Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements — 11 December 2008 (46th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLVI No. 49)
2008-12-11
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
December
11, 2008
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVI No. 49
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!
Admit strangers.
The House of Assembly today is very happy to welcome to the Speaker's
gallery some special visitors. Joining us is Lieutenant-Colonel Richard
Alexander, a World War II and Korean Conflict war veteran. Colonel Alexander is
accompanied by Major Garfield Green.
Thank you, and welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker is also happy to welcome fifteen Level I, II,
and III students from Holy Trinity High School in the District of Cape St.
Francis. The students are accompanied by their teachers Maureen Clements, Karen
Canning and Carol Roberts.
Welcome to the House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker also welcomes the Mayor of Labrador City.
Welcome to the House of Assembly, Mayor Graham Letto.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The following members' statements will be heard: the hon.
the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis; the hon. the Member for the
District of Burgeo & LaPoile; the hon. the Member for the District of Baie
Verte-Springdale; the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port; the hon.
the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape La Hune; and, the hon. the
Member for the District of Mount Pearl South.
The hon. the Member for the District of Cape St. Francis.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KEVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It gives me great pleasure today to stand in this hon. House to recognize
Chief Petty Officer First Class Colin Furlong, a resident of Torbay.
Colin graduated from Holy Trinity High in Torbay, and he is the son of Shawn
and Cathy Furlong. His proud grandparents are Tom and Alma Furlong of Shoe Cove,
and Rose Walsh of Torbay.
Mr. Speaker, Colin has been involved in the cadet movement for the past eight
years. During that time he has progressed through the ranks to receive numerous
awards and eventually obtaining the highest rank as Chief Petty Officer First
Class.
Mr. Speaker, in May Colin received three impressive awards: first, the Navy
League Medal of Excellence; second, the Navy League of Canada, Newfoundland and
Labrador Division, Cadet of the Year; and, third, he received the Navy League of
Canada's National President's Award as National Cadet of the Year 2008.
I ask all hon. members in this House to join with me in congratulating Colin
on his achievements and his dedication to the Cadet Corps.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Burgeo &
LaPoile.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to recognize and congratulate the Dr. Charles L. LeGrow Health
Centre Foundation on raising $58,276 during its fall radiothon. Chairperson
Wayne Green says this is likely the largest annual total to date.
As a former chairperson of the Dr. Charles L. LeGrow Health Centre, and
having participated as a guest speaker on their radiothons, I am proud of the
tremendous support the foundation receives each year from area residents and
businesses. The annual radiothon continues to grow.
The foundation is currently raising money toward three pieces of equipment,
including a portable X-ray machine, an intensive care unit bed, and a patient
Maxi Lift.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in extending
congratulations to the Dr. Charles L. LeGrow Health Centre Foundation on another
successful radiothon. The foundation should be very proud of all their hard work
and accomplishments.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Baie
Verte-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in this hon. House today to extend my congratulations to the Town of
Springdale for capturing three prestigious awards at the Municipalities
Newfoundland and Labrador convention that was held in Corner Brook this past
October:
First, the Municipal Awareness Award, which highlights efforts to shine a
positive light on the hard work of dedicated municipal leaders; Springdale was
recognized for its wide-ranging efforts to build public awareness. They held
several successful events such as a heritage display, breakfast with the mayor,
an open house at the town hall, a community cleanup day, and visits to local
schools. Springdale also has a regular spot on the local community TV channel to
keep citizens informed.
Second, the town won the Environmental Sustainability Award, which recognizes
those municipal governments that have taken steps to resolve environmental
issues in an environmentally responsible manner. The Town of Springdale was a
leader in that area by proactively supporting the Green Bay Waste Management
Authority and its curbside cardboard recycling program. It also made significant
investments in energy efficiency and water and sewer upgrades.
Third, at the same convention, the town also received the Tidy Towns Award of
Excellence.
Honourable colleagues, Springdale is another prime example of a community, a
council, and a staff that is proactive in its governance, proud of its heritage
and committed to hard work.
I respectfully ask all hon. members of this House to join me in applauding
the Town of Springdale for capturing three of these prestigious municipal
awards.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. CORNECT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely happy to stand in this hon. House of Assembly
today to pay a special tribute to Richard Alexander, who resides in the
community of Aguathuna in the District of Port au Port. Colonel Dick, as he is
affectionately known, joins us in the Speaker's gallery today.
War Veterans like Colonel Dick have made a significant contribution to the
global freedoms we enjoy today. His military contributions are quite impressive,
having served in both World War II with the 166 th Field Artillery and
with the Canadian Forces in Korea.
Mr. Speaker, Colonel Dick is in St. John's this week to be recognized for
an act of heroism prior to going overseas when he was only seventeen years of
age. On December 12, 1942, fire broke out at the Knights of Columbus Hostel
which resulted in the loss of many lives. Private Alexander and seven other
servicemen were singled out for their efforts beyond the call of duty and for
their
part in saving lives. Tonight, sixty-six years later, Colonel Dick and Mr.
Fred Johnson; form your district, Mr. Speaker, two surviving rescuers, will be
honoured at a ceremony and reception with His Honour, Lieutenant-Governor
Crosbie.
In 1972, Mr. Speaker, Lieutenant Alexander was instrumental in forming the
2904 Port au Port Army Cadet Corps. In 1975, Captain Alexander was recruited to
form the "C" Company of the Second Battalion of the Royal Newfoundland
Regiment in Stephenville. In 1979, he assisted with the formation and training
of the 2957 Cape St. George Army Cadet Corps and he is the Honourary Corps
Commandant of the 3012 Lynx Army Cadet Corps in Lourdes.
Mr. Speaker, in 2003, he was appointed Honourary Lieutenant Colonel of the
Second Battalion of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment and serves on its Advisory
Council.
As an aside to Colonel Dick's illustrious career, he was also a light
heavyweight boxer and holds a fourth degree Black Belt in Karate. He was married
to the late Dorothy Knowles and the couple had eleven children.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members of this hon. House of Assembly to
join me in saluting Honourary Lieutenant Colonel Richard Alexander, an
extraordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la
Hune.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
West, who received a gold banner from the Canadian Association of Health,
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance for its exceptional physical education
program under the leadership of teacher Nish Hynes.
The academy was among 1,100 schools across Canada and one of only twenty-six
schools in Newfoundland and Labrador to win this prestigious award.
The teachers, parents and students at Conrad Fitzgerald have done an
excellent job with raising awareness of, and implementing, physical fitness for
our kids, that will lead them into healthy physically active lifestyles.
A minimum of 100 minutes of quality physical educational activity is offered
each week to students in this school, which also received a Silver Star level
from School Sports Newfoundland and Labrador in recognition of its exceptional
phys ed program.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all members of this hon. House join me today in
delivering accolades to Conrad Fitzgerald Academy, yet another wonderful
educational institution in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Since this time is allotted for private members'
statements, the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl South, who is a
member of the executive, has asked to provide a member's statement.
Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South, by leave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank members from the opposite
side for the leave today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to pay tribute to the late Ms
Janet Maher. Janet was an extraordinary individual whom I have had the privilege
of knowing for many years.
Mr. Speaker, Janet was selected from a group of nominees across this country
as Female Athlete of the Year for Special Olympics 2008.
On December 2, 2008, this award was presented to her family at an awards
banquet in Toronto. This prestigious honour was bestowed upon her for her
dedication and commitment to the Special Olympics organization.
Mr. Speaker, Janet had been actively involved with Special Olympics for over
ten years. This February, she was a member of the national Gold Medal Floor
Hockey team, held in Quebec City.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Janet was not able to be present to receive her
award. In 2007, she was diagnosed with breast cancer and was forced to take time
off from both her job and Special Olympics in order to receive treatment and
surgery. Upon her return, she immediately began training for floor hockey in
order to participate in the National Winter Games, where she was instrumental in
leading her team to the gold medal finish.
Mr. Speaker, Janet exemplified the true spirit of Special Olympics. Their
oath "Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt"
is a testament of how Janet looked at both her sport and life itself. Her
incredible motivation, dedication and love for life, made her an inspiration and
a role model for all who met her.
Mr. Speaker, on October 20 of this year, Janet succumbed to her illness. She
passed away peacefully in the presence of her loving family. Her award was
presented in her memory to her family just recently in Toronto. The recognition
of her accomplishment at the national level now takes on a new meaning. The
obstacles that Janet had to overcome in order to complete this level showed her
dedication and commitment to the sport.
Mr. Speaker, anyone who knew Janet certainly knew one of her greatest
attributes was her sense of humour. There was rarely a time when she did not
have a smile on her face. She will certainly be missed by all who knew her.
Mr. Speaker, I now ask all members of this House to join with me in welcoming
Janet's family and members of the Special Olympics organization here to the
House of Assembly. We send along our condolences as well as our congratulations
in honour of Janet's life and of this award.
Mr. Speaker, Janet truly was a champion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Minister of Environment and
Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to acknowledge the efforts of Holy Trinity High School in Torbay
regarding climate change education and my department's commitment to help them
bring this valuable message to students and teachers across this Province.
This past September, Mr. Speaker, a student and teacher from the school
embarked upon an innovative expedition to gain a better awareness of climate
change in a unique setting, namely the High Arctic. Julia Penney was chosen as
the representative of the school's student environmental group, Friends of the
Gully - FOG, quite an interesting acronym - to represent the school and the
Province on the 2008 Cape Farewell Arctic Youth Expedition which travelled to
Iceland, Greenland and Baffin Island. She was accompanied by Karen Channing, art
specialist at Holy Trinity and the only Canadian art teacher invited to join the
expedition.
Sponsored by the British Council Canada, the United Kingdom's international
organization to promote education and cultural relations, Cape Farewell is an
arts and science education program designed to raise awareness of climate change
and to help engage young people to become actively involved in mitigating its
effects. The voyage across the Arctic seas, with students from Britain, India,
Brazil, Mexico, Germany and Ireland, helped these young Canadians to become
climate change ambassadors at home and abroad. The youth expedition brought
together high school students aged fifteen to seventeen with top scientists,
artists and educators from around the world.
One of the goals of the voyage, Mr. Speaker, was to teach the participating
students various methods of incorporating the topics of climate change into
their core curriculum. They learned strategies to help their peers develop
science projects in areas such as climatology, oceanography, biodiversity and
biogeography. They also focused on ways to build the climate change message into
genres such as film, photography, fine arts, performing arts and literature.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to provide them with funding which
will assist them in their efforts to communicate the valuable knowledge that was
acquired about climate change through their Cape Farewell experience.
Mr. Speaker, climate change is an extremely serious long-term issue facing
our planet and it presents environmental challenges. Reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and introducing sustainable development principles into all aspects of
society is our focus, and we all need to do our
part if we are to make
significant changes to positively impact our environment. Through programs such
as the Cape Farewell expedition, our youth are given an opportunity to learn
about climate change and its effect on our lives and our livelihoods. This
message is then articulated to their friends, families and communities.
Mr. Speaker, you have already recognized that we are very pleased to have the
students from Holy Trinity High School in Torbay with us today. I would like to
take this opportunity to congratulate the students on their initiative, and
everyone that was involved in this project, and I look forward to continuing
efforts to help educate our youth on climate change and to inspire them to take
action.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
All of us in the Official Opposition want to welcome today the students and
staff from Holy Trinity High School, and to congratulate them on this very
important initiative. Special congratulations to Julia Penney and Karen
Channing.
It must have been a tremendous experience, Mr. Speaker, to know that they
came together with students from other countries in our wonderful world, and to
go on this expedition to the Arctic.
Mr. Speaker, it is good to know, because if we are going to make changes I
think this is where it has to begin, with the young people in the age groups
that we are referencing here, between fifteen and seventeen years of age, and to
know that they are ambassadors. Hopefully, the experience that they have
learned, they will pass it along to students in other schools in this immediate
area.
Mr. Speaker, we all know from time to time the tremendous impact climate
change is having on our planet and environmental challenges.
Mr. Speaker, one thing I want to say to the minister, I understand that
recently he received a report, I think it was called Scenario 2020, a very
important report, and we hope that we will be able to see this because it has to
do with greenhouse emissions. It was sponsored by his department, and hopefully
we will be able to get to see that report.
Mr. Speaker, today we are here to congratulate Ms Penney, Ms Channing, and
the students of Holy Trinity School on a wonderful initiate.
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 very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
I too welcome the students from Holy Trinity and congratulate Julia Penney
and the teacher, Karen Channing.
This was a tremendous opportunity for both of them. We know that the Cape
Farewell expedition is a fabulous program. I think this was its sixth
voyage, and the first one originating from Canada with students from every
Province and Territory, I understand, along with international students and
teachers.
Yes, climate change is a serious issue and it is wonderful that our young
people and those who work with them are getting the opportunity to learn and to
become ambassadors. I, in no way, want to undermine that with what I am going to
say next.
They also need government as a role model working with them, because while
they are learning about climate change they need to see the systemic changes in
our Province that will help consumers, changes like subsidization of florescent
lights, for example, and subsidies for people retrofitting their homes so that
they will be more energy efficient. The government should be leading the way
with energy efficient vehicles.
I encourage the minister, especially with the report that we hope to see some
day, to look at what government needs to start immediately to help what these
young students are doing so that their work won't be a wasted effort.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.
The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide an update on a service
which has had a positive impact on our service to the public. Since July, many
motor registration customers have noticed that, instead of receiving an
automated call service when they call one of our offices, they get a real person
answering their calls. Needless to say, we hear comments, such as, "I never
expected such a quick response, or a live person," which proves that this
has been a success story.
This new telephone system for motor registration brings things back to
basics. Our number one complaint used to be the difficulty people had in
navigating our automated call system or not being able to get through to anyone.
Mr. Speaker, this decision has made a world of difference for not only our
customers but also our staff. Our regional staff are able to concentrate more on
the customer they have at the counter rather than divide their attention between
the counter and the phone. We pride ourselves on providing quality customer
service and this telephone service has certainly helped improve the motor
registration experience.
Since July, the teleservice has answered over 53,000 calls, with 87 per cent
of requests being completed by the phone agent directly. There are some calls
which still need to be transferred to specific program areas but we are seeking
ways to improve this and other issues associated with the service.
On average, the Motor Registration Division processes nearly 1.5 million
transactions a year, including servicing approximately 300,000 customers
directly over the counter at offices throughout the Province. Many people call
first before coming to one of our offices. So the teleservice is of a great
benefit in determining how we can provide the right service to best meet their
needs.
We also have a new toll-free number for our citizens, which is
1-877-636-6867, or they can continue to call their local regional Motor
Registration numbers listed in the phone book, as these have been automatically
rerouted to the teleservice system.
Mr. Speaker, the teleservice system has proven to be a tremendous initiative
and it demonstrates that we are willing to buck the trend in order to put our
customers first.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. It was only this
morning we heard the Premier on Open Line talking about how he has been baffled
by technology, and I want to say to the minister, the Premier is not the only
one who is baffled by technology because people love to hear someone on the
other end of that telephone. I guess we have all heard the complaints throughout
the Province.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to say that no doubt this is a good
initiative, and I want to thank the minister for that. Hopefully, the
teleservice you know, there are many things that can happen, many flaws, and
I know what happened when HRLE a few years ago turned over to the telesystem. It
took some time and still problems for people who have to use that service.
The main thing, Mr. Speaker, is providing a quality service for the residents
of our Province. No doubt, we are pleased and they will be as well to know that
there is a toll-free number. It is good to know because we still get calls from
time to time about how there are still line-ups at the registration office. So
it is good to know that government has decided, as the minister just stated, to
buck the trend and put our customers first.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal HillQuidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advanced copy of his statement. This is
wonderful news, actually, and I congratulate the minister and his department on
doing this.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL: Rather than concentrate on that, because I am so pleased, I
am going to role model again and say that I would like to think that the
Minister of Government Services and his department could role model for HRLE
because of the number of calls that we get in our office about the waiting times
on the phone when they are trying to get service. Sometimes they wait up to an
hour and more, and we have tested this in our own office with my constituency
assistant.
I would really encourage the minister to share with the Minister of HRLE how
they have been able to get such an efficient service, because I think he should
not only be bucking the trend, you should be leading the way in government
services, minister.
Thank you very much.
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 and the Minister of Natural Resources.
I understand they are at a photo op, so I will address my questions -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: - to the government and we will see who answers.
Mr. Speaker, back in March of this year, AbitibiBowater sold almost $500
million in bonds in an attempt to restructure a $1.4 billion corporate debt. At
that time there was some speculation as to whether the corporation would be able
to repay its creditors or if they would be forced into a bankruptcy position.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the stock in this company fall from $26.13 down
to, I think on Tuesday, it was forty-one cents.
So I ask the government today, international media reports are telling us and
indicating that there could be a possible bankruptcy position. I ask the
minister today to inform the House as to what the status of that is, and if
AbitibiBowater is looking to file bankruptcy?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
As well all know in this House, we are indeed in challenging times. We are
experiencing difficulties, not just in this Province but right across the global
economy.
We are aware of the challenges that AbitibiBowater as a company are facing.
We are looking at the options and the alternatives that may come from the
situation they find themselves in. They may be in a situation of bankruptcy or
receivership, they may bounce back and maybe become a very profitable and
productive company, but as it is right now, Mr. Speaker, they are a company that
is open. It is operating. It has many operations throughout the world. They are
still operating and we will monitor the situation as we have done to ensure that
our rights as a government and the rights of the people who work with Abitibi,
who are residents of this Province, are protected.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You may not know about whether the company is in a position to file
bankruptcy today or not, but the international media is certainly speculating
about it.
The minister can tell me this. If the company declares bankruptcy, what will
be the impact on the severance packages for the workers and the pension plan for
the workers at AbitibiBowater in Grand Falls-Windsor?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, speculation can be a dangerous thing. So, I am
not going to propose to enter into a debate about what other people are
speculating is going to happen or is not going to happen to Abitibi. What I will
say is that this government is very much engaged in the process. We are very
much engaged with the people of Grand Falls-Windsor and region. We are engaged
with the union locals who are involved with the people out there, the employees
out there, not only with the mill but in the service industries that supported
the mill operations and we are very much aware of what is happening. We will
look at the options as they present themselves to us. We have alternatives that
we are looking at and as we need to play our cards, we will play them.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Far too often in the last two to three weeks we have seen nothing only
reaction from the government opposite every time an industry in this Province
collapses.
Minister, I am not talking about speculation, talking about facts. If
AbitibiBowater claims bankruptcy, what will be the impact on the workers'
severance pay, on their pension plans, and are there safeguards in the contract
to protect those people?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I will not enter into trying to debate the
speculation that is being tossed about in terms of what is happening, what may
not happen over there.
As I indicated, we are engaged, Mr. Speaker, with the individuals who are
employed in that company through their unions. We are engaged with the municipal
leaders out there. We have a number of options that we are looking at to ensure
that our position as a government regarding our rights and the positions of the
employees, regarding their rights are all being looked at to make sure that we
have everybody covered. That is all I will say at this point.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous! This is a company that has
been shopping around New York City since March of this year trying to raise
capital to cover the debts in the company. This is a company that in the last
two days have been in the national media, possibly going to claim bankruptcy.
I ask the minister: Have you and your government even looked at the contract
agreement that exists between the union workers and this company to ensure that
there is protection there for these workers if this is to happen?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that Abitibi is out doing what
it can to ensure the stability of its operations, and I hope they continue to do
that. That is exactly what we want to see them doing.
In terms of us ensuring as a government the kinds of things that are being
done to protect our rights as a Province and the rights of the employees, as I
have said already, we have had many discussions with the union leadership out
there. We have identified things that are of importance to the union leadership
and important to their employees. We jointly are looking at the impact of those
kinds of things. That is the kind of work that the people of Grand Falls-Windsor
and region, the kind of work that the people involved with the unions want us to
be involved with, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, every day this week we have raised issues in the
House around the economy, and getting updates on the economy. Yesterday we asked
the minister questions about the mining sector; yet, there was no indication of
layoffs that were coming in Duck Pond Mine. Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister
again did not know about it until her phone rang, but we know there were layoffs
yesterday at Duck Pond.
I ask the minister today to give us an indication as to whether there will be
more layoffs at Duck Pond and what the long-term plan is for that operation in
Central Newfoundland.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, there were seventeen full-time positions, as I
understand, people who were laid off yesterday, six part-time. We have had
discussions with the manger of Duck Pond Mine. That is all that they expect to
happen right now.
As I have indicated earlier, there are challenges in the global economy,
there are challenges in terms of the market prices for some of the minerals and
some of the natural resources that are being produced in some of these mines,
and there have to be adjustments made by the management of the companies to
compensate for that. We have still 240-250 people working in Duck Pond, a very
healthy workforce, a very healthy mine, and we expect that to continue.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday we asked about IOC and if there were any additional layoffs or any
additional downscaling or downsizing plan for that particular company. The
minister said she would talk to the officials in IOC yesterday afternoon.
I would like to ask for an update on what the plan is for Labrador City's
operations.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, the minister did, in fact, speak to Mr. Terry
Bowles at the company. He indicated that what was said by the minister yesterday
basically is what he reiterated to her. He also indicated that there is a board
meeting happening today in Montreal.
When asked whether or not he felt there would be any further changes to the
company's plans, whether it be any further disruptions, he indicated that no,
he did not think there would be. So we are expecting that the information that
was presented by the minister yesterday is still the current information.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We all know that in Labrador West right now there is a very serious situation
with the closure of Wabush Mines being forecasted, and the downsizing and the
suspension of expansion plans at IOC.
Yesterday, I asked the minister if she was prepared to look at a task force
to work with that region of the Province, to look at future alternative in
industry. She said she was not asked, which I thought was a very lame excuse,
but I will ask again today: Have you reconsidered? Is there an opportunity that
will see some interest taken in Western Labrador and some action on behalf of
the government?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and
Employment.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to report that, as of the last two days, we have been in contact
with the union representatives in those areas. We have offered them the support
of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. We have laid down some strategies for
them already in terms of a suite of labour market opportunities that we hope to
be able to work out. We have also addressed some issues with them in terms of
financial pieces, in terms of how they might be able to understand their options
in the next coming weeks, and how they can best prepare for what will happen in
their case.
We are very excited about being able to reach out and, in fact, what we heard
back from the union representatives in both of those areas was that they were
extremely happy with the fact that we had made contact with them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Training or retraining is not going to be the entire answer, I say to you,
Minister, for all of the problems that are existing in Western Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS JONES: When we got the news on AbititiBowater
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, when the news came on AbititiBowater there was no
less than five or six Cabinet ministers on the way to Central Newfoundland, and
so it should be.
I ask: When is the same attention going to paid to Western Labrador? In the
last two weeks, I am not aware that there was even a minister who went in there
to meet with the groups, to meet with the organizations, to meet with the
leadership, and to start putting in place plans to deal with the problems that
exist in that area. When is that going to happen?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, the response in Grand
Falls-Windsor was in response to AbititiBowater indicating that they were
closing down an operation. The response in Labrador West is an adjustment that
is being made; a temporary adjustment is what we expect it to be. Should we feel
that we need to make a move to go up and support the people there, we will
certainly engage in that process. Right now, as been indicated by my colleague,
we have reached out to them, to involve ourselves with them. If we feel, and if
they feel, that we need to have more engagement with them, we would be certainly
happy to do that; but, as I understand it, the response that we have had as a
government to date has been deemed appropriate and we are happy with that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Closing down a mine and laying off 160 workers is not a
temporary interruption, I don't think, Minister.
Let me ask you this. There has been a proposed new hospital on the table for
a number of years in Labrador West, and an infrastructure project for the
college. We have seen very little or nothing happening around those
infrastructure projects.
I ask the government today: Are you prepared to fast-track those projects,
get that infrastructure going, so that we can at least see some employment being
created in that area?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, and I think as most people
in Newfoundland and Labrador know, we laid out, back about three years ago, a
very ambitious infrastructure strategy for the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador.
As the member just indicated, two components of that were a new College of
the North Atlantic facility in Labrador West, and a new hospital. Both of those
initiatives are proceeding, Mr. Speaker. The design work is essentially
completed on the college. We will be preparing tender documents shortly. We will
be going to tender late this winter or early spring on the College of the North
Atlantic.
The member knows, and the people in Labrador West know, there were some
delays as a result of the planned expansion by IOC, and concerns about vibration
due to blasting operations in Labrador West, and the effect that might have on
these facilities. That caused us some delay in the planning, because if you do
not know where your building is going it is a little bit difficult to plan the
foundations, Mr. Speaker, as you know.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.
MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that the design
work, the conceptual work, conceptual design work, should be completed by late
January on the hospital, and we will be moving forward with site work and laying
in sewer and water pipes come (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
They might have had a three-year plan, but in three years all they have in
Labrador West is a $1 million hole in the ground where there is supposed to be a
hospital, I say to you, Minister.
Now, is there a way to fast-track the infrastructure projects for Western
Labrador so that we can see some activity taking place up there as soon as
possible when spring breaks?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I can say this: there might only be a $1 million
hole in the ground in Labrador West, but that is a long ways ahead of where it
was under the Liberal Administration, with a hospital that was falling down, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, the people of Labrador West
have had a lot stronger commitment on the infrastructure side from this
government than they had from the previous government that was sitting here five
years ago.
If the people on that side of the House, who were here five years ago, were
that committed to Labrador West and thought there was such a need to have
something done over there, then why didn't they have the plans put in place
for a new college and a new hospital while they were here, Mr. Speaker?
We understood there was a problem in Labrador West. We are moving
aggressively forward on our infrastructure strategy. We have the design work
being done on the hospital and the college. I have said we are moving forward
with tender documents right now on the college, and as soon as we can move
forward with the hospital and as fast as we can move forward with the tendering
on the hospital, Mr. Speaker, we will do that and it will be this coming
(inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Three years we have seen now and they cannot get a contract tendered and get
a job started in Labrador West, but this is the same government that is going to
overheat the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador and will not put more money
into infrastructure.
Well, minister, let me ask you this question. A few days ago in the House of
Assembly I asked your government to give us a breakdown of what infrastructure
projects were actually completed in the Province last year, based on your
budget. I was not given the information. So I ask you again today: Give us a
breakdown of the infrastructure projects and the funding that was announced in
the budget last year that did not go forward in Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will endeavour to get the information that the member has requested. I
certainly did not hear her ask for that information before. Obviously, I had her
tuned out right at about that point, I guess, Mr. Speaker, but I just heard her
then. I will endeavour to get that information provided to the House at the
earliest possible opportunity.
I will say this, Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Minister of Finance met two
days ago, I believe it was, with some of the leading business people in
Newfoundland and Labrador, people like Mr. Ches Penney, people like Albert
Williams, Mr. Speaker, people who are involved in heavy construction and not
only in Newfoundland and Labrador but across this country, Mr. Speaker. They
clearly told the Premier and the Minister of Finance and this government that
the infrastructure strategy that we laid out three years ago is working, to stay
the course, to proceed as we had planned, not to increase our infrastructure
spending over and above what we have already identified, Mr. Speaker, because
the capacity does not exist in this Province to handle any more
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: I say to the minister, that is little comfort for the 2,000
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in this Province today who are going into the
New Year without a job, I say to you, minister. That is a great deal of comfort
for them.
Let me ask the minister this. They are on top of all the files, they know
everything that is going on in the industry sector, or at least they do after
the phone rings in the minister's office and someone tells her. Maybe they can
give me an update with regard to two other iron ore projects in Labrador, the
Labrador Iron Mines Holdings and LabMag Iron Ore Project and give me an update
of what is going on with those projects?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural
Development.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SKINNER: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to find out that information
for the hon. member and I will report back to the House.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, weather conditions have once again resurrected the debate of
mandatory winter tires in this Province. I know the minister has difficulty
accepting it but experts say that snow tires are made of a special rubber
compound and they are far much better than all-season tires and do indeed help
prevent deadly accidents. The minister promised an analysis on this issue.
I ask the minister: Has your department completed its analysis of the
mandatory tire use in this Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering when the hon. member across the
House would get to the rubber question, because I have been waiting since the
House went in session.
As the minister responsible for highway safety, government in general, people
in general always have the utmost in their minds, the safety of the travelling
public. We have been following the issue in regards to winter driving in Quebec.
They have just introduced mandatory tires there. They have some issues, as I
understand it from my officials, and certainly I have been following different
studies and different trends across the Province, and I say that it is not
conclusive.
Each and every time that I stand, or if I am in the media or I am on Open
Line or whatever the talk show that I might be in, is that and I heard over
the course of the last two weeks in regards to driving conditions in
Newfoundland and Labrador, the police officers, be it the RNC or the RCMP, say
quite categorically that if you do not adjust your driving habits to the
conditions of the roads you will be in the woods, and that is the way it is, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, it was only this week the minister was on his
feet here and he said during his first election there was so much money being
thrown around he got struck in the side of the head with a bundle of money. I
say, Mr. Speaker, he has not gotten over the effects of that yet, to be able to
stay here in this hon. House and say that there is no difference in all-season
tires and snow tires.
I ask the minister, and he just mentioned the Province of Quebec are the
first ones to bring it in. The minister stated earlier this year on CBC that
there was no proof. I ask the minister: What information did he use to make this
judgment?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say before I get into the
answer to his question that he should have been hit by one of the bags of money
that came out of the (inaudible), it might have woke him up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: And that is a fact, because he has been asleep at the wheel
now for a while I would say, and rubber will not do him any good at that, I can
tell you that right now.
I will tell you one thing, in regard to the inconclusive information and
studies thereof in regard to tires and the mandatory use of tires, some seasonal
tires are much, much better in our driving conditions, which is under slush and
rain conditions during our winter. We don't drive entirely on snow, where the
winter tires are entirely for snow. When you understand that, you can take off
your tires one day and put them on the next to drive to the conditions of roads.
I say to the travelling public, drive to the conditions of the road and you will
be safe.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, what a joke! What a joke! Taking the lives of
Newfoundlanders and saying to them, that an all season tire used in this
Province is better than a winter tire.
Mr. Speaker, this year at the Municipalities Convention in Corner Brook, the
Town of Marystown put forth a resolution of mandatory winter tires and it was
passed.
I ask the minister: What consultations has he had with MNL on this issue and
are you taking their representation seriously?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, even though I take everybody's comments into
consideration, even the people who might be on the talk shows or wherever they
may be and have an issue or some type of opinion in regards to use of snow tires
in winter conditions, MNL have made no representation to me and have made no
request for a meeting.
I must also reference that that resolution passed by a very, very narrow,
narrow margin, because most of the mayors understood that they didn't have a
whole lot of information or expertise in that market as well.
What we are relying on, in regard to my department, is studies that have been
happening all across North America and in European markets. We look at those, we
look at the Quebec market, we look at everything out there in every
jurisdiction, and make an informed decision. That is the way we will do it.
I have no intention right now, I tell this House, to bring forward
legislation with regard to mandatory tires.
Again, I advise the travelling public
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the minister said it all, when they have very little information,
because I don't think he has done any research into it.
Recently, Mr. Speaker, a Reid survey which was done from March 27 to April 8
stated, and stated very seriously, and gave a percentage of what snow tires are
used in the various provinces throughout this country. It stated that in
Atlantic Canada 72 per cent of people use snow tires.
I ask the minister: What percentage of that 72 per cent is being used by
residents of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I travel this Province, across the Trans-Canada
Highway, back and forth to Gander, and everywhere else, and I tell you I see a
lot of people driving with winter tires in Newfoundland and Labrador. I can't
give you a percentage but I tell you it is high. People in this Province know
the conditions that we find ourselves in, winter conditions, and they adjust
themselves accordingly.
As well, there are many things that you have to take into consideration in
regard to bringing in mandatory legislation that would give people and certain
sectors of our society problems in regard to their finances, so I have to take
everything into consideration when we are making informed decision with regard
to the use of mandatory tires.
Mr. Speaker, I am open, and if I see studies that show mandatory tires and
winter tires, and the use of winter tires, would keep our travelling public
safe, then (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.
Yesterday, the Premier talked about signed on to a housing program with the
federal government as one of the cornerstones of their new agreement. Well, the
Minister of Aboriginal Affairs administers a housing program for Aboriginal
people in this Province that was signed by the federal government with the
Province nearly three years ago; yet, families in Labrador are not able to
access that money.
My question to you, Minister, is: When are you going to get your act
together, work with the Aboriginal groups, and get the money laid out for the
families in Labrador who need this housing money to do their houses this year?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS POTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to correct the Opposition, it is actually Newfoundland and Labrador
Housing that administers that program, not Aboriginal Affairs, but I am pleased
to say that we have worked with the Aboriginal groups, we have sat in on the
meetings with them, and they are very happy how this is progressing.
From what I understand, and I asked for an update to come forward tomorrow as
to the status of the documentation, they are preparing to finalize this. As we
mentioned in the press release earlier this fall, they are hoping to have that
rolled out in the new year.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in the financial update this week, the Finance Minister announced
that he will be using all of the $1.27 billion expected surplus
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask members for their co-operation.
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not know if the Finance Minister heard me, but when he announced this
week that
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
For the final time, I ask members for their co-operation.
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am now going to shorten my question thanks to the colleagues in the room.
I am asking the Finance Minister: Will you take some of the money that you
are paying down on the debt and use that money that you are planning to use
totally on the debt, by helping citizens like disabled persons, people who are
sick, chronically ill, elderly, and remove the provincial part of the HST from
home care so that they can be better off and better afford the home care that
they require?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is obvious that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi does not understand the
way the budgeting process works. We will not know the surplus until the end of
the year, and then the year is over. At that point, if we have a surplus, it
goes towards the debt. By paying off the debt it opens up monies that we can
then utilize, and we can borrow for the programs as outlined in our fiscal
update and in our programmings that are ongoing.
Last year, we spent $2.3 billion on health care and $1.7 billion on education
so that approximately 56 per cent of our Budget went towards health and
education.
I can say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that she is not the only
one who cares about the poor and the disabled. She can stand up there and preach
to us, but we care and we are doing what we have to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
I asked a question. I did not preach, or anything else. I asked a question, and
I want my questions recognized.
I understand budgets, too, and I understand that surpluses do not dance over
from one side to the other.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: I have another question: Are you going to plan your Budget
for 2009-2010 so that people who are paying for home care do not have to pay
taxation on the home care that they require? Answer that one.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury
Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my understanding that the HST, the primary responsibility for that,
rests with the federal government. What we are doing, by brining in can I
answer your question?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. KENNEDY: Can I answer your question? Do you want the question
answered?
It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that primarily the issue on the HST
rests with the federal government. However, what we are doing, we have a $100
million Poverty Reduction Strategy which was referred to the other day. We have
our monies going into health and education. We just announced a home heating
rebate. We are acutely aware of the difficulty that people have in this
Province, and we spend our money and our time addressing these issues.
What we are trying to do is better this Province and ensure sustainability in
the future, not like some governments have done in the past.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
The Province does have control of the provincial portion; they could make the
changes.
Another group that requires help is students who are carrying heavy debts.
The Canadian Federation of Students has been asking for zero interest payment by
students, no interest on student loans, so I am asking the Speaker: Can the
students in this Province look forward to a Budget in 2009-2010 that will
eliminate the provincial interest portion on student loans?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared here today to be making any
pre-Budget announcements to say what is going to be in the Budget, but what I
can say is this government has looked at the problem of student debt. We see it
as a very serious problem and we have taken some real concrete action over the
years to ensure that we acknowledge that issue.
Mr. Speaker, since we have been in government, and for this mandate, we have
indicated that tuition will be frozen at both the College of the North Atlantic
and Memorial University, and that requires a significant increase in our funding
to post-secondary to allow us to do that.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing that we have done is, we have brought back
up-front, needs-based grants to students who apply for student loans. The other
thing we have done, Mr. Speaker, is we have rolled back the interest rates on
student loans from prime plus two-and-a-half back to prime. We are the only
province to have done that, Mr. Speaker.
I would love to be able to finish (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Before I move into further proceedings, I would like to
inform hon. members - and I think everybody here knows - that it is certainly
inappropriate and certainly unparliamentary to refer to a member's absence or
their presence in the House of Assembly.
I ask members to be guided accordingly.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) should apologize.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I appreciate your comment, Mr. Speaker, and I -
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order?
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MS JONES: The Member for Lake Melville referred to me leaving the House
the other night when he was up talking.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: I was just going to comment, Mr. Speaker, in
reference to your commentary, some members opposite were shouting about an
apology being required. I did discuss it with the Leader of the Opposition. She
was not aware of the rule about referring to members being absent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I
shall move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, December 15, 2008.
Further, I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that the
House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, December 15, 2008.
MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motions?
The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Consolidate The Law Respecting Revenue Administration. (Bill
74)
MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motions?
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 Respecting The Practice Of Engineering And
Geoscience. (Bill 73).
MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I was not going to get up today but one of my hon. colleagues said yesterday
that I was over there chirping away, so I will get up and chirp another little
bit today, Mr. Speaker
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what the Premier had to say after he
met with the business community. He said this government would proceed - he
would listen to their advice and he would proceed with sensible plans, costed
projects. I stand here today, Mr. Speaker, to say to all hon. colleagues, that
the long-term care facility for Conception Bay North is just that.
Mr. Speaker, we all know the situation in the Conception Bay North area, the
proposal that went forward for a 210 bed facility, and the people of that area
are concerned about this. The Mayor of Carbonear has spoken out in favour of it,
and to professionals in the field. We know that the Department of Health and
Community Services last year put forth a recommendation for $1 million to have
that project proceed, but it was rejected, Mr. Speaker.
I am calling on the Premier. We know that the budget will be coming down
fairly soon, and consultations with the budget. I know my hon. colleague, the
Minister of Health and Community Services is only too glad to put that same
proposal forward again this year, and I am asking government and through the
Premier, that they would reconsider the decision that they made last year for
whatever reasons that that project would not proceed.
So Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of all the districts in the
Conception Bay North area, I ask that government would reconsider a long-term
care facility for the Conception Bay North area.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?
Orders of the Day.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of
Transportation and Works, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Mineral Act. (Bill 62)
I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To Amend
The Mineral Act, Bill 62, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to
introduce Bill 62 and that this bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill,
"An Act To Amend The Mineral Act," carried. (Bill 62)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Mineral Act. (Bill 62)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time.
When shall this bill be read a second time?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow?
On motion, Bill 62 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of
Transportation and Works, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Establish The Newfoundland And Labrador Research And Development Council, Bill
70, and I further move that the said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act
To Establish The Newfoundland And Labrador Research And Development Council,
Bill 70, and that the said bill be now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the said minister shall have leave to
introduce Bill 70 and that this bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works to introduce a
bill, "An Act To Establish The Newfoundland And Labrador Research And
Development Council," carried. (Bill 70)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Establish The Newfoundland And Labrador Research
And Development Council. (Bill 70)
MR. SPEAKER: Bill 70 has now been read a first time.
When shall this bill be referred for second reading? Now? Tomorrow?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow.
On motion, Bill 70 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Tourism,
Culture and Recreation, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act To
Amend The Rooms Act, No. 2, Bill 71, and I further move that the said bill be
now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is properly moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister
of Tourism, Culture and Recreation shall have leave to introduce a bill
entitled,
An Act To Amend The Rooms Act, No. 2, Bill 71, and that this bill be
now read a first time.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 71 be now read a first time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce
a bill, "An Act To Amend The Rooms Act, No. 2," carried. (Bill 71)
CLERK: A bill,
An Act To Amend The Rooms Act, No. 2. (Bill 71)
MR. SPEAKER:
An Act To Amend The Rooms Act, No. 2, Bill 71, has now been
read a first time. When shall this bill be referred for second reading?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow?
On motion, Bill 71 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Tourism,
Culture and Recreation, to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,
An Act
Respecting Certified General Accountants, Bill 72, and I further move that the
said bill be now read a first time.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved by the hon. the Government House Leader to have
leave to introduce a bill entitled, An
Act Respecting Certified General Accountants (Bill 72), and that this bill
be now read a first time.
Shall the hon. minister have leave to introduce Bill 72, and that the said
bill be now read a first time?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
The motion is carried.
Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, "An
Act Respecting Certified General Accountants," carried. (Bill 72)
MR. SPEAKER: When shall this bill be referred for second reading?
MS BURKE: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.
CLERK: A bill,
An Act Respecting Certified General Accountants. (Bill 72)
MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker is getting too eager.
On motion, Bill 72 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, from the Order Paper, 26, second reading of a
bill,
An Act To Amend The Rooms Act. (Bill 64)
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
It is moved and seconded that Bill 64,
An Act To Amend The Rooms Act, be now
read a second time.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Rooms Act."
(Bill 64)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce amendments to the Rooms Act, Bill 64.
In essence, Mr. Speaker, this is the next step following the amendments to Bill
Really, Mr. Speaker, what this is speaking about is just as I have said. As
my colleague, Minister Kennedy, spoke in Bill 63 with respect to the Management
of Information Act, it involves moving the mandate for the public records
committee, which is to renamed the government record committee, from the Rooms
Act to the Management of Information Act.
Really, Mr. Speaker, this just makes sense. What is happening is that
government is attempting to co-ordinate the consolidation of information under
one body, that being the Office of the Chief Information Officer. As such, what
we will be doing is moving records that are currently in The Rooms, and under
the Rooms Act, we will moving them now under the Management of Information Act.
Mr. Speaker, there is not much more than that, that I can say, so I look
forward to debate on Bill 64.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity just to have a few brief comments with respect to
Bill 64. As indicated the other day, there are two bills there, actually, the
management bill which was Bill 63 and this one which was Bill 64, and they are
companion pieces because
definitions are being changed in one which necessitate
the change of
definitions of another in order to make the two pieces of
legislation properly mesh.
The major concern, I noticed the news media carried stories on it not only
today but the televised media carried stories on it, I believe, in both
newscasts yesterday and the day before, particularly Tuesday evening when we
debated Bill 63 here. That concerns the issue of the definition being given to
Cabinet documents, a very expansive definition here, and it comes down, I guess,
to the spirit in which government, once they pass this, intends to view that
definition.
Now, it is pretty obvious that this is a pretty cloak-and-dagger government.
What is not under the blanket gets hauled under the blanket as quickly as you
can and, with very little assistance from the government in terms of openness
and accountability, there is very little chance of getting it back out. That is
pretty obvious. The Leader of the NDP has also spoken about this issue at
length, about the definition of Cabinet documents.
If you just look at the definition, again, there are two pieces to this. One
is to make the definition. The issue then becomes how the government administers
and implements and looks at the application of that definition in the future.
You might easily come in here today and say: Oh, this is only a small piece
of legislation. This is no big deal. This is housekeeping stuff. We just changed
the definition a little bit.
Unfortunately, it is the application or the spirit in which government
operates within that definition that later determines its impact. For example,
if government wants to be secret and you want to keep stuff from the public
view, you do not want to have to disclose it, you simply expand the definition.
If you look at this one here - and I said the other day to the Minister of
Finance, I cannot think of very much, after this goes through - I can't think
of hardly anything - that is not going to be arguably a Cabinet document, a
Cabinet confidence.
I will give you an example. The definition has about eight or ten different
parts to it eight. A Cabinet record is going to include a memorandum, the
purpose of which is to present proposals or recommendations to Cabinet. Okay,
that seems fairly straightforward. That would obviously be a Cabinet record. A
discussion paper, policy analysis, proposal, advice or briefing material,
including all factual background material prepared for Cabinet. Now, where does
that end? For example, if someone at the university initiates a discussion paper
that finds its way into the government, who considers it as part of a proposal
eight or ten months out, does that mean nobody can ever access that piece of
information because now we are going to put it under this all-encompassing
umbrella called a Cabinet record?
Part (iii), "an agenda, minute or other record of Cabinet recording
deliberations..."- I have no problem with that one. That has been very
straightforward. Anything that happens in the Cabinet room is deemed to be a
Cabinet record. I have no problem with that.
"is used for or reflects communications or discussions among
ministers on matters relating to the making of government decisions or the
formulation of government policy." Now, that is a pretty tricky one. We
need only go back to the Cameron inquiry of this year to see how that would have
impacted all the e-mails that got released, or I should say, didn't get
released. You can use this here. Basically, Cabinets on a go-forward basis are
going to be able to say: we don't have to release any of those things. Can you
imagine if the Cameron inquiry could have done a thorough, proper, effective
job, if they hadn't gotten their hands on some of those e-mails? Obviously, it
wouldn't have been able to do an effective job at all.
Now, by passing this piece of legislation, government is going to be able to
cloak and dagger all of this. There is not going to be one future e-mail, I
would suggest, that people are going to try to get out of this government if
the government doesn't want it out they will say: that is a Cabinet record,
because it was used for or reflects communications. Pretty broad and pretty
expansive.
I don't know if we even need to have an ATIPP Act anymore when it comes to
certainly communications in the Executive Council Office, because under that
section or subsection you can pretty well hide anything away.
"is created for or by a minister for the purpose of briefing that
minister" That might be fair ball. If you prepare it to brief a minister
in going to Cabinet I can see where that one would make sense. You know, it hasn't
become policy and it was probably just put out for the purposes of discussion or
whatever. You might be able to justify that one, that, no, ministers shouldn't
have to disclose that one later on. Because no decision was made, it was
prepared for a briefing purpose, therefore you could probably justify that one.
"is created during the process of developing or preparing a
submission for Cabinet"- again, pretty broad. Somebody in the Health Care
Authority or the School Board Authority or wherever, sends an e-mail to someone
that might be a piece of information that subsequently ends up being a new
policy on water sewer or a new policy on health care. All of the sudden, when
you go back and say, well, we want to know the background on this, who said what
to whom and when, you cannot get it, because the big veil of secrecy comes down
again and they say, no, no, no, no, under the provisions regarding Cabinet
records, we cannot give you that. So do not go making any ATIPP requests or
whatever because you are not going to get it. Then they say the other one is
draft legislation or a draft regulation. I do not have any problem with that
one, either. Government is drafting something. In other words, it is not the law
and it only reflects what you believe that law or regulation should be at a
given point, and they are subject to making changes to it. So that is not really
unreasonable, I would not think.
Contains information about the contents of a record, within a class of
information referred to in subparagraphs (
i) to (vii). So that is pretty broad.
In other words, if we have not captured it in the first seven, anything we
forgot to include in the first seven we are going to capture it now by this
subclause (viii).
So it is pretty clear that, albeit, the intent here is to talk about the
management of government information, who does it, i.e.: should it be The Rooms,
or should it be the information office? It also will, as a result of these two
bills, 63 and 64, it has expanded the definition of Cabinet records. Therein
lies the issue, because these two pieces of legislation become law, we think it
had to do about information management generally. We think it had to do about
The Rooms. I alluded the other day to the situation where a bunch of documents
that were going to be shredded had been shipped off to a company from The Rooms,
and they went to shred them.
It is pretty clear that and I wanted to be on the record for this,
because we will not know today, we will not know tomorrow, probably even next
month, what the impact of this change is going to be but history will reshow and
history will reflect how, not only this government, but governments of the
future interpret that particular definition of a Cabinet record. So, I think it
is only time will show where it goes, and that will depend upon the spirit and
the intent of how this and future governments decide to use that particular
definition.
I do not have anything further to say with regards to 64, Mr. Speaker, other
than that particular reference to Cabinet records.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to be able to speak to Bill 64 because it does connect to Bill 63,
under which I had a number of concerns to express, and they come up again here.
Now my colleague from the Official Opposition has probably made reference to
most of the things I was going to make reference to but I want to put my
comments on record because I think it is important to do so.
As I expressed with regard to Bill 63, and I am now saying the same thing
with regard to Bill 64, we see government using the opportunity of amending
these two bills to do something which I do not think was called for, and that is
to introduce a definition of Cabinet record which is not going to stand alone in
the bill in which it finds itself, because both of these bills, Bill 63 and Bill
64, are going to become part of acts that will have to interact with the Access
to Information Act. There is no doubt about it, that there is an
interrelationship.
So one has to ask: What was the government's motive? I cannot attribute
motives and I cannot say what it was but I can ask the question, and I would
hope the minister will give some clarification. What was the government's
motive and what was its thinking, and what was its purpose, motive, thinking and
purpose, in coming up with a definition for Cabinet records that goes way beyond
the definition that we find in the Access to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act?
I, once again - in case people who are watching us were not watching when we
discussed Bill 63, I read this then but I am going to do it again. The
definition in the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act defines
Cabinet confidences. Now here it is called Cabinet records in the bill we are
dealing with today, Bill 64. In the ATIPP Act it is called Cabinet confidences.
It says: "The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose to an
applicant information that would reveal the substance of deliberations of
Cabinet including advice, recommendations, policy considerations or draft
legislation or regulations submitted or prepared for submission to the
Cabinet."
Now that definition in the ATIPP Act relates directly to material that is the
substance of discussion in Cabinet. It does not refer to material that is six
and seven degrees away from Cabinet. It does not refer to discussions inside of
our health authorities or inside of school boards where they are talking about
issues that are eventually going to get to Cabinet but it is their discussions
around them. It does not refer to communications, maybe e-mail communications of
potential discussions that may lead to something that is going to Cabinet. I
really see this definition with these eight sections that I am not going to go
over again because the Opposition House Leader went over them, and went over
them well, and said, actually, what I would have said. So I will not go over
them again, but to point out that the details that are in the definition in this
act, to me, smack of a government trying to control information. I find that
very objectionable and I am very, very concerned. You have to look at, how will
- what is in this bill - it be interpreted, not just in the present but also in
the future. This is leading the way for an
interpretation that would mean that
some of the most innocuous, what would appear to be innocuous pieces of
communication would be covered.
I have said publicly outside of this House, and I will say it again, that I
think it will stand in the way of potential investigations down the road when we
might have a major adverse event happen in our Province again and it is
important, like we had with the ER-PR testing, and a commission may have to be
set up again. It is important for a commissioner to be able to figure out how in
the whole system that is relating to the adverse event, how things were dealt
with. I will tell you, this new definition of Cabinet records is going to keep
an awful lot of information out of the hands of a commissioner, and I have a
real problem with that. I do not know where it fits in this government's
agenda, or its stated agenda, of being a government that is accountable and
transparent. I find it very, very problematic.
I will not be voting for this bill because of the definition on Cabinet
records. Other things in the bill, I absolutely agree with. Things that are in
the bill, they are logical, they are sensible and they are part of things that
are going on now across the country with regard to management of information and
management of government records.
I particularly like, for example,
section 25.1 of the bill which talks about
destruction prohibition. "A person shall not, except with the written
consent of the director and the approval of the chief executive officer, the
board of directors and the minister, remove, dispose of or destroy archival
records." A very, very important point because the destruction of archival
records is serious when it comes to historical documentation. So while there are
things in the bill that I think are absolutely essential, and I like the way in
which Bill 63 and Bill 64 separate out from the Rooms Act currently, stuff that
should be in the Management Of Information Act, and I am positive about that, I
cannot agree with the definition of Cabinet records as in this bill.
Like I said, I asked the minister two days ago, with regard to the definition
as it was found in Bill 63, so I will ask it again: Why did the government
choose to do this and not just use the definition that is already in a prior
act, in the ATIPP Act?
That is my question for the minister. I hope I get an answer. If the answer
is not satisfactory, or even if it is, I still cannot agree with the definition
and I will be voting against the bill.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Finance and President
of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the hon. members for their comments, but I would like to distinguish
the difference between this act, the Management of Information Act, and the
ATIPP Act, or the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
What we have, Mr. Speaker, is
an act here, as I outlined the other day, that
deals with, as its title says, the management of information. It is an attempt
to take information that is out there in government in two separate sources and
to streamline it so that is looked after and stored by the Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
Essentially, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here, we are looking at the
definitions of some records: public record, government record, et cetera.
Section 18 of the ATIPP Act is a more vague definition, Mr. Speaker, and that
deals with, if we go back to the reason for the ATIPP Act, or the Access to
Information and Protection of Privacy Act, is to allow for individuals to access
information that affects themselves but that can affect the workings of
government, to put it another way.
Essentially, Mr. Speaker, you have to look at the two acts, what they do, and
juxtapose the
definitions of Cabinet records in the same, and you can see that
there is really much ado about nothing. What we have here, the Management of
Information Act defines Cabinet records as that term is used in Cabinet
Secretariat and as it is used in government.
Mr. Speaker, at least two of the members of the Official Opposition and the
third party have been in Cabinet, so they are aware of the process that takes
place. The process of creating a Cabinet document just does not start one day
where you get down and you write your Cabinet paper or your cabinet document. It
starts, Mr. Speaker, with an idea. Like so many other things in law, it begins
with a process where a minister, or someone in the department, says we should
look at or Cabinet says we should look at - this. How would this work? Then
there is research conducted.
When you look at, Mr. Speaker, for example, what takes place in Justice, we
have a situation where you could be dealing with a piece of legislation, for
example, affecting the Provincial Court Act the other day. Someone looks at
that and says we have to make a change to this act. This act is not consistent
with other acts. It does not read the way that we want it to read. There is
ambiguity or vagueness. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the principles of statutory
interpretation have to be looked at.
It goes from there, where there can be a note of some sort prepared.
Obviously the advice given to a minister has to be documented, because
oftentimes the minister will then take that document whatever form that
document may take and form his or her own opinion. Then the process will
continue, Mr. Speaker, through various committees, through various discussions,
until it reaches the Cabinet table. It is not a matter, then, that that
particular paper essentially just appeared by magic. A lot of work went into it.
A lot of work from various people went into that, Mr. Speaker.
What this document does, or what this act does with this amendment, would be
to allow for the types of documents that we are looking at in Cabinet records. I
see nothing nefarious about this. I do not see any conspiracies here, Mr.
Speaker. I simply see
an act that deals with the storage and maintaining of
information that may be important in subsequent days.
What we have is: memorandums; discussion papers, policy analysis, proposal,
advice or briefing material; agenda, minute or other record of Cabinet; is used
for or reflects communications or discussions among ministers or matters
relating to the making of government decisions; is created for or by a minister
for the purpose of briefing that minister on a matter for Cabinet; is created
during the process of developing or preparing a submission for Cabinet; is draft
legislation or a draft regulation.
What we have, Mr. Speaker, is simply a situation here where this kind of
documentation will now be looked after by the Office of the Chief Information
Officer. How, Mr. Speaker, that becomes a government conspiracy, as some
journalists would think, to protect information, is somewhat beyond me, I have
to say.
We have a government to run, Mr. Speaker. The Supreme Court of Canada, in a
number of different decisions over the years, and other courts, have recognized
the importance of Cabinet privilege, Cabinet secrecy. It is one of the
principles upon which our system works. Deliberations have to be able to take
place in an environment that allows for us to make the decisions needed without
making them public.
So, personally, although some of my - I am not saying that the Access to
Information Act needs to be changed, but I would suggest that
section 18 of the
Access to Information Act is too vague. "The head of a public body shall
refuse to disclose to an applicant information that would reveal the substance
of deliberations of Cabinet, including advice, recommendations, policy
considerations or draft legislation or regulations".
Now, the only lawyer on the other side that I am aware of is the Opposition
House Leader, and what I found with the Opposition House Leader is that he
interprets things as he wants to interpret them; but, when you are looking at a
piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, there are rules that you apply. You apply one
rule that is called the mischief rule. What is the intent of this legislation?
What is it meant to protect? You apply an
interpretation, Mr. Speaker, that in
some instances is a large or liberal
interpretation. There are books written,
Driedger, on the
interpretation of statutes.
When you are drafting a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, the courts have
said one of the things you should look at is circumscribing as best as possible,
or outlining as best as possible, the criteria that apply. Ambiguity in a
statute causes difficulty, because ambiguity allows for
interpretation. So,
again, what is the intent of the Legislature? What is the intent of the
Legislature as we deal with this piece of legislation? To store Cabinet records.
Where is the conspiracy? Where do the front-page stories come? Where does the
Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I say, get off making front-page stories out
of something that is as innocuous as a paper like this?
What it is, Mr. Speaker, is a lack and, I would suggest, a fatal lack, of
understanding how government works but how would she know how government
works? She sits there by herself. She has no one to consult with. I haven't
heard her complain about resources. Apparently, she must have enough. So, she
sees shadows; she sees ghosts where ghosts don't exist. This is very
straightforward.
The Opposition House Leader, however, I would take issue with his comments
because he should know better, Mr. Speaker. Being legally trained, I am assuming
he practiced law. Well, he did practice law. I should say I don't know how
well he practiced law. In any event, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the
interpretation of a statute, how that Opposition House Leader can stand in this
Legislature today, how he can stand here today and make these kinds of comments
is beyond me, but I guess what it is, is politics. I guess what it is, is
feeding into the media with their front-page stories on Saturday. I guess what
it is, Mr. Speaker, is feeding into their political agenda, that we are not open
and accountable.
We have nothing to hide. In this particular government, Mr. Speaker, I remind
the public: Who called the Cameron inquiry? This government. It is strange, Mr.
Speaker, if you have things to hide, that you go and call the very inquiry that
you are using to discover the truth; because that is the purpose of an inquiry,
to discover the truth. Mr. Speaker, I can give you an example.
I, the other day, had to get my assistant in to look at my e-mail. I had
10,564 e-mails on my computer since I came into government. Do you know why, Mr.
Speaker? Because I am afraid to delete any. Even something from my wife saying,
what are we doing for supper? I said, that could be important to the Opposition;
that could be the subject of an inquiry. Where was the minister when he should
have been doing his work? He was e-mailing his wife about supper.
What it is, Mr. Speaker, there is a heightened sensitivity in this government
to the importance of maintaining information. We want the truth to come out
there. So, if you are going to attack us, if the Opposition is going to attack
us, do not attack us on everything. Do not make spurious allegations. Do not see
nefarious conspiracies where they do not exist. This is simply a housekeeping
matter. It is very simple; we are going to manage information. What information
are we going to manage? Cabinet records. What are Cabinet records? It starts,
and this is the process.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to talk about ATIPP for a second, to show or to
distinguish between the importance of ATIPP as it relates to protection of
private information. I read this, Mr. Speaker, "The head of a public body
shall" mandatory shall "refuse to disclose to an applicant
information that would reveal the substance of deliberations of Cabinet".
Now, the deliberations of Cabinet do not take place in a vacuum, as I have
indicated, Mr. Speaker. There is a process. It may start with the germ of an
idea. It may start with a question that is raised in this House. It may start as
we are I was going to say arguing among each other, but that is not a way to
put it as we are having discussions, very mature discussions among Cabinet
colleagues, as to how we are going to approach the governing of this Province.
The substance of deliberations, we could take a very wide definition of that,
and as a lawyer I tend to look at this and say the substance of deliberations
begin with that germ of an idea, with that first piece of paper, whether it be
written on a napkin in a hotel in Ottawa or a note to the minister himself. So I
keep my napkins, too, when I go away now, when I go to Ottawa. If I write
something down, I have to keep them also. It is hard to get them scanned into
the computer but the point, while being somewhat facetious, the point I am
trying to make is that we are acutely aware of the importance of maintaining all
information because we have nothing to hide.
Now, the substance of deliberations, "including advice,
recommendations, policy considerations or draft legislation". Now, if we
applied this definition of ATIPP, as some lawyers could argue it should be
applied, the Opposition would not get anything, and the media would not get
anything, when it comes to Cabinet deliberations.
The intent of the Legislature is that there should be access to some of this
information. The difficulty is, when you use the mandatory shall in a piece of
legislation, "The head of a public body shall refuse", there should
be very little leeway there for the head of the public body to disclose this
information. Now, in order to disclose that information, you have to take a more
relaxed approach; because when you are looking at a statute you have to look at
the wording. What should be in the statute, I would suggest, to ensure
consistency, would be, under the definition of the substance of deliberations,
what are they?
I can remember, Mr. Speaker, when we were bringing ATIPP in this House and I
looked at some case law on that issue in trying to determine what the substance
of deliberations mean. To me, when you deliberate you make a decision. That is
what Cabinet does, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker. We make decisions. While these
decisions may not always be agreed with, I can assure you that the fourteen,
fifteen, sixteen, seventeen people around that table are making those decisions
in the best interest of the people of this Province, because that is what we do
as a government.
A prime example today, the Speaker raised the issue of someone said, where
are certain people today? Now, Mr. Speaker, what happened today, as a
government, to show you how we think as a government, the Energy Corporation was
unveiled, the Brand was unveiled. That Energy Corporation, thirty years down the
road, will be one of our crowning achievements. That Energy Corporation will be
what will ensure sustainability as we outlined in Budget 2008. We are not
looking for votes tomorrow. We are not doing things that are popular today for
the sake of being popular. We are looking thirty years down the road because we
want to turn that Lower Churchill over to our children and grandchildren and say
you own it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: So, the substance of those deliberations is quite simple.
They are in what we determine to be the best interests of this Province, unlike
the Churchill Falls deal in 1967, I can tell you. I have been looking at some of
that. You want to talk about a process, Mr. Speaker, where politicians had very
little involvement.
I digress somewhat, because I can't find the substance in deliberations
there. I have the Premier of the day, Premier Smallwood, standing up in the
House of Assembly and saying: I never saw the contract. Well, we will never be
accused of that, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: The substance of our deliberations is there and it can be
looked at.
The question is though, Mr. Speaker as we went through the Energy
Corporation we had to deal with the issue, for example, of confidential
information. We have to be able to ensure that sensitive information is not
disclosed. We have to make decisions that at first glance may appear to be
counter to our basic premise of being open and accountable. We have to do these
things to make sure that what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is we are living in a
real commercial world.
"substance of deliberations of Cabinet, including advice,
recommendations, policy considerations or draft legislation" nothing
would ever be disclosed if this definition were applied to its fullest. I,
personally, as a lawyer I say personally, as a lawyer look at Bill 63.
Bill 63 adds clarity. It defines a Cabinet record from the time you have that
germ of an idea, whether it comes in the form of a memorandum, a note or a paper
napkin, it takes that discussion paper and it brings it forward. Now, the intent
of the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, in not utilizing that definition which existed
at the time of Cabinet Secretariat, was to allow for some information to be
provided. However, when I look at the wording of the Act, "The head of a
public body shall refuse..." He shall refuse. Not that he may grant, he or
she; that he shall refuse.
Now, to go on: Subsection (2) says, "Subsection (1) does not apply to
(
a) information in a record that has been in existence for 20 years or
more." Well, that makes sense. Twenty years from now, Mr. Speaker, I can
assure you that the members of the Cabinet and the members of this House will
not mind one bit our Cabinet papers, our deliberations, being shown to the
public. Because, do you know what is going to happen, Mr. Speaker? It is like
the Energy Corporation. People are going to look and say, boy, these guys and
girls, women excuse me, whatever. Be careful! My Cabinet colleagues, Mr.
Speaker, have made decisions in the best interests of this Province and I have
the utmost confidence that those Cabinet confidences will show that what we did
was right, especially when it comes to something like the Energy Corporation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. KENNEDY: Then, Mr. Speaker, "Subsection (1) does not apply to
information in a record of a decision made by the Cabinet on an appeal under an
act." Now, I am not quite certain, Mr. Speaker, about a record of a
decision made by the Cabinet on an appeal under
an act. I do know - and one of
the cases I remember, Mr. Speaker, from reading case law, was a case called
Operation Dismantle. Now, my learned friend - and it is not often I get to use
that term any more - the Minister of Justice, may remember that case a little
bit more than me, but it dealt with disclosure of Cabinet secrecy documents in
relation to, I think, some nuclear issues in Ontario in the 1980s or 1990s. The
Supreme Court of Canada, if I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, recognized the
importance of Cabinets being able to make these decisions. Secrecy and privacy,
Mr. Speaker, there are times when they come into conflict. There is a tension
between the two.
Now, how can a government exist if we do not keep certain things secret? We
have been elected by the public, and there is no obligation on us to consult
with the Opposition before we make decisions. There is no obligation on us to
consult with business people or other people before we make decisions, because,
Mr. Speaker, we have to be able to. We have to be confident in our decisions.
One of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we can be confident in our decisions is
that there is a very basic principle. I can say to the people of this House and
the people of this Province that Cabinet secrecy is very important. The quickest
way out of Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, would be a breach of Cabinet secrecy and that
is why it is so important to all of us. However, we recognize that that tension
that exists between the protection of the information utilized in deliberating
in Cabinet must also be balanced against the public's right to know.
Mr. Speaker, that is a very sensitive area and one that we are very in tune
with, one that we look at and weigh and make certain decisions on. I have to
say, with all due respect to the members opposite, I do not know how they can
impugn the actions we are taking or impute improper motives to us, in simply
bringing in a definition of Cabinet record that appears to me - and some of my
Cabinet colleagues can tell me if I am wrong - but it appears to me to encompass
what a Cabinet record is. I do not see anything in there that would not amount
to a Cabinet record that does not appear in front of us at some point as we make
our decisions, Mr. Speaker. So, it is not factually inaccurate. It is one that
is used by Cabinet Secretariat on an ongoing basis and it is one that is not as
restrictive as the definition used right now.
Perhaps, if the Opposition were arguing that we are somehow or other
affecting ATIPP, if there was any validity to that argument, I might consider
it, but right now, Mr. Speaker, I see the argument put forward as just being
simply frivolous and spurious and one that either lacks understanding in the
process and the legal principles involved in interpreting the legislation or one
that simply is an attempt to deliberately confuse and obfuscate the issues.
I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker, and those will be my comments in relation
to the necessity of this amendment to the Management of Information Act.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. If
he speaks now he shall close debate.
MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, I thank people for their input into Bill 64.
As has been said by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, I thought from the
outset of bringing forward this bill and Bill 63, that it was a matter of
procedural, nothing more than that. When I hear members opposite suggesting that
there is something sinister here, I do not know how to respond to it really, Mr.
Speaker. We as a government are as open as we possibly can be. I think everyone,
or not everyone, the majority of people within the Province and the majority of
people within government, I would suggest, would know that there are decisions
made and there are pieces of information shared that have to be kept
confidential from time to time. If you are about laying out every piece of
information, every piece of negotiation that you are into, I would suggest to
you that at the end of the day you are not going to be all that successful. As
such, as a government you are elected to lead and you do that in an honest and
transparent manner knowing that there are times when you will have to protect
privileged information. This is certainly nothing to do with hiding things.
As I have said from the outset, Mr. Speaker, Bill 64 is really about taking
information that is now contained under The Rooms Act and putting it under the
Office of the Chief Information Officer. We are at a different time and place in
the management of records now, Mr. Speaker, than we were five or ten years ago.
I would suggest also that if you have records that are kept here, there or
everywhere, most people would say to you that it is best that you manage all
that information under one body. As such, that is why the Office of the Chief
Information Officer has been established.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I close debate in Second Reading.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
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 Rooms Act. (Bill 64)
MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time, when shall the
bill be referred to a committee of the Whole House?
Now, tomorrow?
MS BURKE: Now.
MR. SPEAKER: Now.
On motion, Bill 64, "An Act To Amend The Rooms Act," read a second
time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House, presently, by leave.
(Bill 64)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider Bills 38, 53, 59, 63, and 64.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for
the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the said
bills.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Collins): The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, in Committee of the Whole we will call Bill 38.
CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 38.
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 And To Repeal The
Financial Corporations Capital Tax Act." (Bill 38)
CLERK: Clause 1.
CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK: Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive.
CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 5 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 through 5 inclusive carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in
Legislative Session convened as follows.
CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 And To Repeal The
Financial Corporations Capital Tax Act.
CHAIR: Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 53.
CHAIR: We are now prepared to debate Bill 53.
A bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law."
(Bill 53)
CLERK: Clause 1.
CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK: Clauses 2 to 20 inclusive.
CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 20 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
CHAIR: Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 through 20 inclusive carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in
Legislative Session convened as follows.
CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In the Statue Law.
CHAIR: Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 59.
CHAIR: We are now debating Bill 59.
A bill, "An Act To Provide For The Organization And Administration Of
Emergency Services In The Province." (Bill 59)
CLERK: Clause 1.
CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK: Clauses 2 to 31 inclusive.
CHAIR: Shall clauses 2 to 31 inclusive carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clauses 2 through 31 inclusive carried.
CLERK:
Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in
Legislative Session convened as follows.
CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, enacting clause carried.
CLERK:
An Act To Provide For The Organization And Administration Of
Emergency Services In The Province.
CHAIR: Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, title carried.
CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried without amendment?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment,
carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MS BURKE: Mr. Chair, Bill 63.
CHAIR: We are now prepared to debate Bill 63.
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Management Of Information Act." (Bill
63)
CLERK: Clause 1.
CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?
All those in favour, 'aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
CHAIR: All those against, 'nay'.
Carried.
On motion, clause 1 carried.
CLERK: Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive.
CHAIR: Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate an opportunity to have a few comments here in Committee.
Specifically, I noticed you called clauses 2 through 8, I do believe. My
comments are restricted to clause 2, particularly 2(a.2) dealing with Cabinet
records.
Again, I am not certain if I got all of the comments. I notice the Minister
of Finance had a few comments this afternoon again with regards to our being
Opposition, in this case not understanding, or not properly interpreting the
law or the legislation as it pertains to Cabinet documents. I guess the words
that come to mind, first of all, was Shakespeare's words: He doth protest too
much.
He originally started out by saying there is no connection between what we
are doing here and ATIPP, the Information and Privacy Act, and then he turns
around and proceeds to take fifteen or twenty minutes to talk about ATIPP. So,
for something that does not apply, he certainly spent a lot of time talking
about it. He talked about some rules of
interpretation. He mentioned the
mischief rule. I say that is a good choice of words in that particular case
because depending upon how mischievous a government might want to be, we could,
as a people, have a problem when it comes to disclosure or non-disclosure of
information. That is exactly what the whole point is. It is very important, so
do not claim to know everything.
We have not been aggressive on this. We have not been condescending to anyone
in this House when we talked about it. We put forward our complaints and our
concerns about how broad this might be as a piece of legislation. You do not
need to be condescending to anybody because they raise an opinion here and
happen to have an opinion that is different. In fact, I think of all the places
in this Province this is the place where you should be, the ultimate place to be
when you voice your differences of opinion. It does not have anything to do with
your gender. It does not have anything to do with your necessary level of
intelligence or what your opinions might be, but we are allowed to have them,
folks, and you do not deserve to be personally attacked because you do. Some
people here do not understand that yet.
The question is, again, about the definition of Cabinet records. I believe
one of the phrases that the minister used was, he talked about notes on a
napkin. I know he used it as giving an analogy as to what might or might not be
included and become a Cabinet record, but that is the whole point. I use his
words to demonstrate that. How far do we go when we talk about Cabinet records?
Should notes on a napkin be considered a Cabinet record? If we are going to take
it to that very extreme, that notes on a napkin can be considered a Cabinet
document, God forbid if we ever tries to get at anything else that might be
written down or recorded. That is the whole point we are trying to make here.
That it is so comprehensive, it is so all inclusive, that depending upon how
mischievous a government might want to be people, will or will not have access
to information when it comes to, quote, Cabinet records. That is the whole
point.
To get up and say it does not make any sense and you got to trust us. It is
not about trust, folks. We put legislation in place - in fact, I alluded to
earlier, the very ATIPP that we are talking about this minister brought it in
back in 2002. After twenty years we recognized that we did not have a good
access to information piece. We had no legislation dealing with privacy. So, we
decided - and by the way, the Opposition of the day played a major role. Talk
about giving credit. The Opposition of the day - I remember the Member for
Ferryland was very active, the former Speaker, who was the Member for Mount
Pearl was very active. Indeed, the person who is the Premier of this Province
today responded in second reading when I delivered it and raised what he thought
were certain concerns about ATIPP and the fact that he did not think that it
went far enough. It was acknowledged by everybody at the time that it would only
be over the course of time that we would find out whether ATIPP, that we brought
in in 2002, was going to work, not work, had deficiencies, needed to be improved
upon, and so on. That is where we have come from over the last five, six years.
We have had the experience of the Privacy Commissioner. We have had the
experience of people who want to do appeals and people who say: But we disagree
with government, we do not think you are releasing enough information.
Anybody who has lived in this Province, it did not take The Telegram
story of last Saturday to recognize that there is a problem. Now the government
can argue all they want that The Telegram is fear mongering. That The
Telegram is being specious in their arguments, that they should not be
writing such stories. But, folks, it was very, very factual. This member, in
fact, took twenty minutes of a Question Period in the spring sitting to ask
eight or ten ministers of this government - before we adjourned for the spring,
I made a deliberate point of asking eight different ministers: When are we going
to get certain information that has been requested, that you undertook to
release, and has not been released? This is not a figment of anybody's
imagination about the release of documentation. Nobody dreamed it up. We only
need to go back to Hansard to check and see that that took place. We only need
to read The Telegram story to know that there are concerns. So, let's
not kid ourselves. Somebody is going to look back on this government, like every
other government, and make a determination that you either were or were not
open.
So far the verdict that has come in on this government is that you are pretty
secretive, that you hide information, folks. That is the record. It is not the
Opposition speculating that is what it is; those are the facts. We also know,
for example, that we have a backup of appeals in the information office. For
example, the Official Opposition here, we spent over $6000 so far, virtually all
of the budget, just to pay the fees to try to get the information. Now, we have
found out yes, we, the former Administration, brought in the act and brought
in the fee structure, but - folks, it is not working. There is a cost factor
that impedes the getting at the information, and the government, I would submit,
are improperly now using that excuse to say, we cannot give you the information.
That is one of the things and one of the reasons we found out that the former
ATIPP is not working: the existing fee structure makes it too expensive for
people to get at it, including Cabinet confidences. In fact, when you try to get
any information from the Executive Council, which includes all the Cabinet
documentation, that is where the major stumbling block is, the major impediment.
We have gotten pages back, for example, that had the reference on the top of it
saying such-and-such a committee meeting, and every single piece on the page
blacked out. Now, who do you think you are fooling? The public sees that, when
you see the page number and every single line on a thirty-page document is
blacked out. You are not kidding anybody. The Telegram did not fabricate
that story, fabricate that page. That was released by some government agency.
The tenor of The Telegram story was, not only is the act not working
to the best that it could and should, but that Executive Council, in fact, are
interfering in the process. That was not their comment. That was not their
suggestion. That was their outright allegation, and they gave examples of where
the Executive of this government have interfered with the processing and release
of documentation.
Now, I have not seen any minister in this House up this week explaining
factually why The Telegram story is wrong. Government has access to the
information. Government has all kinds of ways to stand up and go out in the
media and say: That is a bad story; you didn't have that right.
In fact, if it is not right, I would think the government had an action for
defamation. If it is not right, then government should be out there saying that,
if you are being condemned and it is not correct.
The Minister of Finance alluded again today, he said: I am going to direct my
comments specifically towards the privacy provisions of ATIPP. I thought it was
a good step in 2002 that we embarked upon protection for privacy, for people's
information that was within the confines of government. Obviously, there is lots
of stuff that is not right about it; it is obvious that we are going to fix it.
We know so many things now that need to be fixed, and I can pretty well
guarantee that on a go-forward basis there is going to be a lot more than needs
to be fixed as time and experience and incidents prove that to be the case. I
don't know them all now but we are going to be back here in the future making
further amendments to ATIPP because we are going to find out about a situation
that is not properly covered off