PDF Version

April

2, 2014

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 12

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we will have members' statements from the

Member for the District of Baie Verte – Springdale; the Member for the District

of Bay of Islands; the Member for the District of St. John's North; the Member

for the District of Mount Pearl South; the Member for the District of Bonavista

South; and the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

The hon. the Member for

Baie Verte – Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He was a tireless community

volunteer. I rise in this hon.

House today to pay tribute to Ming's Bight former Fire Chief, Boyce Mitchell.

Born on April 8, 1951 to

Roland and Alfreda-Mae Mitchell of Woodstock, Boyce married Ella Regular in

1973. Together they raised three

children: Kathy, Penney, and John.

Upon completing high school he worked at the fish plant and then went on to work

with the Department of Transportation.

Later on, he selected

underground mining as a career for which he spent thirty-three years.

Besides a fire chief for thirty-three years, Boyce was also a member of

Baie Verte RCMP Auxiliary and a faithful member of Calvary Pentecostal Church.

A true unselfish volunteer, Boyce mentored many of the Ming's Bight fire

department members. Immense respect

for him was evident at last year's firemen's ball –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. POLLARD:

– as members and community leaders recognized

his outstanding service.

In his leisure time, he

loved to salmon fish, sing, play his guitar, and simply to hang out with family.

Described as a small man with a big heart, Boyce found joy in serving

others.

Honourable members, please

join me in remembering Boyce Sterling Mitchel – forever loved and forever

remembered by family and friends.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of

Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to

recognize Wilfred Bellows of Summerside, who has been selected to represent 4-H

Newfoundland and Labrador at the International 4-H Conference being held in

Washington, DC, from April 4-11.

A level II student at

Templeton Academy in Meadows, Wilfred has been a member of the Summerside 4-H

Rockets since he was five years old.

He has competed locally and provincially in 4-H competitions and has won

various events. He is currently a

member of the 4-H executive and junior leader.

The 4-H youth organization

promotes leadership and life skills, self-reliance and personal development, and

this conference will further enhance leadership skills and abilities while

giving participants an opportunity to gain a better understanding of 4-H in

Canada and the United States.

In addition to the

conference activities, participants will also get an opportunity to tour

Washington and visit some of the nation's famous cultural sites, including

Lincoln Memorial and Capitol Hill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all

members to join me in congratulating Wilfred on his accomplishments and with his

leadership skills; this Province is in safe hands.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to congratulate the

Leary's Brook Junior High Grade 9 boys' basketball team on their outstanding

performance at the 2014 Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games.

The Leary's Brook Eagles

represented St. John's North at the games.

Their head coach was Physical Education teacher, Colleen Hogan, along

with assistant coaches Scott Green and Shawn Gifford, and their manager Theirry

Landu.

In an amazing show of

sportsmanship in the last minute of a round-robin match, the Eagles noted an

opposing player on the host team who had not played before.

They agreed the player should have a chance to score, and passed him the

ball – the opposing player – three times.

He scored on the buzzer with everyone cheering loudly.

A second highlight for the

Eagles was winning the silver medal in the championship game.

This was impressive since no player on the Eagles has played basketball

longer than three years, and some have played for only two years.

I ask all hon. members to

join me in recognizing the skill and sportsmanship of silver medalists from

Leary's Brook: Emanuel Ring, Felly Elonda, Joshua Coombs, Robert Wheaton, Kyle

Williams, Jack Shea, Jordan Pitcher, Thomas Osmond, Jeremy Kakoko, Tyler

Philpott, Mitchel Hand, and Noah Cumby.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my

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

individuals who have made a significant contribution to sport in my community.

Once again, this year's

Mount Pearl Athletic Awards was a tremendous success, which highlighted the

achievements and emphasized the important role that sport has played and

continues to play in the development of youth and adults alike within our great

city.

There were a number of very

worthy nominees again this year nominated in five categories.

Congratulations to this year's winners: Peter Halliday Executive of the

Year award winner, Mr. Ron O'Neil of Mount Pearl Soccer; Coach of the Year, Mr.

Doug Halliday of Mount Pearl Track and Field; Female Athlete of the Year,

Malorie Harris for her accomplishments in the sport of basketball; Male Athlete

of the Year, tremendous hockey and ball hockey player Patrick O'Keefe; and Team

of the Year, the Mount Pearl Masters Soccer Team.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask

all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating these individuals on

this significant accomplishment and wish them all the best in their future

sporting endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise to

recognize Bonavista resident Douglas Strickland, who has devoted his life to

helping others. As a youth, Mr.

Strickland joined the local Sea Cadets, spending many summers training in

Cornwallis, Nova Scotia. He went on

to join the army and was sent to Germany as a peacekeeper during the Korean War.

Douglas has been a member

of the Royal Canadian Legion since 1959, holding such positions as President,

Vice-President, Sergeant-at-Arms, Chaplain, and Parade Marshal.

A few years ago, he received the fifty-year service medal.

Mr. Strickland has been

heavily involved with the Anglican Church ever since he was a young boy.

He has been a Sunday school teacher, a choir member, and a Lay Minister

for thirty years.

Douglas made his career in

health care. Starting as an

orderly, he went back to school to become a Registered Nursing Assistant and a

Plaster of Paris technician. He

continued in these roles for twenty-four years.

Still today, in retirement, Mr. Strickland visits the homes of fellow

community members to aid with home care.

Mr. Speaker, please join me

in honouring Douglas Strickland, a true volunteer and humanitarian, who sets an

excellent example for us all.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de

Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. LITTLEJOHN:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today in this House

to recognize Ms Donna Fowler for her community service and her philanthropy.

Donna owns and operates Kelly's Landing in Bay Roberts – a popular pub.

Through her business, she

has supported and raised thousands of dollars for local teams, organizations,

and charities throughout the years.

Two years ago, after the death of her son-in-law, Dale, Donna began a

fundraising campaign to support the dialysis unit at Carbonear General Hospital.

Through a jail and bail, and with the support of the local fire

department and the RCMP, local residents were arrested and jailed until the

desired funds for their release was raised.

To date, Donna and her team

have raised in excess of $30,000.

This money has fully furnished the dialysis waiting room area and has purchased

a specialized chair for cancer patients at Carbonear General.

Many times, these acts of

philanthropy go unnoticed by the general public and community.

Donna's desire to do good every day is a trait we should all admire and

commend.

I ask all hon. members to

join me in congratulating Ms Donna Fowler for her caring heart.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Environment and

Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS SHEA:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Assembly

today to acknowledge the provincial government's continuous support of women in

leadership through outreach and professional development in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the first of

our four Ovations Leadership Lunch & Learn sessions took place on February 21,

in Clarenville with keynote speaker, Iris Petten.

The second was on March 7, in Grand Falls-Windsor and featured Anne

Whelan. The third will take place

on April 11, in Corner Brook featuring Anastasia Qupee, and the fourth will be

held on May 9, in Happy Valley-Goose Bay with Anne Whelan.

Mr. Speaker, these sessions

are a great opportunity for women in different regions of the Province to hear

first-hand the experiences and approaches taken to leadership by such prominent

Newfoundland and Labrador women.

Iris Petten is a business

leader and has corporate board experience in industries such as fishing,

education, logistics, and transportation.

Ms Petten currently serves as chair of Memorial University's Board of

Regents, and is a corporate board member of Canada Post Corporation, and Canship

Ugland Limited.

Anne Whelan currently leads

Seafair and is a board member of Newfoundland Power, Newfoundland and Labrador

Oil Industry Association, Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, and the Argentia

Management Authority.

Anastasia Qupee is an Innu

woman from Sheshatshiu, Labrador.

She was the first Innu woman to serve as chief in her community, serving two

terms from 2004 until 2010. She

also served as a board member on Innu Nation, Labrador-Grenfell Regional Health

Authority, and is involved in a number of joint businesses.

Ms Qupee is currently the Human Resources Director for the Sheshatshiu

Innu First Nation.

All sessions begin at 12:00

p.m. and run until 2:00 p.m. Topics

include mentorship, core competencies, women on boards, and creating strong

networks. The cost is $15 per

participant, and anyone interested in attending one of the remaining sessions

can register at the NLOWE Web site.

Mr. Speaker, Ovations

events are organized by a committee of representatives from the Provincial

Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Newfoundland and Labrador Organization

of Women Entrepreneurs, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as

community and business leaders.

Through initiatives such as

the Ovations Leadership Lunch & Learn sessions, the provincial government

remains committed to supporting the advancement of women in leadership

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au

Clair.

MS DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an

advance copy of the statement. The

achievement of women leaders is always something to celebrate.

Women have fought for and won their place in politics, in corporate

governance, and in their own communities.

We all have women in our lives who encourage us, who act as role models,

whether consciously or not. They

may not be presidents or chairs on committees or anything, but they run families

and community groups. They have

raised daughters to be pioneers in their own right.

Women remain

under-represented in leadership roles, so providing opportunities for women to

network and share their successes and challenges are worthwhile in ensuring

their representation in all spheres of life.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MS ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank

the minister for an advance copy of her statement.

How often we are asked: Who would you most like to have lunch with?

Mr. Speaker, I would be

thrilled to have lunch with any one of these wonderful women, Iris Petten, Anne

Whelan, and Anastasia Qupee. They

are all wonderful leaders who have done so much to advance the status of women.

It would be a pleasure to hear their stories, stories of determination,

stories of challenges, success, and creative solutions to scaling over

horrendous blocks and barriers, and I would love to ask their opinions on issues

affecting the lives of women in this Province.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, I

would have to ask them what they thought of this government closing the Family

Violence Intervention Court. I am

sure they would have some questions about that, themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the

hon. House today to discuss the importance of achieving fair access to

provincial shrimp resources for harvesters in the inshore sector.

Mr. Speaker, the federal

government just issued short-term quotas to get the shrimp fishery started, but

there are clear indications there will be a significant reduction in the total

allowable catch for shrimp this year in response to a decline in shrimp stocks.

If the federal government applies a policy called Last In, First Out,

almost all of this reduction will be experienced by the Province's inshore

fleet. This fleet sector comprises

small boat harvesters, and this quota cut would severely jeopardize many

enterprises.

The Last In, First Out

policy was established in the 1990s to protect the interests of the offshore

sector when inshore harvesters became new entrants in the shrimp fishery.

Those harvesters have since become full-scale stakeholders over the last

twenty years, and just like offshore harvesters, they have made major

investments in their operations, and make a significant contribution to the

success of the provincial fishing industry.

That is why the provincial government is advocating to ensure any quota

reductions in shrimp are shared equitably by offshore and inshore fleets.

Mr. Speaker, I have

discussed this issue on several occasions with the federal minister Gail Shea,

most recently at the Seafood Expo North America in Boston, and also with Rob

Moore, Minister of State of ACOA and Regional Minister for Newfoundland and

Labrador. At every opportunity, I

have emphasized the Province's position that any decisions regarding allocation

should: consider which harvesters are adjacent to the resource, be consistent

with stabilized sharing arrangements established for other fisheries, and avoid

pitting one valued fleet sector against another.

This position has been expressed by the Province since 2010, and we

expect the federal government will make fair and equitable decisions when final

quotas are assigned. We are

Mr. Speaker, the provincial

government agrees with the needs to protect shrimp resources when fisheries

science indicates conservation efforts are necessary.

However, more than 2,200 plant workers, more than 250 small boat

enterprises, and fourteen offshore companies stand to be impacted by quota cuts.

I call on all members of this hon. House, and Members of Parliament in

Ottawa, to advocate for the best interests of our shrimp fishery, and for the

communities that rely upon it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Carbonear – Harbour

Grace.

MR. SLADE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, first of all, would like

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

Mr. Speaker, the threat of the shrimp cuts have certainly been on our

agenda. In fact, we wrote to the

federal government on March 7 to outline our concerns and to seek a meeting with

the minister. We have pressed for a

solution that will mitigate the negative impacts on the many plant workers,

harvesters, and communities.

While government contends

they have been advocating for cuts to be shared by the offshore and inshore

fleets, what concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying they are prepared

to work with the federal government.

I am wondering why this engagement is not already taking place now.

It is too late for us to go in after the fact.

I am also concerned that the minister gave no indication of the plans he

has in place when workers, harvesters, and communities get slammed with these

quota cuts.

Mr. Speaker, indeed we must

conserve and we must be ready to deal with the fallout of any cuts, but what we

need the most is a real voice in the managing of our resources so that the

provincial government is not just another advocate, but a co-manager of our

fisheries. It is time for this

government to get to work on securing joint management so we can have a louder

voice in our renewable resources.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for

the advance copy of his statement.

He has outlined a very serious matter for our shrimp industry and for the people

who work in that industry. There

must be a fair sharing of the resource between both fleet sectors.

As we all know, in this fishery the difference is merely one of

classification. Both fleets are

dealing with the same source.

In 2003, DFO implemented a

long-term strategy, which emphasized people living adjacent to the resource have

to benefit the most. DFO may have

dropped this principle, but it is still the right one and we have to fight for

it. If DFO implements Last In,

First Out, which is not a written or defined policy of that department, we could

see great financial damage done to the people who have invested millions in

shrimping enterprises as well as job losses in local plants.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to

the minister, this is one fight we must all engage in together.

We have to be united in this fight for the people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to

recognize today, April 2, as World Autism Awareness Day, and to assure

individuals and families affected by this disorder that our government has heard

their concerns, and we are making the necessary investments to address timely

diagnosis, and improved services.

My colleague in the

Department of Health and Community Services announced last week that Budget 2014

makes provision to increase capacity for autism assessment and treatment and to

reduce wait times for children with autism and other developmental conditions.

An investment of $2 million this year, annualizing to almost $4 million

in 2015-2016, will allow for the addition of twenty-two positions in the

regional health authorities this year, increasing to thirty positions next year.

These positions include a developmental pediatrician at the Janeway,

child management specialists, occupational therapists, and speech language

pathologists.

In addition to these

investments, Mr. Speaker, Health and Community Services have been working with

Eastern Health to develop an action plan.

The intent is to make more efficient use of resources already in place to

ensure that wait times are reduced and that children receive the care they need

as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of

the K-12 education system, a comprehensive review of services in recent years

has resulted in the creation of six positions for autism itinerants at regional

offices, autism resource kits for each school, and the development of a

Provincial Professional Development Plan, which to date has seen more than $1.2

million invested in specialized training for teachers and student assistants.

Our work continues, Mr.

Speaker, in January, I announced our involvement in an Atlantic partnership

called “Autism in Education” through the Atlantic Provinces Special Education

Council. This partnership will see

more online autism training delivered to teachers, administrators, and other

educational personnel to help implement teaching strategies for students with

autism and other developmental disabilities.

In short, Mr. Speaker, we

have been working very hard to address the growing need for autism services,

both for children and adults. We

will continue to work with the Newfoundland and Labrador Autism Society, and

with health and education professionals, to address the issues as they arise.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. KIRBY:

Thanks to the minister for an advance copy of

his statement and thanks to the Members of the House of Assembly who wore a

little blue today in recognition of the day.

Last week, the US Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention released new figures on the prevalence of

autism spectrum disorder and the numbers are quite startling.

They now estimate that one in sixty-eight children has autism – a 30 per

cent increase from just two years ago.

World Autism Awareness Day

is an ideal time for members of this hon. House to reflect on what we need to do

to address the needs of people with autism, both young and old alike.

The first thing we need to do is listen to people with autism and their

advocates. They have told us that

the wait-lists for assessment are too long and that needed interventions often

come too late to be effective.

They have told us that the

intensive applied behavioural analysis program should be available to those who

need it, regardless of age. They

have told us that we need a co-ordinated, multi-agency approach among key

government departments and agencies to ensure that individuals with autism are

provided with the services they will need to promote their independent living.

We have been told what needs to be done, Mr. Speaker; now is the time to

act on that advice.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister

for an advance copy of his statement.

Obviously, I am glad to see an increased capacity for diagnosis and

treatment of autism in the Province.

Any increase at this moment would be extremely important.

With now one in sixty-eight children diagnosed with autism spectrum

disorder worldwide, delays in getting a diagnosis is a critical issue in

Newfoundland and Labrador. Early

intervention is the key factor in these children's success in school and in the

world that they will enter into when they finish their schooling.

With a wait time for

diagnosis of up to two years, which is a disgraceful time, Mr. Speaker, and more

than 300 children on the wait-list, it is good that government is finally taking

steps to address the problem but they are only first steps.

I encourage the minister to

listen closely and often to the parents, the families, the health care

professionals, and concerned citizens on how to mitigate this serious condition.

I encourage him to listen to the children and adults themselves who have

autism spectrum disorder.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral

Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Almost three months ago,

government announced that they would draft a terms of reference for a review of

the provincial energy system, that they would make it public and choose an

independent body to conduct their review.

After missing the deadline by over a month, government today announced

that they would hire a consultant to look at the provincial energy system.

There was no mention of it in the public terms of reference or

independent bodies to conduct the work.

So I ask the Premier: Why

does this announcement today differ so much from what you said back in January?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, we have an electrical system here

in the Province that has been meeting our needs for some fifty years, in terms

of our electricity system and the regulation and the framework – but there is a

reality that the needs in this Province are changing.

Our government has been firmly committed to meet those needs, Mr.

Speaker, and the changes.

We have been firmly

committed, as we move forward to address issues of availability and reliability

of power through the development of Muskrat Falls, that we would clearly

undertake a review, a very close look at the broad system of our electricity

system within the Province as we move from an isolated system to an

interconnected system.

Mr. Speaker, we committed

to the people of the Province that we would have an independent review of this

done, and we will do an RFP where someone totally independent of government will

take a very broad look at our electrical system – all for the benefit of the

people of the Province so that we can make sure as we move and connect to the

North American grid we are going to meet that standard –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, that just reminds me

that back in January this must have been somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction to

announce that independent bodies would look after this review that the minister

talked about. Obviously that is

quite different from what we saw announced today.

So it is clear that the

review by government is nothing more than just an attempt to shift the blame of

what is known as DarkNL off government.

The PUB is already well underway in reviewing the provincial energy

system and will provide a study both before and after the Muskrat Falls Project

is completed.

So I ask the Premier: Why

not just get out of the way of PUB, let them do their work, and do the

comprehensive review that they can?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite was probably

aware – if not, he should be – we have outlined in our Energy Plan of 2007 that

as we move to the new system of an interconnected system – the last jurisdiction

to connect with North America – that we would need to get in line with North

American standards, and as outlined in our Energy Plan, we would do that review.

So this is not a knee-jerk.

The other thing that we

committed, Mr. Speaker, publicly, and I certainly commit today to the people of

the Province, that we want the PUB to do their work, we are not going to get in

the way of the PUB and what they are doing, we are not going to provide

oversight to the PUB in terms of the work they are doing.

We are doing an independent piece of work on the broader aspects, Mr.

Speaker, to make sure that for all of us in this Province we have confidence in

our system going forward, and to make sure that whatever changes we need to make

to get in line with North America, we are prepared to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have clearly outlined

there has been a lot of changes since January in that response.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is effectively holding the Province

hostage with the latest fee increase at Marine Atlantic that was effective

yesterday. Since 2012, we have seen

an astounding 11 per cent increase in fees.

These increases are passed on to consumers and negatively affect tourism

and our economy.

I ask the Premier: What

actions have you taken to offset these harmful increases?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are aware

of the increases. Actually, they

are up as high on our seniors over the last three years of 23 per cent.

Although we have seen a decline in the number of rubber tire traffic to

this Province, it is still a significant deterrent.

I have raised it with the CEO of Marine Atlantic.

I recently, at the HNL conference, sat a table with them and mentioned it

in the speech to the delegates, and also reiterated to him at the table.

Mr. Speaker, we are aware

of this. We realize the investment

of $900 million they have made with the two new ferries and marine improvements.

However, we have to be aware and we have to be concerned when it impacts

not only our tourism market but our commercial market as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Mr. Speaker, we know – and I mentioned this

couple of times in the last few days – that the rubber tire traffic that the

minister talks about goes back to the mid-1980s.

It is the first time since the mid-1980s we have seen traffic less than

100,000 passengers.

Mr. Speaker, the federal

subsidy agreement between the federal government and Marine Atlantic is up for

review next year. There is a fear

that the federal government will reduce funding even further, driving up Marine

Atlantic rates.

I ask the Premier: What

representation have you had with the federal government – not HNL, we know here

in the Province everyone supports this intervention – to ensure that the Marine

Atlantic subsidy is appropriate?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH:

Mr. Speaker, actually the decline in rubber tire

traffic is not only a provincial trend, it is a trend worldwide.

If the hon. member did some research he would see that any ferry

operations throughout the world will see a decline in rubber tire traffic.

However, Mr. Speaker, what

we do when we have an issue with an agency, a Crown corporation of the federal

government, we deal with them directly.

I have had numerous meetings with the chair explaining how important it

is to the tourism industry and to the commercial industry of this Province.

This goes way, way back to even the reservation system.

I have been intimately

involved with Marine Atlantic. Like

I said, just recently as a month ago we talked about this.

I am surprised the hon. member never brought it up sooner because it has

been a known thing now for some weeks.

It only came into effect today and that is the reason I guess for the

questions.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the minister that

there is some ferry traffic that is up in our Province.

You need to look at the Apollo

ferry as an example.

Mr. Speaker, today is World

Autism Awareness Day. Just last

week the Centre for Disease Control indicated that one in sixty-eight children

have Autism Spectrum Disorder. They

also said that the earlier a child is provided with these services is better.

We are aware that government has put $2 million into additional services,

but mostly after diagnosis. There

are about 400 children in our Province waiting to see a specialist.

I ask the Premier: Early

intervention is critical, why have you let the wait-list get so long, delaying

children with autism from getting the early care they need?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when our

Premier was sworn in as Premier he said that we have a duty to do more around

social justice. One of the pillars

of our Budget Speech this year was fair society.

We also said that we would listen very carefully to what the public was

saying, and we have heard that more needs to be done in autism.

Our investment speaks for itself this year; Mr. Speaker, $2 million this

year, annualizing to $3.9 million next year, all for the sake of children with

autism and other behavioural disabilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to remind the

minister that many members opposite were sworn in in 2003 when this was a much

different problem than we are seeing today.

Applied Behavioural Analysis, or ABA therapy, is provided to children in

this Province up to Grade 3. It is

scientifically proven to work. The

problem is the Province is ill-equipped to diagnose and provide ABA services.

Some children who require these services no longer qualify for ABA

because they are too old when they get diagnosed.

I ask the Premier: Will you

now commit to putting in a true provincial strategy for autism?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Lots of members on this

side of the House were also sworn in in 2003, Mr. Speaker, and that is why in

2011-2012 we did do more around autism then.

We put $2.9 million in a year so that ABA could be brought in from

kindergarten to Grade 3, Mr. Speaker.

That is this government that did that.

We also did more this year,

Mr. Speaker. When you look at the

number of positions, that will help with reduced wait times and with the ABA

program. We have one developmental

pediatrician, twenty child management specialists, one social worker, one

clinical lead, three occupational therapists, and four speech language

pathologists. Mr. Speaker, this

brings our investment annually now up to $12.5 million a year.

Mr. Speaker, that speaks to our commitment to children with autism.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education recently

produce a savings of around $12 million.

Instead of saving money last year, the minister's expenditures on school

board operations exceeded the estimates by $10 million.

I ask the minister: How can

you continue to say the school board merger saved money when you actually

overspent your budget by $10 million?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, we committed, when we were into

restructuring the one thing we were not going to impact upon was front-line

services. We maintained a cap.

We have maintained a student-teacher ratio that is the best of all

provinces in all of Canada.

I do not know if the member

realizes it or not, but each year cost for operations go up, Mr. Speaker.

The accumulated costs, I will say to the member, things like a 52 per

cent increase in rental costs for the school board office, and utilities go up.

Busing costs that were at $1.47 million, $52.6 million this year, speaks

to our investment, but clearly the member does not quite understand how it is

all operating.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, the minister said he would save

money and he saved none. On top of

the $10 million in overspending last year, the budget for school board

operations next year is over $4.5 million higher than the amount budgeted last

year. The evidence is clear.

No money was saved last year and no money will be saved next year.

I ask the minister: How

many years will we have to wait to see his savings of around $12 million?

Will we have to repeal Bill 29 in order to get that information from this

government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

I can only shake my head at him, Mr. Speaker.

I just said utility prices have gone up, rental costs have gone up.

If we had not restructured the board – I have already said to him, we

saved $5 million by the upper management we have cut out by reducing and going

to one board. In fact, operational

costs, if we still had the boards in place, would be an additional $5 million.

The member just clearly does not understand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Service

NL said that government only uses Public Tender Act exemptions in emergency

situations. Of course, nothing

could be further from the truth, as this government has increased the total

value of tender exemptions to over $100 million a year.

I ask the minister: If you

only use tender exemptions in emergencies, why for two consecutive years did the

Auditor General say they were used inappropriately?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Mr. Speaker, even the Auditor General says the

exemptions are rarely used. Less

than 2 per cent of tenders put out there are untendered and they are done for

certain circumstances. They are

done for sole-source providers.

They are also done for emergency services.

When emergencies are happening in our community and we need to go out

there and get something done and get something fixed right away, we go there and

we go get that. It is a rare

occurrence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE:

Mr. Speaker, as I said, that is $100 million of

rare occurrences.

Mr. Speaker, as an example

the minister's emergency situation exemption was used to justify over $33,000 in

spending for the last Royal visit, an event that was planned many months in

advance. The AG also provided other

examples, like $24,000 to book two hotel suites for meetings and $38,000 for

laundry equipment.

I ask the minister: Why are

you hiding behind the emergency situation exemption for non-emergencies?

Doesn't that go against the spirit of the Public Tender Act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland

and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. CRUMMELL:

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we would not

be using that provision for these types of contracts.

I certainly will look into that and see how these contracts unfolded, but

there are reasons out there for when we need to spend money and we need to do it

in an efficient and effective way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. CRUMMELL:

It is all about saving the taxpayers money and

doing it the right way, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, in 2008 government announced that

retired judges will be hired on a per diem basis to deal with court backlogs.

They budgeted $177,000 in 2008 for this service.

However, the current annual budget has been cut by $70,000, a 40 per cent

reduction, and our courts are still backlogged with some child protection cases

delayed month after month after month.

I ask the minister: After

making this announcement six years ago, why has government failed to deliver on

its commitment?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS:

Mr. Speaker, certainly child protection and

child custody is a top priority of this government.

If there is one vulnerable group we have a special obligation to it is

the children. With respect to

Child, Youth and Family Services cases going to the courts most of these cases

are very complex matters and they do not proceed ordinarily in the parameters of

the legislative guidelines, not only in Labrador, but in Newfoundland as well,

right throughout the Province.

Mr. Speaker, these are

complex cases and they do not always follow the time guidelines, but legal aid,

for example, in Labrador has set up a new legal aid unit to focus specifically

in Child, Youth and Family Services, staffed by a solicitor, a social worker,

and –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, six years ago when government

announced this program, they said that justice delayed is justice denied, but

once again they are all talk and no action.

Government has even admitted they do not keep statistics on the numbers

or types of matters heard by per diem judges.

I ask the minister:

Shouldn't his government be proactively tracking and improving a program they

claim would reduce backlogs in our justice system?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question.

I suspect we will get into more detail with the member opposite when we

get into Estimates around the Budget lines.

I do not have specific dollar amounts in front of me that I can respond

to specifically. What I can do,

though, is confirm that we do use per diem judges as a way to relieve stress on

the system.

If you look at the history

of the judicial system in Newfoundland and Labrador going back six years, as the

member, I think, referenced in his

preamble to the question, you will find there

have been significant improvements in justice in Newfoundland and Labrador, not

only investments in the court system, but investments in police services,

investments in the legal aid service, and in the Sheriff's Office.

I could go on, Mr. Speaker.

If you want to talk about investments in the justice system and who is committed

to improving justice, this government's track record has been very clear over

the last six years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Director of Child

Welfare said there is an increase in the number of children in care due to a

significant increase in family violence and substance abuse.

Going against common sense, government is moving in the wrong direction

by eliminating the Family Violence Intervention Court.

I ask the Minister of

Justice: Will he reinstate the Family Violence Intervention Court to spare

children of the emotional harm of witnessing family violence?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family

Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the Department of Child,

Youth and Family Services, when it was developed in 2009, one of the pieces of

work we knew we had to deal with was improving the provision of services to

children and youth in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have done a number of things in developing this in this department.

One of the things we have

done is we have developed a new organizational model.

It is a very structured, formal organizational model that allows us to

look at the caseloads for social workers throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are lowering the caseloads, year after year, of social workers in

Newfoundland and Labrador. That

gives them the opportunity to do more work with families, do more work with

children, and identify needs and concerns within family homes, and that creates

a better service to the children and families in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will speak further on

that when I get the opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I noticed the former PR director

for the RNC took the question on family violence and did not answer it.

I ask the question again:

Yes or no, will the Minister of Justice reinstate the Family Violence

Intervention Court?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, day after day we stand in the House

of Assembly here and we hear members opposite ask, ask, and ask for investments.

Never once do they talk about being financially prudent and offering up

examples of where they would make changes.

Now, Family Violence

Intervention Court –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. KING:

Day after day I listen to the Member for St.

John's Centre have her view on the family violence court.

I ask for the decency and respect to at least answer the question in a

sensible manner, Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite.

The Family Violence

Intervention Court was a budgetary decision.

In this year's Budget, we invested close to $500,000 in domestic

violence, Mr. Speaker. We are

hiring new police officers, we are hiring new analysts, we are investing in a

model that works, that is being led by the RNC, and it will be a Province-wide

model, unlike the previous.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au

Clair.

MS DEMPSTER:

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, when the

former Premier was accused of patronage for creating a deputy minister position

responsible for population growth for Ross Reid, she said this was not some

trivial role. Eight months later,

Reid was whisked off to the Premier's Office and the portfolio was never

reassigned.

So I ask the minister: If

this is not a trivial role, why is there no longer a deputy minister responsible

for population growth?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Environment and

Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS SHEA:

Mr. Speaker, the Population Growth Strategy is

something that is well needed in this Province.

We know we have an aging population, we have labour market demands, and

we have a birth rate that is certainly not what we had years ago.

We need to ensure that we grow the population in this Province so people

are able to take advantage of the opportunities and we are able to maintain the

services that people need to live in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure

the hon. member that the team of people who are putting together the Population

Growth Strategy in this Province are extremely credible individuals.

They will do stellar work in this area and they are highly respected in

this Province. At some point, once

this report is released, the strategy, they will see that these people have done

a stellar job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au

Clair.

MS DEMPSTER:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Three staff, Mr. Speaker,

have been tasked with growing the population: two analysts and an executive

director. Meanwhile, the deputy

minister responsible for it all was reassigned, it seems, to grow the population

of the PC Party.

I ask the minister: If

population growth is a priority, why did the deputy minister cease to exist when

Reid became the Premier's Chief of Staff?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Environment and

Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS SHEA:

Mr. Speaker, this government has taken a number

of initiatives to encourage people to work, to live, and to move to Newfoundland

and Labrador. Whether that is our

child care strategies, or full-day kindergarten, it is our labour market, the

training opportunities, the low tuition that we have for our post-secondary

students. We have done more to keep

people in Newfoundland and Labrador than any government in this history.

Mr. Speaker, the

individuals who are working on our Population Growth Strategy, as I said, are

extremely credible individuals.

Their credentials are impeccable; they will do a stellar job on that strategy.

I hate the fact that somebody would stand here and criticize the

credentials of these individuals.

They will do great work for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St. John's South, for a

very quick question without any

preamble.

MR. OSBORNE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Minister of

Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs when he will reduce or eliminate the tax

on public transit for the City of St. John's.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and

Intergovernmental Affairs, for a very quick response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased with the

progress we are making with our review of the provincial-municipal fiscal

framework. All issues are being

examined. We received great input

from the City of St. John's and other municipalities throughout the Province.

The process will continue over the next year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government has decided to

add one developmental pediatrician to address the unacceptably long wait-list

for children awaiting diagnosis of autism.

I ask the Premier: When is

this pediatrician going to be hired?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said

previously, we have made a significant investment into children with autism and

other developmental disabilities and conditions.

I also listed off the numerous positions that we will be hiring with that

$2 million this year and $4 million next year.

We are very committed to this.

We will start the recruitment as soon as possible so that our children

can get the services that they need and get the wait times reduced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

It is pretty sad that she does not even know

when the hiring is going to start.

How can one extra

pediatrician address a backlog of almost 400 children awaiting diagnosis, I ask

the Premier?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, since we have

been in government we have increased funding to children with autism year over

year. We have made significant

investments in 2011, 2012, and again this year.

Next year there will be thirty positions up from the twenty-two.

That shows our dedication to this issue.

I have already said it will

be as soon as possible. I am sure

staff in the Department of Health is working on this as well as the PSC as soon

as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Mr. Speaker, what I am looking for is: What is

the plan for the elimination of the wait-list?

I can see that we are not going to get it, so I am going to move on.

We regularly hear of people

going through –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: –

hell in the emergency rooms of this Province.

Vulnerable people in urgent need find, instead, neglect and suffering

because of an overworked staff and an inadequate system.

I ask the Minister of

Health and Community Services: What is the government going to do to fix the ER

crisis in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as a

government we are committed to shorter wait times and we want to ensure that

patients are assessed and treated in a timely manner.

There was a press release that was put out today highlighting some of the

initiatives in Budget 2014. I can

tell you that the President of the NLNU did have a conversation with the

Minister of Health, as well as myself, and talked about the demands on the

emergency wait times. We have

listened and we have responded in this Budget.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are being told of people

waiting up to three weeks in emergency rooms; we are talking about something

very critical.

I am asking the Premier:

How can this government allow this treatment of people to continue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS JOHNSON:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some of the information I

have from 2010 to 2013 that the hon. member might be interested in, if she is

willing to listen, is that while the number of visits have increased by 16 per

cent in our emergency wait rooms, the initial physician assessment has decreased

by 17 per cent and the length of stay has decreased by 11 per cent.

As I said, we have invested

into wait times this year. In fact,

32 per cent of the positions added in the Department of Health and the entities

this year are in nurses; four of them are specifically for emergency wait times.

That is something that we heard from the President of the NLNU and we

have responded, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon.

the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's

Penitentiary has capacity for 145 inmates and the St. John's Lockup has eighteen

beds. Last week I heard reports of

severe overcrowding; over 190 inmates at HMP and thirty-nine in the lockup,

including women. People were

sleeping on floors in deplorable conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister: How many inmates are currently housed in each of these facilities?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member raises a very

important point around the condition of Her Majesty's Penitentiary.

We have talked about it many times in this House, and I appreciate the

opportunity to stand and speak to that because it is our government that made

the announcement last year that we were tired of waiting around for the federal

government who were not stepping up to the plate to support us.

We made the announcement

that we were moving forward to plan for a new penitentiary, to plan for a new

correctional facility that would provide adequate and proper housing for inmates

and correctional officers, and would provide appropriate programming and

reprogramming to help these individuals transition back into society, Mr.

Speaker.

We have done that because

we recognize the challenge that is down there and the conditions that are down

there. In this year's Budget, Mr.

Speaker, our Finance Minister announced an additional $1 million to further that

project because we are committed to rectifying that problem that has existed for

so long.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

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

MS ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the fact that a staff member

actually posted the video of the riot scene at HMP shows just how desperate the

situation is there, how desperate staff are for this government to do something

about it, and how desperately we need whistle-blower protection.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister: When is he going to introduce whistle-blower legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased again to

respond to that. I have already

indicated on the Order Paper here today that Bill 1 is whistle-blower

legislation and you will be seeing it within a matter of a week or so.

We are fine-tuning the legislation.

I will also go back to the

previous comment. I fully recognize

there are correctional officers, like any employee of government, who are not

happy with the way things are going.

I can also say to the member opposite that the leadership of the

correctional officers at HMP are very happy with what has been happening in

their relationship with government.

They are very happy with recent announcements to make changes to the way things

are done down there. They are very

happy we have installed metal detectors at a number of places in the

penitentiary.

We recognize, Mr. Speaker,

like any issue in this Province, we cannot do everything for everybody on any

given day, but we are doing our best and we are working –

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre, for a

quick question without

preamble.

MS ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, why has the minister made a

budgetary decision of $500,000 on the backs of battered women and children by

closing the Family Violence Intervention Court?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Minister of Justice, for a quick

response.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, our government is investing

significantly in domestic violence in this Province.

We invest in a new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.

We invest in adult corrections.

We invest in policing services in this Province.

We invest in victims' services.

In this particular Budget, we made a further announcement in domestic

violence following a model of the RNC.

Mr. Speaker, since I read

from it, I am prepared to table it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for

which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. House of

Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled,

the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly

sheweth:

WHEREAS the US Centers for

Disease Control now estimate that autism spectrum disorder affects one in

sixty-eight children, which represents a 30 per cent increase from the estimate

two years ago; and

WHEREAS early diagnosis of

ASD is essential because there is a critical developmental period when early

intervention is vital for future success of children with ASD; and

WHEREAS there are

approximately 380 children on a two-year wait-list for an ASD diagnosis which in

this Province can only be made by a developmental pediatrician, and there is

only one available at the Janeway Children's Hospital; and

WHEREAS although Budget

2014 announced that another developmental pediatrician will be recruited, more

must be done to reduce the wait-list for a diagnosis so that children can get

the early treatment they need; and

WHEREAS in other provinces

an ASD diagnosis can be made by specialists certified and trained in ADOS;

WHEREUPON the undersigned,

your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge

government to allow other specialists trained and certified with ADOS to make

the autism spectrum disorder diagnosis.

As in duty bound, your

petitioners will ever pray.

I am very pleased to be

able to stand on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Speaker, to raise this issue,

especially today, which is the world day for autism.

I think some of these petitioners probably hoped to be here today in a

demonstration, but because of the bad weather were not able to turn up.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot

underestimate the urgency of this petition and what these people are calling

for. The people who have signed

this are all friends and families of young people and some older people with

autism. Some of them are the

parents of children who are still waiting to be diagnosed, who are on a two-year

waiting list for diagnosis. Their

treatment cannot start until the diagnosis happens, Mr. Speaker, and they are

desperate for that.

When they hear that just

one pediatrician has been hired to help with the backlog to make sure that

diagnosis happens, they almost despair.

They are happy that is happening, but they recognize we are far behind in

this Province when it comes to who is allowed to do the diagnosis.

They are asking for us to get on board with other provinces in Canada so

that other specialists and other physicians may be trained, Mr. Speaker, to do

the diagnosis.

I thank you for the time.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of

Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again

today to present a petition:

WHEREAS we wish to raise

concerns regarding the recent delay of the construction of the new hospital in

Corner Brook Newfoundland;

WHEREUPON the undersigned,

your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to commit to the planning and

construction of a new hospital in Corner Brook as previously committed to and in

a timely manner as originally announced without further delay or changes.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I

stand to present a petition on behalf of the people from Corner Brook,

Summerside, Carter Avenue, and positions all over.

What I find every day I present a petition, the Parliamentary Assistant

to the Minister of Health always criticizes me here publicly, on Twitter.

Mr. Speaker, I am just

getting tired of it on behalf of the people.

I am left with one conclusion; if the Parliamentary Assistant

consistently is criticizing me because I am presenting these petitions on behalf

of the people, I am assuming it is with the concurrence and the okay by the

Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the

people of Western Newfoundland – who I spoke to again last night, who heard the

comments – it is time to have a public forum on the health care in Western

Newfoundland. It is time for all of

us to sit down and work together on this.

It is time for all of us.

We hear statements now from

the Premier, the Member for Humber East that we are going to do a $500,000 study

because he does not agree with the information that the Department of Health has

put there, Mr. Speaker. How can you

make a decision? I ask anybody who

is listening today, how can you make a decision of not to put a radiation unit,

not to put the PET scanner if the Premier is saying we do not know if it is safe

to do it or not? Obviously, it

should have been done well before the decision was ever made.

Mr. Speaker, I am

presenting this on behalf of the people.

I ask for an open discussion.

I ask not to be criticized publicly because I am doing this.

I think it is time for the Member for Humber West and Humber East to

start presenting these same petitions that these people have, or at least give

me the courtesy of doing it on their behalf which I am doing on behalf of the

people of Western Newfoundland, and on behalf of the people of Corner Brook.

I will continue to do so.

I hope I do not get nailed

to the cross by the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Health, Mr.

Speaker. I am doing what I am

elected to do and I will not stop.

I ask for the assistant of the Premier and the Member for Humber West to help in

this cause, to help us to work together to get what is needed, what was

committed to, and put the proper information out in public.

The people of Western Newfoundland deserve it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The member has about eighteen seconds to present

his petition.

MR. LANE:

I will save it, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER:

This being Private Members' Day, I will now call

upon the Member for Burgeo – La Poile to introduce the motion on the Order Paper

in his name.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to stand here

today on Private Members' Day to read this private member's resolution that is

being entered, and it is a very simple one:

BE IT RESOLVED that this

hon. House of Assembly urge government to immediately repeal Bill 29.

What I would like to do is

I would like to start off today, as mover of this resolution I have two

opportunities to speak to this.

What I think I am going to do is use the first portion of my time to speak to

some history and some of the background to where we are today.

Then later on I will have the opportunity to hear members from the other

side, members of the Third Party as well, speak to it and then I will be able to

conclude.

If we want to go back, we

can start off – I think it actually was a PC government under former Premier

Brian Peckford who made the first Freedom of Information Act, back in, I believe

it was the late 1980s. That was the

first piece. As time moved forward,

what happened next was we had a Liberal government that did some consultations

and looked at amending and reviewing this piece of legislation.

They did this review. One

piece was entered, but, unfortunately, the second

part could not be done because

we had a change in government in 2003.

What we need to see here is

we have to go back to understand what was going on before 2003 though.

I guess the theme is openness, transparency and accountability.

In 1999, the PC Blue Book stated: The PC government will establish a new

Freedom of Information Act to reduce the wait for information and to ensure

ministers – again, I remind everyone who is watching, ministers belong to

Cabinet. That is a theme that will

come up later – actually provide the information requested where that

information belongs in the public domain.

This was the beginning of it, the first comments here.

Then in 2001, coming from

the then Opposition Progressive Conservatives, when it talked about ATIPP, it

said: The party who rejects it can completely ignore the recommendation of the

Citizens' Representative. That is

significant. Now we need to keep

this in mind, this context because there is a big change in what happened – what

somebody said before they got in power.

When they got in power, after so long there was a little change in tune.

It was also said, too, this

was November 26, 2001 by the former Premier.

It talked about the legislation that was being debated.

He was paraphrasing: In the absence of the public, which means in secret

or code of silence. It would seem

to me, and going forward a little bit to our debate, our filibuster that was in

June, 2012. It seems that the

former Premier would have agreed with the majority of the amendments that we

actually suggested but were voted down by government.

In 2003, there were more

promises. The 2003 Blue Book stated

specifically, a Progressive Conservative government will “Proclaim new Freedom

of Information legislation which will include amendments that will clearly

identify information that should be in the public domain, including cabinet

documents…”. Now I think that is

very important because that is just one part of a greater issue, a lot of

promises made in 2003 about openness, transparency, and accountability.

There is the other one,

too, about every time the public paid for a government-commissioned report they

would release it within thirty days of actually receiving it, then indicate the

action they will take within sixty days, and ensure prompt, public access to all

government reports in hard copy and on the Internet.

Again, these were all promises that were made.

I think I can sort of

continue through that decade, all of these promises made, talking about openness

and transparency. We continue on

and then we get to 2011. In 2011,

there is another election, the same government that is there and has been there

since 2003. What we see then is a sort of changing of the guard.

I think it was in place before then, but it was systemic by this point

and what we had was an actual hardening of that, and it led to 2012.

In 2012, I believe it was

in May or June of 2012 – I think it was June – we had the introduction of Bill

29. Of all the different pieces of

legislation that have ever been entered in this House of Assembly, I think this

one is actually probably more remembered by the public than any other piece,

just in terms of its title, Bill 29.

Sometimes you use different terms to describe a piece of legislation,

good, a long time coming, or necessary, but in this case the word you hear all

the time is infamous. That is not

necessarily a positive connotation, Mr. Speaker.

In the 2011 election, they

said, “We will continue to demonstrate that our commitment to accountability is

unwavering.” We hear it, and then

there are the terms open and transparent.

The Auditor General had seen a few things at this point because he had

actually tried to get some information or documents on this $5 billion

infrastructure program, but he was denied that.

It turns out there was nothing there; there was nothing there at all.

We continue on.

We have the debate in June 2012 and the vast majority of members in this

House were here during that debate.

There are some new people here who did not have the pleasure of sitting in on

that. It was the first filibuster

for, I would say, the majority of members here.

It was certainly the longest one.

I think there were about seventy hours of debate.

I guess we all know the end result.

The end result is that the government invoked closure on the debate and

Bill 29 was effectively rammed down the throats of the people of this Province.

That is what happened.

I think what we need to do,

and this is important, is we have to look at what was said then and what has

been said in the early parts of 2014.

The early parts of 2014 are a bit different than what was said in June

2012. I am just going to go forward

here. We will get to the commentary

made by advocates, by the media, by the public, and by the Opposition.

We will get to that. All of

it was ignored, I would remind you, Mr. Speaker – all of it was ignored.

We have some quotes, and we

have to remember these quotes were made then, and then we are going to compare

it to what is said now. There was

one minister who argued that the public actually does not have a right to know,

and all this is out of Hansard. It

is actually out of Hansard, so it is there:

“Everything will be on the

table each and every day for scrutiny, not only of the Opposition, but scrutiny

of government, scrutiny of the public at large, and scrutiny of the media.

Is that the way that a democratic society works?

I say this to the hon. members: that is not the way a democratic society

works.”

MR. JOYCE:

Who said that?

MR. A. PARSONS:

That was the former Minister of Municipal

Affairs.

We already see that

democracy does not include consultation with the public.

I heard this one and I had to put this out, too, because this one is just

a bit funny now when you listen to it.

It is a bit hilarious: “I

firmly believe in it” – in Bill 29 – “because we are and have been the most

transparent government Newfoundland and Labrador has ever experienced since

1949.”

MR. JOYCE:

Who said that?

MR. A. PARSONS:

That was actually one from the former Minister

of Municipal Affairs.

I am going to move on.

Actually, I talked to the Member for Terra Nova, but he actually did not

speak to that debate. You actually

made no comments to that debate, so I cannot quote you.

I cannot quote the Member for Terra Nova because he had nothing to say

during that debate, which is unfortunate.

MR. JOYCE:

Check Twitter.

MR. A. PARSONS:

If the debate took place on Twitter, I am sure

there would be a lot there.

I am going to reference a

comment now. The former Minister of

Finance at that time went on Open Line during that debate and his comments on

Open Line were: This bill had no real effect at all and it was nothing more than

a bit of housekeeping. I remind the

public that the Minister of Finance at that time is now sitting across us as the

Premier.

Let me see, I have to

reference somebody who was not a minister then but he is a minister now: “This

bill actually will result in government, boards, agencies, and other public

bodies having the ability to release even more personal information than ever

before, Mr. Speaker. That speaks to

openness and that speaks to transparency.”

It was not just ministers.

Backbenchers as well had something to say: “What we are doing now is

taking a good piece of legislation and even making it better so we protect the

people in this Province, and we pair that with how we act as a government here,

Mr. Speaker.” Now, I do not need to

name names, but the member on the other side knows exactly who said it.

MR. BRAZIL:

I stand by it.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Oh, so that member stands by it.

Well, that is interesting to note, given where I am going with this,

because there has been a complete reversal, I will remind the member, on your

position – there was a complete reversal.

I will continue.

One member said: “We are moving forward with those changes and we believe

that we are improving upon the legislation, contrary to the belief of many of

the people who have taken

part in the discussion today.”

Now, that is interesting and ironic.

It is interesting because it is actually contrary to what the public was

actually saying at the time, and it is ironic the person who said that is now

the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.

So I have to put it out there, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I will continue.

We have a lot here, and if there is anybody else – oh, I have to say this

one, because this is someone I get to ask questions of in the House all the

time, and that is the Minister of Health: “There is nothing in this legislation

that we have introduced here tonight that would prohibit information from

getting out there, absolutely nothing.”

Again, another interesting quote.

Now, I do not have to talk

about the questions we have asked here this week about our meetings being

cancelled, again, meetings that have nothing to do with government that

government somehow finds a way to cancel.

I will continue on.

I only have three and a half minutes to continue on.

I will get time later – I will get time.

It is funny.

I really have to put it out there.

It is funny, because now – I will table this, if you want.

These are the new envelopes from this government.

AN HON. MEMBER:

Props.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, props.

I invite the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune to stand up and have

her say to this, too.

AN HON. MEMBER:

What does it say on the envelope?

MR. A. PARSONS:

What is does say is secret.

You cannot make this up, Mr. Speaker.

Secret is actually stamped on the envelope.

It is funny.

I am going to continue, and

obviously I have the attention of the other side because there is a lot of

chatter over there, and that is good.

I hope they have all of this chatter when the review happens because they

can tell us what they thought of it then, what they think of it now, and what

they are going to think of it after – flip-flop, flip-flop, and flip-flop.

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible).

MR. A. PARSONS:

I invite the Member for Port au Port.

I do not think you had a word to say during that debate, my God –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. A. PARSONS:

Yes, silence.

Silence is golden, because that is he what he was during the debate, Mr.

Speaker, absolutely silent.

Do you know what?

They have all the time in the world to stand up here today, speak to this

private member's resolution, and do the right thing, which is what we are saying

to the government. What we said,

actually, before but was not listened to was you cannot ram a piece of

legislation like Bill 29 down the throats of the people.

You had advocates, the Centre for Law and Democracy, who were coming out

and saying this was going to put us in the same category as Uganda and the

infamous country of Moldova. We are

worse than Moldova.

You had advocates coming

out. You had the media who said:

Look, this is a bad idea. You had

the public, and we know the public had something to say here because we saw the

e-mails. They recommended to the

majority of government members: Do not do this.

What is important to remember is that contrary to what is being said a

lot now, how we are listening, nobody listened then – nobody listened then.

I say to the Premier, too,

the Premier is the same hon. gentlemen who stood here during the debate and said

it was a waste of time. That is in

Hansard, too. It was a waste of

time for us to debate Bill 29.

I am going to continue.

I only have fifty-six second.

I know the members opposite want to get up and have their say about how

we were right to condemn Bill 29, and I hope they do speak to it.

I am wondering what they are going to have to say about the flip-flop

that has occurred in this Province in the last two years.

Now, we know it was not about doing what is right; we know it has to do

with you did not listen to the electorate, the electorate deserted you, and now

you are trying to win them back.

How do you do that? By pretending

to listen.

We are going to continue

here. I am going to get my time on

the back end, but I wanted to provide some context to the members who have short

memories so they can remember what they said then.

I look forward to what you have to say now.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the District of

Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly my pleasure

to have the opportunity to stand here today and to say a few words about this

particular motion. The motion

involves what we think is a very important matter to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of

the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is to make public bodies

more accountable to the public, and to protect personal privacy by giving the

public a right to access records, and by preventing the unauthorized collection,

use, or disclosure of personal information by public bodies.

We are highly committed to being accountable to the residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is

why one of the first things we did when we came in power was to proclaim the

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of

legislation was introduced to the House by the Liberals, but never proclaimed.

It was this government that took the final step in proclaiming it.

We could have continued to operate as the Liberals did, with no legal

obligation to release information, but we chose to be more responsible –

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE:

– to be open, and to introduce measures that required government to legally

release information and to protect, as well, the private information of the

citizens of our Province.

The ATIPP Act is required

to be reviewed, Mr. Speaker, every five years.

It was amended in 2012 following the first statutory review by

Commissioner John Cummings. The

amendments that are in there are what is referred to now as Bill 29.

Mr. Speaker, the next

statutory review of this important piece of legislation was required to begin in

2015. Based on feedback that we

have received from the public, concerns that have been raised by Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, we are going to begin the review a year earlier.

The review is going to be done by a review committee composed of top

experts in law, journalism, and also in privacy legislation.

This motion, Mr. Speaker,

simply asks that Bill 29 be repealed.

We are asking a group of very competent individuals, a group to not only

look at Bill 29, but to look at the whole access to information and protection

of privacy legislation.

Our Premier made the

announcement at Confederation Building just a few days ago.

The Premier said, “We are fortunate that such highly qualified and

respected individuals have agreed to undertake this important review.

I have every confidence in their capabilities.”

We have every confidence in

their abilities, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE:

Chairing the committee, a former Premier of

Newfoundland and Labrador from 1989 through to 1996, Clyde Wells, a former

Supreme Court Justice of Appeal from 1999 to 2009.

We have every confidence in his ability, Mr. Speaker.

Also a member of the

committee is Jennifer Stoddart, Privacy Commissioner of Canada for ten years,

from 2003 to 2013. As well, we

pulled in on the committee a member of the media, Doug Letto, who retired after

a career with CBC spanning three decades.

He was a senior producer of Here

and Now when he departed as public broadcaster in late 2013 – a very, very

competent group, Mr. Speaker.

We do not feel that it is

our right to tell them how to proceed with their work.

The people of the Province have spoken to us and they have said they have

issues with Bill 29, they have issues with the access to information, and we

have listened. We have decided, Mr.

Speaker, it is not what we think, it is what the people think, and that is why

we have put in place this committee of very qualified individuals to do the

review.

In addition, Mr. Speaker,

we are going a step further, the review of the Access to Information and

Protection of Privacy Act is only one component of our larger Open Government

Initiative, an initiative that demonstrates our commitment to provide the people

of the Province with greater access to information.

As we move forward with our

Open Government Initiative, we will hear the views of our residents and we will

release more information, where possible, based on the requests and the

suggestions that we receive. We are

committed to that process.

Mr. Speaker, the motion

today asks that we simply repeal Bill 29.

I want to ask, and I want to ask the mover of the motion: Is that all

that would be needed? We do not

think so, Mr. Speaker. A number of

people do not think so. We want to

have the whole Access to Information and the Protection of Privacy Act reviewed.

One of the legislative

reporters in this House of Assembly also does not think so.

James McLeod who works for The

Telegram is noted as saying this, “But please, do me a favour: stop

demanding that the government repeal Bill 29.”

He goes on to say, “…just repealing Bill 29 wouldn't make things better.

In fact, in some ways, it might make things worse.”

Now, Mr. Speaker, given the

quotes the Member for Burgeo – La Poile made from Hansard, I would like to add a

few myself as you go back to those days in the debates of June, 2012.

I take it that if the member is asking that we simply repeal Bill 29, it

would make me think he does not see anything in it that is worthwhile.

The Member for Burgeo – La

Poile in his debates says this from Hansard, “There are some parts that I agree

with, and there are certainly concepts that I agree with in this legislation and

the intent of this legislation.”

Mr. Speaker, the Member for

Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi in her debates said, “This piece of legislation is a

large document. It is a very

detailed bill that we are dealing with, a bill that talks to us about amendments

that are needed to our information and privacy act.

I have no doubt there are some amendments needed to the act, and there

are some amendments in the bill that I certainly agree with.”

Mr. Speaker, the Member for

Humber Valley, the present Leader of the Official Opposition, when speaking to

Bill 29 said this, “I am not here to say that all those recommendations, as we

debate this – they are not all bad.

There are many of those thirty-three recommendations that are good

recommendations and I believe they will improve legislation.”

The Member for Torngat

Mountains stood on his feet and said, “I can understand the concern around

privacy and releasing personal information, Mr. Speaker.

I do not agree with that either; I think there are safeguards that are in

place through current and proposed legislation.

I do not have an issue with that part of this bill.”

Mr. Speaker, the Member for

St. John's North stood on his feet and said, “It may very well provide for

stronger protections of privacy….”

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are

some members over there now who sat on this side when Bill 29 was being debated.

The Member for Mount Pearl South, and I quote from Hansard, “Mr. Chair, I

have to tell you that I am somewhat disturbed – I am starting to feel somewhat

disturbed by some of the commentary I am hearing across the way.”

He was here then. “I am

certainly glad that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of

Justice have addressed some of the issues that have been raised here tonight and

some of the spin. I believe that is

really what this is all about, Mr. Chair, it is nothing but a spin for political

gain.”

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. VERGE:

Mr. Speaker, he went on to say, “There is only

one reason why this amendment would be put forward.

It is simply to delay the debate, keep it going, keep it going, keep it

going and grandstanding, Mr. Chair.

That is the only reason it is being done, so that the people will be watching

from home, CBC, and other media will be covering it.

They will be covering it in the newspapers, Mr. Chair.

It is just an opportunity for these people across the way to grandstand

and try to score political brownie points.”

He goes on to say, “Mr. Chair, I think they are being very disrespectful

in my humble opinion.”

Now, Mr. Speaker, when the

Member for Mount Pearl South decided to cross the floor, in his media commentary

he made the following comments: As previously stated, while I believe there are

many good and necessary amendments contained within Bill 29, I have to be honest

with you, at the time when Bill 29 was passed, as I said, there were a lot of

good parts that I felt were good, and I still do.

He goes on to say, Mr. Speaker: By the way, at no time did I say, nor am

I saying now, there is a need to repeal all of Bill 29.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. VERGE:

Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's South,

while there is no record of him speaking to this bill, Hansard clearly shows

that he stood on his feet and he is noted, when division was called as having

voted in favour of it.

Mr. Speaker, where the

Liberal Party stands on the Access To Information and Protection of Privacy Act

is clear. Mr. Speaker, it is clear

where they stand. They stand just

where they sit, all over the place.

Depending on what day it is, Mr. Speaker, they are here, they are there, and

they are everywhere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. VERGE:

It is obvious where they stand, Mr. Speaker.

They stand just where they sit.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to see the panel have the total right and the total time to do the work

that we have asked them to do. We

have an expert group of impartial, confident group of individuals who are going

to look at this entire piece of legislation, not just the repeal of Bill 29.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. VERGE:

Not just Bill 29, they are going to look at the

entire piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE:

We in no way want to circumvent that.

We in no way want to interfere with it.

Our Premier has said when they come back with the recommendations

government will take the recommendations very seriously.

The recommendations will be made public.

Mr. Speaker, we will take them very, very seriously.

That is why I want to

propose an amendment to this private member's resolution today, Mr. Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island, the

following amendments.

The resolution is amended

by replacing the resolution clause with the following:

BE IT RESOLVED that the

House of Assembly urge the government to consider amending provisions of Bill 29

of the 2012-2013 legislative session entitled,

An Act To Amend The Access To

Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, subject to receipt and consideration

of the forthcoming report, advice, and recommendations of the independent

Statutory Review Committee currently reviewing the Access To Information And

Protection Of Privacy Act whose members are: former Chief Justice and former

Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Clyde Wells; former Privacy Commissioner

of Canada, Jennifer Stoddart; and, veteran journalist Doug Letto.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will leave that amendment with you for your consideration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The House will take a brief

recess to consider the amendment.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The proposed amendment is

not in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The Member for Lewisporte has some time on the

clock.

The hon. the Member for the

District of Lewisporte.

MR. VERGE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly respect the

Speaker's ruling, the point being, of course, and I will reiterate just in

closing, that we look forward to the work that is going to be done by the review

committee, the very competent and qualified review committee.

They will bring their recommendations back to government and we in no way

want to interfere with that process.

We look forward to when they bring back their report for consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for the District of St.

Barbe.

MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, we are here today debating a

private member's resolution on openness in government.

What does that mean about openness in government?

What it means is the information that is accumulated by government,

assembled by government, compiled by government, and stored by government is the

people's information. Unless there

is some overriding or compelling reason why the people should not be given that

information, then for sure the people of any democratic society are entitled to

know the information that has been accumulated, put together, compiled, and

stockpiled by their government, in this case, the government of the people who

are sitting on the opposite side, on the government side.

There was a time when the

political party that elected this government actually believed in freedom of

information. They actually believed

in accountability. They actually

believed in transparency. There was

a time, Mr. Speaker, and you can go back to publications they put out, when they

put forth their programs in something called a Blue Book.

If we look at the 1999 Blue Book, one of the clear statements was: A PC

government will establish a new Freedom of Information Act to reduce the wait

time for information to ensure ministers actually provide the information

requested where that information belongs in the public domain.

That was fifteen years ago.

I heard David Cochrane say the other day that he had been reporting on

politics for fifteen years, so that is fifteen years ago.

So when David Cochrane was a rookie, this was the position of the PC

Party. It did not change.

In 2001, then leader of the

PC Party said in November 2001: The party who rejects it – rejects freedom of

information – can completely ignore the recommendation of the Citizens'

Representative, and that is significant, and can ignore all sorts of other

recommendations as well. The same

leader, who was not the last Premier but the Premier before, the one in Virginia

Waters campaigning for the guy who is trying to hold onto the seat that the last

Premier vacated, largely because of Bill 29, said: Legislation in the absence of

the public means that it is in secret; it is a cone of silence.

It would seem that the

Premier who is out campaigning to hold onto the seat of the former Premier with

the candidate who was a member of the Liberal Party, who voted in the Liberal

leadership a few months ago, to get him to come and sit on the Blue side instead

of on the Red side, where he said he was going to support the candidate who is

now the person who is running for the Liberal Party in Virginia Waters, I

understand he was her supporter and now he is running against her.

So she was good enough to be leader, but not good enough to be the MHA,

apparently.

They are campaigning out

there right now, but the former Premier, the second-last Premier, the Premier

once removed – or is it twice removed? – said the PCs will stand by their

commitment to integrity, accountability, responsibility, and earning public

trust. This was all put before the

people in a book in 2003 called the Blue Book on which they were elected.

It says, a direct quote, “A Progressive Conservative government will:

Proclaim new Freedom of Information legislation which will include amendments

that will clearly identify information that should be in the public domain,

including cabinet documents, and will require full and prompt disclosure of the

information…”.

Mr. Speaker, the government

members stand up repeatedly and they say: Well, the last Liberal government

brought in this Access to Information legislation but they did not proclaim it.

This government was elected eleven years ago and they took ages and ages

to proclaim it. They could have

proclaimed it late in 2003 after they were elected, but they did not.

The 2003 Blue Book also

says that this information will be released to the public and that they would

release every government commission report within thirty days of receiving it.

We have already seen that is not working this year.

It is not working with the report on legal aid; it is not working on the

report of the Sheriff's Office. One

the government sat on from December until a week or so ago and the other one

they sat on from January until a week or so ago, so they are not doing today

what they promised they would do eleven years ago.

The history is that this

government ultimately introduced something that became known as Bill 29.

I think it is ironic they would pick the number twenty-nine because Bill

29 is almost reminiscent of Term 29, which is one of our Terms of Union that a

former PC Prime Minister used to shaft this Province of millions of dollars in

the late 1950s. It is amazing they

would pick twenty-nine.

In 2011 in the election,

having been trusted not once, not twice, but three times by the people, they

were re-elected. In the 2011

election campaign this government said, this party said: We will continue to

demonstrate that our commitment to accountability is unwavering.

A day after the former Auditor General Wayne Loveys revealed in his

annual report that his staff was denied access to documents on a $5 billion

infrastructure program, the last Premier said: I think we are very open and

transparent. She also went on to

say: Government has nothing to hide.

Mr. Loveys has alternate ways of getting the same information – although

she could not suggest any ways when asked by reporters.

Why say that you are

supporting the efforts of the Auditor General who is only exposing financial

transactions, who is causing government to be more financially accountable, and

then hinder and hamper and get in the way of the Auditor General in him trying

to access information?

Mr. Speaker, the debate

came on, on Bill 29, in June 2012 – just nineteen months before this government

decided that the whole thing needed to be reviewed.

It was a wonderful bill in June 2012.

As a matter of fact the then Minister of Justice said: This bill is to

modernize our legislation. He said

it was based on consultation, research, and best practice across the country.

In fact, there is no evidence of that happening.

The Member for Gander,

former Municipal Affairs Minister said in debate: Everything would be on the

table each and every day for scrutiny, not only of the Opposition – this is with

large, and scrutiny of the media.

Is that a way a democratic society works?

I would say to hon. members, that is not the way a democratic society

works.

If it does not work with

accountability and openness, how does it work?

Not very well, apparently.

He went on to say: I firmly believe in it – it being Bill 29 – that we are and

have been the most transparent government in Newfoundland and Labrador since

1949. The other members who spoke

to this, the former Minister of Justice who is now the Attorney General and the

former Government Services member said: You know they make countless and

countless requests for information.

In fact, CBC did some follow-up on how many were the countless and countless.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if you cannot count to 581 in a year, you cannot count

very high. Five hundred and

eighty-one requests in a year across fifteen departments, which works out to one

request for access to information per week, per department of this government.

Mr. Speaker, it flies in

the face of reason that government would try to stop one request per department

per week if they were not up to something.

What is this something? The

something is they do not need to be open, they do not want to be open, and they

do not want the people to know what is going on.

Five hundred and eighty-one requests in 2010-2011, 579 requests the year

before that with fifteen departments.

That cannot be seen as being a whole landslide of requests for

information.

The current Premier who was

then Minister of Finance was on Open Line during the week of the debate trying

to calm concerns maybe. He said the

bill had no real effect at all. He

claimed it was no more than a piece of housekeeping.

Mr. Speaker, a piece of housekeeping that went on for sixty-nine or

seventy hours in a filibuster.

I would say even though I

stand here as a member of the Opposition, the Opposition did not cause the

opposition to Bill 29. We debated

it, we opposed it, and we attempted to have people understand it.

The real people who opposed Bill 29 were members of the media.

We have a free and democratic society.

We have freedom of the press.

Fortunately, the media was able to make the general public realize what

was going on in the House of Assembly.

Not everybody watches the House of Assembly channel, and not everybody is

really up on exactly everything that is going on.

Fortunately, and

mercifully, we have a media in this Province that is assertive, aggressive, and

informed. Quite often all of us do

not appreciate what they do, including myself, from time to time; we do not

always get the best stories we like.

There is no evidence that the media in this Province is in any way biased

or slanted. The media in my view

did an excellent job on showcasing the shortcomings of Bill 29.

How did they showcase it

and what did they say? On June 12

during the debate, The Telegram ran

an editorial which said, The End of Openness – June 12, 2012.

Mr. Speaker, you would think that with that kind of an editorial in the

middle of the debate this government might sort of change course, slow up.

The editorialist wrote

that, “Bill 29 takes the access to information provisions of ATIPPA and smothers

them lifeless.” This was nineteen

months before January past when the current Premier says we will have to have a

look at this.

It was designed that we

have to have a look every five years, but I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, when you

drop from 60 per cent or 70 per cent in the polls down to somewhere between 20

per cent and 30 per cent and a lot of it is attributed to a particular piece of

legislation, you better have a look at it really quickly.

They are having a look at it, but in fact the people do not want the

government to have a look at it.

The people want Bill 29 gone, revoked, and repealed, and then go to work putting

in a proper piece of legislation.

The individuals who have

been hired, who are being paid, and who are being retained are an excellent

group of people. They know exactly

what to do, but their hands are being tied right now by Bill 29.

They have to try to work around this useless, damaging piece of

legislation before they can make recommendations.

Wouldn't it be much easier

to simply repeal Bill 29, get it over with, say now it is gone, and the old

piece of legislation falls in place?

The old piece of legislation was in effect two years ago.

We seemed to be doing relatively well prior to Bill 29.

All the chaos is caused by Bill 29 so why not, as my colleague from

Burgeo – La Poile has proposed, repeal Bill 29, get it gone, and let the three

commissioners do their job?

The Telegram

editorial outlined some of the issues included in Bill 29, and they were very

concise. Bill 29 may be a little

bit involved and complicated, but the evidence is there and

The Telegram drew the straight and

the right conclusion that the freedom of information process is essentially dead

in this Province. It says: By Bill

29, the government is saying we now have the permission to laugh in the face of

any government member who tries to say we are open and accountable.

They are not.

The Telegram newspaper said: How

stupid does the former Premier think we are to do this to us?

“I won't forget. And I will

do my best to make sure you don't either.”

Mr. Speaker, other

organizations spoke out against Bill 29.

It is almost breathtaking to know that so many other entities in the

media, Democracy Watch and the Canadian Association of Journalists, ranked us so

low in how we deal with access to information.

In a direct letter, the

Centre for Law and Democracy wrote to our Minister of Justice and said, “…with

Bill 29 the Newfoundland government is moving” – and they did not say

Newfoundland and Labrador – “in precisely the opposite direction” – opposite

from openness – “towards greater secrecy and less openness.”

They also said, “It is also somewhat troubling that, as Newfoundland's

Minister of Justice and a main proponent of reform for Newfoundland's

transparency system, you have such a poor grasp of the state of the right to

information around the world.” Such a

poor grasp of the state of the right to information around the world.

The backlash did not stop

there. The Canadian Association of

Journalists headline says: CAJ

opposes draconian changes to the ATI in Newfoundland and Labrador.

On June 13, the next day, Toby Mendel said that the amended act would

rank us behind Ethiopia, Guatemala and Uganda.

He says the new cabinet exception, where they are able to not give us

briefing books, is breathtaking in its scope, and he runs the centre.

Mr. Speaker, this bill cannot be fixed, it cannot be doctored and must be

repealed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an

opportunity to say a few words today on this motion.

I listened carefully to the members opposite.

I am already being heckled by the Member for Bay of Islands and I have

been up for fifteen seconds. I hope

I will have an opportunity to be listened to.

I showed the members opposite the same respect.

I am not surprised because what we are seeing here today, Mr. Speaker,

from members opposite is theatrics and I will expand on that in just a few

moments.

Mr. Speaker, we established

the Office of Public Engagement because we are deeply committed to demonstrating

commitment to Access to Information and Protection of Privacy.

We need to responsibly administer the legislation that governs the

release of information.

We have made great progress

in recent years. The purpose of the

ATIPP Act is to make public bodies more accountable.

We think that is important, to make public bodies more accountable to the

general public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn):

Order, please!

MR. KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I was

saying, the legislation is really important because it makes public bodies more

accountable to the general public.

It also protects personal privacy which is really significant as well.

Again as the Member for

Burgeo – La Poile did, I would like to provide a little bit of context for those

who are paying attention to today's debate.

The ATIPP Act was proclaimed in 2005 with the exception of the privacy

provisions that were proclaimed in 2008.

It is required to be reviewed every five years; five years after coming

into force and every five years thereafter.

It was amended in 2012 and those amendments are now referred to as Bill

Mr. Speaker, just a few

months ago the Office of Public Engagement prepared a very detailed provision by

provision comparison of the legislation pre-Bill 29 and post-Bill 29.

The document includes a

summary of each change and an explanation of the

amendments that were made. It is

available online; it is on the Office of Public Engagement Web site.

I would welcome anybody who has an interest in learning more about the

legislation and the changes that were made, to go online and review the

document. I am not sure that

anybody opposite has done so, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the fellows who were over here before they crossed read it at one

point in time, I do not know. I

know they voted for Bill 29.

I do not think they have

read it because all we are seeing today is theatrics, not substance.

We have had two speakers from the Official Opposition so far without

hardly a reference to any specific provisions that were contained in the

amendments that were made in 2012 – hardly a reference.

All we continue to hear, without substance, from both the Liberals and

the NDP is repeal Bill 29, without any constructive suggestions.

Mr. Speaker, just to

emphasize how real these theatrics are today in the House of Assembly, the

Member for Burgeo – La Poile held up an envelope earlier.

As the minister who is responsible for our ATIPP legislation I want to

acknowledge that it is really unfortunate that the member opposite received that

envelope. These envelopes are

normally used for Cabinet documents.

This envelope was sent by a new employee who did not realize that was the

case. There was certainly no intent

on the employee's part to create a concern, as it was simply intended that the

response be provided to the applicant in a timely fashion, in keeping with the

legislative requirements, and that is what has happened.

What you will not hear the

member opposite today say is what was in the envelope.

I would encourage him when he gets up to conclude – and he will have

fifteen minutes to do so. I would

like to hear him tell us if he received the information he asked for.

Did he receive the information he asked for in its entirety, Mr. Speaker?

Did he receive it within the required timelines?

That would be interesting to know.

I would like to hear the

member stand and say what was in the envelope, what was the nature of the

request. Did he get the information

that he asked for, and did he get it within the prescribed timelines, Mr.

Speaker? Then we can have a

sensible discussion about our ATIPP provisions and how they are being carried

out by this government. We are

deeply committed to following the legislation, and I will speak on that a little

later if time permits.

Mr. Speaker, it has to be

about balance. The key

consideration of any Access to Information and Protection of Privacy legislation

is about striking that balance between the release of information; the public

has a right to know. Also, we have

to make sure that information belonging to individuals, personal information,

and commercially sensitive information, is protected at the same time.

That is something that we keep in mind as we embark on our work each and

every day.

We know, and we believe

that residents in this Province have a right to access government information so

that they can be involved in a meaningful way with the work of government, and

so that they can play a role in shaping future policies and priorities of

government. Without access to

information obviously that would not be possible.

I also recognize, Mr.

Speaker, that the public has to have confidence in the legislation, not only in

the ATIPP legislation but in all the important decisions that are being made by

governments each and every day. It

is for that reason that this government has advanced the statutory review of our

Access to Information and Protection of Privacy legislation.

It was required to begin in

2015. Based on the feedback we have

been receiving from the public, based on the fact that we know there are

concerns out there about our ATIPP legislation and the amendments that were made

in 2012 specifically, we are beginning the statutory review a full year earlier

than required under the legislation.

It is being undertaken by a blue-ribbon panel, a panel of top experts in

privacy legislation, in journalism, and in law.

The Member for Lewisporte

did a good job of telling the story of the committee that has been assembled:

Jennifer Stoddart, Doug Letto, and Clyde Wells.

Clyde Wells will chair the committee; a former chief justice, and a

former Premier of the Province.

I appreciate the Member for

St. Barbe acknowledging that it is an excellent committee.

We have full confidence that these folks will do a comprehensive,

balanced, and thorough review of our legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is shocking and offensive that the Member for St. Barbe

would stand in this House today and suggest that somehow this committee's hands

are being tied. Nothing could be

farther from the truth. In fact,

what the Opposition is intending to do today, through this resolution, is tie

the hands of those doing this important work.

The committee is not just

going to review the amendments that were made through Bill 29.

That would be short-sighted.

They are going to review all aspects of the legislation.

Every single word in the legislation is going to be reviewed by this

committee.

I challenge the members

opposite to explain themselves. How

is it that the hands of these committee members are being tied?

The approach we are taking by allowing this committee to do its work

without interference, giving them the resources and time they need to do this

work without interference, is going to lead to a stronger piece of legislation

rather than just simply repealing Bill 29.

We are looking forward to

the results of the review of the ATIPP Act.

We fully expect it is going to provide us with a really strong framework

to support Access to Information and Protection of Privacy in this Province well

into the future. There is going to

be significant public consultation.

We commit to publicly releasing the findings and the recommendations of the

committee.

Nobody's hands are being

tied; it is quite the opposite.

This is going to be a full, open, thorough, and transparent review process.

We are going to give the committee the time and resources they need to do

this work.

The challenge with the

motion that is presented today – and let me tell you why I cannot support it –

is that the act has already been formally referred to the review committee and

that is in accordance with

section 74 of the act.

To take any actions to repeal or amend the act would actually interfere

with the authority that has been vested in the committee.

There is the fundamental

problem with the motion that has been put forward today.

We cannot interfere with the work of this committee.

It has been appointed to do important work.

I think there are a lot of people out there who have confidence in the

individuals we have appointed. I

ask the members opposite to respect the process, and to participate in the

process as well. Unfortunately,

several of them are not even listening to the debate today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the few

minutes I have left I would like to talk about some of the other work we are

doing beyond reviewing the ATIPP Act.

That is one component of a number of steps we have taken.

This is a government that is committed to reviewing the Access to

Information and Protection of Privacy legislation.

This is only one component of our larger Open Government Initiative that

we have recently embarked upon, an initiative that really shows our commitment

to provide the people of the Province with the best possible Access to

Information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR. KENT:

We have also committed to whistle-blower

legislation, Mr. Speaker. As was

mentioned in Question Period today, in the days ahead we will be introducing

that legislation in the House of Assembly, Bill 1.

Back to the Open Government

Initiative, it really marks a new approach in the way we are going to connect

with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the way we are going to engage

citizens, and the way we are going to collaborate with citizens and

stakeholders. Governments around

the world are embarking on Open Government action plans.

They are being evaluated based on their openness, accountability, and

responsiveness to their citizens.

We are prepared to do the same, and we are prepared to show leadership on this,

as the Premier and members of this government have already done.

We are not simply going to

roll out a plan. We are going to

spend more or less the rest of this year going around the Province and engaging

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to find out what kind of information

they want from government. What

kind of data would they like to see available?

How do they want to collaborate?

How do they want to be informed?

How do they want to be connected to the working government?

How do they want to play a role in shaping the policies and decisions

that this government will make?

It is a great initiative

and it is one that is based on best practices from other jurisdictions

nationally and internationally. We

hope that our Open Government Initiative will be among the best in the world by

the time we are finished. I would

encourage members opposite to get involved.

I would encourage people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador to get

involved.

We want to identify issues,

we want to identify solutions, and that is the approach we are going to take.

We want to capture the insight and expertise of the people of this

Province. What we have done so far,

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in several Question Periods in this House, is only

the beginning.

The public consultation

process will be in-depth. We are

going to use various methods to connect with people and to allow them to have

input. An action plan will be

developed. The draft action plan

will be released. We will seek

input on that as well. Ultimately,

we are going to have a plan in place that the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador can be proud of.

Our commitment as a

government, Mr. Speaker, is to provide the public with as much information as

possible, and we are utilizing proactive disclosure to do that.

We do not want people to have to go through a formal request every time

they want to access information. We

have released countless numbers of documents and pieces of information through

proactive disclosure, through our open information Web site.

That information is available.

There will be more and more added as we roll out our Open Government

Initiative. I commend the

departments that have stepped forward and taken proactive disclosure so

seriously in recent months. We have

made major progress.

We are identifying new

opportunities all the time to increase access to information.

We want to hear from people.

We want to hear from people about how we can improve that.

So as we move forward with the Open Government Initiative, we want to

hear from residents. We will

release more information wherever possible; based on the requests and

suggestions we receive. We are

committed to releasing as much information as we possibly can.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk

about some of the numbers because the Member for St. Barbe made reference to the

fact that some provisions of our legislation are not working.

Well, we have taken many steps to improve Access to Information for our

citizens. We are the only Province

in Canada to post all completed provincial government responses to Access to

Information requests online.

Since January of last year,

responses to more than 340 requests for information have been posted online in

their entirely. In addition, all

Orders in Council, the decisions of Cabinet, are published on the Office of

Public Engagement Web site within two weeks of them being signed by the

Lieutenant Governor.

The Member for St. Barbe,

in his fifteen minutes of fame today, indicated that response times are not

working – they are not working. Mr.

Speaker, over the last number of months, our departments have worked hard to

comply with timelines. They are

outlined in the legislation. We

knew we needed to do better and we have done better.

I am pleased to say the responses are provided within legislative

timelines more than 90 per cent of the time.

Now, a year ago that was

not the case, Mr. Speaker. Eighteen

months ago that was not the case.

We have made dramatic improvements in response times and we are striving for 100

per cent. We are constantly

striving to do better and we will do better.

I am also pleased to tell

you that in the last six months of the requests processed and posted online,

more than 50 per cent resulted in full disclosure of information and a further

33 per cent resulted in partial disclosure.

These statistics, Mr. Speaker, demonstrate improvement over the previous

time frames. They show our

commitment to releasing as much information as we possibly can.

So as an Office of Public

Engagement, we are working with other government departments and agencies, we

are working collaboratively with them, to improve their proactive disclosure

practices. We are challenging every

government department and every government entity to make more information

publicly available, and not only make it publicly available, but make it easily

accessible in a format that makes sense, that is easy to use and easy to

understand.

To date there are more than

fifty proactive disclosures on our new open information page: fisheries and

wildlife reports, child care and protection statistics, Income Support data,

ongoing capital works projects, and the list goes on.

We are listening to the public and we will continue to seek public input

and we will make more information available.

All of these ongoing

initiatives will provide a strong, open government culture in this Province.

We will build on these policies.

We are listening, Mr. Speaker.

Times are changing.

I would challenge the

members opposite and I look forward to hearing the closing remarks later this

afternoon from the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.

I would challenge the Liberals to lay off the rhetoric and lay off the

drama, and take

part in the review process.

Take part. Do not s