April 10, 2008

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 9

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

Today, we welcome statements by the hon. the Member for the District of

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's

North; the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the

Member for the District of Bay of Islands; the hon. Member for the District of

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

The hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to extend congratulations to Lisa Davis from Point Amour,

Labrador. She was recently awarded the MADD Canada's National Award for

Volunteer of the Year and Atlantic Canada's Regional Award for Volunteer of

the Year. Mr. Speaker, Ms Davis received this award at MADD Canada's

conference in Toronto, Ontario and was among some high profile nominees put

forward for this recognition from all across the country.

Ms Davis is a community leader with MADD Canada and strongly supports their

mission to stop impaired driving and to support victims of violent crimes. Mr.

Speaker, every day, on average, four people are killed and approximately 190

people are injured as a result of alcohol and drug related crashes. MADD Canada

depends greatly on volunteers like Ms Davis.

Ms Davis, Mr. Speaker, is also the program coordinator with the Southern

Labrador/Strait of Belle Isle Community Youth Network, and because of her

commitment to youth, she sought out funding and secured $30,000 from the

International Grenfell Association for her project entitled "Help Save

Lives by Reaching to Today's Youth." This was the project that got her

the national award.

This project, Mr. Speaker, was designed to bring MADD Canada's Multi Media

Show to every school in Labrador from Forteau to Nain, and also in communities

on the Northern Peninsula. Ms Davis is a believer that the motivational message

from MADD Canada is one that every child in this country needs to hear, and she

has certainly done her part to ensure that young children in Labrador and on the

Northern Peninsula had the opportunity to hear this message as well.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members of this House to join with me in commending Lisa

Davis for her dedication to the youth of Labrador and the Northern Peninsula,

and to congratulate her on MADD Canada's Volunteer of the Year Award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, this past February saw the 56 th

Kiwanis Music Festival in St. John's. The first festival, a two-day event

which was held in 1952, featured just 193 entries; by comparison, this year's

event consisted of a full twelve-day

schedule with well over 6,000 participants.

In fact, this is the largest festival in Eastern Canada.

The festival provides a great opportunity for performers of all ages to show

off their talents and to learn from their fellow participants as well as from

the adjudicators.

Obviously, an event of this magnitude, costing approximately $120,000, could

not be done without financial and volunteer support from the community and we

therefore commend the advertisers and sponsors, along with some 150 volunteers

and, of course, the four St. John's Kiwanis clubs who contributed to this year's

festival.

Congratulations to the Rose Bowl winners: Anna Sharpe, Coco Leung; the Group

Rose Bowl winners: St. Bon's College and the Holy Heart Chamber Choir.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to congratulate the Kiwanis Music Festival of

St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and thank Mr.

Clarence Mercer of Bay Roberts, and his Pigeon Inlet Steering Committee, on

bringing to life the "Tales From Pigeon Inlet".

The project is based on the late Edward (Ted) Russell's Chronicles of Uncle

Mose. The family of Mr. Russell, a native of Coley's Point, have given their

blessing to this tremendous project.

Mr. Speaker, the official launch will take place on Friday, June 27, 2008,

with additional summer productions being held at the SUF Hall in Bay Roberts.

The committee, Mr. Speaker, has even greater visions for this project. Plans

are progressing to construct a complete Pigeon Inlet Village depicting the 1940s

and 1950s.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating Mr. Mercer and the committee

on this wonderful project.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to recognize the volunteer fire

departments in the beautiful District of the Bay of Islands.

I have attended several fire department annual balls during these past months

and cannot express how impressed I am over the commitments by the fire chiefs

and firefighters. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity

today to recognize the fire chiefs.

On the South Shore of the district I would like to recognize: Mount Moriah

Fire Chief, Paul Butt; Humber Arm South Fire Chief, Brad Gallant; York

Harbour-Lark Harbour Fire Chief, Brian Cooke.

On the North Shore of the Bay of Islands I would like to recognize: HIS Fire

Chief, Mark Hann; Meadows Fire Chief, Colin Tucker; Gilliams Fire Chief, Jimmy

Park; McIver's Fire Chief, David George; and Cox's Cove Fire Chief, Wayne

Payne.

To all the departments, keep up the good work!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House and recognize one of

the many wonderful writers in Newfoundland and Labrador - poet and novelist -

Michael Crummey.

Just last week he won the annual Writers' Trust of Canada Timothy Findley

Award for a male writer in mid-career. This award is worth $15,000.

I cannot say it better than this description: "Michael Crummey possesses

the magical storytelling gene that drives the work of so many writers from

Newfoundland and Labrador." And that is evident in his novels River

Thieves and The Wreckage.

Michael is currently Writer in Residence at Memorial University and is

helping to inspire students to cultivate their writing talents.

I ask the House to congratulate Michael Crummey today on winning this very

prestigious award and wish him luck in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in this House today to congratulate a resident of

Conception Bay South who has been recognized as one of the most outstanding

Rotarians in the world.

Mr. Speaker, on February 13 of this year, Ms Kathryn Atkin was awarded the

highest honour to be bestowed on an individual Rotarian, the "Service Above

Self" award. This award recognizes Rotarians who truly embody Rotary's

principal motto "Service Above Self" and who have made service to

others a way of life.

Mr. Speaker, there are 1.2 million Rotarians worldwide. Only three other

people from Atlantic Canada have received this award, and Kathryn is the first

person in Newfoundland and Labrador to receive it.

Mr. Speaker, Kathryn has provided service and help to others all her life.

She has worked on many issues including the Conception Bay South Community

Policing Committee, the Rotary, Paradise Youth and Community Centre, the DARE

Program, the Avalon

Chapter of United Way, as well as many others too numerous

to mention. Kathryn has also served on a number of positions within Rotary,

including Rotary Club President, Assistant Governor, and District Secretary.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join me in

congratulating Kathryn Atkin on receiving the "Service Above Self"

Award, making her "one in a million" to receive this award.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the Federation of Newfoundland Indians on the

ratification of their agreement in principle with the federal government on

March 29, 2008 an historic day for thousands of Mi'Kmaq who are members of

the federation and for all of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This ratification came after a lengthy negotiation, and the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador has been a proud supporter and advocate of this

process. Some 90 per cent of the participants voted to support the agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the Aboriginal peoples of our Province have a great reason to

celebrate with the ratification of this agreement by the members of the

Federation of Newfoundland Indians. The challenges faced by the Aboriginal

peoples of Newfoundland and Labrador have been of the highest priority for this

government. The vote by the members of the FNI to ratify the agreement is

another positive step for Aboriginal peoples in our Province.

Under the agreement, it is anticipated that members of the FNI, for the first

time ever, will be able to take advantage of funding that will improve their

quality of life. They will be able to access federal Aboriginal programs,

including non-insured health care benefits and post-secondary education.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is committed to

improving the way of life for all people in our Province. As part of that

effort, we will continue to advocate for Aboriginal groups to access federal

Aboriginal programs and services, while working with them to improve their

economic and social circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I invite hon. members to join me in congratulating the

Federation of Newfoundland Indians on this truly historic occasion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement today.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to join with the government in congratulating the

Federation of Indians and the Mi'Kmaq people on achieving an historic land

claim for their representatives.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that any time Aboriginal groups in our Province are

able to settle claims with the federal government it gives them an opportunity

to access more benefits and more programs for their people that are sometimes

often challenged in very difficult situations, especially those relative to

social and education challenges.

Mr. Speaker, it is for those reasons that I do not understand why the

minister and the government opposite have not been supporting the Labrador Metis

Nation, and giving the Metis Nation a hands-up instead of an escort to the

lock-up, I say to the minister, as your government gets ready to prosecute

dozens of Metis hunters in Labrador for exercising their right to hunt in their

own lands, and to do so on their good solid conservation practices that have

been developed by their organizations. In fact, your government supported that

for a period of time and then, all of a sudden, decided to prosecute it. Maybe

the minister would like to tell me what her views and her opinions are on that

particular issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

This ratification is indeed welcome and, we all know, long overdue. I know

that all the members of the Federation of Newfoundland Indians are quite

delighted to finally have this agreement ratified.

We have had, in this Province, not a great history with regard to the

recognition of Aboriginal peoples, and the process has been slow and difficult

for them. I look forward to the day, for example, when we can see an agreement

with regard to Innu Nation lands.

We now have a minister dedicated to Aboriginal Affairs and she, herself, is

Aboriginal, and I think it is a high point in our Province. So I look forward,

though

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL: We have to make sure that the concerns of Aboriginal peoples

are not just in one place, they are not just under this minister or just under

the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs. We have to make sure that their

concerns show up in all aspects of (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge

and congratulate swimmer Katarina Roxon of Kippens, who has been named a member

of the 2008 Canadian National Paralympic Team. She will compete on behalf of

Canada at the Paralympic Games in Beijing, China, this summer.

Katarina, a fifteen-year-old student at Stephenville High School, was born

without a left arm; yet, she holds provincial, national and world swimming

records and regularly completes against so-called "able-bodied"

athletes - and wins.

This remarkable young athlete has set three world records in short course

swimming, three senior national records in short course swimming, and two senior

national records in long course swimming.

While there, she battled a sinus infection and flu, and yet still managed to

make the national team. Not only that, but she also achieved personal best times

in all but one of her swimming events.

Katarina was the only Newfoundlander and Labradorian represented at the

Beijing Games Paralympic Trials, held April 1- 6 in Montreal, Quebec.

Her performance alone at the trials allowed her swim club, the Island Wahoos,

to be ranked seventh among forty-six of the best teams in the country taking

part in the event.

I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in welcoming Katarina home,

and congratulating her on her hard work and determination. We know she will do a

great job representing Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada in Beijing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for an

advance copy of his statement.

I say congratulations, and hats off to Katarina - simply amazing! We are not

talking about an athlete here who just got a regional or a provincial record. We

are talking about national and world-class records - simply amazing!

I happened to see the story on the CBC a few nights ago, actually, when her

and her proud dad, as he should be, gave an account of how many medals she had,

and you actually could not count them; there a cupboard stuffed full of them,

she has been so successful. It has been fantastic achievements on her part.

We, as the Opposition, would like to congratulate her as well in being chosen

to attend these world-class events again at Beijing. Keep up the hard work, and

keep it going.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

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

Yes, Katarina really is an inspiring individual and an inspiring young woman.

I, too, join in congratulating her and her family. I, too, saw the television

report and saw the proud look on her father's face as he held up all of the

medals that she has won to date.

This is an example of why it is so important for us, as people in this

Province, and for the governments of this Province, to make sure that we put

money into the needs of people with disabilities; because people with

disabilities are full members of our society, full members of our community. So,

people with disabilities will only come back to us fourfold, both in terms of

productivity as well as pride for their work.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many revelations over the past few weeks related

to the Commission of Inquiry into hormone receptor testing.

I ask the Premier today, if he is aware of all of the women affected and men

with breast cancer, have been contacted and given the proper information

surrounding their files and how they have been affected by the hormone receptor

testing?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Health is engaged in testimony at the Cameron Inquiry today,

but I will be certainly happy to take the Leader of the Opposition's question

and get the information and report back to her and back to the House.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my next question, as well, is for the Premier. I

would think that someone within Cabinet would know at this stage if all of these

women who have now been affected have been contacted or not?

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

Board.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Again, Mr. Speaker, I will ascertain that information

from the Department of Health and provide the information to the hon. member.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It was brought to my attention last evening that at least one woman, that I

am aware of, was only contacted within the last twenty-four hours and given

notification and asked to come in for retesting. Until this date, she had not

known that she has been part of this process.

I ask again: Is there anyone who can tell me if there are any other women who

have not yet been contacted, and if there has been any follow up done on that

aspect of it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As my colleague, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has

said, in his capacity as the first alternate for Health, the minister who would

obviously have, I think, the answer to that question at his fingertips is

otherwise engaged before the Cameron Inquiry, as we speak.

Now, none of the rest of us who are here today is carrying that information

around in our head, and I do not think the general public would expect us to.

Our colleague, the Minister of Health, I expect would be, and maybe the Premier

would if he were here, but both of them are engaged in public business. We do

undertake to get that information and provide it to the House at the earliest

opportunity.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very serious issue and a serious circumstance. It is not my problem

that in the absence of the Premier or the minister, no one is able to answer the

question. I can only ask that government look for the information and provide it

to the public and to the House in as short a time as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the situation, of course,

and both my colleague the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board,

and myself, have undertaken to get the information from the Department of Health

as soon as possible and provide it to the House, whether that is today or

whether it is the next parliamentary day, but certainly as soon as possible.

Without any delay, we will provide the information to the House as soon as we

have it.

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

MS JONES: That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I will move on to questions

in other departments.

My next question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, both the Innu Nation and the Metis Nation have supported 21,000

square kilometre land and waterway base park in the Mealy Mountains. The

government opposite is now proposing to cut the footprint of that park

substantially.

I ask the minister of Aboriginal Affairs: Has she been involved in these

discussions and is she supporting this proposed cut in park boundaries?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First, let it be understood that as a Province we are very much committed to

the Mealy Mountain Park. The discussions have been ongoing for a series of time

now around that particular study area. Those discussions are continuing and we,

as a government, are acting responsibly in that regard. Rest assured that we, as

a Province, are very much committed to a park in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question was directed to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who is in her

seat.

I ask the minister again: Have you been involved in these discussions and are

you supporting a reduced boundary size for the Mealy Mountain Park?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the lead department on this is Minister Johnson

from Environment and Conservation. Unfortunately, she is not able to be here

today. I am the first alternate and I will answer questions in that capacity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I will respond as I have already

said, that we, as a government, are very much committed to the Mealy Mountain

Park and discussions are ongoing and will continue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Aboriginal

Affairs if she has any intervention on any government files within government as

it relates to Aboriginal people and has she had intervention on this file?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS POTTLE: As a new minister of this government, I am pleased to say that

I am pleased to be here. I have had great support and I have been involved in

all issues involving Aboriginal peoples in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs can tell

me how much of this park that her government is reducing and what size she is

now supporting as the new boundaries?

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

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When discussions are ongoing it would lead you to believe that nothing has

been finalized. Discussions are continuing. We have not given direction or

specific direction as to what will be the final determination of the size of

this park. Discussions are ongoing, and until something is finalized we have

really nothing other than that to report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, it seems the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation wants to provide the answers here. Maybe he can tell me why his

government boycotted the steering committee for the past two years, did not

participate in the meetings and, as a result, have delayed the process of an

important national park initiative in Labrador?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, we certainly have not boycotted any

discussion. Discussions have been ongoing, the steering committee is in place,

very much representative of all the stakeholders that are involved here and

discussions are continuing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the minister has been out of the department so long he has

forgotten what has happened. You did not show up at the table for two years. It

was only less than three months ago I was contacted by federal representatives

of Parks Canada and asked if I could find out why the Province was refusing to

participate in the steering committee. So, maybe the minister has forgotten

that.

Maybe he can tell me this, Mr. Speaker: Will there be certain sensitive parts

of the ecosystem that were initially included in this footprint, now be removed

based on the new figures that the government is promoting for land mass?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the department has certainly been involved in

discussions in this regard and as I have already said, nothing has been

finalized. Discussions are ongoing, continuing. As we allow those to transpire,

then at the end of this process we will see what happens; but we, as a

government, are actively involved, as I have already said, very much committed

to a park in the Mealy Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Maybe I can get some specific details from the minister here,

Mr. Speaker.

Have the Eagle River waterways been exempt from the Mealy Mountain National

Park concept at this stage, in the new lands being proposed by the provincial

government?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition needs to

understand what the word finalized means.

I said, to the best of my knowledge, there has been nothing finalized.

Discussions are ongoing. Until something is finalized, I cannot report whether

the Eagle River or any other area has been exempted or included. Discussions are

ongoing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I have picked berries and it has been easier than

this. Let me just say, I have been on marshes where there have been hard berries

to pick and it has been easier than this.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this. Can he tell me, in the new lands

being proposed by the Province to the steering committee, that the Eagle River

waterways will be excluded from the national park boundaries?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: She might have been picking berries, Mr. Speaker, but the

flies are awfully thick around, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter in terms of

Labrador. We know the importance of establishing a national park in Labrador,

and the discussions are ongoing with the entire study area. There is a study

area here that has been developed, and discussions are ongoing about that.

As I have said before, she does not understand the word finalized. Nothing

has been finalized. Things are under discussion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the minister would like to tell me, in the

proposed boundaries they have put forward, if the Kenamu River Valley has been

exempt, especially the area around Area 19 where the timber stands are?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: I guess, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition can dance

around every river, valley, whatever there is within the study area, but I

cannot repeat any more than - all I can say to her is that discussions are

ongoing. Nothing has been finalized.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the minister, I might be dancing

around a river but I know what I am dancing about. I don't know if he does

over there, but let me ask him this: Mr. Speaker, can he at least commit that

these new proposed boundaries by the provincial government will at least go to

public consultation in Labrador? Because, as he knows, a vote taken by

Labradorians, administered by the Protective Parks Association, showed unanimous

support for the 21,000 square kilometre park that was originally there. With the

reduced lands, is this going to go to public consultation so people can have

input?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot really commit to what the Leader of

the Opposition is asking for, but one thing that is important here, there is a

steering committee that is set up of Aboriginal groups, the Metis, Parks Canada,

the provincial government and others, and the steering committee is exactly

that. They sit around, they discuss, and they come forward with recommendations.

The discussions are ongoing, so we really cannot commit until the discussions

are concluded and then they come forward with the recommendation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people certainly watching this today see just how forthcoming this

government is when they answer questions.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. He is always very up front and

straightforward, whenever he has been asked a question.

Mr. Speaker, VLTs are widely recognized by health care professionals as a

scourge to those people who are prone to gambling addictions. While government

reaps the revenue, the lives of some of those who play, and their families, are

being destroyed.

A new book was recently put out by a political science professor from the

University of Prince Edward Island, Dr. McKenna, and he contends that, in his

interviews with provincial officials, particularly of the Department of Finance,

he found there was fear. He used the words: people were terrified to speak with

him.

I ask the minister: Have you or anyone in your department given specific

instructions to your staff not to discuss this VLT issue with anyone outside the

department?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the hon. member's question

is no.

I have seen media interviews with Dr. McKenna, I think his name is, and I am

looking forward to reading his book, because this government obviously has spent

a lot of time dealing with the issue of VLTs.

The VLTs were in place before our government took office. We brought in

policies to freeze the number of machines, and to reduce the number of machines

by 15 per cent over five years. We have further agreed to reduce the machines by

another 5 per cent.

We know that there are people who do enjoy gambling, and do not have a

problem with it, but we know there are people who have problems with gambling.

One of the things that amazes us is the fact of how little research there is

available out there, so we are doing research ourselves and we will continue to

monitor it very carefully.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, besides what the minister says the department is doing with

regards to VLTs, or has done concerning the reduction in the numbers in the

system, for example, the comments by Dr. McKenna go well beyond that. Anyone who

read the articles, and listened to him, I mean, he uses some very serious

allegations and makes some very serious statements. He talked about the four

Atlantic provincial governments being complicit in how they were dealing with

the VLT issue. In fact, he says, when he spoke to certain staff in your

department, Minister, the staff said that they have been threatened with being

fired if they spoke with him, and they were quoted in his book. Now, that is a

pretty serious allegation. That goes beyond what the VLT issue itself is even

all about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to pose his question.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is: Minister, have you done anything, since becoming aware of

this issue, to check out these allegations? These are very, very serious.

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, again, as I previously indicated, I saw an

interview with Dr. McKenna talking about VLT revenue, and the effect it had on

certain people. I was not aware of this allegation, that people in the

Department of Finance of the Government of Newfoundland were scared. I can

certainly advise you that there has been no direction given to any employee of

the Department of Finance, or the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and

there will not be any direction to any employee in the Department of Finance not

to speak to members of the media. Certainly, no one has to be scared about

talking about an issue that is part of the public discourse and debate in this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

As an aside, but still on the issue of the VLTs, Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic

Lottery Corporation, which administers this, is the agency responsible for the

VLTs in this Province and Atlantic Canada. While their books receive regular

financial audits, they are not subject to public sector style value-for-money

audits - it is my understanding the same way that other government

departments and agencies would be.

I ask the minister: Are you prepared, and is government prepared, to commit

to requesting that our provincial Auditor General would examine the books of the

Atlantic Lottery Corporation?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, there were a number of incidents involving

the Atlantic Lottery Corporation and tickets and winners, and as a result of

that, the Board of Directors of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation engaged, I

think it was KPMG, to do a thorough analysis of the affairs of the Atlantic

Corporation.

Newfoundland and Labrador is represented on the board. We have two

representatives on the board. One is a Mr. Greene and the other is Mr. Terry

Paddon, the Deputy Minister of Finance. If I recall, obviously the financial

statements of the Atlantic Lottery Corporation are audited by a firm of

chartered accountants, and I certainly would be prepared to pass on to the

members of the board the suggestion that possibly the Auditor Generals of the

Atlantic Provinces or representatives of the four be allowed to go in and

conduct such an examination.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

My next question is for the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

This morning The Telegram reported that the ICT group who had a call

centre in Carbonear is slated for closure on June 3. I direct my question to

that particular department because they did - I believe ICT received funding

from this government by way of a wage subsidy program. This decision to close

this call centre will leave 150 people in that particular town out of work, and

any place in this Province needs the jobs. Maybe not so much and so urgently on

the Northeast Avalon but certainly anywhere in rural Newfoundland outside the

Northeast Avalon, every job counts.

My question to the minister is: Were you aware of this impending closure and

what discussions have transpired between yourself and the company in this

regard?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, the fact is that we were informed yesterday of this particular closure.

We had no idea about this closure until yesterday.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Minister, in that regard, then you have not been contacted. Now that you are

aware of it, what has your department done? Have you initiated anything to find

out what happens here in terms of the programming? Has the program come to an

end? Did they just make use of the provincial money and now they have closed up

shop? What have you done within the department to find out what is going on

here, and when might we expect something back from you in that regard?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, in fact we have been in contact with the company. They are actually

getting a briefing note ready for us now to give us the information as to what

their plans are. From what we understand, they are going to give eight weeks

notice to their employees at this point, and from there the department will look

at our options and see where we go from there. I want to say though and stress,

the fact of the matter is this funding has been used. It expired in 2006 for

this particular operation. So, the agreement that they had with the provincial

government is over. Their funding expired, as I said, in 2006.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

For clarification maybe, can the minister explain to the public as well,

under the agreements, were there any timelines or carry-overs? I know the

program was of a certain duration that you would receive the subsidisation or

the wage subsidy.

Is there any carry-over beyond the time that they received those subsidies,

that they were required or expected to continue to carry on business in the

Province, or did any obligations on their part, in terms of jobs and staying in

business, did that cease the minute that the wage subsidy ceased?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, I cannot give you that answer for sure. It is my

understanding that there are no obligations to the company after their funding

is used.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Again, to the minister; call centres, of course, have become a major employer

in this Province; in Central, as it was in Carbonear, in the Corner Brook area,

and certainly here in the City of St. John's, one of the major employers. It

is our understanding, and we even had some indication of it before the situation

in Carbonear hit us, that some of these other call centres might be in jeopardy.

Could the minister tell us of what information he might have in that regard?

Is it, in fact, true that there are some concerns in the call centre industry

and what is government doing in that regard?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have looked into this and from our

understanding, there are no plans, either by this particular company or any

other company on reducing their jobs and reducing the number of people who work

in this sector.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Despite denials from the Minister of Education that the School for the Deaf

will close, students and parents still have concerns. Students are raising

concerns with us that they are being forced into mainstreaming, while the proper

resources are not available to provide the kind of education they deserve.

I ask the Minister of Education: How do you respond to the concerns that are

being raised by those students?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this government has no

plans to close the School for the Deaf. We do have the opportunity to offer high

school students the option, if they wish, to do some courses at Gonzaga,

basically to assist with integration. Mr. Speaker, we will continue to offer

those choices to students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, serious concerns are being raised about the

deterioration of services being offered to deaf students in this Province.

Students are telling us that even though technology has advanced in this area,

deaf students still need special assistance which they are not receiving outside

the School for the Deaf.

I ask the minister: Is she aware of these deficiencies and what is she going

to do to see that these students get the resources they require?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, technology is changing certainly, and because of

advances in technology, students who are deaf or hard of hearing have the

ability to learn or be able to hear from these devices. One thing we have done

is we have replaced the FM systems so that all students have the most modern

systems that are available.

The other thing we did is, in one particular case, one student who needs to

use American sign language because there is no cochlear implants or no

technology that is going to enable this student to hear - up until this year,

Mr. Speaker, the only place where that student could go to school and learn in

American sign language would be at the School for the Deaf. One thing we have

done this year is we have a teacher who teaches in American sign language, who

is teaching at a school outside the School for the Deaf so this one particular

student can live at home rather than come to the School for the Deaf. So we are

putting services out in schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

My first question is for the Minister of Finance.

I recently had a report from a constituent that an establishment in her

neighbourhood has just increased its number of VLTs.

My question is: How can businesses be increasing the number of VLTs on their

premises if government really does have a policy with regard to the reduction

and eventual freeze of machines?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government does have a policy, initially, to freeze and then to reduce the

number of VLTs in the Province by 15 per cent. We have now brought in another

policy to reduce them by a further 5 per cent. At the same time, we have funded

our own research in an attempt to find out what we can do to ensure that people

who do have gambling problems are protected.

I do not know the answer to the question. I am surprised, as you are, that an

establishment would be able to increase the number of VLTs. It does not seem to

make any sense. I certainly would be happy, if you would give me the name, to

have my officials check into it.

SOME HON MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: I would be very happy, Mr. Speaker, to give the information

to the minister, and I will do that. I also will be able to give him information

about some practices there where they advertise that if you cannot use machines

on our premises here, you can do it at an establishment next door, which they

also own. Are there regulations that would say that that kind of advertising is

not appropriate?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am unaware of any rules relating to advertising in these facilities, which

are usually liquor licence facilities. I do know we certainly introduced a

number of measures, such as eliminating the stop button in order to slow down

the pace of play and to have the machines have an automatic turnoff at a certain

period of time.

I understand that initially there were so many VLTs allowed per establishment

and that the establishments were encouraged to open a second establishment,

sometimes in the same building, sometimes next door. We are in the process of

eliminating that and reducing the number of machines per establishment down to

five.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will continue this discussion with the minister outside of Question Period.

I do have a question for the Minister of Justice. I am sorry that I could not

get some information to you ahead of asking this. I am hoping we can, at least,

start a discussion but because of the way things have gone today, I was not sure

I was going to ask this question.

In the recent Regional Health Authorities regulations that are now filed, in

a

section in those regulations,

section 6(5) actually, there are restrictions on

clients who access their files from a Regional Health Authority. They are

restricted from publicizing information that may be in their files that could

damage, actually, be detrimental to the personal interest, reputation or privacy

of physicians, members of staff of regional -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS MICHAEL: I will, Mr. Speaker.

My question is, we have a restriction on people using information from their

files: What was Cabinet's intent in adding this regulation to the regulations

that formerly existed?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not aware of that amendment or the regulations you are talking about. I

certainly will have a look at them and come back. It does strike me as somewhat

strange in terms of restricting people's ability to use their information, but

there would have to be an overriding of public interest. So, I certainly will

check into that and we can continue this discussion further.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

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

Board.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Members Of The House of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, the

Provincial Court Judges' Pension Plan Act, the Public Service Pensions Act,

1991, the Teachers' Pension Act, and the Uniformed Services Pension Act, 1991,

Bill 20.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Pension Benefits Act, 1997, Bill

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice I will ask leave to move the following resolution:

Resolution:

Be it resolved by the House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS the Lieutenant-Governor in Council appointed a Tribunal under

section

28 of the Provincial Court Act, 1991 to make recommendations on the salaries and

benefits of judges and the chief judge; and

WHEREAS the Tribunal submitted its recommendations to the Minister of Justice

on May 26, 2006 except for its recommendations respecting an indemnity for

Provincial Court judges; and

WHEREAS the recommendations of the Tribunal respecting an indemnity for

Provincial Court judges were submitted to the Minister of Justice on April 30,

2007; and

WHEREAS the report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges

Salaries and Benefits Tribunal respecting an indemnity for Provincial Court

judges was tabled in this hon. House today I have that here, Mr. Speaker;

and

WHEREAS the House of Assembly is required under

section 28.2 of the Act to

approve, vary or reject the report within thirty days of its being tabled; and

WHEREAS government has decided to ask this House a lot of Whereases

to accept the recommendations of the Tribunal as contained in the report of

April 30, 2007

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House accept the recommendations of

the report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Judges Salaries and

Benefits Tribunal respecting an indemnity for Provincial Court judges.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion.

The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I do believe those are all the Notices of

Motion, but concurrent with the Notice of Motion just given by the Minister of

Justice and Attorney General, under Tabling of Documents the minister was to

have tabled the report on the judges salaries, and we moved along so quickly, I

guess we didn't get an opportunity to do that. With leave, I would like to

have an opportunity for the minister to table the report.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

Tabling of Documents

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

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table the report of the tribunal appointed under

section 28 of the Provincial Court Act 1991 to report on salaries and benefits

for Provincial Court judges. This report contains the tribunal's

recommendations respecting indemnity for Provincial Court judges.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion?

Answer to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, before we call Orders of the Day, yesterday it

was agreed by the House that two additional members would be added to the

Privileges and Elections Committee. Mr. Speaker, for the record, I should point

out that these appointments yesterday were made with leave of the House.

The Standing Orders of the House, Standing Order 65 (e), I believe, is the

appropriate Standing Order - this is one of those committees that has a finite

number of members attached to it in terms of the Standing Orders. The Standing

Order provides for five, and we decided yesterday to add an additional two and

make that committee consist of seven.

Of course, that is quite within the privileges of the House to do, to vary

the number of people on committees; however, that being the case, this committee

would stay in place for the life of this Parliament unless otherwise changed.

I want it to be understood, Mr. Speaker, so that there is no question later,

that this committee is appropriately constituted. It is constituted at seven

members, and it is constituted at seven members for the life of this Parliament

unless otherwise changed by the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

Does the hon. the Deputy Premier have leave to make the number of members on

the Privileges and Elections Committee a total of seven rather than five?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

Leave has been granted, and the motion has been carried.

Motion carried.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I believe we are under Orders of the Day at

this point in time so I would like now to call Motion 2, standing in my name as

Government House Leader, to move:

"WHEREAS

section 42.1 of the Access to Information and Protection of

Privacy Act provides that the Information and Privacy Commissioner is to be

appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a resolution of the House of

Assembly;

NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Edward Ring be appointed as the

Information and Privacy Commissioner."

MR. SPEAKER: The House is now ready to hear debate on Motion 2 as put

forward by the hon. the Government House Leader.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise in this House on behalf of, I

hope, all hon. members, but certainly members on the government side of the

House, to speak to, and to speak in support of, the resolution to confirm the

appointment of Mr. Edward Ring as the Province's Information and Privacy

Commissioner. Of course, we are doing that pursuant to

section 42.1 of the

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution will enable the House to formally fill the

vacancy that was created when the former Information and Privacy Commissioner,

Mr. Wall, retired from the position. Under

section 42.4, Mr. Speaker, of the

ATTIP Act, a commissioner may be appointed in an acting capacity when the House

of Assembly is not in session; and, Mr. Speaker, that is what the government did

in this particular case when, on December 18 past, we announced the appointment

of Mr. Ring in an acting capacity under the legislation. Of course, we are now

moving, under the legislation, to ratify and confirm Mr. Ring's appointment.

The ATTIP Act, as it has come to be known, was passed in this House, Mr.

Speaker, in March of 2002, and the access provisions were proclaimed in force on

January 7, 2005. This legislation governs access to records in the custody or

under the control of public bodies, and it sets out requirements for the

collection, the use, the storage and the disclosure of personal information

contained in the records that they maintain. One of the purposes of the

legislation, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that public bodies are more open and more

accountable, and to protect the privacy of individuals.

As commissioner, Mr. Ring has a broad range of responsibilities and powers

under the legislation, including making recommendations to ensure compliance

with the legislation itself.

The act provides an opportunity for independent review by an officer of the

House of Assembly of a decision, of

an act, or a failure to act, on the part of

a public body. One of the cornerstones of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the

establishment of the office of an independent review mechanism. As such, the

Information and Privacy Commissioner has been given specific powers to

investigate requests and complaints from individuals and groups who feel that

their access to information rights or their privacy rights have been violated as

provided in the legislation.

The commissioner also has the power to require a public body to produce any

document that he feels is relevant to an investigation. The commissioner, Mr.

Speaker, may also enter an office of a public body to examine and, if deemed

necessary, to make copies of a record that is in the custody of that particular

public body.

The commissioner acts as the independent review mechanism under this

particular legislation. The commissioner's duties, Mr. Speaker, include:

investigating complaints about an extension of time, or responding to a request

for a fee as required under the act, making recommendations to ensure compliance

with the act and its regulations, informing the public about the act, receiving

comments from the public body about the administration of the act, commenting on

the information and the privacy implications of proposed legislation and

programs, commenting on the implications of record linkages and information

technology on the protection of privacy, informing the head of a public body

about a failure to adequately assist an applicant who has applied for

information under the act, making recommendations to public bodies or the

minister responsible for this act about the administration of the act.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this is an important role to play within the existing

framework of that legislation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal

of pleasure today that we bring forward this resolution confirming Mr. Edward

Ring as Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Mr. Ring, Mr. Speaker, has a long and distinguished career in the Canadian

Armed Forces spanning thirty-four years, serving with both the Regular and

Reserve Components. He began his service in 1969 and was commissioned in 1973

under the Regular Officer Training Plan. Mr. Ring graduated from Memorial

University of Newfoundland in 1973 and was posted to his first unit in the

Canadian Forces Base, Gagetown, New Brunswick. He went on to serve in a number

of provinces in Canada as well as in England, South Wales and West Germany. In

2001 he was appointed as Deputy Commander, Land Forces Atlantic Area, and then

promoted to the rank of Brigadier-General. Mr. Ring retired from the military in

December of 2003. He transferred to the Reserve Component of the military

concurrently with the beginning of his employment with the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Ring has been an employee of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

since 1992. He served as Director of Policing Services with the Department of

Justice for four years. Subsequently, he moved to the Public Service Commission

in 1997 and initially worked as a staffing officer from 2002 to 2007 as Director

of the Appeal and Investigation Division.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ring is a graduate of Memorial University, having

graduated with a Bachelor of Physical Education. During his military career he

received training in investigation, judicial and quasi-judicial functions.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ring has had a long and distinguished career. He is

very well suited, we believe, for this appointment. Our government has every

reason to believe, based on Mr. Ring's experience, that he will be fair and

impartial in carrying out his responsibilities in the position of Commissioner

of Information and Privacy. In short, Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador, we believe, will be very well served by this person in this

position.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Premier and all of my colleagues in the

government, and I hope on behalf of all members of the House, I am delighted to

bring forward this resolution today for the appointment of such a critical

position for the people of this Province. I am sure that we can all agree that

Mr. Ring is an excellent choice, and behalf of all hon. members, I note that Mr.

Ring has joined us in the gallery for this debate today.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move the resolution appointing Mr. Ring as

Privacy Commissioner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate an opportunity to speak

to the resolution.

First of all, it is very important, of course, that we have these types of

resolutions. The fact that we are here in the House of Assembly at all making

the appointment to a very senior position in this Province, shows exactly why

this is an important position, and the fact that it is going to be done in broad

daylight, in front of the cameras, so that everybody knows about it. For years

and years in the Province, we had lots of situations were people filled very

important positions, had lots of authority, affected and impacted people's

lives by the thousands, and yet nobody knew who they were, where they came from

or how they got to where they were, and if they were entitled or ought to be in

those positions.

The fact that there are forty-eight members in this House, and every single

person here has a right to get up and question whether this individual who has

been put forward ought to be put in that position, that, in itself, speaks to

true openness, accountability, and that is democracy. If you have a problem with

this gentleman who has been put forward here, this is your opportunity to stand

up and say yea or nay. So that resolution process, first and foremost, is very,

very important; just not done by way of a letter and nobody knows anything about

it.

Secondly, to comment on the process and the importance of the ATIPP

legislation itself. We had it, of course, going back for a number of years in

this Province, but we found out as legislators, the public found out as people

who had information in government vaults and departments and everything else,

and the media certainly found out that they did not always get access to the

information when they wanted it. Like most pieces of legislation, the government

of the day, I do believe it was back in the early 1980s and the Peckford

government, when the first freedom of information, they called it, act came

about. So that is quite some years ago, and like any piece of legislation, as

time goes on customs change, needs change and legislation should change

accordingly to reflect the public changes and social changes. A lot of these

things were brought to bear and the deficiencies in that whole freedom of

information thing were brought to bear because of the news media. Again, that is

state, of course, and part of our society is very vital again to make sure that

they have a job to do and that it is done.

As a result of growth and progress, the old FOI was overhauled, a lot of

input into it. There were a lot of stakeholders called to bear and said: give us

your suggestions, what should we do to improve it? Sure enough, in 2002, in the

former Administration, I believe it was on the watch of Premier Grimes - and I

was the Minister of Justice actually who introduced and carried forward the

ATIPP legislation that we are dealing with today in terms of the resolution and

the appointment of Mr. Ring. That part about doing it in public was put in there

then, for a very good reason. People need to see what you are doing so they can

understand what you are doing, first of all, and have their own opinions as to

whether or not it was the right move.

The act was overhauled in 2002, and I am sure we did not get it all right at

that time. I brought up an issue here, a minor issue a couple of days ago when I

talked about the privacy piece of it when it comes to MHAs, for example, getting

access to student names for certificate purposes. It may be a minor thing, but

again, it shows that the act needs to be tweaked again in some respects, I would

suggest.

Again, under that 2002 legislation, it all could not come about the one time.

It was a pretty dramatic change, actually, particularly when we came to the

privacy pieces because it would not only just apply to the departments of

government, under it all of the municipalities information became subject to the

access provisions as well, which was unheard of. I do not think under the old

Freedom of Information Act that municipalities or health care corporations, or

anybody else, was subject to having their information gotten at by the public,

or by an individual, or by the media, but it was, of course, under the new act.

When you start talking about the privacy provisions, it took, actually, a couple

of years. I do believe it was only last fall, 2007, that the actual privacy

provisions were actually proclaimed and said: Okay, everybody is up to speed

now, implement it and let's go with those provisions.

I have seen some examples in terms of what the Privacy Commissioner did. One

of the big problems under the old system was you applied, you requested

something and someone came back in the department and said: You were not getting

it. It was sort of like you were stonewalled at that point. You were not getting

it. Where do I go from here? Under the old act the only other recourse, as I

understand it, was one spot, and that was into the court. That was pretty

draconian when you are asking for a simple piece of information, the department

head said: You are not getting it. There was nobody there to say whether that

was a good or a wise or a bad decision. Your only option was to appeal it and go

off to a trail division of the Supreme Court; a pretty costly type of process.

So that was, of course, overhauled so that you needed someone there who could

vet the application and say: Was this fair? Shouldn't there be some middle

ground here? Shouldn't somebody else outside of government and outside of the

applicant look at this and see, is there an option here rather than going off to

the courtroom which, among other things of being costly, could take you four or

five years to get it done? So timeliness was an issue here. It is not much good

to get information if, by the time you get it, it is of no value to you. So that

was an issue. Of course, that is why the provisions of the Information

Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner were put into the new legislation, to

allow that middle ground.

The process is vital and the position is vital. The person who occupies that

position, in the public eye he may be appointed based upon a resolution of

government and it will be voted on here in the House of Assembly by every MHA,

but the Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner is not there as the

government employee, the government lackey, or anything else. He has an

independent mind that he or she can exercise as they see proper, and that is the

way it should be. You cannot be an arbitrator, you cannot be a mediator, you

cannot make fair, equitable decisions if the person who is giving you the pay

cheque or appoints you can flip you out of here tomorrow, or cut off your pay

cheque and say: Oh, you made a decision that was not in our favour, so we are

going to give you the flick. So that has to be prevented against, and that is

why this position is so vital. It is important that the person who goes there

has the assurance of knowing, I can make a decision without fear or retribution

by the government and they are going to put me out to pasture tomorrow because I

said something they did not like.

Quite frankly, I have not seen too many decisions of Mr. Ring in his acting

capacity, but I have seen and read several of the decisions that were made by

the former Commissioner, Mr. Phil Wall, who was a former Deputy Minister of

Finance, who retired but agreed to come back and fill that position for a year

or more. I read some of his decisions and it is amazing - and again, the

decisions all get made public. It is not a case of you apply, the government

says yea or nay, and the commissioner intervenes and a decision is made and

nobody knows about it. The commissioner makes his decisions and his reasons

public. It goes on the Web.

I must say, I was impressed with the level of reason that the commissioner

brings to bear, and that is the true test of where you see fairness. I saw some

cases where the applicant was denied access to the information. The government,

for example, had said no in the first instance, the person appealed it to the

commissioner, and the commissioner came out and said: No, government is right,

for certain reasons - and he gave the reasons - you shall not have that

information. I also saw numerous cases issued by Mr. Wall decisions -

whereby he said: Government said no. I disagree; they should put it out.

I believe, in fact, there is probably a whole ream of decisions involving

certain CONA - College of the North Atlantic - information that happened in

Corner Brook, for example. There were certain instances I am aware of, and read

those decisions.

So, it all gets made public. That is why the position itself is so vital, and

we need to have someone there whose personal integrity and ethics are above

reproach.

Now, I am not going to digress into that discussion, because we had that here

last year, but it did not happen with all officers of the House. Maybe that is a

sad thing to say. It did not happen with the resolution concerning all of these

so-called independent, important positions of public trust and responsibility.

It did not happen in the case of the Chief Electoral Officer. I suspect this

resolution here, at the end of the day, is going to be approved unanimously.

The appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer, which is supposed to be one

of those House-appointed positions, again, did not happen that way; and that was

fine, too, because that shows the system works. The government proposed the

individual. We came here in this House and I believe we were three or four days

debating the appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer. Some said yes, some

said no; but, whoever said what, they got up on their feet and had the courage

of their convictions and said why they agreed or disagreed. At the end of the

day, he was confirmed. That is a fair and open process. Again, that is why the

process is important.

I do not know Mr. Ring personally. I think I might have some involvement with

him back in Justice, briefly, a few years ago when I was the minister, but it

certainly was not in any personal capacity. It would have been in my ministerial

capacity at that time, and I cannot recall the details of how we met. I don't

know if that is to say he didn't leave a lasting impression on me. I don't

think that is a reflection on him at all. I think that is probably a reflection

upon the issue that was being discussed at the time. You see so many people and

discuss certain issues that you do not recall the details of every particular

issue, of course, at all times; but I believe I do recall him because I was made

aware at that time of his distinguished military career. I believe he had

retired and he was back here then going into the Reservist arm and that is why I

did remember him.

Certainly, as the Government House Leader says, he is a gentleman beyond

reproach, a person who does not only have the intellectual capacity to do this

job but also has the ethical, the moral capacity to do it, to be absolutely

independent, and I certainly have had no suggestion, intimation whatsoever, that

this individual being put forth by government is not the right person. In fact,

anything I have heard is that he is the right person.

Unless you have some very good grounds to disagree, my approach to life is,

you should agree; you should not just disagree for the sake of disagreeing.

Anything I know of, or have heard of, this gentleman has been nothing but top

shelf, as they say. Based on that, Mr. Speaker, I certainly, and the Opposition

certainly, will be supporting the government resolution for the appointment of

Mr. Ed Ring as the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I did want to speak to the appointment of Mr. Ring as the

Province's Information and Privacy Commissioner and indicate that I will be

supporting the resolution.

I will not repeat what was said by the Government House Leader or the

Opposition House Leader, but I did want to speak to the resolution because I

have worked with Mr. Ring over the years, in a professional capacity, so I do

know of his working experience.

I do want to say that this is a very important position. It is an officer of

the House and, of course, it has to be an independent position, and the person

who occupies the position has to be impartial and independent.

I first met Mr. Ring, I believe it was, in 1992; it was when he first joined

the Newfoundland public service. At that time he had left the military on a

full-time basis and he was appointed as Director of Policing Services with the

Department of Justice. I can remember - I can actually remember, Mr. Speaker -

the first time I heard his name; because, in the public service, as people are

appointed to various senior positions, usually it is people within the service

who are appointed, so when people are appointed into these senior positions

generally you know them or you have heard their name before. Of course, Mr. Ring

was a new employee of the public service so, of course, we were all curious as

to exactly who this Mr. Edward Ring was.

While I had met him around 1992, or early in the 1990s, I did not really get

to work with him until around 1997. At that time he had moved to the Public

Service Commission, and at the time I was the Auditor General of the Province.

Mr. Ring was with, I believe, the staffing division of the Public Service

Commission. The Public Service Commission at the time had delegated recruitment

responsibility to the government departments, and Mr. Ring had to go around and

make sure that a lot of the departments were complying with the Public Service

Commission policies and procedures. So he was doing his audit and actually, as

the Auditor General, I was auditing Mr. Ring.

Of course, we had some very interesting discussions. We didn't always

agree, but I can speak to his capabilities and his independence and his

impartiality. I can say that he stood his ground on more than one instance, and

did a fine job while he was there with that agency of the government.

Mr. Speaker, as the Government House Leader said, Mr. Ring has a long and

distinguished career with the Canadian Military. He was with them for

thirty-four years, and provided a combination of full-time service and Reserve

service. He served both within Canada and also outside of Canada. He retired

from the Armed Forces in 2003. As the Government House Leader indicated, he did

rise through the ranks and he achieved the rank of Brigadier-General with his

appointment as Deputy Commander of Land Forces, Atlantic Area.

So, of course, Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to stand here and support the

resolution and to indicate that I will be voting for the resolution.

I would like to offer my heartfelt congratulations to Mr. Ring, and I do look

forward to working with him.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

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

No, I assure the House Leader, in case he is trying to plan over there, I am

not going to be very long.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: No, I won't be too long,

I do want to take the opportunity to speak to the motion. I think it is very

important that we do now have Mr. Ring in place. We know that he has been in the

position for some months, so today is sort of ratifying that appointment, and I

am very happy to be part of ratifying that appointment - not because I know Mr.

Ring; I don't. Like my colleague from the Official Opposition, even more so, I

am fairly certain I have never met Mr. Ring, and I do trust my government

colleagues in making the decision to appoint Mr. Ring.

I am very happy to hear my colleague, the Member for Topsail, making her

comments based on her personal knowledge of Mr. Ring. That does help.

I want to speak very shortly to the process of appointments. This has nothing

to do with Mr. Ring - I assure him it does not - and I promise him I will walk

down the hall from my office to his office and meet him after today so that he

knows what I am going to say next has nothing to do with him.

I think it would be good, and I have said this before to government, I think

it would be really good, when doing appointments of this nature, because it is

such an important appointment - an appointment for an extremely important

position in our governmental system, a position that protects the rights of

individuals and protects their right to information and to privacy protection, a

position of great trust, a position of great responsibility - I think in the

case of such appointments it would be really good if the government could reach

out to the other two parties who sit in the House right now and if there

were more of us, to all of us - to put all of our heads together when it comes

to appointments.

I am sure government has made a really good appointment, and I am really

happy to support it, but I just want to use this opportunity to talk about the

process of making appointments and to let government know that I would be

delighted at any time, as leader of the party that I represent, to be part of

putting forward names for appointments, and I am sure my colleagues in the

Official Opposition are in the same position.

While I say that, and I think it is important that I say it, at the same

time, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to ratify the appointment of Mr. Edward

Ring.

Thank you.

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

If the hon. the Government House Leader speaks now it is a motion I

guess he will be closing the debate on this particular motion.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite obvious, from the comments that we have

heard from all sides of the House, Mr. Ring is certainly held in very high

esteem by all of us in this House and, I think it is fair to say, by the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think it is clear that Mr. Ring's appointment is greeted by, if not

unanimity I suspect it might be unanimity, but - it would certainly be a

fairly large consensus among the members of this Legislature. That, I think,

speaks volumes to the way members feel about him, how we feel about his

impartiality and certainly his qualifications for the job and his ability to do

the job, and our confidence in his ability to do the job.

So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Premier, as the leader of the government,

on behalf of all members in the House, I thank members who spoke for their

contribution, for their positive contribution, and on behalf of the government I

am very pleased to move the adoption of this resolution appointing Mr. Ring as

Privacy Commissioner.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion put forward by the hon. the Government House

Leader reads, "WHEREAS

section 42.1 of the Access to Information and

Protection of Privacy Act provides that the Information and Privacy Commissioner

is to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a resolution of the

House of Assembly;

NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Ed Ring be

appointed as the Information and Privacy Commissioner."

All those in favour of the motion, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, 'nay'.

The motion is carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would now like to move to consideration of legislation for the balance of

the afternoon, and I would like to call Order 6, Bill 8, standing in the name of

the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, second reading of An

Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring

Allowances Act .

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 8, entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act, be now read

a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The

House Of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act." (Bill 8)

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

Board.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very short bill; it is Bill 8. It is only one page long, and the

Explanatory Notes that are on the inside cover say, "This Bill would amend

the Members of the House of Assembly Retiring Allowances Act to repeal and

replace the definition of MHA salary." This amendment is consistent with

the recommendations of Chief Justice Green and the House of Assembly

Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act.

So I am pleased, obviously, to introduce the amendment. This amendment will

limit the amount of salary that MHAs receive that would be considered

pensionable under the legislation, under the pension legislation, for members

who were elected prior to the most recent election.

Members will recall that, prior to the Green Report, members were paid a

sessional pay and a tax-free allowance. I believe this was in the amount of

$73,000, so a part of the pay was tax free and the rest was called sessional

pay.

Chief Judge Green recommended that was too out of date, too old-fashioned,

and he felt that it should be changed into a taxable income the same as everyone

else receives. The taxable income was changed to I will just check my notes

here - $92,580. Of course, if the pension under the pensions' legislation was

based on a pensionable salary of $92,580 then the pension of MHAs would rise,

and that certainly was not the intent of Justice Green.

The conversion of the salary, while not increasing, from an after-tax point

of view, the net income of members, it does result in a higher gross salary than

under the former system and it is usually this pre-tax salary, as I indicated,

Mr. Speaker, that is considered pensionable, and that is the basis. It is that

salary, that pre-tax salary, that is the basis for determining the amount of

members' contribution to the pension plan, and pension entitlements from the

pension plan.

The conversion to the new system resulted in a higher pre-tax salary and, as

I indicated previously, Judge Green recognized that by incorporating this new

salary into the MHA pension benefit formula it would result in a higher pension

benefit for members than existed under the former system.

In order to prevent that, in order to mitigate the impact of the change in

salary on the members' pension, Justice Green further recommended, with effect

from July 1, 2007, that only 81.2 per cent of the new salary would be considered

pensionable; so, not 100 per cent of the salary, 81.2 per cent of the salary

would be considered pensionable for members who were elected prior to the

Forty-Sixth General Assembly.

This amendment, Mr. Speaker, is consistent with the recommendations of the

Green Report and it confirms government's commitment to implement Chief

Justice Green's key recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this amendment to change the definition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few brief words. Maybe we should not be so brief, I guess. One of the

criticisms that was out in the public domain from the media when it came to MHA

pensions and so on is that we do not talk enough about pieces of legislation

that come before this House with respect to MHAs.

Of course, that is one of the great benefits of the Green Report: that it is

required now, under the openness and accountability act that we brought in last

year, that if you are going to do anything there is a prescribed regime that you

have to go through when you make laws or make policies or make decisions

concerning the benefits that MHAs get. A lot of this stuff was done before. It

was done by the old IEC, it was done behind closed doors and a lot of it never,

ever saw the light of day. Now that does not mean it was done wrong. That does

not mean it was all improper.

We just went through a process of appointing the Information and Privacy

Commissioner on the floor of the House so that everybody watching and everybody

in the media or everybody at home could see what it is you are talking about,

and if you are going to give yourself a pay raise, or if you are going to give

yourself pension benefits, what they might be. That, of course, was one of the

main topics that Chief Justice Green referred to.

In fact, as you can see, even from the size of his report, and this is only

one of the volumes of his report, it was a pretty big thing. He titled it, and I

think quite telling as well, Rebuilding Confidence, because he, no doubt, felt,

and his committee, that there was definitely a need to rebuild confidence in the

system. The people who we are here to represent must have confidence that the

system works, that it works fairly and it works for them, not just for the

forty-eight people who sit here. Because that was the perception in the eyes of

a lot of people, is that when it comes to looking after yourselves, as MHAs, do

it in the back room, nobody knows about it and keep it that way. So that is one

big achievement, one big plus, one big advancement that came from the Green

inquiry, I would submit, is that whatever is done now is done in the light of

day, in front of the cameras, and this is another example of that; similar, for

example, to the board of management.

We used to have an old IEC that used to govern the affairs of MHAs and so on,

salaries and so on. A scattered time you would go out and get someone

independent to give you some opinions on it. Like Mr. Morgan, at one time, gave

a report called the Morgan report, which impacted on members' salaries and

pension benefits and so on. Now, when the IEC meets, or the new board of

management meets, it is done right here in this very Chamber under the same

cameras and the same lights as we are meeting here today. Every issue, what you

can claim for, what you are allowed to buy, what you are allowed to spend your

money on, how you are going to be accountable for that money, it is all

discussed, passed openly, right here in the public. Not only is it done here in

the public, any decisions that are made you can go on-line and read them. You do

not even have to go under the Freedom of Information Act to see what was said in

case you missed it. You can go on-line and say show me the tape of it, it is

taped. So that is an advancement. This is another example of something that is

coming out of Justice Green's inquiry that needed to be done.

As the Minister of Finance said, back in former days, it does not impact

anyone who got elected for the time as of October 9, 2007, because they came in

under the new rules, but anybody who was a member here before in previous

governments needs to know the rules. What used to happen was that your pay was

broken out in two parts. One was called sessional pay, because whenever the

House of Assembly sits, they say you are in session. So they say part of your

pay was based upon your sessional pay, or your sitting time. In addition to

that, wherever it came from, and it was so long ago, I do not know if anybody

knows about it. It was implemented so long ago that in addition to the money you

got for your sessional pay, you were also given a chunk of money, tax free.

So you had a situation over in the Department of Finance, when they were

doing up your pay cheques, that this much was sessional, this much was tax free,

totally together it means this, and this is what the member takes home in his

pay cheque. You take out your pension cut, you take out your CPP and so on, take

out your income tax - you did not have to pay tax on the tax free part. The

judge looked at that and said, that is pretty old fashioned, that is pretty

anachronistic. We need to bring the pay scale and the pay schemes and the pay

ways, the pay days and the accountability of how MHAs are paid, inline with how

everybody else in society gets paid. Not too many people that I know of get a

tax free bonus. So he changed it, and that is what we are doing here today.

One of the changes that he did impacted upon your pensions, because we have

gone from that old system of a combined sessional and tax free piece, to a

system whereby he upgraded it all. What he did was, he said: Yeah, whatever your

sessional pay was, if you took the tax free piece and you grossed it up, what

would I have to pay a person to get the same amount of money roughly, but if

they had to pay taxes on it? For example, if $40,000 - just to use an example -

was the tax free portion, what would that person have to get as a gross amount

in order for them to be able to get $40,000 net? So he took the figures, he

plugged them in, he grossed them up and he said, this is what you are going to

get. So, instead of getting, before, a sessional piece that was taxable and a

non-taxable portion, which added up to, I believe the Minister of Finance said

roughly $72,000, the judge came up and said: If you do the conversions on that,

that works out to be somewhere around $92,000. I believe with the public sector

increases that happened since, it is up around $93,000-something now that an MHA

would get, somewhere in that vicinity. So, that is what is happening here.

Because of this change that Chief Justice Green wanted and this House agreed to

last May when we passed the new act here, we needed to go back and change

certain pieces of legislation to bring it up-to-date as well, and that is what

this piece of legislation is doing here. It does not give MHAs any more, it does

not take away from anything that they had accumulated in terms of benefits

before, it just puts the new system in place as to how it is going to be

mathematically calculated into that pension recovery when that member retires.

So, I do not know if my explanations have been any what helpful. Maybe the

Minister of Finance might be better at describing or explaining what is

happening here but I thought it was an opportunity, and a needed opportunity to,

if nothing else, let the people know that Chief Justice Green's recommendation

about being open and about this House being open, this is where we are going to

do it; not that it was not done right in the past, but there will be no question

in the future. Anything like this that the taxpayers' dollar is being spent

on, and just so that the public has the assurance that it was not done under the

cloak of darkness and behind closed doors, it will be done openly.

I would encourage any other member here in the House, I would encourage you,

rather than have it said that nobody got up and spoke to it - because that was

one of the other things that was reported. There were incidents here in this

House in the past where somebody said the Government House Leader got up and

proposed it, it took twenty-two seconds. The Leader of the Opposition got up and

seconded it, it took eight seconds. The Leader of the NDP got up and it took two

seconds, and it was done. That was all there was to it. So, I would encourage

anybody here to get up and explain again and say what this is about and why you

are supportive of it, if for no other reason than to show the public that on a

go-forward basis, in order to rebuild the confidence that Chief Justice Green

feels was necessary, and we certainly feel is necessary, we have to start to do

that, and there is no better place to start it then right here and in pieces of

legislation like that.

I will be supportive of the bill, Mr. Speaker, not because it puts benefits

in my pocket. It does not put benefits in my pocket. I am supporting the bill

because it is simply putting into law one of the necessary pieces that is

required in order for this House to give effect to what Chief Justice Green has

said in his report.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Collins): If the hon. member speaks now he will close the

debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks made by the

Opposition House Leader who very clearly explained what was happening here with

this legislation. He made some very good points about the fact that, as a result

of the Green report, any changes to benefits and compensation and pensions for

MHAs has to take place in this House, it has to be debated, it takes place in

front of the camera so the people can now see exactly what we are doing. It is

important for people to realize that the MHAs under this change will not - I

just want to make it completely clear - have their pensions increased. This was

just to reflect modernization of the legislation in terms of a definition of an

MHA's salary.

With that, I thank hon. members for their discussion today and would urge

that this legislation now proceed and be passed by this hon. House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now

read a second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly

Retiring Allowances Act. (Bill 8)

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

When shall this bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently, by leave.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Members Of The House Of Assembly

Retiring Allowance Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a

Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 8)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call on the Order Paper, Order 7,

second reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act,

2006. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded to call second reading of Bill 9,

An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Support Orders

Enforcement Act, 2006." (Bill 9)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased this afternoon to introduce Bill 9,

An Act To Amend The Support

Orders Enforcement Act, 2006.

The proposed amendment, Mr. Speaker, to the Support Orders Enforcement Act,

2006 will clarify that solicitor-client privilege is exempt from

section

Section 11 deals with the rights of the Director of Support Enforcement for the

purpose of enforcing a support order to seek information from a "person,

corporation or public body". Subsection 11 (5) states: This

section applies

despite another act or regulation and despite a common law rule of

confidentiality or privilege.

In October, 2007, Mr. Speaker, a member of the law society received a demand

under

section 11 for information about a client. The law society member

expressed concern about subsection 11.5 conflicting with solicitor-client

privilege.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, and as the Opposition House Leader and some

other members in this House are aware, the Minister of Finance and the

Government House Leader, the solicitor-client privilege is one of the most

important aspects of our legal system. The solicitor-client privilege protects

the confidential communications made between the client and the lawyer. It

encourages frank discussion and gives the client the confidence that what he is

telling his or her lawyer is kept that way, in confidence. It allows for the

developing of a trust. As you aware, Mr. Speaker, without that trusting

relationship the solicitor-client relationship is very difficult to form.

Without the client having confidence in the lawyer to keep his or her secrets,

then it does, I would suggest, or can do, irreparable damage to the legal

system.

The solicitor-client privilege is one of the oldest privileges known to law

and in that respect is one that has been zealously guarded by the courts of this

land, including the Supreme Court of Canada. As stated, Mr. Speaker, when a

client communicates with legal counsel he or she expects and relies upon the

confidential nature of those communications. A client's ability to speak

frankly and honestly with his or her legal counsel without fear of self

incrimination for the purpose of obtaining profession legal advice forms the

very foundation of this privilege and is a critical factor in assuring access to

justice.

Also, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware the privilege is that of the client and

not of the lawyer. I know, Mr. Speaker, there are times when the lay person will

question the necessity or utility of this type of privilege and look upon it as

some kind of archaic principle, but as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure

the Opposition House Leader and the Government will agree, this principle is

necessary and is one of the basic foundations of our legal system.

These communications from client to solicitor are protected under the rubric

of solicitor-client privilege. However, as we are also well aware,

solicitor-client privilege is not applicable in certain circumstances. What we

are dealing with here, to give an example, is the Support Enforcement Act, where

the director, for example, would phone the lawyer and say, where does your

client live? Now

section 11 (5) of that Act would compel the lawyer to answer

that question, because it says it applies despite another act or regulation, and

despite a common-law rule of confidentiality or privilege. So what may seem to

be a very minor point to the average person, to us as lawyers, I would suggest

is a very critical issue. The court protects the communications from disclosure,

under the rubric of solicitor-client privilege, if they meet these criteria: it

was between a client and his or her legal counsel, who must be acting in a

professional capacity as a lawyer; it was given in the context of obtaining

legal advice; and it was intended to be confidential.

There are, as I stated, Mr. Speaker, several strictly delineated exceptions

to the protection of fortified solicitor-client privilege. Communications made

in furtherance of unlawful conduct, for example, are not protected, and must

therefore be disclosed by legal counsel, and that includes crimes or acts of

fraud, generally.

There are currently six other Provinces and Territories, Mr. Speaker, in

Canada which specifically exclude the solicitor-client privilege in their

support enforcement related legislation. These jurisdictions are Nova Scotia,

New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, theYukon, Northwest Territories and

Nunavut.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to this hon. House that the proposed amendment

is a positive one. I suggest that the public benefits from the existence of

solicitor-client privilege, although not every member of the public may

necessarily realize that and could see it as a technical argument as opposed to

one of the most basic principles of our system. A client has to be able to

communicate with the lawyer.

The purpose behind this principle is to protect an individual's ability to

access the justice system by encouraging complete disclosure to legal advisors

without the fear that any disclosure of those communications may prejudice the

client in the future.

Essentially what we are asking, Mr. Speaker - and it is my understanding that

from a practical perspective, the Director of Support Enforcement, after this

issue was brought to his attention, decided not to engage in this type of

information seeking process again, but I would suggest that the legislating of

the basic principle will ensure that there is no advertent or inadvertent breach

of this more basic principle.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to discuss the amendment to the

Support Orders Enforcement Act. I ask for the support of all hon. members in

passing this bill. I look forward to participation from members on both sides of

this House in the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few comments on Bill 9. We will be

supportive and voting in favour of this amendment. It is an example again where

a government brings in a piece of legislation, and, of course, sometimes you dot

all the I's and cross all the T's, as you know, at the time, but it is only

through experience and running into circumstances you realize that, oops, we

missed something, or else we put something in there that we did not anticipate,

and now we have the circumstance that has arise whereby we see that this has

caused some difficulty.

In this case, I guess you cannot blame the Director of Enforcement. He had it

pretty black on white, that he could go ask the lawyer this information, and of

course he could look at it and say: Well, you are obligated to tell me. Now, in

fairness to him or her - I think it is a him right now, the Director of Support

Enforcement - once this information came to light that there was a problem with

solicitor-client privilege in that regard, I understand from the minister's

comments that he backed off and he has not been doing that. I agree

wholeheartedly that he should not have the right to do that and we definitely

need this amendment so that there will be no question in future whether he does

or does not. It should not be a discretionary thing, we should make the law

quite clear to the Director of Support Enforcement, that you cannot go and

require a lawyer, someone's legal counsel to provide you with information that

was privileged information between that lawyer and that client.

In fact, the Chair, yourself being a lawyer, you probably run into those

circumstances many times where you might be asked something and even though you

might consider it the simplest of information - someone asking me where John Doe

lived, it might seem like a very simple piece of information, and under normal

circumstances if someone asked me where the Speaker lived I could say it, but if

someone asked me where John Doe lived, if I happened to have seen John Doe in a

solicitor-client relationship, I am not supposed to divulge that information,

even though it might seem totally innocent. I do not know why the person wants

it, so I should not be giving out that information.

It is not only lawyers, by the way, who have certain privileges at certain

times. There is a solicitor- client privilege, yes. When you go in, you have a

problem and you speak with your solicitor, anything you tell him or her should

be protected. Otherwise, why are you ever going to spill the beans or express

your full problems that you have openly and candidly and get an answer back if

you do not feel comfortable that, once I leave this office I do not know what

that person is going to do with that information. In fact, it works two ways

because not only is it a privilege where lawyers cannot be forced to divulge the

information, but if a lawyer does divulge the information you are subject to

actions and penalties from the client. You just cannot go out and start spouting

off what you might know about a client. Then you have problems on the other end,

and probably not only with your law society. So, it works two ways. It is there

for the protection of the client, number one, in the sense that they know they

can talk candidly and not have the information revealed. It is there for the

protection of the lawyer who knows that I can accept and receive this

information within certain bounds and limitations and not be forced to tell

anybody. So, it works both ways.

There are also other people. For example, there is the priest situation. I

mean, a parishioner goes into his or her priest and makes a confession. Again

there are dicey rules around whether you can or cannot get at the information

and under what circumstances. You have a doctor-patient relationship which has

certain implications as to whether or not you can get the information and under

what circumstances you can get it. There are all kinds of different privileges

and they have different limitations on them and they have different exceptions

on them from time to time. It may depend on who is asking. For example, the

Director of Support Enforcement might want a piece of information and the answer

might be one way or the other,

whereas the Supreme Court of Newfoundland might

want it and it might be a different answer. The police might want it and it

might be a different answer depending on the nature of the information and the

nature of the confidence.

I guess, to say it is an old tradition, solicitor-client privilege, goes

without saying. I think it probably came right behind the Magna Carta, if it was

not attached to the Magna Carta as a piece of it. It is right behind the Magna

Carta as one of our most selfishly guarded privileges that we have in our

democratic institutions. Now some people might confuse it with the American

system. We watch a lot of American TV and some people might say, well, you know,

it is like taking the Fifth I guess is it? You take the Fifth; I do not have to

say anything. Well I guess the lawyer in that case would be taking the Fifth.

The lawyer is not going to be forced any more to say anything that might be

incriminating to him or incriminating to his client. It is a bit different

terminology, but basically it means a client can talk to the lawyer knowing full

well that his or her exchanges are protected, within reason. There are certain

things you cannot do. If you tell a lawyer, for example, under certain

circumstances, that you have committed a crime, or you are committing a crime,

then certain other things come into play and that privilege disappears.

We are talking here in a situation where the Director of Support Enforcement

and, by the way, the role of the Director of Support Enforcement, in case a

lot of people do not know who is that fellow, and why would he have that

privilege anyway - we have a system here, established for quite a few years now

- I believe the head office for it is in Corner Brook and that is where the

director sits - what happens is, if you have a parent or a spouse who does not

pay support, for example, it goes to the courts, and if a court makes an order

for support there has to be some enforcement of that support, and that Director

of Support Enforcement, of course - if John owes Mary $2,000 in support, that

director has to try to find out: How do I get it out of John?

I say John owes Mary, because I think the statistics show that the

overwhelming majority of support orders are imposed by the courts as men who do

not pay their spouses. Deadbeat dads they are commonly referred to. We have a

lot of them, and we needed to have a system whereby we could catch the deadbeat

dads and make sure they paid. That is the job of the support enforcement

director. How do I go get the deadbeat dads or deadbeat moms, if that is the

case, and make sure that they get the order paid? That is why he might, under

certain circumstances, want to go to that lawyer and say: Oh, you represented

that deadbeat dad. I am trying to track him down and find out where he is.

That is where this type of issue would have arisen. Did the lawyer in that

case have to say where his client was gone, where he lived, what you talked

about, or where he was employed? That is what this is changing. Albeit, you

might feel it is right to be able to tell the director that because you would

help get the money to give to the person who was entitled to it under the court

order, this solicitor-client privilege takes priority, and we are saying the

director will not have the right to go get that information.

There are certain times when, albeit, morally and ethically you feel that you

might want that information revealed, you just cannot do it. That is why you

have to give this solicitor-client privilege a special status in that regard,

because you are protecting your client.

We would be fully in favour of this. I would not say it is a housekeeping

matter, because this goes beyond a housekeeping matter. We see a lot of

amendments come before here that are removing a comma, or putting in a period,

or whatever else - just grammatical changes that we make I would call

housecleaning - but this goes beyond a housecleaning amendment. This is, in and

of itself, a fairly significant amendment, certainly how it impacts the

authority of the director and how it impacts the rights of the solicitor and the

rights of the client, so we will certainly be supportive of it, Mr. Speaker.

With that, those are the comments from the Opposition with regard to second

reading.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I do want to take just a moment to speak to Bill 9, and to show my support

for Bill 9.

I actually was surprised when I looked at this, in preparation for this

afternoon, to see that this language was not already in the bill. It could have

been that it was just overlooked, but when I see a number of jurisdictions with

the language not there, maybe it was more than just being overlooked. Having

said that, I think it is important that it goes in; because, no matter what the

circumstance of the privacy that we are looking for, or the confidentiality that

we are looking for, when it comes to solicitor-client privilege - and I say this

as a lay person; I am not a lawyer - I believe it is one of the relationships

that really should be sacrosanct, that really should be sacred, and that anybody

who is speaking to his or her lawyer, and who has a lawyer that they have an

ongoing legal relationship with, have to know that they are safe in that

relationship and that nothing that lawyer knows about him or her can be

revealed.

I think that is important even in the context of the Support Orders

Enforcement Act. There could be people who would think that when you are trying

to enforce payment, for example, from an errant father who is not taking care of

children, that anything goes in trying to get that money. I certainly would like

to say yes, we really have to make sure that the errant parent, whether it is a

father or mother, has to show that they are there taking care of their

responsibilities, but we also have to make sure that something as sacred as the

solicitor-client privilege is also protected, even in the light of how important

it is to enforce the payments that errant parents need to make.

I am sure there are some people who think that should not be in there, and

maybe some people even lobbied for it not to be in there, I do not know, but I

am glad to see that it is going in. I think it also points out something

important, and that is that all legislation does need to be reviewed over and

over and over; that changing times, sometimes, even in two years - it was only

in 2006 that this act was put in place, and already, just two years later, we

are seeing something that needs to be changed in the act or added to the act.

I think it is a sign that all legislation in all departments needs to be

reviewed continuously so that we continue to either pick up on something that is

inadvertently omitted, or to make a change to go along with changing times, or

for whatever reason the amendment needs to be made.

Without further ado I just say yes, that I, too, support Bill 9.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now, he closes the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Opposition House Leader and the Member

for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi for their very constructive comments and their

support of this bill.

I do not think it is a stretch for me to say that the House procedures is a

steep learning curve. Earlier this week we go from basically arguing over what

we should be doing with bills to an agreement here now that this is an amendment

that is necessary.

As the Opposition House Leader has pointed out, what we have seen is that

this bill has caused a problem; practice has indicated that a difficulty has

arisen. As the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has pointed out, it is

something we have to work on, and work co-operatively, and we are doing that so

I am very pleased by that.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I really want to emphasize, as pointed out by the

Opposition House Leader and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that this is

not an attempt to protect individuals from paying their support payments. In

fact, to the contrary, we are doing everything we can as a government, and I am

sure the Opposition will agree, to ensure support payments are collected and

paid to mostly women and children who need them. That is one of the realities of

the support enforcement, that unfortunately there are women and children who are

stuck in this situation.

This amendment is recognition of a basic principle; it is not an attempt to

protect anyone from paying the money that is rightfully ordered by the court.

What it is, as so often with legislation, Mr. Speaker, there has to be a

balancing, and that is what we are doing here today, as the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi has stated, a sacrosanct principle and the very real and

necessary Support Enforcement Act.

On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the bill be now read a

second time?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act, 2006.

(Bill 9)

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

When shall this bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House?

MR. RIDEOUT: Presently, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Presently, by leave.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Support Orders Enforcement Act,

2006," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole

House presently, by leave. (Bill 9)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to call Order 9,

standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of Education, where the

minister is seeking leave to have second reading of Bill 12,

An Act To Amend The

Student Financial Assistance Act.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded, second reading of a bill, An

Act To Amend The Student Financial Assistance Act, Bill 12.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Student Financial

Assistance Act." (Bill 12)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, in this Province we have certainly tried to make

some inroads in recent years to address the most serious issue of student debt.

It was last year we had the opportunity to meet with various members of student

unions, and also people who have graduated recently who were struggling with

paying off their student loans. We wanted to be able to create a province and an

environment where we understood this issue and we made some real concrete moves

in order to help alleviate some of the debt that students were experiencing.

Mr. Speaker, some of the enhancements that we made last year to assist

students included an interest rate reduction of 2.5 per cent. Prior to this,

student loans, the rate of interest was prime plus 2.5 per cent. So we reduced

to that to prime. For many students that has meant a savings of approximately

$1,500.

The other thing we introduced - or I should say we brought back, because this

was something that had certainly been previously established but dropped,

probably, I would think, ten or fifteen years ago - were the upfront needs based

grants. What that entails, is basically a student who receives a student loan

has a portion which is the Canada Student Loan and a portion from Newfoundland

and Labrador. The portion from the Province, the provincial part of the loan, a

student can borrow up to $140 a week. What we decided is that students would

borrow up to $70 a week and what they were entitled to beyond $70 would be a

grant, as opposed to a loan. These were certainly two recommendations that came

directly from the student representatives. Last year, when we announced them in

the Budget, we certainly had a very positive response from students.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to say that government is continuing with a

tuition freeze at our public post-secondary institutions. Over the next four

years, from this year up until the year 2011-2012, this tuition freeze will cost

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador approximately $56 million. That is

certainly, I think, a fabulous investment in the students of this Province. We

need very accessible institutions in this Province.

The undergraduate tuition for Memorial University of Newfoundland students

has been frozen at $2,550 since 2003, and this is the lowest in the country,

with the exception of Quebec. Quebec provides a lower tuition but only for

Quebec residents. Mr. Speaker, even at that rate, the gap between Newfoundland

and Labrador and Quebec is basically closing. One time it was a very wide gap in

tuition, but Quebec right now, their tuition which is quoted as the lowest, is

still over $2,000.

When we compare Newfoundland and Labrador with our Atlantic provinces, I

think it is significant when we note the tuition that other provinces in

Atlantic Canada are paying. In PEI, the average tuition is $4,440; in New

Brunswick it is $5,733, and in Nova Scotia it is $5,878. This compares to the

just over $2,500 here in Newfoundland and Labrador. So I think with our tuition

freeze from 2003, and with that extension and our commitment to maintain that

until 2011-2012 - and certainly, that is as far as we can make commitments in a

four-year mandate. I think that as we move through the next four years we will

see that the students here in Newfoundland and Labrador, who go to our public

post-secondary institutions, will have the advantage of probably having the most

accessible post-secondary institutions in Canada.

In addition, we also have been providing other relief, such as relief to

parents who support their children's education; increasing student loan limits

for students who need more support, including the co-op students in our Debt

Reduction Grant Program. I think when the Debt Reduction Grant Program was

initially set up it did not include co-op students, which I think was probably

an oversight at that time; although I was not part of that decision at that

time.

The significant changes that we have made in our student loans in

Newfoundland and Labrador are certainly having an impact on students, their

families and their communities. The amount of money we are receiving in loan

repayments is also at an all-time high, Mr. Speaker. It is estimated to be 115

per cent higher in 2007-2008 at $30 million then when the Province entered

directly into lending loans to students in 2004-2005, when at that time we were

collecting approximately $14 million.

I guess there are many reasons why there are more repayments coming in. We

have streamlined the process that it is one loan, one payment. So, it does make

it easier. I also think that there is something significant there to say that

the students are also finding work, and work that is financially putting them in

a position where they can pay their student loans. I think there is a

significant increase when we look at 115 per cent.

What we are introducing in legislation here today is the Department of

Education would like to amend the Student Financial Assistance Act to allow

Cabinet to make changes to the Board of Directors of the Student Loan

Corporation. This is the essence of the change we want to make in this

amendment. This boa