June

24, 2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 43

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we welcome the following private members' statements:

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

Member for the District of Terra Nova, the hon. the Member for the District of

St. John's East, the hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale,

and the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in January of this year a great big sea hove into the Battery

and damaged fishing stages that had been a part of people's lives for years.

While this wave may have washed away infrastructure, it did nothing to dampen

the spirits of those who live in the Battery.

Mr. Speaker, the newly formed Outer Battery Neighbourhood Association held

their first public event, a barbeque, on June 19. It was a wonderful event

attended by Battery residents and people interested in seeing the Battery

restored and its history remembered and preserved. Many people who were out

hiking last Saturday around Signal Hill stopped by as well.

The Outer Battery is rich in history and is a living representation of our

Province's past. Members of the Outer Battery Neighbourhood Association believe,

as I am sure all hon. members do, that it is important to preserve such cultural

gems as Jack Wells Twine Loft which was severely damaged in January's storm.

They and their families have lived in the Battery for many years and have

been maintaining the Battery community for themselves. They also realize the

importance of the Outer Battery to the tourism and of sharing their own history

of St. John's and the Province with the thousands of tourists who visit their

community each year.

They are happy to share a part of their lives with those that walk through

their laneways and it is this spirit of hospitality and perseverance against all

odds that has allowed the Outer Battery to survive the many challenges the

community has faced. It is this spirit, also, that will maintain the Outer

Battery into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating the Outer

Battery Neighbourhood Association for all their hard work in rebounding after

the January storm and wishing them all the best in the future for maintaining

the Outer Battery as a must see destination in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. S. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an inspirational

man, Gerard Feltham of Glovertown. Mr. Feltham was born on Fair Island,

Bonavista Bay in 1928. While he spent much of his early life working aboard his

father's schooner, he continued to pursue his goals of a higher education.

Mr. Feltham has an extensive educational resume. After graduating high school

from PWC he went on to attend Memorial University for two years. He would later

achieve a Bachelor of Arts degree as well as a Bachelor of Education degree at

Mount Allison University. He also completed the equivalent of a Bachelor of

Social Work at the Maritime School of Social Work in Nova Scotia followed by a

year of Theology at the University of Toronto. From there, Mr. Feltham would go

on to work thirty years as a social worker and as a high school teacher.

Over the years, Mr. Feltham has travelled to over fifty countries. Following

a trip to India in 1981, Mr. Feltham, along with a few of his friends started

the Help a Village Effort - or H.A.V.E. - in 1982 in Haliburton, Ontario. Mr.

Speaker, Walks for Water and H.A.V.E.'s main fundraising efforts are for the

provision of safe drinking water systems to villages in developing countries,

particularly those in India. Since its origin, H.A.V.E. has supplied

approximately 800 wells and other water systems.

Mr. Feltham and his family moved to Glovertown in 1998 and introduced the

Walks for Water to the area in the following year. In 2003, H.A.V.E.'s first

official branch outside of Ontario was formed in Glovertown. I am very pleased

to say that proceeds raised since 1999 have exceeded $100,000. Glovertown and

area's walks have supplied about 115 wells to many villages in India.

Consequently, about 70,000 villagers are now receiving sufficient clean, safe

drinking water for the very first time.

My wife Samantha and I had the privilege of taking

part in the Walk for Water

in Glovertown this year. Mr. Speaker, as someone who has travelled to India, I

can certainly attest to the need and can more than appreciate the importance of

this endeavour.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in recognizing this

groups efforts and thanking Gerard Feltham for his unselfish dedication and

commitment to helping others.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUCKINGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to extend congratulations to Mr.

P.J. Shea, a senior environmental specialist with the Department of Environment

and Conservation on his recent accomplishments. P.J. joins us today in the

gallery.

This past June 11-13 weekend, P.J. won the Rupert Kethro Memorial Kinsmen

Public Speaking Award at the Kin Canada Atlantic District 7 convention in

Miramichi, New Brunswick.

This August, P.J. will represent Atlantic Canada Kinsmen in the National Kin

Canada Public Speaking Competition held at their National Convention in Halifax.

The topic of P.J.'s speech was how Kinsmen and Kinettes in Canada have been so

successful in their efforts to fund cystic fibrosis research over the past three

decades. In that time, they have raised an astonishing $37 million.

Mr. Speaker, P.J. is not only a Kinsmen but he also has cystic fibrosis. He

went on to speak about how, as a young child, he had many experiences with

Kinsmen and Kinettes, conspicuous in their red and black vests, as they helped

at projects, children's camps and radiothons dedicated to CF. Now at age

thirty-three, he continues to give back to the organization that did so much to

help him and all the other children and adults living with CF. He has been a

member of the Kinsmen Club of St. John's since 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I met P.J. Shea last year through a game of recreational hockey

we share. He approaches the game with unbridled energy, enthusiasm and abandon.

One can only imagine my surprise and then awe as I came to realize that as a

result of CF, five years ago P.J. had a double-lung transplant. When P.J. was

born in 1977, he had a life expectancy of five years because of CF. Today,

through research, the median age for a CF patient is now forty-seven years old.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all members of the House to join

me in congratulating P.J. Shea on his public speaking accomplishments and even

more importantly, on being a role model on how to face adversity and thrive.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Verte-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Town of Baie Verte,

Business Chamber, and the organizing committee for successfully hosting the 23rd

Annual Mining Conference on June 11 and 12.

Mr. Speaker, over 225 people, hailing from all over the Province, converged

upon Baie Verte to register for the two day event. The conference provided an

opportunity for individuals from business, government, the mining industry, and

the investment community to meet in a relaxed atmosphere and exchange pertinent

information surrounding the mining industry. Some features of the conference

included: keynote address by Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier;

tour of the mining properties; presentation of technical papers; update of

mining activity in the area; exhibition booths; and an exquisite seafood feast.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Baie Verte are to be applauded for going above and

beyond year after year to host a conference of this magnitude. It speaks well of

their tenacity, resilience and commitment to promote the peninsula's potential

of becoming a leader once again in the mining industry, which has shaped the

culture and lives of the people in the region.

I ask all hon. colleagues in this hon. House to join me in applauding the

community of Baie Verte for hosting yet another overwhelmingly successful mining

conference. I wish them every success as they continue to grow their economy as

they eagerly await not one but three mines to operate in the area in the very

near future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the Mount Pearl Kinsmen and

Kinettes and their tireless efforts in supporting the people of Mount Pearl. The

Kinsmen are celebrating their ninetieth anniversary this year in serving our

communities greatest needs in this country.

The mission statement of Kin Canada is, "a dynamic volunteer organization

enriching our communities through service while embracing national pride,

positive values, personal development and lasting friendships." This could not

better describe the essence of the Kin Groups in Mount Pearl.

The Kinsmen and Kinettes have always been at the forefront of community

participation in Mount Pearl. They have provided numerous services, from

financial assistance to simply lending a helping hand.

With a membership of more than 7,000 members in approximately 500 Kinsmen,

Kinette and Kin clubs from coast to coast, they are certainly a strong national

organization.

Every year, Kin clubs contribute millions of dollars to Canadian communities.

In fact, Kin members have proudly contributed more than $1 billion to Canadian

communities since they were founded in 1920.

In Mount Pearl, the club organizes an annual Pennies from Heaven Campaign

whereby they collect pennies door to door from residents. These funds are then

targeted to charities that help residents of our community.

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

Mount Pearl Kinsmen and Kinettes on the ninetieth anniversary celebration, and

wish them all the best in their future efforts to assist the people of our

community.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government today launched a collection of video

testimonials by immigrants to Newfoundland and Labrador. These testimonials

provide insight into what attracts newcomers to our Province and their

experiences living and working here.

As part of the Provincial Immigration Strategy, Diversity ~ Opportunity and

Growth, launched in March of 2007, efforts are underway to promote Newfoundland

and Labrador as a destination of choice for prospective immigrants to Canada.

This project was undertaken by the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism

with funding from Citizenship and Immigration Canada as part of Working in

Canada Immigration Portal Project. The videos will be hosted on

www.nlimmigration.ca.

Mr. Speaker, these videos will help tremendously in promoting the Province as

a warm, welcoming and inviting destination. The individuals featured have all

made a significant impact since arriving in Newfoundland and Labrador and

continue to contribute to the growth and prosperity of our Province. Their

impressions of the Province are inspiring, and they prove that you do not have

to be born in our Province to be a proud Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

The testimonials are intended to depict the quality of life that Newfoundland

and Labrador has to offer and the potential for immigrants to successfully

settle and integrate in the Province and contribute to its social, economic and

cultural fabric.

Mr. Speaker, later this year, the Office of Immigration and Multiculturalism

will produce an additional twelve testimonials featuring Western and Labrador

regions.

It would be remiss of me, Mr. Speaker, to not mention that last week was the

second anniversary of the Policy on Multiculturalism in Newfoundland and

Labrador. This policy gives voice to government's vision of the Province as a

place filled with welcoming communities where the cultural diversity of all

residents is valued and celebrated. I also attended FPT meetings in Ottawa last

week where Ministers Responsible for Immigration highlighted achievements and

discussed ways we can continue to work together to attract and retain immigrants

in our respective jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador is home to people from approximately

100 different countries, speaking seventy different languages! Our government

understands the contribution immigrants make to our Province, and I am very

proud of the work we have done to promote Newfoundland and Labrador as a

destination of choice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for a copy of the video of testimonials by

immigrants to Newfoundland and Labrador that was delivered to our office this

morning. I have not had the opportunity to see it, Minister, but I have heard

that it is really good. Some of our staff did look at it. I want to thank you

for that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Office of Immigration and

Multiculturalism for taking

part in this project. I guess all of us here in our

Province just take it for granted that we are a warm, welcoming and inviting

destination for people, but it is good to know that people from other countries

some 100 different countries have prepared a video so that people from other

countries who have not visited our Province yet will find out that this is a

destination where they can come and be welcome.

It is good to know that the minister took part with other Ministers

Responsible for Immigration. I know some of my fellow colleagues here, when they

attended the Public Accounts Committee meeting last year in, I think it was

Edmonton, how various jurisdictions explained how they tried to promote

immigration to their Province and the retention of those people when they come

here. It is good to know that we are celebrating our second anniversary along

those lines.

I want to commend government for continuing this work because I am sure each

and every one of us have people in our districts who have moved here. We know

how important they are to helping our economy in each and every area of the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I thank the minister and I commend the Office of

Immigration and Multiculturalism.

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

Vidi.

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

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement and also for

the copy of the DVD that we received in the office as well. I did get a chance

to look at the beginning of the DVD. I think it is good to celebrate the

diversity that we have in our Province. In spite of the numbers of our

immigrants being low and our still having one of the lowest rates of immigration

in the country, the diversity equals the diversity in other provinces. I think

that is quite exciting, Mr. Speaker, and something for us to celebrate.

I would also like to speak about the Multiculturalism Women's Organization

and the final report that they have presented on advancing immigrant women's

equality in the Province. I know the minister has a copy of that report. I

encourage the minister to promote some of the recommendations that they have in

that report with regard to cultural sensitivity training, anti-violence

awareness and information about community resources and referrals for women who

are new in our society.

As they point out, Mr. Speaker, in the report, unfortunately, systemic racism

still exists and we must continue to deal with these issues, which are the real

issues that immigrant people have to work with in this Province. I encourage the

minister to make sure that the programs that are coming out of our multicultural

office continue to deal with those barriers that are there as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today is the last day of this sitting of the House of Assembly

and a number of outstanding issues, I guess, we feel still need to be addressed.

Over the past session, we have raised dozens of issues, and before moving on

today to some new issues we would like to ask the government to provide some

updates on things that we have raised earlier and have not received the

information.

First of all to the Minister of Finance I ask: Can you provide an update on

the negotiations with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and the

time frames as to when an agreement may be reached?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government has been conducting negotiations with the NLMA. We had hoped to

conclude the negotiations by the end of May, but unfortunately we were unable to

do that. There has been a change of leadership. There is a new president; Dr.

O'Shea has taken over from Dr. Lewis. The Executive Director of the NLMA is

presently outside of the Province but has indicated he would like to get back

and further the discussions upon his return, and that will happen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Natural Resources advised the House several weeks ago that a

German company had visited the former AbitibiBowater mill in Grand Falls-Windsor

and was evaluating whether to submit a business plan for the property. Of

course, we heard comments from the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Renewal at the time that downplayed that option and we heard comments from the

Minister of Transportation and Works that their intention was really to

dismantle the property.

I ask the minister today: Have you heard anything since regarding this

company's interest in the former mill properties in Grand Falls-Windsor and

where that is proceeding?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural

Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, late last week we received a business plan from this company. It

is currently undergoing assessment by us, the Department of Finance and the

Department of Business. We do not have anything further to report at this time,

Mr. Speaker, until that analysis is completed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education travelled to Qatar this week to visit

the College of the North Atlantic campus in that country. We know that there are

many questions related to the $5 million in staff overpayments.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: If this trip is related to those

overpayments and will this issue be discussed and does it relate to the

contracts or the further contracts between this Province and Qatar?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education is presently in Qatar

attending the graduation ceremonies at Qatar, and along with that, also the

meetings for the Joint Oversight Board.

I am not aware of the agenda for the Joint Oversight Board, but I do know

that the analysis that is being conducted or has been requested by government is

certainly one that will be discussed with the Joint Oversight Board when it is

available, to discuss the possible overpayment or the overpayment and the causes

for the overpayment and certainly what we would need to do on a go-forward

basis. I am not sure if it is on the agenda this week or not, or maybe it is put

off until the report has been received.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, as well, the Minister of Education committed to look into

regulations at the College of the North Atlantic that blocked Early Childhood

Education students from transferring credits from a private college into our own

public college system, even though both are governed and certified by Department

of Education standards.

I ask the minister if this investigation was completed and if the situation

has been corrected.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services,

and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services,

this is certainly something, as a department, we are interested in having

completed as well. I am not aware that the inquiry or the investigation has been

completed and the results are known at this time, but certainly it is something

that, once the Department of Education has their work done, that the Department

of Child, Youth and Family Services will be receiving that information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been several months in the Province now with an Acting Child and

Youth Advocate. We raised this issue in this session of the House.

I ask the minister: When will a permanent Advocate be chosen for this

position?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that, again, the chief Advocate reports to the

House and not to this minister or any other minister, but I do understand that

the recruitment process is well underway. I think a candidate is being

considered. I would assume that a decision will be made very shortly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance committed to speaking with his

counterparts from other provinces regarding the online casino gambling through

the Atlantic Lottery Corporation before agreeing to bring it to this Province.

We realize these meetings happened last week.

I ask the minister: Did you discuss the online casino gambling proposal at

those meetings, and is this something that will be introduced in Newfoundland

and Labrador?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The answer to the question is, obviously, yes. I was in Prince Edward Island

and I did have discussions with the other finance ministers, the Atlantic

finance ministers. We had a discussion about what they want to do with online

gambling, and where the department is doing an analysis, and in due course I

shall bring this forward to my colleagues and government will make a decision in

due course on how it wishes to go forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, striking support workers on the Burin Peninsula

have been on strike since last year because the provincial government refuses to

treat them the same as all the other bargaining units within the public service.

They have been on strike through the fall session of this Legislature, through

Christmas, through Easter, into the spring, and right to the closure of this

session.

I ask the minister: When will you give these workers a settlement and include

them under the same bargaining agreement clauses as others that work within the

system so that they can get this strike over with and go back to work?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this House on many

occasions, government is not the employer here. Government is merely the

negotiator under the provisions of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

Discussions have been ongoing as recently as within the last couple of weeks.

Discussions continue to unfold and if there is any new information, I will be

happy to bring it forward to this House at the appropriate time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Environment was supposed to speak to

the Minister of Transport Canada regarding changes that were made in April to

tugboat regulations in Placentia Bay. She did advise that she spoke to officials

with North Atlantic Refinery who justified the changes but not with the federal

minister at that time.

I ask the minister: If she has now had an opportunity to speak with the

federal minister and if he has provided any explanation as to the rationale

behind their April decision on the regulations and the impact it may have on

safety and oil spill response in Placentia Bay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the federal minister has not been available yet for a call, but

my deputy minister did speak to his deputy.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that the member opposite do his homework. There

have been no changes made to the regulations; there have been no exemptions made

to the regulations. These regulations have been in effect since July, 2009.

Under those regulations, for escort services, four people are required. So North

Atlantic Refinery went from three to four. For in-harbour services, the minimum

is two and they currently maintain three. So, they are above the standard. There

has been no exemption and there has been no change to policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of Environment's explanation raised a number of

questions. According to the FFAW, having a requirement for two people on a

tugboat is not safe and they feel government is being pushed around by the oil

industry in that regard. They also feel that while North Atlantic may have three

people on tugs at certain times, the company lobbied quite hard to get the

regulations changed and it is only a matter of time before they move to a

two-person configuration.

I ask the minister: Transport Canada has issued three safe manning documents

over the past year, how is it safe to move from four people to two people within

a twelve-month period and not compromise the safety in that particular bay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this has nothing to do with oil

spill response, this is about crew safety. Mr. Speaker, there has been no change

in policy. This has been the policy that has been in effect since July of 2009.

In April of 2010, North Atlantic refinery sought clarification on the maritime

regulations, transportation regulations. There has been no change.

I have contacted the federal government as the member asked me, and I

certainly ask him if he has done the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have spoken with the representatives of the FFAW, Mr. Speaker. According

to the FFAW, other areas of the country such as British Columbia are beefing up

their regulations

whereas this Province is moving in the opposite direction.

There are approximately 400 fishing enterprises in Placentia Bay that could be

ruined in the event of an oil spill.

I ask the minister: Do you support these manning regulation changes that have

been made or are you going to challenge the federal government, and are you

prepared to meet with the FFAW representatives to discuss their side of the

story, as they put it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my call, when it happens with Minister Baird, is

to state that if there are changes to take place, while this is happening in our

waters in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador we would certainly like to

be consulted.

Mr. Speaker, I have been assured that there are no changes. This is the

current policy and North Atlantic Refinery just sought clarification on that

policy. Their policy is for a very valid reason, for a safety reason, when boats

are out in the harbour that four crew are required: a master, an engineer and

two crew people. This is for safety reasons, but when boats are within the

harbour, which is primarily for docking and undocking of product vessels, which

is about three times a week, five hours per trip, so fifteen hours per week and

this is where the tug is gently pushing the product vessels in, two people are

all that is required for that type of operation.

There has been no change in the federal regulations. Certainly, if there were

to be a change, I have no doubt that the federal government would be in contact

with us

and certainly consult with us on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on VOCM this morning the Federation of School Councils expressed

concerns about the school fire evacuation plans for disabled students. Areas of

refuge within schools are intended to ensure that disabled students have access

to safe, fireproof areas until the proper help arrives.

I ask the minister if she can tell me how many schools in our Province

currently have areas of refuge.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services

and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, this government has certainly invested heavily in

the infrastructure of our schools. One of the main reasons for that is we want

to provide safe learning environments for all the students in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Over the years, Mr. Speaker, we have seen a number of schools that closed for

safety reasons so we could get in and get the work done. Our investment in

school infrastructure has increased year over year so that we can make these

environments safe for all.

I do not have the statistics as the hon. member asked for right now, but I

can assure the hon. member that fire safety and the evacuation of students, and

in particular, any student who would have any type of challenging or special

needs in order to evacuate the building is something that would be of importance

to this government and to the Department of Education. If there are any issues

or any particular buildings that they felt needed attention, I am sure the

department would look specifically at those buildings and do the necessary

upgrades.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the National Fire Protection Association 101, Life Safety Code

requires that areas of refuge be equipped with two-way communication, clean air

ventilation, fireproof and smoke proof doors, sprinklers and they are supposed

to be clearly marked.

I ask the minister: Are inspections conducted on a regular basis to ensure

that areas of refuge are compliant to the NFPA requirements?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the short answer of that is yes. Our

schools are inspected on a yearly basis. Each and every school in this Province

is inspected by inspectors of the Department of Government Services and in some

they are actually inspected two and three times. Also, there is a process in

place of education in regard to the regular maintenance people doing inspections

as well. So everything is done to the standard and inspected to the standard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, another crucial safety concerns for many students,

parents and teachers is the availability of descent devices on stairs in our

provincial schools, as well as the ability of students who require these devices

to be able to do so independently. These devices provides safe and efficient

access up and down stairways in the case of an emergency and the availability

and independent use of these devices ensure that staff members do not have to

potentially carry students themselves during an evacuation.

So I ask the minister: Are there descent devices in all of our provincial

schools that require them and, if so, can they be used independently?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such devices being needed

in any of the schools and that a student would need one. I know that some of the

schools across the Province have those devices in place. They are operational.

There are proper instructions in regard to their use. The particular student

themselves can use them by themselves. They are designed that way.

So, in each and every one of the schools I believe that they are working

properly and they are inspected properly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits &White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: When new school buildings are being planned for and

constructed in our Province, is there a requirement that they have areas of

refuge and descent devices for students with disabilities?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

In that process in regard to design of schools, new schools to be built,

Government Services, from a safety aspect, occupational health and safety

aspect, are heavily involved in the development of any plan in regard to a new

school development. All safety aspects are taken into account in regard to

development of that particular piece of work, and we consult heavily with the

consultants who are assigned to those schools and to school boards themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, back in 2007, the government committed in their Blue Book to

implementing a ten-year early learning and child care strategy. However, we have

not heard anything regarding targets, timelines or consultations being conducted

until this commitment was re-announced during the 2010 Throne Speech.

So I ask the minister: What is the status of this strategy, when will

consultations take place, and when can we expect to see the results?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services

and Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In this year's Budget, we announced, certainly, that there would be a

strategy developed for early learning, developed by the Department of Education.

Part of the development of that strategy will involve consultation across

Newfoundland and Labrador so that we can have input from the general public, as

well as the stakeholders, regarding what we need in Newfoundland and Labrador to

have an effective early learning strategy for the preschoolers in this Province.

I do not know the timelines right now of the consultation, but they will be

happening within the next couple of months. Once the consultation is completed,

the strategy will be developed, will be approved by government, and certainly

will feed into the budget process of government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I raised the issue of the chronic shortage of

long-term care beds on the Northern Peninsula. People are waiting for months and

months for a bed within the John M. Gray facility in St. Anthony. Many people

are occupying hospital beds for up to a year waiting for long-term beds to

become available. This is unacceptable.

I ask the minister: What are his plans to address the chronic shortage of

long-term care beds on the Northern Peninsula?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

What we have planned to do is address the issue of long-term care beds in the

Province as a whole, Mr. Speaker. This government has invested heavily in

long-term care: over $200 million, Mr. Speaker, over the last period of time;

$110 million in new infrastructure. We have seen a beautiful facility open up in

Corner Brook recently. The Happy Valley-Goose Bay facility will be opening soon.

We have announced a facility to replace Hoyles-Escasoni here in St. John's. I

announced the Carbonear facility and, Mr. Speaker, just recently turned the sod

in Lewisporte.

What we are looking at, Mr. Speaker, is how best to suit the needs of all the

residents of this Province, and that is what we will continue to do. As I have

indicated on numerous occasions, we are in the process of developing the

long-term care strategy. We will engage in consultations in the not-too-distant

future, Mr. Speaker. We will listen to the stakeholders, hear what they have to

say, and then come up with a plan that addresses the needs of all of the people

of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White

Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there are no additional

beds in the investments that the minister just mentioned, in the different areas

of the Province, and I am not sure if we are planning on having our seniors

occupy homes in the Carbonear or St. John's area from the Northern Peninsula or

not, but I would like to know specifically what is being done to address the

chronic shortage of long-term care beds, specifically on the Northern Peninsula.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Health and Community Services I look at, again,

as I have indicated, all areas of the Province. What we have to do is ensure

that there are facilities available throughout the Province. As a government we

are doing that.

Mr. Speaker, besides $110 million in infrastructure that we have invested

over the last number of years, we have also put $103 million in home support

wages and personal care homes. As I have indicated on a number of occasions, Mr.

Speaker, we have invested $38.5 million since 2005-2006 to increase home support

hourly subsidy wages. Since 2004, Mr. Speaker, government has increased personal

care home subsidy rates from $1,172 to $1,717 an increase, Mr. Speaker, of

$584 per month.

What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at how we can utilize all the

resources we have at our disposal, and that will include community care homes,

independent living, how we can work with seniors' groups, Mr. Speaker, and

continue to build long-term care facilities, and we are doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the long-term care

issues, the need for long-term care is a concern for all areas of the Province.

Just this week we heard of issues regarding a lack of beds in the Clarenville

region in a newly built facility.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, of course, are aging faster than any other

region of Canada. This government publicly announced their long-term care

strategy in February 2008 nearly two years ago and it is still not complete.

The minister referenced it again today.

I wonder if the minister can give us a better idea of some timeline as to the

long-term care strategy, since we are already two years in and we still do not

know. Today he is referencing having more consultations of stakeholders. When

can we expect to see something?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is all about providing the best possible care we can to our seniors, to

ensure that in their latter years they are treated with the dignity and the

respect that they deserve, and that is what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I announced in the sitting of the House this fall that we were

reworking the strategy, and that there was a dedicated team in my department

which was looking at all of the demographics and the cost. Mr. Speaker, we know,

for example, by the time we get to 2021, that 22 per cent of our population

could be over age sixty-five. We know, for example, that we currently have 2,500

long-term care beds; we may need another 900. So we have to look at innovative

and creative ways to deal with this situation. One of the ways this government

is doing it is, for example, with our age-friendly grants putting money out into

the communities, ensuring our seniors can stay healthy, that they can socialize,

that they can walk and exercise, Mr. Speaker. By keeping them in the community,

keeping in their homes, we are thereby going to decrease the need for long-term

care facilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, in questioning last week and again

today, the minister indicated that they are aggressively attempting to put the

long-term care strategy in place. The Personal Care Home Association of

Newfoundland and Labrador has been trying to get a meeting with this minister

since he assumed the role back in October, but they have been unable to obtain a

meeting. No one from the department has contacted that association, or any of

their members, regarding this strategy.

I ask the minister: Will you commit to a meeting with the Personal Care Home

Association of Newfoundland and Labrador as part of developing this long-term

care strategy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have not met with the smaller personal care home operators; nor have I met

with the larger personal care home operators. Mr. Speaker, the statistics are

actually somewhat staggering when we look at these small personal care homes

with less than twenty residents. There are almost half of them with 40 per cent

vacancy rates.

The reality, Mr. Speaker, it is not the government or anything that we have

done that is failing to contribute to their success; it is their lack of a good

business plan. One of the personal care homes we keep hearing about, Mr.

Speaker, has a 64 per cent vacancy rate. In this day and age, how can you

maintain a business with that kind of a vacancy rate?

Mr. Speaker, when I look at vacancy rates of 73 per cent, 75 per cent, 64 per

cent, 80 per cent, 55 per cent, the reality is that these smaller personal care

homes, as a result of changing times, as a result of the onset of the larger

personal care homes, which apparently offer very good services, that is where

the difficulty arises - nothing to do with this government.

This group will have the opportunity to attend the long-term care and

community support strategy consultations, like everyone else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, another tourism season is upon us and we are no

closer to knowing what government's plans are for the Fort Amherst fortification

that is falling into a state of disrepair. Last May, the former Minister of

Tourism said that he would provide an update on government's actions to protect

this site; yet, no update was ever given.

I ask the minister: Does government have any plans to protect this site from

further decay, and has there been any discussion on making Fort Amherst a

Provincial Historic Site?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot give the hon. member an

update but I certainly will relay it to the minister and we will certainly get

the information to him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been reported in the media this week that the former

Minister of Health and Community Services, now the Minister of Business, has

said that the Department of Heath and Community Services will be starting

consultations this fall on a long-term strategy for home care and long-term

care. The Minister of Health, this afternoon, said that he will be doing

consultations. We have been getting this promise for over two years, that we

were going to get a long-term and home care plan from this government, so indeed

I ask the Minister of Health and Community Services now: Is this consultation

process really going to begin in the fall, as has been said by the former

minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are in the process of planning the consultations. I actually hope that

they will begin sooner than expected, and that we could potentially begin these

long-term care consultations this summer. Mr. Speaker, these matters will be -

we will go to various communities around the Province. We will hear from the

different stakeholders. We will hear from seniors' groups. We will hear from

operators of personal care homes. We will hear from anyone who has an indication

of how we should deal with this. We are open to discussions, Mr. Speaker.

We are aware that we have to look at new ways of doing business, and we have

to try to keep our seniors as healthy as possible. So, Mr. Speaker, what we have

to do to keep them in their homes is certainly something we will look at. We

have to look at independent living, community care living. There is a whole

plethora of issues that have to be examined, Mr. Speaker, and I am hoping,

actually, that we will be able to engage in that process this summer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

Mr. Speaker, a fully-based community-based home care system is really urgent

for the people who need care in this Province, and the minister has put out

quite a number of ideas of things that he thinks could be possibly in place. So

the government does not have to reinvent the wheel on this one. It can look at

what is happening in other places, in other jurisdictions, with other

Departments of Health and health care systems.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Is his department putting together a

consultation document that can be released, or are they actually starting from

scratch when they hold these consultations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Mr. Speaker, there has been some great work done in the

Department of Health and Community Services over the last number of years in

relation to this long-term care strategy and there has been excellent work done

by the team that has been put together over the last five or six months. We have

done some financial modelling, Mr. Speaker, we have looked at the demographic,

we have looked at where we could be in 2021, for example, in terms of the Stats

Canada numbers. What we are doing is we are going to outline in a document,

hopefully the vision, the mission and the principles, and seek people's input.

So, yes, in answer to the question, once we engage in the consultations,

there will be a consultation document. We will try to set it up so that it can

be done either orally - there will be some roundtables, Mr. Speaker, with me,

other MHAs will be involved, and also we will invite all written proposals or

written documents that anyone wishes to provide to us. We are very open to

hearing what people have to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

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

I look forward to receiving this information from the minister when the time

comes.

Mr. Speaker, this government must complete our health care system by filling

in the missing home care piece. I think the minister is aware of that. It is

essential for effective patient care. The patient flow study released by Eastern

Health in March stated very succinctly that a lack of community-based resources

to provide home care services are affecting the organization's ability to

discharge patients. Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing promises in this House now

for two and a half years with regard to a plan for long-term care.

I am asking the minister: How long is this process going to take? Will we be

waiting for another two years in this House to get something on the table?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will go back to my comments in the fall when I said that we would do this

and we would do it right. We are proceeding logically. We are organized in terms

of where we are going, and we have assigned a team that has looked at all of the

finances and the demographics. I am not simply hauling numbers out of my hat

today in outlining the vacancies in personal care homes. This is the kind of

information that has been put together for us, Mr. Speaker.

What we will do is, we will do the consultation process and then the

disabilities office is doing some consultations this fall. We will see what

comes out of their consultations also. We will then proceed to put a strategy in

place, Mr. Speaker but the strategy is very important because of the aging

demographic and the size of our Province. A lot of our rural citizens are our

senior citizens, and we will look after them by providing the care and service

that they demand, Mr. Speaker, in their latter years, as I have indicated, and

we will treat them with dignity and respect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Child,

Youth and Family Services.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the Report of the Minister's Advisory

Committee in accordance with

section 75.(6) of the Child, Youth and Family

Services Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today in accordance with the requirements

of the Transparency and Accountability Act, 2006, to table the Provincial

Advisory Council for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities' transitional

activity plan which covers the activities of the council for the fiscal year

2010-2011.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will do the third readings on the Order Paper

to begin this afternoon.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 3,

An Act To Amend The Income

Tax Act, 2000, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 3,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 3)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 3 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that

the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000", read a third

time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 3)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 9,

An Act To Amend The Income

Tax Act, 2000 No. 2, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 9,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2, be now read a third

time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2. (Bill 9)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 9 has now been read a third time and it is ordered that

the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2", read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 9)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board, that Bill 22,

An Act To Amend The

Portability Of Pensions Act, be now read a third time.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that

Bill 22,

An Act To Amend The Portability Of Pensions Act, be now read a third

time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Portability Of Pensions Act. (Bill 22)

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 22 has now been read a third time and it is ordered

that the bill do pass and that its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Portability Of Pensions Act", read a

third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 22)

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, Motion 1.

MR. SPEAKER: The House is now ready to hear debate on Motion 1.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I look for direction here. Is this motion moved is this motion

to be moved and seconded?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I say to the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney

General.

MR. F. COLLINS: I move, Mr. Speaker, the following motion, and seconded

by my colleague the hon. Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board:

"WHEREAS

section 42.1 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy

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

the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on a resolution of the House of Assembly;

NOW THERFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. Ed Ring, be reappointed as the

Information and Privacy Commissioner for a term of 2 years."

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today to speak in support of this motion. As is

pointed out in the motion, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy

Act provides for the appointment of the Privacy Commissioner and under

section

42.1 of that act, the term of appointment is for two years.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ring who was appointed in an acting capacity back on

December 18, 2007 and was confirmed in this House of Assembly four months later

on April 10, 2008. When Mr. Ring was appointed, Mr. Speaker, and first confirmed

in this House of Assembly in 2008, it was stated by members of the House at that

time that Mr. Ring - and I repeat the same discussion today, Mr. Ring had a long

and distinguished career in the Canadian Armed Forces spanning thirty-four years

serving in both the regular and the reserve components. He began his service in

1969. He was commissioned in 1973 under the regular officer training plan. He

graduated from Memorial University in 1973 and was posted to his first unit at

the Canadian Forces Base in Gagetown, New Brunswick.

He went on to serve, Mr. Speaker, in a number of provinces in Canada and also

in England, South Wales and West Germany. In 2001, he was appointed as Deputy

Commander of the Land Force Atlantic Area and then promoted to the rank of

Brigadier General. Mr. Speaker, he has had a long and distinguished career in

Canada's military, having retired from there in 2003.

He transferred to the reserve component, Mr. Speaker, and at that time began

employment with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1992 and served

as the Director of Policing Services with the Department of Justice for four

years. Subsequently, he move to the Public Service Commission, 1997, and

initially worked as a staffing officer. From 2002-2007, a Director of the Appeal

and Investigation Division. He is a graduate of Memorial University, having

graduated with a Bachelor of Physical Education.

During his military career, he received training in investigations, judicial

and quasi-judicial functions, and having a long, distinguished career, both with

this government and in the military, he was at that time very well suited for

this appointment. At the time, Mr. Speaker, the Premier said, and I quote,

"During his career with the Provincial Government and previously during his very

successful military career, Mr. Ring acquired a depth of experience, knowledge

and skill sets that will serve the public service well in his new position."

Mr. Speaker, at the time, the Opposition House Leader, who is still in that

role today stated, and I quote, "he is a gentleman beyond reproach, a person

who does not only have the intellectual capacity to do this job but also has the

ethical, the moral capacity to do it, to be absolutely independent, and I

certainly have had no suggestion, intimation whatsoever, that this individual

being put forth by government is not the right person. In fact, anything I have

heard is that he is the right person.

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

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

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

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

will be supporting the government resolution for the appointment of Mr. Ed Ring

as the Information and Privacy Commissioner."

At the time, the Leader of the NDP stated, in part, "I am sure government has

made a really good appointment, and I am really happy to support it" and "I am

very pleased to ratify the appointment of Mr. Edward Ring."

Mr. Speaker, hopefully the parties will see fit to do that same thing today

in support of this motion.

Mr. Ring has now served at the helm of the Office of the Information and

Privacy Commission, Mr. Speaker, since December 2007, for a period of

two-and-a-half years. He has dealt with many reviews, complaints and

investigations pursuant to the ATIPP Act, and issued many reports which are a

matter of public record, accessible to everyone.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know the Opposition will dwell on the that the Department

of Justice and the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has had

their differences of opinion over the release of certain information under

ATIPP; however, it is prudent, I think, to point out that ATIPP does not provide

a blanket disclosure of information, there are provisions in ATIPP that require

certain information cannot be released. Mr. Speaker, the Liberals brought in

that act, or did not bring in that act, but they initiated that act, never

proclaimed it. This was a provision that we have lived with since we proclaimed

it; yet, they continue to criticize us for doing that.

Mr. Speaker, the difference of opinion between the department and the Privacy

Commission has really been one of difference of

interpretation and never

considered to be interference in any way with the Privacy Office. It was all

about different

interpretations of the act. When that happens, Mr. Speaker, you

go to the authorities to get the proper

interpretation and that is what we have

done. In this case, we went to the courts to get the proper

interpretation of

the act and that is what happened. These court decisions, Mr. Speaker, will

inform the review that is currently underway by Mr. Cummings, and we certainly

welcome his report.

Mr. Speaker, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner is doing

a good job and is very busy; a sign that the process is working.

As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the members of the Official Opposition like to

take credit for the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and they

say they created the act in 2002, before the government changed. Mr. Speaker,

the history of ATIPP is a little bit different than that. First of all, it was

this party, the PC Party, which proposed reforms to this act in the general

elections of 1999. The Liberals at that time, under Premier Grimes, appropriated

many of the Tory policies and this was one of them.

Now, they appropriated others that they did not follow through on. They said

they would, but they did not, including: establishing the Child and Youth

Advocate, which they never followed up on; reinstating the Office of the

Citizens' Rep, which they did not follow up on; reforming student aid, which

they did not follow up on; raising the minimum wage that they did not follow up

on; cutting the pay roll tax that they did not follow up on; and I will just put

in an et cetera after that one.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals brought forward the ATIPP legislation which we

sought to strengthen through the amendments in 2002, and the legislation passed

at that time, but they refused to proclaim the legislation into law. They

refused to live by the new law and they forced everyone in the Province to abide

by the old law. So they can hardly take credit for putting the reform into

effect. It is all a bit of window dressing and it was this government who

proclaimed the law and gave it effect. That is exactly what we did in 2005. Mr.

Speaker, that makes this government the most open, accountable and transparent

government in the history of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: By definition!

MR. F. COLLINS: My hon. colleague says by definition absolutely, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): Order, please!

I remind all hon. members that the hon. Minister of Justice does indeed have

the floor and I ask all hon. members for their decorum.

Thank you.

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

The public, Mr. Speaker, is certainly taking advantage of their right to

access this information. The ATIPP annual report 2005-2006, for example,

indicated there 426 requests for information under this act. April 1, 2006 to

March 1, 2007, there 376 requests and from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008,

there were 463 requests for information under the act.

Mr. Speaker, the question arises: How are we performing with respect to other

jurisdictions? An independent report released just six weeks ago indicates we

are doing very well indeed. The 2009-2010 National Freedom of Information Audit

was released on May 12, 2010 by a Canadian Newspaper Association and is

accessible on-line. The independent annual report is a highly regarded review of

federal, provincial and municipal governments. It is among the most positive

indicators that the ATIPP process is working effectively.

Each year the CNA releases an audit of responses to Freedom of Information

requests made to provinces, to the federal government, to municipalities, and

this year they included universities. The CNA requests information from all

provincial governments in Canada related to the use of cellphones by

transportation departments, receipts and reimbursements of Premiers or

designates to attend the 2009 annual Premiers' meeting in Regina, electronic

lists of Freedom of Information requests received by justice departments, H1N1

communication materials and education departments' plans for dealing with H1N1.

They are audited and assigned letter grades on a point system based upon

responses of these requests, including the type of disclosure, the length of

time to respond and the fee estimates provided by the respondents. The report,

Mr. Speaker, examined response times and reported that this Province was the

third best in the country, relative to all other provinces, territories and the

federal government.

Comprised in our Province, Mr. Speaker, was 93 per cent compared with 77 per

cent in Quebec, 50 per cent in Ottawa, 44 per cent in Nova Scotia and 33 per

cent in New Brunswick. The results, Mr. Speaker, are impressive. The report

compared information release with release denials for all jurisdictions. On this

measure our Province was second best in the country with a release compliance of

73 per cent compared with 46 per cent for Ottawa, 44 per cent in Ontario, 38 per

cent in Quebec and Nova Scotia, and 14 per cent in New Brunswick; again,

impressive statistics.

In the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, our Province was assigned a letter grade

of B- compared with a C+ for Nova Scotia, P.E.I, and Alberta; C for New

Brunswick; B+ for Ontario and B.C.; and that placed us fourth in the country.

Mr. Speaker, B- also reflects a better performance on the federal Finance

Department which was a C+. Canada Post, Transport Canada and the Privy Council

Office, Indian and Northern Affairs, and the CBC, C-. Environment Canada, D+;

Health Canada, D; and National Defence, D-. So we are doing pretty good, Mr.

Speaker, in comparison to other jurisdictions across the country.

AN HON. MEMBER: An independent analysis.

MR. F. COLLINS: An independent analysis. As I pointed out at that

particular time, Mr. Speaker, a grade of B- from the Canadian Newspaper

Association further demonstrates that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador is open and accountable to the people of our Province. The provincial

government ranked high in disclosure of requests of the auditors, and as well,

Mr. Speaker, ranked second best among the provinces in responding within the

nationally accepted period of thirty days to Freedom of Information requests.

Mr. Speaker, these figures incidentally with the CNA report are very

consistent with our own figures. Our figures show that over 90 per cent of

requests are responded to within the time guidelines. As a matter of fact, for

personal information it is up to 96 per cent. Seventy-six percent of the

requests, Mr. Speaker, get partial or total disclosure, 76 per cent. Only 8 per

cent, Mr. Speaker, are denied. These are pretty fair figures and show the

activity of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

I also pointed out yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in this House that our government

has a strong record of openness and accountability and includes establishing

this office in the first place, and also introducing the House of Assembly

Accountability, Integrity and Administration Act, the Lobbyist Registration Act,

the Transparency and Accountability Act. Our government is committed, Mr.

Speaker, in acting in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and that includes ensuring open and timely access to information which

they request.

Mr. Speaker,

section 74 of the ATIPP legislation that we proclaimed states as

follows, "After the expiration of not more than 5 years after the coming into

force of this Act or part of it and every 5 years thereafter, the minister

responsible for this Act shall refer it to a committee for the purpose of

undertaking a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act

or part of it."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is a work that is always in progress and

our government is committed to learning from our experience and making the act

function even better as we apply these lessons. As a result, Mr. Speaker, on

March 17, 2010 I announced that John Cummings, Q.C. has been appointed to

conduct a statutory review of this act. I stated at the time, that Mr. Cummings

will hold consultation sessions throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and provide

the opportunity for both public and written submissions. I encourage everyone,

Mr. Speaker, no matter if they avail of the legislation or not, to attend these

sessions, provide input or simply learn more about this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, these sessions are ongoing as we speak and a number of them have

already been held.

I also said at that time, Mr. Speaker, that the Access to Information and

Protection of Privacy Act is important legislation for our Province, and this

audit clearly indicates that this legislation is working for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I look forward to the submissions of the public and

to receiving the final report of Commissioner Cummings and his recommendations

pertaining to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I might also point out that the news of this review was received

very positively by the office of the Privacy Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask all members in this House today to support this

motion to reappoint Mr. Ring to this position for the term of two years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take this opportunity to have a few words with regard to this resolution.

As far as I know I am not speaking for all of my colleagues, but certainly

from this particular member. I have not changed my opinion regarding the

individual in question since I first made it. I felt, and knowing that gentleman

back at that time, that he was the words I used, I believe the minister

repeated today: top shelf. I thought he was top shelf then and I still think he

is top shelf today. So I certainly will be voting in support of this resolution.

That is with regard to the resolution. Now, the minister of course had some

words to say about the act itself. Now in that case, as Sir Winston Churchill

said, I would submit that the minister is guilty of some "terminological

inexactitudes" in the comments that he just made. I will take an opportunity to

elaborate on some of those.

First of all, he talked about this government bringing in this legislation as

if it was a great and noble thing that they did. Mr. Speaker, the truth is that

the Freedom of Information legislation was overhauled after twenty years. The

first one came into inception back in the Peckford days. It existed for twenty

years and finally, it was under the Grimes Administration that the overhaul took

place. So the minister cannot take credit, certainly, for what happened after

twenty years to overhaul. That was the Liberal Administration that did that.

The minister talked about proclaiming it as if that was the big, important

act. Mr. Speaker, there is one reason why the act was not fully proclaimed at

the time that it was passed, and it was a very simple reason. The minister knows

full well what that reason is. The reason was that the new legislation included

a major piece on privacy. Everybody knew from the day that ATIPPA was debated in

this House that the act was not going to be fully implemented the day that it

was passed here because there had to be educational systems, there had to lead

time in order for agencies that had never, ever before been covered by ATIPPA to

get up to steam, and secondly, to put the proper safeguards in place with regard

to the privacy piece. So, that is the reason why it was not proclaimed.

The government passed it knowing it was not going to be proclaimed fully at

that time. The government changed, of course, in 2003 and then subsequently this

government made the proclamation of it once the privacy piece was looked after

and was prepared to go. When I refer to agencies, for example, that have never

been covered before, we had, for example, all of the health care institutions.

We had all of the school boards that became covered. They were not used to

having to deal with Freedom of Information type requests as governments were. So

that is why it took a period of time to allow those agencies to familiarize

themselves with the new law and put the proper mechanisms in place so that they

could use it.

This is not an issue of Mr. Ring, as we say. I felt back then he was top

shelf and still feel the same. The problem we had, Mr. Speaker, is how the

government has utilized or failed to utilize the Freedom of Information laws

that we do have. Now the minister gave glowing comments about how he rates him -

and by the way, how government rates him. That is pretty good when you are the

person who ATIPPA most often applies to and you are the person giving us the

statistics to say: oh, we are good. Well, I beg to pardon the minister, but a

lot of people do not put great reliance in some of the statistics that the

government might give them.

I am going to give a few examples of where it has not worked for the benefit

of the public that it is intended for and government have been very, very

secretive there is no other word to use. You talk about open and accountable;

the word that comes to mind is secretive. I will give you an example - and

deceptive, there is no question about it. I will give some examples of how that

happens.

By the way, we do welcome as well the appointment and review of Mr. Cummings.

Mr. Cummings was the deputy minister back at the time that we appointed the

initial review committee. So he is a very apt person to do the review now. He

was in the Department of Justice as the deputy minister. I think he came there

in November of 2000, and in December of 2000 when the committee was struck to do

the review, he was the deputy minister at the time.

That committee, by the way, consisted of some pretty reliable people. We had

an individual by the name of Joan Dawe, who was the chairperson of it; we had a

lady named Siobhan Coady who has since become, of course, the MP for one of the

districts here in the city; and Dr. Len Williams, who was a noted educator at

Memorial University. That is who brought the legislation, did the review of the

old law and brought forward the suggestions and the consultations so that the

government of the day 2000 could put together the new ATIPP Act that

subsequently came about.

Now, we knew at the time as well that it was not going to be the be-all and

end-all, because a lot of the things that were put into it had never been there

before, and that is why we knew it was going to take a certain period of time to

see how it worked. I am not just referring to the privacy piece and so on; I am

talking about the fact that we even had a commissioner who was dedicated - a

commissioner, for example, who could actually make at least recommendations.

Now we found, of course, since that, that the act does not have enough teeth.

Mr. Ring can only do and work with the tools that he has. You cannot ask him to

go above and beyond the authority that is already in the act. That is where the

problem lies, not in the person who is the commissioner. He can only do - and he

has tried on some occasions, by the way; he has tried to test it, and we have

had a couple of decisions out of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland which

basically says unless the Legislature changes the act, he cannot do it. That is

the law of this land, now, based on two decisions that came down in this

Province within the last number of months. So it is not a case of Mr. Ring is

not the right person for the job; he is very much the right person for the job.

The problem is you need the tools to do the job. As the courts have said, there

are certain things they cannot order you because the legislation does not

permit, and courts can only - they cannot impose their own laws. They cannot

make the laws. They can only say these are the laws, this is how we interpret

them, and this is how we apply them. We have had two cases which basically said:

Mr. Ring, you are limited to do that.

Unless the Legislature changes those laws, we are going to find ourselves

forever and a day stymied when it comes to true openness and true

accountability. Now, I will just give you a few examples of openness and

accountability. The Marshall report - the Opposition, for example, that is where

we have most of the experience, because we are the Opposition, when it comes to

ATIPP. Lots of other people in the Province have had their experiences, but we

can only speak for our own experiences in the Opposition Office. We had the case

of Mr. Bill Marshall, who the Premier appointed to do a report on the inland

fisheries on the West Coast four years ago - still waiting for the final report.

We went to the Premier's office and tried to get the information. We had to

scratch tooth and nail to get anything. They were not going to give anything.

Finally, you get a few pages mostly blacked out mostly blacked out. Then, of

course, you go back and the commissioner recommends that some more be released,

so finally you get a little bit more released.

That has been the process, Mr. Speaker, for the whole while when it came to

the Marshall reports. We still do not have, to this day I raised questions in

this House in this session: Where are the final Marshall reports on a number of

things that he was supposed to do one on the inland waters and one concerning

the prosecution in the Province? We, to this day, have not heard anything from

him. That is okay. That is called openness and accountability. We asked the man

to do it; he has not reported in four years, so that is okay. We are open and

accountable.

I think open and accountable implies that at least he is either going to do

the job or not do the job. After four years he should have it done, or maybe

government should consider getting someone else to do it, or else say we are

never going to get it done; but, don't do it under the guise that we are open

and accountable when we do not even have the report.

Also, of course, the limitations on Mr. Ring, the commissioner, when it comes

to having the resources to take matters to court: he can, for example, go to

court, but the very people who decide how much money he is going to have the

government they are the ones who give him the resources. So he can't take ten

cases to court against the government if he only has the funding, the financial

resources, to take one or two. He just cannot do it. So we have limited him

there when it comes to having sufficient resources to do the job that he wants

to do. So, again, he can be as well-intentioned as he likes; if you do not have

the money to take the government to court, what is the point of having it in the

law that you can take them to court?

Now, we have also had cases - I talked, Mr. Speaker, about the blackened-out

notes and it got to be a bit of a joke, Mr. Speaker, in this House when we

applied at one point to the Department of Environment for a Freedom of

Information request and got back a sheet of paper that was nothing but blacked

out. Now, that is your open and accountable government. This is their response

to an FOI request that we made. Now, that is some open. They said: Yes, we are

no doubt open and accountable, Mr. Speaker; we gave you a sheet of paper saying

we are the Department of Environment and Conservation, and everything else is

blacked out with a blackout machine. Redacted, they call it. Now, that is the

open government.

Like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. The minister can get up

and talk all he wants about open and accountable; I think that little

demonstration showed exactly what this government is about. By the way, that is

only one. We have had the same thing from the Department of Labrador Affairs,

from the Minister of Labrador Affairs. That is open and accountable. People will

judge that. You can keep your own statistics as to how open you are, but people

just need to see these examples and they know. By the way, the media of the

Province know. You go back in 2003, no big questions asked in the media because

they said: Okay, a lot of this stuff is not proclaimed.

That is the other big party or stakeholder that often uses the Access to

Information legislation. It is usually the Opposition parties or it is the

media. Now, private individuals use it as well, but I would think the two

biggest persons who make use of the ATIPPA legislation would be the Opposition

parties and the media, and we can certainly see the turnabout when it comes to

the media - usually around 2006, but certainly since 2009. If you go back and

check the editorials, for example, in The Telegram , I would say in the

last two years you can find at least a dozen editorials in The Telegram

talking about where this government is not open and not accountable. Now, that

is not Opposition parties saying that. I do not have any control over the

publishers or the editors of The Telegram , Mr. Wangersky, or whoever

else, but I have read his articles. He seems to have a major problem.

Now, I could see if it was just the Opposition parties up spouting off and

saying, oh, the government is not open and accountable. They are going to say

that is just politics but that is not me saying that in the articles; that is

respected newspaper people in this Province who say that. The Western Star ,

the same thing. You see it in the Robinson-Blackmore newspapers around the

Province.

Now, the minister might want to whistle past the graveyard and say we have

our statistics where everything is okay. That is fine. I expect them to do that,

and get up and say: We are great; we got a ninety on that score.

That is good when you are your own scorekeeper. You are playing a game and

there is nobody else on the ice. You are playing a game, there is nobody else on

the ice, and you say we are going to win this game. Absolutely right, you are

going to win the game, because you are keeping the score yourself. I would not

even play 120's like that. Usually you have somebody who is credible to be the

scorekeeper.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we had lots of requests, for example, when we went to get

information on Conception Bay North, and what was happening up there in terms of

the construction of long-term care facilities. We went after the Minister of

Health repeatedly. Time delays, blackouts, redactions, that is open and

accountable. We went after information on the Long Island Causeway, almost a

year, one year almost to the day, to get the information - one year. Now, that

is under a system that is supposed to take you thirty days. That is open and

accountable. Put that one in amongst your statistics.

We went after environment again for a greenhouse gas report. Repeated delays,

excuses why we could not give you the information. Air ambulance information,

could not get it, tried as much as we could, we could not get the information.

That is just a few.

We did manage, there was one, we went after some information on the Premier's

appointee, and we call him Dr. Feelgood. We got a whole pile of information on

him. The Telegram got it too, of course. We saw what was involved there

in terms of expenses. That is why, of course, you need to get some of this

information because not everything that government tells you is exactly what

they tell you. You know what they say sometimes, you believe nothing you hear,

nothing you read, nothing you see and you take it with a grain of salt. That is

why you need something like the ATIPP legislation, or the FOI legislation,

Freedom of Information. You need the Freedom of Information to make sure that

what the government is telling you is true, that it is accurate and that it is

correct. Quite often you find out it is not exactly like the government said it

was. There is a lot of good information that is found within it.

The biggest deficiency - and we met, by the way, with Mr. Cummings, for the

information of the minister. He alluded to Mr. Cummings and his review team. We,

the Official Opposition, did meet with Mr. Cummings. We did make a presentation

to Mr. Cummings here in this building a couple of weeks ago. I believe we were

one of the first who met with him. As soon as we knew that he was appointed, we

made a request to meet with him because we feel this is a very important review.

Where it is going to go is anybody's guess. He is like Mr. Ring. Mr. Cummings

can only do his job and make recommendations. Of course, what gets done with it

at the end of the day depends how serious government takes it. That is what you

are going to get.

One of the big deficiencies in the Freedom of Information, or ATIPPA

legislation that we work under today is that the commissioner cannot order that

the information be released. He can only recommend that it be released.

Everybody thought - even back when we did the review, back in 2000, 2002 when we

brought the bill in, we do not know where this is going to end up. We do not

know if recommendation by a commissioner is going to be respected, if people

would be forthcoming with the information, or whether, at some point in time,

you might have to strengthen the act to actually give him order powers because

all he can do is recommend. If the government says thank you very much for your

recommendation, but stick it, that is it. He can take it to court maybe, if he

feels he is justified in some cases, but again, he is limited by the resources

he has, but he has no order power.

Now, it is a good oversight to have there, a great gentleman who is providing

the oversight, but as I say it is like telling a boxer to go in and fight the

match there but we are going to tie one arm behind your back. In the case of Mr.

Ring sometimes, they have tied both arms behind his back, not one but two.

It is amazing how people change too, their opinions from one year to the

next. For example, Mr. Speaker, when we had the debate in this House back in

December of 2001, the current Premier, Premier Williams, was the Leader of the

Opposition at that time, sat right over here, this chair right here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member not to refer to hon. members of this House by their

name but by their position.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The current Premier, who is a member of this House, who is the Member for

Humber West I do believe, was the Leader of the Official Opposition in December

of 2001 when we debated the ATIPPA legislation in this House. It is amazing how

a person's opinion can change from the time of that debate to where we are today

when he is the Premier of the Province.

I am just going to refer to a couple of pieces - this is right from Hansard,

Mr. Speaker, and it is taken from Hansard by that individual on December 3,

2001. He says, Mr. Speaker, and I quote, "Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do

is just sort of recap the concerns." He is talking about the legislation at that

time. "It goes back to what was contained in our Blue Book in 1999: Quick

access, no prohibitive fees and the disclosure of information that should be

disclosed." That was his statement. Well, first of all, the comment on that

piece, we are not quick. As I just said to the minister, we gave him examples,

the Long Island Causeway, a year in the waiting. The Opposition requests - I do

not know where he is getting his statistics but the Opposition's requests for

Access to Information I would not say there is 20 per cent that is met in the

timelines of the current ATTIPA. I would not say there is 20 per cent, not 20

per cent that meets the actual timelines under ATTIPA when it comes to asking

for information from this government.

The other piece is the prohibitive fees. The Leader of the Opposition of the

day talked about the fees - should not have any fees. What I mean by that, of

course, and what he meant by that was: What is the point in asking for

information if the department comes back to you and says you can have the

information, but it will cost you $10,000 to have it? Now, that is not much help

to anybody. So the first question you have to ask is: Well, where did you come

up with your figure of $10,000? There is never an explanation.

Now, sometimes they will say: Well, it takes us sixty-seven hours to dig it

out, photocopy it and put it in a box and send it over to you. I think we have

all learned in the last number of years, Mr. Speaker, that even having to go

through that hassle and that is one of the recommendations we made to the

commissioner. Why should there be prohibitive fees, which we have been charged

hundreds and hundreds of dollars for stuff, just to get it, when today in this

technology everything is on a computer and everything can be put on a stick,

everything can be put on a disk? It is as simple as that. No big expense

involved and no photocopiers. Someone sits down at the computer terminal, they

know what you requested, there it is, flick, flick, flick with a computer, push

of the button, and you got it. That is what we recommend to the commissioner we

ought to do. Why would anybody use this excuse any more that you have to have

all of this paper work produced when you can do it electronically today?

So we do not have the quick access that the Leader of the Opposition talked

about back then. We do not have the low fees or the reasonable fees; we have the

prohibitive fees that he talked about. This is another quote from the same

Leader of the Opposition who is now the Premier, talking about commitments and

keeping them. When he debated he said, and I quote, "Give the Citizens'

Representative the teeth to implement. Give that person the power to order or

authorize that the information be produced." Now, he called him the Citizens'

Representative at the time, but of course that is in a debate on that particular

bill that we are talking about the Privacy Commissioner. That was the Leader of

the Opposition, now Premier, that was what he said, "Give that person the power

to order or authorize that the information be produced." That is pretty

straightforward. There is not much misinterpretation about that.

Is that where government has ever gone since 2003? I have not seen any

proposals come to this House whereby that person who is now leading this

government, who has the option and can at any time bring forward legislation to

make that change. Do you see that commitment fulfilled? I do not see any order

power being given to the commissioner by this government, by that person who

leads that government, who said that person should have that power to order.

That is a clear case of saying one thing - got him on print, black and white in

our official record, give him order power. I do not have to debate that. Let

people look at that themselves and think what they may about it, but it is very

straightforward, pretty clear that the Premier said one thing and seven years

out, not a hint that we are going to change it. In fact, I think he did some

media interviews sometime ago and said he feels differently now. A lot of this

is hassle; a lot of this is cumbersome now. You have to comply with the law. I

say it is pretty convenient.

All of a sudden, you want it - you should have order powers and all of a

sudden you become the government. You are the person who people want information

about and your departments, and all of a sudden you say: no, I feel differently

now. I do not think they should have the order power now. It is going a bit too

far. It is time consuming. It is troubling. Well, that is the whole purpose of

ATIPP. That is why we reviewed it in 2000. That is why we have it, is because

revelation of information is the crux of all democracy. That is the crux of it.

I agree if there is something that might hurt somebody that you cannot release

it. For example, we have protections in here for third parties and stuff like

that, if you are going to hurt their commercial interests and so on. You cannot

do anything to hurt them, but government information?

Anyway, I just point that out because the minister, of course, today would

have you believe that everything is rosy. He cited a bunch of statistics and

said we are okay, we are doing great. Well, I think the people of the Province

only need to look for themselves. This is some example from the Opposition. We

have been met with, not prohibitive but oppressive fees, hundreds and hundreds

of dollars just to get simple information; all a game because they do not want

to release the information.

All that comes to be, governments change, times change, people see when a

government is secretive, and of course, once people get that impression, which,

as I say, the media has certainly gotten in this Province in the last two years.

You just need to look at how often did you see in The Telegram and you

hear on the radio or TV these days the words: Is this government open and

accountable? Is this government open and accountable when they are talking about

various issues? You hear it a lot. You never heard it much in 2003 maybe to

2007, but in the last couple of years it is worn pretty thin when you hear the

government say open and accountable. Worn pretty thin, and the public know about

it too. You cannot fool the public. There is an old saying, what is it: fool me

once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame on you. The minister can preach all he

wants about how open and accountable they have been. We have the pages full of

black lettering. We have the oppressive fees. We have seen that the commissioner

has to take them to court two or three times to get information out of them. He

can only work with the tools that he has.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to end my remarks there because this is about Mr.

Ring today. This is about Mr. Ring, and as we say, we fully support the

reappointment and the confirmation, I guess, of Mr. Ring as the commissioner.

The gentleman has tried to do the best that he can with the tools that he has.

That is one issue. That is what we will vote on, and that is why we will vote

for it.

When it comes to the effectiveness of the act and the gentleman's ability to

do what he wants to do and what he would like to be able to do, that is a debate

for another day. We know where this government, who leads it, who said the

commissioner should have order power and what we have seen done to do that in

the last seven years. We know that, people will watch that. So we will have that

debate on another day. We will continue as an Opposition to file our requests

for various pieces of information, despite being stymied. It is important that

we do it as an Opposition. Despite all the excuses you get and the redactions

and the oppressive fees, we will continue to do it, and from time to time when

we get information that needs to be brought to the public attention, we will of

course bring it to the public attention.

Good luck to Mr. Cummings. I am sure he is going to have a very comprehensive

review in what he is doing. By the way, that only happened after it was raised

here in this House. The fact that the review actually got started, you come here

in the House and you ask questions: Where is the review? Sure enough, then you

get the review - done.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I hope Mr. Cummings - I am sure he will do a thorough

job. I heard he was down in Marystown. I saw a report in the media there he did

not have much turnout. I would certainly encourage anyone in the public to take

this opportunity to appear before Mr. Cummings. It is a very relaxed atmosphere.

It is not a formal type set up. Any concerns that you have, either as a private

citizen or a corporate citizen or anybody who might be impacted by the laws of

this Province, it is free ball for anybody and he is very open. If anybody, for

example, listening today is only being made aware for the first time of the

existence of his review, I am sure he has not concluded it yet. He is in the

process, and he is a very open and approachable individual who would be more

than happy to take your call and to arrange an opportunity to have you speak

with him. He is going to do a thorough job.

I am anxiously looking forward to his report. I do not know if he is going to

go so far as to recommend the ordering power. I do not know. It was not our

position, of course, to ask him that. Our position was just to make submissions

as to what we thought, not what he thought. We will see what he thinks when his

review comes in, but we will see if he goes that far. The other comments that

have been made, in terms of the electronic production of the information and so

on, getting rid of the fee structures that are currently there and government

uses to deny people access to information; how to tighten up on the timelines so

that things are done faster. It is not his office, by the way, not doing it

faster. He can only act within the law again. If governments and departments

stymie him, that is all he can do.

Anyway, we will be voting for this for Mr. Ring, and hopefully we can look

forward to seeing this government stand by a commitment of this Premier, down

the road, short order, rather than in the long term, and hopefully carry through

on something that he said should be done, which is that the commissioner should

have order power, but that is for another day as well. We will wait and see if

they follow through on that commitment. We have had lots of examples where they

said things and did just the exact opposite. So far, that is the case here, but

we will see in the future if there is going to be any change.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

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

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak to the motion which deals with the

reappointment of Mr. Ed Ring as the Information and Privacy Commissioner for

another term, a term of two years.

I was pleased to support the nomination of Mr. Ring when he was first

nominated two and a half years ago. He certainly has proven himself to be a

person who is not only capable for what he is doing, not only has the skills to

do what he is doing, but has also shown this House and the people of the

Province a passion for what he is doing. A wonderful understanding of what it is

to protect the rights of individuals and to protect their right to information

and to privacy protection.

He has also shown that he is a person of great integrity. He holds a position

of great trust, a position of great responsibility. The way in which he has been

forthright in dealing with his position, the way in which he has been forthright

in saying what he believes, he has to fight for in his position, shows the

integrity of the person, Mr. Speaker, and I have to say that I have been quite

impressed with the role that he has played. That he understands his role to be

independent of government and has acted independently when he has needed to

speak out on issues that have concerned him in his role as commissioner. Mr.

Ring, I think, deserves us to be renominating him here today, to be approving

this nomination and deserves all the support that we can give him in doing his

work.

At the time that he was appointed I made some comments about the appointment

process and I would like to reiterate some of those comments today. They have

nothing to do with Mr. Ring himself, because if we had done the process the way

I am going to talk about it here today, I am sure he would be the person who we

would be nominating. I would like to raise an issue that I have raised before,

as I have said, when I spoke to this nomination and I have raised it also in the

House when talking about our process here in this House of Assembly.

When we look at some of the other Legislatures in our wonderful country, we

find that appointments to positions such as the statutory officers' positions,

these appointments are done on nominations that come from the legislative

committees of the Legislature. On the federal level, it is the parliamentary

committees, and on the provincial level, it is the legislative committees. I am

impressed that we have Legislatures across the country where a discussion takes

place in the all-party legislative committees about the nomination of people to

the statutory offices.

I believe that one of the things that we need to have seen done by the people

of the Province is that when people are appointed to positions by government

that they are not patronage positions, that they are positions that in no way

are linked to somebody's role in a political party, but they are positions that

people who are being appointed to those positions are being appointed because of

the skills and the knowledge and the passion and the interest they have for the

position they are being nominated to.

I firmly believe that having legislative committees do the nominating of

people to statutory offices is one way to say to the people of the Province that

this is an open and transparent process, that this process is not dependent upon

the party who is in power, that the person who is being nominated has been

agreed to by all parties as they sit on a legislative committee.

As I have said, these comments have nothing to do with our appointment of Mr.

Ring today. I am pretty certain that if we had sat in committee together and

looked at what he has done in his role as commissioner, we would be nominating

him to be reappointed. We are getting the opportunity of course this afternoon,

all three parties together, and I am now the third one to speak to say that we

do agree with Mr. Ring's appointment.

I think that, particularly when an appointment is a new appointment to a

position, it would be extremely beneficial to the sense of openness and

transparency of the House of Assembly if the nominations for those appointments

came from legislative committees. I know that I do not have agreement on that

position from the government right now, but it is a position I believe in and I

hold firmly and will continue to speak to. Once again, as I have said in the

House, let us look to other Legislatures, let us look to other jurisdictions and

let us learn from them as to how to do things in a way that really does make

people feel comfortable and makes people feel that we are being open and

transparent and that we do not have patronage as part of appointments.

If this government is concerned about openness and transparency, Mr. Speaker,

as it says it is, then I think that government should be following processes

that help people see the government as open and transparent. Involvement of all

parties in these kinds of ventures such as the nomination of people to statutory

offices is a way to be open and transparent.

It has been quoted in this House already this week, I think, that it is not

enough for justice to be done, but justice has to be perceived to be done. I

think we can take that and we take the word justice out, it is not enough to say

that we are open and transparent, but openness and transparency has to be seen.

Having nominations made by a legislative committee is a way of seeming to have

openness and transparency. It does not mean that it would not have happened

anyway, but the perception of openness and transparency is just as important as

openness and transparency actually happening.

I wanted to make this point again here in this House because I know it is

something that many people have a concern about. I know it is something that I

get spoken to about by people and I want to use the opportunity once again of

this nomination moment to make those points with regard to the process that is

employed here in this House, which basically is the government coming forward

with a name and then in the context of a short period of time in the House,

Opposition parties having to say yes or no with regard to the approval of that

name.

We do have in legislation the fact that there are certain positions, for

example, that the Premier is expected to consult on with the Leaders of the

Opposition parties. My experience has been that the consultation in some cases

has been my receiving a phone call from a key person on the Premier's staff

letting me know that in ten minutes time, for example, an announcement is being

made about a certain person being appointed to a position. Well, I do not

consider that kind of thing consultation, Mr. Speaker.

There are many examples of that going on that are not acceptable.

Consultation is essential and we have things on paper that indicate how we can

have consultation processes and the consultations that should happen, but the

practice is not what is on paper.

Of course, having the legislative committees make nominations is not even

written down on our paper. It is not even something that we conceive of. We have

always had this power in the hands of the governing party and it has not been

challenged, but I will continue challenging it, Mr. Speaker, because I think it

is worth challenging in order for us appear to be open and transparent.

As I said earlier, Mr. Ring, I think, is a very worthy person to be

renominated to this position. He has shown himself, as I have already said, to

be a person of integrity but he has also shown himself to be a person who is

determined and shown himself to be a person with great patience because there

have been times when it has not been easy for him. There have been times when he

has had the government going to court to try to limit his power of access, that

he has not had an easy time getting information that he has ruled needs to be

released. Having to go to court and having government go to court against him is

not something, I do not think, he wants to do, but he believes so strongly in

the access of information for individuals, and believes so strongly in their

right to be able to access information that he has gone to court. He has taken

it upon himself to go to court because he wanted to go the full distance in

being able to get information made available to him.

I have to say, the one positive thing I have to say about the government, and

they will be happy to hear me say something positive, is that in spite of the

fact that he has had to go to court against them, and in spite of the fact they

have gone to court against him, they are bringing his name forward for

re-nomination. I have to thank them for that, because I think that is what they

should be doing. So I do commend them for bringing his name forward; but, Mr.

Speaker, we need to see from government a more positive attitude. That is the

word I want to use; the government likes to use the word positive. I would like

to see a more positive attitude from this government to the whole issue of

access to information and privacy by ordinary citizens.

It is very disturbing when the Premier publicly complained that Access to

Information requests are a burden for the government, and that sometimes you get

frivolous requests. What I say to the government, what I say to the Premier, it

is not for them to determine if a request is frivolous or not. It is not for

them to determine whether or not a request should be made. It is for them to

release the information that is being requested, if it is being requested under

the rules that are in place for access to information. It is up to the

commissioner to make decisions about whether or not the request that is being

made is being made under the rules.

I cannot imagine that is feels very good to the commissioner to have the

Premier of the Province talk about the burden to government, and the frivolous

requests that are being made, when he sometimes is fighting for some of the

information to be released that government might be saying is frivolous. If an

individual or if an organization believes that a piece of information is

necessary for them to receive then it is not frivolous, Mr. Speaker.

So I would ask the government to start showing itself to be more positive and

to be more open to the legislation that we have in place, a legislation which

says that people have the right to access the information. They have the right

to look for it, and they have the right to protect themselves under that

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the minister speak about the statutory review that

is taking place, and I am quite pleased about the statutory review, but we have

to make sure that the statutory review is there to enhance the work of the

commissioner, to make access easier, to make access more available, and that the

review will be something that government is doing not because it has to do it

legislatively, but because they really believe the review is needed, is

necessary, so that things can be improved.

The responsibility of government, Mr. Speaker, is to make sure that Mr. Ring

has the powers he needs to do his job, and I, too, want to speak to the whole

issue about no power to order, which has been brought up by the Opposition House

Leader. This is one thing that I would hope that the review is going to deal

with, because it is pretty powerless for the commissioner, for example, to

notify a ministry that these documents should be released, and the ministry to

fight and say no, we are not going to release them.

What is the sense of having that, Mr. Speaker? It was like when the Child and

Youth Advocate came to the House last year and asked for powers of subpoena in

order to be able to have witnesses come and be interviewed by the Advocate. We

agreed that the Advocate should have powers of subpoena. Well, the power to

order, to me, is the same as the subpoena power that we gave to the Child and

Youth Advocate. So I would ask the minister to be thinking about that as they

prepare to receive the report from Mr. Cummings, that I think should be in the

minister's hands by the end of November, that when we gave the power to subpoena

to the Child and Youth Advocate, that is something that we, in a different way,

should be giving to the Commissioner of Information and Privacy, that the power

to order is no different than the power to subpoena.

Having done that once here in this House, I think that we should be ready to

have that recommendation brought to us again, and I look forward to receiving

that type of a recommendation from Mr. Cummings. I have no idea what his

recommendations will be, but that is one thing that I would really like to see

come forward. It is not enough to reappoint Mr. Ring to this position; it is

also important for the government to show its commitment to Mr. Ring's work, and

one way to show him that would be to give him the power to order.

Another issue, which is not an issue around Mr. Ring but which is an issue

around the commission itself, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the fee structure. I

am hoping that enough representation will be made to Mr. Cummings that he will

have a serious look at the commission's fee structure, because I really do

believe that the fee structure limits the average person's ability to get

information. If we are going to have legislation around information and privacy,

then we should make sure that there are no barriers to the average person being

able to seek that information.

An Opposition caucus office, for example, has the resources to pay the fee

that is required; a news outlet has the resources to pay the fee that is

required; but the average individual, the average citizen, may not. Yet, that

person is supposed to have the same right to access of information and the same

right to protection of privacy. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the issues, too,

that I sincerely hope that enough representation will be made about to Mr.

Cummings that he will be bringing forward recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, we await those recommendations, we await

government's actions, but in the meantime I really am pleased to ratify the

appointment of Mr. Edward Ring as Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): If the hon. Minister of Justice and the

Attorney General speaks now he will close the debate on the resolution that is

presently before the House.

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

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

I thank the hon. members opposite for their comments and for their

anticipated support as they pledged for this motion.

I have just a couple of comments. Number one, in response to a comment made

by the Opposition House Leader, who complained that we were, on this side of the

House, saying how good we are, my response to that, Mr. Speaker: We are good,

and we don't mind saying so. We don't mind saying so.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to respond to a comment made by the hon. Leader of

the NDP, when she said she recognized the positive move in that this government

was supporting the nomination of Mr. Ring in spite of the court procedures.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out again, the court procedures were not about

Mr. Ring. The court procedures were not in any way an infringement on Mr. Ring's

office, or anything about conflict with Mr. Ring. The court procedure was all

about - it was not a matter of bringing Mr. Ring to court or him bringing us to

court, or anything like that - it was all about getting clarification of an

interpretation of a

section of the act. That is what the court procedures were

about. Of course we were bringing Mr. Ring's nomination back, because the court

procedures have nothing to do whatsoever - nothing about Mr. Ring and the job he

was doing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank the members opposite for their comments

and I now move the motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

MS BURKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that Mr. Ed Ring be reappointed as the

Information and Privacy Commissioner for a term of two years.

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

The motion is carried unanimously.

Motion carried unanimously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we would like to call a recess for a few minutes

at this time as we get ready to conclude our session for this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: This House will not take a brief recess.

The House is now recessed.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has

arrived.

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: All rise.

[His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor takes the Chair]

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: It is the wish of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

that all present please be seated.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour, the General Assembly of the

Province has at its present session passed certain bills, to which, in the name

and on behalf of the General Assembly I respectfully request Your Honour's

assent.

CLERK: A bill, "An Act Respecting The Care And Protection Of Children And

Youth". (Bill 1)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000". (Bill 3)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Court Act, 1991". (Bill 4)

A bill, "An Act To Provide Liability Protection On Portions Of Pedestrian

Trails". (Bill 5)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Commissioners For Oaths Act". (Bill 7)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Notaries Public Act". (Bill 8)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Income Tax Act, 2000 No. 2". (Bill 9)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Revenue Administration Act". (Bill 10)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Small Claims Act". (Bill 11)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Grand Concourse Authority Act". (Bill 12)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Consumer Protection And Business Practices Act".

(Bill 13)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Private Investigation And Security Services

Act". (Bill 14)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fatal Accidents Act". (Bill 15)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act". (Bill 16)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Regulation Of Certain Health Professions".

(Bill 17)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Accident And Sickness Insurance Act, The

Automobile Insurance Act, The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act, The

Insurance Contracts Act And The Life Insurance Act". (Bill 18)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 2". (Bill 19)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Practice Of Social Work". (Bill 20)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Adjusters, Agents And Brokers Act".

(Bill 21)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Portability Of Pensions Act". (Bill 22)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Securities Act". (Bill 23)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Court Security". (Bill 24)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act, 1957". (Bill 25)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Architects Act, 2008". (Bill 26)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Highway Traffic Act". (Bill 27)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Insurance Companies Act No. 3". (Bill 28)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Prepaid Funeral Services Act". (Bill 29)

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Health And Protection of Animals". (Bill 30)

A bill, "An Act Respecting Human Rights". (Bill 31)

HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR (John C. Crosbie PC, OC, QC): Mr.

Speaker, in Her Majesty's name, I assent to these bills.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate all the members on the hard work

that I am sure that has gone into the debating of these bills and I hope tha