March 11, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 49

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of privilege.

The point of privilege that I wish to address has to do with the very serious

comments made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in questioning the

impartially of Your Honour in early January in The Telegram , on January

3, 2002. I just want to remind hon. members that the Speaker represents the

power, the authority, and the dignity of this House, and any attack on the

Speaker attacks all members of the House. All of our rights and privileges had

been eroded.

Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of all members to ensure that the

confidence of the Chair is maintained because it is the confidence of the Chair

which keeps Parliament going. Without that confidence, Parliament would be on

the brink. It would be on a slippery slope. These allegations are very serious,

probably the most serious thing that has happened in terms of contempt of

Parliament since I have been a member of this House.

I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has spoken to His Honour and

that he has indicated to His Honour that he would like to apologize. I have no

firm details of this, but I understand that that has been a process. Mr.

Speaker, not to abort that process, to extend that courtesy to the Leader of the

Opposition, if he wants to make that apologize, that unconditional and

unequivocal apologize, I am willing to rest my case and let the matter rest

there.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government House Leader says that he has no knowledge of details. For the

record, the Government House Leader was advised as early as yesterday that the

Leader of the Opposition has spoken to the Speaker on this matter. He was

advised that the Leader of the Opposition was providing a written apology this

morning to the Speaker. He was advised at noon today, as well yesterday, that

when the House first opened, that the intention of the Leader of the Opposition

was to stand and rise, and also do it publicly. Now, what is happening here is a

desperate attempt to be punitive, to be cheap, to be petty, to try to cast in

disrepute the Leader of the Opposition, when this Government House Leader - and

I also understand that all members of his caucus were informed of what the

Leader of the Opposition was going to do in the first place, which was to seize

the highroad and do the right thing; but in the absence of that, he cannot say

that he was not informed. He cannot say that some details were coming forward.

Every step of the way he was advised from a parliamentary, courtesy point of

view, and for him to stand and rise today, Mr. Speaker, is a feeble and

unwarranted attempt to cast the Leader of the Opposition in a light that he is

about to take himself out of. The Government House Leader can stand and say

otherwise but he was fully aware of what transpired since February 6, and he was

made fully aware by me, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, this case is not about me. I did not do anything,

Mr. Speaker, to criticize the Speaker. I simply said that I was familiar that

some talks had gone on, but that I was not familiar with the details. I am not

familiar with the details. I stand by that, and if the hon. Leader of the

Opposition wants to persist maybe we will take him up on a point of privilege.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. member speaking to the point of privilege now?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I am rising on my own point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We are still on the point of privilege.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) to give his point of order, I will allow that.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to you privately in your office on two

separate occasions, and as I have reiterated in writing in a letter which I

delivered to you this morning, that I do sincerely apologize for any comments

that were made outside the House of Assembly during December that may have

offended you or any member of this House of Assembly. It certainly was not my

intention to do so.

I would also like to point out that I did not use the term bias in my

comments. Comments that were made to the reporter at that particular point in

time may have implied that, but that term was never used.

Mr. Speaker, and to all members of this hon. House, I do sincerely apologize.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This matter is a serious matter, and it certainly has caused me some concern

since it was brought to my attention about the comments that the hon. member

made. However, it would appear to me now that there is consensus here that the

member's apology is sufficient to resolve the matter. If that is the consensus

of the House, then I would assume that the matter is resolved and there will be

no further discussion or consideration of the point of privilege raised by the

hon. the Government House Leader.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to inform this hon. House that this past weekend,

SnowJob 2002, Much Music's Annual Snowfest, concluded an enormously successful

open-air concert at Marble Mountain.

This concert featured the Juno Award-winning and Canada's top hip-hop act,

Swollen Members, and the Juno nominated Vancouver-based rocker group, Gob.

Not to be outdone, Wreckhouse Entertainment, the management team that brought

SnowJob 2002 to Newfoundland, organized a four-day

schedule of events around

SnowJob that was known as the Big Gig.

One segment of the Big Gig was Collegiate Trivia Throwdown, featuring teams

of students from Sir Wilfred Grenfell College, College of the North Atlantic and

Academy Canada, in a test of brain power with Much Music's video jockey,

Bradford How. While How put up a spirited battle, he was no match for the

superior intellect of our students, Mr. Speaker.

Other segments of the Big Gig saw live music performances by five

Newfoundland and Labrador bands that included Stereotype, Kane, Goldie's

Homework, Margarita's Calling and Timber, with encore performances by Swollen

Members and Gob.

For those who missed the live performances, SnowJob 2002 will be broadcast to

millions of North American viewers on the Much Music TV Channel on March 16 and

17, Saturday and Sunday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern

Standard Time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate all members of Wreckhouse

Entertainment and Much Music for once again showcasing Marble Mountain and

Western Newfoundland to the rest of North America.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly support the comments of my colleague from Humber East, but I rise

on another matter, Mr. Speaker. I rise to congratulate all the participants in

the Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games. I was fortunate enough to be able to

attend the closing ceremonies two Saturdays ago, and I must say it was an

absolutely fabulous event. The mood in that room, the tempo, the friendship, the

smiles, the looks on the faces of all the young people who were involved, was a

wonder to behold.

Unfortunately, I was not at the opening ceremonies but I was told that they

were equal or better than the closing ceremonies. It was truly kind of an

uplifting event. I must say, I was quite impressed as well with the talent that

was there that day: the gymnasts, the choirs, and the showcase, actually, of

Gander talent. I look at the Member for Gander as I say that. It was quite a

demonstration - the bands, the gymnasts - and, as well also, credit to Mayor

Claude Elliott who had a chance to strut his stuff and to strut the stuff of the

volunteers in Gander. Of course, once again Gander has proven that it can rise

to the occasion, as they did on September 11. It was a great experience. It made

me really feel good about the Province, and about the young people in our

Province. I am glad I was fortunate enough to attend.

I also want, of course, to extend special congratulations to the Western team

who won the Gold Medal, the Premier's Cup, for the highest points in the

competition. I hope that at the next Summer Games I may be able to present that

Premier's Cup, which (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: As well, I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of

the Mount Pearl/South Team for winning the Sport Newfoundland and Labrador Award

for the most improved team since the last Winter Games, and a special hat's

off to the Labrador team for winning the Lieutenant-Governor's Award for the

team with the overall spirit of friendly competition and sportsmanship. That is

what the Winter Games is all about.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate the athletes from the seventeen schools in

Labrador who participated in the first ever Labrador High School Championships.

I had the opportunity to attend the opening ceremonies, along with the Member

for Torngat Mountains and the Member for Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, the first championship sports were organized by the Labrador

School Board and sponsored through the Newfoundland and Labrador High School

Athletic Federation. In addition to the regular competitive sports, the High

School Championships held competitions in sports such as the labrathon,

snowshoeing, and the Northern Games, which includes events such as the seal

crawl.

Mr. Speaker, these games were an opportunity for children in Labrador high

schools to interact with each other in sport and friendship. It was the first

opportunity for many of these young people to participate in such an event, and

it was a huge success.

I would like to recognize the commitment and efforts of Darrell Feener, who

co-ordinated this event for Labrador, and to especially recognize and

congratulate Team Cartwright in the great District of Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair, who were the gold medal winners for the overall competition. I also want

to congratulate Team Happy Valley-Goose Bay who were silver medal winners, and

Team Makkovik who took home the bronze.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to recognize my hometown team, Team Mary's

Harbour, who was chosen as the best-spirited and sportsmanlike team for the

competition. I think it is quite evident why I am so co-operative.

There were many individuals who were outstanding in this competition as well.

There were top athlete awards for each district of Labrador. I want to

especially mention and congratulate Christopher Learning of Team Cartwright and

Jessica Letto of Team Forteau who were the top male and female athletes in the

District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

Mr. Speaker, I was so impressed with all of these teams and the individuals

who competed. On behalf of all my colleagues in Labrador, we certainly

congratulate all of them for the tremendous effort that they made in sport and

competition.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to offer to congratulations. I understand I might be taking a

little bit of a risk, at least from our side of the House over here, in saying

this: I offer congratulations to the Discovery Collegiate Destroyers, who won

the 4A hockey championship this past weekend by beating Gonzaga by an impressive

score of 7- 4.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I understand that this same hockey team, in order to win

the right of passage to enter into the final game, scored three goals in

thirty-three seconds to win the right to take on Gonzaga. When you talk about

the Discovery Collegiate hockey team, the Discovery Destroyers, we are talking

about a school that has approximately 600 students from Grade VIII to Grade XII,

Level 3, compared to other schools, like Ascension, that has approximately 1,000

students from Grade X to Grade XII. It is certainly a star in their crown to be

able to come out, take part and represent the Province, and win the oldest

hockey trophy in all of North America, the Boyle Trophy. They have gone back to

Bonavista as a happy group of people.

For the record, I would like to read their names into Hansard, Mr. Speaker.

Their names are: Randy Hicks; Skyler Butt; Mark Keel; Nathan Higgins; Matthew

Bragg; Mitchell Bragg; Ian Bartlett; Jason Chard; Lee Elliott; David Penney;

Bradley Lodge; Daniel Ryder; Chad Fisher; Adam Pardy; Andrew Sweetland; Terry

Johnson; Steven Johnson; Shawn Stagg and Matthew Lawlor. The coaching staff was:

Wade Mouland; Gord Broderick; and their trainer, Reg Butt.

So I am sure the House of Assembly joins with me in congratulating the

Discovery Collegiate Destroyers in winning this prestigious title.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Great victories are not uncommon in Bonavista South, and

this is just another one to be racked up for that great historic district.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This must be the day for the hockey champions. I rise today in this hon.

House to congratulate the achievements of the male and female teams of Ascension

Collegiate, Bay Roberts, the Ascension Astros, on their recent success at the

Confederation Cup Hockey Tournament.

This achievement, Mr. Speaker, was especially impressive, as the tournament

involved a record forty-five teams, 112 games in twelve different facilities

throughout the Avalon Region.

The girls team won their second straight Confederation Cup title with an 8-2

victory over Crescent Collegiate, with Ashley Drover scoring a hat trick while

Peggy Wakeham and Nicole Penney each scored a pair of goals.

Meanwhile, the men's team edged their archrivals, Gonzaga 3-2 - so it has

been a rough time for Gonzaga -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: - in the male tier one Championship game. Jonathon Connolly,

Stephen Greeley and Justin Follett scoring their goals.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate these players and their coaches, Mark Shortall

and Sean King on this achievement and look forward to Ascension Collegiate

defending the Confederation Cup in 2003.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide hon. members with an update on three

major resource projects: Voisey's Bay, The Lower Churchill and White Rose.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my last Voisey's Bay update to the House of

Assembly on November 19, the majority of issues under discussion have been

resolved. At that time, three or four fundamental issues remained outstanding

and needed further negotiation. While not all of these issues have yet been

fully resolved, good progress has been made on various aspects of each issue.

Negotiations have continued over the past number of months. Mr. Scott Hand,

Deputy Chairman and CEO of Inco, and I have continued to discuss the remaining

outstanding issues which must be successfully concluded before a commercial

arrangement can be signed.

The Province's fundamental position on the remaining outstanding issues

have been clearly articulated to Inco. A full guarantee of a processing facility

in the Province, full processing to a finished nickel product in the Province, a

guarantee that the amount of concentrate that may leave the Province in the

early years of a project will be returned to the Province for processing, and

acceptable development timelines are required elements of any acceptable deal on

Voisey's Bay.

Mr. Speaker, government remains committed to negotiating a Voisey's Bay

deal that will provide substantial benefits for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. This is our mandate from the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we will remain at the negotiating table until we reach a deal

which satisfies the Province's fundamental demands, or until we are certain

that no deal can be reached.

Development of the Lower Churchill River has presented significant challenges

over the past thirty years. Distance to market, ensuring adequate transmission

capacity and securing a long-term customer has always been a challenge.

Recently, government has been reviewing numerous options promoting the

development of this resource.

In July, a preliminary feasibility review was undertaken with Alcoa regarding

the viability of developing the Lower Churchill and establishing aluminum

processing facilities in this Province.

In December, Alcoa presented their findings to government and Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro. A number of significant issues were identified, including

transmission, ownership of the hydro facility, and royalties, just to name a

few. Since that time there have been ongoing discussions. I have recently had

the opportunity to meet, along with others, with senior Alcoa officials in New

York and Montreal. Alcoa continues to express interest in the development

project. However, we, as a government, are not yet certain whether there is a

sound basis upon which to proceed forward with Aloca. We are continuing to

explore this option. We have not extended the Letter of Intent with Alcoa,

however, we are honouring the provisions of that agreement until such time as

our discussions are concluded.

In the meantime, the lines of communication also remain open with Quebec.

Premiers Grimes and Landry have briefly discussed the project and government

officials are having some preliminary discussions surrounding the Lower

Churchill potential.

I am optimistic that in the coming weeks, as these discussions progress, we

will be in a position to decide on the future direction of the project. I will

provide an update to the House at that time.

Mr. Speaker, in December of last year, both federal and provincial

governments approved the White Rose Development Plan Application. This approval

now permits the proponents, Husky and Petro-Canada, to move forward with the

development of the White Rose field. Government worked closely with the

proponents to ensure a significant level of benefits will accrue to the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, government expects to hear from the White Rose proponents in the

near future. We are optimistic that a decision will be announced soon and remain

hopeful that the proponents will move forward with this project.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to just mention the three major projects in the order that

was given by the hon. minister. With respect to Voisey's Bay, it is

interesting to note that any negotiations would be in accordance with the

mandate from the people of the Province. Mr. Speaker, I remember well the

language that was used, and is used, in terms of the mandate that was given to

this government in 1999. It had no reference to substantial benefits, I say, Mr.

Speaker, but the words are maximum benefits, and, therefore, we must be vigilant

to ensure that any deal is in accordance with what the mandate was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: With respect to the Lower Churchill: This is what is

missing, Mr. Speaker, from today's so-called update. That is: What exactly is

the substantial information on what Alcoa is proposing? How does it differ from

the proposals the government had been negotiating with Hydro-Quebec, Mr.

Speaker? What are the timelines involved? What are the roadblocks that may

exist? What are the concessions that the company may be requesting, or even the

most general facts of the talks between the parties? That, Mr. Speaker, I say,

is a true update, that is a real update, and that will give some confidence to

the people of the Province in terms of exactly where we are.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the offshore: Recently we had some very

significant announcements, namely from Exxon Mobil and Chevron. A really

accurate update, Mr. Speaker, would be for this minister to say to the people of

the Province exactly what is this government doing in response to these

announcements several weeks ago by Exxon Mobil and Chevron.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: That response, hopefully, would continue to ensure the

security and the integrity of this very important project and what it means to

every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has now confirmed that its government proposal is to allow

significant amounts of concentrate to leave the Province, and tries to state

that this was always their position, when people in the Province know that

exactly the opposite was the case.

The minister talks about guarantees. What I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is any

guarantee going to be any more capable of enforcement than the guarantee given

by Friede Goldman in Marystown, or by the arrangement with IOC that saw the

pellet plant go to Sept-Iles instead of being developed in Labrador West?

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly looking forward to Churchill Falls and White

Rose developments, but none of these projects can have maximum impact on the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador unless we can stop the equalization

formula clawback that will see, in the case of Voisey's Bay, Ottawa receiving

ten times the benefits of Newfoundland and Labrador. That has to change, Mr.

Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions this afternoon are for the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of weeks I have listened and read, with

great interest, reports of the renewed discussions which the minister referred

to today on development of the Lower Churchill, and discussions with Alcoa and

Hydro-Quebec. We have had an update from the minister and I thank you for that,

Minister. I would like to ask the Premier today if he could provide the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador with an update of his involvement in those

negotiations, vis--vis Alcoa and Hydro-Quebec.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to do so. On this side of the House we operate with a Cabinet

system where the ministers have responsibility for their portfolios and certain

duties. The Minister of Mines and Energy deals with the issues that he reported

on today, and if he deems it necessary for me to be involved with a meeting with

any of the principals of any of the companies that he is working with daily,

weekly and monthly, then I do so at their request; the same as the Deputy

Premier, who is involved in many of these discussions, as the minister

responsible for maximizing Newfoundland and Labrador benefits in all of these

relationships.

Mr. Speaker, the minister just reported that I was involved in meetings just

recently with some senior officials of Alcoa, and also that I have spoken with

the Prime Minister, as it is referred to, the Premier of Quebec, about the

possible involvement and interest of the Government of Quebec in the Lower

Churchill. Mr. Speaker, that is all I can say about the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked the Premier is because statements by the

Minister of Mines and Energy have indicated that the Premier has been actually

involved in negotiations and discussions with the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Landry.

As well, I think the minister indicated that the Premier and his Chief of

Staff joined the minister and/or other ministers in Quebec for meetings as well.

Perhaps you could just tell us the reason. You were not in New York, I

understand, for the meetings, but perhaps you could tell us why you were in

Quebec for those meetings, and what was the importance and the nature of those

discussions?

AN HON. MEMBER: Good question.

CHAIR: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not to make light of the matter, but maybe you would like a report on why I

went home to lunch today instead of staying in the office.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you this, and let me indicate to everyone in the

Legislature, as I just indicated. I do not purport to try to run all of the

involvement of the government by myself, every single day. We have very capable

and competent ministers who get involved and handle this, Mr. Speaker. When they

request, or they think in their judgement that it might be important for me and

some of my staff to be involved along with them, I am glad to do so. Mr.

Speaker, it is the result of that, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

are looking forward to, I am sure. I do not believe the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador are looking forward to an accounting of where I go every single

day, what I said, who I met. I think they are interested in knowing that I am

meeting with some people, trying to have some development proceed in this

Province so it will be a better place for all of us in the near future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am also very interested in who you are meeting with, Premier, because I

think it is of interest to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am not as

much interested in what you had for lunch as I am interested in what you had for

supper last Tuesday night. Can you confirm for me, Mr. Premier, if in fact you

were attending a political fundraiser in Montreal on last Tuesday, at $10,000 a

table, whereby funds were raised for your political party and you were guest

speaker? Were you attending that last Tuesday night in Quebec?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and glad to have done so. As a matter

of fact, Mr. Speaker, it was a wonderful opportunity to speak to 150 of the

highest ranking, business officials in and around Quebec, in and around

Montreal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Some from New York - by the way, Mr. Speaker, what we

should all be proud of is this: they were willing to attend because they wanted

to hear about the opportunities in our Province. That is the good news, Mr.

Speaker. I would hope that if the Leader of the Opposition, when he does some

travel outside the Province, which I know he does, and speaks to other groups,

other political parties of his own stripe and so on, that they are interested

enough - and I hope he out promoting Newfoundland and Labrador just as I proudly

do, Mr. Speaker, every opportunity that I get.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier confirm for me as to whether

Alcoa were at that fundraising dinner, and whether Hydro-Quebec were at that

fundraising dinner, and whether Alcoa, with whom you will be entering into

negotiations, paid $10,000 a table, or some amount, to listen to you speak in

Montreal last Tuesday night?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the extremely high level of debate that we can expect in the

next little while obviously.

Let me state this again: to my knowledge representatives of Alcoa were at the

dinner; to my knowledge representatives of Hydro-Quebec and the Quebec

Government, and many other companies in Quebec and the surrounding area of

Montreal and Quebec City were at the dinner. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what,

I was very pleased that they showed up and that we had an opportunity to speak

to them in a general sense about the opportunities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, if the typical suggestion of the Opposition is that somebody on

this side of the House - and he mentions $10,000 - last year in the leadership

it was speculated about Inco, that Inco had made a donation to my campaign and

as a result, I was willing to sell out the interest of Newfoundland and

Labrador. That is the inference, that I would be willing to sell out the

interest of Newfoundland and Labrador for a few, measly dollars at a fundraising

dinner. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, I hope - and I believe the people of the

Province sincerely hope - that we can conclude a deal with an Alcoa, or with

Hydro-Quebec, or with the Government of Quebec, to develop the Lower Churchill;

and it will be seen, while we are on guard and on watch, to be the best deal.

There will be no sell outs here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: You need not worry about that, Mr. Speaker, because last

year at this time they were saying the deal was already cooked with Inco, the

shop was already given away, and the update today suggests that there is no

giveaway, there is no sell out, because we are still trying to maximize the

benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador. That is our incentive. That is what we

are obligated to do. That is what we are committed to do, and I am delighted to

see the interest in it of the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will provide the Premier with an opportunity now, at this point in time, if

he wants to name the other very generous people who were at his meeting in

Montreal and the involvement they might have with resources, interests and

contracts in this Province.

I ask you Premier: Do you think it is appropriate that you should solicit and

accept donations from someone with whom you are entering into negotiations to

deal away the resources of this Province? Is that a Conflict of Interest? Do you

see anything wrong with that? Because the people of Newfoundland certainly do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe I will just make this particular comment to the Leader of the

Opposition; I do not know how he and his party arrange for fundraising but ours

is very open. It is not done by me personally. I do not vet, go through, or

screen invitation lists. People go out to the general community at-large and

say: Are you willing to come to a function and contribute? Are you going to

suggest now that you have never, ever spoken at a fundraising dinner where

people actually paid for the privilege of coming to the dinner? Probably not,

Mr. Speaker. Probably not, because they are not interested in hearing what he

has to say.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: We will continue to raise funds

for the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, openly, honestly, and in

accordance with all the rules that are laid down for us. We do not apologize for

that, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to do it. I just hope that there continues

to be enough interest in our Province and in the prospects here, that they will

continue to show up in bigger numbers and be willing to contribute to the

success of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance

is looking for cuts of 5 per cent in salary and 8 per cent in operations across

all departments. Now during past budgets government has used short-term fixes in

creative accounting to hide the real deficit. We have seen hydro dividends;

liquor corporation transfers; Term 29; the South Coast ferry service; HST, to

name a few. I want to ask the minister: Will she confirm that she is considering

using up to $100 million from the Labrador Transportation Initiative to address

the shortfall in this year's budget?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the member opposite is very anxious to hear the Budget, but like the

rest of the people of the Province, I have made an announcement that our Budget

will be brought down on March 21, next Thursday, and all the details are there.

I also have to say, Mr. Speaker, everything that the member has pointed to about

deferring funds has actually been read out in the Budget Speeches of the past.

We have never hidden any deficit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The deficit for the Province was tabled in the House of

Assembly in November of this year at $349.7 million. It was tabled for the

people of the Province in this House of Assembly in November. When the Auditor

General raised the issue a few weeks ago, I concurred. It is there for everyone

to see, Mr. Speaker. The public accounts does an accrual accounting. We do a

cash statement, and it is there for all to see. There is nothing hidden, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has deliberately avoided answering the question of $100 million

being used this year. That was my question. I understand, I say to the minister,

that Labrador members were not impressed with that plan, and those concerns are

well known by the minister, I might add. Now, will the minister come clean with

the truth and admit that is the hot topic among your caucus for the last few

days?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping he was going to ask me a

question about the hack attack. I am wearing my bugs here today, to show that I

am the minister responsible for IT.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I have the bugs to prove it, Mr. Speaker. I would be

happy to answer any questions and clarify anything about printers or bugs. I am

open to that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on a more serious note, I have to say that all of the details,

all of the information, will be made available to the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I will say again, the member opposite knows what money has been

spent this year. He knows right now what our deficit is, for the people of the

Province to know as well, that it is at $67 million at the moment, and all will

become known next Thursday when our Budget is delivered. It will be there, it

will be read out like it is every other year, for the member opposite to read

and for the people of the Province to see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell the minister, sparks were flying this weekend and it was not from

bulldozers on the Trans-Labrador highway, I can tell you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Minister, your 5 per cent and your 8 per cent are not going

to get the money you need if you are desperately trying to reach out and get

$100 million from the Labrador Transportation Initiative.

I want to ask the minister: Where are you now going to find that $100 million

that you were looking for this past weekend on the Trans-Labrador Highway?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I will say, Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite, we had

a little agreement earlier that he did not need to shout because the speakers

were fixed, so I take him up on that.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you, there may be some sparks flying from graders in

Labrador before this is all over. We never know; you have to stay tuned to find

out.

I will also say, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, that the member opposite will

hear, just like everybody else in the House of Assembly and the people of the

Province -

[An hon. member's cell phone rings]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Another hack attack!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: The member opposite will hear, just like the people of

the Province, next week, what our Budget is. Mr. Speaker, we believe it is a

good Budget. If the member is suggesting that keeping a hiring freeze and asking

departments to maintain their prudent management -

MR. SULLIVAN: Answer the question. That is not what I asked you.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am answering the question, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the

member opposite to give me an opportunity because it is very important.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member: Is he suggesting that we cut salaries

or roll back wages? Is that what he is suggesting? Because I would say, Mr.

Speaker, we will continue to manage prudently, but we respect the offer for the

public sector and we will maintain that commitment. Stay tuned for our Budget

next Thursday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health

and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, last year in the fall session, the minister tabled a report that

said that the accumulated deficits of all health boards up to March of last year

was $97 million. Mr. Speaker, we now know that boards this year are going to

have another $15 million to $18 million deficit. That amounts to $115 million of

debt that has to start to come under repayment in this year.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has been indicating that there

will be no layoffs in health care, that there will be no reductions in health

service in this Province. The big question, Mr. Speaker, is: How does the

minister propose to service $115 million in debt without having any layoffs? I

guess my question directly to the minister is: Next year, in the coming year,

how many people will be laid off in our health system, and how many services?

And, where does the minister propose health boards will reduce services to be

able to live within their budget allocations for next year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, as the member has indicated, the deficit for the

year, March 2001, was indeed in the order of $97 million; $96 million or $97

million. He also indicated that back in March, and the early part of 2001, that

the projected deficit for this year was in the order of, I believe, $18 million

at the time that the first budget deficits were made.

The good news from the boards, after great effort on their part, is that the

amount of that deficit has been significantly reduced, and because of the work

that these boards have done in trying to introduce efficiencies, that figure is

now down to the $8 million and lower areas. So, there has been significant

progress in the health care system in trying to contain the escalating costs of

health care in this Province.

As members who have been in this House for some time would recall, throughout

this period government has indicated time and again that, through the process of

developing a health plan, the whole purpose of developing a strategic health

plan is to try and ensure that we can have a sustainable health care system

which, of course, means being able to afford the system that we have, and

through this process, as we develop the health plan, our boards will develop

their plans for how to live within the funds that they have been allotted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the minister would check

with not only the institutional boards but also with health and community

service boards, because the $8 million that she is talking about is only about

one-half of what the actual total accumulated deficit will be of all health

boards. When we speak of health boards, Mr. Speaker, we are not just talking

about institutional boards; we are talking about health and community services

and the institutional side.

Mr. Speaker, on the point that she has raised, health boards did propose

budget strategies for next year when they submitted their budget requests

earlier. My question to the minister is: How many deductions, and what numbers

of reductions, did they propose to be able to live within their budgets for next

year? Can she tell the people of this Province today: How many people does she

plan, and the boards plan, to reduce in the health system next year, and where

she is proposing to make some adjustments in programs to allow boards to live

within their budgets. That is the more direct question, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Again, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has indicated,

the Budget for 2002-2003 has not yet been announced. In due course, when the

Budget is announced for this coming year, it will be clearer what the amount of

funding is that is available for the health boards in this Province. Through

this process, we will inform the boards of the amount of their funding.

Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that, as in the past, our boards will make

every effort to achieve the best possible efficiencies in their systems because

they understand the critical nature of health care funding in this Province, and

they understand that it is important to have a sustainable health care system.

They are working very hard with government to try and ensure that they can

deliver the best possible services.

Mr. Speaker, to answer the question directly: When the Budget is announced we

will be able to discuss, then, the funding that is available for health care

boards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Trinity

North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of helping boards deal with

their budgets, would the minister be prepared to acknowledge today that the $97

million from last year, plus the $18 million from this year, or really the $115

million deficit that health boards will be left with by the end of this month,

that that is really a public debt and not just a debt of health boards, and that

it would be more appropriate if government were to include that figure, that

$115 million, in their borrowing for next year, rather than have all the health

boards trying to negotiate with chartered banks some kind of repayment

arrangement for $115 million? Will you be prepared to commit that government

will include that figure in their borrowing to alleviate that burden from boards

next year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, we will decide, through the process of

developing our strategic health plan, on how we will deal with the long-term

issue related to the accumulated deficits of these boards. We have said this

from the beginning. We said that this has to be part of the process. We have

regular discussions with the boards on this issue. The boards themselves are

looking at ways in which they can accommodate the accumulated deficit as well.

These matters are not decided or determined yet here today, and it is a matter

that we have to have further deliberations on.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

The Premier is aware that the Barry Group has requested as allocation of

3,000 tons of redfish in 3N+3O off the waters adjacent to Newfoundland and

Labrador. In light of the fact that this proposal has received the support of an

all-party committee of the Nova Scotia Legislature, and the federal minister is

expected, according to media reports, to make a decision this week, I want to

ask the Premier: What is he and his government doing to ensure that we do not

have further erosion of the adjacency principle and further allocations of

Newfoundland and Labrador fish stocks to the Province of Nova Scotia? Given what

happened in Burgeo some years ago, the same plant, the same community, received

redfish stocks from Newfoundland and Labrador. What is the Premier prepared to

do to prevent this from happening again?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government takes the issue very seriously. When it was raised some

months ago, I wrote the federal minister responsible at the time, Mr. Dhaliwal,

and told him that we totally disagreed with any allocation of fish in waters

adjacent to this Province being transferred to other Provinces. We would totally

disagree with it. The day after the new minister, Mr. Thibault, was sworn in, I

spoke to him personally on the telephone and told him that we oppose that. I met

with him again last Tuesday, here in the Province, and I told him exactly that

again. He has not made the decision, but it is the indication in the discussion

that I had with him that he really does not have an interest in assigning any

quotas to individual towns because, like Canso, there are numerous towns in this

Province who find themselves in the same situation. If I were a betting man, I

would think that he is probably not going to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope we do not have to rely on the bets or the odds given by the Minister

of Fisheries. I wonder, is the Premier prepared to up the ante a little bit by

supporting a resolution in this House so that the full members of this House

have an opportunity to support a resolution endorsing the position that there be

no allocations of 3O stocks, or any stocks adjacent to Newfoundland, to fish

plants or enterprises for processing outside of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take the point quite seriously. Actually, we could have the same effect of

it right this very minute. You know the position of the government is

absolutely, diametrically, opposed to it. We know that the NDP is absolutely

opposed to it. If the Leader of the Opposition stands and says he is absolutely

opposed to it, we have an all-party resolution passed right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Industry. Late in December, I

received - after a request for Freedom of Information - a substantial amount of

information from his department looking for professional services, consultants,

payments paid out of his department. It reads like a Who's Who, who is

benefitting from the largess of government.

In particular, on January 5, 2001, Bristol Communications received $50, 000,

which was only a final payment, for a multimedia presentation. I would like to

ask the minister this question: What was the multimedia presentation? How much

was it? And, did this contract go to public tender?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman that the finer

details of that, for him, I can get; but let me also say to him that Bristol has

been engaged for some time in carrying on a number of public relations plans for

the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, and indeed, the

department of development and rural renewal, when that department was there as

well, and the contract obviously carried over into ITRD when that was put

together. One of those contracts was: We Are Doing It Right Here, a very

professional piece of work which Bristol did for us, and I can say to the hon.

gentleman, one that we credit with having made the kind of economic gains that

we have made in this Province over the last four or five years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we all know who Bristol Communications does

work for among the department, the government, and also the Liberal Party of

Newfoundland and Labrador. The fact of the matter remains: How much was the

multi-media presentation? He has not answered it. He knows what it is. Secondly,

was a public tender required? If not, why not? Finally, Mr. Speaker, surely

there must be somebody in your department who can put together a multi-media

presentation for the department. After all, your department is supposed to be

the lead department and the experts in that area. Surely, the minister can

answer those questions. He knows exactly what presentation I am talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me again say to the hon. gentleman that I will

get him all the details of what he is asking, right down to the final word.

There are a number of communication companies that work for the Department of

ITRD, and I can tell him that Bristol did work on this campaign.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) like Bristol.

MR. TULK: Let me just say to the hon. gentlemen -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to get to his answer.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon. gentleman: Yes,

Bristol did have the: We Are Doing It Right Here campaign. It was a very large

campaign and Bristol did have - it was a substantial sum. It was done, as I

recall - I will check it out more closely - from under: Call for Proposals.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today in my capacity as Chair of the Resource Committee -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Conception Bay East & Bell

Island, who is tabling a report.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today in my capacity as Chair of the Resource Committee to present a

report of that Committee with respect to one of two bills that were referred to

Committee during the December sitting of the House of Assembly, December 13,

2001, as a matter of fact, page 2395.

I present a report today with respect to Bill 45,

An Act Respecting

Environmental Protection. There are some thirty-odd amendments put forward with

respect to this bill, of which some eight have been accepted at the Committee

level. We will now have an opportunity, I would think, in Committee of the House

to deal with the bill in its entirety. I present this in my capacity as Chair on

behalf of the Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Social Services Standing Committee has, within the guidelines set down by

the House on December 13, considered the matters to them referred, and have

directed me to report the following: On February 26, and again on March 4, the

Committee met to consider thirty-five amendments proposed by Her Majesty's

Loyal Opposition to Bill 49,

An Act To Provide The Public With Access To

Information And Protection Of Privacy. By a majority vote the Committee has

accepted, or accepted with modification, thirteen of the thirty-five proposed

amendments. These amendments include, amendments to

Section 2, Sections 8, 10,

16(2)(b), and 33,

Section 13,

Section 19,

Section 38,

Section 44(1),

Section

60(3),

Section 62(3),

Section 68(2), and

Section 72.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

An Act to Amend the Fishery Products International Limited Act, Bill 65.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow present the following Private Member's

Motion on Canada taking custodial management of the Continental Shelf off our

coast:

WHEREAS the marine resources on the Grand Banks of this Province are a

critical element of the global ecosystem; and

WHEREAS these resources have the potential to provide tremendous economic

benefit on a substantial basis; and

WHEREAS the protection and conservation measures provided by the

International Community, an organization such as NAFO are not sufficient to

protect marine resources on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks off the Coast

of this Province; and

WHEREAS the longer this ecosystem remains unprotected, increased and possibly

irreparable damage continues to occur;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the Government of

Canada to take custodial management of the Continental Shelf off the Coast of

Newfoundland and Labrador; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this House of Assembly calls on the Government of

Canada to put in place the necessary provisions and resources to enforce

conservation measures for the marine resources in this area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people of the Clarenville

area. Just let me read from the petition itself. It says:

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced in its

2001-2002 Budget there would be a long-term care facility constructed in

Clarenville and the Department of Health and Community Services was given

$500,000 to commence the engineering and design work for that said facility; and

WHEREAS further in August of 2001, the then Acting Minister of Health and

Community Services further confirmed to the Town of Clarenville that government

is committed to build a forty-four bed, long-term care facility and it is

expected that the design consultants will be appointed in September of 2001.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a major issue in the Clarenville area for quite

some time. The residents of the districts of Bellevue, Terra Nova, Bonavista

South and Trinity North were made a commitment last year that that long-term

care facility would in fact be built, and the money was allocated in this fiscal

year for that to happen. The $500,000 was allocated to start the design and

engineering work. That was in March, Mr. Speaker, but then in August of last

year the then Acting Minister of Health and Community Services wrote the Mayor

of Clarenville and said: not to worry, government is committed to building a

forty-four bed, long-term care facility in Clarenville. Not only that, we are

going to proceed - now this was August month, Mr. Speaker - in September and

appoint a consultant to do the engineering and design work.

The money was in the Budget. Next week we are going to have a new Budget come

down. So here we are today, on the eve of this year's Budget, and this

government has still not yet honoured the commitments that they made in last

year's Budget. Does that mean we need to take next week's Budget and just

edit out what we don't think is going to happen? Because that commitment was

made last year. The commitment was made -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Did you hear what the Government House Leader said, hope

they do not do it now, he said.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I just acknowledged that the residents of

the Terra Nova District are in fact petitioning. Mr. Speaker, many of the names

on this petition that I am submitting today are names of residents of the Terra

Nova District. I just heard the Member for Terra Nova District suggest: I hope

they don't proceed again this year.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I will go back and take the twenty-five or thirty names

from his district and make personal contact with them and send them copies of

Hansard, because obviously he does not want them to have the long-term care

facility that they were promised last year in the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Member for Terra Nova not only speak

about that in this House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: - but tell the members in his district that he does not

want it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary

Education.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In February, as students in our Province participated in a national student

day of protesting, on that day I met with many of those students from this

Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister is presenting a petition?

MS KELLY: Yes, to the House of Assembly. The pray of the petition reads:

A petition to the House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. We the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador draw the

attention of the House of Assembly to the following:

WHEREAS post-secondary education has become a basic need for Canadians and

the future development of Canada; and

WHEREAS by 2004, 72 per cent of all new jobs will require post-secondary

education; and

WHEREAS tuition fees in Newfoundland and Labrador have increased 146 per cent

since 1991; and

WHEREAS tuition fees are a significant upfront barrier to post-secondary

education; and

WHEREAS average student debt loads in Newfoundland and Labrador have

increased from $8,000 in 1990 to almost $30,000 today; and

WHEREAS the loans-based approach to student financial assistance has proven

to be a failure at guaranteeing access;

THEREFORE your petitioners call upon the House of Assembly of Newfoundland

and Labrador to: legislate a progressive reduction of tuition fees and all

public post-secondary institutions in Newfoundland and Labrador; increase

post-secondary education funding; implement a comprehensive review of grants

available to all students on the basis of need; and call on the federal

government to restore funding for post-secondary education and to negotiate a

post-secondary education.

Mr. Speaker, this government will soon announce our new student aid program;

and, while I do not necessarily agree with all the wording in this petition, I

would like to say that we have spent a great deal of time speaking with

students, their parents, and post-secondary educational institutions. I look

forward to addressing some of the concerns presented in this petition shortly.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to get the agreement of the House to move

first reading of Bill 65,

An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International

Limited Act, so that we could get the legislation distributed.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will provide leave on first reading, because we have not seen the

legislation. I understand that many other members on both sides of the House

have not seen it either. We will provide leave to move through the Notice of

Motion and first reading so that at least the legislation can be distributed, we

can have a look at it, and then begin debate maybe tomorrow or whenever

government wants to call the legislation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am quite surprised to hear

that we will not be able to debate the FPI legislation today, which I understood

was the culmination of our all-party committee and our unanimous recommendations

which the Premier had undertaken to follow. Obviously we have to look at the

legislation to see if it conforms to that, but my understanding is that there

had been an all-party agreement to do it on the first day the House was open,

because of the importance of the act and the statement that it would make, to do

it on the first day that the House opened, assuming that the act is in

conformity to the recommendations that were made. I am sorry to hear, Mr.

Speaker, that the Opposition House Leader is prepared to say, without even

seeing the act, that he is not prepared to debate it today.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my learned friend from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi

just said the operative word. First of all, he is assuming that the legislation

is in keeping with the all-party committee resolution. Secondly, we are not

prepared to assume anything in that regard. There is a process for legislation

in this House. It is called Notice of Motion, first reading, second reading, and

third reading. Now, that is a process by which all members are afforded the

opportunity before government expects debate to begin. Personally, and speaking

for this caucus - we spoke about it this morning - we want to see the

legislation before we are asked to stand up and comment on it in a thorough way,

in a way that is reflective of the place we are in, so that we are not all

caught off guard. There was no all-party consensus to debate this.

Clearly I want everyone to understand, and I communicated this to the

Government House Leader today, that we are not trying to be obstructionists,

that we are not going to hold up this piece of legislation if it is in keeping

with what the all-party committee put forward; but I will say this, not only on

this piece of legislation but any other: We are not prepared, as members, to

have a bill dropped on us today, while we have never seen a draft of it or any

other aspect of it, without having the appropriate amount of time, which is one

parliamentary day, to have some opportunity to review it so that we can come

back and comment on the legislation in an intelligent and informed way, which is

exactly what the public expects of us, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not having the legislation for

members to see. Although I was working on the basis of my own members, everybody

on my own side, they have not seen the legislation either but they are quite

prepared to debate it today because it reflects with what the members talked

about in the consultations that they had throughout the Province.

I apologize. I was not aware - and I am the one person who wants people to be

informed. I am the one person who wants to get legislation in people's hands.

Nobody can deny, I have given legislation, and I do not want to hear the hon.

member laughing derisively.

I can tell you that I have said in the House, I am having a hard time

learning because I came from a school - I was taught thirteen years, you did not

get the legislation beforehand. It was passed on your desk and you got to debate

it, so I am learning. It is the first mistake I have made and I apologize to the

hon. member. I apologize that I did not get the legislation out in time. I

apologize for that but I working, as I said, on the assumption that the members

on this side were all equal; they have not seen it either.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to move first reading so that we can get the

legislation, get it into the hands of the members as quickly as possible.

If I might, Mr. Speaker, I am also prepared to meet this evening and we could

discuss it this evening. This gives hon. members three or four hours to look at

the bill, if hon. members will agree to that, that we come back after 5 o'clock,

after 6 o'clock, and pass the legislation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

From the remarks of the Opposition House Leader, you would not know but the

government was springing the legislation on them unknown. The second reading

debate, as hon. members will know, is approval in principle. Surely we can

determine in pretty short order that the principles that we expect in the bill

are contained in the five recommendations of the all-party committee. I have to

say that the first notice that I had that this bill was not going to be debated

today, whether in principle or otherwise, was when I was walking into the

Chamber at 1:30 this afternoon. I am quite shocked to find out here that we

cannot even debate the principles of the bill, the five principles that our

committee unanimously agreed to, that I am assuming - and I have to say yes, I

am assuming - that they are going to be contained in the legislation. If they

are not contained in the legislation, Mr. Speaker, I will know it right away. I

will not need two days to figure that out.

If we cannot debate it in principle, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what we can

do today given the fact that we have five principles set out in the

recommendations of this all-party committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: So it is agreed that the bill be called for first reading?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to introduce a

bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishery Products International Limited

Act," carried.(Bill 65)

On motion, Bill No 65 read a first time, ordered read a second time on

tomorrow.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, to make sure I understand where we are, the

Opposition is saying no to debating the bill, not even later, to come back at

7:00 p.m.?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much clearer we can be. At

12 o'clock today, an hour-and-a-half before the House opened, I met with the

Government House Leader and told him that as a caucus, number one, we would not

obstruct, in anyway whatsoever, the Fishery Products International Act.

Secondly, I did tell him, that we are not prepared to move from Notices of

Motion on a bill, to first reading, right into second reading because we have

not seen the legislation. I, for one, in the nine-and-a-half years that I have

been here, have seen many reports like this one. When legislation was tabled,

what was in the report did not mirror what was in the legislation. Now we

reserve the right - yes, and I can go to one, the accounting report, I say to

the Government House Leader. He says: that's not true. He knows it is true

because he and I participated in the debate.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the right as elected members in the House and the

Opposition. We have given leave today so first reading could be allowed. The

bill will now be distributed, and we will take today and this evening to review

the bill. When second reading is appropriate for it to be re-introduced, which

is on another parliamentary day, we will be prepared to debate it. I say to the

Government House Leader, that it has been communicated to you at 12 o'clock

today, a few moments ago, and again right now. That is where it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, just to a point of order, so it is clear,

and I think the people of the Province need to understand this. We have a

circumstance where an all party committee dealt with the issues and recommended

five principles that should be contained in the changes to the FPI Act. We will

get to see the written versions of that right now. They are being distributed;

it is in here. In this House, everybody understands our procedures. If we move

to second reading it does not mean that we examine the details of these words.

It just means that we check and see whether or not the five principles, that

have already been agreed to by the Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, and the

New Democrats, through a committee structure, are embodied in here. It is the

next stage of the debate that I understand the concern is being raised about,

that we will want to check and see, because when we go to the committee stage

then we take each clause, one by one, and examine whether or not the words

actually reflect the principles that we have committed here.

It seems a bit at odds and at variance for the Opposition House Leader today

to be taking this stance on behalf of his caucus because it is - and this is,

admittedly, a politically charged, and intended to be, comment - his leader, the

Leader of the Opposition, who said: Don't have a committee. Don't study

anything. Open the House and change the legislation today. I would like to know,

Mr. Speaker, how he was planning on accomplishing that, which was the Leader of

the Opposition's position when this issue started, and now, today, he cannot

even debate it in principle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, instead of the Leader of the

Opposition having his bodyguard and his protector stand up and carry the ball

for him, maybe he will stand up right now and say why it is that he is incapable

of having anything whatsoever, today, to say about the five principles that his

members of the committee have already agreed should be in this bill.

Tomorrow, if we want, or tonight, we can come back and examine it in a

lawyerly fashion, and some other fashion, to see whether or not the details are

in the print. It is completely at odds for the Leader of an Opposition who would

grandstand early on in this debate and say: Don't call a committee together;

don't tour the Province; don't let anybody have anything to say about this;

open the Legislature tomorrow and we will change the act. That is what he said.

Stand up and tell us what you are saying today, because just like normal, you

don't say anything. You let your bodyguard over there speak for you. Let's

hear it again today!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: If I might speak to that point of order. This is the same

gentleman, the hon. the Premier, when I sat up there a year ago and he was not

interested enough to ask any questions about this legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Why is he interested today? Do you know why he is

interested today? Because it is politically expedient for him to be interested

today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I cannot believe the gall of you to stand up and get on

with that in this House of Assembly after what I witnessed last year. You were

not even in the House. When the decision was made you were not even here. The

poor Minister of Fisheries had to stand up there -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. WILLIAMS: The poor Minister of Fisheries, who is just as much in the

dark today as he was yesterday, had to stand up all by himself. Where were you,

Premier? You were not even in the House. I know where you were.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I want to remind hon. members that we should not reference the absence

of members from the Chamber at any point in time. Members have to be away from

the House for obvious reasons, particularly a minister. I just want to remind

members that we should not make reference to ministers, or other members, who

are absent from the House.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order.

We sat in our caucus this morning - I spent the weekend going through all the

FPI material. We were fully ready to debate this matter today, in all conscious,

fully ready to debate it. We did not receive the legislation until now. I

received this document five minutes ago. Mr. Speaker, this is an area in this

House where I think I can really (inaudible) contrary to the Member for Signal

Hill, who is also a lawyer. I am a member of the Newfoundland Bar, the Law

Society of Newfoundland. I think I can add something to this, and I am here to

help. I am here to protect the interests of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. So I want an opportunity, in all fairness, to go through this and make

sure that we do not have the same problem all over again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I intend to take the time and use the benefit of thirty

years of experience at law - and my learned friend, Mr. Ottenheimer, and my

learned friend, Mr. Rideout will also participate, but we are not prepared to

rubber stamp everything you bring before us. It is not going to happen. So, in

all conscious -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: - representing the people of this Province, we are going to

take the time to make sure that this is done right, and I do not apologize to

anyone for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier, to the point of order.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition giving his views and speaking to

the point of order. Again, recognizing that the only people he values in his

caucus are the other lawyers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: I guess the rest of them must feel really good about it.

The people who sat on the committee for him, like his Fisheries critic. I guess

the people of the Northern Peninsula understand that his Fisheries critic is not

really involved in this debate in that caucus. That is instructive and useful to

know, Mr. Speaker.

Let me again - because it is a serious point of order, Mr. Speaker. Again, I

understand that as learned and as experienced as the Leader of the Opposition is

in court, the apology that he gave today makes it clear that he is still trying

to learn the rules in here.

Let me explain again the point that I am making, Mr. Speaker. We appreciate

every opportunity of taking the clause by clause examination and making sure

that we get it right. Mr. Speaker, everybody in this House, especially yourself,

knows that is done - not in second reading, which the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi is suggesting that we should do. Second reading is just the

basic principles of the bill. Do we believe the bill should include certain

features? It is not detail. The detail - that we gladly take the assistance of

the Leader of the Opposition in - is in the next stage of the debate, the next

phase, which is the committee. That is why I am puzzled as to why the Leader of

the Opposition, who is ready to do it all in one day, the next day, with no

reference to anybody, now cannot even talk about the principles of the bill, is

not prepared, even though he has had a committee agree to it, is not prepared

today to talk about the fundamental principles that should be in this bill,

which is what second reading does. It has nothing to do with detail, has nothing

to do with legalese, has nothing to do with the actual wording of the act or the

bill. It has to do with concept; has to do with idea, has to do with what we are

trying to accomplish in a general sense.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, again, because I know the Leader of the Opposition is

open-minded, he is trying to be helpful, but why anybody would not be prepared

today - because he said he did spend all weekend looking at the all the details

of FPI, so he must know now what principles he stands for; what ideas he stands

for. The detail is in the Committee stage, Mr. Speaker.

I would understand as well that, contrary to us, he is now also willing to

suggest that one of the former Premiers, who was a Fisheries Minister and

introduced this bill, made some serious and grave mistakes -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: - because he said: We do not want to make the mistakes

over again.

I am not sure that the former Minister of Fisheries agrees with that either,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his point of order.

PREMIER GRIMES: So, maybe he will get up again and diminish and insult

four or five members extra of his caucus, just like he did with the rest of them

the last time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

During the course of his point of order, it was suggested that I was jumping

to a conclusion and making an assumption that this bill would contain

principles. I can confirm, given ten or fifteen minutes to read the bill, that

clause 1 of the bill has a

preamble which uses the exact same words as

recommendation 5 of the committee report. Clause 2 of the bill has the

provisions contained in recommendation 3 of the report. Clause 3 is the

privative clause, and clause 4 deals with recommendation 1. The other

recommendation of the committee, clause 2, did not call for immediate

legislation but depends on negotiations with FPI.

So, I can confirm that all of those principles that are in the

recommendations are actually in the bill. Whether the committee's wording on

the

preamble is open to debate or change by this House is a matter for second

reading or Committee reading, but certainly the principles are there, Mr.

Speaker, and I believe that this House, certainly the committee members and

those who listened to the committee, really should be in a position to debate

the merits of the committee's recommendations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, I will conclude that there is no agreement to move

forward with the second reading today.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Order 3, Mr. Speaker, Committee of the Whole on Bill 49.

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

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Mercer): Order, please!

Bill 49, "An Act To Provide The Public With Access To Information And

Protection Of Privacy".

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: A point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: I understand there has been a report from the committee. I

haven't seen it yet. I understand we are now in Committee of the Whole

debating the amendments with the report.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, I just want a copy of it, that is all.

CHAIR: Order, please!

If we could just take a moment while the Clerk of the House makes copies of

the report.

[The Committee takes a moment while copies are being made.]

CHAIR: (Inaudible) the report from the committee. I understand she has a

number of copies and she still has to make a few more. So they are being made

momentarily.

Perhaps now we could go back to the hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess we are on clause 1 dealing with the bill.

Mr. Chair, government has indicated, I guess, how anxious they are to get

this piece of legislation. I understand that. It is important to review for the

record, I think, where this was prior to Christmas and where we are now, and

what has transpired in between, just for a matter of fact, and set the

discussion in terms of what is about to take place. Prior to Christmas,

government were open for a period of three weeks. During that time is one of the

reasons, I want to say, that this piece of legislation, Bill 49, the Freedom of

Information Act, was sent to the committee. I do not want anybody to leave the

impression today that somehow we are upholding, or holding up, government's

legislative agenda.

Prior to Christmas, for example, when government opened the House, in three

weeks we passed a significant number of bills. It was an ambitious legislative

agenda put forward by the government in a condensed period of time. Bill 21,

Bill 22, Bill 25, Bill 26, Bill 28, Bill 33, Bill 34, Bill 35, Bill 40, Bill 42

- we sent Bills 44, 45 and 49 to committee - we dealt with Bill 46, Bill 48,

Bill 50, Bill 52, Bill 53, Bill 54, Bill 55, Bill 56, Bill 57, Bill 58, Bill 59,

Bill 60, Bill 63, Bill 64, Bill 23, Bill 24, Bill 27, Bill 29, Bill 30, Bill 31,

Bill 32, Bill 36, Bill 37, Bill 38, Bill 39, Bill 43 and Bill 47.

Before anyone takes the opportunity this afternoon to stand up and say that

this Opposition has been obstructionist on this piece of legislation - and I

hope it does not, I hope no one does - but in case they do, I want the record to

show, clearly as it does, but to remind people who may be watching, and members

in the Legislature, that when we left here at Christmas, for the Christmas

break, there were three pieces of legislation out of what surely can only be

described as an ambitious legislative agenda, that all of the bills that we

passed from first reading to second reading, to committee stage, to third

reading, that received the Lieutenant-Governor's Royal Assent -

AN HON. MEMBER: Over thirty bills.

MR. E. BYRNE: Over thirty bills, that is correct, in really what amounted

to about sixteen parliamentary days for legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Less than that.

MR. E. BYRNE: Less than that, yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: You had private members' days.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, private members' days, so twelve parliamentary days.

There was an agreement made, Mr. Chair, that these bills would go to the

Legislative Review Committee and that the Legislative Review Committee would

report back to this House on the progress that was made.

Let us also be clear, it was certainly an understanding that I had - and I

communicated this to the committee that I sat on dealing with Bills 44 and 45 -

that we should hold at least a public hearing, or a couple of public hearings,

to provide anybody in the Province with the opportunity, if they wished, to have

some opportunity, I guess, to provide their point of view to it.

January went by, all of February went by, and we were into March when the

committees began to meet. I do not say that to take a swipe at government

because everybody knows, including ourselves, what transpired from an all-party

committee of the House which we supported. The committees went ahead and did

their work, and there are a number of amendments, a number of amendments, that

we have proposed to government. The Minister of Justice and Attorney General has

responded to some of those; but, bear in mind that this is our first opportunity

- our very first opportunity - to debate in a clause-by-clause format, the

Committee stage, this legislation, and to put forward some of the amendments

that we suggested initially, and an opportunity for the public to see why we

feel strongly, as an Opposition, about certain amendments dealing with the

freedom and access to information and privacy issues.

This is an important piece of legislation. Of that there can be absolutely no

doubt. The issues surrounding privacy, individual rights and privacy, are

extremely important issues related to a legislative agenda. This is the first

opportunity that we will get a chance to debate that in clause- by-clause.

Mr. Chair, on the issue of freedom of information and what should be

available and what should not be made available, again we have made a

significant number of amendments to the Minister of Justice. Some of that has

been dealt with at the committee level, I understand, and we will get to that in

a few moments.

Again, we are not going to unduly obstruct this piece of legislation, I want

to be clear on that, but we will take the amount of time necessary to deal with

the amendments that we feel strongly about and that government - we will

government, obviously, the full opportunity and they will take advantage of the

time that they have available in Committee stage to debate the amendments that

we have put forward.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will sit down. I know there are other members of the

caucus who are prepared to speak on this issue and I look forward to taking

part

in the debate surrounding this issue. I will say that the leader of our party

was the one who took the lead on this piece of legislation, felt passionate and

strongly about it. He will be participating in the debate, in a detailed way, as

the course of the clause-by-clause debate goes on. With that, Mr. Chair, I will

sit down and give the floor to my colleagues.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: On clause 1?

It is understood now that we will be debating the bill clause-by-clause and

not doing the entire debate under clause one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: We are still on clause 1, okay.

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: I just wanted to make one quick comment on clause one, Mr.

Chairman, just to say that clause 1 is only the

short title of the bill and I do

not intend to spend any time debating clause 1. Clause 1 can carry whenever the

Chair is ready to carry it. There are other clauses in this piece of legislation

that we will want to spend a fair amount of time on, but not clause 1.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Just again, I am not going to take up any undue time. I just

wanted to respond to a couple of remarks made by the Opposition House Leader,

just simply to say I thank him for recognizing the ambitious agenda that we had

back in the previous session, back in the fall session. We did have a heavy

agenda, but I want people to know that we have given a reasonable amount of time

for debating the bills, because that is what we need to do. We need to take our

time with the bills. We are not in a rush.

The hon. member says they are not going to obstruct. Well, the people of the

Province will witness that, whether they will obstruct, and I am not saying they

are obstructing. I have never said it. We want to give ample time, and that is

why we went to the committees, Mr. Chair, to give time for members - and I think

we did have one public hearing in one of the committees, particularly the one on

the freedom of information - that there was certainly ample space and time for

people to participate in the formulation of that bill and to make their

suggestions. It was government's view, particularly on the freedom of

information, that we had consulted with the public, and we could carry on. We

could carry on consulting for the next year, for the next two years, but we

think we have consulted sufficiently on this bill and met with experts in the

field, and think we have come up with a pretty good bill.

Mr. Chairman, we look forward to the passage of this particular bill, and we

intend to give the Opposition the time that they need to present their case and

to make any changes. Of course, we will be participating in the debate as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LUSH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: I am just wondering, Mr. Chairman, if we can get some efficient

way of going through this because we can understand that, with clause-by-clause,

members are going to want to speak and we are going to get a little mixed up, so

maybe if we took our time. Nobody is anxious to pass onto a clause if somebody

wants to speak to the clause, but maybe we should all be a little patient. Maybe

the Chair could take its time and make sure that everybody has heard the

particular clause, particularly when we get into amendments. I just want to make

sure there is no confusion.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate what the Government House Leader has to say, but it is my

understanding that the government has agreed to some sort of an amendment to

clause 2. Now, we would want to see that amendment and debate that amendment

when we are considering clause 2. I was hanging back, expecting the minister to

jump up and have a few words on the amendment that the government says it is

accepting, and put it forth so that we can see what it is and then debate it.

That is why I was holding back a bit, Mr. Chairman.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, just for a matter of clarification here.

Again, bear with me, this is my first time of ever having a piece of legislation

in the House that we went through in any significant detailed format. The

purpose, as I understand it here - and I am certainly open to some assistance

from the Chair or my colleagues - there were certain amendments put forward back

in December by the Leader of the Opposition before the House closed, which was

referred to the Select Committee. I appeared before the committee last week and

gave the department and government's response to those suggested amendments.

Some of them were acceptable to government and some of them were not acceptable

to government. I thought, rather than try to deal with it in a totally general

sense, because it is rather detailed and complex, as we go clause by clause I

would certainly be prepared and would opt to say either we are agreeable to the

amendment that you put forward, or if we disagree with your amendment - and we

have a substitute for that - if that is the proper way to go about it. There is

no intent to rush anybody or miss anything here. The intent is to have a full,

detailed debate on the complexities of this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: As I understand it, with respect to clause 2, for example,

there was no difficulty with clause 2, but there was a 2.1 that was submitted as

an amendment by the Opposition. So I am assuming that clause 2 is acceptable but

you want to submit an amendment called 2.1. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: My understanding is that there is a clause 2 in the bill and

the Opposition has submitted a 2.1. Your amendment is 2.1. So I am assuming we

are agreeable to clause 2 but we are going to be dealing in debate with your

2.1, which is an additional clause. I took that to mean that clause 2 would

carry but when we come to your amendment, number 2.1, we would deal with that in

due course; because government has some difficulty with your suggested

amendment, 2.1.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no difficulty in what the Minister of Justice is saying.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I have been known to have to stay after school many times, I

say to my friend, the Deputy Premier, and if I have to go on my knees up in the

corner, like were known to have been done in the good old days of corporal

punishment, I will do it again.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: We used to put the book over our heads so the teacher would

not see what you were doing.

I divert, let me come back to clause 2. As I understand it, the Minister of

Justice, the government has difficulty with the 2.1 purpose clause that was

proposed by the Official Opposition. When we finish with clause 2 the government

is going to propose something that is acceptable to the government, as 2.1. I

say that because here is what the committee report says: the committee report

makes comment - and this is Bill 49, on the purpose section. Not the committee

report, I guess that is not exactly correct. It is the government evaluation of

the thirty-five amendments that were put forward by the Leader of the

Opposition, that was presented, I assume, by the minister or some official, to

the committee.

I have to say upfront, Mr. Chairman, that I was not in a position to be able

to attend any of those committee meetings, but my colleagues were there, and

those who were there can speak for themselves. Here is what I understand the

government position is as it relates to the new proposed section, 2.1. The

government has said in its response - that the Opposition would like to add this

purpose section. The government said this: generally, they avoid purpose

sections. Generally, the government wishes to avoid purpose sections. There is

one in our existing Freedom of Information Act - so says this note on the

purpose section. Most other Canadian jurisdictions have them in their Freedom of

Information Acts.

Here is the key part for the minister's consideration. I understand what

the government has said in its official response. It is flexible on the purpose

section but would reword the proposed (e). What we had proposed in 2.1(1) was

the following: "The purposes of this Act are to make public bodies more

accountable to the public and to protect personal privacy by (

e) providing for

an independent review of decisions made by public bodies under this Act and the

resolution of complaints under this Act."

The government response to this, which I understand has been accepted by the

committee, is that the government is flexible on that particular whole purpose

section but they would reword the proposed

section (

e) to reflect the lack of

order power. Does the minister have this? I think this is the right time for the

minister to tell us what that flexibility is, what they have in their minds, and

how they are going to go about saying: yes, we generally are not in favour of

this purpose section, but we will accept it. We have to put in some wording here

that takes care of a perceived problem, or a problem that the government

perceives in

section 2.1(1)(e).

Before I take my place, Mr. Chairman, and the minister responds, I want to

briefly refer to the process of the amendments. As the minister said, and the

committee report indicates, I believe the Official Opposition proposed

thirty-five amendments to this draft Freedom of Information Act; to the bill

that we are now debating in clause by clause. It says in the report that the

government can accept or would propose variations thirteen of the thirty-five

amendments. That, as I understand it, is the committee -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) we said thirteen of the amendments

(inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, this is what I am reading from here. Rejection of the

remaining twenty-two is recommended. Is that correct? I say to the member who

chaired the committee: rejection of the remaining twenty-two amendments is

recommended. Here is what I understand to be the bottom line on the whole

process that took place after this House rose for Christmas. Here is what I

understand to be the bottom line on the thirty-five amendments proposed by the

Official Opposition. If I am wrong - as I said up front, I did not attend the

meetings, I could not attend the meetings - I will stand to be corrected. I am

not about to say what I am about to say to put words in anybody's mouth, to

embarrass, or to embellish in any way.

Here is what I understand to be the bottom line of the thirty-five amendments

that were proposed by the Official Opposition. I understand that the government

wholly accepts one of those proposals. One - and that is

section 61(3) on

restricting in-private court hearings, wholly accepts. I understand the

government wholly accepts one out of thirty-five of the proposed recommendations

or amendments, and that is on

section 61(3) on restricting in-private court

hearings. I understand that the government is committed to be flexible in

amending another fourteen sections. Fourteen, plus the one they have accepted

without any condition, is fifteen. The member who chaired the committee is

nodding his head. I understand the government is committed to be flexible in

amending another fourteen sections.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: That is right, the Chair. I understand that. You chaired the

Resource Committee.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, I do not, in any way, mean to be

unparliamentary, I want to be clear on that, but you were the Chair of this

committee. I would just make a suggestion to the Government House Leader: may it

not be advisable if somebody else were to chair this section? It has nothing to

do with your ability to chair or not to chair; but, due to the fact that you

were the Chair of the committee, maybe you will be able to answer some more

questions and move forward. Would that not be advisable, in the interest of

moving the agenda along? Because, if that is the case, what we could do,

possibly, I say to my colleague and others, is, where there is agreement on

certain amendments that we have proposed, let's deal with those first, and

when there is disagreement, where a disagreement exists, then we can deal with

those in a second grouping, if that would that be okay with the minister?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: I take it the justice critic is merely outlining what he

perceives to be the government position vis--vis the amendments. From what I

have heard so far, you are correct. There are thirty-five that were proposed

back in December. Our assessment of it is that one is wholly acceptable, as you

say, and fourteen we are prepared to be flexible on. As we get to each of these

in turn, I think you have been provided with government's written response, or

amendment to your amendment, showing where we are prepared to be flexible.

CHAIR: If it is the wish of the House, the Chair certainly has no

difficulty in relinquishing the Chair to the Deputy Chair of Committees and

answering any questions that I may be able to answer in my capacity as Chair of

the Social Services Committee.

MADAM CHAIR (Ms Hodder): Shall clause 2 carry?

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I wanted to make a few comments, or continue to make a few comments, on what

I understand to have been accepted by the Social Services Committee when they

met and considered Bill 49, the Access to Information Act, and what it is that

the government is prepared to accept and what it is that they are not prepared

to accept.

My understanding - and the minister confirmed my understanding a few minutes

ago when he spoke - is that, out of the thirty-five amendments proposed by the

Official Opposition, the government is prepared to accept, without condition,

wholly without condition, one of those proposals, one of those proposed

amendments. That was

section 61(3) dealing with restricting in-private court

hearings.

I understand further, Madam Chair - and the minister again, I believe,

confirmed this in his response a few moments ago to my statement - I understand

that the government is committed to being flexible in amending fourteen other

sections of the act, fourteen other sections that were part of the proposed

amendments submitted by the Official Opposition; but we note that this

flexibility on those sections - we note, Madam Chair, that the government's

flexibility on those fourteen sections does not necessarily adequately address

the concerns that led us to originally propose the amendments as we proposed

them. So the minister, in dealing with those fourteen sections where the

minister, on behalf of the government, has indicated flexibility, the minister,

in dealing with those areas of flexibility, will have to outline to us where it

is and how it is that the government is proposing flexibility, and what the

flexibility is, in words, in language, so that we will be able to debate why it

is that the government cannot accept the position as articulated in our

amendments, and what it is that is wrong about them or unacceptable about them,

so that they can only accept them in part.

Those fourteen sections that I am referring to is our proposed new

section

2.1 on purpose, the purpose clause of the legislation. Earlier in my comments, I

outlined what the government had to say about not accepting that proposal, or

that amendment as it was proposed.

Section 6 on fees for personal information, the government again has

indicated they are willing to be flexible in amending that section, but they are

not willing to accept the amendment in the way that it has been proposed by the

Official Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why leave it to regulations? (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Exactly, why leave it to regulations? We are talking about

section 6(3) of the act, entitled Right of Access, and we were proposing to

amend that

section to ensure that no fee is charged to access your own personal

information.

Madam Chair, that seems to be an eminently reasonable and sensible position,

that, if you are accessing or asking the government for private, personal

information that is in a government file belonging to me, that it is my

information so why should I have to pay for it? That is all the Opposition was

saying. The government is saying, in its response, that they are dealing with

fees in regulations. They are saying that British Columbia and Nova Scotia deal

with waiver in their act. Alberta and Manitoba only charge copying fees. They

say we reject but commit to waiving fees in the regs. Well, if you reject but

commit to waiving the fees in the regulations, I mean, a rose by any other name

is still a rose, isn't it, Madam Chair? Why leave the flexibility of covering

off that particular possibility by dealing with it in regulation? Why not accept

the amendment that we proposed and have it taken care of? That is the end of it,

and there is no more possibility of some future government dealing with it in

regulation. They would have to come back to the Legislature. That is what it is

all about. You would have to come back to the Legislature and have an amendment

proposed to the legislation which would be open to public scrutiny, and which

would be open to debate. That is if you wanted to do it rather than do it by the

secrecy of regulations.

The government, in sections 8, 10, 16, 33 and 35, again indicate that they

are prepared to be flexible but we will have to see what that particular

flexibility is when we get to what the minister is proposing, Madam Chair.

Section 13, we were proposing to deal with: about-to-be-published

information.

Section 19 -

PREMIER GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: If the Premier would only contain himself, if he would only

hold onto himself and not wish to insert himself into debate at every

opportunity, he might get the answer to his question. I understand that the

Leader of the Opposition has some great interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: Look at what he just did.

MR. RIDEOUT: He is out doing what the Premier just did, yes, out talking

to the media trying to convert the people of the Province. That is a legitimate

role for the Leader of the Opposition, isn't it, just as it is a legitimate

role for the Premier. So, if the Premier would hold onto himself, would contain

himself, would simmer down and have a drink of cold water, in the fullness of

time, the Leader of the Opposition will be gracing the Assembly with his wisdom

on this particular matter.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Madam Chair, if the Chair would protect me from the verbal

onslaughts of the Premier, I will try to carry on. I will try to see if I cannot

get through this. The more the Premier interrupts and interjects, the longer it

is going to take; but, then again, it really doesn't matter to me.

MR. E. BYRNE: Tell him we made more progress on the legislation when he

wasn't here the last time.

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, that is true.

I wanted to carry on, Madam Chair, outlining the fourteen sections that I

understand the government has indicated they are prepared to be flexible on, and

in that context I assume they are proposing to submit not our amendments,

because they said they rejected those, but they are prepared to be flexible on

some form of an amendment. So I would assume, on those fourteen sections, at the

end of the day the Minister of Justice will have a wording that the Committee

will be able to consider. The minister nods in the affirmative. That being said,

I will leave it at that.

Section 13 dealing with: about to be published information;

section 19

dealing with internal efficiency reports;

section 38 dealing personal

information;

section 44 dealing with time frame for reviews;

section 60 dealing

with appeal limitations on the Citizens' Representative;

section 68 dealing

with employee manuals, and

section 72 dealing retroactive regulations. These are

the fourteen sections, as I understand it, that the government has indicated

they are prepared to be flexible on. They will be proposing amendments that do

not necessarily mirror our proposed amendments in their totality, but they

mirror something that is acceptable to the government. Now that makes fifteen,

fourteen plus one, of our thirty-five amendments that government is prepared to

address in some way. One with total acceptance and fourteen in some variation of

their acceptance. We have to wait, Madam Chair, until we see those variations

before we can say whether the variation is acceptable enough, went far enough,

or did not go far enough, or whatever.

Having said that, Madam Chair, I think it should be noted that in rejecting

twenty-two of the proposed amendments, the government has gone a long way to

passing a piece of legislation that is not as strong or as effective as it could

have been. The government, for example, is intent on leaving the Citizens'

Representative in some of the amendments that they have refused to accept -

proposed amendments, I suppose, is the proper way to say it. They are intent on

leaving the Citizens' Representative powerless in certain instances. By

rejecting the amendments that we proposed in

section 2.1,12, 48, 49 and 67, then

that is the effect of the government rejecting those amendments and not adopting

any flexibility in those amendments. The effect is that the Office of the

Citizens' Representative will, in those instances, be weaker than it should

be, will be less effective than it should have been - well, it would be in the

best interest of the people of the Province, I suppose, but not in the interest

that it could have been if those amendments had been accepted, in some form, or

acceptable to the government. Because the government has rejected the amendments

proposed to

section 38, 63 and 70, privacy concerns, which those amendments

would deal with, are not a priority of the government. They are prepared to

leave those privacy concerns hanging. They are not prepared to address those

concerns in tightening up the legislation as we were proposing in the amendments

to them.

section 9, 12 and 30, Madam Chair, we were proposing amendments that would

close loopholes, allowing the avoidance of disclosure, but the government, again

in its wisdom, has refused to accept those particular amendments. These are a

part of the twenty-two - now that the government will have nothing to do with,

is what I am zeroing in on here, Madam Chair.

Obviously, internal reports, backgrounders and information on negotiations

and administrative matters, which we propose to deal with in an amendment to

section 23, is not acceptable. The government is not prepared to make it

mandatory through legislation, that those internal reports be provided. The

government does not want to accept an amendment that would deal with withholding

legal opinions in

section 20 and

section 21, on decisions not to prosecute. The

government is not prepared to commit itself, legislatively in statute, to doing

those things.

Government, by refusing to accept amendments to sections 10, 15, and 47 are

saying that they want the liberty to extend the access process. That is the

bottom line in rejecting those amendments, Madam Chair, is that the government

will retain unto itself the ability to extend the access process by rejecting

the amendments to those particular sections.

By rejecting the amendments to sections 17, 18, and 22, government is saying

they want longer time periods before documents are disclosed. They have not

agreed with shortening up the time frame from ninety days to sixty days, in some

cases. I believe forty-five was proposed in others; but in doing that, in

rejecting those amendments to sections 17, 18, and 22, the government is saying:

we are not prepared to accept it. We are more prepared to accept the long waits,

the long time frames before documents have to be disclosed. But, talking out of

that side of its mouth, the government is prepared, by rejecting an amendment to

section 44, to accept the short time frames when it comes to appeals. They are

not prepared to accept the shorter time frames when it comes to disclosure, but

when it comes to the right of appeal a shorter time frame is acceptable; not the

longer ones that we were proposing in an amendment to

section 44.

The government, in refusing to accept amendments to sections 8, 9, 10, 16, 33

and 35, are saying, unequivocally, that they want to stop inquiries that they

consider unreasonable because they refuse to accept the amendments to those

particular actions.

I mentioned briefly, when I spoke on

section 6 and also

section 67, that

government has indicated quite clearly in their response to our thirty-five

amendments, in rejecting twenty-two of them out of hand, that they are wary of

waiving fees. What does that mean, wary of waiving fees? The government have

been looking to this particular piece of legislation as a way to be able to ring

out and squeeze out of people every last, possible dollar that they can get

their hands on. That is the signal that they are sending when they reject the

amendments to sections 6 and 67. I suppose more frustrating, Madam Chairperson,

is the wish of the government to use regulations to override legislative

provisions. We were proposing that that be tightened up in

section 5 and 3, in

the context of the missing

schedule or to substitute for legislative provisions

section 67.

The government seems intent on using regulations to override legislative

provisions. They have refused to accept the draft amendments that we have

proposed which would solve, would take away that nuisance, would take away that

mischief and would make it such that, if the government wishes to change a

legislative provision, Madam Chairperson, the right way for any government to do

that is not by regulation override. The right way to do it is by legislative

amendment in this Legislature so that the peoples' representative in this

House, through a public process, the open Legislature, at least the people of

the Province are made aware of it before it hits them between the eyes.

What happens with regulation, Madam Chairperson, is the people have no input

into it, and the Legislature has no input into it. It is a secret process from

government bureaucracy in the department to the Cabinet. The first time that

people know about it is when the regulations are proclaimed under the act. The

people get hit square between the eyes with a legislative change made by

regulation that they did not have any ability to oppose or have input into until

it is too late. Therefore, the use of legislative override by regulation, Madam

Chairperson, is a very serious weakness that the government wants to maintain in

the act. We will need the minister to use all his persuasive powers to persuade

us why that should be the case. The minister has the responsibility to persuade

the Legislature.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I will probably get back to

this again.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Madam Chair, just in response to those comments for the

Justice critic. Again, the whole premise of Bill 49 is based, as was the title,

in the Freedom of Information Review Committee's report based upon Striking a

Balance. It is probably best to acknowledge upfront that there are substantial

differences here between government's position and the amendments put forth.

Most notably, the distinction between recommendations made by the Citizens'

Representative versus an order power by the representative.

The amendments put forward by the Opposition that have been rejected, are

being rejected because they are tied in with the Freedom of Information

legislation that is based upon an order-power; and because this government, as a

policy decision, has chosen the recommendation process rather than the power

process, that is why it automatically leads to many of the other recommendations

that have been put forward, because they make many of these recommendations

based upon

an act that is premised upon a Citizens' Representative having an

order-power. I would like to make that clear, first of all.

Again - I see the Leader of the Opposition has returned now - we are quite

prepared and suggest that probably the easiest, simplest way to deal with it is:

there were thirty-eight recommendations put forward for amendments. As each

section comes up, because there are some of these that we are acceptable to,

there are others that we are flexible on, and we want to discuss and have debate

on, and just so that nothing gets lost in the process we would suggest that you

do it one by one. It would be much more orderly and people would be much better

informed as we go through.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just for clarification from the Minister of Justice, in areas where we have

the recurring issue, the question of whether there is recommendation and/or

order by the Citizens' Representative, I am just wondering how the Minister of

Justice would propose that we deal with that, because it is a recurring problem

all the way through. I only came in on the tail end of it, but I just want to

get an idea of how you want to handle it. With matters that are tied to debate

on the full issue of whether the Citizens' Representative has the right to

order or recommend, how would you propose that we deal with the sections that

are related to that?

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: All of those sections that we are rejecting, because your

amendment is based upon a recommendation power, an order-power,

whereas

government's policy decision is that we are going to use a recommendation

basis for the Citizens' Representative. If you want to suggest that a general

argument starting off, or a debate as to why government ought not to have a

recommendation verses an order-power, that if fine, however you wish to proceed

with it.

I think that the pith and substance of the disagreements here will come down

to those two basic premises: that the Opposition is suggesting that this bill

ought to have an order paper,

whereas government's decision is that it ought

to be based upon recommendations. If you want to do it specifically for each

section, fine, or generally, but that seems to be where things narrow down to,

vis--vis your amendments verses the bill.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Madam Chair, just for the clarification and the assistance

of everyone involved here, I think everyone has a copy of the list of amendments

that was attached to the Social Services Committee report that was submitted.

It starts off saying: Reply of the Minister of Justice to Amendments Proposed

by the Opposition. It is a one-page document, or at least it was attached to the

Chairman's report, I believe. It is attached to the report of the committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Okay, you have them listed in the report.

For clarification purposes, since we are going to be referring to this

committee report, no doubt, as to what is agreeable or disagreeable, I just want

to clarify, off the top, that

section 37 references in that committee report is

out of sync in terms of numbering. You notice,

section 38 is referred to on page

1 of the report. The first page, it goes down through

section 2, sections 8, 10,

and so on,

section 13,

section 19,

section 38,

section 37.

Just for clarification, for numerical ordering there,

section 37, of course,

should be in front of

section 38. Also, the committee report makes reference to

section 62(3). That should be

section 61(3). That was just a typo when the

committee report was being prepared. I just say that for clarification.

MADAM CHAIR: I understand that everyone does not have a copy of this

reply so we will recess for a few moments while we get a copy distributed.

AN HON. MEMBER: I understand (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, that is correct.

All I had there was a sheet that basically was the same as the report. It is

just all put on one page.

MADAM CHAIR: Okay, in that case we will continue.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: I understand, Madam Chair, we will now be proceeding to what

is identified as 2.1. That is an amendment put forward by the Opposition.

MADAM CHAIR: A new clause 2.1. Does 2.1 carry?

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. PARSONS: Government accepts 2.1 as submitted by the Opposition except

for subsection (e); 2.1(e). I have circulated what government is prepared to