have there been no improvements; at this point, the

amendments that are being proposed would make access to information more

difficult and would not promote transparency but, in fact, would reduce

transparency.

Mr. Cummings, in his review of the Access To Information And Protection Of

Privacy Act, dated January 2011, referred to Cabinet confidences, he said most

access to information legislation across Canada protects from disclosure

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: of Cabinet confidences which would reveal the substance of

deliberations of Cabinet. Mr. Chair, nobody realistically has a serious argument

that it is important to protect the substance of deliberations of Cabinet, but

what is being proposed in this amendment goes much further than that. What is

being proposed in this amendment goes well beyond the necessity to protect the

substance of deliberations.

Where this fear can be found, it is almost as if if this government were to

have a well-founded fear of persecution, they probably could qualify as refugees

in another country, because a well-found fear of persecution they do not want

to give up information. The Executive Council made submissions to Mr. Cummings,

and the Executive Council expressed their point of view and this point of view

in a submission which said that effective government requires that Cabinet

ministers speak freely in the Cabinet room, without fear of stating unpopular

positions or making comments that might be considered to be politically

incorrect if made public. So, Mr. Chair, why do we need an amendment to protect

ministers from politically incorrect positions that they might take at the

Cabinet table? Who are we really trying to protect here, and for what reason?

Mr. Chair, I say that this amendment seeks to protect ministers politically.

My colleague from Cartwright L'Anse au Clair refers to it as a cone of

silence; I prefer to call it a five-year blackout, because clearly it is a

five-year blackout.

Mr. Chair, it can be important for critics of ministers, and individuals who

want to determine where departments are going or what basis ministers are

working on, to have access to briefing documents. In fact, I have only recently

had access to briefing documents from the Minister of Fisheries and found these

briefing documents quite helpful. It was able to result in questions that were

tabled, and the minister, quite properly, provided responses to these. Any

diligent, confident and capable minister should not be afraid to have any

briefing books provided to people to review. In fact, it is almost as if a

person would put up a report card and say: This is what I have done, this is

what I am doing, this is what has informed my deliberations, this is where we

are heading with this particular policy, come on critics challenge me, it will

only make me better.

Mr. Chair, it seems the point of view that is to be adopted in the new

amendments to this act, the ministers do not want anybody to know, for at least

five years, what informed their deliberations. They do not want to be held

accountable for a minimum of five years. Ironically, our term lasts for a

maximum of four years. It means that this clause, in this piece of legislation

means that Cabinet ministers could never expect to be held accountable for what

they were briefed on. Clearly, that must be a reversal in what we would see as a

democratic process.

It is noteworthy; it is worth pointing out that even though the Minister of

Justice waxed poetic on other jurisdictions and how courts may have interpreted

various types of information, Mr. Cummings said: I have not found any

interpretation of provincial legislation that necessarily excludes all Cabinet

information or entire Cabinet documents, or records from disclosure and avoids

severing. The final noteworthy point Mr. Cummings says is that the courts of

this Province have never had occasion to comment on all of this.

Mr. Chair, I see that my ten minutes has elapsed so I will conclude.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Going back to

section 3, Mr. Chair, if you look at the additions that have

been put in following

section 7;

section 7(1) states that a person who makes a

request under

section 8 has the right of access to records and custody, or under

the control of a public body including a record containing personal information

about the applicant.

there, right off the bat,

section 4 of

section 7 of the act, the first seven

words says, "The right of access does not extend". Mr. Chair, a total

contradiction to the terminology that was in place. What this shows is, I guess,

a level of security that the minister can bring upon himself or herself; again,

going back to that right to deny people access to information.

In subsection 2, Mr. Chair, of the original clause, the right of access to a

record does not extend to information exempted by disclosure under this act. Mr.

Chair, if you go on down to

section 5 we talk about a time frame where the heads

of public bodies can withhold information for five or more years, and making

reference to an executive committee. First and foremost, an elected official in

this hon. House is they are foremost legislators, and they must provide

information as legislators to the public and at the public expense. I think this

to information. I think this is one of the fundamentals of democracy that we

talked about at some point in the last twenty-four hours.

I think the people of this Province do have the right to look at information

that the minister, through this amendment, is going to withhold from the public,

withhold from the people of this Province, Mr. Chair, and deny access. We keep

going back to how this act is to make information more accessible and to make

information more transparent. Again, the same as in the previous section, Mr.

Chair, we see another safeguard in place that benefits the head of a public body

or the minister, where it buys himself more protection, gives him more

discretion. Some of the information that is passed on from department to

department ministers, Mr. Chair, has relevant information that could be used by

the people of this Province for their own gain.

We go back to the past Minister of Labrador Affairs who got his briefing

verbally and there was no track record. Mr. Chair, certainly we lost track of

that member as well.

I think there needs to be some tightening of this. I cannot see

section 3

being there at any point at all, Mr. Chair, because it certainly does not

benefit the people of this Province. It is another gateway for the head of a

public body or a minister to refuse to come forward and, legally, to share

information with the people of this Province.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to pick up briefly where I left off when we broke this morning.

I know we are talking about the same clause that my colleagues in the Official

Opposition have been discussing with respect to denying the right of access to

briefing materials that are within the purview or prepared for Executive

Council. I know the Member for St. Barbe referred to that as a blackout. I am

certainly familiar with the blackout, Mr. Chair

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: because I have been party or a recipient of access to

information requests that seem like there is a lot of toner, or black marker, or

something has been used to shield whatever information, however innocuous or

otherwise that I was requesting. It is interesting to look back at that

statement from the PC Party Blue Book from 2003. Mr. Chair, it specifically says

right there in black and white that they will proclaim the new Freedom of

Information Act, which the previous government had not done at that point, and

will include amendments that will clearly identify information that should be in

the public domain, including Cabinet documents.

Of course that was done, no doubt, one would hope, in a spirit of openness

and transparency, the sort of open and transparency that the electorate, the

average, ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian, wants to see from government;

but, unfortunately, these provisions, which now basically deny the right of

access to briefing materials that are records that are created solely for the

briefing of a member of Executive Council and created for briefing of members of

Executive Council in preparation for the sitting of the House of Assembly, they

are really put these behind a curtain. They really put them out of view. I am

certainly not naive enough to think that there are not legitimate occasions when

certain briefing materials should be kept out of public view because of the

sensitivity. There are certainly cases of that, but I have to say that these

sorts of blanket provisions really cast pall on that.

I know that there was reference in the report that was prepared by

Commissioner Cummings about a chill that had descended over this government,

this Cabinet, in terms of the preparation of materials for briefings. There was

a fear that these would be accessed through the Access to Information and

Protection of Privacy Act. I think, really, that chill is self imposed, myself;

I think it is really up to ministers and their operations to determine the sorts

of materials that they want to put into print and the sorts of materials that

they do not want to put into print. Of course, this really brings into play the

question of the role of the Commissioner because this basically eliminates any

role. It does not provide for a role for a Commissioner, the access to

information Commissioner. It does not provide a role and a Commissioner will not

be able to now review these records to really see whether they should be

protected or whether they should not. There is no right of appeal for

individuals who are seeking those particular files or records, or other

information that they would want to be able to access.

Then, the other thing I wanted to mention with respect to this particular

clause of Bill 29 is the whole business of the five-year period; I know, just

before we were well, this morning, when we were discussing this, the minister

was talking about how five years was a reasonable period of time to put in

there. I know that the Member for St. Barbe, interestingly enough, pointed out

that terms of office are four years in length, and this is five; we know that

cabinets get shuffled and individuals get moved into different roles and out of

certain roles. So it certainly has, on the surface, an appearance that it is

designed for political purposes to shield members of Cabinet from the sort of

openness, transparency, and public scrutiny that was really what was promised in

the Blue Book back in 2003.

I would just like to say, again, it would be interesting to hear from the

minister about exactly how in the drafting of this legislation, in the

preparation of this bill, the five-year time period was arrived upon. Is that a

best practice, or a perceived best practice that he or the department has taken

from somewhere else? As we were saying earlier in the debate, you can go around

and cherry-pick legislation from different provinces and pick different

sections. Perhaps these came from one piece; they may be hybrids or modified

from other legislation from different provinces, or territories, or maybe the

federal level, because we do know this sort of legislation is enforced in other

parts of the country, all across the country. I think you could go around the

country and really collect those pieces, sections, and clauses of legislation

that provide for a blackout clause, or a more blacked-out clause, or for more

information, records, data, and files to be put further behind the curtain, to

be shielded more than other legislation would provide for.

I think it would be important to get some information, at least, before we

move on with this particular clause about why it is that this five-year period

is seemingly so ideal, or at least acceptable, in terms of the enactment of this

new legislation.

I am sorry to get up, Mr. Chair, and repeat myself again, but it would give

me more comfort if I could be provided with a better explanation so that I could

arrive at a better understanding of why it is that this five-year period is

superior.

One thing you have to ask yourself is: why is five superior to three, or

four, or two? We know there are variable terms; if you think of the Officers of

the House of Assembly, their terms are different in terms of their duration and

so on, so we have picked these time periods for a reason. Why would it be five?

Why wouldn't it be two, or why wouldn't three be reasonable?

I would be interested in that clarification, Mr. Chair, and with that I will

let somebody else have an opportunity to say a few words.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to stand for a couple of moments to have a few words about the

bill before us, in particular, the clause 3 that we are debating here today.

Mr. Chair, first of all, it is very important for people to understand the

context of the bill that we are debating today. There are all kinds of versions

and stories that are portrayed. That is why we are in this House and that is why

we do what we do. The fundamental reason behind this, Mr. Chair, is to provide

protection for all individuals.

We receive requests on a regular basis for information, and it is important

that government manage that information in a wise manner. I want to speak

specifically, to provide context for those who are observing the debate today,

to the

section that we are talking about here. We are talking about an amendment

that applies to briefing materials and planning materials provided by and for

Cabinet ministers in particular; Executive Council is the term we use, but we

are talking about Cabinet.

Many people are probably not even aware of the process of government and how

it works, Mr. Chair. That is why I want to lay some context. We are not talking

about a clause of protecting information that applies to, I would say, 99.9 per

cent of the general public, Mr. Chair. The issue that we are talking about here

right now, today, as I stand here, has to do with Opposition parties gaining

access to information being used by government and Cabinet ministers. The

context that I want to provide for people, Mr. Chair, is this.

First of all, there is a one-way street in government that people need to

understand. When Cabinet ministers and governments plan, you go into departments

and you try and identify strategies; you have staff that you hire. You are

looking at directions for yourself, for the department, for government.

Obviously, there is a political planning process that you are engaged in. Mr.

Chair, at the same time, people need to understand, as I am sure they do, that

members from Opposition parties are doing the same thing, but they are doing it

for a different reason.

Cabinet ministers and members of government are planning to try to develop

policies, procedures, protocols, and initiatives that will move the Province

forward, that they believe and we believe will advance the social cause of this

Province and the economic cause of this Province. A lot of that planning, Mr.

Chair, is done by our staff who prepare notes for us at times. Not all ministers

do that, but some do. We have notes prepared and we have recommendations

prepared for our consideration. All of that is about the strategy that members

of government engage in, Mr. Chair.

Members of the Opposition engage in a different strategy. Their strategy is

to try and figure out what we are doing, and in some cases, pick holes in what

we are doing; in some cases, although I wish there were more, they try to offer

alternative suggestions that would improve what we do, Mr. Chair.

The fundamental piece that people who are observing this debate in the House

or at home need to understand is the comment I made a few minutes ago about the

one-way street. Members of the Opposition have the secrecy luxury. Other than

the one slip by members of the Third Party, they do not have to provide us with

questions that they are going to ask us. They do not provide us with news

releases that they are planning. They do not have to provide us with their

strategies. They do not have to provide us with what they are thinking, where

they are heading, and what they are contemplating, Mr. Chair.

AN HON. MEMBER: The briefing of where their debates are going.

MR. KING: The briefing of where their debates are going, Mr. Chair we

do not have access to that; not one member on the government side of the House

has access to that information. It is part of their strategy, they hold it close

to their chest, and they do as good a job as they can in coming at government,

and obviously, in cases where they are able, to try and discredit government and

try and present themselves as an alternative to government. Everyone, I think,

Mr. Chair, who follows politics understands that. That is the dynamic we work

in.

The same does not apply, Mr. Chair and that is what is being debated here

today, and that is the piece I want people to understand; members opposite who

are claiming that they ought to have access to information that Cabinet

ministers and their staff are using to prepare and to plan and to organize, the

same ones who are saying they ought to have access to that are not prepared to

give access to their own information. I am saying to the people at home who are

listening and people who are here in the gallery, it is a bit of double-edged

sword. This clause does not apply, in my view, whatsoever to 99.9 per cent of

the general population in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This debate

at this moment is solely and wholly about Opposition politicians wanting to gain

access to documents being used by members of Executive Council, Cabinet

ministers and their planning.

I submit, Mr. Chair, that just as, within reason, we do not have and ought

not to have the opportunity to take their questions, their planning, and their

information, and to eavesdrop on their discussions and things that they are

trying to do to advance their party and their cause, I submit that members of

Cabinet and Executive Council who engage in the same kinds of activities for

very similar reasons ought to have the same kinds of protection of information

afforded to them as members opposite do, Mr. Chair.

I stand today simply on that issue because I think it is important for people

to understand: this is not about refusing Joe Chesterfield, as my college from

Burgeo La Poile would say; this is not talking about Joe Chesterfield not

being able to find out what the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills is

doing for post-secondary education in the Province. Frankly, Mr. Chair, if you

were to check without having the numbers, I submit, in front of me you will

find very few requests that come into government looking for that kind of

information come from the general public.

The majority of the requests that we get about the issue we are talking about

now, here today, this minute, come from members opposite and their staff and

media. It is all about politics and political points. I admit I have no issue

with that, Mr. Chair, but I submit for people who are following the debate: as

you contemplate the arguments being made about not providing some protection of

information that politicians on this side are using to plan, perhaps you ought

to consider why would we want one part of those who sit in the Legislature to

have to disclose everything that they have at their fingertips as part of their

planning but allow another segment of the population to sit and possess

information and do and say as they wish without having to disclose that as well,

Mr. Chair.

I submit it is an argument that is a little bit off-sided here and does not

apply, in my view, at all to a broader debate of public protection. This one

particular item applies primarily to members who are sat today in this

Legislature, those who support us and members of the media.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In subsection (

a) we find, "to a record created solely for the purpose of

briefing a member of the Executive Council with respect to assuming

responsibility for a department, secretariat or agency".

This is not about political strategy, Mr. Chair. This is about the planning

of how government does its work in response to the future of this Province. This

is the area that lets us know what government is thinking and where they wish to

go. It is the basis of the future. It is not about political rumination, it is

not about political strategizing, it is about the work of departments, of

secretariats and of agencies. This is very crucial and is very important

information. It is not about Opposition parties trying to find out what the

other party is doing. What about members of the public who want access to this?

What about the Auditor General?

Mr. Chair, subjecting these particular forms of information and documents,

coupled with denying the Commissioner the ability to do his job as mandated in

the act, of assessing whether documents or information should be covered by

this, there are already safeguards in the act making sure that legitimate

documents are in fact protected. What this creates, because this is about

planning for the future, this is about where we take our Province, and as

Premier Williams said, he promised: there will be no secret documents, there

will no hidden agendas. Again, this is about the work of government on behalf of

the Province. This is not about the political sphere.

What happens here is this particular amendment creates an atmosphere of

distrust where there need not be one. It creates an atmosphere of suspicion

where there need not be one. This does not give the public confidence in the act

or in the Legislature. It actually undermines the work that government does. It

undermines the relationship that all members of this House of Assembly have with

the public. Why? When the protections are already in the act, why do this? The

protections are in the act by very virtue of the act itself, but also by the

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. It is in the Office of the

Information and Privacy Commissioner where the protection is executed. This kind

of amendment, in fact, enshrines an effect that creates so much suspicion and

distrust where it is not necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: This amendment, in fact, is very regrettable. It is

unfortunate, it is unnecessary, and it violates the very spirit and the mandate

discussion that we see in the public sphere right now, whether it be through the

media

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The discussion that we are seeing right now in the public sphere, whether

through the media, on Open Line shows, or within our own districts from our own

constituents I have been receiving e-mails, Mr. Chair, from constituents who

are really concerned about this. What is regrettable is the atmosphere that this

creates when it is so not necessary. The act very much ensures a safeguard for

legitimate reasons of Cabinet secrecy or the legitimate reasons for Executive

Council secrecy.

I was very surprised to hear the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture say

that this was specifically about Opposition parties trying to get hold of their

strategy. I am surprised that they are afraid of us. We are not the boogeyman.

There are, again, provisions in the act that will take care of and safeguard

party secrets. Again, this is about Executive Council, with respect to assuming

responsibility for a department, secretariat, or agency.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS ROGERS: I assume, Mr. Chair, that the minister across the floor

actually has messages she would like to give to me, and perhaps when I sit down

she may want to speak directly to me.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask all members for their co-operation.

The Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, at this point, once again, in this particular time in our history

when we are on the cusp of some of the most important decisions in our history

that will affect everybody in our Province, will affect people now, and will

affect

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It will affect all of us now, decisions will that affect us in the future,

decisions major, major decisions that will affect generations to come. Now

is when we want to be able to assure the public that their best interest is at

heart. That all government, and that all people in the Legislature, that in fact

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS ROGERS: Mr. Chair? Thank you.

the well-being of the Province is uppermost, and so people must have that

confidence in the Legislature at this time. Again, this kind of amendment

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I will ask again for all members for their co-operation, please.

The Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am not so sure why the members across the floor are so hell-bent on trying

to prevent me from speaking, because I have listening very attentively to those

who got up and spoke. While we debate, it is very important for us to be able to

hear each other so that we can respond to the concerns that both government is

raising and those on this side of the floor are raising; however, this is not

debate, in fact, Mr. Chair I am not quite sure if I have ever experienced this

in any other facet of life, except what we see happening right here in the House

right now. In fact, Mr. Chair, it almost borders on preventing me from doing the

job that I have to do here today.

Mr. Chair, once again, I believe that the public, our constituents, are

relying on us to ensure that there is openness and transparency so that they can

have confidence in the democratic process. I believe that this kind of amendment

puts an unreasonable shroud of secrecy

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS ROGERS: and I believe that this amendment is not intending to raise

a level of distrust and lack of confidence in this House. I do believe that that

was not the intent, but I do believe that that is the effect and it is an

unnecessary position to take. This once again reflects the siege mentality that

we have been seeing from this government and it is so unnecessary. I have

confidence in the act as it stands and I have confidence in the office of the

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to pick up from where I left off and to respond

to the member's statements opposite. I just want to continue from where I left

off, Mr. Chair. I want to give some concrete examples because the member

opposite used a number of terms that are very unfortunate and perhaps reflect

the kind of participation that she has been engaged in with the debate in this

House thus far. This is not about denying the public access to information, Mr.

Chair. I want to give a couple of examples because I do not think people quite

understand what we are talking about here.

When I was in a previous department, Mr. Chair, I had responsibility for the

Disability Policy Office, the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism, and

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing. There may be any number of occasions when I

might go looking for information on housing related to a number of repairs

required in the Western Region, the possibilities of building new homes on the

Avalon.

Mr. Chair, what we are talking about is protecting information that I, as the

minister, choose to go looking for as part of formulating strategy and making

decisions that I talked about a few moments ago. Mr. Chair, let me just say to

the people who are listening to this debate so we are very clear: the Member for

St. John's Centre is also welcome to ask for the information about housing

changes and modifications required in Western. She is also welcome to come

looking for information on new housing starts on the Avalon. In fact, Mr. Chair,

people need to understand this, there is not one piece of information or most

of the information, I will not say not one piece I may be corrected. Ninety per

cent of the information that any minister would put together in a briefing book,

the member opposite or any member of the public are able to access. The

difference, Mr. Chair, is that the member opposite wants me and my staff to do

the research for her and identify the priorities.

If the member puts in a Freedom of Information request and asks for

information on housing starts on the Avalon, as I do as minister, she will get

it. If she puts in a Freedom of Information request looking for information on

housing repairs required for the long-term on the West Coast, she will get it.

If she puts in a request looking for information on the multiculturalism

strategy I am just using examples now and possibilities for the future that

she would like to know about, she will get the information.

The difference, Mr. Chair, is that what we are talking about here is the

development of a document that pulls together information identified by

ministers and their staff for very particular reasons. In and of itself when you

break down the pieces of that information, there is nobody, nothing in this

document saying at all today that members of the public, members of the opposite

parties cannot have access to that nowhere. If members opposite find it, show

it to me, it does not say that.

The briefing book, Mr. Chair, is a compilation of a piece of work, a piece of

work that has been identified by a minister, a member of Executive Council and

their staff. No different than people do on a regular basis where you sit down,

as I said about members opposite, and some members over here served on the other

side in Opposition. Members sit down and they try and strategize, and they try

and figure out two things normally. One is where they want to go as a party to

develop policy that will be better than the government so that hopefully at one

point in time they become the government. That is fair game. As the member

referenced, we did that when our former Premier actually sat over there. We all

do that. They look for policy that will help them. Number two, they look to

discredit the government.

I am relaying that, Mr. Chair, to bring you back to the context of what we

are talking about today. That is what this discussion is about. It is about the

media and political staff and Opposition politicians looking for access to

information that has been identified by ministers and their staff for some

particular reason.

It could be, as the Minister of Fisheries I might very well go in and say I

want a briefing binder. I am concerned with aquaculture on the South Coast; I

want a brief on that. It could be that I will go in and I will say that I am

concerned about mussel development in the Province; I want a brief on that. It

could be that I will say I am concerned about the future of groundfish stocks; I

want a brief on that. Mr. Chair, do you know what? One member opposite has

asked, not for all of that but a good bit of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. KING: A member of the Opposition.

The information, Mr. Chair, is being provided, and this bill does not change

that. This does not change that at all. The member opposite, any member

opposite, any member of the public can come, as my critic the member of the

Opposition does, I will give him credit for that because he identifies very

specific issues, knows what he is looking for and he asks for it, and he is

getting access to it. What this does, Mr. Chair, is it denies members of the

Opposition, political staffers and members of the media, it denies them to jump

on the back of the minister who is identifying specific initiatives and saying:

well, okay, now that you have identified four initiatives, I want your book so I

know where your headspace is and I know what you are up to.

Let's be clear, Mr. Chair. As I said a few moments ago, with the greatest

respect to the Member for St. John's Centre who was throwing out a number of

things around distrust, suspicion and public confidence, I submit to the member,

Mr. Chair, that trust and public confidence is developed by members sitting in

this Legislature and having good and honest debate. It is debate we are having.

That is what you do in this Legislature, you debate ideas and you debate policy.

We all sometimes agree on certain things and disagree on certain things, but it

is debate, Mr. Chair. By any definition or any standard, that is what we do in

here. Members can do like I am doing now, stand to their feet when they agree or

disagree with a point and they can express their views.

I say to the member opposite, I am going to bring back full circle to what I

just said because people need to understand what we are debating here. This is

about Opposition politicians, it is about the media and political staffers

wanting to take the work ministers have done in identifying strategies,

identifying priorities, identifying issues that need to be addressed and then

looking for the piece of work that we have done. Nowhere in this legislation

does it prevent members opposite from doing their own work. Should the day come

when my critic identifies every single issue on his own that I have in a

particular binder, he will get it, because he will submit a request one by one

by one and he is welcome to the information.

What this is doing, Mr. Chair, is providing members of the Executive Council

and members of this government with the same opportunity and the same existence

that members opposite have. As I said, Mr. Chair, to members who were watching

the debate, that is very simple. No one over there has to disclose what their

strategy is and what their policies are. They come into this House and they go

to work and they do the best job that they can do by asking questions and

picking holes in what we are doing. They are here today with a strategy. I have

no issue with that. My comments are not about their strategy; it is not about

what they are doing. I am simply pointing out for people that this is just

levelling the playing field here.

This is not about secrecy. Nowhere in this document does it deny members

opposite an opportunity to gain access to any information, one by one by one,

that ministers over here will identify as priorities in a briefing book. It

simply provides an opportunity for them not to jump on the backs of ministers

and our staff, and take the work that we have done and use it for their own

benefit.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to speak to

section 7 of the act that is to be amended. I have

to make the comment, based on the minister across the floor stating that I

find a number of the comments pretty offensive this is piggybacking off work

of his department and his staff. Well, I certainly remind the minister that he

is paid by the public purse, and so is the staff paid for by the taxpayer.

This is our tax dollars in Newfoundland and Labrador.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I would ask the Member for The Straits White Bay North: Are you discussing

clause 3?

MR. MITCHELMORE: Yes, Mr. Chair.

I would like to get into the actual "The right of access does not extend to

a record created solely for the purpose of briefing a member of the Executive

Council with respect to assuming responsibility for a department, secretariat or

agency". This wording is something that is very troubling, in my view, because

the minister had just made comments that this information is made it is very

important to see that the way that this is worded. The minister opposite had

stated that this is all about levelling a playing field so that political

parties, Opposition staff, the media, will not be able to access additional

information. Well, what about the public at large?

This documentation that was there previously and how the act was previously

enabled an everyday person, a citizen, or somebody in a political field to

access and make that request of information. The staff of Cabinet ministers are

public taxpayers; they work for all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we

have a right to being able to access information. There has to be a procedure in

play that some of that information certainly needs to be protected, if it is

going to be adversely impacting the information that would be provided.

The way this is worded, it says: for the purpose of a briefing solely

created. What does that mean? Does that mean policy, or an advice document, or

anything that is out in the public realm? Because if there was information where

an Opposition Party made a request to a department for a briefing, as we have

seen in the past that that information has been reviewed and some of that

information can be provided, why would anyone want to hide information that is

out there in the general realm that can be accessed? This is something that

people have a right to know.

Government should be touted on being able to provide as much information as

possible and not fear political parties on the Opposition finding information or

the general public finding information and being able to question government's

accountability in how they are making decisions. I mean this is completely

unacceptable. Making these changes here, it is expanding the role to a degree

that anything now can be looked as a possible briefing document created solely

for the purpose of briefing. Anybody can enlarge that now to say well, this

meeting that we had, I am working on this piece, it is still in progress, so we

are not going to provide that now that is eventually going to become part of a

briefing. There is going to be less and less information that is certainly

available to the public.

Then we go into

section (

b) here, the "record created solely for the purpose

of briefing a member of the Executive Council in preparation for a sitting of

the House of Assembly." What is really important, Mr. Chair, as I stand in the

House here today and debate this bill, is that there is certainly a lot of

information here. The way that this is worded, it is giving

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: Certainly, the members of government have a lot to say

here, so I hope many of them will get up and stand after the fact here. If we

look at things that would be made in decision making, such as road work, bridge

repairs, things in federal-provincial programming, a number of accessible

documents that people should have access to in an open and transparent way will

not be there.

Some information, like I said before, should be protected; if it is denied by

the minister, if somebody makes that request because what the member opposite

previously talked about is that we have to make a request, or the general public

has to make a request, for that information. They do not know government's every

detail and all the information that it has, so it has to make that request to

find documentation. If the minister of the department says, well, we will not

provide that, there is a mechanism for the general public or for anyone to go to

the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to conduct a review and

see if it meets that test. Now, with the changing of this to the (4)(

a) and (b),

to make those statements that if it is solely for the purpose of a briefing it

does not say for a briefing book or whatnot; it says for a briefing, so that is

very vague. Right now, the way that it is removed, it has removed the access

altogether and the Commissioner right now will not have the ability to record or

even to see what really should be protected, and that is shameful.

There is no right of appeal when it comes to that. If the government is

saying, well, just ask us for the information and we will provide it I think

the general public can see that there is so much wrong with the

interpretation

of this and these changes as to how it is making it more and more difficult

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE: and how it is turning back the clock here in being

able to access information from government, from how our tax dollars are being

spent and if they are being spent in an open and transparent manner. If there is

something that is actually being looked at or researched, it goes back to say

that in a government department now, the head of the department has the complete

authority to say, well, we are going to withhold this, because it is eventually

going to be part of our strategy. They will not provide that documentation.

What is so wrong with the sharing of information that is already out there?

For the most part, as the minister is saying, 90-plus per cent is already

accessible by other means, so why would government not want to provide that to

anyone out there, so that they can be questioned, so that they can do the best

job that they have been elected to do as the government?

They have been elected to make the best use of the public tax dollars, to get

maximum benefit, to be open, transparent, and accountable. This is something

that this government has campaigned on to do so. Right now, with those changes

in 4(

a) and (

b) under

section 7 of the act, I am seeing quite a change. This

goes back to show the regressiveness of this government, where they campaigned

and now are turning back and making changes.

If we had all-party standing committees when it comes to this government,

then we could talk about notes, we could talk about recommendations, we could

talk about strategy, and make sure that we are spending the tax dollars in the

most appropriate way. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture made it quite

clear that the whole premise behind this is to put up walls for Opposition

parties, for the media, and for the public to be able to do their jobs. That is

exactly what was said. In order to be able to provide information

MR. KING: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. KING: Thank you.

I ask the member to retract what he just said. He said I categorically made a

statement. Hansard will show that I did not say that. I ask the member to

retract it.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North, to continue.

MR. MITCHELMORE: Mr. Chair, I certainly would withdraw any comment that

was disparaging. When it comes to information that is available, we should be

able to provide more access and more information out there. This is certainly

not doing so. Let us look at this, let us see if we can look at the wording here

and give it more clarity as to what actually classifies as briefing material,

what actually is there. We need to know that

interpretation. The public has a

right to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Deputy Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to stand. I do want to stand and respond to the member opposite.

While I have ten minutes I will be very clear that when I stood on a point of

order, the member opposite made it very clear that I said directly that this was

about politics and about keeping information from members opposite. I did not

say that and Hansard will show that tomorrow that I did not say that.

What I did say, Mr. Chair and I will repeat what I said, and I will allow

for a challenge; I am prepared to sit in my seat in twenty seconds if the Member

for The Straits White Bay North is prepared to stand and prove me wrong. I

asked him to identify for me any information and I will use myself in

particular in my department that he feels this will restrict him from access

to. I am prepared to sit. You give me the signal and I will sit down, but I say

to the member opposite, as I have been saying to this Legislature for the last

number of times that I have stood on my feet to speak, Mr. Chair, this is not

about denying access to information in and of itself. The member opposite, as I

said, like my critic for the Opposition party does, if you identify topics, you

submit your request and you will receive the information, other than that which

is clearly identified as being of a personal nature.

What I did say in this House though, is that this particular debate is more

about politics, members of government, members of Opposition, our staffers and

media than it is about members of the general public, because, Mr. Chair, most

of the members of the general public, in my dealings in political life, have

very little interest in briefing books of ministers and in what I am thinking

and what I am planning on a daily basis as a Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture. I submit, Mr. Chair, to the Member for The Straits White Bay

North I know a good many people in his district. I submit to the member that

most of the people in his district have no interest in that as well. Most of the

people in his district are more concerned with, what is he going to do to

represent them and move the agenda forward on their behalf? They do not care

what a minister has in a briefing book, Mr. Chair. That is the point that I am

trying to make here today.

I ask the member again, very directly, that if he can identify a piece of

information then he ought to stand here and challenge me back on it, and we will

have the debate. This legislation does not at all restrict access to information

from the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, nor any other department in

this government. It absolutely does not, but what it does talk to and what it

does speak to is access to the work of ministers and their staff by compiling

information based on our strategies, our ideas and our thoughts and where we

want to go. That is what it speaks to, Mr. Chair.

Under the context of this, if you want to talk about access, freedom and

transparency, the public ought to ask the question to members opposite: Are you

prepared to provide your information up to this House through ATIPP? When you

stand in this House and make statements, and I get thousands of calls, or

thousands of this or hundreds of that, are members opposite prepared to do it?

Because, Mr. Chair, I submit to you that the same people, as the Member from The

Straits would suggest, are interested in my briefings? Those same people are

interested in his briefings. They are interested in what he is being told and

what he is planning to do when he comes to Question Period, Mr. Chair. The same

people would want to know both sets of information, I submit to you.

The bigger question is: Why are we talking about double standards? Why is the

Member for The Straits saying it is fine for me to go out on a pup tent tour, it

is fine for me to travel across the Province, but I do not have to disclose not

one single iota of information, not one piece do I have to disclose? Under this

particular

section that we are debating here,

section 3, the member stands in

his seat and argues to this House that the Executive Council and members of this

Cabinet ought to disclose everything at their fingertips.

I say, Mr. Chair, in my concluding remarks for this point in time, I say to

the people of The Straits, and others in the Province watching this debate, we

are talking about a double standard here. If you want to have a good talk about

freedom and openness of politicians and members and how they work, then you

would share it with the public. Are you prepared to share the information that

you collect? Are you prepared to share the strategy sessions you have in the

mornings, and the briefs that you put together, and the questions you put

together when you bring it to this House? Because if you want openness and you

want transparency from all politicians, then let's talk about all politicians,

Mr. Chair, not just the ones who sit over here as members of Executive Council.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, the Deputy Government House Leader and the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, he is nothing if not entertaining. He

accuses the Opposition of a double standard because they want to receive

information in the form of ministerial briefing books and ministerial briefings.

So, let's see how this would work, Mr. Chair, every four years or so we have an

election, and in this case the party opposite won the election. They campaigned

on a platform. They promised to do certain things and they

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is noticing an ever-widening circle here of debate, and I would

remind speakers that we are debating clause 3. It is our intention to go through

this bill clause by clause and to vote each clause. So I would ask speakers when

they stand, to speak to the clause that is under debate. It is clause 3 right

now.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe, to continue.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, thank you for that direction; however, that is

exactly where I was going.

When government is formed there are a number of ministers who are appointed,

and those ministers are provided with briefing books and they are provided with

briefing notes, and this is exactly where this clause is focused.

Mr. Chair, the Deputy Government House Leader said: let the Opposition

provide briefings to the government to show how unreasonable that would be. This

government has sixteen ministers including the Premier. The Official Opposition

has six members and the Third Party has five members; all of us are responsible

in critic roles for two if not three departments. Each minister is a Minister of

the Crown who receives briefing at the expense of the public.

The minister would seek to keep that information secret as if it is his

personal information. Mr. Chair, clearly it is not; it is the people's

information. A department of maybe 100 staff, 200 staff, 500 staff would be at

the disposal of the minister. These briefing books would be prepared. The people

have elected the Opposition to hold the government accountable and certainly, if

the government members have briefing books, then that would be the first and

most normal place to look. That is exactly where this amendment is going.

Mr. Chair, the Opposition has limited resources. Government ministers have

unlimited resources. The minister refers to the work as being his work and the

work of his department. In fact, it is the work of the people's department and

the people's minister, and clearly that information should not be kept secret.

This amendment attempts, or will, in fact, make secrecy prevail for five years

on any document prepared for any minister.

Mr. Chair, the amendment is so out of sync with the intent of the underlying

statute that I would like to move an amendment,

An Act To Amend The Access To

Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, and Bill 29 is amended by deleting

Clause 3. I have copies, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is just going to take a minute to consider the amendment.

[The Chair takes a moment to consider the amendment]

CHAIR: Order, please!

The amendment put forward by the Member for St. Barbe is in order.

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe, to speak to the amendment.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chair, the reason that I completely disagree with the

proposed amendment that is being made to the act is that it absolutely conflicts

with the intent of the act. The act is to provide more information, and the

clause which would seek to amend that part of the statute in fact reduces access

to information. Both of theses clauses are an aberration and an unnecessary

extension of the Cabinet confidences exclusion. Clearly, Cabinet confidences

exclusion is not an unreasonable thing as long as it goes through the Cabinet

decision making. To be as widespread as these amendments seek to be, they are

simply aberrations, I would say, in the legislative history.

In both instances covered by the clause, records are not created to permit a

member of the Executive Council to exercise his functions within the council;

therefore such records should not and must not be considered privileged

information. If the records were created to advise, inform, or assist the

minister in Cabinet deliberations, then clearly I would have no issue with that.

This takes an absolute broad, sweeping stroke and seeks to provide a five-year

blackout period for practically any document that is prepared for a minister.

From a public accountability and transparency standpoint, the public has a

right to know what the elected officials, particularly those trusted with

ministerial management functions, are being told and provided by the public

service on assuming the duties of their office. These should not be treated as

confidences. What needs to be protected can be handled by a regular application

provided for in our freedom of information statute, ATIPPA.

Similarly, when ministers sit in the House, they are first and foremost

legislators and not members of the executive. The information provided to them

at public expense is and must continue to be accessible. Mr. Chair, this is the

essence of democracy. The two clauses are really an affront to the statute and

it can only be corrected by a simple deletion of clause 3 in

An Act To Amend The

Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Member for Burgeo La Poile.

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

I am pleased to stand here again this afternoon and speak to the amendment

that has been put forward to

section 3, which is calling for the deletion or

repeal of

section 3. Certainly, I would agree with this, as

section 7, or clause

3, is really self-serving

section in what is overall a self-serving act. That is

certainly what we are dealing with here, Mr. Chair.

This is a piece of legislation that is not doing what it was intended to do

in the first place. It is making life easier for the members of the Executive

Council and for the Cabinet. There is absolutely no reason that this

section

needs to be there. We are not talking about as we discussed earlier today

information that could be, in certain cases, life and death when we talk about

RNC or RCMP investigations or open files, if we are talking about court files,

if we are talking about even constituency files where we deal with very, very

private information dealing with our constituents. What we are talking about

here, really when you think about it, is information or briefings that are put

together for Cabinet. That is simply what we are dealing with. There are two

parts there. One is that the information should be private, and the second

part

is that it should be kept private for five years. There is absolutely no need of

this whatsoever. There is no sense to it and it is just done as a means of

making life easier for the members of Cabinet.

What I would say is that I did listen with interest to the comments made by

the Minister of Fisheries. I understand the pressures that are on the ministers,

how they have information and how we want it, and how we would feel if it were

turned around. Again, we will give the information up. We will offer it up. In

fact, I would be more than willing to offer up my questions. In fact, I would

hope that if we did so, we could actually get an answer back once in awhile.

That would be a start some days.

What I would say is that I have no problem putting my information out there,

but with great power comes great responsibility, and that is a part of being

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS: That is right.

That is a part of being Cabinet. You have a higher level of responsibility;

therefore, you have to deal with this. If you want to have our information, we

are more than willing to give that information up. Again, we are putting it

together as members of the Opposition. Opposition's nature or primary mandate is

to question government on their operations. I would say to the Minister of

Justice who has had ample opportunity, he stood up a lot and he certainly

answered a lot of questions here, especially in Question Period today. I have

never seen him up and down on and off his feet during our time here.

We talk about Cabinet records and how Cabinet records were not meant to be

disclosed. If that is the case, why was the promise put out there back in 2003

that Cabinet documents would be put out there and would be filed? Why was it put

out there that Cabinet documents would be made public and reports would be made

public? I am pretty sure reports were going to be made public within thirty

days, Mr. Chair.

What I would say is that being a member of government and being a member of

Cabinet, you have a higher level of responsibility than, say, Opposition, or

even backbenchers in the government. With that, comes the obligation that we are

going to want to know what Cabinet is doing in terms of running our government

and running our Province. So that comes with it. We are free to pass up our

information, but that is not what this is all about. I come back and

specifically we talk about the paragraph sub (5) and (6) in this amendment that

we want deleted. What I would say is that there is absolutely no need of it

whatsoever. The insertion of five years

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS: The insertion of five years there was done for purely

political reasons. I would put that question out to the minister. Part of this

sometimes in Committee is that we do ask questions and hopefully we will get

answers back. I would ask the minister: Why did we use the arbitrary figure of

five years? I would say to the Minister of Justice, I would ask: Why was the

five years used? Why not four years? Why not two years? Why not six months? Why

five years? I think that it is purely for political reasons.

If that is done in other jurisdictions then, by all means, please feel free

to enlighten me because that is how this process works. We want to know what is

going on; we want to know what other jurisdictions are doing. Five years we

all know why it is there; it is there for very simple reasons.

Mr. Chair, I am going to move on from this. Now that I have put a question to

the minister, I will hopefully give him an opportunity to stand and answer that.

CHAIR: The Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to get up to support this amendment, because I think it is wise

to drop this provision, this suggested change.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. KIRBY: The member asked why. I will certainly get into that, there is

no question, Mr. Chair.

I think it is wise to drop this, because I absolutely agree, this absolutely

runs counter this

section that we are debating and we have been debating now

for quite some time, that is probably why we have been debating it for the

length of time that we have been debating it; it really does run absolutely

counter to

an act that starts with access to information in its title. It is

completely contrary, it runs counter to that, and it is inconsistent with any

conceivable notion of access to information. It is absolutely not consistent

whatsoever with that.

I just wanted to say that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was on

his feet a short time ago, and he seemed shocked by the comment made by my

colleague from The Straits White Bay North, but he effectively stood there and

suggested, using a variety of words that described it in a variety of ways, that

effectively, in essence, what is going on when Opposition political parties

and certainly, the Progressive Conservatives were in Opposition at one point,

and they tried to do what they could to find out what was happening behind the

scenes, there is no doubt about that; that is certainly the job of any effective

Opposition, and any responsible Opposition.

To suggest that somehow that we are over here exclusively on fishing

expeditions I guess it is sort of ironic, considering he is the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture but we are all over here on a big fishing expedition

trying to discover whatever it is, it is certainly not only members of the

Opposition, there is no question. There is the media as well, and of course, if

anybody has seen the paper today, the St. John's paper, The Telegram , you

can see how incensed journalists are that this particular clause, clause 3, does

what it does.

The minister also said, tell him one thing that would be prevented by that

will be denied access to. I tell you, Mr. Chair, people will be denied access to

any record created solely for the purpose of briefing a member of the Executive

Council, with respect to assuming responsibility for a department, secretariat,

or agency. So that is certainly a whole lot of ground there, Mr. Chair. There

are quite a number of items that would be covered under that provision.

Then also it goes on to say: any record created solely for the purpose of

briefing a member of Executive Council in preparation for a sitting of the House

of Assembly. I cannot imagine how much that covers; that is certainly quite a

blanket statement.

To just go back to the comments that my colleague from Burgeo La Poile made

just then about the number of years, I continue to ask why it is that the

assessment has been made that five years is a reasonable amount of time to

withhold files

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: Yes, it is; Clause 3: "(5) Paragraph (4)(

a) does not apply to

a record described in that paragraph if 5 years or more have elapsed since the

member of the Executive Council was appointed"

MS SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: Well, the amendment is removing that, I say to the Minister of

Health and Community Services. The amendment is intended to remove that

provision because we believe that it is faulty. We believe that it is

inconsistent with any rational notion of access to information.

I say again, that is the way the title of this legislation is; it is the

Access To Information And Protection Of Privacy Act. It is not the denial of

access and protection of Cabinet secrets act. It is Access To Information And

Protection Of Privacy Act. It is pretty clear.

Just to go back to what I was saying before I was getting questions from the

ministers across the way, I am just concerned about this provision, this

suggestion that the number of years should be five and that should somehow be

the measure that is appropriate here, that is reasonable. That was decided to be

reasonable, more reasonable than two, more reasonable than one, more reasonable

than three, more reasonable than any other number. Why is it that was deemed to

be reasonable? Mr. Chair, I certainly do

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR Order, please!

MR. KIRBY: strongly support this amendment and I think it gets rid of

one of the problems. If we can get rid of this particular clause, maybe we can

move on and get to deal with som