April
2, 2014
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLVII No. 12
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman):
Order, please!
Admit strangers.
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER:
Today we will have members' statements from the
Member for the District of Baie Verte – Springdale; the Member for the District
of Bay of Islands; the Member for the District of St. John's North; the Member
for the District of Mount Pearl South; the Member for the District of Bonavista
South; and the Member for the District of Port de Grave.
The hon. the Member for
Baie Verte – Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. POLLARD:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
He was a tireless community
volunteer. I rise in this hon.
House today to pay tribute to Ming's Bight former Fire Chief, Boyce Mitchell.
Born on April 8, 1951 to
Roland and Alfreda-Mae Mitchell of Woodstock, Boyce married Ella Regular in
1973. Together they raised three
children: Kathy, Penney, and John.
Upon completing high school he worked at the fish plant and then went on to work
with the Department of Transportation.
Later on, he selected
underground mining as a career for which he spent thirty-three years.
Besides a fire chief for thirty-three years, Boyce was also a member of
Baie Verte RCMP Auxiliary and a faithful member of Calvary Pentecostal Church.
A true unselfish volunteer, Boyce mentored many of the Ming's Bight fire
department members. Immense respect
for him was evident at last year's firemen's ball –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. POLLARD:
– as members and community leaders recognized
his outstanding service.
In his leisure time, he
loved to salmon fish, sing, play his guitar, and simply to hang out with family.
Described as a small man with a big heart, Boyce found joy in serving
others.
Honourable members, please
join me in remembering Boyce Sterling Mitchel – forever loved and forever
remembered by family and friends.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of
Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to
recognize Wilfred Bellows of Summerside, who has been selected to represent 4-H
Newfoundland and Labrador at the International 4-H Conference being held in
Washington, DC, from April 4-11.
A level II student at
Templeton Academy in Meadows, Wilfred has been a member of the Summerside 4-H
Rockets since he was five years old.
He has competed locally and provincially in 4-H competitions and has won
various events. He is currently a
member of the 4-H executive and junior leader.
The 4-H youth organization
promotes leadership and life skills, self-reliance and personal development, and
this conference will further enhance leadership skills and abilities while
giving participants an opportunity to gain a better understanding of 4-H in
Canada and the United States.
In addition to the
conference activities, participants will also get an opportunity to tour
Washington and visit some of the nation's famous cultural sites, including
Lincoln Memorial and Capitol Hill.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all
members to join me in congratulating Wilfred on his accomplishments and with his
leadership skills; this Province is in safe hands.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, I stand today to congratulate the
Leary's Brook Junior High Grade 9 boys' basketball team on their outstanding
performance at the 2014 Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games.
The Leary's Brook Eagles
represented St. John's North at the games.
Their head coach was Physical Education teacher, Colleen Hogan, along
with assistant coaches Scott Green and Shawn Gifford, and their manager Theirry
Landu.
In an amazing show of
sportsmanship in the last minute of a round-robin match, the Eagles noted an
opposing player on the host team who had not played before.
They agreed the player should have a chance to score, and passed him the
ball – the opposing player – three times.
He scored on the buzzer with everyone cheering loudly.
A second highlight for the
Eagles was winning the silver medal in the championship game.
This was impressive since no player on the Eagles has played basketball
longer than three years, and some have played for only two years.
I ask all hon. members to
join me in recognizing the skill and sportsmanship of silver medalists from
Leary's Brook: Emanuel Ring, Felly Elonda, Joshua Coombs, Robert Wheaton, Kyle
Williams, Jack Shea, Jordan Pitcher, Thomas Osmond, Jeremy Kakoko, Tyler
Philpott, Mitchel Hand, and Noah Cumby.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege to rise in this hon. House to offer congratulations to a group of
individuals who have made a significant contribution to sport in my community.
Once again, this year's
Mount Pearl Athletic Awards was a tremendous success, which highlighted the
achievements and emphasized the important role that sport has played and
continues to play in the development of youth and adults alike within our great
city.
There were a number of very
worthy nominees again this year nominated in five categories.
Congratulations to this year's winners: Peter Halliday Executive of the
Year award winner, Mr. Ron O'Neil of Mount Pearl Soccer; Coach of the Year, Mr.
Doug Halliday of Mount Pearl Track and Field; Female Athlete of the Year,
Malorie Harris for her accomplishments in the sport of basketball; Male Athlete
of the Year, tremendous hockey and ball hockey player Patrick O'Keefe; and Team
of the Year, the Mount Pearl Masters Soccer Team.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask
all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating these individuals on
this significant accomplishment and wish them all the best in their future
sporting endeavours.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LITTLE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to rise to
recognize Bonavista resident Douglas Strickland, who has devoted his life to
helping others. As a youth, Mr.
Strickland joined the local Sea Cadets, spending many summers training in
Cornwallis, Nova Scotia. He went on
to join the army and was sent to Germany as a peacekeeper during the Korean War.
Douglas has been a member
of the Royal Canadian Legion since 1959, holding such positions as President,
Vice-President, Sergeant-at-Arms, Chaplain, and Parade Marshal.
A few years ago, he received the fifty-year service medal.
Mr. Strickland has been
heavily involved with the Anglican Church ever since he was a young boy.
He has been a Sunday school teacher, a choir member, and a Lay Minister
for thirty years.
Douglas made his career in
health care. Starting as an
orderly, he went back to school to become a Registered Nursing Assistant and a
Plaster of Paris technician. He
continued in these roles for twenty-four years.
Still today, in retirement, Mr. Strickland visits the homes of fellow
community members to aid with home care.
Mr. Speaker, please join me
in honouring Douglas Strickland, a true volunteer and humanitarian, who sets an
excellent example for us all.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of Port de
Grave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. LITTLEJOHN:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today in this House
to recognize Ms Donna Fowler for her community service and her philanthropy.
Donna owns and operates Kelly's Landing in Bay Roberts – a popular pub.
Through her business, she
has supported and raised thousands of dollars for local teams, organizations,
and charities throughout the years.
Two years ago, after the death of her son-in-law, Dale, Donna began a
fundraising campaign to support the dialysis unit at Carbonear General Hospital.
Through a jail and bail, and with the support of the local fire
department and the RCMP, local residents were arrested and jailed until the
desired funds for their release was raised.
To date, Donna and her team
have raised in excess of $30,000.
This money has fully furnished the dialysis waiting room area and has purchased
a specialized chair for cancer patients at Carbonear General.
Many times, these acts of
philanthropy go unnoticed by the general public and community.
Donna's desire to do good every day is a trait we should all admire and
commend.
I ask all hon. members to
join me in congratulating Ms Donna Fowler for her caring heart.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Statements by Ministers.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Environment and
Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS SHEA:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Assembly
today to acknowledge the provincial government's continuous support of women in
leadership through outreach and professional development in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the first of
our four Ovations Leadership Lunch & Learn sessions took place on February 21,
in Clarenville with keynote speaker, Iris Petten.
The second was on March 7, in Grand Falls-Windsor and featured Anne
Whelan. The third will take place
on April 11, in Corner Brook featuring Anastasia Qupee, and the fourth will be
held on May 9, in Happy Valley-Goose Bay with Anne Whelan.
Mr. Speaker, these sessions
are a great opportunity for women in different regions of the Province to hear
first-hand the experiences and approaches taken to leadership by such prominent
Newfoundland and Labrador women.
Iris Petten is a business
leader and has corporate board experience in industries such as fishing,
education, logistics, and transportation.
Ms Petten currently serves as chair of Memorial University's Board of
Regents, and is a corporate board member of Canada Post Corporation, and Canship
Ugland Limited.
Anne Whelan currently leads
Seafair and is a board member of Newfoundland Power, Newfoundland and Labrador
Oil Industry Association, Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, and the Argentia
Management Authority.
Anastasia Qupee is an Innu
woman from Sheshatshiu, Labrador.
She was the first Innu woman to serve as chief in her community, serving two
terms from 2004 until 2010. She
also served as a board member on Innu Nation, Labrador-Grenfell Regional Health
Authority, and is involved in a number of joint businesses.
Ms Qupee is currently the Human Resources Director for the Sheshatshiu
Innu First Nation.
All sessions begin at 12:00
p.m. and run until 2:00 p.m. Topics
include mentorship, core competencies, women on boards, and creating strong
networks. The cost is $15 per
participant, and anyone interested in attending one of the remaining sessions
can register at the NLOWE Web site.
Mr. Speaker, Ovations
events are organized by a committee of representatives from the Provincial
Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Newfoundland and Labrador Organization
of Women Entrepreneurs, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as
community and business leaders.
Through initiatives such as
the Ovations Leadership Lunch & Learn sessions, the provincial government
remains committed to supporting the advancement of women in leadership
throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au
Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an
advance copy of the statement. The
achievement of women leaders is always something to celebrate.
Women have fought for and won their place in politics, in corporate
governance, and in their own communities.
We all have women in our lives who encourage us, who act as role models,
whether consciously or not. They
may not be presidents or chairs on committees or anything, but they run families
and community groups. They have
raised daughters to be pioneers in their own right.
Women remain
under-represented in leadership roles, so providing opportunities for women to
network and share their successes and challenges are worthwhile in ensuring
their representation in all spheres of life.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would also like to thank
the minister for an advance copy of her statement.
How often we are asked: Who would you most like to have lunch with?
Mr. Speaker, I would be
thrilled to have lunch with any one of these wonderful women, Iris Petten, Anne
Whelan, and Anastasia Qupee. They
are all wonderful leaders who have done so much to advance the status of women.
It would be a pleasure to hear their stories, stories of determination,
stories of challenges, success, and creative solutions to scaling over
horrendous blocks and barriers, and I would love to ask their opinions on issues
affecting the lives of women in this Province.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I
would have to ask them what they thought of this government closing the Family
Violence Intervention Court. I am
sure they would have some questions about that, themselves.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
hon. House today to discuss the importance of achieving fair access to
provincial shrimp resources for harvesters in the inshore sector.
Mr. Speaker, the federal
government just issued short-term quotas to get the shrimp fishery started, but
there are clear indications there will be a significant reduction in the total
allowable catch for shrimp this year in response to a decline in shrimp stocks.
If the federal government applies a policy called Last In, First Out,
almost all of this reduction will be experienced by the Province's inshore
fleet. This fleet sector comprises
small boat harvesters, and this quota cut would severely jeopardize many
enterprises.
The Last In, First Out
policy was established in the 1990s to protect the interests of the offshore
sector when inshore harvesters became new entrants in the shrimp fishery.
Those harvesters have since become full-scale stakeholders over the last
twenty years, and just like offshore harvesters, they have made major
investments in their operations, and make a significant contribution to the
success of the provincial fishing industry.
That is why the provincial government is advocating to ensure any quota
reductions in shrimp are shared equitably by offshore and inshore fleets.
Mr. Speaker, I have
discussed this issue on several occasions with the federal minister Gail Shea,
most recently at the Seafood Expo North America in Boston, and also with Rob
Moore, Minister of State of ACOA and Regional Minister for Newfoundland and
Labrador. At every opportunity, I
have emphasized the Province's position that any decisions regarding allocation
should: consider which harvesters are adjacent to the resource, be consistent
with stabilized sharing arrangements established for other fisheries, and avoid
pitting one valued fleet sector against another.
This position has been expressed by the Province since 2010, and we
expect the federal government will make fair and equitable decisions when final
quotas are assigned. We are
prepared to work with the Government of Canada to help inform a fair resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the provincial
government agrees with the needs to protect shrimp resources when fisheries
science indicates conservation efforts are necessary.
However, more than 2,200 plant workers, more than 250 small boat
enterprises, and fourteen offshore companies stand to be impacted by quota cuts.
I call on all members of this hon. House, and Members of Parliament in
Ottawa, to advocate for the best interests of our shrimp fishery, and for the
communities that rely upon it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Carbonear – Harbour
Grace.
MR. SLADE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, first of all, would like
to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.
Mr. Speaker, the threat of the shrimp cuts have certainly been on our
agenda. In fact, we wrote to the
federal government on March 7 to outline our concerns and to seek a meeting with
the minister. We have pressed for a
solution that will mitigate the negative impacts on the many plant workers,
harvesters, and communities.
While government contends
they have been advocating for cuts to be shared by the offshore and inshore
fleets, what concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying they are prepared
to work with the federal government.
I am wondering why this engagement is not already taking place now.
It is too late for us to go in after the fact.
I am also concerned that the minister gave no indication of the plans he
has in place when workers, harvesters, and communities get slammed with these
quota cuts.
Mr. Speaker, indeed we must
conserve and we must be ready to deal with the fallout of any cuts, but what we
need the most is a real voice in the managing of our resources so that the
provincial government is not just another advocate, but a co-manager of our
fisheries. It is time for this
government to get to work on securing joint management so we can have a louder
voice in our renewable resources.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for
the advance copy of his statement.
He has outlined a very serious matter for our shrimp industry and for the people
who work in that industry. There
must be a fair sharing of the resource between both fleet sectors.
As we all know, in this fishery the difference is merely one of
classification. Both fleets are
dealing with the same source.
In 2003, DFO implemented a
long-term strategy, which emphasized people living adjacent to the resource have
to benefit the most. DFO may have
dropped this principle, but it is still the right one and we have to fight for
it. If DFO implements Last In,
First Out, which is not a written or defined policy of that department, we could
see great financial damage done to the people who have invested millions in
shrimping enterprises as well as job losses in local plants.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to
the minister, this is one fight we must all engage in together.
We have to be united in this fight for the people of the Province.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Education.
MR. JACKMAN:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to
recognize today, April 2, as World Autism Awareness Day, and to assure
individuals and families affected by this disorder that our government has heard
their concerns, and we are making the necessary investments to address timely
diagnosis, and improved services.
My colleague in the
Department of Health and Community Services announced last week that Budget 2014
makes provision to increase capacity for autism assessment and treatment and to
reduce wait times for children with autism and other developmental conditions.
An investment of $2 million this year, annualizing to almost $4 million
in 2015-2016, will allow for the addition of twenty-two positions in the
regional health authorities this year, increasing to thirty positions next year.
These positions include a developmental pediatrician at the Janeway,
child management specialists, occupational therapists, and speech language
pathologists.
In addition to these
investments, Mr. Speaker, Health and Community Services have been working with
Eastern Health to develop an action plan.
The intent is to make more efficient use of resources already in place to
ensure that wait times are reduced and that children receive the care they need
as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, in terms of
the K-12 education system, a comprehensive review of services in recent years
has resulted in the creation of six positions for autism itinerants at regional
offices, autism resource kits for each school, and the development of a
Provincial Professional Development Plan, which to date has seen more than $1.2
million invested in specialized training for teachers and student assistants.
Our work continues, Mr.
Speaker, in January, I announced our involvement in an Atlantic partnership
called “Autism in Education” through the Atlantic Provinces Special Education
Council. This partnership will see
more online autism training delivered to teachers, administrators, and other
educational personnel to help implement teaching strategies for students with
autism and other developmental disabilities.
In short, Mr. Speaker, we
have been working very hard to address the growing need for autism services,
both for children and adults. We
will continue to work with the Newfoundland and Labrador Autism Society, and
with health and education professionals, to address the issues as they arise.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Thanks to the minister for an advance copy of
his statement and thanks to the Members of the House of Assembly who wore a
little blue today in recognition of the day.
Last week, the US Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention released new figures on the prevalence of
autism spectrum disorder and the numbers are quite startling.
They now estimate that one in sixty-eight children has autism – a 30 per
cent increase from just two years ago.
World Autism Awareness Day
is an ideal time for members of this hon. House to reflect on what we need to do
to address the needs of people with autism, both young and old alike.
The first thing we need to do is listen to people with autism and their
advocates. They have told us that
the wait-lists for assessment are too long and that needed interventions often
come too late to be effective.
They have told us that the
intensive applied behavioural analysis program should be available to those who
need it, regardless of age. They
have told us that we need a co-ordinated, multi-agency approach among key
government departments and agencies to ensure that individuals with autism are
provided with the services they will need to promote their independent living.
We have been told what needs to be done, Mr. Speaker; now is the time to
act on that advice.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, thank the minister
for an advance copy of his statement.
Obviously, I am glad to see an increased capacity for diagnosis and
treatment of autism in the Province.
Any increase at this moment would be extremely important.
With now one in sixty-eight children diagnosed with autism spectrum
disorder worldwide, delays in getting a diagnosis is a critical issue in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Early
intervention is the key factor in these children's success in school and in the
world that they will enter into when they finish their schooling.
With a wait time for
diagnosis of up to two years, which is a disgraceful time, Mr. Speaker, and more
than 300 children on the wait-list, it is good that government is finally taking
steps to address the problem but they are only first steps.
I encourage the minister to
listen closely and often to the parents, the families, the health care
professionals, and concerned citizens on how to mitigate this serious condition.
I encourage him to listen to the children and adults themselves who have
autism spectrum disorder.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER:
Oral Questions.
Oral
Questions
MR. SPEAKER:
The Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Almost three months ago,
government announced that they would draft a terms of reference for a review of
the provincial energy system, that they would make it public and choose an
independent body to conduct their review.
After missing the deadline by over a month, government today announced
that they would hire a consultant to look at the provincial energy system.
There was no mention of it in the public terms of reference or
independent bodies to conduct the work.
So I ask the Premier: Why
does this announcement today differ so much from what you said back in January?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, we have an electrical system here
in the Province that has been meeting our needs for some fifty years, in terms
of our electricity system and the regulation and the framework – but there is a
reality that the needs in this Province are changing.
Our government has been firmly committed to meet those needs, Mr.
Speaker, and the changes.
We have been firmly
committed, as we move forward to address issues of availability and reliability
of power through the development of Muskrat Falls, that we would clearly
undertake a review, a very close look at the broad system of our electricity
system within the Province as we move from an isolated system to an
interconnected system.
Mr. Speaker, we committed
to the people of the Province that we would have an independent review of this
done, and we will do an RFP where someone totally independent of government will
take a very broad look at our electrical system – all for the benefit of the
people of the Province so that we can make sure as we move and connect to the
North American grid we are going to meet that standard –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, that just reminds me
that back in January this must have been somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction to
announce that independent bodies would look after this review that the minister
talked about. Obviously that is
quite different from what we saw announced today.
So it is clear that the
review by government is nothing more than just an attempt to shift the blame of
what is known as DarkNL off government.
The PUB is already well underway in reviewing the provincial energy
system and will provide a study both before and after the Muskrat Falls Project
is completed.
So I ask the Premier: Why
not just get out of the way of PUB, let them do their work, and do the
comprehensive review that they can?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DALLEY:
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite was probably
aware – if not, he should be – we have outlined in our Energy Plan of 2007 that
as we move to the new system of an interconnected system – the last jurisdiction
to connect with North America – that we would need to get in line with North
American standards, and as outlined in our Energy Plan, we would do that review.
So this is not a knee-jerk.
The other thing that we
committed, Mr. Speaker, publicly, and I certainly commit today to the people of
the Province, that we want the PUB to do their work, we are not going to get in
the way of the PUB and what they are doing, we are not going to provide
oversight to the PUB in terms of the work they are doing.
We are doing an independent piece of work on the broader aspects, Mr.
Speaker, to make sure that for all of us in this Province we have confidence in
our system going forward, and to make sure that whatever changes we need to make
to get in line with North America, we are prepared to do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have clearly outlined
there has been a lot of changes since January in that response.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government is effectively holding the Province
hostage with the latest fee increase at Marine Atlantic that was effective
yesterday. Since 2012, we have seen
an astounding 11 per cent increase in fees.
These increases are passed on to consumers and negatively affect tourism
and our economy.
I ask the Premier: What
actions have you taken to offset these harmful increases?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and
Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we are aware
of the increases. Actually, they
are up as high on our seniors over the last three years of 23 per cent.
Although we have seen a decline in the number of rubber tire traffic to
this Province, it is still a significant deterrent.
I have raised it with the CEO of Marine Atlantic.
I recently, at the HNL conference, sat a table with them and mentioned it
in the speech to the delegates, and also reiterated to him at the table.
Mr. Speaker, we are aware
of this. We realize the investment
of $900 million they have made with the two new ferries and marine improvements.
However, we have to be aware and we have to be concerned when it impacts
not only our tourism market but our commercial market as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Mr. Speaker, we know – and I mentioned this
couple of times in the last few days – that the rubber tire traffic that the
minister talks about goes back to the mid-1980s.
It is the first time since the mid-1980s we have seen traffic less than
100,000 passengers.
Mr. Speaker, the federal
subsidy agreement between the federal government and Marine Atlantic is up for
review next year. There is a fear
that the federal government will reduce funding even further, driving up Marine
Atlantic rates.
I ask the Premier: What
representation have you had with the federal government – not HNL, we know here
in the Province everyone supports this intervention – to ensure that the Marine
Atlantic subsidy is appropriate?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and
Recreation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH:
Mr. Speaker, actually the decline in rubber tire
traffic is not only a provincial trend, it is a trend worldwide.
If the hon. member did some research he would see that any ferry
operations throughout the world will see a decline in rubber tire traffic.
However, Mr. Speaker, what
we do when we have an issue with an agency, a Crown corporation of the federal
government, we deal with them directly.
I have had numerous meetings with the chair explaining how important it
is to the tourism industry and to the commercial industry of this Province.
This goes way, way back to even the reservation system.
I have been intimately
involved with Marine Atlantic. Like
I said, just recently as a month ago we talked about this.
I am surprised the hon. member never brought it up sooner because it has
been a known thing now for some weeks.
It only came into effect today and that is the reason I guess for the
questions.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I remind the minister that
there is some ferry traffic that is up in our Province.
You need to look at the Apollo
ferry as an example.
Mr. Speaker, today is World
Autism Awareness Day. Just last
week the Centre for Disease Control indicated that one in sixty-eight children
have Autism Spectrum Disorder. They
also said that the earlier a child is provided with these services is better.
We are aware that government has put $2 million into additional services,
but mostly after diagnosis. There
are about 400 children in our Province waiting to see a specialist.
I ask the Premier: Early
intervention is critical, why have you let the wait-list get so long, delaying
children with autism from getting the early care they need?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when our
Premier was sworn in as Premier he said that we have a duty to do more around
social justice. One of the pillars
of our Budget Speech this year was fair society.
We also said that we would listen very carefully to what the public was
saying, and we have heard that more needs to be done in autism.
Our investment speaks for itself this year; Mr. Speaker, $2 million this
year, annualizing to $3.9 million next year, all for the sake of children with
autism and other behavioural disabilities.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
MR. BALL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have to remind the
minister that many members opposite were sworn in in 2003 when this was a much
different problem than we are seeing today.
Applied Behavioural Analysis, or ABA therapy, is provided to children in
this Province up to Grade 3. It is
scientifically proven to work. The
problem is the Province is ill-equipped to diagnose and provide ABA services.
Some children who require these services no longer qualify for ABA
because they are too old when they get diagnosed.
I ask the Premier: Will you
now commit to putting in a true provincial strategy for autism?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Lots of members on this
side of the House were also sworn in in 2003, Mr. Speaker, and that is why in
2011-2012 we did do more around autism then.
We put $2.9 million in a year so that ABA could be brought in from
kindergarten to Grade 3, Mr. Speaker.
That is this government that did that.
We also did more this year,
Mr. Speaker. When you look at the
number of positions, that will help with reduced wait times and with the ABA
program. We have one developmental
pediatrician, twenty child management specialists, one social worker, one
clinical lead, three occupational therapists, and four speech language
pathologists. Mr. Speaker, this
brings our investment annually now up to $12.5 million a year.
Mr. Speaker, that speaks to our commitment to children with autism.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education recently
said that collapsing the four English language school districts into one would
produce a savings of around $12 million.
Instead of saving money last year, the minister's expenditures on school
board operations exceeded the estimates by $10 million.
I ask the minister: How can
you continue to say the school board merger saved money when you actually
overspent your budget by $10 million?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
Mr. Speaker, we committed, when we were into
restructuring the one thing we were not going to impact upon was front-line
services. We maintained a cap.
We have maintained a student-teacher ratio that is the best of all
provinces in all of Canada.
I do not know if the member
realizes it or not, but each year cost for operations go up, Mr. Speaker.
The accumulated costs, I will say to the member, things like a 52 per
cent increase in rental costs for the school board office, and utilities go up.
Busing costs that were at $1.47 million, $52.6 million this year, speaks
to our investment, but clearly the member does not quite understand how it is
all operating.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's North.
MR. KIRBY:
Mr. Speaker, the minister said he would save
money and he saved none. On top of
the $10 million in overspending last year, the budget for school board
operations next year is over $4.5 million higher than the amount budgeted last
year. The evidence is clear.
No money was saved last year and no money will be saved next year.
I ask the minister: How
many years will we have to wait to see his savings of around $12 million?
Will we have to repeal Bill 29 in order to get that information from this
government?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. JACKMAN:
I can only shake my head at him, Mr. Speaker.
I just said utility prices have gone up, rental costs have gone up.
If we had not restructured the board – I have already said to him, we
saved $5 million by the upper management we have cut out by reducing and going
to one board. In fact, operational
costs, if we still had the boards in place, would be an additional $5 million.
The member just clearly does not understand.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Service
NL said that government only uses Public Tender Act exemptions in emergency
situations. Of course, nothing
could be further from the truth, as this government has increased the total
value of tender exemptions to over $100 million a year.
I ask the minister: If you
only use tender exemptions in emergencies, why for two consecutive years did the
Auditor General say they were used inappropriately?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Service NL.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, even the Auditor General says the
exemptions are rarely used. Less
than 2 per cent of tenders put out there are untendered and they are done for
certain circumstances. They are
done for sole-source providers.
They are also done for emergency services.
When emergencies are happening in our community and we need to go out
there and get something done and get something fixed right away, we go there and
we go get that. It is a rare
occurrence.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.
MR. LANE:
Mr. Speaker, as I said, that is $100 million of
rare occurrences.
Mr. Speaker, as an example
the minister's emergency situation exemption was used to justify over $33,000 in
spending for the last Royal visit, an event that was planned many months in
advance. The AG also provided other
examples, like $24,000 to book two hotel suites for meetings and $38,000 for
laundry equipment.
I ask the minister: Why are
you hiding behind the emergency situation exemption for non-emergencies?
Doesn't that go against the spirit of the Public Tender Act?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Service Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. CRUMMELL:
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we would not
be using that provision for these types of contracts.
I certainly will look into that and see how these contracts unfolded, but
there are reasons out there for when we need to spend money and we need to do it
in an efficient and effective way.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. CRUMMELL:
It is all about saving the taxpayers money and
doing it the right way, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, in 2008 government announced that
retired judges will be hired on a per diem basis to deal with court backlogs.
They budgeted $177,000 in 2008 for this service.
However, the current annual budget has been cut by $70,000, a 40 per cent
reduction, and our courts are still backlogged with some child protection cases
delayed month after month after month.
I ask the minister: After
making this announcement six years ago, why has government failed to deliver on
its commitment?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Attorney General.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. F. COLLINS:
Mr. Speaker, certainly child protection and
child custody is a top priority of this government.
If there is one vulnerable group we have a special obligation to it is
the children. With respect to
Child, Youth and Family Services cases going to the courts most of these cases
are very complex matters and they do not proceed ordinarily in the parameters of
the legislative guidelines, not only in Labrador, but in Newfoundland as well,
right throughout the Province.
Mr. Speaker, these are
complex cases and they do not always follow the time guidelines, but legal aid,
for example, in Labrador has set up a new legal aid unit to focus specifically
in Child, Youth and Family Services, staffed by a solicitor, a social worker,
and –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, six years ago when government
announced this program, they said that justice delayed is justice denied, but
once again they are all talk and no action.
Government has even admitted they do not keep statistics on the numbers
or types of matters heard by per diem judges.
I ask the minister:
Shouldn't his government be proactively tracking and improving a program they
claim would reduce backlogs in our justice system?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the question.
I suspect we will get into more detail with the member opposite when we
get into Estimates around the Budget lines.
I do not have specific dollar amounts in front of me that I can respond
to specifically. What I can do,
though, is confirm that we do use per diem judges as a way to relieve stress on
the system.
If you look at the history
of the judicial system in Newfoundland and Labrador going back six years, as the
member, I think, referenced in his preamble to the question, you will find there
have been significant improvements in justice in Newfoundland and Labrador, not
only investments in the court system, but investments in police services,
investments in the legal aid service, and in the Sheriff's Office.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker.
If you want to talk about investments in the justice system and who is committed
to improving justice, this government's track record has been very clear over
the last six years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, this morning the Director of Child
Welfare said there is an increase in the number of children in care due to a
significant increase in family violence and substance abuse.
Going against common sense, government is moving in the wrong direction
by eliminating the Family Violence Intervention Court.
I ask the Minister of
Justice: Will he reinstate the Family Violence Intervention Court to spare
children of the emotional harm of witnessing family violence?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family
Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. DAVIS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the Department of Child,
Youth and Family Services, when it was developed in 2009, one of the pieces of
work we knew we had to deal with was improving the provision of services to
children and youth in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We have done a number of things in developing this in this department.
One of the things we have
done is we have developed a new organizational model.
It is a very structured, formal organizational model that allows us to
look at the caseloads for social workers throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are lowering the caseloads, year after year, of social workers in
Newfoundland and Labrador. That
gives them the opportunity to do more work with families, do more work with
children, and identify needs and concerns within family homes, and that creates
a better service to the children and families in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I will speak further on
that when I get the opportunity, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.
MR. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, I noticed the former PR director
for the RNC took the question on family violence and did not answer it.
I ask the question again:
Yes or no, will the Minister of Justice reinstate the Family Violence
Intervention Court?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, day after day we stand in the House
of Assembly here and we hear members opposite ask, ask, and ask for investments.
Never once do they talk about being financially prudent and offering up
examples of where they would make changes.
Now, Family Violence
Intervention Court –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. KING:
Day after day I listen to the Member for St.
John's Centre have her view on the family violence court.
I ask for the decency and respect to at least answer the question in a
sensible manner, Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite.
The Family Violence
Intervention Court was a budgetary decision.
In this year's Budget, we invested close to $500,000 in domestic
violence, Mr. Speaker. We are
hiring new police officers, we are hiring new analysts, we are investing in a
model that works, that is being led by the RNC, and it will be a Province-wide
model, unlike the previous.
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au
Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, when the
former Premier was accused of patronage for creating a deputy minister position
responsible for population growth for Ross Reid, she said this was not some
trivial role. Eight months later,
Reid was whisked off to the Premier's Office and the portfolio was never
reassigned.
So I ask the minister: If
this is not a trivial role, why is there no longer a deputy minister responsible
for population growth?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Environment and
Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS SHEA:
Mr. Speaker, the Population Growth Strategy is
something that is well needed in this Province.
We know we have an aging population, we have labour market demands, and
we have a birth rate that is certainly not what we had years ago.
We need to ensure that we grow the population in this Province so people
are able to take advantage of the opportunities and we are able to maintain the
services that people need to live in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure
the hon. member that the team of people who are putting together the Population
Growth Strategy in this Province are extremely credible individuals.
They will do stellar work in this area and they are highly respected in
this Province. At some point, once
this report is released, the strategy, they will see that these people have done
a stellar job.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Cartwright – L'Anse au
Clair.
MS DEMPSTER:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Three staff, Mr. Speaker,
have been tasked with growing the population: two analysts and an executive
director. Meanwhile, the deputy
minister responsible for it all was reassigned, it seems, to grow the population
of the PC Party.
I ask the minister: If
population growth is a priority, why did the deputy minister cease to exist when
Reid became the Premier's Chief of Staff?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Environment and
Conservation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS SHEA:
Mr. Speaker, this government has taken a number
of initiatives to encourage people to work, to live, and to move to Newfoundland
and Labrador. Whether that is our
child care strategies, or full-day kindergarten, it is our labour market, the
training opportunities, the low tuition that we have for our post-secondary
students. We have done more to keep
people in Newfoundland and Labrador than any government in this history.
Mr. Speaker, the
individuals who are working on our Population Growth Strategy, as I said, are
extremely credible individuals.
Their credentials are impeccable; they will do a stellar job on that strategy.
I hate the fact that somebody would stand here and criticize the
credentials of these individuals.
They will do great work for this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's South, for a
very quick question without any preamble.
MR. OSBORNE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I ask the Minister of
Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs when he will reduce or eliminate the tax
on public transit for the City of St. John's.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Municipal and
Intergovernmental Affairs, for a very quick response.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased with the
progress we are making with our review of the provincial-municipal fiscal
framework. All issues are being
examined. We received great input
from the City of St. John's and other municipalities throughout the Province.
The process will continue over the next year.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Government has decided to
add one developmental pediatrician to address the unacceptably long wait-list
for children awaiting diagnosis of autism.
I ask the Premier: When is
this pediatrician going to be hired?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I said
previously, we have made a significant investment into children with autism and
other developmental disabilities and conditions.
I also listed off the numerous positions that we will be hiring with that
$2 million this year and $4 million next year.
We are very committed to this.
We will start the recruitment as soon as possible so that our children
can get the services that they need and get the wait times reduced.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
It is pretty sad that she does not even know
when the hiring is going to start.
How can one extra
pediatrician address a backlog of almost 400 children awaiting diagnosis, I ask
the Premier?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, since we have
been in government we have increased funding to children with autism year over
year. We have made significant
investments in 2011, 2012, and again this year.
Next year there will be thirty positions up from the twenty-two.
That shows our dedication to this issue.
I have already said it will
be as soon as possible. I am sure
staff in the Department of Health is working on this as well as the PSC as soon
as possible.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Mr. Speaker, what I am looking for is: What is
the plan for the elimination of the wait-list?
I can see that we are not going to get it, so I am going to move on.
We regularly hear of people
going through –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS MICHAEL: –
hell in the emergency rooms of this Province.
Vulnerable people in urgent need find, instead, neglect and suffering
because of an overworked staff and an inadequate system.
I ask the Minister of
Health and Community Services: What is the government going to do to fix the ER
crisis in this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS JOHNSON:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as a
government we are committed to shorter wait times and we want to ensure that
patients are assessed and treated in a timely manner.
There was a press release that was put out today highlighting some of the
initiatives in Budget 2014. I can
tell you that the President of the NLNU did have a conversation with the
Minister of Health, as well as myself, and talked about the demands on the
emergency wait times. We have
listened and we have responded in this Budget.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are being told of people
waiting up to three weeks in emergency rooms; we are talking about something
very critical.
I am asking the Premier:
How can this government allow this treatment of people to continue?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MS JOHNSON:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Some of the information I
have from 2010 to 2013 that the hon. member might be interested in, if she is
willing to listen, is that while the number of visits have increased by 16 per
cent in our emergency wait rooms, the initial physician assessment has decreased
by 17 per cent and the length of stay has decreased by 11 per cent.
As I said, we have invested
into wait times this year. In fact,
32 per cent of the positions added in the Department of Health and the entities
this year are in nurses; four of them are specifically for emergency wait times.
That is something that we heard from the President of the NLNU and we
have responded, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's
Penitentiary has capacity for 145 inmates and the St. John's Lockup has eighteen
beds. Last week I heard reports of
severe overcrowding; over 190 inmates at HMP and thirty-nine in the lockup,
including women. People were
sleeping on floors in deplorable conditions.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister: How many inmates are currently housed in each of these facilities?
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The member raises a very
important point around the condition of Her Majesty's Penitentiary.
We have talked about it many times in this House, and I appreciate the
opportunity to stand and speak to that because it is our government that made
the announcement last year that we were tired of waiting around for the federal
government who were not stepping up to the plate to support us.
We made the announcement
that we were moving forward to plan for a new penitentiary, to plan for a new
correctional facility that would provide adequate and proper housing for inmates
and correctional officers, and would provide appropriate programming and
reprogramming to help these individuals transition back into society, Mr.
Speaker.
We have done that because
we recognize the challenge that is down there and the conditions that are down
there. In this year's Budget, Mr.
Speaker, our Finance Minister announced an additional $1 million to further that
project because we are committed to rectifying that problem that has existed for
so long.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, the fact that a staff member
actually posted the video of the riot scene at HMP shows just how desperate the
situation is there, how desperate staff are for this government to do something
about it, and how desperately we need whistle-blower protection.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the
minister: When is he going to introduce whistle-blower legislation?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am very pleased again to
respond to that. I have already
indicated on the Order Paper here today that Bill 1 is whistle-blower
legislation and you will be seeing it within a matter of a week or so.
We are fine-tuning the legislation.
I will also go back to the
previous comment. I fully recognize
there are correctional officers, like any employee of government, who are not
happy with the way things are going.
I can also say to the member opposite that the leadership of the
correctional officers at HMP are very happy with what has been happening in
their relationship with government.
They are very happy with recent announcements to make changes to the way things
are done down there. They are very
happy we have installed metal detectors at a number of places in the
penitentiary.
We recognize, Mr. Speaker,
like any issue in this Province, we cannot do everything for everybody on any
given day, but we are doing our best and we are working –
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre, for a
quick question without preamble.
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, why has the minister made a
budgetary decision of $500,000 on the backs of battered women and children by
closing the Family Violence Intervention Court?
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Justice, for a quick
response.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KING:
Mr. Speaker, our government is investing
significantly in domestic violence in this Province.
We invest in a new Department of Child, Youth and Family Services.
We invest in adult corrections.
We invest in policing services in this Province.
We invest in victims' services.
In this particular Budget, we made a further announcement in domestic
violence following a model of the RNC.
Mr. Speaker, since I read
from it, I am prepared to table it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The time for Question Period has expired.
Presenting Reports by
Standing and Select Committees.
Tabling of Documents.
Notices of Motion.
Answers to Questions for
which Notice has been Given.
Petitions.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Leader of the Third Party.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MS MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
To the hon. House of
Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled,
the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly
sheweth:
WHEREAS the US Centers for
Disease Control now estimate that autism spectrum disorder affects one in
sixty-eight children, which represents a 30 per cent increase from the estimate
two years ago; and
WHEREAS early diagnosis of
ASD is essential because there is a critical developmental period when early
intervention is vital for future success of children with ASD; and
WHEREAS there are
approximately 380 children on a two-year wait-list for an ASD diagnosis which in
this Province can only be made by a developmental pediatrician, and there is
only one available at the Janeway Children's Hospital; and
WHEREAS although Budget
2014 announced that another developmental pediatrician will be recruited, more
must be done to reduce the wait-list for a diagnosis so that children can get
the early treatment they need; and
WHEREAS in other provinces
an ASD diagnosis can be made by specialists certified and trained in ADOS;
WHEREUPON the undersigned,
your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge
government to allow other specialists trained and certified with ADOS to make
the autism spectrum disorder diagnosis.
As in duty bound, your
petitioners will ever pray.
I am very pleased to be
able to stand on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Speaker, to raise this issue,
especially today, which is the world day for autism.
I think some of these petitioners probably hoped to be here today in a
demonstration, but because of the bad weather were not able to turn up.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot
underestimate the urgency of this petition and what these people are calling
for. The people who have signed
this are all friends and families of young people and some older people with
autism. Some of them are the
parents of children who are still waiting to be diagnosed, who are on a two-year
waiting list for diagnosis. Their
treatment cannot start until the diagnosis happens, Mr. Speaker, and they are
desperate for that.
When they hear that just
one pediatrician has been hired to help with the backlog to make sure that
diagnosis happens, they almost despair.
They are happy that is happening, but they recognize we are far behind in
this Province when it comes to who is allowed to do the diagnosis.
They are asking for us to get on board with other provinces in Canada so
that other specialists and other physicians may be trained, Mr. Speaker, to do
the diagnosis.
I thank you for the time.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of
Islands.
MR. JOYCE:
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I rise again
today to present a petition:
WHEREAS we wish to raise
concerns regarding the recent delay of the construction of the new hospital in
Corner Brook Newfoundland;
WHEREUPON the undersigned,
your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to commit to the planning and
construction of a new hospital in Corner Brook as previously committed to and in
a timely manner as originally announced without further delay or changes.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I
stand to present a petition on behalf of the people from Corner Brook,
Summerside, Carter Avenue, and positions all over.
What I find every day I present a petition, the Parliamentary Assistant
to the Minister of Health always criticizes me here publicly, on Twitter.
Mr. Speaker, I am just
getting tired of it on behalf of the people.
I am left with one conclusion; if the Parliamentary Assistant
consistently is criticizing me because I am presenting these petitions on behalf
of the people, I am assuming it is with the concurrence and the okay by the
Minister of Health.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the
people of Western Newfoundland – who I spoke to again last night, who heard the
comments – it is time to have a public forum on the health care in Western
Newfoundland. It is time for all of
us to sit down and work together on this.
It is time for all of us.
We hear statements now from
the Premier, the Member for Humber East that we are going to do a $500,000 study
because he does not agree with the information that the Department of Health has
put there, Mr. Speaker. How can you
make a decision? I ask anybody who
is listening today, how can you make a decision of not to put a radiation unit,
not to put the PET scanner if the Premier is saying we do not know if it is safe
to do it or not? Obviously, it
should have been done well before the decision was ever made.
Mr. Speaker, I am
presenting this on behalf of the people.
I ask for an open discussion.
I ask not to be criticized publicly because I am doing this.
I think it is time for the Member for Humber West and Humber East to
start presenting these same petitions that these people have, or at least give
me the courtesy of doing it on their behalf which I am doing on behalf of the
people of Western Newfoundland, and on behalf of the people of Corner Brook.
I will continue to do so.
I hope I do not get nailed
to the cross by the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Health, Mr.
Speaker. I am doing what I am
elected to do and I will not stop.
I ask for the assistant of the Premier and the Member for Humber West to help in
this cause, to help us to work together to get what is needed, what was
committed to, and put the proper information out in public.
The people of Western Newfoundland deserve it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The member has about eighteen seconds to present
his petition.
MR. LANE:
I will save it, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
Orders of the Day
Private Members' Day
MR. SPEAKER:
This being Private Members' Day, I will now call
upon the Member for Burgeo – La Poile to introduce the motion on the Order Paper
in his name.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am happy to stand here
today on Private Members' Day to read this private member's resolution that is
being entered, and it is a very simple one:
BE IT RESOLVED that this
hon. House of Assembly urge government to immediately repeal Bill 29.
What I would like to do is
I would like to start off today, as mover of this resolution I have two
opportunities to speak to this.
What I think I am going to do is use the first portion of my time to speak to
some history and some of the background to where we are today.
Then later on I will have the opportunity to hear members from the other
side, members of the Third Party as well, speak to it and then I will be able to
conclude.
If we want to go back, we
can start off – I think it actually was a PC government under former Premier
Brian Peckford who made the first Freedom of Information Act, back in, I believe
it was the late 1980s. That was the
first piece. As time moved forward,
what happened next was we had a Liberal government that did some consultations
and looked at amending and reviewing this piece of legislation.
They did this review. One
piece was entered, but, unfortunately, the second part could not be done because
we had a change in government in 2003.
What we need to see here is
we have to go back to understand what was going on before 2003 though.
I guess the theme is openness, transparency and accountability.
In 1999, the PC Blue Book stated: The PC government will establish a new
Freedom of Information Act to reduce the wait for information and to ensure
ministers – again, I remind everyone who is watching, ministers belong to
Cabinet. That is a theme that will
come up later – actually provide the information requested where that
information belongs in the public domain.
This was the beginning of it, the first comments here.
Then in 2001, coming from
the then Opposition Progressive Conservatives, when it talked about ATIPP, it
said: The party who rejects it can completely ignore the recommendation of the
Citizens' Representative. That is
significant. Now we need to keep
this in mind, this context because there is a big change in what happened – what
somebody said before they got in power.
When they got in power, after so long there was a little change in tune.
It was also said, too, this
was November 26, 2001 by the former Premier.
It talked about the legislation that was being debated.
He was paraphrasing: In the absence of the public, which means in secret
or code of silence. It would seem
to me, and going forward a little bit to our debate, our filibuster that was in
June, 2012. It seems that the
former Premier would have agreed with the majority of the amendments that we
actually suggested but were voted down by government.
In 2003, there were more
promises. The 2003 Blue Book stated
specifically, a Progressive Conservative government will “Proclaim new Freedom
of Information legislation which will include amendments that will clearly
identify information that should be in the public domain, including cabinet
documents…”. Now I think that is
very important because that is just one part of a greater issue, a lot of
promises made in 2003 about openness, transparency, and accountability.
There is the other one,
too, about every time the public paid for a government-commissioned report they
would release it within thirty days of actually receiving it, then indicate the
action they will take within sixty days, and ensure prompt, public access to all
government reports in hard copy and on the Internet.
Again, these were all promises that were made.
I think I can sort of
continue through that decade, all of these promises made, talking about openness
and transparency. We continue on
and then we get to 2011. In 2011,
there is another election, the same government that is there and has been there
since 2003. What we see then is a sort of changing of the guard.
I think it was in place before then, but it was systemic by this point
and what we had was an actual hardening of that, and it led to 2012.
In 2012, I believe it was
in May or June of 2012 – I think it was June – we had the introduction of Bill
29. Of all the different pieces of
legislation that have ever been entered in this House of Assembly, I think this
one is actually probably more remembered by the public than any other piece,
just in terms of its title, Bill 29.
Sometimes you use different terms to describe a piece of legislation,
good, a long time coming, or necessary, but in this case the word you hear all
the time is infamous. That is not
necessarily a positive connotation, Mr. Speaker.
In the 2011 election, they
said, “We will continue to demonstrate that our commitment to accountability is
unwavering.” We hear it, and then
there are the terms open and transparent.
The Auditor General had seen a few things at this point because he had
actually tried to get some information or documents on this $5 billion
infrastructure program, but he was denied that.
It turns out there was nothing there; there was nothing there at all.
We continue on.
We have the debate in June 2012 and the vast majority of members in this
House were here during that debate.
There are some new people here who did not have the pleasure of sitting in on
that. It was the first filibuster
for, I would say, the majority of members here.
It was certainly the longest one.
I think there were about seventy hours of debate.
I guess we all know the end result.
The end result is that the government invoked closure on the debate and
Bill 29 was effectively rammed down the throats of the people of this Province.
That is what happened.
I think what we need to do,
and this is important, is we have to look at what was said then and what has
been said in the early parts of 2014.
The early parts of 2014 are a bit different than what was said in June
2012. I am just going to go forward
here. We will get to the commentary
made by advocates, by the media, by the public, and by the Opposition.
We will get to that. All of
it was ignored, I would remind you, Mr. Speaker – all of it was ignored.
We have some quotes, and we
have to remember these quotes were made then, and then we are going to compare
it to what is said now. There was
one minister who argued that the public actually does not have a right to know,
and all this is out of Hansard. It
is actually out of Hansard, so it is there:
“Everything will be on the
table each and every day for scrutiny, not only of the Opposition, but scrutiny
of government, scrutiny of the public at large, and scrutiny of the media.
Is that the way that a democratic society works?
I say this to the hon. members: that is not the way a democratic society
works.”
MR. JOYCE:
Who said that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
That was the former Minister of Municipal
Affairs.
We already see that
democracy does not include consultation with the public.
I heard this one and I had to put this out, too, because this one is just
a bit funny now when you listen to it.
It is a bit hilarious: “I
firmly believe in it” – in Bill 29 – “because we are and have been the most
transparent government Newfoundland and Labrador has ever experienced since
1949.”
MR. JOYCE:
Who said that?
MR. A. PARSONS:
That was actually one from the former Minister
of Municipal Affairs.
I am going to move on.
Actually, I talked to the Member for Terra Nova, but he actually did not
speak to that debate. You actually
made no comments to that debate, so I cannot quote you.
I cannot quote the Member for Terra Nova because he had nothing to say
during that debate, which is unfortunate.
MR. JOYCE:
Check Twitter.
MR. A. PARSONS:
If the debate took place on Twitter, I am sure
there would be a lot there.
I am going to reference a comment now. The former Minister of Finance at that time went on Open Line during that debate and his comments on Open Line were: This bill had no real effect at all and it was nothing more than a bit of housekeeping. I remind the public that the Minister of Finance at that time is now sitting across us as the Premier.
Let me see, I have to
reference somebody who was not a minister then but he is a minister now: “This
bill actually will result in government, boards, agencies, and other public
bodies having the ability to release even more personal information than ever
before, Mr. Speaker. That speaks to
openness and that speaks to transparency.”
It was not just ministers.
Backbenchers as well had something to say: “What we are doing now is
taking a good piece of legislation and even making it better so we protect the
people in this Province, and we pair that with how we act as a government here,
Mr. Speaker.” Now, I do not need to
name names, but the member on the other side knows exactly who said it.
MR. BRAZIL:
I stand by it.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Oh, so that member stands by it.
Well, that is interesting to note, given where I am going with this,
because there has been a complete reversal, I will remind the member, on your
position – there was a complete reversal.
I will continue.
One member said: “We are moving forward with those changes and we believe
that we are improving upon the legislation, contrary to the belief of many of
the people who have taken part in the discussion today.”
Now, that is interesting and ironic.
It is interesting because it is actually contrary to what the public was
actually saying at the time, and it is ironic the person who said that is now
the Minister Responsible for the Office of Public Engagement.
So I have to put it out there, Mr. Speaker.
Now, I will continue.
We have a lot here, and if there is anybody else – oh, I have to say this
one, because this is someone I get to ask questions of in the House all the
time, and that is the Minister of Health: “There is nothing in this legislation
that we have introduced here tonight that would prohibit information from
getting out there, absolutely nothing.”
Again, another interesting quote.
Now, I do not have to talk
about the questions we have asked here this week about our meetings being
cancelled, again, meetings that have nothing to do with government that
government somehow finds a way to cancel.
I will continue on.
I only have three and a half minutes to continue on.
I will get time later – I will get time.
It is funny.
I really have to put it out there.
It is funny, because now – I will table this, if you want.
These are the new envelopes from this government.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Props.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, props.
I invite the Member for Fortune Bay – Cape La Hune to stand up and have
her say to this, too.
AN HON. MEMBER:
What does it say on the envelope?
MR. A. PARSONS:
What is does say is secret.
You cannot make this up, Mr. Speaker.
Secret is actually stamped on the envelope.
It is funny.
I am going to continue, and
obviously I have the attention of the other side because there is a lot of
chatter over there, and that is good.
I hope they have all of this chatter when the review happens because they
can tell us what they thought of it then, what they think of it now, and what
they are going to think of it after – flip-flop, flip-flop, and flip-flop.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible).
MR. A. PARSONS:
I invite the Member for Port au Port.
I do not think you had a word to say during that debate, my God –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Yes, silence.
Silence is golden, because that is he what he was during the debate, Mr.
Speaker, absolutely silent.
Do you know what?
They have all the time in the world to stand up here today, speak to this
private member's resolution, and do the right thing, which is what we are saying
to the government. What we said,
actually, before but was not listened to was you cannot ram a piece of
legislation like Bill 29 down the throats of the people.
You had advocates, the Centre for Law and Democracy, who were coming out
and saying this was going to put us in the same category as Uganda and the
infamous country of Moldova. We are
worse than Moldova.
You had advocates coming
out. You had the media who said:
Look, this is a bad idea. You had
the public, and we know the public had something to say here because we saw the
e-mails. They recommended to the
majority of government members: Do not do this.
What is important to remember is that contrary to what is being said a
lot now, how we are listening, nobody listened then – nobody listened then.
I say to the Premier, too,
the Premier is the same hon. gentlemen who stood here during the debate and said
it was a waste of time. That is in
Hansard, too. It was a waste of
time for us to debate Bill 29.
I am going to continue.
I only have fifty-six second.
I know the members opposite want to get up and have their say about how
we were right to condemn Bill 29, and I hope they do speak to it.
I am wondering what they are going to have to say about the flip-flop
that has occurred in this Province in the last two years.
Now, we know it was not about doing what is right; we know it has to do
with you did not listen to the electorate, the electorate deserted you, and now
you are trying to win them back.
How do you do that? By pretending
to listen.
We are going to continue
here. I am going to get my time on
the back end, but I wanted to provide some context to the members who have short
memories so they can remember what they said then.
I look forward to what you have to say now.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of
Lewisporte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. VERGE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly my pleasure
to have the opportunity to stand here today and to say a few words about this
particular motion. The motion
involves what we think is a very important matter to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is to make public bodies
more accountable to the public, and to protect personal privacy by giving the
public a right to access records, and by preventing the unauthorized collection,
use, or disclosure of personal information by public bodies.
We are highly committed to being accountable to the residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador. That is
why one of the first things we did when we came in power was to proclaim the
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Mr. Speaker, this piece of
legislation was introduced to the House by the Liberals, but never proclaimed.
It was this government that took the final step in proclaiming it.
We could have continued to operate as the Liberals did, with no legal
obligation to release information, but we chose to be more responsible –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. VERGE:
– to be open, and to introduce measures that required government to legally
release information and to protect, as well, the private information of the
citizens of our Province.
The ATIPP Act is required
to be reviewed, Mr. Speaker, every five years.
It was amended in 2012 following the first statutory review by
Commissioner John Cummings. The
amendments that are in there are what is referred to now as Bill 29.
Mr. Speaker, the next
statutory review of this important piece of legislation was required to begin in
2015. Based on feedback that we
have received from the public, concerns that have been raised by Newfoundlanders
and Labradorians, we are going to begin the review a year earlier.
The review is going to be done by a review committee composed of top
experts in law, journalism, and also in privacy legislation.
This motion, Mr. Speaker,
simply asks that Bill 29 be repealed.
We are asking a group of very competent individuals, a group to not only
look at Bill 29, but to look at the whole access to information and protection
of privacy legislation.
Our Premier made the
announcement at Confederation Building just a few days ago.
The Premier said, “We are fortunate that such highly qualified and
respected individuals have agreed to undertake this important review.
I have every confidence in their capabilities.”
We have every confidence in
their abilities, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. VERGE:
Chairing the committee, a former Premier of
Newfoundland and Labrador from 1989 through to 1996, Clyde Wells, a former
Supreme Court Justice of Appeal from 1999 to 2009.
We have every confidence in his ability, Mr. Speaker.
Also a member of the
committee is Jennifer Stoddart, Privacy Commissioner of Canada for ten years,
from 2003 to 2013. As well, we
pulled in on the committee a member of the media, Doug Letto, who retired after
a career with CBC spanning three decades.
He was a senior producer of Here
and Now when he departed as public broadcaster in late 2013 – a very, very
competent group, Mr. Speaker.
We do not feel that it is
our right to tell them how to proceed with their work.
The people of the Province have spoken to us and they have said they have
issues with Bill 29, they have issues with the access to information, and we
have listened. We have decided, Mr.
Speaker, it is not what we think, it is what the people think, and that is why
we have put in place this committee of very qualified individuals to do the
review.
In addition, Mr. Speaker,
we are going a step further, the review of the Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act is only one component of our larger Open Government
Initiative, an initiative that demonstrates our commitment to provide the people
of the Province with greater access to information.
As we move forward with our
Open Government Initiative, we will hear the views of our residents and we will
release more information, where possible, based on the requests and the
suggestions that we receive. We are
committed to that process.
Mr. Speaker, the motion
today asks that we simply repeal Bill 29.
I want to ask, and I want to ask the mover of the motion: Is that all
that would be needed? We do not
think so, Mr. Speaker. A number of
people do not think so. We want to
have the whole Access to Information and the Protection of Privacy Act reviewed.
One of the legislative
reporters in this House of Assembly also does not think so.
James McLeod who works for The
Telegram is noted as saying this, “But please, do me a favour: stop
demanding that the government repeal Bill 29.”
He goes on to say, “…just repealing Bill 29 wouldn't make things better.
In fact, in some ways, it might make things worse.”
Now, Mr. Speaker, given the
quotes the Member for Burgeo – La Poile made from Hansard, I would like to add a
few myself as you go back to those days in the debates of June, 2012.
I take it that if the member is asking that we simply repeal Bill 29, it
would make me think he does not see anything in it that is worthwhile.
The Member for Burgeo – La
Poile in his debates says this from Hansard, “There are some parts that I agree
with, and there are certainly concepts that I agree with in this legislation and
the intent of this legislation.”
Mr. Speaker, the Member for
Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi in her debates said, “This piece of legislation is a
large document. It is a very
detailed bill that we are dealing with, a bill that talks to us about amendments
that are needed to our information and privacy act.
I have no doubt there are some amendments needed to the act, and there
are some amendments in the bill that I certainly agree with.”
Mr. Speaker, the Member for
Humber Valley, the present Leader of the Official Opposition, when speaking to
Bill 29 said this, “I am not here to say that all those recommendations, as we
debate this – they are not all bad.
There are many of those thirty-three recommendations that are good
recommendations and I believe they will improve legislation.”
The Member for Torngat
Mountains stood on his feet and said, “I can understand the concern around
privacy and releasing personal information, Mr. Speaker.
I do not agree with that either; I think there are safeguards that are in
place through current and proposed legislation.
I do not have an issue with that part of this bill.”
Mr. Speaker, the Member for
St. John's North stood on his feet and said, “It may very well provide for
stronger protections of privacy….”
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are
some members over there now who sat on this side when Bill 29 was being debated.
The Member for Mount Pearl South, and I quote from Hansard, “Mr. Chair, I
have to tell you that I am somewhat disturbed – I am starting to feel somewhat
disturbed by some of the commentary I am hearing across the way.”
He was here then. “I am
certainly glad that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of
Justice have addressed some of the issues that have been raised here tonight and
some of the spin. I believe that is
really what this is all about, Mr. Chair, it is nothing but a spin for political
gain.”
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. VERGE:
Mr. Speaker, he went on to say, “There is only
one reason why this amendment would be put forward.
It is simply to delay the debate, keep it going, keep it going, keep it
going and grandstanding, Mr. Chair.
That is the only reason it is being done, so that the people will be watching
from home, CBC, and other media will be covering it.
They will be covering it in the newspapers, Mr. Chair.
It is just an opportunity for these people across the way to grandstand
and try to score political brownie points.”
He goes on to say, “Mr. Chair, I think they are being very disrespectful
in my humble opinion.”
Now, Mr. Speaker, when the
Member for Mount Pearl South decided to cross the floor, in his media commentary
he made the following comments: As previously stated, while I believe there are
many good and necessary amendments contained within Bill 29, I have to be honest
with you, at the time when Bill 29 was passed, as I said, there were a lot of
good parts that I felt were good, and I still do.
He goes on to say, Mr. Speaker: By the way, at no time did I say, nor am
I saying now, there is a need to repeal all of Bill 29.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. VERGE:
Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's South,
while there is no record of him speaking to this bill, Hansard clearly shows
that he stood on his feet and he is noted, when division was called as having
voted in favour of it.
Mr. Speaker, where the
Liberal Party stands on the Access To Information and Protection of Privacy Act
is clear. Mr. Speaker, it is clear
where they stand. They stand just
where they sit, all over the place.
Depending on what day it is, Mr. Speaker, they are here, they are there, and
they are everywhere.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. VERGE:
It is obvious where they stand, Mr. Speaker.
They stand just where they sit.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would
like to see the panel have the total right and the total time to do the work
that we have asked them to do. We
have an expert group of impartial, confident group of individuals who are going
to look at this entire piece of legislation, not just the repeal of Bill 29.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. VERGE:
Not just Bill 29, they are going to look at the
entire piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. VERGE:
We in no way want to circumvent that.
We in no way want to interfere with it.
Our Premier has said when they come back with the recommendations
government will take the recommendations very seriously.
The recommendations will be made public.
Mr. Speaker, we will take them very, very seriously.
That is why I want to
propose an amendment to this private member's resolution today, Mr. Speaker.
I move, seconded by the Member for Conception Bay East – Bell Island, the
following amendments.
The resolution is amended
by replacing the resolution clause with the following:
BE IT RESOLVED that the
House of Assembly urge the government to consider amending provisions of Bill 29
of the 2012-2013 legislative session entitled, An Act To Amend The Access To
Information And Protection Of Privacy Act, subject to receipt and consideration
of the forthcoming report, advice, and recommendations of the independent
Statutory Review Committee currently reviewing the Access To Information And
Protection Of Privacy Act whose members are: former Chief Justice and former
Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Clyde Wells; former Privacy Commissioner
of Canada, Jennifer Stoddart; and, veteran journalist Doug Letto.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will leave that amendment with you for your consideration.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The House will take a brief
recess to consider the amendment.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The proposed amendment is
not in order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The Member for Lewisporte has some time on the
clock.
The hon. the Member for the
District of Lewisporte.
MR. VERGE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly respect the
Speaker's ruling, the point being, of course, and I will reiterate just in
closing, that we look forward to the work that is going to be done by the review
committee, the very competent and qualified review committee.
They will bring their recommendations back to government and we in no way
want to interfere with that process.
We look forward to when they bring back their report for consideration.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for the District of St.
Barbe.
MR. BENNETT:
Mr. Speaker, we are here today debating a
private member's resolution on openness in government.
What does that mean about openness in government?
What it means is the information that is accumulated by government,
assembled by government, compiled by government, and stored by government is the
people's information. Unless there
is some overriding or compelling reason why the people should not be given that
information, then for sure the people of any democratic society are entitled to
know the information that has been accumulated, put together, compiled, and
stockpiled by their government, in this case, the government of the people who
are sitting on the opposite side, on the government side.
There was a time when the
political party that elected this government actually believed in freedom of
information. They actually believed
in accountability. They actually
believed in transparency. There was
a time, Mr. Speaker, and you can go back to publications they put out, when they
put forth their programs in something called a Blue Book.
If we look at the 1999 Blue Book, one of the clear statements was: A PC
government will establish a new Freedom of Information Act to reduce the wait
time for information to ensure ministers actually provide the information
requested where that information belongs in the public domain.
That was fifteen years ago.
I heard David Cochrane say the other day that he had been reporting on
politics for fifteen years, so that is fifteen years ago.
So when David Cochrane was a rookie, this was the position of the PC
Party. It did not change.
In 2001, then leader of the
PC Party said in November 2001: The party who rejects it – rejects freedom of
information – can completely ignore the recommendation of the Citizens'
Representative, and that is significant, and can ignore all sorts of other
recommendations as well. The same
leader, who was not the last Premier but the Premier before, the one in Virginia
Waters campaigning for the guy who is trying to hold onto the seat that the last
Premier vacated, largely because of Bill 29, said: Legislation in the absence of
the public means that it is in secret; it is a cone of silence.
It would seem that the
Premier who is out campaigning to hold onto the seat of the former Premier with
the candidate who was a member of the Liberal Party, who voted in the Liberal
leadership a few months ago, to get him to come and sit on the Blue side instead
of on the Red side, where he said he was going to support the candidate who is
now the person who is running for the Liberal Party in Virginia Waters, I
understand he was her supporter and now he is running against her.
So she was good enough to be leader, but not good enough to be the MHA,
apparently.
They are campaigning out
there right now, but the former Premier, the second-last Premier, the Premier
once removed – or is it twice removed? – said the PCs will stand by their
commitment to integrity, accountability, responsibility, and earning public
trust. This was all put before the
people in a book in 2003 called the Blue Book on which they were elected.
It says, a direct quote, “A Progressive Conservative government will:
Proclaim new Freedom of Information legislation which will include amendments
that will clearly identify information that should be in the public domain,
including cabinet documents, and will require full and prompt disclosure of the
information…”.
Mr. Speaker, the government
members stand up repeatedly and they say: Well, the last Liberal government
brought in this Access to Information legislation but they did not proclaim it.
This government was elected eleven years ago and they took ages and ages
to proclaim it. They could have
proclaimed it late in 2003 after they were elected, but they did not.
The 2003 Blue Book also
says that this information will be released to the public and that they would
release every government commission report within thirty days of receiving it.
We have already seen that is not working this year.
It is not working with the report on legal aid; it is not working on the
report of the Sheriff's Office. One
the government sat on from December until a week or so ago and the other one
they sat on from January until a week or so ago, so they are not doing today
what they promised they would do eleven years ago.
The history is that this
government ultimately introduced something that became known as Bill 29.
I think it is ironic they would pick the number twenty-nine because Bill
29 is almost reminiscent of Term 29, which is one of our Terms of Union that a
former PC Prime Minister used to shaft this Province of millions of dollars in
the late 1950s. It is amazing they
would pick twenty-nine.
In 2011 in the election,
having been trusted not once, not twice, but three times by the people, they
were re-elected. In the 2011
election campaign this government said, this party said: We will continue to
demonstrate that our commitment to accountability is unwavering.
A day after the former Auditor General Wayne Loveys revealed in his
annual report that his staff was denied access to documents on a $5 billion
infrastructure program, the last Premier said: I think we are very open and
transparent. She also went on to
say: Government has nothing to hide.
Mr. Loveys has alternate ways of getting the same information – although
she could not suggest any ways when asked by reporters.
Why say that you are
supporting the efforts of the Auditor General who is only exposing financial
transactions, who is causing government to be more financially accountable, and
then hinder and hamper and get in the way of the Auditor General in him trying
to access information?
Mr. Speaker, the debate
came on, on Bill 29, in June 2012 – just nineteen months before this government
decided that the whole thing needed to be reviewed.
It was a wonderful bill in June 2012.
As a matter of fact the then Minister of Justice said: This bill is to
modernize our legislation. He said
it was based on consultation, research, and best practice across the country.
In fact, there is no evidence of that happening.
The Member for Gander,
former Municipal Affairs Minister said in debate: Everything would be on the
table each and every day for scrutiny, not only of the Opposition – this is with
openness and accessibility – scrutiny of government, scrutiny of the public at
large, and scrutiny of the media.
Is that a way a democratic society works?
I would say to hon. members, that is not the way a democratic society
works.
If it does not work with
accountability and openness, how does it work?
Not very well, apparently.
He went on to say: I firmly believe in it – it being Bill 29 – that we are and
have been the most transparent government in Newfoundland and Labrador since
1949. The other members who spoke
to this, the former Minister of Justice who is now the Attorney General and the
former Government Services member said: You know they make countless and
countless requests for information.
In fact, CBC did some follow-up on how many were the countless and countless.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if you cannot count to 581 in a year, you cannot count
very high. Five hundred and
eighty-one requests in a year across fifteen departments, which works out to one
request for access to information per week, per department of this government.
Mr. Speaker, it flies in
the face of reason that government would try to stop one request per department
per week if they were not up to something.
What is this something? The
something is they do not need to be open, they do not want to be open, and they
do not want the people to know what is going on.
Five hundred and eighty-one requests in 2010-2011, 579 requests the year
before that with fifteen departments.
That cannot be seen as being a whole landslide of requests for
information.
The current Premier who was
then Minister of Finance was on Open Line during the week of the debate trying
to calm concerns maybe. He said the
bill had no real effect at all. He
claimed it was no more than a piece of housekeeping.
Mr. Speaker, a piece of housekeeping that went on for sixty-nine or
seventy hours in a filibuster.
I would say even though I
stand here as a member of the Opposition, the Opposition did not cause the
opposition to Bill 29. We debated
it, we opposed it, and we attempted to have people understand it.
The real people who opposed Bill 29 were members of the media.
We have a free and democratic society.
We have freedom of the press.
Fortunately, the media was able to make the general public realize what
was going on in the House of Assembly.
Not everybody watches the House of Assembly channel, and not everybody is
really up on exactly everything that is going on.
Fortunately, and
mercifully, we have a media in this Province that is assertive, aggressive, and
informed. Quite often all of us do
not appreciate what they do, including myself, from time to time; we do not
always get the best stories we like.
There is no evidence that the media in this Province is in any way biased
or slanted. The media in my view
did an excellent job on showcasing the shortcomings of Bill 29.
How did they showcase it
and what did they say? On June 12
during the debate, The Telegram ran
an editorial which said, The End of Openness – June 12, 2012.
Mr. Speaker, you would think that with that kind of an editorial in the
middle of the debate this government might sort of change course, slow up.
The editorialist wrote
that, “Bill 29 takes the access to information provisions of ATIPPA and smothers
them lifeless.” This was nineteen
months before January past when the current Premier says we will have to have a
look at this.
It was designed that we
have to have a look every five years, but I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, when you
drop from 60 per cent or 70 per cent in the polls down to somewhere between 20
per cent and 30 per cent and a lot of it is attributed to a particular piece of
legislation, you better have a look at it really quickly.
They are having a look at it, but in fact the people do not want the
government to have a look at it.
The people want Bill 29 gone, revoked, and repealed, and then go to work putting
in a proper piece of legislation.
The individuals who have
been hired, who are being paid, and who are being retained are an excellent
group of people. They know exactly
what to do, but their hands are being tied right now by Bill 29.
They have to try to work around this useless, damaging piece of
legislation before they can make recommendations.
Wouldn't it be much easier
to simply repeal Bill 29, get it over with, say now it is gone, and the old
piece of legislation falls in place?
The old piece of legislation was in effect two years ago.
We seemed to be doing relatively well prior to Bill 29.
All the chaos is caused by Bill 29 so why not, as my colleague from
Burgeo – La Poile has proposed, repeal Bill 29, get it gone, and let the three
commissioners do their job?
The Telegram
editorial outlined some of the issues included in Bill 29, and they were very
concise. Bill 29 may be a little
bit involved and complicated, but the evidence is there and
The Telegram drew the straight and
the right conclusion that the freedom of information process is essentially dead
in this Province. It says: By Bill
29, the government is saying we now have the permission to laugh in the face of
any government member who tries to say we are open and accountable.
They are not.
The Telegram newspaper said: How
stupid does the former Premier think we are to do this to us?
“I won't forget. And I will
do my best to make sure you don't either.”
Mr. Speaker, other
organizations spoke out against Bill 29.
It is almost breathtaking to know that so many other entities in the
media, Democracy Watch and the Canadian Association of Journalists, ranked us so
low in how we deal with access to information.
In a direct letter, the
Centre for Law and Democracy wrote to our Minister of Justice and said, “…with
Bill 29 the Newfoundland government is moving” – and they did not say
Newfoundland and Labrador – “in precisely the opposite direction” – opposite
from openness – “towards greater secrecy and less openness.”
They also said, “It is also somewhat troubling that, as Newfoundland's
Minister of Justice and a main proponent of reform for Newfoundland's
transparency system, you have such a poor grasp of the state of the right to
information around the world.” Such a
poor grasp of the state of the right to information around the world.
The backlash did not stop
there. The Canadian Association of
Journalists headline says: CAJ
opposes draconian changes to the ATI in Newfoundland and Labrador.
On June 13, the next day, Toby Mendel said that the amended act would
rank us behind Ethiopia, Guatemala and Uganda.
He says the new cabinet exception, where they are able to not give us
briefing books, is breathtaking in its scope, and he runs the centre.
Mr. Speaker, this bill cannot be fixed, it cannot be doctored and must be
repealed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to have an
opportunity to say a few words today on this motion.
I listened carefully to the members opposite.
I am already being heckled by the Member for Bay of Islands and I have
been up for fifteen seconds. I hope
I will have an opportunity to be listened to.
I showed the members opposite the same respect.
I am not surprised because what we are seeing here today, Mr. Speaker,
from members opposite is theatrics and I will expand on that in just a few
moments.
Mr. Speaker, we established
the Office of Public Engagement because we are deeply committed to demonstrating
commitment to Access to Information and Protection of Privacy.
We need to responsibly administer the legislation that governs the
release of information.
We have made great progress
in recent years. The purpose of the
ATIPP Act is to make public bodies more accountable.
We think that is important, to make public bodies more accountable to the
general public.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Littlejohn):
Order, please!
MR. KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I was
saying, the legislation is really important because it makes public bodies more
accountable to the general public.
It also protects personal privacy which is really significant as well.
Again as the Member for
Burgeo – La Poile did, I would like to provide a little bit of context for those
who are paying attention to today's debate.
The ATIPP Act was proclaimed in 2005 with the exception of the privacy
provisions that were proclaimed in 2008.
It is required to be reviewed every five years; five years after coming
into force and every five years thereafter.
It was amended in 2012 and those amendments are now referred to as Bill
29.
Mr. Speaker, just a few
months ago the Office of Public Engagement prepared a very detailed provision by
provision comparison of the legislation pre-Bill 29 and post-Bill 29.
The document includes a summary of each change and an explanation of the
amendments that were made. It is
available online; it is on the Office of Public Engagement Web site.
I would welcome anybody who has an interest in learning more about the
legislation and the changes that were made, to go online and review the
document. I am not sure that
anybody opposite has done so, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe the fellows who were over here before they crossed read it at one
point in time, I do not know. I
know they voted for Bill 29.
I do not think they have
read it because all we are seeing today is theatrics, not substance.
We have had two speakers from the Official Opposition so far without
hardly a reference to any specific provisions that were contained in the
amendments that were made in 2012 – hardly a reference.
All we continue to hear, without substance, from both the Liberals and
the NDP is repeal Bill 29, without any constructive suggestions.
Mr. Speaker, just to
emphasize how real these theatrics are today in the House of Assembly, the
Member for Burgeo – La Poile held up an envelope earlier.
As the minister who is responsible for our ATIPP legislation I want to
acknowledge that it is really unfortunate that the member opposite received that
envelope. These envelopes are
normally used for Cabinet documents.
This envelope was sent by a new employee who did not realize that was the
case. There was certainly no intent
on the employee's part to create a concern, as it was simply intended that the
response be provided to the applicant in a timely fashion, in keeping with the
legislative requirements, and that is what has happened.
What you will not hear the
member opposite today say is what was in the envelope.
I would encourage him when he gets up to conclude – and he will have
fifteen minutes to do so. I would
like to hear him tell us if he received the information he asked for.
Did he receive the information he asked for in its entirety, Mr. Speaker?
Did he receive it within the required timelines?
That would be interesting to know.
I would like to hear the
member stand and say what was in the envelope, what was the nature of the
request. Did he get the information
that he asked for, and did he get it within the prescribed timelines, Mr.
Speaker? Then we can have a
sensible discussion about our ATIPP provisions and how they are being carried
out by this government. We are
deeply committed to following the legislation, and I will speak on that a little
later if time permits.
Mr. Speaker, it has to be
about balance. The key
consideration of any Access to Information and Protection of Privacy legislation
is about striking that balance between the release of information; the public
has a right to know. Also, we have
to make sure that information belonging to individuals, personal information,
and commercially sensitive information, is protected at the same time.
That is something that we keep in mind as we embark on our work each and
every day.
We know, and we believe
that residents in this Province have a right to access government information so
that they can be involved in a meaningful way with the work of government, and
so that they can play a role in shaping future policies and priorities of
government. Without access to
information obviously that would not be possible.
I also recognize, Mr.
Speaker, that the public has to have confidence in the legislation, not only in
the ATIPP legislation but in all the important decisions that are being made by
governments each and every day. It
is for that reason that this government has advanced the statutory review of our
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy legislation.
It was required to begin in
2015. Based on the feedback we have
been receiving from the public, based on the fact that we know there are
concerns out there about our ATIPP legislation and the amendments that were made
in 2012 specifically, we are beginning the statutory review a full year earlier
than required under the legislation.
It is being undertaken by a blue-ribbon panel, a panel of top experts in
privacy legislation, in journalism, and in law.
The Member for Lewisporte
did a good job of telling the story of the committee that has been assembled:
Jennifer Stoddart, Doug Letto, and Clyde Wells.
Clyde Wells will chair the committee; a former chief justice, and a
former Premier of the Province.
I appreciate the Member for
St. Barbe acknowledging that it is an excellent committee.
We have full confidence that these folks will do a comprehensive,
balanced, and thorough review of our legislation.
Mr. Speaker, it is shocking and offensive that the Member for St. Barbe
would stand in this House today and suggest that somehow this committee's hands
are being tied. Nothing could be
farther from the truth. In fact,
what the Opposition is intending to do today, through this resolution, is tie
the hands of those doing this important work.
The committee is not just
going to review the amendments that were made through Bill 29.
That would be short-sighted.
They are going to review all aspects of the legislation.
Every single word in the legislation is going to be reviewed by this
committee.
I challenge the members
opposite to explain themselves. How
is it that the hands of these committee members are being tied?
The approach we are taking by allowing this committee to do its work
without interference, giving them the resources and time they need to do this
work without interference, is going to lead to a stronger piece of legislation
rather than just simply repealing Bill 29.
We are looking forward to
the results of the review of the ATIPP Act.
We fully expect it is going to provide us with a really strong framework
to support Access to Information and Protection of Privacy in this Province well
into the future. There is going to
be significant public consultation.
We commit to publicly releasing the findings and the recommendations of the
committee.
Nobody's hands are being
tied; it is quite the opposite.
This is going to be a full, open, thorough, and transparent review process.
We are going to give the committee the time and resources they need to do
this work.
The challenge with the
motion that is presented today – and let me tell you why I cannot support it –
is that the act has already been formally referred to the review committee and
that is in accordance with section 74 of the act.
To take any actions to repeal or amend the act would actually interfere
with the authority that has been vested in the committee.
There is the fundamental
problem with the motion that has been put forward today.
We cannot interfere with the work of this committee.
It has been appointed to do important work.
I think there are a lot of people out there who have confidence in the
individuals we have appointed. I
ask the members opposite to respect the process, and to participate in the
process as well. Unfortunately,
several of them are not even listening to the debate today, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in the few
minutes I have left I would like to talk about some of the other work we are
doing beyond reviewing the ATIPP Act.
That is one component of a number of steps we have taken.
This is a government that is committed to reviewing the Access to
Information and Protection of Privacy legislation.
This is only one component of our larger Open Government Initiative that
we have recently embarked upon, an initiative that really shows our commitment
to provide the people of the Province with the best possible Access to
Information.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. KENT:
We have also committed to whistle-blower
legislation, Mr. Speaker. As was
mentioned in Question Period today, in the days ahead we will be introducing
that legislation in the House of Assembly, Bill 1.
Back to the Open Government
Initiative, it really marks a new approach in the way we are going to connect
with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the way we are going to engage
citizens, and the way we are going to collaborate with citizens and
stakeholders. Governments around
the world are embarking on Open Government action plans.
They are being evaluated based on their openness, accountability, and
responsiveness to their citizens.
We are prepared to do the same, and we are prepared to show leadership on this,
as the Premier and members of this government have already done.
We are not simply going to
roll out a plan. We are going to
spend more or less the rest of this year going around the Province and engaging
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to find out what kind of information
they want from government. What
kind of data would they like to see available?
How do they want to collaborate?
How do they want to be informed?
How do they want to be connected to the working government?
How do they want to play a role in shaping the policies and decisions
that this government will make?
It is a great initiative
and it is one that is based on best practices from other jurisdictions
nationally and internationally. We
hope that our Open Government Initiative will be among the best in the world by
the time we are finished. I would
encourage members opposite to get involved.
I would encourage people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador to get
involved.
We want to identify issues,
we want to identify solutions, and that is the approach we are going to take.
We want to capture the insight and expertise of the people of this
Province. What we have done so far,
Mr. Speaker, as I have said in several Question Periods in this House, is only
the beginning.
The public consultation
process will be in-depth. We are
going to use various methods to connect with people and to allow them to have
input. An action plan will be
developed. The draft action plan
will be released. We will seek
input on that as well. Ultimately,
we are going to have a plan in place that the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador can be proud of.
Our commitment as a
government, Mr. Speaker, is to provide the public with as much information as
possible, and we are utilizing proactive disclosure to do that.
We do not want people to have to go through a formal request every time
they want to access information. We
have released countless numbers of documents and pieces of information through
proactive disclosure, through our open information Web site.
That information is available.
There will be more and more added as we roll out our Open Government
Initiative. I commend the
departments that have stepped forward and taken proactive disclosure so
seriously in recent months. We have
made major progress.
We are identifying new
opportunities all the time to increase access to information.
We want to hear from people.
We want to hear from people about how we can improve that.
So as we move forward with the Open Government Initiative, we want to
hear from residents. We will
release more information wherever possible; based on the requests and
suggestions we receive. We are
committed to releasing as much information as we possibly can.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk
about some of the numbers because the Member for St. Barbe made reference to the
fact that some provisions of our legislation are not working.
Well, we have taken many steps to improve Access to Information for our
citizens. We are the only Province
in Canada to post all completed provincial government responses to Access to
Information requests online.
Since January of last year,
responses to more than 340 requests for information have been posted online in
their entirely. In addition, all
Orders in Council, the decisions of Cabinet, are published on the Office of
Public Engagement Web site within two weeks of them being signed by the
Lieutenant Governor.
The Member for St. Barbe,
in his fifteen minutes of fame today, indicated that response times are not
working – they are not working. Mr.
Speaker, over the last number of months, our departments have worked hard to
comply with timelines. They are
outlined in the legislation. We
knew we needed to do better and we have done better.
I am pleased to say the responses are provided within legislative
timelines more than 90 per cent of the time.
Now, a year ago that was
not the case, Mr. Speaker. Eighteen
months ago that was not the case.
We have made dramatic improvements in response times and we are striving for 100
per cent. We are constantly
striving to do better and we will do better.
I am also pleased to tell
you that in the last six months of the requests processed and posted online,
more than 50 per cent resulted in full disclosure of information and a further
33 per cent resulted in partial disclosure.
These statistics, Mr. Speaker, demonstrate improvement over the previous
time frames. They show our
commitment to releasing as much information as we possibly can.
So as an Office of Public
Engagement, we are working with other government departments and agencies, we
are working collaboratively with them, to improve their proactive disclosure
practices. We are challenging every
government department and every government entity to make more information
publicly available, and not only make it publicly available, but make it easily
accessible in a format that makes sense, that is easy to use and easy to
understand.
To date there are more than
fifty proactive disclosures on our new open information page: fisheries and
wildlife reports, child care and protection statistics, Income Support data,
ongoing capital works projects, and the list goes on.
We are listening to the public and we will continue to seek public input
and we will make more information available.
All of these ongoing
initiatives will provide a strong, open government culture in this Province.
We will build on these policies.
We are listening, Mr. Speaker.
Times are changing.
I would challenge the
members opposite and I look forward to hearing the closing remarks later this
afternoon from the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
I would challenge the Liberals to lay off the rhetoric and lay off the
drama, and take part in the review process.
Take part. Do not show such
disrespect for the review process as you are showing by this motion today.
Take part in the process and if they cannot take part, Mr. Speaker, I ask
them at the very least to respect the process.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.
MS ROGERS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am very happy to be able
to speak on behalf of our caucus on this private member's resolution:
“BE IT RESOLVED that this
Honourable House of Assembly urge Government to immediately repeal Bill 29.”
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk
about how Bill 29 actually impacts the lives of the people of the Province.
We are not just talking about theoretical legislation here; we are
talking about how a piece of legislation actually affects the day-to-day living
of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
That is the essence of what I would like to talk about here today.
We all remember the day
Bill 29 was tabled by government. I
remember that evening sitting in the office with the leader of our caucus, the
Member for Signal Hill – Quidi Vidi and she was deep in to the legislation.
She was reading it thoroughly and at one point she said: Oh my God, this
is so serious; the ramifications of this are incredible and far-reaching.
Then she said also: We are going to have to filibuster on this because
the issues are so far-reaching and will have such major effects on information,
not only for Opposition members but for the people of the Province and for the
media, Mr. Speaker. What she was
looking at and what I want to talk about today is how this piece of legislation
negatively affects the lives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
This piece of legislation
was introduced when the current government was not facing re-election worries
and it was showing its true colours.
It was arrogant, it was indifferent to the concerns of the public, and it
was contemptuous. It still is, Mr.
Speaker, it is contemptuous to the elected members on this side of the House.
It is absolutely contemptuous, even though we have all, each and every
one of us, been elected by the people of our districts.
We all remember what was
said by the experts at that time.
At that time, the Centre for Law and Democracy noted that changes to the
Province's Access to Information legislation were “breathtaking”, and not in a
positive way, Mr. Speaker. They
were not talking about a breathtaking view here.
What I want to do is shine a light on some of the ramifications of this
legislation. They said,
“Newfoundland and Labrador will rank lower than some Third World countries if
the amendments pass.”
Government introduced the
legislation so they could slam the door shut on what people could know about
what their own government was doing, what their own government was intending to
do, and on what basis the government was making decisions.
Slam the door shut they did, Mr. Speaker.
It is still slammed shut.
The Member for Mount Pearl
North is talking about all the documents you can get online.
Quantity, Mr. Speaker, does not make up for quality – quantity does not
make up for quality. We can talk
about as well all the documents that are not online, all the information that we
do not have access to do because of this shameful piece of legislation and
because of this regressive piece of legislation.
The reality of Bill 29 is
that it is a thorn in the crown, in the side of this government.
Bill 29 expanded the scope of Cabinet secrecy, making whole new classes
of documents off limits from public oversight.
For me, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the key problems with this and this
is one of the key areas that have ramifications on the lives of the people in
this Province.
The changes in Bill 29 when
implemented made the Province's open records laws weaker than those in Mexico,
Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Bulgaria, Guatemala, Uganda, and other places as well.
The amendments allowed Cabinet ministers to keep practically anything
they want secret. It allowed
Cabinet members to do that and, Mr. Speaker, in fact they are doing that because
remember the door has been shut and it has been slammed shut.
Why did they do that?
They did it because they thought they could get away with it.
Was it because of Muskrat Falls?
We do not know, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps it was because of Muskrat Falls.
They wanted to be able to shut the door, lock it, and throw away the key.
That is what they did, but they underestimated the people of this
Province.
The people of this Province
were listening. This government is
talking about how much they are listening to the people of the Province, but on
this issue, the people of the Province were listening.
They listened and they heard.
They understood what this was about.
They understood that this was a piece of legislation that was affecting
how they were governed, and it was a piece of legislation that was going to
ultimately affect their lives.
This government was out of
touch, they were arrogant, they underestimated the people of this Province, and
now they are sorry. Now they are
sorry, now they are going to have a review.
I say, Mr. Speaker, I am happy that they are having a review.
In the meantime, just this morning the Premier said in the media that
when he asked people what they did not like about Bill 29, they could not put
their finger on it. He said he was
told people had a feeling government was secretive.
That condescending attitude
still persists. In fact, people
want to know what their government is doing.
People have the right to know what their government is doing.
We all have a right to know what the government is doing, and on what
basis government is making its decisions.
That is what Bill 29 does.
It prohibits people from knowing on what basis government is making decisions
that affect the lives of the people in this Province.
This government is supposed
to be working on behalf of people.
They should be ready to prove it; they should be ready to be accountable for
their decisions. They should be
ready to be able to reveal on what basis they make their decisions.
Also, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation has added to the democratic
deficit that we have here in this Province.
This again is not just about legislators or people who are interested in
parliamentary procedure – it is not just for those, it is for everybody in the
Province.
Because the fact that we do
not have all-party standing committees, which in fact would make public, more
public and more transparent information and testimony before government and
before the Opposition parties, and that gives us clear, transparent information
on the basis of which government decisions are made.
We do not have that. We
should be having that.
As a matter of fact, there
should have been an all-party standing committee looking at this particular
piece of legislation, where we had experts and average citizens testifying
before government and before other elected officials on what they wanted to see
happen, giving their opinions in an open, transparent way.
We do not have that.
The introduction and
implementation of Bill 29, coupled with the lack of all-party standing
legislative committees, makes the democratic deficit in this Province shameful.
It is absolutely shameful, but it works to the advantage of this
government. This government can do
what it wants and does not have to explain anything to anyone.
Except they will have to once they go to the polls, that is for sure.
Government knows that the
lack of standing committees – and ours is one of the only jurisdictions in
Canada that does not have standing committees – contributes to our democratic
deficit. This government says again
that they are listening. I would
like to say that the people are listening to what this government is saying and
they do not like it.
I want to give an example,
Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the Minister of Justice does not laugh at me again
today when I bring up this example.
I would like to give a classic example of how this particular bill proves that
we have a democratic deficit.
People want to know why their Family Violence Intervention Court was cut.
I would like to know why this Family Violence Intervention Court was cut.
I am sure that there are members across the hall, I would like to know
how – the members across the floor would like to know.
I am sure there are many of them would like to know why it was cut.
Mr. Speaker, we do not know
why it was cut because there were reports and internal reviews done.
They have been protected now under Cabinet secrecy.
That is the relevance to my example.
The documentation has been hidden.
This government has made a very clear, deliberate decision.
We ask on what basis and they will not reveal that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, I have asked for that evidence and
I have been denied that evidence.
The Family Violence Intervention Court directly affects the lives of women and
children who have been victims of violence, but we do not know on what basis
that decision was made.
Mr. Speaker, the court was
cut in last year's brutal Budget, brought to you by the same people who are
trying to portray themselves as very kind, considerate, and attentive.
Government conducted a Core Mandate Review which they said allowed to
make the decisions on what was to be cut.
I asked to see that work.
Nope, government invoked Bill 29.
I asked to see the Core Mandate Review.
Again this Minister of Justice said that all the cuts were based on that.
Although he said the other day he did not really make decisions based on
the best interest of the courts.
They were arrogant in the refusal to make public any information on this massive
overhaul by the people's government.
They would not release that information.
Then they cut the court, and there is no real reason given for it.
It is just cut.
I asked for an assessment
that had been done on the court, an assessment that showed how successful the
court was. Government refused,
saying the report was a Cabinet secret.
Here we have a public court, a public program created for the people of
the Province to address the terrible issue of domestic violence, a progressive
court which offered comprehensive treatment and results and protection for women
and children. This is just one
example, but it is a textbook example, Mr. Speaker.
It is a textbook example of the government's love of secrecy.
Mr. Speaker, this was a
public program, funded by public dollars with a review done, and this government
is hiding that. It is saying the
review of this program is a secret.
We are going to keep it a secret, and we are not going to let you know how well
this court was operating. We are
going to cut it, and we are not going to let you see why.
Even though we know, and there are all kinds of people talking about how
well it worked. This is an example
of how insidious, how incredibly insidious and undemocratic this particular
legislation is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MS ROGERS:
Mr. Speaker, justice has to be done; it cannot
just be seen to be done. We all
know that, we all hear that expression.
I believe what we have to do – I am happy that there is a review, but
that is a review that looks at our whole ATIPPA.
I believe we do not know when that review will be completed.
We also do not know how long it will be held in Cabinet before it is
released. We do not know that.
It may take a year, it may take two years.
We do not know that.
I fully support this
recommendation. I support that we
repeal Bill 29 and continue with the previous legislation until the review is
complete. Unless we do that, Mr.
Speaker, the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador know that the
door to information has been slammed shut, and this government has thrown away
the key.
Mr. Speaker, for instance,
the report on sexual exploitation and trafficking of children, we asked for that
report. Once again, this government
said no, that is a Cabinet secret.
This is again a report where several community groups participated.
It was paid for by the people's money, and it was presented to the
government on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
This government has chosen
to lock that up again. They have
locked it up and they have thrown away the key, just like they said they would
with Bill 29. Everything is Cabinet
secrecy. This is a kind of
government that says I am going to do this because I said so.
I am not going to give you the information; you are just going to have to
believe me because I said so.
Mr. Speaker, the people of
the Province are listening, this government is not listening.
They are not listening to the people.
The people of the Province are listening and they are hearing loud and
clear. They are hearing the message
loud and clear that this is a government that is not listening to them.
Mr. Speaker, I have stood
up in the House and presented a petition to repeal Bill 29 for two years now,
petitions signed by people all over Newfoundland and Labrador.
Again, it is my position, and the position of my caucus that Bill 29
should repealed, held off to the side, back to the older legislation until the
complete ATIPPA review is completed. Anything else would be that this government
is not truly listening to the people of the Province.
The people of the Province still know this is a government who holds and
keeps secrets from them.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. HUTCHINGS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am certainly happy to
stand today and speak to the private member's resolution, Mr. Speaker, in terms
of what is happening in regard to this motion and listening to the debate this
afternoon up to date. I am
certainly pleased. From our
perspective, our government, under the current Premier has announced that we
will be implementing the legislation as it exists now in terms of going through
a review on the ATIPPA legislation, not just Bill 29 but all of that legislation
as is required under the act.
The act is almost ten years
now, getting close to that. We have
used that legislation now to go early to do the review.
It has been talked about, the members of that committee, their stature,
and what they are going to bring to this committee in terms of oversight of the
whole legislation. That will look
at the maturity of the legislation over the past number of years in terms of how
it has been applied, other things that have been identified within departments
and within government, and other amendments to other pieces of legislation.
That will all be looked at, which is so important and recognizing the
breadth and scope of those who sit on that committee that is going to provide
that review from the judiciary, from a lady that is well-versed in national
privacy information and protection act, and from the media.
It brings a broad base of
knowledge and expertise to the table to look at this, look at the whole
legislation, look at what is happening to date since the legislation was
proclaimed by this government, how has it been applied, and what else needs to
happen to the legislation. It will
be a very robust process, outlined very clearly.
There will be very good parameters in terms of the committee and what
they do, how they do it, and report back to government.
It will be a public document and then we will have a discussion on where
we go from there.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to
just bring a little context too in terms.
We often talk in here about oversight and who looks after particular
pieces of legislation, where is the sounding board for things that happened?
I wanted to speak to just the role of the Privacy Commissioner who
oversees this piece of legislation.
He is an independent officer of the House of Assembly.
He has a broad range of responsibilities and powers under both the Access
to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and as well the Personal Health
Information Act.
With respect to the Access
to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Commissioner is responsible
for conducting reviews of decisions, and investigating and attempting to resolve
any complaints about access to information and the protection of privacy,
including public bodies that are covered under ATIPPA.
He can also make recommendations in order to uphold the act and encourage
better compliance.
Mr. Speaker, in my prior
role with the original creation of the Office of Public Engagement, I was
involved with and was responsible for the administration of the ATIPP
legislation. Through that I had
many interactions with the Privacy Commissioner in a very proactive role dealing
with issues. One of the issues we deal with is time frames.
He spoke of that in terms of how we had to improve time frames.
We collectively did that. We
improved the time frames, working with the Privacy Commissioner and continue to
improve the administration of the act.
It is interesting to go
back and see what the Privacy Commissioner has said about the amendments since
the last review was done, and some of the things he talked about in terms of
those amendments being implemented and how he has viewed it.
As I said, he is the oversight.
He is the independent oversight, no bias, not influenced by anybody.
He reports to the House of Assembly as I said.
That is a good context in terms of getting some insight in to what has
transpired.
He has said publicly the
impact of Bill 29 has not been huge.
He certainly says there is openness here.
He talked about a time period to mature, for legislation to mature.
It takes some time for public bodies and others to see how that
legislation is going to apply, to see how it is interpreted.
Then through that we go through a process which is in the legislation I
said of a five-year review. He
certainly supports that.
No doubt as well in my
discussions with him, - and it was very informative – when we came to particular
issues that came under ATIPPA, he would ask: Is this the way it should be?
Is that the way it should be?
Through the accumulation of all that information and as we go through
that, that is how we get to better legislation and get amendments done.
That is why we are going through this review.
This review has now been sanctioned and will move forward.
As I said, he has gone
through and looked at it. I have
worked with him in terms of various pieces of the amendment and legislation.
People on both sides of the House here have quoted Hansard in regard to
the debate on this piece of legislation.
Many have said there were pieces in it that certainly were welcomed and
were needed.
That is why when we talk
about repealing Bill 29, repealing Bill 29 does not allow for that comprehensive
legislative review that is required under the act, which is now going to proceed
by a very qualified committee that has been appointed.
They will provide that broad-based oversight and review and certainly do
consultations, which are so important.
They will hear from the public and hear from everybody out there who has
interest in it. They can come
forward and express their opinion.
From that, those
recommendations from this very well-informed panel will bring that forward to
government as a public document and will be made public.
That is the process, and it is a very transparent and open process.
That is what we need to do and that is what we are following through on
right now.
Mr. Speaker, as we have
said, and I think my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the
Minister Responsible for Office of Public Engagement, one of the recommendations
of Cummings when he did his last report was that most governments, divisions in
governments, and entities should have a policy of public disclosure.
I know working in the Office of Public Engagement, and I started there
when the office was created, we have been very proactive in the amount of
information, normal information, that is produced by departments and how that
easily flowed out to the general public.
It could be Web sites and it could be people just asking for it.
What has evolved and what
needs to evolve, which has, is that access is available to the public.
If someone calls up a department and there is no infringement on the
privacy provision of the act, then that information is readily available.
We have done that through the Office of Public Engagement, through public
disclosure, and through Mr. Cummings, who did the last review.
That was his recommendation and we have certainly followed that.
We continue to make significant information available as we should.
Again, going through this
process now we are talking about in terms of the review will do a comprehensive
overview, allow us to build on the legislation we have now, and make sure it is
the best legislation we can have.
We will certainly lead the way in that.
I think it is important,
too, and I do not think it is talked about in terms of the review that is taking
place, what the parameters are of it.
I think it is important the public would know that and get an
understanding of what those are. I
will just take a few minutes and just go through that in terms of the parameters
of the review.
“The Committee will
complete an independent, comprehensive review of the Access to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act, including amendments made as a result of Bill 29, and
provide recommendations arising from the review to the Minister Responsible for
the Office of Public Engagement (the Minister), Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador. This review will be
conducted in an open, transparent and respectful manner and will engage citizens
and stakeholders in a meaningful way.
Protection of personal privacy will be assured.”
The scope of the work; what
is the scope? What are the
parameters of the work that is going to be done? “The Committee will conduct a
comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of the Act” – the whole
act – “which will include, but not be limited to, the following: Identification
of ways to make the Act more user friendly so that it is well understood by
those who use it and can be interpreted and applied consistently; Assessment of
the ‘Right of Access' (Part II) and ‘Exceptions to Access' provisions (Part III)
to determine whether these provisions support the purpose and intent of the
legislation or whether changes to these provisions should be considered;
Examination of the provisions regarding ‘Reviews and Complaints' (Part V)
including the powers and duties of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, to
assess whether adequate measures exist for review of decisions and complaints
independent of heads of public bodies; Time limits for responses to access to
information requests and whether current requirements are appropriate; Whether
there are any additional uses or disclosures of personal information that should
be permitted under the Act or issues related to protection of privacy (Part IV);
and Whether the current ATIPPA Fee Schedule is appropriate.”
As you can see, Mr.
Speaker, the scope and breadth of this review is extensive and it is certainly
what we need. It is under the
requirements of the legislation in regard to the five-year provision to do it.
This certainly meets that requirement as we have outlined here.
Further, it goes on to say,
“Consideration of standards and leading practices in other jurisdictions: The
Committee will conduct an examination of leading international and Canadian
practices, legislation and academic literature related to access to information
and protection of privacy legislation frameworks and identify opportunities and
challenges experienced by other jurisdictions…”.
So we look elsewhere as well.
No doubt the panel will
look at the experience and what it has been to date in regard to the legislation
and amendments that have been made, but will also go broader based in terms of
other jurisdictions and what they have seen in terms of privacy legislation, how
is it implemented, and what the challenges are.
Collectively, that will be added to the review and no doubt will be part
of their recommendations as well, so we ensure, at the end of the day, we have
some of the best legislation, comprehensive legislation, for the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, as well, they
will consult with the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Newfoundland and
Labrador and get his input. I
talked about the fact when I was responsible for the Office of Public
Engagement, I certainly had very good conversations and input from him in regard
to the legislation and its administration.
Again, he is the one doing the reviews and oversights, so no doubt he can
add valuable information to the process as well.
We look forward to what he can add, as well, in the overall process.
It is so important, as well
– there are stakeholder consultations and public consultations – that anybody in
Newfoundland and Labrador, any group and any individual, can be part of this and
can speak to their experience, their understanding, their ideas, and anything
they have had in terms of this legislation.
That is so important, that they can be part of it, and everybody can be
part of it so we can have the best possible legislation we can have.
The committee process is
certainly receiving representation, as I said, from all individuals and
stakeholders. Hearings can be held
in such place and time as the committee deems necessary to hear from
representatives, from persons, or from entities.
So it is very broad, wide open, no limitations, and certainly any written
submissions or anything like that will be accepted by the committee.
Further from that, a final
report will certainly be made and submitted to the minister, an executive
summary with all the research and analysis of the legislative provisions and
leading practices in other jurisdictions that will make up that report.
Certainly, a detailed summary of the public consultations, what was
heard, and the findings and recommendations will be presented to government as
well. That will be public and form the
basis as we move forward with what will basically be our third five-year period
in terms of this legislation.
Again, previously it was this government that proclaimed it.
This was the first government that operated under the legislation.
That will form the basis, all of that information and this comprehensive
review, as we move forward to the next five years under the legislation.
In regards to repealing
Bill 29, we have already started the legislative process under the act.
As I said, the very committee that has been appointed, the three-panel
committee and the expertise and knowledge of those, is underway.
The legislation has been referred to them with these parameters that I
have outlined in terms of a broad base and open scope and in terms of what they
can do. There are no limits,
really, in terms of how they do it and who they consult with.
We are certainly looking forward to the process and that process has
started.
I have referenced the
Privacy Commissioner as the oversight and what his input has been in regard to
those amendments over the past number of years.
I am confident that this process is a well-grounded process, it meets
requirements of the legislation, and it is going to meet the requirements of
Newfoundland and Labrador. At the
end of the day what is important about all of this is that people have
confidence in the system and they have confidence in the ATIPPA legislation.
We believe we have listened to people, and this process will meet the
needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
At the end of the day, we will have the very best legislation we can
possibly have.
I salute the Premier in
terms of the initiative he has taken in us, the government, to do this now and
to move it up. There was another
year left, but we feel it is important, certainly, in listening to people and
what we heard in some of the parts of prior amendments that they wanted to see
it reviewed at this point in time.
We used legislation to do
this. As a government we are
looking forward to those results and working with the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador to have the best possible legislation we can, and make sure they have
access and the protection of privacy that they deserve as Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for The Straits – White Bay
North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure to stand
in debate this afternoon and support my colleague, the Member for Burgeo – La
Poile's private member's motion to repeal Bill 29.
Like my other colleagues in caucus I will start with a quote and it is,
“We're continuing to fight government's Official Secrets Act and proposing
amendments at every available opportunity…To this point, we introduced five
amendments in second reading and nine in committee, yet government has rejected
each one.” That was a quote for the
Member for Humber Valley, the Leader of the Official Opposition.
We certainly have had a lot
to say in debate, proposed options to improve the bill that was put forward, but
it is quite clear that the best opportunity right now is to move forward and
repeal Bill 29. The Leader of the
Official Opposition goes forward and says in this same release that government
should, “…withdraw their draconian Bill.”
The Leader of the Official
Opposition certainly got it right in calling it the official secrets act.
This government claims to be open, but in reality no other organization
employs secrecy more frequently than this government.
Government utilizes secrecy
to withhold information from people.
The pro-secrecy attitude is a hallmark of the current government and it
has become accepted and established in its practices.
The effectiveness of access legislation and its implementation are
undermined by pro-secrecy attitudes.
It is systemic by this current government.
We only have to look at a
quote by the former Minister of Finance and the current Premier of this Province
that the bill had no real effect at all.
He claimed that it is no more than just a bit of housekeeping.
That was said, that this bill is just a bit of housekeeping, which has
had significant impacts on people and on information.
The current Premier
continues to state that government brought in this legislation, this ATIPP Act
and that they had to live under these rules.
It appears the most secretive government in the history of Newfoundland
and Labrador does not want to live under those rules, so it created all these
exceptions under Bill 29.
The Access to Information
and Protection of Privacy Act under Bill 29 restricts access and can have any
document certified as a Cabinet document and kept secret.
That is one of the implications of this bill; any document can be
certified as a Cabinet document. We
took exception with that in debate.
Other members have talked about that they campaigned previously on saying they
would make all these documents public, they would make reports public, and they
would even make Cabinet documents public.
They are certainly going back on their word here.
There is a clause that
gives ministers final say in all the disputes, and removes the power of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
This is absolutely shifting power away from the
people, which government is supposed to be doing, and moving it to the Cabinet
table. I wonder how many stamps the
executive Clerk has gone through stamping document after document secret, as we
have seen here, and we received information.
About how many of them have gone?
Is government renting space
to be able to file away all of these Cabinet documents, all this information
that it fails to make public.
Certainly we are living in exponential information times, Mr. Speaker.
Any information that is put forward – this government says they are
putting the most that has ever been in history.
We are living in exponential, technological times so obviously there is
more and more information that is being produced.
We only have to look at how information is shared so quickly through
Facebook, through Twitter, and through the media.
It is almost instantaneous.
Why is government choosing to hide so much information?
We look at the core
principles, Mr. Speaker. The
amendments have successfully broadened the definition of Cabinet secrecy, which
is counterintuitive to the core principles around which Access to Information
legislation is based; the right to access, government transparency, government
openness, and government accountability.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill 29 fails.
It actually rescinds what the previous legislation had provided.
Less information is being made available because of government secrecy
and because of the amendments that have been put forward.
One of the other things
that is put there is they shut out the Auditor General.
The Auditor General is critical to government oversight, however, the
Auditor General's office can no longer access information that is deemed
official Cabinet secrets. If I was
sitting at the Cabinet table and said, well I do not want to release this
report, I do not want to release this information or anything that is sitting
here around my table, I will just give it to the Clerk to have it stamped.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
It is getting difficult to
hear the hon. member.
The hon. the Member for The
Straits – White Bay North.
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In reality any piece of
information that government is ashamed of or would seem as a mistake, they will
not reveal that because they will stamp it as a Cabinet document.
They can hide behind it.
Another big issue that I
take when it comes to the bill itself, Bill 29, and it is something that I think
sparked a lot of debate in this House of Assembly, and that is around I believe
it was clause 6. Things that could
be frivolous and vexatious allow government to reject any access to information
request that meets this broad category.
PREMIER MARSHALL:
If you were the commissioner, would you want
frivolous and vexatious? Is that
what you want?
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
Okay, so the Premier is shouting across about
the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
I will tell you about Mr. Ed Ring.
I will quote Mr. Ed Ring here, “Public bodies are spending public funds
and the public should be able to know how those funds are being spent.
The public should be able to ‘check up on' a public body to ensure public
funds are spent in a fiscally responsible manner.”
That is something I guess this government does not really care about,
because they go on a billion dollar shopping spree with their current Budget.
The Commissioner Mr. Ed
Ring said, “This is how public bodies are made accountable.”
They are made accountable by being able to access public information on
how public dollars are being spent.
In many cases, if you go and look at the reports that the Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner had to file, you will see in many
circumstances where people have to go through the court process to try and even
get information about themselves.
They will not reveal information about office supplies, how Memorial University
spends its office supply budget.
They will not reveal that.
I have written letters to
the Minister of Health and Community Services asking the number on the wait-list
at the John M. Gray personal care home, and they will not reveal that
information. Why will you not put
information about wait times and wait-lists?
Let us look at the report around sea lice that was requested.
Government said in order to access that information, it is $19,000-plus –
$19,000. The only thing about that,
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly frivolous and vexatious on behalf of the
government.
Also, they will not reveal
their marketing budgets, the marketing between different departments, unless the
Official Opposition pays over $1,600 – $1,600.
This stuff should be made public.
When government looks at making public information with the Office of
Public Engagement, they are looking at saying that the information that is put
forward, we found a lot of cases where that information has been outdated, and
where it has been inaccurate.
Public libraries are listed
as open. Things like child care
centres that have opened up are not even listed.
Schools that have closed for months or years are still on the public
inventory. I think you have jumped
ahead, launched something, and spent public money without really having a plan.
It was all about appearances.
It is all about power and not fiscal responsibility, I say, Mr. Speaker,
absolutely not.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Wiseman):
Order, please!
MR. MITCHELMORE:
I am not the only one who feels this way, Mr.
Speaker, because we look at Vallance-Jones.
Vallance-Jones said, “It curates some of the worst provisions of the
legislation and then modifies them and bundles them together in this package
that seems to give incredible power to either disregard or condemn request all
because people in government find access to be a bit of a bother.”
I guess providing a wait-list to a long-term care centre is a bit of a
bother.
There are certainly lots of
issues with Bill 29 and there is a real reason why we should look at repealing
it. There is trouble with secrecy,
power, and control. People like the
Centre for Law and Democracy have come out speaking against it.
They have said: “The new cabinet exception is, well, breathtaking in its
scope.” That is Toby Mendel.
“I think it's one of the widest exceptions of that sort I've seen
anywhere.”
The former Minister of
Justice has attacked the Centre for Law and Democracy as saying that it is cheap
and amateurish, the debate and the legislation around, and the Centre for Law
and Democracy is a “two-bit outfit.”
They have incredible integrity in trying to maintain democracy in the
world.
Government can take action
to become a more open, accountable, and transparent public body that the
citizens of this Province expect and deserve.
They can do it by repealing Bill 29.
We can live under that legislation, the previous legislation, while the
review is currently taking place.
I support repealing Bill
29. It is certainly necessary and I
will let the Member for Burgeo – La Poile close debate.
I hope government realizes they have to be more open and accountable, and
they are being nothing but.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
The hon. the Member for Burgeo – La Poile.
MR. A. PARSONS:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the
opportunity to close debate on our private member's resolution.
I appreciate the commentary from members from all sides, from the Member
for Lewisporte, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Fisheries,
the Member for St. John's Centre, and my colleagues the Member for St. Barbe and
the Member for The Straits – White Bay North.
It is obvious by the reaction and the chatter generated this is still an
exciting topic for the government, or maybe a touchy topic for the government
given the amount of chatter that was coming forward during the commentary and
still coming as we speak.
What I wanted to do was I
wanted to take an opportunity – I did appreciate listening to all the members to
hear their say, and I will try my best to respond and to answer some of the
questions and maybe rebut some of the points they made.
I will start with the Member for Lewisporte who got up and gave his
speech, and I am glad that he spoke to it because during the seventy hours of
Bill 29 he was not heard. You would
not have known if he was in the House.
The reason that we knew he
was in the House was he voted for Bill 29.
He voted for it, stood up, and put his name on it.
I have to give the man credit; he stood up and put his name on Bill 29.
The theme of what he was saying was relying on the review.
Certainly, it is not for me or anybody to cast aspersions on the panel.
It is three top-notch individuals who
are all going to contribute to this and I am glad government brought these
people in. Their backgrounds speak
for themselves, there is no doubt.
The problem is we should not have gotten to this point, is what we are trying to
say.
I will refer to the fact
that the Premier announced this, but if anybody read
The Telegram back on December 28 they
will notice this is something the Leader of the Opposition had suggested in a
year-end interview. We know the
Budget consisted of a lot of items that were Liberal-pushed items and I am glad
to see this review was something that was mentioned by us as well.
I am glad to see our actions are getting results here.
I really appreciate that. It
is good to know that when we stand up, we question, we make suggestions, and we
suggest policy, it is listened to because it is good, sound, and sensible.
Now, I want to talk about
one of the problems. Again, the
Member for Lewisporte mentioned different quotes from different people.
One of the problems we have is that overall there was a bunch of
recommendations made but, number one, they did not pick all the recommendations
that were made in the Cummings report; and, number two, they would not let us
debate them – they would not let us debate them.
They shut down the House after, I think, we might have gotten to Clause
6. The House was shut down.
I will go back to a comment
here. I cannot seem to find it, but
basically I think the Government House Leader at the time said: Opposition is
going to have all the time in the world to debate this – all the time in the
world. Well I guess all the time in
the world ended. It ended because
it was shut down, closure was invoked, and government did not want to hear
another peep. That is one broken
commitment there, but we do not want to get into broken commitments.
This is only a private member's resolution; we do not have enough time.
I want to move on to the
Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Do you know what? He stood
up and he did a great job. He made
his point. He mentioned theatrics,
which I found quite hilarious coming from the member who sits next to a giant
calculator and did a nice Open Government Initiative with a lot of fancy
clickers that cost the taxpayers $5,000.
Five thousand dollars for nice clickers at a time when there are people
who are doing without, but we spend $5,000 so government staffers could do a lot
of clickers.
I am hoping the Minister of
Finance will stand and speak to it.
I do not believe she spoke to Bill 29 either.
There is plenty of opportunity here.
We can speak to this.
I made some notes according
to what the minister said. He
talked about the protection of personal privacy.
You have never heard an issue about the protection of personal privacy.
The problem was this government was worried about Cabinet privacy.
That was where they were trying to get with this, it was Cabinet privacy.
The other thing that was
mentioned, too, he said: What information have we not given you?
I think the Member for The Straits – White Bay North did a fantastic job
of letting government know a lot of information we have requested that we are
not getting, or if we want it we have to pay through the nose for it on
extortion-type fees.
One of them was a sea lice
report from aquaculture on the South Coast, a huge topic and a huge issue.
We have talked about it a number of times in the House.
There was a report done.
Somebody paid for it; I would assume it is the public.
We asked for it. We asked to
see this report. In order to get
it, we have to pay $19,000.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Nineteen thousand dollars?
MR. A. PARSONS:
Nineteen thousand dollars.
Again, I rebut your argument there, Sir.
Another one we asked for
and could not get, and I thought it was a simple request, was the marketing and
advertising this government spends.
I put that request in, but it is going to take four weeks of work and it is
going to cost us, I think, just under $2,000 to get this.
It is absolutely amazing.
AN HON. MEMBER:
(Inaudible) secret envelope.
MR. A. PARSONS:
The minister is referring to a secret envelope,
again. You can keep talking about
the secret envelope. I knew you
guys were going through a branding process.
I did not think the branding would actually have secret marked onto it.
I would have given the
Member for Port au Port an opportunity to speak, but he chooses not to.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to stand and
contribute, by all means I invite you.
I guess not. The speech was
not written in time, I presume.
One thing I have to mention
about this review, when this review does come out, I have heard a lot of talk
about publicly releasing the review, but I have not heard once here today: Will
you commit to the recommendations?
Will you commit to do what they tell you to do?
The problem is I do not think you will.
You have a lot of talk about everything else, but you have never
committed to implementing them.
I am going to continue on
here. I have a lot of things to
cover in just eight minutes. There
was the mention of Open Government Initiative, OGI.
I do not want to get into that because that is just – anyway, it is what
it is. What is going on here is
delaying from the right thing, which is to get rid of the debacle that is Bill
29 and go back to what was there.
I do not know if the
Premier read The Telegram on December
28. I would hope he did, I would
hope he read it. When the Leader of
the Official Opposition did an interview he actually laid out what we would do.
We would repeal Bill 29 immediately; that would be done in the first
session. Now remember, that is
something we did not get when we got elected, a first session in the fall.
That did not happen. We
waited until the spring. There
would be public consultations done.
We would live under the old legislation during the review.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
Public consultations, including people like the media, people working in the
system, our legal minds, and our academic minds.
I might be confused.
The Leader of the Opposition said this in December, and then government
came out and did it, whenever it was they announced this transparency review,
this Bill 29 review. We told you
what to do. If you want to go all
the way, if you want to do what it truly right, and remember, we gave you these
suggestions back in 2012. We made a
number of amendments, a number of suggestions, and every one was voted down,
every single one. You voted them
all down. You ran Bill 29 down our
throats.
What we are telling is you
can do the right thing here. You
can repeal Bill 29. You can use the
old legislation, do the review, and then continue on.
Put sensible timelines on it that you stick to.
Not the answer we get lately which is whenever we ask if you are going to
stick to your review, they say we are not going to put a timeline on it anymore
because if we do not live up to it, you are going to question us on it.
You have to put in a timeline of six months and stick to it.
Get the legislation in within six months.
It is all here, you can go
online. I suggest you click the
link. We know that
The Telegram has some new paywall
structure set-up. Do you know what?
I am sure if you pay the $8 you can all still access this article from
the Leader of the Opposition.
One thing I wanted to
comment on, one of the members opposite, I think it may have been the Minister
of Municipal Affairs said they have never identified what was wrong; they have
never said what was wrong. There
are a number of things that are wrong.
If you want to get into the specifics, there is the Cabinet secrecy, and
there are the terms frivolous and vexatious.
Those were the nice terms that the former minister, the current AG, stood
up and said, frivolous and vexatious.
Actually, another minister,
the Minister of CYFS now, stood up and said, they make countless requests for
information, but when you actually counted them it was eleven a week.
It was an average. That is
not just from us; that is from everybody.
I guess countless actually can be counted.
Again, frivolous and vexatious, it is just another means to deter people
from accessing information.
They increased the costs.
Here is another thing, there is a clause that gives ministers final say
in all disputes and removes the powers of the Information and Privacy
Commissioner. A number of systemic
steps taken to reduce the ability of everybody outside Cabinet to get access to
information, this is what they did.
The only difference is, they have changed on it now.
It is the same government, it is the same people, it is same tired ideas,
but they have changed up. All they
have new is a new shiny PR department to try to make them look better, but it is
the same mindset. That mindset will
never change its secrecy.
They can put on this show,
but we all know how they truly feel about this.
Any time a member brings up an issue there is some kind of excuse as to
why that information cannot be provided.
The member made a great example; oh we are putting out a lot of
information. A lot of it is
outdated, and it is inaccurate.
When you do ask for something specific, as I said, you are told to pay through
the nose, $19,000 for an aquaculture report.
I do not know if there is anything more ridiculous than that.
I will remind everybody on
the other side, and maybe the people listening, that during that time there were
twelve members of government who spoke to Bill 29.
I think there are thirty-odd over there, there were twelve who spoke.
I will remind everybody, that every single one of them voted for it.
They voted for it. If there
is anybody who did not vote for it, I invite them to stand up and correct me.
AN HON. MEMBER:
I could not.
I was not in the House.
MR. A. PARSONS:
If the minister wants to identify that he was
not in the House that is fine.
MR. JOYCE:
When he did not agree with Bill 29 he did not
show up. He would not even show up.
MR. A. PARSONS:
The minister did not show up to vote.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
I hear certain members over there, members who
did not have the time during the seventy hours of debate.
They did not have time to talk then during a filibuster, twenty-four
hours a day. They could not get up,
did not have anything to say, no speeches written for them.
Today, during a three-hour PMR to suggest to them that they can right
their wrong they are not standing up, they are still sitting down but chirping.
What I would say to them is
that this is your opportunity to stand up.
Put it on the record. The
only thing you put on the record is that you voted for it, supported Bill 29 in
the face of overwhelming criticism from the public, from the Opposition, from
the media, and from citizens.
In closing, I do not have
much time but what I am going to say is that I think what we have done here
today through our commentary is identified the fact that the Official Opposition
knew you were wrong from the start.
That is why we filibustered Bill 29.
We have suggested all along what was wrong with it.
The NDP can try to take
credit but –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
MR. A. PARSONS:
What I would suggest is we have identified the
issues, we have identified the problems, and we have identified the solution.
The solution is that you can repeal Bill 29, go back to what was there
and that was lived under. Do the
right thing.
You have an opportunity to
right a wrong. I am suggesting you
take that opportunity today and do what the overwhelming majority of the public
have suggested. Repeal Bill 29;
that is what we will do. I ask them
if they will speak to that today. I
thank you for the opportunity to speak to this today.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
We have all heard the
motion.
All those in favour of the
motion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Aye.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Nay.
MR. SPEAKER:
Motion defeated.
AN HON. MEMBER:
Division.
MR. SPEAKER:
Division has been called.
Summon the members.
Division
MR. SPEAKER:
Are the Whips ready?
All those in support of the
motion, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Ball –
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The Clerk is calling the
names.
CLERK:
Mr. Andrew Parsons, Mr. Joyce, Ms Dempster, Mr.
Edmunds, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Lane, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Mitchelmore, Ms Michael, Mr.
Murphy, Ms Rogers.
MR. SPEAKER:
All those against the motion, please rise.
CLERK:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. King, Ms Shea, Mr. Davis, Mr.
McGrath, Mr. Crummell, Mr. Felix Collins, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Jackman, Ms
Johnson, Mr. Verge, Mr. Littlejohn, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Dalley, Mr. French, Mr.
Kent, Ms Perry, Mr. Kevin Parsons, Mr. Cross, Mr. Little, Mr. Pollard, Mr.
Brazil, Mr. Granter, Mr. Sandy Collins, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Peach, Mr.
Russell.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
CLERK:
Mr. Speaker, the ayes twelve, the nays
twenty-eight.
MR. SPEAKER:
The motion is defeated.
SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER:
Order, please!
The hon. the Government
House Leader.
MR. KING:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just before we conclude, I
want to remind members of the House that tomorrow, April 3, the Social Services
Estimates Committee will meet here in the House at 9:00 a.m. to review the
Estimates of the Department of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.
This afternoon, the
Government Services Estimates Committee will review the Estimates of the
Department of Finance and Treasury Board at 5:30 o'clock as well here in the
House.
MR. SPEAKER:
It being Private Members' Day, this House now
stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.